The Army has selected 6.8mm as the new common round for both its SAW and M4 replacement

[P7M13]

The article said 6.8, but in the video, the T head said 6.5. 6.5 WOA? i.e. the 6.8 necked down to 6.5mm.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Snowflakes these days can't deal with recoil.

ROTFLMAO!

 

[The Heretic]

I never understood the whole 7.62X51 "Problem" it's a great round and the weapons chambered for it are mostly good!

Rant Over:

7.62x51 is good for a 'Battle Rifle', but for an 'Assault Rifle' it has too much recoil for full auto fire in a light rifle, and the ammo is too heavy for a general infantry load out along with a rifle than can handle the recoil in full auto (e.g., M60).

In short, the Soviets and the Germans (and later the Brits, and some of the other NATO countries) had it right; what the infantry needs is an intermediate power cartridge. We went with the 7.62x51 because of the ego of one US military officer (forget his name) who was determined that whatever happened, the next NATO rifle cartridge would be full power and designed by the US military, and no one else.

 

[Ura-Ki]

7.62x51 is good for a 'Battle Rifle', but for an 'Assault Rifle' it has too much recoil for full auto fire in a light rifle, and the ammo is too heavy for a general infantry load out along with a rifle than can handle the recoil in full auto (e.g., M60).

In short, the Soviets and the Germans (and later the Brits, and some of the other NATO countries) had it right; what the infantry needs is an intermediate power cartridge. We went with the 7.62x51 because of the ego of one US military officer (forget his name) who was determined that whatever happened, the next NATO rifle cartridge would be full power and designed by the US military, and no one else.

Agreed, and your correct! The problem is, that officer was 100% correct. The Accepted theory after all the studies of WW-2 were incorrect, and history has proved this. Accurately aimed rifle fire was and is responsible for far far more enemy casualties then the so called Storm rifle concept in every fighting situation. The theory of an intermediate chambering sounds great, but history has proven it incorrect, its why we have both versions of the SAW, it's why in several instances 7.62X51 rifles ( usually old retired M-14s) were reissued in place of the M-4 and why now they are looking for a more effective chambering. The best idea would be a light weight compact rifle chambered for full power 7.62X51 and PROPER TRAINING in it's employment. In WW-2, we had the M-1 Garand, and it flat out worked every time and performed exactly as intended, solders were properly trained in its use, care and feeding, and the enemies feared it. Short range and urban engagements were no problem for the M-1 and that rifle is Legend for good reason! Sure, the smaller, mid range weapons work, and some times they even work great, but they are limited by their range and stopping power. Only a Fool would choose one of these to go fight a war. I am highly biased here, I make no bones about it, I had to fight with a M-16/M-4 and I can tell you it was very ineffective and the performance at range was dismal. Many many U.S. Mil have lost their lives because their weapon failed to stop an enemy decisively. It's extremely frustrating to be engaged by an enemy at a range greater then your weapon can be employed, leaving you three choices, get closer, let him move in closer to you, or call in an supporting strike! That's a pretty noneffective way to fight, having to call in air support when a more effective rifle is all that would be needed. Saw it many times, a M-14 could reach the enemy and change the fighting from defensive to offensive with a single rifle!

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Awww...Its all been down hill since they quit using these rifles :

Gotta run....
Andy

 

[Medic!]

Heck Andy. They want to go to caseless ammo.
That there rifle is cutting edge!

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Heck Andy. They want to go to caseless ammo.
That there rifle is cutting edge!

That rifle I pictured...uses caseless ammo , Just powder , patch and ball.....
Andy

 

[DirectDrive]

Or they could just go with the already tried and true 7.62x39... just saying.

The enemy's cartridge ?
Ain't never gonna happen.

Born in the 90's eh ?

 

[DirectDrive]

I understand that it will not be the 6.8SPC. They are going to use a much more powerful cartridge than the 6.8SPC. Someone in the Army in another article said hat it will defeat any body armor in existence and that it is "really fast." I have read threads in forums on other sites than indicate a 125gr bullet at 3,500fps but I just can't believe that. The recoil would be too great for an M4 replacement. That's 3,400 fpe at the muzzle.

The Grendel people were getting suicidal so the gummint put that out to calm them down.

 

[Medic!]

The enemy's cartridge ?
Ain't never gonna happen.

More likely the Russians will change to our round.
They basically did that with the AK-74.

Wouldn't be surprised if they call it the AK-20

 

[Ura-Ki]

That @AndyinEverson feller is way ahead of his time ain't he?
What he really needs is one of these here modern repeaters with it's caseless rounds!

 

[Medic!]

Or this.

 

[The Courier]

The enemy's cartridge ?
Ain't never gonna happen.

Born in the 90's eh ?

The Russians basically mirrored the 556 with the 545 so it wouldn't be that much of a stretch, and yes just turned 28 on October 5th.

 

[Geardo]

Agreed, and your correct! The problem is, that officer was 100% correct. The Accepted theory after all the studies of WW-2 were incorrect, and history has proved this. Accurately aimed rifle fire was and is responsible for far far more enemy casualties then the so called Storm rifle concept in every fighting situation. The theory of an intermediate chambering sounds great, but history has proven it incorrect, its why we have both versions of the SAW, it's why in several instances 7.62X51 rifles ( usually old retired M-14s) were reissued in place of the M-4 and why now they are looking for a more effective chambering. The best idea would be a light weight compact rifle chambered for full power 7.62X51 and PROPER TRAINING in it's employment. In WW-2, we had the M-1 Garand, and it flat out worked every time and performed exactly as intended, solders were properly trained in its use, care and feeding, and the enemies feared it. Short range and urban engagements were no problem for the M-1 and that rifle is Legend for good reason! Sure, the smaller, mid range weapons work, and some times they even work great, but they are limited by their range and stopping power. Only a Fool would choose one of these to go fight a war. I am highly biased here, I make no bones about it, I had to fight with a M-16/M-4 and I can tell you it was very ineffective and the performance at range was dismal. Many many U.S. Mil have lost their lives because their weapon failed to stop an enemy decisively. It's extremely frustrating to be engaged by an enemy at a range greater then your weapon can be employed, leaving you three choices, get closer, let him move in closer to you, or call in an supporting strike! That's a pretty noneffective way to fight, having to call in air support when a more effective rifle is all that would be needed. Saw it many times, a M-14 could reach the enemy and change the fighting from defensive to offensive with a single rifle!

You have more experience then I ever will, so no disrespect intended, but we need to make sure we are examing the total system and not just the gun or the cartridge.

For example, just as I have heard horror stories about the innefective m4 firing m193 or m855 at ranges above 100 yards, I have heard of great success stories with soldiers with a 18" SPR loaded with mk262 and a good scope.

The m16 was designed with a 20" barrel, and we chopped half a foot off and loaded it with crap ammo and complain about it not working.

I think training, ammo type selection, and optics are more important than caliber.

All that being said, we should probably be using something like 6.5 G or .224 V with a nice 18-20" barrel and a scope in the open hills, and give guys a seperate 12" upper for kicking doors.

 

[Ura-Ki]

You have more experience then I ever will, so no disrespect intended, but we need to make sure we are examing the total system and not just the gun or the cartridge.

For example, just as I have heard horror stories about the innefective m4 firing m193 or m855 at ranges above 100 yards, I have heard of great success stories with soldiers with a 18" SPR loaded with mk262 and a good scope.

The m16 was designed with a 20" barrel, and we chopped half a foot off and loaded it with crap ammo and complain about it not working.

I think training, ammo type selection, and optics are more important than caliber.

All that being said, we should probably be using something like 6.5 G or .224 V with a nice 18-20" barrel and a scope in the open hills, and give guys a seperate 12" upper for kicking doors.

No worries! My experience brings these short comings into sharp focus. I loved the "Old" A2 HBAR with 203, but the weight put me equal to a good 7.62X51! I'm not going to say the 7.62 is the be all, end all, but its here and its proven, and we also have 50+years of proven performance. Given a choice, I would have chosen an AR-10 and been happy. We had high hopes for the .45 SOCOM, and especially a bullpup in that chambering, but politics put that dream out of reach! SO, we got stuck with the M-4 and every thing that went with it, for good or ill, that's what we got! Once we got approval to run the M1A/M-21, every thing changed for the better, except the whole size thing, Training took care of all the other issues. With a SAW 249, we rocked it! As far as the total system, we found the 7.62 strait across the board really changed the game for us! It may have not worked elsewhere in the "Normal" Military, but we didn't operate on those terms. for us having a single caliber was far more useful, and having the punch kept us light and quick and didn't require large amounts of ammo, even for extended periods on the line.
It all comes down to choosing the most effective weapon and cambering and then TRAINING the men that fight with it to use it properly!

 

[coop44]

I say what the heck, the 30-40 and the '06 were both viable man stoppers. Start issuing '98 Springfield rifles and garands again.

Sadly it just costs too much to build a decent rifle today.

maybe we should start churning out .45 grease guns and 9mm stens. Not very accurate but they could throw a ton o bullets downrange quickly. Of course they are a hoot to shoot.

 

[Tony617]

I say what the heck, the 30-40 and the '06 were both viable man stoppers. Start issuing '98 Springfield rifles and garands again.

Sadly it just costs too much to build a decent rifle today.

maybe we should start churning out .45 grease guns and 9mm stens. Not very accurate but they could throw a ton o bullets downrange quickly. Of course they are a hoot to shoot.

It is called "Spray and Pray"

 

[MrMillspecer]

Plastic case and linked clip, how do they work for the mobile guy with 7, 30 round mags ? They say they have controlled the heat . How ? And I agree with others, it won't happen fast if at all.

 

[DirectDrive]

Hopefully they know the history of the early M16 failures and don't repeat that.

 

[MrMillspecer]

It's funny that with bad powder and no cleaning kits, and failure is blamed on the platform. It's the most reliable semi have used .