Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/17/2003 9:49:36 PM EDT
The only place for the 6.8 Remington I can see is to replace BOTH the 5.56 AND 7.62...otherwise, what's the point? The 6.8 seems to close to .30 to justify keeping the olde round...let alone all three!
But what about NATO standards? And all those new M-240's? Although the timing IS right when the XM-8 is considered...
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 10:00:19 PM EDT
I believe that the 5,56 will be replaced by the 6.8, but the much heavier 7.62 is here to stay for a long time. The XM8 is a long way from being adopted, if ever in my opinion.
Good shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 10:49:23 PM EDT
[thinking] .... 6.8mm SAW .... yes .... that is what I want from Santa this year.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 2:03:03 PM EDT
The 6.8 is a retro engineered round. They need a bigger AR platform and a newly invented round. A round that is actually is in between a 5.56 and a .308. The point to me is to waste our tax dollars.
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 7:29:07 PM EDT
Buey,

Please, tell us how many tax dollars were "wasted" in developing the 6.8 mm?  Likewise, please tell us more about the "retro engineering" .  Also, let us know how many of the 6.8 mm rounds have you fired?  What were the test results?  How does it shoot?
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 7:42:00 PM EDT
Dont even engage him Doc.
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 8:53:02 PM EDT
Greater accuracy, penitration, and range were the goals. Then the nice blue color gel showed even more great things:)
                                       BUEY, what was phisicaly done if anything to the 6.8 mags?
What rds. were experimented with and what were the deciding factors to land where it did?
Keep watching the UPS bulletin board for the announcments where you must have gotten your other inside info, or STFU.
Jack
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 9:09:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Buey:
The 6.8 is a retro engineered round. They need a bigger AR platform and a newly invented round. A round that is actually is in between a 5.56 and a .308. The point to me is to waste our tax dollars.
View Quote


mmmmmmmkay. how old are you?? [;D]
Link Posted: 1/2/2004 9:55:54 PM EDT
So the 6.8 is to be for Special Ops units only? Why not just use 7.62?
Link Posted: 1/3/2004 12:08:28 AM EDT
There is no new AR, just a new barrel, and bolt.  Objective was to increase range and lethallity of the weapon.  Could do this with a new cartridge.  Same mags can be used.

A bit of histroy JIIPS (old Army SAW program) actually want a mid bore 6-6.8mm cartridge.  The SS109 round was then developed by FN to make a 5.56 round more penetrative at longer range then the M193.  With this developement the 6-6.8mm SAW was dropped.

Speaking of history got to play with a VS 63 Polish machine pistol today.  Interesting design and showed it to some Polish friends and they stated that it had a problem of operaters shooting their fingers off.  (forward hand grip is right under the muzzle!)
Link Posted: 1/3/2004 12:45:49 AM EDT
StormSurge, the 6.8 mm is easily retrofitted to existing Mk12’s and M4’s with only a barrel change and minor bolt modification so all the same lower receivers, upper receivers, bolt carriers, charging handles, optics, etc... can still be used.  Also, the 6.8 mm uses a 28 rd magazine of exactly the same dimensions as the current M16 30 rd mag, so existing web gear and magazine pouches can continue to be used.  In addition, muscle memory and years of training on the AR style weapons are not lost while transitioning to 6.8 mm.  While I love 7.62 mm rifles using the 155 gr AMAX or 175 gr M118LR, the reality is that the 7.62 mm guns are bigger and heavier than an M4 (whether in 5.56 mm or 6.8 mm)--it is a lot easier to egress vehicles and clear rooms with an M4 than an M14 or FAL.  It is also a lot easier to carry a full load of ammo in 28-30 rd M4 size mags than 20 rd M14 or FAL mags.
Link Posted: 1/3/2004 10:04:21 AM EDT
Where is the benefit in 6.8 over 5.56 in a room clearing scenario?  Just curious, but nothing we have seen would give tangible increases in lethality at such close range.  

Whilst the arguement can be made for longer range engagements, by and large, the adoption of the 77 gr Match King has improved the terminal balistics of the 5.56 in this type of engagement.  If you want more knock down effect close-in, then you need a much larger caliber.  
Link Posted: 1/3/2004 11:13:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2004 11:14:30 AM EDT by J-A-R]
Do I think the 6.8 SPC is the universal round absolutely not. It has the potential to do some things very well and deserves a chance to prove itself with actual use in the field. I am interested in .224, 6mm and 6.5mm versions of the SPC because I see utility in these also. The most important part of the SPC development to me is its minimal changes to the AR15/M16 platform which so many of us have a large investment in, and this new round may well make a good tool better. Just my thoughts on this.
Top Top