www.military.com/news/article/hill-aides-to-test-m4-alternatives.html?ESRC=eb.nl&code=080711DEBH01

Thought you guys would like to read about some new testing to happen before the renewal of Colts contract in 2009...

It would be really interesting to see if they decide to switch calibers and/or to a piston system.

Quoted: It would be really interesting to see if they decide to switch calibers and/or to a piston system.

That would be the most cost effective solution.  Switch uppers and magazines...They would have a familiar feeling rifle but a whole lot more potent!!!

Quoted: Quoted: It would be really interesting to see if they decide to switch calibers and/or to a piston system. That would be the most cost effective solution.  Switch uppers and magazines...They would have a familiar feeling rifle but a whole lot more potent!!!

when have you ever known the government to do anything that was cost effective and intelligent?

SCAR Heavy!! FTW

What I think is ironic about the whole thing is the Army spent nearly 8 years fighting Stoner tooth and nail against the small cartridge, and then when a viable larger cartridge that is truly an improvment comes along they fight this saying well the 5.56 is good enough.


I also think it is interesting how close the 6.8 is to a 7mm mauser and a 276 pederson from pre. 1930.


Just for knowledges sake I like the 5.56 round I think it does its job well and have been in combat witht he round and have no complaints.  However the 6.8 SPC does appear on paper to be better in every aspect and will add almost no weight to the soldiers load.

So with that siad if switching to the 6.8 can save one soldiers life over 223 then do it now because it certiantly does not appear to be inferior.

Quoted: What I think is ironic about the whole thing is the Army spent nearly 8 years fighting Stoner tooth and nail against the small cartridge, and then when a viable larger cartridge that is truly an improvment comes along they fight this saying well the 5.56 is good enough. I also think it is interesting how close the 6.8 is to a 7mm mauser and a 276 pederson from pre. 1930. Just for knowledges sake I like the 5.56 round I think it does its job well and have been in combat witht he round and have no complaints.  However the 6.8 SPC does appear on paper to be better in every aspect and will add almost no weight to the soldiers load. So with that siad if switching to the 6.8 can save one soldiers life over 223 then do it now because it certiantly does not appear to be inferior.

Well, we can rest assured that THIS group (Senate staffers) really know how to

evaluate small arms! Hopefully, there'll be someone present to instruct them on

which end the bullet comes out of.  This is likely some of the same people who tell

their bosses that more gun control = less street crime . Maybe some 'forward

thinking' Senators assigned aides who are combat vets, or at least have some

familiarity with firearms...but I doubt it.      

What about NATO ? Nato uses 5.56 x 45 ammo , Nato uses M16 compatable magazines. If the US abandons the M16 platform it will force NATO to do the same, in which there will be alot of resistance on Europe's part.

There is no way conress will aprove a new caliber and magazine gun that will cost billions to replace the M4/M16 and the millions of mags that are in the system. They are doing this new round of testing to satisfy the voters in their state.

This way they can say "Hey, look what I did for our military personnel. Reelect me".

Quoted: What about NATO ? Nato uses 5.56 x 45 ammo , Nato uses M16 compatable magazines. If the US abandons the M16 platform it will force NATO to do the same, in which there will be alot of resistance on Europe's part.

The US made Nato switch to 5.56NATO from 7.62NATO after getting them to switch to 7.62x51mm

height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: What about NATO ? Nato uses 5.56 x 45 ammo , Nato uses M16 compatable magazines. If the US abandons the M16 platform it will force NATO to do the same, in which there will be alot of resistance on Europe's part. The US made Nato switch to 5.56NATO from 7.62NATO after getting them to switch to 7.62x51mm

The US had much more clout within NATO during the Cold War, when Soviet tanks were poised to come crashing through Western Europe.

NATO is in flux right now especially with the US.....We were seriously looking at returning to 45 APC just 2 years ago if I remember right.

The bones of the argumnet is there and it is a good point, especailly with so many eastern bloc countries coming in like Poland wich recently completely switched over to 5.56 AKs.  These countries are poorer and would have a hard time with any conversion.


I have said for at least 4 years that the next caliber change would be to caseless ammo.  Yet it appears good caseless ammo is as elusive as the Bushmaster ACR.

If any entity gets a new weapon to add to the arsenal it will be special operations...line units will have the M16 and 5.56 for many years to come.

Quoted: If any entity gets a new weapon to add to the arsenal it will be special operations...line units will have the M16 and 5.56 for many years to come.

Correct.  Even if the M-16 was replaced today, it would still soldier on for years in the National Gaurd and Reserves.  

Quoted: "The Army brushes off such criticism, saying lethality is closely tied to marksmanship. If you hit a target in the right place, you'll stop him," I agree. Shoot better and you get better results. I'm not saying that they don't need to improve  or replace their existing inventory of weapons but the fundamentals of shooting would be good to practice on as well. It scares me to think that congress has any say on a firearm for the military branches except on the finances being procured for the purchase of new systems. I would rather see the military itself decide. You know, those people who hold the guns day in and day out? Does Senator Coburn and others in congress have vested interests in gun companies and this is why they are so eager for this to happen? ...Just a thought.

Don't go speaking common sense now,

I just got home from the MURG Congressional Demo at Quantico. 5 vendors supplied rifles to demonstrate the differences between the 5.56, 6.8SPC and the 7.62 cartridges.

Barrett, FN USA, LWRC, HK, and Bushmaster provided equipment for the shoot. The program promoted the advantages of the 6.8SPC cartridge and the piston driven rifle. Silver State 6.8 was supplied by the military to ensure a measurable standard.

Larue auto reset targets were used at 100 and 200 meters. It was hot and so humid you could watch the trace of the 6.8 at 200.

No sales pitches were allowed or company literaure - this was only to put the hardware in the hands of the people making the decisions. There were some very well placed people attending so there may be some movement. The delegation attended a series of lectures on small arms design and cartridge evolution prior to arriving on the range.

There you have it. No back room deals or shady appropriations. Invitations went out industry-wide, some responded, everyone got treated the same.

And to address some of the other comments, those involved in the 6.8 and piston programs are aware that these initiatives came from the ground up. Alot of people at relatively low pay grades are risking reputation and carreer to help the guy going through the door.

The 5.56 has alot of political and economic inertia behind it. It took alot to get today's demonstration in front of the people that have to sign the checks for what many on the lines feel necessary. At least we know that decision makers are listening and gathering information. We mignt not like the decision, but the more informed they are the more likely they will make a quality decision.

BLACK HILL AMMUNITION MK 262 Mod 0, 5.56MM 77 Grain LR Ammunition


I believe the answer is heaver grain bullets are more  effective on killing humans!

Quoted: I just got home from the MURG Congressional Demo at Quantico. 5 vendors supplied rifles to demonstrate the differences between the 5.56, 6.8SPC and the 7.62 cartridges. Barrett, FN USA, LWRC, HK, and Bushmaster provided equipment for the shoot. The program promoted the advantages of the 6.8SPC cartridge and the piston driven rifle. Silver State 6.8 was supplied by the military to ensure a measurable standard. Larue auto reset targets were used at 100 and 200 meters. It was hot and so humid you could watch the trace of the 6.8 at 200. No sales pitches were allowed or company literaure - this was only to put the hardware in the hands of the people making the decisions. There were some very well placed people attending so there may be some movement. The delegation attended a series of lectures on small arms design and cartridge evolution prior to arriving on the range. There you have it. No back room deals or shady appropriations. Invitations went out industry-wide, some responded, everyone got treated the same. And to address some of the other comments, those involved in the 6.8 and piston programs are aware that these initiatives came from the ground up. Alot of people at relatively low pay grades are risking reputation and carreer to help the guy going through the door. The 5.56 has alot of political and economic inertia behind it. It took alot to get today's demonstration in front of the people that have to sign the checks for what many on the lines feel necessary. At least we know that decision makers are listening and gathering information. We mignt not like the decision, but the more informed they are the more likely they will make a quality decision.

Great information and thanks for the report.  It will be interesting to see what comes out of this very informal test.  At least some senators got their hands on something other than what 'Big Green' wants to show!!!  WAY  TOO MUCH POLITICS involved in decisions that effect our soldiers lives!!!

NY-EMT is correct in his eyewitness assessment.  The "military.com" article is poorly written. TSWG, in conjunction with the FBI BRF and the Marine Corps, briefed Congressional representatives on the results of the 6.8 mm MURG testing along with providing SME briefings on terminal ballistics. In addition to Congressional representation, Federal LE and U.S. and allied military personnel were present. The attendees were able to observe different calibers and projectile configurations being fired into properly fabricated bare gelatin, as well as shots fired through intermediate barriers. Following the technical presentations, range demonstrations of 5.56 mm, 6.8 mm, and 7.62x51 mm systems were conducted and then the Congressional representatives had the opportunity to fire and compare the different systems on reactive steel targets at distances out to approximately 200 meters.

Note:  see pages 18 & 19 of my NDIA briefing (www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf) for more information on the TSWG MURG program.

-----------------------------

dug556--your hypothesis regarding NATO is not fully accurate; for example, the NATO forces using the HK G36 have magazines that are NOT compatible with those using M16 style magazines; other newer NATO members are using AK style weapons that are also not compatible.  Likewise, some of the NATO 5.56 mm ammunition, particularly the British L2A2 does not function well in U.S. M4's because of reduced pressures and velocities.  

TANGOCHASER--Your argument is hollow.  The beauty of the MURG concept is that it is much LESS expensive to upgrade because it involves only replacing a few parts and allows continued use of all existing M16/M4 lowers as well as over 80% of current replacement parts already in the system.  Current armorers will only need minimal additional training, end-users will notice no difference in operation, all existing 5.56 mm mag-pouches and web-gear can continue to be used.  As some organizations have proved, MURG allows units to train with 5.56 mm uppers currently in service and fight with identically configured 6.8 mm uppers, as the “muscle memory”, weapons handling skills, and LBE are identical.

SB_Matt--Don't forget that it was politicians that originally forced the Army into accepting the AR15/M16...

Quoted: NY-EMT is correct in his eyewitness assessment.  The "military.com" article is poorly written. TSWG, in conjunction with the FBI BRF and the Marine Corps, briefed Congressional representatives on the results of the 6.8 mm MURG testing along with providing SME briefings on terminal ballistics. In addition to Congressional representation, Federal LE and U.S. and allied military personnel were present. The attendees were able to observe different calibers and projectile configurations being fired into properly fabricated bare gelatin, as well as shots fired through intermediate barriers. Following the technical presentations, range demonstrations of 5.56 mm, 6.8 mm, and 7.62x51 mm systems were conducted and then the Congressional representatives had the opportunity to fire and compare the different systems on reactive steel targets at distances out to approximately 200 meters. Note:  see pages 18 & 19 of my NDIA briefing (www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf) for more information on the TSWG MURG program. ----------------------------- dug556--your hypothesis regarding NATO is not fully accurate; for example, the NATO forces using the HK G36 have magazines that are NOT compatible with those using M16 style magazines; other newer NATO members are using AK style weapons that are also not compatible.  Likewise, some of the NATO 5.56 mm ammunition, particularly the British L2A2 does not function well in U.S. M4's because of reduced pressures and velocities.   TANGOCHASER--Your argument is hollow.  The beauty of the MURG concept is that it is much LESS expensive to upgrade because it involves only replacing a few parts and allows continued use of all existing M16/M4 lowers as well as over 80% of current replacement parts already in the system.  Current armorers will only need minimal additional training, end-users will notice no difference in operation, all existing 5.56 mm mag-pouches and web-gear can continue to be used.  As some organizations have proved, MURG allows units to train with 5.56 mm uppers currently in service and fight with identically configured 6.8 mm uppers, as the “muscle memory”, weapons handling skills, and LBE are identical. SB_Matt--Don't forget that it was politicians that originally forced the Army into accepting the AR15/M16...

Thank you DocGKR for your input here and over at 68forums.  I really appreciate your adding logic and truth to all the madness that seems to come when discussing 'change'.  Some people are truly afraid of change and reluctantly do so only after much whining and wringing of hands.  Others actually look with open minds and see the benefit of the change.  

Thanks again,

Cohibra45

Posted by DocGKR: TANGOCHASER--Your argument is hollow. The beauty of the MURG concept is that it is much LESS expensive to upgrade because it involves only replacing a few parts and allows continued use of all existing M16/M4 lowers as well as over 80% of current replacement parts already in the system. Current armorers will only need minimal additional training, end-users will notice no difference in operation, all existing 5.56 mm mag-pouches and web-gear can continue to be used. As some organizations have proved, MURG allows units to train with 5.56 mm uppers currently in service and fight with identically configured 6.8 mm uppers, as the “muscle memory”, weapons handling skills, and LBE are identical.

My arguement is not hollow. For a 6.8 conversion, every gun in the inventory needs a barrel, bolt and 7 mags per soldier. At roughly 500,000 Army soldiers, here is the math.

Mags - 7 per soldier x 500,000 = 3,500,000 @ $5 per mag = $17,500,000
Barrels - 1 per soldier x 500,000 @ $150 per barrel = 75,000,000
Bolts - 1 per soldier x 500,000 @ $50 per bolt = 25,000,000

$17,500,000 + 25,000,000 + 75,000,000 = $117,500,000 just for the conversion parts which must be converted at depot level. How many personnel at depot level? Take years to finish the conversions.

$117 million just for the parts not counting millions of rounds of ammo. That is why I say congress will not fund a caliber change anytime soon. Even phased in over say a 10 year period, that's $10 million + a year and for that 10 year period, there will be the burden of the cost of supplying 2 different calibers as some will have 5.56 and some will have 6.8 and what conflict will be involved in during that time that will make this whole thign a logistical nightmare.

Staying with 5.56 but a new gun will be the price of each gun at say $500 each x 500,000 = $2,500,000,000. Over 2 billion for new guns.

Even if my addition multiplication is off, it will be over 100 million for conversion kits and billions for new guns. All these prices are just for the Army numbers and does not include the other 4 branches of the military and the guard and reserves. Don't see this happening while we are spending billions each year to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The only cost effective fix to actual and perceived M16/M4 issues are use of an expanding bullet vs FMJ, to increase effectiveness of the 5.56, and more marksmanship training.

I just hope the 6.8 SPC barrels were both 1:11 twist and SAMM II chambered so that the high powered SSA ammo could be used.  In addition, I also think that it would be fair to compare the 6.8 SPC to the 77grn version of the 5.56 bullets.  That way they would have a competition of the best of each caliber.

Quoted: I just hope the 6.8 SPC barrels were both 1:11 twist and SAMM II chambered so that the high powered SSA ammo could be used.  In addition, I also think that it would be fair to compare the 6.8 SPC to the 77grn version of the 5.56 bullets.  That way they would have a competition of the best of each caliber.

+ 1

TANGOCHASER--we replace our computers DOD wide every 2-4 years; computers have similar costs as rifles.  A lot of folks rifles are shot out and need replacing.  Magazines are a disposable item and are replaced periodically--at least every few years, if not more often for those in hard use.  If you look at my NDIA briefing, I clearly articulated that going with an improved barrier blind 5.56 mm load is a good option, as is moving beyond the antiquated Hague Convention prohibitions, as noted on pages 24 & 25.

COSteve--the 6.8 mm comparison was made using both M855 and Mk262Mod1--as the Congressional representatives witnessed, there is NO comparison, especially when intermediate barriers are present.

Quoted: Posted by DocGKR: TANGOCHASER--Your argument is hollow. The beauty of the MURG concept is that it is much LESS expensive to upgrade because it involves only replacing a few parts and allows continued use of all existing M16/M4 lowers as well as over 80% of current replacement parts already in the system. Current armorers will only need minimal additional training, end-users will notice no difference in operation, all existing 5.56 mm mag-pouches and web-gear can continue to be used. As some organizations have proved, MURG allows units to train with 5.56 mm uppers currently in service and fight with identically configured 6.8 mm uppers, as the “muscle memory”, weapons handling skills, and LBE are identical. My arguement is not hollow. For a 6.8 conversion, every gun in the inventory needs a barrel, bolt and 7 mags per soldier. At roughly 500,000 Army soldiers, here is the math. Mags - 7 per soldier x 500,000 = 3,500,000 @ $5 per mag = $17,500,000 Barrels - 1 per soldier x 500,000 @ $150 per barrel = 75,000,000 Bolts - 1 per soldier x 500,000 @ $50 per bolt = 25,000,000 $17,500,000 + 25,000,000 + 75,000,000 = $117,500,000 just for the conversion parts which must be converted at depot level. How many personnel at depot level? Take years to finish the conversions. $117 million just for the parts not counting millions of rounds of ammo. That is why I say congress will not fund a caliber change anytime soon. Even phased in over say a 10 year period, that's $10 million + a year and for that 10 year period, there will be the burden of the cost of supplying 2 different calibers as some will have 5.56 and some will have 6.8 and what conflict will be involved in during that time that will make this whole thign a logistical nightmare. Staying with 5.56 but a new gun will be the price of each gun at say $500 each x 500,000 = $2,500,000,000. Over 2 billion for new guns. Even if my addition multiplication is off, it will be over 100 million for conversion kits and billions for new guns. All these prices are just for the Army numbers and does not include the other 4 branches of the military and the guard and reserves. Don't see this happening while we are spending billions each year to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only cost effective fix to actual and perceived M16/M4 issues are use of an expanding bullet vs FMJ, to increase effectiveness of the 5.56, and more marksmanship training.

I am unsure what country BHR is but you do not understand the amount of cash the US goverment spends on the defense dept, if you think $2 billion is alot, and $117,500,000 is unacceptable you are mistaken.  The budget is impossible for people like you and me to fathom the prices you throw around are mearly the cost to operate an aircraft carrier for less than a year, we have 10 by the way.

The fact is DrGKR's argument is wonderful, his conclusion is inescapable and you both agree that expandable ammo is the true need.  I have been a real skeptic of 6.8 and 6.5 thinking they gimmicks meant to get organizations and customers to adpot a new round and a new rifle.  However as I have done more research I am warming more to 6.8 SPC and growing colder to 6.5 Grendel.  

To : Doc GKR thank you for posting that slide show it was very enlightening the no BS intro is sobering and all the information you present is documented.  I appriciate the time it took you to post it here for us.

BTW I have carried 5.56 in combat and hunted with it, and trained with it.  I have never found the cartridge wanting.  However I have met soldiers who have and read enough of the accounts to believe that we will only benefit from the up grade.  

They just need better performance 75/77 grn rounds for the current weapon system, and all will be just fine.

Don't get me wrong. I would love for congress to allocate the funds for replacing or upgrading every M16/M4 in the arsenal. When I was on active duty, it took 20+ years to replace the AM radio in our TOC. In 2004 we still had an AM radio set made in 1939.

Computers are replaced on a regular basis as the technology advances so fast and every high ranking officer uses one daily. Small arms nor the accessories are replaced on any kind of a regular basis. M16A2s have been around since at least 1985. I had magazines dated 1968. There are Colt Model 02 rifles still in service at Ft. Lewis along with a fair share of XM16E1s. My entire unit in Germany had Colt M16A2s from 2000-2005. Colt lost the contract to FN what, 10-15 years ago?

We didn't trade our M3 grease guns for M4s until 1995 at FT. Sill.

And when was the last time this Democratic congress spent money on defense upgrades? Hell, they approved the building of the fence on the southern border but never allocated funds to finish it. The approve budgets for purchase of planes and ships that cost billions each but one of my old Army units couldn't get enough money to buy NVG mounts for our helmets. We routinely park our vehicles for weeks on end without ever starting the engines so we don't risk breakage as there is no money to get spare parts and to keep our combat readiness rate above the standard. The money congress does approve for defense stuff, never makes it to the troop on the ground who can't even get new cleaning rods for his M16 let alone a new rifle. I still see this as a gimic to get reelected.

Simple answer has already been given. Screw the Hague (we didn't even sign it anyway, did we?) and produce a more effective 5.56 round. Quadruple the amount of ammo allocated for marksmanship training. Require all soldiers to qualify quarterly instead of semi annually or yearly. Raise the qualification standards as well. The Army standard of 23 out of 40 hits as minimum qualifying is attrocious. That's basically hitting half your targets and you get to go to combat. WTF?

The Rangers figured this out years ago and train all their personnel to the same marksmanship standard.

Quoted: Posted by DocGKR: My arguement is not hollow. For a 6.8 conversion, every gun in the inventory needs a barrel, bolt and 7 mags per soldier. At roughly 500,000 Army soldiers, here is the math.(snip)

This is not a valid argument, as all weapons do not have to be changed simultaneously.  The M14 was not replaced overnight, neither was the Garand... nor will the M4 be.

The Army has purchased enough new M4s since the Iraq campaign began to reoutfit the entire Army if I remember the numbers correctly.  From my understanding every deploying unit has been getting new M4s anyway... we have already "converted" almost the entire Army from a mix of older M4s and M16 variants to brand new production M4s as various units have been deployed.

A responsible reoutfitting program would simply begin equipping deploying and deployed units with new gear of a new type while continuing to use existing rifles for training and other non-deployed use, reuse the uppers for the AF as they convert to M4s, etc.

I'll bet that the cost of changing the standard rifle to a completely new rifle, caliber, magazines etc would be substantially less than the various changes in uniforms, both dress and field, headgear, etc, that have occurred in the last 10 years.  It's time the big green machine puts some of the budget to good use for a change.

We can still conclude pretty safely that the simplest, most cost effective improvements (barrier blind 5.56 that's over 70gr, THEN conversion to an effective 6mm caliber) are still beyond the economic horizon, as every branch is having to replace the equipment that's getting actively torn up, and only after we've regained the equivalent readiness state we had in 2002 will the money truly be around for the military itself to begin evaluating changes of this scale (which will probably be tied into a number of FW accoutrements, which would also be a significant improvement)

As long as teh federal government is willing to hemmorage billions into corrupt financial institutions, waste it on ineffective pork spending, this will stay a back burner item.

I wonder if it would be cheaper to just obliterate all of our enemies.

Quoted: They just need better performance 75/77 grn rounds for the current weapon system, and all will be just fine.

I like how you just completely ignored DocGKR's statement.

Let me restate it for you: the 6.8 was tested AGAINST 5.56 77gr rounds and it was clearly the superior performing cartridge.  77gr 5.56 rounds have poor performance through barriers.

Even if a change of weapon is phased in, the dollars are allocated in one budget. If units are getting new M4's before they deploy, that's news to me. We deployed with what we had at the time. The one exception is the Rapid Fileding Initiative gear.

I know there was an additional contract for M4s but I don't recall it being in the 100's of thousands of guns. In 2005, the only units that were completely issued M4s were the Infantry and SOCOM units. All other combat arms and low density units were issued M16A2s.

I've been retired since last year so I do know things are changing but I don't have any indication the entire Army is in the process of converting to M4s at the present time. I've done new equipment fielding and it is not a simple task.

Quoted: Quoted: They just need better performance 75/77 grn rounds for the current weapon system, and all will be just fine. I like how you just completely ignored DocGKR's statement. Let me restate it for you: the 6.8 was tested AGAINST 5.56 77gr rounds and it was clearly the superior performing cartridge.  77gr 5.56 rounds have poor performance through barriers.

The 6.8 may be a great round, but still doesn't get around the variable of in the end it is not what you shoot them with, but who is being shot and where they are hit.   No super bullet will change human nature, that guy who continues to fight with his heart shredded by a round, will continue to fight no matter what round did the shredding.

Barrier material penetration is important and one of the reason my last tour we didn’t’ use Mk262 and instead normally carried a mix of M855 and 955 in order to penetrate the cars we often had to shoot into or through.  However, most barrier material encountered in both operation theaters of CENTCOM are such that changing small arms isn’t going make much of a difference.   In past battles in Iraq 25mm chain guns were found wanting when it came to penetration and in current operations in S. Helmand, AFG most of the defensive positions used by Talib forces required high explosive in order to penetrate.  There are structures that took good hits from Hellfire and 500 lbs GBU hit without killing the defenders.  That is the nature of seizing adobe type structures with walls often 4-6 feet thick to both fend off heat and built for defensibility.  

Quoted: Even if a change of weapon is phased in, the dollars are allocated in one budget. If units are getting new M4's before they deploy, that's news to me. We deployed with what we had at the time. The one exception is the Rapid Fileding Initiative gear. I know there was an additional contract for M4s but I don't recall it being in the 100's of thousands of guns. In 2005, the only units that were completely issued M4s were the Infantry and SOCOM units. All other combat arms and low density units were issued M16A2s. I've been retired since last year so I do know things are changing but I don't have any indication the entire Army is in the process of converting to M4s at the present time. I've done new equipment fielding and it is not a simple task.

Your data is inaccurate in 2001 I was a 12B in Korea and we had M4s the only 20in barrels we still had were M203 mounted.  In 2003 when we went to Iraq the engineer unit I was assigned to (82 ABN) had M4s and I saw few M-16a2s unless I got around support units at BIAP (which was rare) and even then they teased each other about "the muskets"  some but not all of them still had.  I know many reserve and guard units do not have M-4s still.  The situation you describe is accurate to M68 CCOs (aimpoints) however.

I forgot to add my thought.............

The equipment in Iraq and Afganistan is getting torn up WHY PAY TO REPLACE IT when you could supply the units with a new caliber 6.8 or whatever is choosen it will be the same cost as getting new M4s from Colt.  

Im starting to think my MK 262 ammo that was on backorder for so long just became a 1000 rds. of obsolete ammunition...

I bet the Bushmaster product, if its the one I think it was, performed good.

BTW, upgrading to 6.8 mags would only require changes in followers.

The M4s biggest problem is not the round, it is mostly the user and the magazine. better magazines and better training would clear up most of the problems. That being said, I would feel more confident shooting someone with 6.8 than with 5.56.

Edited because I'm grown up enough to shut up when the grown ups are talking.

Quoted: BTW, upgrading to 6.8 mags would only require changes in followers.

I think you need to change the mag body also. I think the 6.8 is to fat to fit in a 5.56 mag past a few rounds dur to the "ribs" in the mag body.

While 6.8 mm mags are the same size as 5.56 mm ones, they have different feed lips, different followers, and different size and shaped ribs on the mag bodies.

I have read that magpul cannot make a 6.8 p-mag because the plastic must be so think it would not fit in standard mag wells.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Can't help but wonder if the ACR being delayed for release has anything to do with this new round of tests.

Quoted: It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Can't help but wonder if the ACR being delayed for release has anything to do with this new round of tests.

Please read the article THESE ARE NOT TEST this was a demonstration to appointed congressional aids to help them make an informed decision on if they should replace 5.56 or just tweak it to perform better.  Test are over.

SD307's comment is absolutely correct.

The ACR delay has to do with a bit of re-engineering that Magpul did to improve the ACR, prior to full scale production.  Like LaRue, Magpul tries to get their products as close to perfect right from the start and are more than willing to improve things as data comes back from end-users--if only all vendors would be as responsive...

Quoted: Note:  see pages 18 & 19 of my NDIA briefing (www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf) for more information on the TSWG MURG program.

Well that was weird, don't know what happen to my question?...

Anyway, Dr. Roberts I want to first thank you for once again for bringing real information and expert knowledge into this discussion! Very refreshing around here!

In your PPP, you made several references to a 62gr 5.56mm ATK load that the FBI is using? Sounds like a pretty good round but it's the first I've heard of it (not saying much there) and I would like to read more about it? Do you have any other data on it and \or how it compares to rounds like the MK262 and other popular 75+gr OTM loads?

Thanks again

tag

Quoted: Quoted: They just need better performance 75/77 grn rounds for the current weapon system, and all will be just fine. I like how you just completely ignored DocGKR's statement. Let me restate it for you: the 6.8 was tested AGAINST 5.56 77gr rounds and it was clearly the superior performing cartridge.  77gr 5.56 rounds have poor performance through barriers.

I respect your enthusiasm, I really do.  But you can't comprehend English worth a damn.

What costs less and will disrupt the supply line less/training/marksmanship...changing over everything to the 6.8SPC or developing a bullet to suit the needs in a heavier grain weight?  I didn't say stick an existing 75/77 grain round in the case and let fly.  Read what you quoted and try again...

Quoted: What about NATO ? Nato uses 5.56 x 45 ammo , Nato uses M16 compatable magazines. If the US abandons the M16 platform it will force NATO to do the same, in which there will be alot of resistance on Europe's part.

but lots of surplus 5.56    

Boob Bait for Bubbas

I'm surprised they aren't trying to bring back the 1911 in .45 as well.

It ain't gonna happen.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They just need better performance 75/77 grn rounds for the current weapon system, and all will be just fine. I like how you just completely ignored DocGKR's statement. Let me restate it for you: the 6.8 was tested AGAINST 5.56 77gr rounds and it was clearly the superior performing cartridge.  77gr 5.56 rounds have poor performance through barriers. I respect your enthusiasm, I really do.  But you can't comprehend English worth a damn. What costs less and will disrupt the supply line less/training/marksmanship...changing over everything to the 6.8SPC or developing a bullet to suit the needs in a heavier grain weight?  I didn't say stick an existing 75/77 grain round in the case and let fly.  Read what you quoted and try again...

What he is telling you is that if you play the part of the pussy you are going to get fucked. Or he is telling you that the easy way is always mined, the simple things are always hard, and that if its stupid but it works it isnt stupid. Or he is telling you no pain, no gain. Or he could render it as:

Yes, simply upgrading to a heavier projectile in the existing caliber would be an easier way to get a marginal improvement. But if you want the BEST improvement, you are going to have to "bite the bullet" so to speak and go to the trouble of swapping out all those uppers and bolts and mags.

I know a thing or two about army supply. Trust me, it would be less of a to do than most people think. The current program to phase out the old body armor is much more complicated and expensive than a change to 6.8. It is also an example of "if its worth doing, its worth doing right the FIRST time". After a program of upgrading and upgrading the IBA which resulted in a big expensive mess that was more trouble than it was worth, they did the right thing and gave us body armor that was better than even the CIRAS.