Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/12/2005 9:20:10 PM EST
Just wondering. Ammo is already available and has plenty of power.
Link Posted: 5/12/2005 9:22:49 PM EST
Because the military is run by beurocrats, and powerful people want to make a profit. The same reason they ever wasted a dime on that stupid XM8 thing. The .243 would be a damn good choice, though.
Link Posted: 5/12/2005 9:28:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By JohnReich:
Because the military is run by beurocrats, and powerful people want to make a profit. The same reason they ever wasted a dime on that stupid XM8 thing. The .243 would be a damn good choice, though.


+1
Link Posted: 5/12/2005 9:47:50 PM EST
Ya know there aint nothin wrong with the 7.62x51 either.Plenty of punch.
Always gota spend money trying to reinvent the freakin wheel.
Now if they would just take the money they blow on all this crap and payroll,then spend it on developing appropriate and effective body armour to protect the boys from these old obsolete calibers I think we might be on the right track then.
Link Posted: 5/12/2005 10:03:04 PM EST
I think there are a number of problems with the 7.62x51; at least as many as there are with the 5.56x45. If they wanna do this on the cheap, why not just a 77 grain TAP-style round? Nobody lives through being hit with those, and the range is impressive. As for body armor, few american soldiers die from small arms fire anymore, but it wouldn't hurt.
Link Posted: 5/13/2005 1:17:44 AM EST
I believe the purpose of not using 7.62x51 was the weight factor (think M-14). The 5.56x45 was lighter as well as the M-16 was and you could carry more ammo per soldier. .243 would be the way to go. But I wanna get a 6.8 to see how well it shoots.
Link Posted: 5/13/2005 2:27:30 AM EST
Gotta keep in mind the controllability factor as well. Since the 308 and the 243 share the same cartridge they hold abount the same amount of powder. Recoil and cartridge weight would be nearly identical. The 6.8 on the other hand has a very light recoil, you could shoot this round all day and not fatigue.
Link Posted: 5/13/2005 3:09:32 AM EST
the 243 would require the ar10 type rifle, that and the weight of rifle-ammo would cut down on the amount that could be carried, a more suitiable round would be the 6x45 with a 85gr projectile, its just a 223 round necked up to 6mm and is a fairly common wildcat that can drive its bullet to 2900fps and could be used in already available m16/ar mags and wouldn't require a different bolt or rifle.
Link Posted: 5/13/2005 3:20:57 AM EST
I wouldn't hold my breath as to win the military is going to the 6.8 either.
Link Posted: 5/13/2005 4:10:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/13/2005 4:12:24 AM EST by J-A-R]
Ndenway :
I have to agree about the 6X45mm, with the trend of heavier bullets such as the 77 grain SMK in 5.56mm it would seam to be a logical next step. Pushing the 85 or 90 grain bullets to 2900 fps would from what I have seen may be at or beyond max pressure limits. Have worked up loads that will do 2700 to 2750 fps out of my 20" barrel with this bullet weight with no signs of over pressure but might be close to getting there.

I heard that the military is testing the 6X45 over in the sand box, but am not real clear on which one they are talking about, 6mm/223 or 6mm SAW. It is in my opinion a real good option and one that should be looked at more closely.

Joe
Link Posted: 5/13/2005 4:18:32 AM EST
75gr / 77gr .223 seems to be highly favored and would not require new mag followers, new barrels, new bolts, etc... and is logistics-friendly, soldier-friendly, target-unfriendly. It's just a matter of their ammo producer switching the source of bullets.

Link Posted: 5/13/2005 4:26:36 AM EST
Weren't the Marines experimenting with a 5.56mm round necked out to handle a .243? I don't think the concept round went anywhere, but the idea has been explored.
Link Posted: 5/13/2005 4:29:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By JohnReich:
I think there are a number of problems with the 7.62x51; at least as many as there are with the 5.56x45. If they wanna do this on the cheap, why not just a 77 grain TAP-style round? Nobody lives through being hit with those, and the range is impressive. As for body armor, few american soldiers die from small arms fire anymore, but it wouldn't hurt.



Magic bullet...?
Link Posted: 5/13/2005 4:33:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By metroplex:
75gr / 77gr .223 seems to be highly favored and would not require new mag followers, new barrels, new bolts, etc... and is logistics-friendly, soldier-friendly, target-unfriendly. It's just a matter of their ammo producer switching the source of bullets.




This Mk262Mod1 77gr stuff seems to be gaining a lot of popularity in the service. Maybe we'll see a migration towards that from SS109. How'd you like to be able to get that stuff for $200 a case... wow!

Link Posted: 5/13/2005 4:59:36 AM EST
I think this will become the issued weight and what the mil. will do in the next 5 years.
Link Posted: 5/13/2005 5:30:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By J-A-R:
Ndenway :
I have to agree about the 6X45mm, with the trend of heavier bullets such as the 77 grain SMK in 5.56mm it would seam to be a logical next step. Pushing the 85 or 90 grain bullets to 2900 fps would from what I have seen may be at or beyond max pressure limits. Have worked up loads that will do 2700 to 2750 fps out of my 20" barrel with this bullet weight with no signs of over pressure but might be close to getting there.

I heard that the military is testing the 6X45 over in the sand box, but am not real clear on which one they are talking about, 6mm/223 or 6mm SAW. It is in my opinion a real good option and one that should be looked at more closely.

Joe




the 2900 number is a bit optimistic, but the load for the 87gr hornaday bthp&sp clocked on avg. for 20rnds at 2820fps @12' out of a 21" barrel with no visual pressure signs, I'm sure it was at near max but didn't have the rifle long enough to work up any other loads to see if it could be improved on ( it was the load the guy gave me that I bought the rifle from), the load was pretty accurate though, would group around .5" @100rds for 5 shots if I did my part, shot two deer that dressed out at 100lbs or so at over 150yrds with one rnd apiece and a 200lb hog at 75yrd with a head shot, theres another rnd thats similar, the 6x47 thats based off of the 222mag, I'm not sure of its over all loaded length or if the bullet would have to be seated deeper to fit in the mag, but it supposedly will get 100 to 150fps more than the 6x45 with the same weight bullet, I don't have any experiance with this rnd though so I don't really know if it will or not, would like to know if you know of anyone that makes affordable AR barrels for the 6x45? as 223 cases are plentiful and easily reformed and offers near published 6.8 performance(not sure of it either, even though I've handled a rifle of this cal., the dude didn't have any ammo to shoot in it).
Link Posted: 5/13/2005 5:56:00 AM EST
Ndenway:
Had my barrel made by John Holliger at White Oak Precision, only took about a week from the time I ordered for it to get to me. Went with a stainless 1 in 8" twist 20" barrel. Want to try one of the Olympic Arms SUM barrels in 16" next. Another source would be Randall at ar15barrels.com.
Those are the ones I am aware of I'm sure their are many more.

Joe


Johns e-mail:
jeholliger@cs.com

Link Posted: 5/13/2005 6:10:49 AM EST
In order to change our standard issue ammo, we're going to have to stop meeting the NATO spec, or we are going to have to change it.
It sounds like 6.8 will only ever be a special use cartridge in the military. The same may happen to MK262. If the military were to switch off of the NATO standard, one way or the other, my guess is that they'd go with MK262 as there is no change required on the weapon.
Link Posted: 5/13/2005 6:13:47 AM EST
J-A-R

thanks for the info.
Link Posted: 5/13/2005 8:15:18 AM EST
I have a 6.8 upper, ammo, and dies not that impressed with it so far. However I am impressed with the 6X45, if you reload your own like me it may just give you that little extra your looking for. It may take a little more effort to charge the mag because of the increase in bullet dia. but does not spring the mag body out and have had no problems loading to full capacity.

To me the 6X45mm gives the performance needed over 5.56 and at a lower cost than other options. Have already started to look at which uppers I may want to convert to 6x45 in the near future.

I am not stuck with what the military is using, or wanting to shoot cheap loads for plinking and target work. I want something that gives that extra edge the 6X45 can deliver.

Joe
Link Posted: 5/13/2005 11:29:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By hman710:
I believe the purpose of not using 7.62x51 was the weight factor (think M-14). The 5.56x45 was lighter as well as the M-16 was and you could carry more ammo per soldier. .243 would be the way to go. But I wanna get a 6.8 to see how well it shoots.



This question came up on a board about a year ago and I sat down and figured out that with a typical combat load of 200 rds of 308 ammo, you would only be able to carry about 20 to 30 more 243 rds. That's not much of a difference and I would rather just stick with the 308. Remember that the 243 is basically just a necked down 308 so the only weight you are saving is from the bullet being smaller.

I personally believe that we need to change our way of thinking and start using better performing rounds. We do everything we can to try and kill the enemy so they don't kill us but we don't want to inhumaine or anything so we use a substandard non-expanding bullet. Of course if we don;t get them with small arms fire, we could just dump some napalm on them.

If we just used a better bullet, I don't think that we would have the problems or the debate we have today.
Link Posted: 5/13/2005 3:44:40 PM EST
77 grainers!!!! I hope they adopt it!!!!!! They should. And yes, then it would be great to have all the extra surplus at 200 a case. Hey, I can dream.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 7:57:33 AM EST
5.56mm is great as it is! Move to a 6mm or 243 then you increase Bulk not to mention follow up shots.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 12:46:29 PM EST
A different slant on the subject of what today's soldier can carry. The average American is bigger and supposedly stronger than their grandfather's generations was. Just look at how all the records in the athletic arena are being broken. If the guys could carry those big heavy rifles and the 308 and 30-06 60 years ago, why can't today's generation of soldiers not handle it?
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 12:59:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/14/2005 1:01:12 PM EST by Stryfe]

Originally Posted By NRA2:
A different slant on the subject of what today's soldier can carry. The average American is bigger and supposedly stronger than their grandfather's generations was. Just look at how all the records in the athletic arena are being broken. If the guys could carry those big heavy rifles and the 308 and 30-06 60 years ago, why can't today's generation of soldiers not handle it?


Anytime you have to carry anything for a long distance, it's best to cut back on the weight.
More specifically, our GIs are carrying more gear now than they did in the past.
Did WWII infantry wear body armor?
Also bear in mind that the change to 5.56 was done 40 years ago.
As far as athletics, that's due more to improvements in medicine and training.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 1:05:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 1:39:44 PM EST
brouhaha :
No Sir I have not done any extensive tests to date other than the standard load development. Velocity increase for the 6mm projectile is real compared to the 5.56mm and with proper bullet construction should there not be an increase in the wounding mechanism. But if you have any pertinent data as to the 6x45mm vs. 5.56mm that shows the 6mm is less than 5.56mm I am ready to listen. I did not say the 6X45 is better than 6.8 SPC, What I did say is that I am not that impressed with it and the extra cost of uppers, mags and ammo. I do believe that the 6X45 is a good in between alternative.

Thanks
Joe
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 12:06:58 PM EST
NRA2 What? The 5.56mm is just fine! the follow up shots are very Fast! And very accurate to start with! The wieght issue is a issue! Do you know what these GIs carry to begin with! Granted they are strong!
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 12:52:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By NRA2:
A different slant on the subject of what today's soldier can carry. The average American is bigger and supposedly stronger than their grandfather's generations was. Just look at how all the records in the athletic arena are being broken. If the guys could carry those big heavy rifles and the 308 and 30-06 60 years ago, why can't today's generation of soldiers not handle it?



Irrelevant IMO.

Weight is a huge factor. You can carry twice as much 5.56 as you can 7.62x51 if you include wieght and size. Have you tried hauling around all the gear these guys carry all day? Trust me, being able to carry twice as much ammo is necessary at times. I hear stories of troops in Iraq having to go through 10-15 30rnd mags in the course of one firefight.
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 1:06:24 AM EST
Unfortunatly, one of the reasons that people carry so much ammo is three fold, first, more ammo is always good, second a 223 is just a lousy stopper without perfect shot placement, third it doesn't penetrate worth a shit. This means that if you are shooting at sombody behind a block wall and you hit the wall infront of them, they don't fall down, do the same trick with a 308 and they will fall down, even with a gutshot. The 6X45 still won't answer this problem but it will let them carry the same load with more effectiveness.
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 1:07:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By JohnReich:
Because the military is run by beurocrats, and powerful people want to make a profit. The same reason they ever wasted a dime on that stupid XM8 thing. The .243 would be a damn good choice, though.

agreed +1
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 1:14:41 AM EST
Just so we're all on the same page.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/friendly_6mm.htm
It really is a good answer to the 5.56 question, same ammo size, same mags, same bolts, same gear, effiecent little round.
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 3:42:38 AM EST
One of the reasons to consider the 6x45 is its ability to push bullets of like weights to a higher velocity than the 5.56mm. If you look at the Sierra manual for the top listed loads of the 69 grain SMK # 1380 compared to the 70 grain SMK #1505 you will see an increase of about 200 fps with the 6mm bullet (2900 vs. 3100). I Know that velocity is not the only factor in wounding potential, but it does extend the range that a bullet will fragment in.

Joe
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 9:32:21 AM EST
5.56mm a lousy stoper? Please stop
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 1:31:25 PM EST
Hey J-A-R That load data is for a bolt gun with a 24in barrel 6x45 page 281 Sierra Edition V. That Psi In an AR would be very abusive. Thats why they publish two different sets of load data for the .223 One for the Ar-15 and One for bolt guns. pages 213 to 222 for the AR and 223 to 232 for the bolt gun.

This is in no way to state that the 6x45 is and better or worse than green tip.

I know The Marine Corps has been testing this round. But thats it.

Semper Fi,
Mike
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 1:34:31 PM EST
Is the 223 suitable for deer?

oops...sorry, wrong heavily repeated topic. H out.

www.ammo-oracle.com

The 223 is more than adequate.
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 1:48:47 PM EST
REXLOGIC:
Yes you are correct about the 24" barrel, however that same load out of my 20" barrel AR gives me 3140 fps 15 ft from the muzzle. So I guess it is not possible to achieve this velocity with only 20" and the extra 4" is not needed. But please do not take my word for it.

Joe
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 2:00:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By J-A-R:
One of the reasons to consider the 6x45 is its ability to push bullets of like weights to a higher velocity than the 5.56mm. If you look at the Sierra manual for the top listed loads of the 69 grain SMK # 1380 compared to the 70 grain SMK #1505 you will see an increase of about 200 fps with the 6mm bullet (2900 vs. 3100). I Know that velocity is not the only factor in wounding potential, but it does extend the range that a bullet will fragment in.

Joe



A 6mm bullet, weighing the same as a 5.56mm bullet, would be shorter and fatter than the 5.56mm counterpart. Wouldn't this decrease sectional density, creating more drag and making it less effective at penetrating armor? I'm asking because I don't know the answer, not trying to sound like a ballistics expert.

I think the best thing to do is to let the military decide what's the most effective round for them. They know better than us internet fatbodies do.
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 2:40:23 PM EST
lu380
I know what you are saying. There is so much involved with picking a good bullet to meet a certain requirement. Trying to combine penetration and fragmentation in the same bullet is not easy. That is why the military has rounds for different tasks. I believe that the 6X45 has merit but at the same time can accept that I might be wrong. So far no one has provided any info to prove otherwise.

If you have a bullet of larger diameter and 10 grains heavier and at the same pressure can push it to the same velocity how is this a bad thing. If this bullet is designed to fulfill a certain desired effect on its target then has it not been an improvement over the existing one. Many of the same people that recommend 77 grain bullets in .224 dia. cannot see that a .243 cal bullet at 85 to 90 grains might be an improvement . Is it enough of an improvement, to me it is but as always others differ.

Joe
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 3:14:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By huck:
Unfortunatly, one of the reasons that people carry so much ammo is three fold, first, more ammo is always good, second a 223 is just a lousy stopper without perfect shot placement, third it doesn't penetrate worth a shit. This means that if you are shooting at sombody behind a block wall and you hit the wall infront of them, they don't fall down, do the same trick with a 308 and they will fall down, even with a gutshot. The 6X45 still won't answer this problem but it will let them carry the same load with more effectiveness.



If 223 is so lousy how the hell are we killing the insurgents in Iraq?
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 3:19:12 PM EST
Another factor is that the .243 is somewhat overbore- meaning faster bore erosion. This isn't a factor with most deer rifles, which rarely see 2K rounds in 20 years, but with battle rifles, this figure can be reached in a few weeks of heavy combat ops, and even with polygonal rifling, ball powders (which tend to icky up an AR's guts)and chrome rifling, thre would be a barrel life problem. Something pushing an 80 to 100 grain bullet at around 2600-2700 FPS with a big air pocket in the nose and a steel penetrator like the AK74 round would be quite nasty on the receiving end. In fact, the adoption of the 5.4 style bullet would go a LONG way to making the 5.56 nastier.
As far as carrying weight, I did some air assault ops in Bosnia, and carrying an M16, 7 loaded mags, M9, 1 gallon of water, 3 MREs, 200 rounds of linked 7.62, body armor, extra radio battery, poncho liner, Gore tex, extra socks added up to a massive load. Just the load bearing vest with the ammo, canteens, and pistol along with the body armor was a massive load. Not enough good can be said of light ammo, as long as it causees the bad guys to cease and desist immediately upon impact.
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 5:00:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By jmehrten:
Another factor is that the .243 is somewhat overbore- meaning faster bore erosion. This isn't a factor with most deer rifles, which rarely see 2K rounds in 20 years, but with battle rifles, this figure can be reached in a few weeks of heavy combat ops, and even with polygonal rifling, ball powders (which tend to icky up an AR's guts)and chrome rifling, thre would be a barrel life problem. Something pushing an 80 to 100 grain bullet at around 2600-2700 FPS with a big air pocket in the nose and a steel penetrator like the AK74 round would be quite nasty on the receiving end. In fact, the adoption of the 5.4 style bullet would go a LONG way to making the 5.56 nastier.
As far as carrying weight, I did some air assault ops in Bosnia, and carrying an M16, 7 loaded mags, M9, 1 gallon of water, 3 MREs, 200 rounds of linked 7.62, body armor, extra radio battery, poncho liner, Gore tex, extra socks added up to a massive load. Just the load bearing vest with the ammo, canteens, and pistol along with the body armor was a massive load. Not enough good can be said of light ammo, as long as it causees the bad guys to cease and desist immediately upon impact.



interesting post, that IS a lot of weight. Amazing what water adds to a load.
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 5:37:15 PM EST
the .243s shoulder angle results in significant throat erosion in a relatively short time.
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 9:32:35 PM EST
The 223 is getting it done in the sandbox, but there are TOO many stories that sound like, "I shot him twice and he didn't go down". You never hear stories like this with the larger calibers. The ammo oracle is great but but geletain ain't real life. Go kill some deer with a 223 and then go kill some deer with a 308, there is a reason that many states don't allow big game hunting with anything smaller than a 243. The 6x45 has larger frontal area and is a more efficent cartrige because of less bore restriction. It is not the best cartrige for shooting folks, but with a decent bullet of 80-90 grains it should cause more damage, which will get the job better with a marginal hit. Even though people poo poo the 308 because of ammo weight and weapon capacity nobody complains that it don't work. If you sternum punch or head shoot anybody with anything larger than a bb gun it will get the job done but it is awefully hard to shoot perfect shots when your target is shooting back at you, it kinda makes you get in a hurry.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 12:06:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By huck:
Go kill some deer with a 223 and then go kill some deer with a 308, there is a reason that many states don't allow big game hunting with anything smaller than a 243.



Is there a reason some states have banned "Assault Weapons"?
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 12:08:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/17/2005 9:21:43 AM EST by REXLOGIC]
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 2:29:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/17/2005 2:32:46 AM EST by J-A-R]
It was pointed out to me on another forum that the M4 has done more to fuel these kind of discussions than anything else. Chopping off 6" of barrel is not going to help at extended ranges hence the move to heavier bullets to compensate. Next we have the 6.8mm SPC to try and address the same short barrel issue which it does. If we go to a longer cartridge the weapons size and weight increases the load for our troupes.

It ends up being about trade offs, and because of this limits the options that are available.

Joe
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 5:49:56 AM EST
For some reason this thread depresses the heck out of me...
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 6:23:40 AM EST
Forest take hart all is not lost.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 6:36:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By J-A-R:
Forest take hart all is not lost.



I'm not so sure.

We have a tacked thread on the 6.8 - including the informative FAQ that Zak Smith put together. Which covers the why of the 6.8.

Then we get Q&As like this:

Just wondering. Ammo is already available and has plenty of power.



Because the military is run by beurocrats, and powerful people want to make a profit. The same reason they ever wasted a dime on that stupid XM8 thing. The .243 would be a damn good choice, though.



I mean do they not realize a .243 wont fit in a 5.56 magazine? Or that .243 projectiles were tested against the 6.8 projectiles in the new case and the 6.8s were found superior?

I don't get it.

The thread then goes downhill from there...
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 6:49:53 AM EST
We just have to remember that people ask questions because they don't know or are unsure about an issue, Myself included. They deserve to be answered and provided with the most accurate info possible. I know it is frustrating at times, but is part of the discussion process.

Joe
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top