US Army Adopting 6.8?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rnish

    Active Member
    May 24, 2012
    186
    I just read that the US Army was adopting the 6.8 (replacing 5.56). Is the confirmed or another study?


    Doesn't look like the 6.8 SPC...

    https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/07/16/six-companies-to-develop-prototypes-for-us-armys-next-generation-squad-automatic-weapon/

    Update, the U.S. Army recently awarded five companies contracts to develop a prototype weapon intended to replace the 5.56x45mm M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.
    The companies are:
    AAI Corporation Textron Systems – Hunt Valley, MD.
    FN America LLC. – Columbia, SC.
    General Dynamics-OTS Inc. – Williston, VT.
    PCP Tactical, LLC – Vero Beach, FL.
    Sig Sauer Inc. – Newington, NH.
    The caliber and type of ammunition is up to the companies and it is reported that most are using the government provided 6.8mm projectile. The ammunition must weigh 20 percent less than an equivalent brass case ammunition.
     
    Last edited:

    Rambler

    Doing the best with the worst.
    Oct 22, 2011
    2,162
    That is a study. They award money to fund development and production of prototypes for evaluation. It is commonly done for everything from backpacks to helmets. Usually, this is like seed money to keep the potential vendors in the game.

    In all likelihood, no caliber change is likely without NATO allies being on board. And without a caliber change, a platform change is not justified unless the current inventory is aging and in need of replacement anyway.

    However, the caseless and telescoped ammunition ideas have been kicking around for a while in one form or another as a weight and volume saving. If they can implement something in 7.62 and or 5.56 that can be used in existing guns as well as next generation, who knows?
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I just read that the US Army was adopting the 6.8 (replacing 5.56). Is the confirmed or another study?


    Doesn't look like the 6.8 SPC...

    https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/07/16/six-companies-to-develop-prototypes-for-us-armys-next-generation-squad-automatic-weapon/

    Update, the U.S. Army recently awarded five companies contracts to develop a prototype weapon intended to replace the 5.56x45mm M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.
    The companies are:
    AAI Corporation Textron Systems – Hunt Valley, MD.
    FN America LLC. – Columbia, SC.
    General Dynamics-OTS Inc. – Williston, VT.
    PCP Tactical, LLC – Vero Beach, FL.
    Sig Sauer Inc. – Newington, NH.
    The caliber and type of ammunition is up to the companies and it is reported that most are using the government provided 6.8mm projectile. The ammunition must weigh 20 percent less than an equivalent brass case ammunition.

    That is really old news from way back in June. Apparently they are going to make a new solicitation

    https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/10/05/new-draft-next-generation-squad-weapons/
     

    TexDefender

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 28, 2017
    1,572
    Doubt it will happen anytime soon, if at all. These thing are for research and development, this allow companies to innovate and the government to understand what the future may hold. It is not necessary wasted tax dollars.
     

    clandestine

    AR-15 Savant
    Oct 13, 2008
    37,031
    Elkton, MD
    Sadly this will cost lives. Rounds that generate the chamber pressures and velocity they are seeking will lead to extraction issues and massive throat erosion.

    Then they will issue these harder recoiling and heavier systems to female combat troops.
     

    Rambler

    Doing the best with the worst.
    Oct 22, 2011
    2,162
    Sadly this will cost lives. Rounds that generate the chamber pressures and velocity they are seeking will lead to extraction issues and massive throat erosion.

    Then they will issue these harder recoiling and heavier systems to female combat troops.

    It has been my experience that technical knowledge of the subject is not required to be in upper level military R&D and procurement.;)
     

    woodline

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 8, 2017
    1,947
    Sadly this will cost lives. Rounds that generate the chamber pressures and velocity they are seeking will lead to extraction issues and massive throat erosion.

    Then they will issue these harder recoiling and heavier systems to female combat troops.
    Don't worry, there is about a 95% chance this won't go anywhere. The Army does this sort of thing pretty regularly. The new M855A1 is pretty good but the officers need their OER bullets. You don't get those for an attitude like "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
     

    K-43

    West of Morning Side
    Oct 20, 2010
    1,881
    PG
    6.8 after the 1st Gulf War. 300 Blackout later. Several different cartridges (all the "in" wildcats for ARs that have come and gone over the past 20 years). Potential replacement carbine studies. Caseless ammo. Piston rifles. Bullpups. Where's the future going to be type stuff.
    It's just studies, always going on. People reinventing the wheel thinking their 100 year old idea is new or they know better than the last selection committee. Seldom results in anything.
     

    OLM-Medic

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    May 5, 2010
    6,588
    I don't see the big deal about 6.8 and I never have. 6.5 Grendel seemed cool because it was pretty good at decent ranges, but that's not a common encounter. 300 BO can do all that a 5.56 can do at 0-200 except with an 8" barrel and can use subsonic too, but it ain't great past that range. .308 is just too much recoil for rapid shooting. All of them are pretty heavy to carry.

    I think the best option would be just to make 77gr ammunition standard issue, then 5.56 can do just about anything needed. Better terminal ballistics, better long range capability.

    Edit: I didn't realize this was for the M249 at first.
     

    woodline

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 8, 2017
    1,947
    The "caseless" telescoping polymer ammo concept is cool. I have no major objections to them replacing the SAW, but I think replacing the M4 with something chambered in this is a bad idea. As Clandestine pointed out, the recoil is going to be significantly greater than 5.56 (heavier projectile being pushed to as high as 3500 fps out of a 14.5"ish barrel). Assuming they get to the point of testing this in an assault rifle format, I don't think the tests will be favorable unless they cook the books.

    I am glad the Army is throwing down the dev money to try something new. Relying on the free market for completely revolutionary solutions to the admittedly overblown neo-Soviet threat of new body armor is a bad idea. That said I still think the 6.8 caseless telescoping is going to be a flop to replace the M4. Maybe after they get done watching this cartridge push a bunch of 140lb privates around the range while they flinch from the recoil and miss in a comical fashion, they will start looking at smaller projectiles and solutions that don't torch barrels after 1500 rounds. I expect caseless telescoping really is part of a solution to replacing the M4 with a truly better weapon, but until we develop standard issue exoskeletons, I don't think high recoil firearms are in the cards.
     

    Invicta

    Active Member
    Sep 16, 2018
    255
    Sadly this will cost lives. Rounds that generate the chamber pressures and velocity they are seeking will lead to extraction issues and massive throat erosion.

    Then they will issue these harder recoiling and heavier systems to female combat troops.

    That was my exact thought when I saw this story too. Then the guns will be called sexist because they're more difficult to handle. Just like the new iPhones :lol2:
     

    jrumann59

    DILLIGAF
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 17, 2011
    14,024
    I feel powder propelled guns are pretty much at their limit for combat. Overall innovation is flat I think once they make the next jump to man portable rail type guns or energy weapons is the next point of innovation. The current mouse trap really cannot be made significantly better.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    I feel powder propelled guns are pretty much at their limit for combat. Overall innovation is flat I think once they make the next jump to man portable rail type guns or energy weapons is the next point of innovation. The current mouse trap really cannot be made significantly better.

    Oh, they can keep refining it. Things like plasma enhanced combustion are possibly on the horizon. Basically you have a tungsten wire inside the case and instead of a chemical explosive shock sensitive primer, you jolt the tungsten wire with about 100,000 volts, vaporizing it in to a plasma and igniting the properllant faster and much more evenly.

    It is being experimented with more for tank guns to develop a 120mm tank gun with roughly the performance of a 140mm gun. Last I had heard they were pushing about 25% more muzzle energy without doing things like making radically bigger cases, mostly just more efficient combustion and being able to load the case to higher capacity.

    Which does mean you need to handle the extra pressure...

    No idea what will be fielded or when. Cased telescoping ammo doesn’t play well with magazines. Yet. Which I think has been one of the biggest hold backs on just introducing it. Crew served light and medium machineguns using it have passed all tests I am aware of and appear to work AWESOME.

    For the threat of improved Russian body armor, it is less anscare if Russia using it, than it is every half assed dust bin army buying or being supplied by Russia with it. Of course part of what I say it, learn to aim at the legs or arms. Can’t armor all of a person and a 5.56 to the leg is going to remove you from being an effective combatant most of the time.

    I also don’t think we should sit on our butts waiting until it is introduced for us to react. I think a better option is look at a 5.56 case telescoped ammo for an m4/m16 replacement. Introduce a SAW and a squad level DMR using the same case telescoped 7.62 based round pushing basically the same energy levels as M80 is now.

    But instead of 130gr at around 3000fps use SLAP rounds. Something like a 90gr .224 caliber projectile of copper skinned hardened steel. If you are spitting out a total of 100gr (including sabot) at 4000fps...

    That should have pretty decent armor penetration at moderate ranges and track like a damn laser beam.

    SLAPs are usually tungsten, but no reason they have to be. I bet you could make a tool steel cored SLAP at cents per round rather than the typical $2 or so for tungsten.

    Also so what if tungsten cored would be a more effective armor penetrator. Not cheap enough to armor everyone with it. Also so what if your typical infantry guy can’t penetrate fancy armor. Part so combatants are going to be unarmored (until exoskeletons) and still vulnerable. Also you then have the squad level machineguns and DMRs that ARE deadly threats to even srmrored infantry at reasonable ranges.

    I’d be shocked if a 90gr .224 tool steel projectile couldn’t penetrate any infantry armor currently fielded or on the drawing board at a couple of hundred yards when you kick it out of the muzzle at 4000fps.

    PS SLAP also had the advantage of low barrel wear for the velocities you are generating.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    That was my exact thought when I saw this story too. Then the guns will be called sexist because they're more difficult to handle. Just like the new iPhones :lol2:

    Also to take misogyny out of it for a second, unless it turns out commanders aren’t following the rules, female combat troops have to hack the same requirements male ones do.

    I doubt you are going to see any 5 foot 2, 95lb flyweight women hacking the requirements for a combat infantry position. Probably the ones who do make (at least the couple examples I know of) are more like 5’8” something and a shite load of muscled 150lbs.

    Probably could break a number of the smaller male privates in half, that I’ve seen anyway.
     

    Sirex

    Powered by natural gas
    Oct 30, 2010
    10,380
    Westminster, MD
    This would be disastrous for me, as I planned on picking up military supplies of 5.56 off the battlefield during the zombie apocalypse. I don't have anything that uses 6.8. 6.5 Grendel, sure. I guess I need to make a .3 spacer then.
     

    Racer Doug14

    Thread killer
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Feb 22, 2013
    8,003
    Millers Maryland
    LWRC currently has the Six8 rifle. I believe its chambered for the 6.8spc2 load. I really like this. Almost bought one. The cost and availability of it killed that. Would be nice if they designed it in a DI operating system.
     

    Bullfrog

    Ultimate Member
    Oct 8, 2009
    15,158
    Carroll County
    Also to take misogyny out of it for a second, unless it turns out commanders aren’t following the rules, female combat troops have to hack the same requirements male ones do.

    I doubt you are going to see any 5 foot 2, 95lb flyweight women hacking the requirements for a combat infantry position. Probably the ones who do make (at least the couple examples I know of) are more like 5’8” something and a shite load of muscled 150lbs.

    Probably could break a number of the smaller male privates in half, that I’ve seen anyway.

    No doubt all of that is true, but the 5'2" 95 lb soldiers who sit behind a desk doing logistics or intell work have to go do their range quals too, and some will be complaining.

    And when they don't get promoted as fast as they think they should, no matter the reason, some of them will point at the weapons they can't handle and therefore weren't given the opportunity to deploy, etc etc.

    This goes for some of the men too, although the excuses themselves may vary.
     

    Racer Doug14

    Thread killer
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Feb 22, 2013
    8,003
    Millers Maryland
    No doubt all of that is true, but the 5'2" 95 lb soldiers who sit behind a desk doing logistics or intell work have to go do their range quals too, and some will be complaining.

    And when they don't get promoted as fast as they think they should, no matter the reason, some of them will point at the weapons they can't handle and therefore weren't given the opportunity to deploy, etc etc.

    This goes for some of the men too, although the excuses themselves may vary.

    I would invision a transition for support units to the new weapons system after all combat arms. Logistics can handle it....hahaha
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,925
    Messages
    7,259,296
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom