New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:05 pm
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
There may well have been other reasons too. For instance, with a standard bullet weight of 110 grains (at the light end for 6.8 SOC), each round of 6.8 will weigh roughly twice the weight of of M193 ball, and just a little less than twice the weight of a round of M855....unless .mil standardizes on the 120 grain bullet, which just makes the weight penalty worse. Of course this means that an individual soldier can only carry half as much ammo as with 5.56 NATO. I could easily be wrong, but I’ll bet that will play a big part in whether or not 6.8 SPC (or something like it) will ever make it down to the level of the individual infantryman's rifle/carbine.crazy2medic wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:59 pm My memory tells me the 6.8spc was suppose to replace the 5.56 nato but military turned it down because of warehouses full of 5.56 ammuntion!
Not just the ammo but the gun itself. While the military is strong on tradition, maybe they actually learned something from the early introductions of the m14 and m16. Combat testing a weapons system is a great way of wringing the bugs out of things but it can come at the cost of real lives. Bringing the weapons into the system slowly and let the troops learn the strengths and idiosyncracies. Tweak the issues.The Annoyed Man wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:37 pmThere may well have been other reasons too. For instance, with a standard bullet weight of 110 grains (at the light end for 6.8 SOC), each round of 6.8 will weigh roughly twice the weight of of M193 ball, and just a little less than twice the weight of a round of M855....unless .mil standardizes on the 120 grain bullet, which just makes the weight penalty worse. Of course this means that an individual soldier can only carry half as much ammo as with 5.56 NATO. I could easily be wrong, but I’ll bet that will play a big part in whether or not 6.8 SPC (or something like it) will ever make it down to the level of the individual infantryman's rifle/carbine.crazy2medic wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:59 pm My memory tells me the 6.8spc was suppose to replace the 5.56 nato but military turned it down because of warehouses full of 5.56 ammuntion!
Another possibility, given the amount of 5.56 NATO ammo on hand, is that maybe 5.56 weapons will become the new "M1 Carbine" for service troops, while the 6.8 weapon becomes the "M1 Garand" for combat infantrymen.
Either way, I don’t think that 5.56 NATO is going to go away all that quickly.
But if they do this, the don’t need a new firearm. They just to either rebarrel existing uppers, or new uppers with new barrels. The BCG should be fine with a bolt swap.....possibly a different buffer. The poi t is that they can do all these things for considerably less money than the cost of an entirely new weapon system.Liberty wrote: Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:04 amNot just the ammo but the gun itself. While the military is strong on tradition, maybe they actually learned something from the early introductions of the m14 and m16. Combat testing a weapons system is a great way of wringing the bugs out of things but it can come at the cost of real lives. Bringing the weapons into the system slowly and let the troops learn the strengths and idiosyncracies. Tweak the issues.The Annoyed Man wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:37 pmThere may well have been other reasons too. For instance, with a standard bullet weight of 110 grains (at the light end for 6.8 SOC), each round of 6.8 will weigh roughly twice the weight of of M193 ball, and just a little less than twice the weight of a round of M855....unless .mil standardizes on the 120 grain bullet, which just makes the weight penalty worse. Of course this means that an individual soldier can only carry half as much ammo as with 5.56 NATO. I could easily be wrong, but I’ll bet that will play a big part in whether or not 6.8 SPC (or something like it) will ever make it down to the level of the individual infantryman's rifle/carbine.crazy2medic wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:59 pm My memory tells me the 6.8spc was suppose to replace the 5.56 nato but military turned it down because of warehouses full of 5.56 ammuntion!
Another possibility, given the amount of 5.56 NATO ammo on hand, is that maybe 5.56 weapons will become the new "M1 Carbine" for service troops, while the 6.8 weapon becomes the "M1 Garand" for combat infantrymen.
Either way, I don’t think that 5.56 NATO is going to go away all that quickly.
No gun is best for all situatations. Sometimes an M4 might be the perfect weapon yet other times not so much.
It's the 6.8 spc. It was talked about awhile back in a few places. As far as rifles, you'd need barrels and bolts. Though I suspect they'd want to just buy all new rifles. I don't know if it's actually going to happen, I like the round so would be all for the massive production and spillover into civilian markets. Plus if they decided to dump the surplus of 5.56.jason812 wrote: Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:07 pm The articles never mentioned the case just the 6.8mm projectile. Something along the lines of a 277 Wolverine would only require a new barrel if upgrading current M4's. Something similar to that would make the most sense, but we are talking about the government so don't expect their decision to make sense.
All of the above weights are why the military switched to 5.56 in the first place. Of course the military has to relearn lessons while spending shiploads of taxpayer money. And probably less than 10% of the people making the decisions have ever had to nor ever will have to hump a full load of weapons, ammo and other gear into battle.The Annoyed Man wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:37 pmThere may well have been other reasons too. For instance, with a standard bullet weight of 110 grains (at the light end for 6.8 SOC), each round of 6.8 will weigh roughly twice the weight of of M193 ball, and just a little less than twice the weight of a round of M855....unless .mil standardizes on the 120 grain bullet, which just makes the weight penalty worse. Of course this means that an individual soldier can only carry half as much ammo as with 5.56 NATO. I could easily be wrong, but I’ll bet that will play a big part in whether or not 6.8 SPC (or something like it) will ever make it down to the level of the individual infantryman's rifle/carbine.crazy2medic wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:59 pm My memory tells me the 6.8spc was suppose to replace the 5.56 nato but military turned it down because of warehouses full of 5.56 ammuntion!
Another possibility, given the amount of 5.56 NATO ammo on hand, is that maybe 5.56 weapons will become the new "M1 Carbine" for service troops, while the 6.8 weapon becomes the "M1 Garand" for combat infantrymen.
Either way, I don’t think that 5.56 NATO is going to go away all that quickly.
The 6.8 SPC is not an ideal caliber, and I'm guessing that this will get squashed....again. The reasons have been discussed to death lots of other places, and the costs are VERY non-trivial. Changing standard calibers/weapons is a HUGE deal. Pretty much the biggest logistical change you can make for any military.Jago668 wrote: Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:19 pm It's the 6.8 spc. It was talked about awhile back in a few places. As far as rifles, you'd need barrels and bolts. Though I suspect they'd want to just buy all new rifles. I don't know if it's actually going to happen, I like the round so would be all for the massive production and spillover into civilian markets. Plus if they decided to dump the surplus of 5.56.
Documented battlefield performance is the most important thing and 6.5 Creedmoor seems to me more likely to replace the 7.62 NATO than anything replacing the 5.56mmLast year’s announcement that the 6.5 Creedmoor will soon replace the familiar 7.62 NATO in many of the rifles shouldered by USSOCOM precision marksmen did little to quash the rumor. The ballistic advantages it offers special forces are also well-documented.