M14 Forum banner
61 - 80 of 107 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,501 Posts
Maybe Biden made a mistake - when someone said 'let go' they meant his diaper? Not from Afghanistan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: packratt66

·
Registered
SA precision loaded
Joined
·
169 Posts
I view this new cartridge as just another science project. Of course there are more potent cartridges than either the current 5.56 mm and 7.62 NATO cartridges in terms of range and ability to defeat body armor. However, the M933 7.62 armor piercing round is capable of penetrating 18 mm of rolled homogeneous armor at 100 m and heavy body armor at normal combat ranges. This isn’t your grandad’s AP cartridge. The desire to achieve even greater performance is natural but at what cost? Is increased performance really required now or into the foreseeable future?

Given the cost and NATO standardization challenges, I predict the 6.8 X 51 mm cartridge will never be fielded.
I dunno. I thot the same thing but we’re no longer sending a million soldiers to the front. It’s small, specialized groups.

Crazy expensive weapons systems make sense for your elite. But standard issue? I agree. Probably not.

Here’s an M4. Guard this warehouse. Don’t shoot any friendlies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Excellent discussion. A couple of points that can be added. The punch and range of the 6.8x51 has been well covered but the Army also wanted a lighter cartridge than the 7.62x51 and they succeeded. The cartridge is also the same size so MG conversions should be relatively simple. One competitor already demonstrated to the Army its conversion its very simple conversion kit for the M240. The Army has also selected the new sight for the rifle before the final rifle selection was made History and Technology - Ballistic Tests on the IJN Shinano's Turret Face Armor - NavWeaps Final point. Since the post WW1 studies, most looks at the best infantry cartridge were always around 6.5. This move has been a point of discussion in infantry circles for a very long time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Pop up, shoot back, targets force you to assume some very unorthodox shooting positions. The 100 lbs of gear you are wearing doesn't help any. The goal in the Infantry is to effectively engage the enemy before they are
Except that History proves over & over, that the average Combat Distance akways turns out to be ~300 Yards/Meters; for various Reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Pop up, shoot back, targets force you to assume some very unorthodox shooting positions. The 100 lbs of gear you are wearing doesn't help any. The goal in the Infantry is to effectively engage the enemy before they are within range to effectively engage you. This goes back to the previous turn of the century, when every country sought the longest possible barrel with the longest possible bayonet.
Except that History proves over & over, that the average Combat Distance akways turns out to be ~300 Yards/Meters; for various Reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,628 Posts
I believe that this time it will happen. The change in caliber has been kicked around since the combat theater changed to long distance engagements, where the U.S has been handicapped. The afghans had been making and using 30 caliber Rifles for along time. And their use of distance with tactics has kept them in the fight everytime.

I am in the camp of 5.56 should of not have been fielded at all. I believe that the British had it right all along, and hate to admit it. 5.56 could be used for support Troops much like the .30 Carbine was used in WWII and later, and would've been a great improvement.

Now the military after decades has figured out that barrel length can be used to determine where the end use lies. Nobody wants to carry more than necessary, but carrying ammunition is a fact that you can not compromise on. So carry 200 5.56 or carry 200 .30 caliber, which caliber is more effective in all situations, using barrel length change for different tasks.

Now the 5.56 is done, the lead is out and only a heavy expensive tip penetrator, and more heavy metal in the length of the bullet will make it anymore effective as meeting the cartridge ballistics before the change to take out the lead.

Lets have what will do the job, in all scenario's for one cartridge. That was easy to type but all the less impractical to achieve. Having more than one caliber is more practical, and will be done until all weapons have been exchanged by us and our allies?

The 6.8 is going to be a great improvement that will have a bigger impact as more can be done with, more. And how long that will be is uncertain as consumable ammunition is on the horizon, and most probable that will also be 6.8.

I also think that another dedicated Brand New facility will be built for the next generation of small arms ammunition. In Missouri, Herculaneum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
My 2 Cents-
I've heard the new 6.8 Round described as a "Reinvention of the Old .280 British Round"; which itself provided controlable Full Auto fire in the ~8 Lbs. bullpup EM-2 Rifle, until the US insisted it be more powerful.
I understand the need to, at times, reach out to an Enemy at 500 meters, like in Afghanistan; but those Battles were fought across mountain Valleys, not across Plains.
Could that be handled easier by a 77 grain Round like the Marine Corps & Navy used in those situations ?
Can a new 6.5mm Assault Rifle Round do the job rather than jump up to a new Battle Rifle & Round ?
Then again, the Army also wants the Round to go through new enemy Body Armour at 600 Meters (?); which will be interesting, considering that most Battles, for various Reasons, are fought at 300 yds/m.
If they do develope both High & Low pressure Rounds in 6.8x51, I hope they take a page from the Soviets and rename one, for example, 7x51mm; to prevent the HP LMG round from being loaded into the Rifle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
Except that History proves over & over, that the average Combat Distance akways turns out to be ~300 Yards/Meters; for various Reasons.
Though 'average' does not describe the spread very well. If what you have doesn't cover 1% (and if you do anything regularly, you can count on encountering that 1%), when you meet it you'd sure appreciate having that which does.
 

·
Registered
Scout Squad AA9126
Joined
·
909 Posts
to prevent the HP LMG round from being loaded into the Rifle.
One would hope (not holding one's breath, of course) that the distinctively obvious visual difference between the composite/hybrid high-power (LMG) cartridge and the conventional/all-brass standard (Rifle) cartridge would be enough to keep the two from being mixed-up, right?

Umm, yeah... that's probably asking way too much, innit?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
TL;DR
Can someone explain what this does that a 6.5 PRC doesn’t do at standard pressure? Even the 6.5 Creedmor with a 143gr pill is formidable out to and beyond the ranges they claim to need the super whiz bang ray gun.

From what I’ve seen of the woke forces, with a 14.5 pound platform and fodder for it they better make sure all the mech and air mobile transport options are bomb proof. If they have to ruck their stuff very far they’ll be found in little clusters in a fairly tight radius.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
RG, the machine gun selected by SOCOM was a Sig chambered in .338 Norma Magnum. It is intended to engage area targets and vehicles out to 2000 yds.

My personal belief is that the Big Army needs to look more carefully at what SOCOM selects. They really know small arms. Remember that SOCOM originally adopted the M4 carbine well ahead of the Big Army.
The problem with Big Army selecting what SOCOM has selected is then that technology is no longer "Special". Then SOCOM has to find something newer to continue their specialness.

We all forget nato was developing the 280 British for the FAL and M14. The us forced the 308. NATO kept the FAL anyway. The 6.8 serves a real purpose in both the high pressure and low pressure versions. We knew it was excellent choice 100 years ago
Having just purchased a couple of SA58's (a FALO heavy barrel and a Congo Para), I immediately thought about the British .280 and how pissed they must be. We pretty much forced 7.62X51 on NATO and the potential for us to now push for a .280-ish caliber is bound to chafe.

So true. Those in command for the last few hundred years have always used their own experience so we have been prepared to fight the last war for generations. You would think when we have come so close many times to having our butts kicked that a little forward thinking might just be the ticket. Let's hope that is the case this time around. The wheel can only be re-invented so many times.
Military procurement does have a long history of equipping the last war. I believe focus has supposedly shifted to Asia proper rather than SW Asia/Middle East, so one has to question what would be best for that environment. Will it be a return to more urban and forested environments at closer range? Or will desert and longer ranges continue to drive planning? My personal opinion is that the NGSW is potentially a good solution for Infantry, while the good ole M4 is likely the M1 Carbine of our day that is useful for support troops that need something bigger than a pistol. Of course, I could make a strong argument that a 300 BLK PDW (think Honey Badger) would be great for support troops.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,855 Posts
The problem with Big Army selecting what SOCOM has selected is then that technology is no longer "Special". Then SOCOM has to find something newer to continue their specialness.



Having just purchased a couple of SA58's (a FALO heavy barrel and a Congo Para), I immediately thought about the British .280 and how pissed they must be. We pretty much forced 7.62X51 on NATO and the potential for us to now push for a .280-ish caliber is bound to chafe.



Military procurement does have a long history of equipping the last war. I believe focus has supposedly shifted to Asia proper rather than SW Asia/Middle East, so one has to question what would be best for that environment. Will it be a return to more urban and forested environments at closer range? Or will desert and longer ranges continue to drive planning? My personal opinion is that the NGSW is potentially a good solution for Infantry, while the good ole M4 is likely the M1 Carbine of our day that is useful for support troops that need something bigger than a pistol. Of course, I could make a strong argument that a 300 BLK PDW (think Honey Badger) would be great for support troops.
So true. Hindsight has been 20/20 forever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,079 Posts
Gentlemen, I know many like to think that the Brit .280 was the way to go but I contend that Col. Rene Studler had it right when he insisted on the 7.62 NATO cartridge. He insisted on performance and the Brit .280 didn’t have anywhere near the performance of the 7.62 NATO cartridge. This was especially important with regard to the ammo for the GP machine guns. Many forget that when selecting the standard NATO cartridge, one of the big drivers was GP machine gun performance. Both the standard service rifles and the GP machine guns were going to use the same cartridge because of the goal of reducing logistics. In a way, the current desire for more performance ( longer range and improved penetration) which is driving the development of the 6.8 X 51 cartridge is a validation of what Col. Studler believed.

I just happen to believe that perhaps we need to revisit the logic behind having a common standard cartridge for both the standard service rifle and the GP machine guns as opposed to attempting to maintain commonality by playing mad scientist. I happen to think that SOCOM is on the right track with a machine gun chambered in .338 Norma Magnum. No need to run chamber pressures beyond current proof pressures.
 

·
Registered
Bula
Joined
·
98 Posts
This is a good discussion. I just pray that the military fields the best rifle and LMG that they can and are not on a money wasting expedition like the last several. Arm the warfighters with the best gear available and let them do their job.
 

·
Registered
M1A SOCOM 16
Joined
·
55 Posts
Gents,

I'm questioning the need for the 6.5 X 51mm over the 7.62 x 51mm. Most engagements are under 300 yards and, if longer, I would think the .308 could do the job without costing $2.00+ per round. Am I missing something here? I put this in the same category as the F-35. What do we really need?

Inquiring minds, etc...?

Wes
As has already been mentioned, while it may well be that most engagements occur at about 300 yds or less, there is a growing number in the past 30 years that push that distance out significantly. Add to that the fact that the evolving nature of combat, and, Global Politics seem to be headed back to the need for a more multipurpose cartridge than the current 5.56 NATO round. The battle most often goes to the side that can kill the enemy before they kill you and the 5.56 just doesn’t quite get there.


Actually it's a 6.8x51mm cartridge.
Basically, the Army wanted a cartridge that could defeat body armor at 500 meters.
140gr bullet at 3,000 FPS from a 16” barrel
At 500 yards (16" barrel)
CartridgeEnergyDrop
6.8x51mm1654 ft.lbf-41"
5.56x45mm404 ft.lbf-90"

They can produce up to 80,000 PSI because of steel head cartridge cases that the M5 will use.
View attachment 483399
Thanks. The only question left from me is how does it stack up, weight of the infantryman’s combat load vs 5.56x51 and 7.62x51?


Excellent synopsis but given your numbers, what exactly does this new round do that 7.62 NATO hasn’t been doing for going on 3/4 of a century? The M4 and especially the 249 were mistakes for widespread adoption. The fix has always been a 20” barrel for the M16 which is of course, how it was originally designed. It’s a 550m weapon which is all you need as a rifleman. The fix for the 249 is the 240. The 240 fixes most anything and is worth every ounce of it’s heft. The 240 is everything the SAW is not; hard hitting, accurate, reliable, and easy to clean. There’s little weight and size difference between the new round and 7.62x51 so what’s the edge?
7.62 NATO is a good round, but heavy. Also, if I’m not mistaken, I believe the new round has a flatter trajectory, meaning there Is less compensation necessary between targets closer (less than 300 yards) and those further out (please, those with a better understanding of the ballistics of the situation if I’m wrong).

I don't understand this at all - so the enemies up in the mountains are using old worn AK47s...and we cannot engage w/ newer weapons? and at 300 yards? For petesakes - 300 yards is the sitting position w/ iron sights. We shoot the 200 yards offhand -

And every Dick and Sally has scoped rifles and cannot engage? What kind of rifle marksmanship have they been thru?

Someone explain this to me -
Quick explaination… ever heard of shooting fish in a barrel? Tali were the shooters and we were the fish… it’s a lot easier to shoot downhill and a lot harder to shoot uphill, which for all intents and purposes extends the tali ranges and decreases the ranges on our guns.

Never did like the SAW myself. Id rather had the Pig, outdated and all 😉
Me too, brother. Me too!

Except that History proves over & over, that the average Combat Distance always turns out to be ~300 Yards/Meters; for various Reasons.
One thing that the “average combat distance” conversation is missing is that a weapon that can engage effectively at 300 yds and beyond can also engage effectively at 300 yds and closer…
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,855 Posts
Just think of the old fashioned boxing match for a second. I will place my bets on the "trained" fighter with the longer arms every time. You can get in close and do some damage but it's much more effective to do it out of the range of your opponents blows. Only makes common sense which needs to be applied more by those making the decisions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,688 Posts
I forgot about the $85-billion arm surplus Biden gifted to the Talibans. Well, maybe Democrats will completely defund our military so we can beg them not to kill us. Why not- our 'women' in the military have equal the testosterone of the men.

I am reading the military has the lowest recruiting numbers of all time. So there -
meeting 40% or less of recruiting goals and they have dropped the requirement for a high school diploma. And these are the soldiers who will operate a scope with a ballistics computer built in and be trainable to hit a target at 500m?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,855 Posts
meeting 40% or less of recruiting goals and they have dropped the requirement for a high school diploma. And these are the soldiers who will operate a scope with a ballistics computer built in and be trainable to hit a target at 500m?
Wait a minute now. No high school diploma needed to become a protector of the Constitution and defender of all that is good. I left high school in 1966 to become a Marine. Only thing my family talked about was the need to fight the commies and other bad guys on their turf and keep us free like we had been doing for generations. Did manage to become an Avionics tech after graduation from Navy electronics school. Got my GED in Vietnam in 1968 which allowed me to complete my education and go on up the ladder. Wised up and became a civilian after doing my part. Life is good.

Viva America
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,501 Posts
meeting 40% or less of recruiting goals and they have dropped the requirement for a high school diploma. And these are the soldiers who will operate a scope with a ballistics computer built in and be trainable to hit a target at 500m?
Not a problem - all liberal states and cities - will hand you a HS diploma even if you cannot read or write...according to the Teachers' Union in name of equity. It is 'acting white' and racist if you can do math or read or write. Tupac is light skin compared to me. So I must be white. 😁
 
61 - 80 of 107 Posts
Top