# Army Selects 6.8mm



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

to replace 5.56.....



> The U.S. Army's chief of staff said Monday that its 6.8mm, next-generation weapons, slated to replace the M249 squad automatic weapon and the M4A1 carbine, will be able to penetrate any body armor on the battlefield.


6.5 Grendel is a better round, but 6.8 is a step in the right direction.

https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/10/08/army-chief-offers-new-details-68mm-next-gen-squad-weapons.html


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

Is that 6.8mm the 6.8SPC?

I thought they, the US Army, was pushing for the 6.5USA?

I foresee a lot of 5.56 hitting the market, until it runs out.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Interesting choice.


----------



## Elvis (Jun 22, 2018)

After reading the article they may be using a hotter round than the 6.8 SPC.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

WhatTheHeck said:


> Is that 6.8mm the 6.8SPC?
> 
> I thought they, the US Army, was pushing for the 6.5USA?
> 
> I foresee a lot of 5.56 hitting the market, until it runs out.


I do not foresee the 6.8 completely eliminating 5.56 from the Army's inventory. I could see 5.56 to continue to be used by support troops. If nothing else it would save a great deal of money.


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

RedLion said:


> I do not foresee the 6.8 completely eliminating 5.56 from the Army's inventory. I could see 5.56 to continue to be used by support troops. If nothing else it would save a great deal of money.


I agree.
Better to equip the front line troops with the new and improved gear and let the support personnel, whom rarely ever see combat, make do with what is on hand.

Someone in the US Army got tired of throwing good money away trying to improve the 5.56 i.e. the EPR, got smart and said,

"Lets start over."


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

WhatTheHeck said:


> I agree.
> Better to equip the front line troops with the new and improved gear and let the support personnel, whom rarely ever see combat, make do with what is on hand.
> 
> Someone in the US Army got tired of throwing good money away trying to improve the 5.56 i.e. the EPR, got smart and said,
> ...


People are quick to criticize the 5.56/M16 combo as being a wounding and not killing round. In the past that was more true than not. A tighter twist and better ammo does make it a killing platform and round. 1:7 twist and using heavier ammo 68-77grn ammo makes it a much better platform. With that said, 6.8mm is a better round.


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

RedLion said:


> People are quick to criticize the 5.56/M16 combo as being a wounding and not killing round. In the past that was more true than not. A tighter twist and better ammo does make it a killing platform and round. 1:7 twist and using heavier ammo 68-77grn ammo makes it a much better platform. With that said, 6.8mm is a better round.


Just looking over the 5.56 wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO

I understand the economic and logistical constraints of rechambering the DoD inventory of rifles to a better round.
Seems to me, it is like trying to spend a lot of money upgrading a Honda Civic to the performance of Shelby Cobra.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/army-moves-25b-to-big-six-including-new-6-8mm-rifle/



> The second will be a new Squad Automatic Rifle to replace the M16 and M4 - but only for frontline combat troops like infantry, special operations, and combat engineers. That's about 100,000 people: The vast majority of the Army, nearly 900,000 active, Guard, and Reserve soldiers, will stick with the M4 and M16


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Sooner or later the 30 caliber will come back around.
The only reason we were handcuffed with the 5.56 was the nature of jungle warfare in Vietnam.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

I just read about this in a new gun magazine.

Supposedly, the brain trust wanted the 6.5 but (something I don't quite understand) the 6.8 seems to be seated at a "more correct" depth. And I'm a reloader.

Someone is going to have to explain this to me.


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

The Tourist said:


> I just read about this in a new gun magazine.
> 
> Supposedly, the brain trust wanted the 6.5 but (something I don't quite understand) the 6.8 seems to be seated at a "more correct" depth. And I'm a reloader.
> 
> Someone is going to have to explain this to me.


That is odd.

Do you reload for 6.8SPC?

That is, if in fact the 6.8 round mentioned in the OP is the 6.8SPC.

Chamber pressures?

COL exceeding magazine lengths?


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

> The vast majority of the Army, nearly 900,000 active, Guard, and Reserve soldiers, will stick with the M4 and M16


Ah.
So those rifles will remain mostly in storage, only to be taken out once in awhile for qualifying.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

WhatTheHeck said:


> Ah.
> So those rifles will remain mostly in storage, only to be taken out once in awhile for qualifying.


For the Nasty Girls and Reservists when not deployed, but not for Active Duty....


> The vast majority of the Army, nearly 900,000 active


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Sooner or later the 30 caliber will come back around.
> The only reason we were handcuffed with the 5.56 was the nature of jungle warfare in Vietnam.


I doubt it. M240s will continue to be 7.62, but I doubt much else will ever be again. Rounds like the 6.8 and 6.5 Grendel and Creedmore are better performing rounds at longer range than .30 cal rounds are.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Sooner or later the 30 caliber will come back around.
> The only reason we were handcuffed with the 5.56 was the nature of jungle warfare in Vietnam.


I was kind of thinking the same thing, so many NATO members already use the 7.62x51//.308 and the US military already has some investment in that round.

I thought the reason we went to and stuck with the 5.56 was based on WW2 urban combat reports and the potential conflict with the Soviet Union in Europe.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

6.8mm is also a small frame AR platform so also smaller and lighter than the 7.62/.308 caliber would be. So the upper and magazines can be replaced to 6.8mm while keeping and using existing 5.56 lowers.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> I was kind of thinking the same thing, so many NATO members already use the 7.62x51//.308 and the US military already has some investment in that round.
> 
> I thought the reason we went to and stuck with the 5.56 was based on WW2 urban combat reports and the potential conflict with the Soviet Union in Europe.


The reason the Army and Marines got stuck with the M16 was Robert McNamara.
The Air Force was using AR15's for security personnel guarding flight lines. McNamera was fascinated by technology , and he and his "Whiz Kids" thought that given he close range of firefights in the jungles, the Armalite was just the thing. A soldier could carry a lot of ammo that was cheaper to produce than the 7.62 NATO, the rifles were cheaper to produce.

And that in a nutshell is how the M16 got foisted on Infantry riflemen.
To see a huge "Whiz Kids" abomination, simply google The McNamara Line. Our Brigade was one of the units involved in that Charlie Foxtrot.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

WhatTheHeck said:


> That is odd. Do you reload for 6.8SPC?


No, I've never even seen a real 6.8 cartridge or held one in my hand.

The article I read showed a cartridge cut in two, revealing how far the bullet was set. I must have read that a few times, and I'm not sure what they were driving at.

I do know (from the article) that the reason the brain trust wanted to go with the 6.5 was that there were numerous brass suppliers. But by the time the tests were over new manufacturers had appeared and were also producing 6.8 brass.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

6.8 is slightly skinnier than the 6.5 and has a smaller base which means more meat where the bolt locks up. That might not matter much on a civilian gun, but it might on a military rifle that sees a lot more rounds sent downrange. It might also effect how many rounds fit in a given space be it an ammo can, magazine, or depot.


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

RedLion said:


> For the Nasty Girls and Reservists when not deployed, but not for Active Duty....


So, for the rest of the Army, non-combat arms MOS, they will get carried around a lot, and never really used.


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

rice paddy daddy said:


> The reason the Army and Marines got stuck with the M16 was Robert McNamara.
> The Air Force was using AR15's for security personnel guarding flight lines. McNamera was fascinated by technology , and he and his "Whiz Kids" thought that given he close range of firefights in the jungles, the Armalite was just the thing. A soldier could carry a lot of ammo that was cheaper to produce than the 7.62 NATO, the rifles were cheaper to produce.
> 
> And that in a nutshell is how the M16 got foisted on Infantry riflemen.
> To see a huge "Whiz Kids" abomination, simply google The McNamara Line. Our Brigade was one of the units involved in that Charlie Foxtrot.


Robert McNamara, is a dirty word in my household.

That comes from my father and FIL whom was at the embassy in Saigon when it fell.

The word in your post that needs to be highlighted is, "cheap."
Per the Defense Acquisition cycle, ". . . the contract will be awarded to the candidate that meets the most requirements, at the lowest cost."

In short, your firearm was made by the lowest bidder. 
-Murphy.

Of course, the Operational Requirements Document dictates what those requirements are.


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

> Of course, the Operational Requirements Document dictates what those requirements are.


The SCAR trials are a good example.


----------



## Gunn (Jan 1, 2016)

If I remember correctly when I was at Benning they told us the reason we used the 5.56 was one wounded meant two to three out of commission. This was back in 71 so my memory may be fuzzy, but that sticks out. I tried to show a picture of a 6.5 Grendel beside a 6.8 SPC as I reload both. But my camera would not focus enough. I will try with my phone and attach it to this post.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/army-moves-25b-to-big-six-including-new-6-8mm-rifle/


to clarify.. the army reserves do not have any combat arms units.. the Army National guard has lots of combat arms


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Maine-Marine said:


> to clarify.. the army reserves do not have any combat arms units.. the Army National guard has lots of combat arms


Correct sir. Army Reserves supplement the active Army in a supportive manner.


----------



## GoodSam (Oct 1, 2018)

Knowing how slow the armed forces is in making changes and the costs involved I think I can safely say we will be awash in plenty of 5.56 for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Ok, so I just tossed all my 5.56 in the garbage, where do I get these here 6.8 cartridge thingies? :tango_face_grin:


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

Prepared One said:


> Ok, so I just tossed all my 5.56 in the garbage, where do I get these here 6.8 cartridge thingies? :tango_face_grin:


What's you address? I wouldn't want you to hurt your back taking that trash out.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Gunn said:


> If I remember correctly when I was at Benning they told us the reason we used the 5.56 was one wounded meant two to three out of commission. This was back in 71 so my memory may be fuzzy, but that sticks out. I tried to show a picture of a 6.5 Grendel beside a 6.8 SPC as I reload both. But my camera would not focus enough. I will try with my phone and attach it to this post.


Some of our enemies would not even slow down to take care of their wounded.
The instructor was just trying to make you feel better.


----------



## NewRiverGeorge (Jan 2, 2018)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Sooner or later the 30 caliber will come back around.
> The only reason we were handcuffed with the 5.56 was the nature of jungle warfare in Vietnam.


My dad has echoed this for years.

There is no replacement for displacement :tango_face_wink:


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Some of our enemies would not even slow down to take care of their wounded.
> The instructor was just trying to make you feel better.


That would be a good strategy if we were fighting the Germans in WWII.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Good choice, but here is what won't happen, they won't adopt the Gold Dot bullet for it. 
That is against the military way of thinking. If HP is banned by the Geneva or Hague Conventions, then it should be re-negotiated.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

jimb1972 said:


> What's you address? I wouldn't want you to hurt your back taking that trash out.


Yeaaaaa, I am thinking now I will keep all my 5.56. It will do the job in an urban setting and if I need bigger holes at longer ranges I will reach for my 308's. But hey! Thanks anyway. :tango_face_grin:


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

More info.....



> SIG SAUER has unveiled their new Belt-Fed machine gun. Originally developed to fire the 338 Norma Mag cartridge, a 7.62 NATO version was quickly developed and now they are prepared to accommodate the 6.8mm projectile and associated ballistic requirements of the US Army's Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle Other Transaction Authority (OTA) currently underway.
> 
> They also showed their newly developed Hybrid Ammo. It's a three-piece metallic design which offers 20% reduction in overall cartridge weight as well as increased velocity over conventionally produced ammunition. Even better, it works in existing weapon systems and can still be produced on current ammunition lines in any arsenal.



















SIG SAUER Unveils Belt-Fed Machine Gun, Carbine and Hybrid Ammunition - Next Generation Squad Weapon Candidates | RECOIL


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

RedLion said:


> More info.....
> 
> View attachment 83289
> 
> ...


Looks like something out of Star Wars.
The good ones.

Can you imagine sending downrange .338NM at machinegun rates?


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

WhatTheHeck said:


> Looks like something out of Star Wars.
> The good ones.
> 
> Can you imagine sending downrange .338NM at machinegun rates?


Yes as I have a good amount of experience shooting M240 7.62 and M2 .50 cal down range via tank mounted weapons and a tripod in the case of the M2.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Sooner or later the 30 caliber will come back around.
> The only reason we were handcuffed with the 5.56 was the nature of jungle warfare in Vietnam.


Good point. At the time the 5.56 came out and LBJ was getting the Viet Nam war cranked up..the gun magazines claimed light weight high velocity rounds were not the ideal choice for jungle warefare. One writer suggested 12 gauge shotguns with buck shot would be better. In fact seen a few pics from that era where thats what the smart folks were toting.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

Who'd a thunk those darn Swedes had it right 120 years ago with the 6.5x55?


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

jimb1972 said:


> Who'd a thunk those darn Swedes had it right 120 years ago with the 6.5x55?


LOL 

But I agree to the general notion that 6.x someting would make a lot of sence, 5.56 is just not cutting it.


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

RedLion said:


> Yes as I have a good amount of experience shooting M240 7.62 and M2 .50 cal down range via tank mounted weapons and a tripod in the case of the M2.


The MG240 was my favorite in the Marines. 
Get some!


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

Swedishsocialist said:


> LOL
> 
> But I agree to the general notion that 6.x someting would make a lot of sence, 5.56 is just not cutting it.


You are correct.
As is evident by the US Army decision.


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

There was just nothing wrong with.308, and the m14 was and is EXCELLENT.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Swedishsocialist said:


> LOL
> 
> But I agree to the general notion that 6.x someting would make a lot of sence, 5.56 is just not cutting it.


Those Swedish yuppin yimminies make good knives too. I love my Forschner Victornox 6" curved boner with fibrox handle. Also my Chefs Knife..Granton Slicer and paring knife. Wonder why the military dont like 7 mm. Thats was supposed to be a the grand prize winner on ballistic coefficent contests. Wide assortment of bullet weights available etc. Got to clowning around found this link which some gun nuts might enjoy. Hey maybe the 6.5 is a 7mm. Who knows?
https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/7mm-the-ideal-military-caliber/9905


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/new-army-bullets-bigger-bolder-and-harder-hitting



> The 5.56mm has been short on enough mass to defeat advanced body armor. The larger current option, the 7.62mm bullets, are short on propellant with too much mass.


Interesting. It begs the question are the taticool elite going to be jumping ship from the 5.56 like they did with the .40 when the FBI switched back to the 9mm. The 5.56, .308, and .40 are good enough for me.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/tech/new-army-bullets-bigger-bolder-and-harder-hitting
> 
> Interesting. It begs the question are the taticool elite going to be jumping ship from the 5.56 like they did with the .40 when the FBI switched back to the 9mm. The 5.56, .308, and .40 are good enough for me.


The 6.8mm has had a decent size following with civilians for some time already. It would likely depend more on ammo availability than anything else, as other more popular AR calibers such as the 6.5 Grendel and 6.5 creedmore are better rounds than the 6.8mm and both are more popular.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

RedLion said:


> The 6.8mm has had a decent size following with civilians for some time already. It would likely depend more on ammo availability than anything else, as other more popular AR calibers such as the 6.5 Grendel and 6.5 creedmore are better rounds than the 6.8mm and both are more popular.


I really see this becoming a win/win for the military and law enforcement. When the 5.56 was selected troop level body armor really wasn't a thing and the 55 grain 5.56 is devastating to flesh and bone targets. Today with the advent of cheaper, stronger, and more available body armor means there needs to be an evolution in battlefield weapons. On the other hand most criminals don't wear body armor and rifles are expensive so small city/small county LEO's really could benefit from an influx of M4 Carbines remanded to them. I really suspect the "new" weapons are going to be M4's and M249's re chambered in the new round, at least for now. It just makes too much sense, the platforms work well with the caliber being the major issue. Then again that would be common sense and we know how the government feels about common sense.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

They have not as I understand it picked a version of the 6.8 yet. What we may see is a hybrid 6.8. The current off the shelf 6.8 does not do what they want. It appears the m4 and SAW 249 platform will not stand up to the round they are looking for. Don't hold your breath for them to start being issued.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> I really see this becoming a win/win for the military and law enforcement. When the 5.56 was selected troop level body armor really wasn't a thing and the 55 grain 5.56 is devastating to flesh and bone targets. Today with the advent of cheaper, stronger, and more available body armor means there needs to be an evolution in battlefield weapons. On the other hand most criminals don't wear body armor and rifles are expensive so small city/small county LEO's really could benefit from an influx of M4 Carbines remanded to them. I really suspect the "new" weapons are going to be M4's and M249's re chambered in the new round, at least for now.


I doubt that anyone will argue with giving our troops a more powerful round. 5.56 with a larger grn bullet such as 77grn are harder hitting than the 55 and 62 grn rounds. Also, the plan is to arm combat arms troops with the 6.8mm while keeping other troops using the 5.56.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> They have not as I understand it picked a version of the 6.8 yet. What we may see is a hybrid 6.8. The current off the shelf 6.8 does not do what they want. It appears the m4 and SAW 249 platform will not stand up to the round they are looking for. Don't hold your breath for them to start being issued.


I saw its going to be at least a year because congress didn't fund it for this one. I also saw that they where going with a different 6.8.

What's interesting as well that was mentioned is this change would make the US arsenal incompatible with other NATO nations that don't have the infrastructure or political will to go to a different round.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Smitty901 said:


> They have not as I understand it picked a version of the 6.8 yet. What we may see is a hybrid 6.8. The current off the shelf 6.8 does not do what they want. It appears the m4 and SAW 249 platform will not stand up to the round they are looking for. Don't hold your breath for them to start being issued.


The M4 lower receivers can still be used when switching to the 6.8mm as they are both small frame and the lowers are identical. I do not know for certain, but would guess that the 249 could be modified to run the 6.8mm, but it may not make sense to do that.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

I'm also wondering if the new platform selected is going to be something like this
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/05/15/184223110/new-rifle-on-sale

Smart rifles have come down in price since 2013 and they make things stupidly easy by taking as much of the human element out as they can.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> I'm also wondering if the new platform selected is going to be something like this
> https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/05/15/184223110/new-rifle-on-sale
> 
> Smart rifles have come down in price since 2013 and they make things stupidly easy by taking as much of the human element out as they can.


No. Too expensive and something else that could break.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

RedLion said:


> The M4 lower receivers can still be used when switching to the 6.8mm as they are both small frame and the lowers are identical. I do not know for certain, but would guess that the 249 could be modified to run the 6.8mm, but it may not make sense to do that.


 Army has already said that was not their intent


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Smitty901 said:


> Army has already said that was not their intent


And you are prepared to just readily believe that given their history of starting, stopping and changing programs and weapons contracts? Just recently their plan for SMG's changed for the nteenth time.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

RedLion said:


> And you are prepared to just readily believe that given their history of starting, stopping and changing programs and weapons contracts? Just recently their plan for SMG's changed for the nteenth time.


I have a bigger concern and that is as of now none of the other branches are playing a part of this. That is why I say don't get to excited yet.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

smart rifles have been around for some time...
Whether the market can handle the items is pointless, as some will pay for it..
6.8SPC? I or II was sopken of while I was still in service in 2012 as round some groups were looking hard at.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

I like the m14 308. However it is to heavy to long and to bulky Period. Old weapon for a different time. Today's infantry need smaller lighter weapons That is why the m16 came to be and why it devolved into the M4. The M4 met the needs.Just as the time came to replace the 1903 ,the M1, the M14 the time will come to replace the M4. In our past politics played a bigger role than it does now. The desire to protect Springfield and not rock the boat played a role in choices made. 
many forget the 240 and the M60 are about the same age. The m60 was chosen over the 240 because it was slightly lighter and politics the different version of the 240 had some issues . The M60 was a very effective and reliable machine gun. As it aged the 240 came to the top mainly because of Squad level machine guns like the SAW 249 replacing the need for a larger machine gun. never forget a Soldier has to carry these weapons. Every single pound madders. If a weapons gains weight if ammo gets heavier some thing else must be trimmed.
The 249 SAW was and is a reliable effective Squad level machine gun, that does not mean that modern tech can not do better. A move I am not fully in agreement with to make the rifleman's weapon full auto again is in some way aimed at reducing the need for Squad level machine gun. I disagree with that view. Full Auto weapons waste ammo and a soldier can only carry so much. 
The infantry soldier has no need for a weapon that can shoot effectively at 2000 meters. They need a simple reliable, light weight small weapon 0 to 500 yards. We have other weapons to deal with 500 and beyond.
Want to put holes in body armor 30.06 there is a blast from the past. Find a box of old black tip and go to the range. 
As for the mythical AK . At range we were not over concerned about it. It did not have the stand off and it lost penetration very quickly.


----------



## Notold63 (Sep 18, 2016)

RedLion said:


> I do not foresee the 6.8 completely eliminating 5.56 from the Army's inventory. I could see 5.56 to continue to be used by support troops. If nothing else it would save a great deal of money.


I strongly disagree with the whole concept of "support troops" being armed with a different caliber or type of weapon then "front line" troops. History is full of examples of when "support" troops found themselves on the front lines acting as Infantrymen. For examples of this look up the fighting in the Pacific or the Battle of the Bulge during WW2, Task force Walker or the siege of Pusan during the Korean War, or the Tet offensive during Vietnam.

There are desperate times when every warm body is needed to defend a position. First it would be a logistic nightmare if you had mixed troops on the front lines with different calibers of their main battle rifles. Secondly, what do you think the non Infantry troops who not only are not as well trained for the mission as the others with them, but their battle rifles are inferior will react? IMO their self confidence and morale, already shaky, would be even lower, perhaps disastrously so.

This is just the opinion of an old Infantryman who has just a little bit of knowledge of history.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Notold63 said:


> I strongly disagree with the whole concept of "support troops" being armed with a different caliber or type of weapon then "front line" troops. History is full of examples of when "support" troops found themselves on the front lines acting as Infantrymen. For examples of this look up the fighting in the Pacific or the Battle of the Bulge during WW2, Task force Walker or the siege of Pusan during the Korean War, or the Tet offensive during Vietnam.
> 
> There are desperate times when every warm body is needed to defend a position. First it would be a logistic nightmare if you had mixed troops on the front lines with different calibers of their main battle rifles. Secondly, what do you think the non Infantry troops who not only are not as well trained for the mission as the others with them, but their battle rifles are inferior will react? IMO their self confidence and morale, already shaky, would be even lower, perhaps disastrously so.
> 
> This is just the opinion of an old Infantryman who has just a little bit of knowledge of history.


I am not saying that it is the best of ideas, but a likely outcome. It has been somewhat common in the Army for many years. 5.56 is also the NATO standard as well.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

RedLion said:


> I am not saying that it is the best of ideas, but a likely outcome. It has been somewhat common in the Army for many years. 5.56 is also the NATO standard as well.


NATO presents problems to weapons system of all types . They are the reason we adopted the 9MM . With a strong president hey will follow us not us them.
Any Army needs common ammo and basic parts supply across the board. How many have forgotten the .223 did penetrate light steel well.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Smitty901 said:


> NATO presents problems to weapons system of all types . They are the reason we adopted the 9MM . With a strong president hey will follow us not us them.
> Any Army needs common ammo and basic parts supply across the board. How many have forgotten the .223 did penetrate light steel well.


the 62grn green tip penetrator does a pretty good job penetrating body armor and many vehicles. Watch what it does on concrete blocks.


----------



## Elvis (Jun 22, 2018)

Both the 5.56 and 6.8 penetrate well but the 6.8 with it's greater frontal area will cause the target to bleed out faster and hold more energy at longer ranges.

Our military has learned just how long a person hit with a 22 caliber bullet, even with a serious hit can continue to fight. The 6.8 just gives more bullet volume and weight to allow for something like a larger penetrator like the SS-109 has with minimum ammo weight gain. In addition the 6.8 switchover doesn't require a new weapon platform, just a different upper.

With today's shorter barrels and heavier bullets (lower velocity) the 5.56 has lost much of it's cavitation damage in the wound channel.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

RedLion said:


> the 62grn green tip penetrator does a pretty good job penetrating body armor and many vehicles. Watch what it does on concrete blocks.


 Pretty well known in many cases the .223 55gr punched steel better. The AP on the 62rg green tip was more about what it did to the targeted body that other objects. That was a part of the issue with .223 55gr fire out of a 20 inch 1-12 or 1-14 it stabilized to well and rifled through rather than cause the damage it should. The 77gr was the next option they looked at and it was used . However not enough of an advantage to go full issue and some times feed issues as 77gr was approaching the limit of mag and feeding.
To get to 77gr the bullet was longer.
We must clear this up again the .223 is NOT a .22 it is based on the hunting round center fire .222 not as common any more but once was.


----------



## Elvis (Jun 22, 2018)

Smitty901 said:


> We must clear this up again the .223 is NOT a .22 it is based on the hunting round center fire .222 not as common any more but once was.


But the .223 has a frontal area of .223", basically the same frontal area as a 22LR.
The 6.8 has a frontal area of .277 which is 19% larger and double the bullet weight for greater retained energy.at long distance. I wish the case capacity was a few grains larger but as I understand it the size of the bolt face limited case size.


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

Seems to me, the Army spent a whole lot of money on the EPR, just to now go with a 6.8 round?
If you have read any of the briefings on the EPR, there is a lot of buzz words like improved.
https://www.scribd.com/document/54709593/EPR-Briefing

I guess they could not polish that turd anymore.

I read a few after action reports on weapons performance in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The M249SAW was noted to have a lot of jamming.
Reports of reliability issues with M16/M4s. Nothing could be substantiated. The reliability issues were attributed to cleaning routines.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Elvis said:


> But the .223 has a frontal area of .223", basically the same frontal area as a 22LR.
> The 6.8 has a frontal area of .277 which is 19% larger and double the bullet weight for greater retained energy.at long distance. I wish the case capacity was a few grains larger but as I understand it the size of the bolt face limited case size.


 Pull a bullet from a 5.56 or .223 pull one for your .22 rim fire look at them. Then go out back shoot a rabbit for dinner with the .22 fire it up shoot one with the .223 or 5.56 scrapes.
They started the crap about a .223 m16 being nothing but a .22 the day the M16 was built . It has just gotten more and more press from then on . It is 100% false.
It came from the .222 center fire that latter became the Remington .223 center fire .
The 6.8 as it is now is Not except-able to the US Army that is what they are working on is refining it to met their goal. This is not new they have been at it a long time.


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

Looking at SAAMI specs, they look pretty close to me:

https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Z299-1_ANSI-SAAMI_Rimfire.pdf#page=8

https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Z299-4_ANSI-SAAMI_CFR.pdf#page=13


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

WhatTheHeck said:


> Seems to me, the Army spent a whole lot of money on the EPR, just to now go with a 6.8 round?
> If you have read any of the briefings on the EPR, there is a lot of buzz words like improved.
> https://www.scribd.com/document/54709593/EPR-Briefing
> 
> ...


249 Saw functioned as it should. Most issues are operator error. The M4 is pretty much flawless in function. Often what happens is weapon is cleaned when it should not be and assembled wrong . Common one is gas ring turned and the slots all lined up. Losing spring in extractor ect. When using damaged magazines in it some feed issues do come up . But using a rifle mag in the SAW is pretty much a last resort. It was not a recommend practices.
Most often all that is needed it knock off carbon and lube. The M4 is a DI weapon all gases blow back through the weapon, that is why O like the Gas piston versions . But both have good and negative.


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

From my personal experience, the M16 and all its variants, are extremely dirty, and require high levels of cleaning to keep them functioning reliably. 

Hence, I would not own one in a SHTF situation.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

WhatTheHeck said:


> From my personal experience, the M16 and all its variants, are extremely dirty, and require high levels of cleaning to keep them functioning reliably.
> 
> Hence, I would not own one in a SHTF situation.


 But you have repeated the misconception that has lingered for years. They really do not require a detailed clean that often. Even Colt recommended not cleaning the barrel less than 500 rounds. As for the bolt knock carbon down, lube and go.
All DI type weapon push gas back through the weapon that is how they work. Many AR malfunction of years ago were caused by junk mags.


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

Smitty901 said:


> But you have repeated the misconception that has lingered for years. They really do not require a detailed clean that often. Even Colt recommended not cleaning the barrel less than 500 rounds. As for the bolt knock carbon down, lube and go.
> All DI type weapon push gas back through the weapon that is how they work. Many AR malfunction of years ago were caused by junk mags.


Personal experience is not misconception.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

WhatTheHeck said:


> Personal experience is not misconception.


 Personal experience is carrying the platform for 23 years as issue weapon and another 20 plus as personal weapon. And as a master gunner instructor.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

WhatTheHeck said:


> From my personal experience, the M16 and all its variants, are extremely dirty, and require high levels of cleaning to keep them functioning reliably.
> 
> Hence, I would not own one in a SHTF situation.


I don't think they need high levels of cleaning, especially if you have a gas piston rifle as I do. I also don't care if you're carrying an AR or a bolt gun, at some point you're going to have to break it down and clean it or its going to be worthless other than a club.



Smitty901 said:


> Personal experience is carrying the platform for 23 years as issue weapon and another 20 plus as personal weapon. And as a master gunner instructor.


Correct me if I'm wrong. The way I understand it is there really isn't too many complaints about the platform or the cartridge except in the Iraq/Afghan theater when at times there where engagements beyond the effective range of the 5.56. The response to this was to bring the M14 stockpile out of mothballs and issue in small numbers to compensate.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

I have 2 DI AR15's and 22 AR 15 pistons. Pistons are a lot cleaner. Pistons need the piston rod section cleaned eventually.
Now, when I run suppressed, the cleanest is my PWS Piston gun, but they all get nasty real quick.. Within 300 rounds. 
If I have to go 300 rounds in a real time situation, I am screwed either way.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Steve40th said:


> I have 2 DI AR15's and 22 AR 15 pistons. Pistons are a lot cleaner. Pistons need the piston rod section cleaned eventually.
> Now, when I run suppressed, the cleanest is my PWS Piston gun, but they all get nasty real quick.. Within 300 rounds.
> If I have to go 300 rounds in a real time situation, I am screwed either way.


 Yes the Gas piston ones I own are sure easy to clean if even needed. Downside more parts and not as common.


----------

