Army's new 6.8 cartridge with development information:

[FrankenMauser]

No more so than the Wright Flyer has to do with a Boeing 747....

Or are you saying the Boeing 747 is not a development of the Wright Flyer??

Absolutely.
No matter how you look at it, the technology is totally different.
...And the Germans did it first, not the Wrights. (Including the first powered flight.)

The only common theme: Fluid dynamics. Or, more specifically, Aerodynamics.

 

[davidsog]

People can disagree.

Does not mean the facts are not:

A 2006 Joint Service Wound Ballistics-Integrated Product Team report showed the “clear and unequivocal best performing” cartridge tested was 6.8mm.

In 2007, the Army’s 5th Special Forces Group approached ARDEC with interest in the 6.8mm Special Purpose Cartridge. ARDEC evaluation deemed the caliber “very effective” in an assault rifle platform, Kowal said.

Roberts wrote in his presentation that testing to develop the 6.8mm looked at bullets including 6mm, 6.5mm, 6.8mm, 7mm and 7.62mm.

The 6.8mm offered the best combination of “combat accuracy, reliability, and terminal performance for zero to 500-yard engagements in an M4-sized package.”

In 2015, the Small Arms Ammunition Configuration Study showed similar results, pointing to an intermediate caliber as the best option.

 

[rickyrick]

This ain’t that bullet. Completely different concept all together.

What it does say is that they are looking at a 6.8mm bullet for the pretty much nonexistent weapon.

Highlighting special forces means nothing really.

 

[davidsog]

This ain’t that bullet. Completely different concept all together.

It is not the 6.8mm SPC but it is developed from it as the article says.......

 

[rickyrick]

I’ll agree, that it says the 6.8spc kinda worked but they are going to have to completely reinvent the military weapon to make it worthwhile.

 

[davidsog]

Don’t be mad.

 

[rickyrick]

Basic middle school level physics has nothing to do with emotion.

There’s more than just bullet diameter in play here.

The bullet diameter in question has been around for a very long time.

The article pretty much says that they tried 6.8spc and it was an improvement, but not enough.
If was enough they wouldn’t be looking for something else.
The receiver real estate and weapon weight is the problem, not the bullet diameter. There’s plenty of powerful chamberings out there now.
I believe personally that this will go nowhere like all the other attempts.

 

[5whiskey]

I believe personally that this will go nowhere like all the other attempts.

I believe personally you are right, and I would wager on the fact (and I'm not a gambler). The army's order is a tall one. I'm just not seeing it as feasible with current technology. Sure, they may can make something that might not blow up at 90k psi chamber pressure. But I would wager service life would not come close to approaching 10k rounds before major problems show up. Infantry units actually expend a fair amount of ammo. It was nothing to have an M240 run through a thousand plus rounds of ammo in one range during some training events. M16s and M4s a couple hundred.

If you want our boys to train, rifles need to be durable.

 

[USNRet93]

Considering this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_5.56×45mm_NATO_firearms

Is a new caliber round for the US military going to impact the above? Is it a consideration, the number of weapons that use the 5.56? Seems like a big advantage, that all of NATO and quite a few others(including Russia) use a common caliber..

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If you want our boys to train, rifles need to be durable.

My guess is that they plan to use the fancy new sight with indoor projected screen trainers instead of live fire to replace much of the live fire training. If you are slinging rounds with 3,400 ft/lbs of muzzle energy, it isn’t just the rifles that will take a beating. That will be brutal on a lot of range equipment if shot in the same volume as 5.56.

 

[RC20]

Is a new caliber round for the US military going to impact the above? Is it a consideration, the number of weapons that use the 5.56? Seems like a big advantage, that all of NATO and quite a few others(including Russia) use a common caliber..

Advantage yes, a sole drive and how much, open question.

 

[RC20]

I’ll agree, that it says the 6.8spc kinda worked but they are going to have to completely reinvent the military weapon to make it worthwhile.

The goal is a 10X improvement. 6.8 spc was not deemed to do that. The weapon has to change as well.

The 6.8 was not optimal around ELD bullets either.

You can make bullets for it that are.

There is no way a 10X improvement can be had affordably.

 

[RC20]

the whole thing is hard to sort out but the take is 6.8 bullet in the new case type

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...d-automatic-rifles-only-in-close-combat-units

 

[RC20]

And more definitive, it puts the two program pieces together.

https://www.tactical-life.com/lifestyle/military-and-police/next-gen-us-army-6-8mm-round/

One is the new weapon, the other is the 6.8 mm project (not SPC) as well as whatever round the weapons makers make their gun in (the 6.8 fits in any case)

Down the road mfg will improve on the Army developed 6.8, because after all, the Army is not that innovative (mostly)

Its clear there has been a mis use (or confusion) of the term cartridge and the projectile .

The projectile is the NEW 6.8, how it is cased is up to the weapons makers, it has to meet the weight reductions, range and accuracy specifications.

If it can be done in brass and meets the rest, it will be (not likely). Aluminum - titanium, ? Whatever.

The various telescopic type round seem to have the advantage.

And it has to work. Latter tests will determine how it does in combat conditions.

 

[ed308]

Whatever it ends up, a 120 gr 6.8 bullets will be a killer.

 

[stagpanther]

120 gr....2900fps.....20% less weight than current 5.56 brass case ammo--that is a very interesting goal post. Something tells me this ammo will never see the light of day on the civilian consumer market--nor anything that's likely to be reloadable. I also wonder if the most classified part of this cartridge is the per shot cost.

 

[Tucker 1371]

There’s always going to be a trade off. The military has been searching for a Wunderbullit for decades. Not gonna happen. Low recoil, barrier penetration, maximum soft tissue damage. Pick two. If you find a way to make that statement untrue then I hear the guys at NASA could also use a hand bending space-time.

I think the 5.56/7.62 system we have today is about as close to ideal as you can get for squad-organic weapons. I think something 7.62 needs to become somewhat of a secondary standard issue. Think replacing the M4 with both the SCAR-L and SCAR-H. A four man fire team should have two 5.56s and two 7.62s and one of the four should be belt fed.

A squad should look like this:

Squad leader- SCAR-L w/ACOG

Fire Team Leader (FTL)- SCAR-L w/ACOG & 40mm
Ready- SCAR-L w/1x optic
Fire- M240
Assist- SCAR-H w/ACOG

FTL- SCAR-H w/ACOG & 40mm
Ready- SCAR-L w/1x optic
Fire- M249/IAR
Assist-SCAR-H w/ACOG

[insert third fire team here]

Not that I have some love affair for the SCAR, I simply chose it because it is a modern rifle that already has both a 5.56 and 7.62 variant available which would make sense in terms of training and maintenance. The ACR/BREN/etc could work equally as well in 7.62 variants.

 

[Tucker 1371]

That or a 6.5mm round with a mix of ammunition types. Barrier blind or AP rounds typically aren’t going to have great terminal effect on soft targets. So a 90-120gr conventionally constructed bullet and a 90-120gr hardened alloy core bullet and an in-theater SOP of loading an alternating 50/50 mix of each in every magazine/belt may work for a one-caliber solution. But one caliber and one loading? No way.

 

[stagpanther]

Reading the requirements--it is interesting to see the weight restrictions--plus the freehand shooting accuracy requirement doesn't seem all that demanding--though I don't walk around Rambo'ing my AR10 builds all that often--they come in about the same in terms of weight. The picture of the polymer cased .277 looks a bit like a Creedmoor dimensioned case. Coming up with a great cartridge is one thing--coming up with a great gun is another thing--and getting them to both work together reliably and consistently is a whole other ball of wax.

 

[ed308]

Something tells me this ammo will never see the light of day on the civilian consumer market--nor anything that's likely to be reloadable.

Depending on the final design of the cartridge and if it can be easily converted to a brass case, I could see it becoming a success in the consumer market. That's not likely unless the cartridge is actually fielded by the military. But the slight increase in weight of a brass case won't be a problem in the civilian market. With that said, would I want one? Probably not. I've got a 6.5 CM and .224 Valkyrie for bench rifles. And for hunting, I prefer my lightweight 6.8 SPC.