6.8 - why not replace 5.56 & 7.62 w/ 6.8?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 6.8 - why not replace 5.56 & 7.62 w/ 6.8?

Posted: 6/8/2009 11:21:11 PM EDT

after much reading, couldn't the 6.8 make the mil a 1 rnd setup (for non special applications and the smaller arms) from anything from pdw on up to what the .50 takes care of (leaving the .50 in use) using the base and manual of arms of the ar family? retrofitting seems easy enough.

has my reading mislead me?

Posted: 6/8/2009 11:58:33 PM EDT

[#1]

$$$$$$$$$ ,Politics and NATO Standardization interoperability agreements so it ain't gonna happen IMHO.

Posted: 6/9/2009 12:36:25 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
$$$$$$$$$ ,Politics and NATO Standardization interoperability agreements so it ain't gonna happen IMHO.

This. Plus, the DoD will probably demand a "revolutionary advance" to justify a smallarms cartridge change. Realistically, nothing is likely to meet their criteria for that, at least nothing currently available.

6.8mm SPC may be a big improvement in smallarms lethality from 5.56mm NATO, but is it a 100% or greater improvement? Not likely.

Posted: 6/9/2009 3:08:44 AM EDT

[#3]

Insufficient range to replace 308, unecessary weight and expense to change from 556.

Posted: 6/9/2009 3:45:04 AM EDT

[#4]

Because 6.5 Grendel is better?

Posted: 6/9/2009 7:08:55 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Because 6.5 Grendel is better?

beat me to it

Posted: 6/9/2009 8:30:48 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

beat me to it

It was like a $50 bill on the front steps of a crack house - it had to be picked up.

Posted: 6/9/2009 9:33:19 AM EDT

[#7]

6.8 cant do what 7.62x51 can do.

IMO they should standardize projectiles on 6.5 and use different cases for different roles.

Posted: 6/9/2009 7:13:54 PM EDT

[#8]

Price, availability, and standardization.

6.8 SPC isn't made in near the numbers 5.56 NATO is, costs more to make too. Not to mention the added costs to convert the current armory of weapons, train and retrain troops, combined with a budget cut.

Not to mention incompatibility with other NATO countries.

Posted: 6/9/2009 9:09:22 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

after much reading, couldn't the 6.8 make the mil a 1 rnd setup (for non special applications) from anything from pdw on up to what the .50 takes care of using the base and manual of arms of the ar family? retrofitting seems easy enough.

has my reading mislead me?

Replace the .50? Yes, your reading has misled you.

Posted: 6/10/2009 4:13:10 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

after much reading, couldn't the 6.8 make the mil a 1 rnd setup (for non special applications) from anything from pdw on up to what the .50 takes care of using the base and manual of arms of the ar family? retrofitting seems easy enough.

has my reading mislead me?

Replace the .50? Yes, your reading has misled you.

worded incorrectly, sorry, i am saying up to the .50, not the .50 but basically replace the 5.56 & 7.62 w/ 6.8 so there would be 9x19, 6.8 & .50. one would think w/ the size of the 6.8 it would be easy to retrofit other weapons for it like the m249 too.

Posted: 6/10/2009 4:17:36 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Price, availability, and standardization.

6.8 SPC isn't made in near the numbers 5.56 NATO is, costs more to make too. Not to mention the added costs to convert the current armory of weapons, train and retrain troops, combined with a budget cut.

Not to mention incompatibility with other NATO countries.

i am wondeing why the 6.8 isn't recommended for nato use? w/ nato standardization prices would drop just like (in any other political climate) other mil/surplus ammo.

there would not be much training since you are still uisng the same basic weapon

Posted: 6/10/2009 8:24:22 AM EDT

[#12]

I almost think that there could be a caliber change with the ramp up in Afghanistan.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124450375989595981.html

We dumped so much money into these MRAP vehicles because of the bad PR from the roadside bombs destroying hummers and we are dumping more money into fixing them to work in a different environment. If the 5.56 proves to be less than satisfactory in the vast mountainous terrain of Afghanistan(and its reported on) I could see them adopting the new caliber to silence complaints.

Posted: 6/10/2009 9:30:30 AM EDT

[#13]

We don’t necessarily need new calibers; we need better projectiles and training…

Posted: 6/10/2009 10:25:12 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
We don’t necessarily need new calibers; we need better projectiles and training…

Thats the more likely result that I see with the ramp up of Afghanistan- a new projectile. Perhaps they will standardize to a OTM bullet or just a heavier ball round without the penetrator.

Maybe then we would see some lower cost heavy rounds show up on the market!

Posted: 6/10/2009 1:53:14 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Insufficient range to replace 308, unecessary weight and expense to change from 556.

+1

until someone invents the phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range they wont be switching calibers anytime soon

Posted: 6/10/2009 7:22:46 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Because 6.5 Grendel is better?

I'm a 6.8 owner and fan, and I'd agree that 6.5 is better for long distance. Short bbls and less than 300M.....6.8 gets the nod.

Unfortunately, there's no magic do-it-all rifle round.

JMO,
Sean

Posted: 6/10/2009 9:16:14 PM EDT

[#17]

Because 6.8 is too heavy for general issue AR and SAW work, too light for GPMG and sniper use.

It does nothing better than 5.56 and 7.62 except deer hunting in brush with an AR15.

Posted: 6/10/2009 9:57:07 PM EDT

[#18]

Because honestly small arms are way down on the Army's (Big Army) priority list.

Modern doctrine is not actually to shoot the enemy, it's to shoot at the enemy and call in an airstrike. And lets face it, a JDAM has any small arm beat to death in terms of stopping power.

(as always, SOCOM will do whatever they think they need to do to get the job done)

Posted: 6/11/2009 8:59:33 AM EDT

[#19]

6.8 is really too light to be a good GPMG round, which is where the 7.62 sees most use.

Posted: 6/11/2009 10:24:51 PM EDT

[#20]

Funny thing,
The British were soundly kicked down for presenting the same question with a 7mm cartridge.
Ahh, the politics of fielding a successful killing cartridge,,,,,

Posted: 6/12/2009 11:52:51 AM EDT

[#21]

Think of all the trouble that would have been saved with the .270 Pedersen.

Posted: 6/16/2009 4:32:51 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Think of all the trouble that would have been saved with the .270 Pedersen.

Or 6.5x55 Swede

Posted: 6/16/2009 4:59:51 AM EDT

[#23]

Or the .280 British...

Posted: 6/16/2009 5:03:12 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
I almost think that there could be a caliber change with the ramp up in Afghanistan.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124450375989595981.html

We dumped so much money into these MRAP vehicles because of the bad PR from the roadside bombs destroying hummers and we are dumping more money into fixing them to work in a different environment. If the 5.56 proves to be less than satisfactory in the vast mountainous terrain of Afghanistan(and its reported on) I could see them adopting the new caliber to silence complaints.

thats becase the HMMWV was never designed as a combat vehicle, it replaced the willy jeep and was never intended to go up against land mines or IEDs. The military has been needing a seperate combat vehicle for quite some time now.

Posted: 6/16/2009 5:12:41 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I almost think that there could be a caliber change with the ramp up in Afghanistan.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124450375989595981.html

We dumped so much money into these MRAP vehicles because of the bad PR from the roadside bombs destroying hummers and we are dumping more money into fixing them to work in a different environment. If the 5.56 proves to be less than satisfactory in the vast mountainous terrain of Afghanistan(and its reported on) I could see them adopting the new caliber to silence complaints.

thats becase the HMMWV was never designed as a combat vehicle, it replaced the willy jeep M151 MUTT, Gamma Goats, and CUCVs, and was never intended to go up against land mines or IEDs. The military has been needing a seperate combat vehicle for quite some time now.

Fixed it for you. The Willys Jeep was replaced by the M151 beginning in 1959.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 6.8 - why not replace 5.56 & 7.62 w/ 6.8?

Armory » General Firearm Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us