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

Discussion in 'Rifle Discussion' started by Honor, Oct 9, 2018.

Tags:
  1. P7id10T

    P7id10T
    Dysfunction
    Turlututu chapeau pointu Gold Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    3,635
    Likes Received:
    7,808
    Yep, they'll copy it, just like their comrades from the Southeast.
     
  2. Boboclown

    Boboclown
    North Carolina
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    6,496
    Likes Received:
    12,045
    There was the XM4, which was renamed M4 in 1991 (or so).
    They’ll just make another AK. Which we’ll buy and then send to “rebel allies.”
     
    P7id10T likes this.
  3. CamoDeafie

    CamoDeafie
    Albany
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,105
    Likes Received:
    3,469
    according to the information I could find, the M4 system entered service in 1994. Looks like indeed, there was the XM4 from 1984...based on the Model 653 M16A1 Carbine/CAR-15 carbines (14.5" barrels and .223 rem chambered)
     
  4. E4mafia

    E4mafia
    super secret
    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    604
    So i take it this means we might finally get some more future looking guns and one step slightly closer to space age gats? Ammo sounds decent but as pointed out before the video says 6.5 but is listed as 6.8?

    Either way so long as a bullet travels and can hit something at 300meters someone will still duck their head down when being suppressed plus we've got the god send known as a M2 50cal machine gun and a Mk19 40mm automatic grenade launcher. failing those we have the god blessed 155's and air assets. Failing all of that just drop a JDAM/MOAB/TOMAHAWK

    Sounds about right for the Army.

    Im tired of M4 clones, only unique one i've seen in awhile is the SCAR everything else is AK or AR with a body kit.

    Oh and I'd likely think whatever they do make up for prototypes it'll only get used by some SF and maybe a few Ranger units to field, if it does ok they may adopt it but i doubt this will end up on the conventional light infantry side.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018
  5. CamoDeafie

    CamoDeafie
    Albany
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,105
    Likes Received:
    3,469
    Yeah.. but let us be honest here.... is there any chance of a bullpup type ever becoming U.S. govt issue, like the L85A1, AUG, FAMAS did for their respective countries? Probably not. Otherwise, there's no real difference except in operation systems... there seems to be a good issue of the piston system on a M4 style bolt, that of causing bolt carriers to tilt and thus wear asymmetrically.... (showing Stoner's genius in how he approached his gas system)

    Otherwise.... you either have gas piston system, direct impingement, delayed blowback, and then you have rotary bolt head or tilting bolt. Highly doubt the Mil would ever accept something like a recoil operated system (Remington Model 8/81 or a much smaller scale version of Browning 1917) on the basis of accuracy and weight...
    Then there's the question of magazine compatibility, if there's a chance of getting the rest of NATO to come together and accept a whole new system....:rolleyes: Of course, NATO accepting the caseless 6.5 or 6.8 design could mean a much bigger contract for the companies involved..and possibly lower overall costs if NATO member countries would be willing to chip in for R&D costs and prototyping and testing :rolleyes:
    See, that's probably a huge reason why we haven't gotten much replacements for some items....because the R&D is basically done, and NATO members have standardized on whatever they have decided.

    The recent 7.62x51 interim rifle contract has been cancelled, in favor of just going full speed ahead on this avenue that may or may not work out to be good in the long run :oops:

    Honestly, I would be fine with say, a 6.5 or 6.8mmm version of the .308 Winchester....even if it means upsizing the standard carbine magazines and carbines to 308 size..... but the benefits I can think of would be basically improved ballistics and still keeping the thumping good energy afforded by the 308 case......


    on the other hand, what's the ballistics look like for either the 6mm AR or 6.5mm AR rounds? I know one of these two is currently not offered commercially..but maybe good idea?
     
  6. coop44

    coop44
    Tacoma ,WA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,894
    Likes Received:
    1,461
    6.5 would likely mimic the Swedish mauser round in performance and accuracy. Not bad. What was old is now new again.

    100 gr. 3100fps
    170 gr. 2500fps

    Using a .308 case and modern powders this is likely doable. Pressures shouldn't be to high probably no more than the 50k cup range. AR10 should handle this and provide a familiar platform.

    Of course it will take billions for the government to reach the same conclusion.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
  7. tac

    tac
    UK, Oregon and Ontario.
    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    4,197
    Likes Received:
    10,233

    Whooooooaaaa there!!!!!!! Slow down on all them technicalities already!!!
     
    Certaindeaf likes this.
  8. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf
    SE Portland
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    13,451
    Likes Received:
    24,635
    Its got joules, man!
     
    DirectDrive likes this.
  9. Boboclown

    Boboclown
    North Carolina
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    6,496
    Likes Received:
    12,045
    Nah, lack of adjustable stocks or some other third reason would become the reason why top brass will say no.
     
  10. Swiss_Cheeze

    Swiss_Cheeze
    Pnw
    Active Member

    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    165
    Hopefully this will not go down the path that uniforms did. What a mess
     
  11. DirectDrive

    DirectDrive
    Vancouver, WA
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter 2017 Volunteer

    Messages:
    3,401
    Likes Received:
    6,061
    I wunnerif you can reload the joules ?
    I wonder if you can reload the joules ?
    Them joules is some Big Medicine .
     
    Certaindeaf likes this.
  12. Tony617

    Tony617
    Washington State
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    1,993
  13. tac

    tac
    UK, Oregon and Ontario.
    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    4,197
    Likes Received:
    10,233
    1. Log on to Youtube.

    2. Type in 'Forgotten Weapons'.

    3. Select British EM2'.

    4. Watch end to end.

    5. Shake head in wonder...................
     
    Tony617 likes this.
  14. Tony617

    Tony617
    Washington State
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    1,993
    Wow yes that was an interesting video. I saw the second part here he was firing a few rounds.
     
  15. dwaineshort

    dwaineshort
    Vancouver WA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    620
    Likes Received:
    373
    What year did the M16 become our main service rifle?
     
  16. DLS

    DLS
    Battle Ground
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    484
    1964
     
  17. Boboclown

    Boboclown
    North Carolina
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    6,496
    Likes Received:
    12,045
    In the 60s. The M16/M4 being issued is part recoil, part firepower. More of the latter than the former. The U.S didn’t make a mistake going with an intermediate cartridge, they made the mistake of going with one too late and with one that didn’t have the oomph that previously designed cartridges, like the .280 British, had.

    The Serbians are going 6.5 Grendel with theirs.
     
  18. dwaineshort

    dwaineshort
    Vancouver WA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    620
    Likes Received:
    373
    I know when the AR10/ar15/m16 were designed. N0_regerts made the statement "snowflakes these days can't deal with recoil" I find that to be a odd statement when that's one of the reasons they made the change in the 60s.
     
  19. Boboclown

    Boboclown
    North Carolina
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    6,496
    Likes Received:
    12,045
    It has more to do with firepower, ability to use as suppressing power, and logistics. Cheaper to produce 5.56, soldiers can carry more, and its easier to use as suppressive fire.

    Even the Russians went with an intermediate cartridge before us. Rest of Europe was trying the intermediate cartridge concept, and the U.S pissed em off by saying NATO has to use 7.62 NATO, and then turn around and say “hey lets now use an intermediate cartridge WE designed and lacks oomph of the ones you designed.” We had to toss em a bone and accept 9mm as the standard for pistols.

    On the plus side it did give us the AR, and 5.56. But still, we were late to that game.
     
  20. Tony617

    Tony617
    Washington State
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    1,993
    They had issues with the M16 but they corrected some of the flaws with the M16A1.
     

Share This Page