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

[The Heretic]

I have no disagreement that the .308 or .30-06 are better at stopping an opponent than the 5.56.

But then so is a .300 Magnum, or the .338 Magnum, or the .50 BMG.

I have never said the 5.56x45 was better either in that regard.

What I have said is that there is a middle ground, where the cartridge can be effective enough for the infantry soldier carrying the standard infantry weapon. Where it works in the typical engagement distances of less than 300 meters. Where the cartridge is lighter and the recoil, especially in full auto, is more manageable.

The Germans in WWII and Soviets later, proved this system works. An intermediate powered cartridge in a lighter shorter rifle, capable of controllable full auto fire (especially in short bursts), with the infantry soldier able to carry more ammo.

We went too far the other direction with the 5.56x45, had it pushed on us by bean counters who had never been in a war. We've been trying to make up for that ever since. IF (and it is a big IF), they go to a cartridge with a 6-7mm with a 90 to 130 grain at about 2500 fps, that will be a big improvement over the 5.56x45 and it will be what the British and a few other NATO countries wanted to do back in the 50s and 60s.

I am not a fan of the M16 or its variants for various reasons, but if they go to a 6mm+ cartridge based on the 5.56x45 cartridge (i.e., same rim/head dimensions), and do it right, then they should be able to just change out the barrels and the costs will be kept lower than a complete change to something else.

I personally think it is sad that we spend billions on high cost war fighting machines, but pinch pennies on the rifles we give our war fighters - but without going into the politics (follow the money) - it is what it is.

 

[U8395279]

Have you guys seen this?

The Army's SAW and M4 replacements will both fire this more accurate and deadly round

Is it the 6.8SPC?

No, these plans have nothing whatsoever to do with the 6.8 SPC. The new ammo specifications do not call for brass cased ammo. The caliber of the bullet is simply 6.8 mm. The ammo will use radically new technology, as will the weapons. Plans are for the 6.8mm projectile to far exceed the velocities offered by any of the military's current rifle ammunition. The Army is requiring that the ammo be capable of defeating the strongest body armor that is currently in existence.

Did you not watch the video, on that webpage? It talked about the new technology that is being developed quite a bit. The new ammunition will also be significantly lighter than current similar rifle ammo.

Here is an additional report about the plans for the new weapons:

Army Chief Offers New Details on 6.8mm Next-Gen Squad Weapons

.

 

[MrMillspecer]

And they stated they will not equip the entire Army with it. Most likely infantry and other close combat forces , because of cost.

 

[titsonritz]

We've been down this road how many times now? Many.

Bottom line: if they are sticking with the M4 and M249 there is no way there will be a massive caliber change to 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 7.62x39, any of the short magnums, etc., etc. They will stick with a caliber that will require only a barrel change rather than a barrel, bolt, magazine, disintegratable links, and God know what else that will break. If 6.8 is on the table, something like .277 Wolverine makes sense.

 

[coop44]

Still waiting for the phased pulse rifle.

 

[titsonritz]

Still waiting for the phased pulse rifle.

Hell yes, bring on the Phaser. Until then, all this "new" stuff is just rehashed BS. Energy weapons will be the next true big leap.

 

[DLS]

... There will be a lot of surplus M4s hitting the market soon.

Federal law precluded the surplus sale (to US Citizens) of any Title II weapons such as the M-14 or M-16. The law could be changed like they did to allow the sale of pistols, but I highly doubt it.

It's a shame for sure!

 

[DLS]

I'm an old type … I love wood and bluing on my rifles and my Garand is my second favorite rifle of all time. Give me a plain Duplex reticle on my scope and a 1917 type sling on my hunting rifle. Black guns need not apply! I say this to provide come context for the following and by the way should state I have number of the black rifles too:

While it's a tried and effective round for engaging soft infantry over most ranges encountered, the 7.62 NATO is old technology and past it's prime. Better options abound with the potential of significantly greater performance, even in traditional brass cased ammo. This increased performance is even more promising when looking at some of the cartridge ideas manufactures are now kicking around.

When you look at the physical load that modern infantry carry on their persons, and the interactions they typically face when confronting the enemy things like recoil, muzzle blast, dust signature upon firing, number of rounds carried etc. do make a huge difference in their lethality.

It's not a matter of newly minted troops not being able to handle recoil, they can just as we could when we served. It's a matter of changing battlefield dynamics, the wide spread use of body armor on near-peer adversaries, and changing tactics that make the 7.62 a has-been. The armed forces are wise to be looking to bridge the gap between the 7.62 and 5.56 as both of these rounds suffer performance issues (different for each) on the modern battlefield. So, yes the 7.62 works, but not as well as other options, especially as has been earlier stated, it assessed measured as part of an overall "infantry" system (warrior, equipment, support, etc.).

 

[titsonritz]

While it's a tried and effective round for engaging soft infantry over most ranges encountered, the 7.62 NATO is old technology and past it's prime. Better options abound with the potential of significantly greater performance, even in traditional brass cased ammo. This increased performance is even more promising when looking at some of the cartridge ideas manufactures are now kicking around.

Agreed, if a .308 sized round is on the table 6.5CM makes the most sense.

 

[Luzelines]

Still waiting for the phased pulse rifle.

40 watt range? Amiright...

 

[DLS]

Agreed, if a .308 sized round is on the table 6.5CM makes the most sense.

That's just one good example of improved performance in even traditional brass cased ammo. Newer powders and bullet manufacturing techniques allow a lighter bullet with higher ballistic coefficients to out perform the old .30 standby.

This was really true even back in the '30s when the Garand was first designed. The M1 was originally to use a .284 bullet in a shorter, thinner round than '06 (.276 Pederson). Once boat-tail bullets were improved to the point they quit squirting out of their jackets upon impact, the .284 sized bullet was a better choice than a .308 in most every respect (for typical infantry use). When looking at what is required of a round that is used to engage enemy infantry and soft targets the .30 was the best compromise back in the era of round nose bullets, but has not been since the change to spitzers.

The reason the Garand was reengineered to a .30-06 was because the Army had millions of '06 rounds in inventory coming out of WWI, the desire to have a common round for both rifles and machine guns, and the then strongly held notion that an infantry round needed to be effective out to 2,000 yards. So in a logistical sense it was a good decision … but in an operational sense not so much.

By the way, most here probably know this, the ammo change on the Garand is why it uses the odd-sized 8-shot clip. The original .276 Pederson cartridge allowed for a more standard 10-shot clip.

The caseless ammo will be a game changer once perfected. Reduced recoil saves wear an tear on the shooter and the rifle itself, and allows more effective engagement, especially in dynamic situations. Reduced weight allow infantry to carry more ammo, or something else that may be of value, say an individual drone package etc. Higher velocity extends range and penetration of body armor increasing the lethality of the individual fighter. This allows for smaller tactical units without sacrificing mission, freeing manpower to be used for potentially better uses.

Cool stuff coming down the pike for sure!

 

[Certaindeaf]

This is all moving way too fast for me.. why, just in 1894 the United States Navy and Marine Corps adopted a 6mm!
Slow the F down, man!

 

[Tony617]

Still waiting for the phased pulse rifle.

Not me, I am waiting for the BFG 9000.

 

[Boboclown]

Had they accepted .280 British instead of pissing off all of NATO I wonder if we'd be here right now.

 

[U8395279]

And they stated they will not equip the entire Army with it. Most likely infantry and other close combat forces , because of cost.

Well yes, only the guys who fight on the front lines will get these weapons. They are only going to the people who matter the most.

I just don't understand why it has taken so many decades, before the Army finally went forward to develop a new rifle/light machine gun series. The M16 has literally been around for well over a half century. People have been talking about replacing it for so very long now.

If the Air Force had behaved the same, they would still be flying F4 Phantoms.

I wonder. Could it be because of the Trump administration, that this long delayed program is finally moving forward? Has Trump made a difference, in military spending?

.

 

[U8395279]

We've been down this road how many times now? Many.

Bottom line: if they are sticking with the M4 and M249 there is no way there will be a massive caliber change to 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 7.62x39, any of the short magnums, etc., etc. They will stick with a caliber that will require only a barrel change rather than a barrel, bolt, magazine, disintegratable links, and God know what else that will break. If 6.8 is on the table, something like .277 Wolverine makes sense.

You are not paying attention. The Army has contracted with 5 corporations to produce a total of 6 prototypes for both new weapons. The ammunition itself, will also use brand new technology. The only requirements are that it must propel a 6.8mm bullet that the Army has already specified, at a very high velocity, that has not yet been publicly disclosed.

So the caliber decision and required ballistics has been made at this point. The rifles and the ammunition will all be brand new designs.

The M4 and M249 have served long enough. Our infantry deserve weapons that are SUPERIOR, to what their potential adversaries have. I think that the fighting in Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent in Iraq, really showcased the limitations that the M4 and M249 both have.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I just don't understand why it has taken so many decades, before the Army finally went forward to develop a new rifle/light machine gun series. The M16 has literally been around for well over a half century. People have been talking about replacing it for so very long now.

.

bean counters. Also, There had been designs, ideas, programs, millions, if not billions spent on the Land Warrior ideals that ended up cut/canceled... Really though, that very program got better optics, debatable "better" armor designs, the notion of fully modular equipment that was basically plug and play... (not necessarily MOLLE, but more regarding the Mil-1913 rail systems). I think Land Warrior was going to develop better ammo designs, better cartridges, and at one point there was talk of adaptive camouflage (Predator style) and wrist guns of like 10mm or 15mm caliber with caseless ammo...BUT really, the caseless ammo designs has been a LONG time coming...still too expensive, still too experimental, still having issues with reliability.... and then the Cold War ended, so the accountants decided the Army/Marines were doing just fine with a platform based on the M16.... Note however, the M4 carbine is technically "next generation M16/CAR-15 Carbine" even though there's no real difference except for flat top, 14.5" barrel, and M4 stock. I don't think there was an "M4" before 1994. But even then, it's getting out to be 20 something years old in terms of being in the US Mil system...

 

[CamoDeafie]

If the Air Force had behaved the same, they would still be flying F4 Phantoms.

.

The F-4 Phantom, specifically the F-4G Wild Weasel SEAD system, retired from U.S. service in 1996.

By the way, the USMC is STILL operating UH-1 Huey and AH-1 Cobra variants.... because Congress still prohibit them from buying the AH-64 and the UH-60 series. The Navy is allowed to use the SH-60/70 Seahawk variants though.

EDIT: We're still using the B-52, and there's talk of retiring both the much newer B-1B and B-2 bombers in exchange for keeping the B-52s in service until the B-21 enters service

 

[P7M13]

The M4 and M249 have served long enough. Our infantry deserve weapons that are SUPERIOR, to what their potential adversaries have. I think that the fighting in Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent in Iraq, really showcased the limitations that the M4 and M249 both have.

This is about spreading more cash around.
If the gun is developed, and adopted, it will only be a short while before it's in the hands of our adversaries because we will sell it to them. One day they're our allies, next week our enemies.

 

[Boboclown]

This is about spreading more cash around.
If the gun is developed, and adopted, it will only be a short while before it's in the hands of our adversaries because we will sell it to them. One day they're our allies, next week our enemies.

Except the Russkies...

They'll keep on being the boogeyman. Remember, hide under the desk with arms over your head.