Joe Silvia· Registered
From what little I have read the requirement is to be capable of defeating the new level 5 body armor. This required projo and case development for the velocity necessary.The last adventure in rifle replacement, the 6.8, developed by Rem Arms, and the US Army Markmanship unit was a complete waste of money. It never measured up to the requested velocity standards without blowing up.
Now we have another 8-9 lb rifle developed by Sig Sauer in 6.8 caliber that, from what I've read, is a great shooter, with all the fancy sights and stuff, but very expensive to produce. This rifle is to replace the M4, M16, and M14.
I doubt very much that the M5 will ever be standard issue to our troops, if produced at all. I can see the M5 as a replacement for the M14 to select troops, but not all.
I'm confused that an AR10 could have been rechambered and Tuned up to meet the so called steel plate penetration request, without spending $billions.
I realize that I'm not in the chase, but why spend a fortune for something we already have available?
Cmarsh164 CWO4 USCG (ret)
Nothing in the inventory is capable of the chamber pressure needed to meet that velocity including the cartridge case.
IMO all the time wasted with 6.8 SPC etc was from DOD looking for a cheap quick fix from a re-chamber instead of admitting the limitations of the 5.56. It was the dimensions of the platform that limited the adoption of an effective chambering for the job.