Why 6.8 for U.S. Mil

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why 6.8 for U.S. Mil (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 5/15/2005 9:00:08 PM EDT

Okay, I read the thread on the 6.8. I know the history of why we think it's a good round for combat. Just a matter of cost to the tax payer, that concerns me. What would it cost to field this new gee-wizz caliber. Would we choose to retrofit existing M4/16 or go all out for a new procurement. I hear the powers to be aren't sold yet, but if there's money for somebody at the top, well take the most expensive way.

And one other question. If the problem with the M4/M16 is the sand fleas take to long to fall, why not use a more efficient .223 round? If it's just to be politically correct, what's correct about the way the sand fleas blow up everybody in the house when they go in? I know, just because they were there.

Now as a boy who loves his toys, bring on something new. I won't be the first at the range with a 6.8 upper, but I won't be anywhere like last either. Likewise a new 300 upper from my prized Armalite AR-10 is going to be nice too.

Posted: 5/16/2005 5:17:30 AM EDT

[#1]

The 6.8 was designed by 5th Group/AMU for Special Ops use. Orginally designed as only a barrel and bolt swap. Min cost was a objective. As far as the 5.56 not doing the job the 6.8 bullets are better performers then even the best 77gr .223 bullets. With both the Army (XM8)and SOCOM (SCAR) looking for new rifles why not chamber them with a new cartridge to boot. Wouldn't cost more tax payers dollars then.

CD

Posted: 5/16/2005 6:20:45 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Okay, I read the thread on the 6.8. I know the history of why we think it's a good round for combat. Just a matter of cost to the tax payer, that concerns me. What would it cost to field this new gee-wizz caliber. Would we choose to retrofit existing M4/16 or go all out for a new procurement. I hear the powers to be aren't sold yet, but if there's money for somebody at the top, well take the most expensive way.

And one other question. If the problem with the M4/M16 is the sand fleas take to long to fall, why not use a more efficient .223 round? If it's just to be politically correct, what's correct about the way the sand fleas blow up everybody in the house when they go in? I know, just because they were there.

Now as a boy who loves his toys, bring on something new. I won't be the first at the range with a 6.8 upper, but I won't be anywhere like last either. Likewise a new 300 upper from my prized Armalite AR-10 is going to be nice too.

I would not object to my tax dollars going toward this. I can see its usefulness.

Posted: 5/16/2005 6:48:23 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
The 6.8 was designed by 5th Group/AMU for Special Ops use. Orginally designed as only a barrel and bolt swap. Min cost was a objective. As far as the 5.56 not doing the job the 6.8 bullets are better performers then even the best 77gr .223 bullets. With both the Army (XM8)and SOCOM (SCAR) looking for new rifles why not chamber them with a new cartridge to boot. Wouldn't cost more tax payers dollars then.

CD

To me a new rifle is a complete waste of money unless we are going to move to the 6.8 at the same time.

Posted: 5/16/2005 8:11:34 AM EDT

[#4]

govt has the strange ideas to spend the minimum on essentials like guns, ammo, and armor

and buy expensive crap like toilet seats and nuts and bolts for $100 each

WTF?

changing to the 6.8 would be the best thing

its not always the GUN, but its sometimes the CALIBER, and the govt 'think' tank (idiots) never get that

Posted: 5/16/2005 1:40:47 PM EDT

[#5]

Yes, I know the development story. I was just wondering what our (USA) next move might be or really should be. Historically, we don't seem to think, as I have learner as a former US Army Logistician, far enough into the "out years." Technology being a consideration, we adopted a varmint caliber for a battle rifle. Now we complain that it doesn't stop the fight fast enough. I wonder if the ranges of engagement in an urban area, is further than those typical ranges in Nam? Remembering that in Nam, more rounds were fired with fewer casualties than any other war/conflict in history. Probably due to everybody having full auto capability.

In any case, I like the change the upper and have two gun process. That's great for us civilians. If we field the 6.8 for special opns only, we would save a lot and possibly meet all mission requirements. Now considering the age and condition of the current stock of M4/16 how much to just retrofit the inventory to 6.8? Someone must evaluate the condition of the current inventory. Back in the day, our anual or semianual qualification put no real wear and tear on the weapons on hand. I missed being assigned to a highly deployable unit like the 82nd or 101st. Perhaps their range time was more than units I served in.

Guess this battle in the sand will produce some lessons learned, and hope to God that we remember what we learning.

Posted: 5/16/2005 5:23:49 PM EDT

[#6]

28% increase in weight, without any tangible or proven superior combat effectiveness, and zero interest on the part of NATO in changing calibers are all huge hurtles 6.8 is going to have to overcome before it comes anywhere near becoming a standard service caliber. And let’s not forget expense which is going to be in the billions for a complete rearmament

Posted: 5/16/2005 5:36:15 PM EDT

[#7]

Should we really care what NATO thinks?? I mean seriously, we're the more advanced military power....NATO should follow us

Posted: 5/16/2005 6:07:27 PM EDT

[#8]

It would be a better round for stopping power, BUT Dupont needs to get off there ass and let the brass fly.

Posted: 5/16/2005 6:46:52 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Should we really care what NATO thinks?? I mean seriously, we're the more advanced military power....NATO should follow us

AFAIK the US is still part of NATO. NATO Member Countries

Posted: 5/16/2005 7:14:24 PM EDT

[#10]

All we need is a better performing 5.56..we just have to ignore the limitations that we choose to abide by with the rest of the so called free world.Srew the hague lets give our boys the most effective round to stop the enemy dead in his tracks or her tracks.

Posted: 5/17/2005 1:40:28 AM EDT

[#11]

Improved terminal ballistics was the prime motivator for the 6.8 SPC.
But they are going about it smartly.
There are too many millions of M-16 (and variants) rifles in our Armed Forces armories. We can't afford to throw the babies out with the bath water to rearm and retrain.

If a completely new replacement rifle design was a choice then we may as well go to the 7.62/.308 which is a NATO round with a proven track record.

So the 6.8 is a compromise of 7.62 type performance in a package that will fit in the existing inventory of M-16s with very little cost to modify.

Right now in the military the cost of EVERYTHING is being examined with a microscope. The Green Eyeshade types have the ear of the Congress and we have to serve the "Costwise Readiness" master in everything we do.

So the 6.8 has promise as a cost effective improvement on desired terminal ballistics.

Posted: 5/17/2005 2:45:38 AM EDT

[#12]

The 6.8 SPC will probaly never be adopted service wide. We all know the virtues of such a round, and it probably would offer an advantage in certain situations, but any gains wouldnt be worth

the price of completely rechambering all current M16's, which will stay in service for years to come, no matter what replaces it. A1s are still in the inventory in some tertiary NG units and

support units. The 6.8 SPC was an expedient knee-jerk reaction to lethality issues with the current M4 firing M855. It was a cheap and easy way to get more punch to the groundpounders

in a hurry. Personally, a SPR in 6.8 SPC seems kind of silly. Why not just use a Mk 11 mod 0?
The 6.8 SPC isnt better than 7.62 Nato, it just fits in the standard mag well. The weight difference

between the weapons really isnt that much. The best utilization of the 6.8 SPC would be to use it in
11.5 inch barreled upper with or without a suppressor. Unsupressed, you have a compact weapon

that doesn't suffer from the lack of fragmentation/lethal range of the 5.56 version and even at reduced velocity you still have a big chunk of lead capable of more lethality than a .22 mag.

The 6.8 SPC isn't officially dead, but its hurt really bad. It won't ever be a Nato standardized round. Used properly, there is nothing wrong with the 5.56 or its lethality. Want proof? SOCOM
dropped the 6.8 SPC requirement from the SCAR H program...that says something.

Posted: 5/17/2005 6:36:03 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
28% increase in weight, without any tangible or proven superior combat effectiveness, and zero interest on the part of NATO in changing calibers are all huge hurtles 6.8 is going to have to overcome before it comes anywhere near becoming a standard service caliber. And let’s not forget expense which is going to be in the billions for a complete rearmament

28% weight increase? Where does that figure come from? The barrel swap weight difference would be negligable. I know the ammo weighs more, but didn't think it would increase the overall weight of the weapon by 28%. There aren't any other variables.

What am I missing.

Posted: 5/17/2005 6:44:18 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
28% increase in weight, without any tangible or proven superior combat effectiveness, and zero interest on the part of NATO in changing calibers are all huge hurtles 6.8 is going to have to overcome before it comes anywhere near becoming a standard service caliber. And let’s not forget expense which is going to be in the billions for a complete rearmament
28% weight increase? Where does that figure come from? The barrel swap weight difference would be negligable. I know the ammo weighs more, but didn't think it would increase the overall weight of the weapon by 28%. There aren't any other variables.

What am I missing.

I am assuming that the basic load of ammo would be an increase of 28% over 5.56. IE: 100 rounds of 6.8 would weigh 28% more than 100 rounds of 5.56.

Posted: 5/17/2005 7:05:04 AM EDT

[#15]

OK. That's possible. And I can't argue that the ability to carry more ammo is a plus for the 5.56 - IF all things are equal. But like most issues associated with firearms, all things are seldom equal. If the improved terminal ballistics of the 6.8 lead to fewer shots required per target (due to increased lethality), then the ammo loadout differential issue might be a non-issue.

I think a caliber upgrade is in order.

BTW, comparing the overall packages needed, the 7.62 is substantially heavier than even the 6.8.

Posted: 5/17/2005 8:02:28 AM EDT

[#16]

I shot a bunch of wild dogs in Iraq with both the 62gr and the 77gr, 5.56 bullets. The insurgents aren't any thicker than a medium size dog. The 62gr pokes holes in them and they run away. The 77gr drops them like a rock. If the 6.8 is even more efficient and dropping bad guys, I'm all for it. I'm going to build one for myself and try it on deer and maybe coyotes to see the effects myself.

Posted: 5/17/2005 8:10:42 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
28% increase in weight, without any tangible or proven superior combat effectiveness, and zero interest on the part of NATO in changing calibers are all huge hurtles 6.8 is going to have to overcome before it comes anywhere near becoming a standard service caliber. And let’s not forget expense which is going to be in the billions for a complete rearmament
28% weight increase? Where does that figure come from? The barrel swap weight difference would be negligable. I know the ammo weighs more, but didn't think it would increase the overall weight of the weapon by 28%. There aren't any other variables.

What am I missing.

I am assuming that the basic load of ammo would be an increase of 28% over 5.56. IE: 100 rounds of 6.8 would weigh 28% more than 100 rounds of 5.56.

Exactly.

OK. That's possible. And I can't argue that the ability to carry more ammo is a plus for the 5.56 - IF all things are equal. But like most issues associated with firearms, all things are seldom equal. If the improved terminal ballistics of the 6.8 lead to fewer shots required per target (due to increased lethality), then the ammo loadout differential issue might be a non-issue.

I think a caliber upgrade is in order.
OK. That's possible. And I can't argue that the ability to carry more ammo is a plus for the 5.56 - IF all things are equal. But like most issues associated with firearms, all things are seldom equal. If the improved terminal ballistics of the 6.8 lead to fewer shots required per target (due to increased lethality), then the ammo loadout differential issue might be a non-issue.

I think a caliber upgrade is in order.

BTW, comparing the overall packages needed, the 7.62 is substantially heavier than even the 6.8.

Shot placement determines how many shots it takes to drop someone. Not the size of the bullet. 5.56 is much smaller than 7.62 NATO, but 5.56 does more damage. Clearly there is more to this than bullet size. M855 performs well in combat, but has issues when fired from the M4.

Posted: 5/17/2005 8:13:18 AM EDT

[#18]

I look forward to seeing the ballistics tests of the factory ammo. Hopefully the factory ammo will not be too nuetered when compaired to the development/prototype 6.8 ammo. Impossible to tell until its actually released though.

Look at the diference between current factory 357mag ballistics vs 1930's 357mag ballistics. or .223 55gn FMJ vs 5.56mm M193

Posted: 5/17/2005 8:26:47 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Shot placement determines how many shots it takes to drop someone.

To a piont, yes. If we are talking CNS hits, I'll have to agree with you. But penetration and wound cavity size is a huge determinant with COM hits.

Like I said "IF" the 6.8 performs better, in the more and more utilized M4 configuration, it may require fewer shots per target than the current issue ammo. You seem to be saying it doesn't have better terminal ballistics (or, perhaps, that TB don't matter all that much). I don't have enough information to make that determination yet.

We'll see.

Posted: 5/17/2005 9:20:31 AM EDT

[#20]

Everything old is new again -

Kind of funny how the same concepts keep appearing, after WWII the British came up with a radical weapon, the EM-2, which was a bullpup configuration firing a 7x43mm cartridge.
The US wanted a full power cartridge so it forced the .308 on NATO, killing the 7x43mm.
Subsequently it was determined the full power round was too powerful and the move to the 5.56mm round in the M16 began.
Now today we are looking to return to something very close to what was offered over 50 years ago.

Posted: 5/17/2005 10:27:39 AM EDT

[#21]

The current problem w/ the .223 in the sand is the bullet. From what I have gathered the bullet is fine at mid to mid-long ranges. But lots of the hits take place at close range and due to the high velocity and structure of the round the thing just runs right through the bastards = no stopping power. The bullet never does any thing unless it hits bone. I have heard of higher grain boat tailed ballistic tips doing the job allot better. The 6.8 is a better round for sure, and the beauty is we do not need new rifles. Just switch uppers, the current platform is very battle experienced and has been a great performer. If it ain't broke don't fix it. However if our boys don't have confidence in the current setup I'm all for the change lets re-route some of the money we spend to let felons live comfortably for the rest of their lives into getting some better rifles for our boys. The cons get fed gruel and don't have air conditioning, our boys kill more camel jockeys, and we get a saturated surplus of used rifles its a win win!

Posted: 5/17/2005 12:11:44 PM EDT

[#22]

Sorry no 6.8 for me. Make mine a 6.5mm Grendel.

Posted: 5/17/2005 12:37:51 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Subsequently it was determined the full power round was too powerful and the move to the 5.56mm round in the M16 began.

I don't believe the switch from 7.62 to 5.56 was based on the former being "too powerful."

Posted: 5/17/2005 12:40:27 PM EDT

[#24]

Why 6.8? Because it is expensive and will rake in billions for the defense contractor. Another option would be to simply drop a nuke over the middle east. But that would make too much sense wouldn't it.

Posted: 5/17/2005 1:19:58 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
The 6.8 is a better round for sure, and the beauty is we do not need new rifles. Just switch uppers...

Although the handloads used in the development stage exhibited excellent terminal results, we have no idea of the performance of the factory ammo, or factory ammo loaded with bullets approved by JAG.

In addition to new barrels and bolts, you need new mags too.

Posted: 5/17/2005 1:27:03 PM EDT

[#26]

Although the handloads used in the development stage exhibited excellent terminal results, we have no idea of the performance of the factory ammo, or factory ammo loaded with bullets approved by JAG.

While I can't argue that many do not know these results, the claim that nobody knows them is false.

-z

Posted: 5/17/2005 6:04:10 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Although the handloads used in the development stage exhibited excellent terminal results, we have no idea of the performance of the factory ammo, or factory ammo loaded with bullets approved by JAG.

While I can't argue that many do not know these results, the claim that nobody knows them is false.

-z

Do you believe that Remington has settled on the final production ammo specs?

Posted: 5/17/2005 6:40:03 PM EDT

[#28]

I remember reading some LONG posts about a month ago somewhere on these boards. They contained field reports from the Marines and Army of all kinds of gear currently in use in OEF/OIF. They all reported that the troops were generally pleased with the performance of the 5.56 ammunition. Generally being the caveat.

Anybody else remember reading these/know where they are? I did a few searches but came up with zilch.

Posted: 5/17/2005 6:59:09 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
I remember reading some LONG posts about a month ago somewhere on these boards. They contained field reports from the Marines and Army of all kinds of gear currently in use in OEF/OIF. They all reported that the troops were generally pleased with the performance of the 5.56 ammunition. Generally being the caveat.

Anybody else remember reading these/know where they are? I did a few searches but came up with zilch.

I remember those AAR's too. I wonder how much talk about ammo ineffectiveness comes from rumors started by civilians as opposed to opinions expressed by soldiers or marines actually using the ammo.

Posted: 5/17/2005 7:00:53 PM EDT

[#30]

he current problem w/ the .223 in the sand is the bullet. From what I have gathered the bullet is fine at mid to mid-long ranges. But lots of the hits take place at close range and due to the high velocity and structure of the round the thing just runs right through the bastards = no stopping power.

Closer you are to the barrel, the harder the bullet hits, the more inclined it is to fragment

Farther you are, the slower the bullet is, the less inclined it is to fragment

2700fps is the magic number for 5.56 with M855 and M193 (No longer used in the military)

M4 has a fragmentation range of approx. 65 yards

M16A4 around 150 yards

Posted: 5/17/2005 7:43:01 PM EDT

[#31]

Perhaps a silly question, but can more velocity be gained with the 5.56 through design of the cartridge? I don't load ammo, so I don't know what the max pressure is, or how close issue rounds come to it. I know mil ammo (thinking 9mm) is generally high pressure, is there any room for improvement within the standard case? Could the case be redesigned to withstand higher pressures, which could lead to higher velocity, and greater range of the round with frag effects?

Posted: 5/17/2005 7:54:00 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Although the handloads used in the development stage exhibited excellent terminal results, we have no idea of the performance of the factory ammo, or factory ammo loaded with bullets approved by JAG.

While I can't argue that many do not know these results, the claim that nobody knows them is false.

Do you believe that Remington has settled on the final production ammo specs?

I have no data one way or the other. My bet would be "no" based on how they've F'd up everything so far. But Remington will not be the only source of "Factory" ammunition. The terminal ballistics don't care what specific powder blend is used, or how good of an anneal the case has-- pretty much only the bullet and terminal velocity matter.

-z

Posted: 5/17/2005 8:30:44 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Perhaps a silly question, but can more velocity be gained with the 5.56 through design of the cartridge? I don't load ammo, so I don't know what the max pressure is, or how close issue rounds come to it. I know mil ammo (thinking 9mm) is generally high pressure, is there any room for improvement within the standard case? Could the case be redesigned to withstand higher pressures, which could lead to higher velocity, and greater range of the round with frag effects?

Nope. M855 (and M193) are already "maxed out" as far as SAFE maximum pressure possible with the cartridge. It's possible that CAREFUL loading for individual guns would result in higher velocity, but the gains would be fairly small, and it would apply only to the gun used to develop the load. For general use, the NATO loads are as hot as you would want to shoot.

Posted: 5/18/2005 10:14:40 AM EDT

[#34]

Variablebinary-
I was under the impression the round tumbled instead if blew up. Is the optimum range you posted the most likely range to cause the bullet to fragment or the maximum range?
I think the 5.56 is all tapped out for potential. Suppose they could change the case for more velocity like the WSSM but that would of course require a lot of other changes to the rifle mag. exc.

Posted: 5/18/2005 11:39:28 AM EDT

[#35]

Here's an idea. Why not make the jacket on the M855 thinner (like the Seirra 77grain boatttail hp) so that it will fragment at a lower speed? Switching to M855tj (tj for thin jacket) would be a lot cheaper than buying new rifles, magazines and all new ammo.

Posted: 5/18/2005 5:45:12 PM EDT

[#36]

In this war ,the enemies are insurgents.

In the next war, the enemies will probably be a modernized mechanized army with individual soldiers issued armour. Chinese, North Korea, and who knows, they might even be some countries well supplied by the French or Russians or even the Russian again.

A new service round needs to be adequate for the war right now and the future wars. The 6.8 sounds like a round that is addressing the needs of special operations and the war right now. however, it might not be adequate for the next war.

Posted: 5/18/2005 6:18:32 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
In this war ,the enemies are insurgents.

In the next war, the enemies will probably be a modernized mechanized army with individual soldiers issued armour. Chinese, North Korea, and who knows, they might even be some countries well supplied by the French or Russians or even the Russian again.

A new service round needs to be adequate for the war right now and the future wars. The 6.8 sounds like a round that is addressing the needs of special operations and the war right now. however, it might not be adequate for the next war.

Don't you know -- we always plan for the last war

Posted: 5/18/2005 6:54:58 PM EDT

[#38]

The 6.8X43mm deserves to be in our military inventory. It is a well thought out cartridge, and delivers more than the best current 5.56mm loads. Especially with the M4 platform and short barrels which seem to be the trend. Having said this I also believe the 5.56 will be around for some time. Our troupes need to have access to weapons and ammo whatever the mission.

As has been pointed out other countries are upgrading to engage targets to longer distances. This means they are dropping the spray and pray mentality of the battle field and have just upped the anti for us.

Joe

Posted: 5/18/2005 8:11:33 PM EDT

[#39]

Closer you are to the barrel, the harder the bullet hits, the more inclined it is to fragment

Farther you are, the slower the bullet is, the less inclined it is to fragment

2700fps is the magic number for 5.56 with M855 and M193 (No longer used in the military)

M4 has a fragmentation range of approx. 65 yards

M16A4 around 150 yards

+1

Instead of band-aids, like the scar, what about developing a reliable ambidextrous bullpup?
Seems the big demand is for smaller, more handy weapons as forces become more mechanized. An AUG with a 20' barrel is about the same length as an M4 with the stock retracted.

It's physics. You aren't gonna get the velocity out of 5.56x45 with a short barrel.

Posted: 5/18/2005 8:29:33 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
The 6.8X43mm deserves to be in our military inventory. It is a well thought out cartridge, and delivers more than the best current 5.56mm loads. Especially with the M4 platform and short barrels which seem to be the trend. Having said this I also believe the 5.56 will be around for some time. Our troupes need to have access to weapons and ammo whatever the mission.

As has been pointed out other countries are upgrading to engage targets to longer distances. This means they are dropping the spray and pray mentality of the battle field and have just upped the anti for us.

Joe

I for one believe there is a place for the 6.8 also in our inventory the posibilities for AP, tracer , a long range match and other specialized rounds are all possible and easier with a .277 dia.l over a .22 dia.

Posted: 5/18/2005 8:52:06 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Now today we are looking to return to something very close to what was offered over 50 years ago.

More than 50 years ago: try about 75. Don't forget the .276 Pederson (7x51) that was the Ordnance Board's choice for the Garand. The amount of stockpiled .30-06 led to the .30-06 Garand.

Posted: 5/18/2005 9:01:53 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Now today we are looking to return to something very close to what was offered over 50 years ago.

More than 50 years ago: try about 75. Don't forget the .276 Pederson (7x51) that was the Ordnance Board's choice for the Garand. The amount of stockpiled .30-06 led to the .30-06 Garand.

although I know you are right,
we did go to the 7.62X51(308) when there was a huge stockpile of 30-06 back in 1957. Then we went to the 5.56 when thier was a huge stock pile of .308, none of that made sense either

Posted: 5/18/2005 9:11:44 PM EDT

[#43]

This whole "cost prohibitive thing" is bullshit considering switching over would cost a LOT less than the cost of ONE F-22 Raptor.

Posted: 5/19/2005 5:25:12 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
In this war ,the enemies are insurgents.

In the next war, the enemies will probably be a modernized mechanized army with individual soldiers issued armour. Chinese, North Korea, and who knows, they might even be some countries well supplied by the French or Russians or even the Russian again.

A new service round needs to be adequate for the war right now and the future wars. The 6.8 sounds like a round that is addressing the needs of special operations and the war right now. however, it might not be adequate for the next war.

In the next war, we don't want to be caught half way through converting to a new cartridge that only gives a marginal improvement. If we need anything it's a new bullet for the 5.56, a piston system for the M4 and brand new SAWs.

Posted: 5/19/2005 6:05:49 AM EDT

[#45]

From what I've heard recently, the 6.8 has been shelved by the DOD.
Looks like it's 5.56 for years to come.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the M-16A4.
We should spend the money to put collapsable stocks on the 20" guns and just use them for urban combat. Hell, the Marines are by and large using the 20" guns in urban combat in standard configuration right now, and we don't seem to be having any problems. I think the problem is the M4, not the M16.

Posted: 5/19/2005 6:10:10 AM EDT

[#46]

What ever the military decides is better is ok with me, I just do not think it is in the best interest of the nation to let politics and cost be the controlling factors in the decision. I hope we are looking at the lessons learned from are armed conflicts and are moving ahead to what will be required in the future.

As far as adopting new weapons and ammo during times of war, it has been done in WW1, WW2, and Vietnam for example. Is this the best time for change I would have to say no, but it is when most changes seem to take place.

Joe

Posted: 5/19/2005 6:37:41 AM EDT

[#47]

1. You can carry a lot more rounds with 5.56. That matters - look at a lot of the battles in the monsoon (1960's).
2. I concur - most of the problem is the bullet. It's designed to go through armored vests, etc. , and as such will not yaw and break up until it's gone through a fairly large amount of tissue - not to be found in a lung shot, etc. It would NOT be hard to design a bullet that broke up more quickly. Look at the Russki 5.45mm. with the air space in the front of the bullet. Years ago I fired both 5.56mm. NATO and 5.45 Russian bullets into a phone book from 25 yards (admittedly not scientific, but indicative). The Russian bullet left an approximately 50% larger exit hole than the NATO bullet did and was obviously tumbling when it exited . Why can't the military issue both a "ball" round and the M855?
3. On the Maryland AR site there's an article discussing the supposed lack of killing power with NATO rounds. It destroys the claim that the 5.56 won't do the job. Look it up. It does seem that most of the problem lies with the lower velocity found in the M4 carbine.

Anecdote - I once shot a badger in the gut with the old 55-grain FMJ at about 300 yards. It eviscerated the animal (bad shot). Yes, I put it out of its misery with my next shot. and I've killed coyotes with single shots out to 450 yards with the same kind of bullet. Don't tell me the 5.56mm with proper bullet can't do the job.

Posted: 5/19/2005 7:18:18 AM EDT

[#48]

There are so many incorrect "facts" in this thread that my head is about to explode.

A few highlights:

- 5.56 bullets don't "tumble"
- M855 does NOT perform better at long range than at short range
- SS-109 bullets were NOT designed to penetrate body armor (penetrating the old steel helmet was a design goal)
- 6.8 SPC has been put on hold, along with many other programs, due to the money drain being caused by the WoT, not because it isn't a good idea.

www.ammo-oracle.com

-Troy

Posted: 5/19/2005 7:40:41 AM EDT

[#49]

Thank you Troy for clearing out some of the 'debris' from this thread.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:50:32 AM EDT

[#50]

I never said the 6.8 was a bad idea.
The 20" barreled M-16 is a fine weapon with decent stopping power using the current 55gr issue round.
The M4 does not work very well.
Once again, collapsable stocks on the long guns = problem solved, much money saved.
Seems to me the 6.8 proponents have an "If it ain't broke, fix it 'till it is" attitude.
Feel sorry for all those who jumped on that bandwagon and bought uppers, now the 6.8 seems doomed to the "obscure calibers" list. So much for cheap mil. surp ammo.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why 6.8 for U.S. Mil (Page 1 of 3)

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us