Pentagon Confirms Move to 6.8mm

[Mike Irwin]

"Otherwise the M1 Garand would have been a 10 shot 7mm--which, by the way, would have likely had just about zero impact on the outcome of the war since it was won primarily by superior manpower, massively superior production volume capabilities, air power and ultimately nuclear weapons in the Pacific."

Actually the most likely scenario would have been that the United States would have gone to war not with a Garand in any caliber, with with the M1903 rifle.

Had the cartridge switch-over been greenlighted by MacArthur -- in the middle of the Great Depression -- it's virtually certain that the whole project would have been rejected by Congress due to overall cost consideration.

Overall it might not have had much effect on the outcome of the war, but it likely would have had a lot of negative consequences in the Pacific War where the Garand's firepower proved its value numerous times during massed Japanese attacks.

 

[jetinteriorguy]

WW2 was won by the GMC 2 1/2 ton truck. At least that’s what a lot of historians say, I agree. The ability to keep a fast moving front supplied in overwhelming fashion made the difference.

 

[Radny97]

After learning more about this, and seeing how long the military is into this process, I don’t think we are going to see any large scale swap to any of these proposed platforms anytime soon. More likely only small scale stuff for the next several years, if that.

The military has a long and storied history of putting out RFPs like this with the intent of injecting money into firearm R&D in the industry to see if they can motivate and push innovation in certain directions that interest them. If breakthroughs happen, you might see large scale adoption. More often small improvements are developed that eventually push small arms into new and important directions that eventually trickle into military usage. In this case, it looks like the military wants to see what can be done if we push the envelope of the pressures allowable in traditional rifle cartridges, and traditional brass cased cartridge design.

Here we see many different approaches to figuring out how to achieve pressures and velocities that normal brass cased ammo can’t accomplish because the brass case head and primer will occasionally blow once you get much above 64k psi. So we see Sig attempting a steel case head, or Textron trying telescoped ammo, and another trying polymer cased ammo. They are also trying different ways of mitigating the recoil of such a high pressure/high energy round. Sig is trying a reciprocating barrel, for example.

So, although I’m a huge fan of 6.8/.277 caliber cartridges, I suspect that the requirement of a particular caliber (6.8 mm) and a particular weight and dimension of bullet (140 gr boat tail) had less to do with the desirability of the caliber and bullet weight and more to do with trying to ensure that the R&D of the contract competitors is focused on pressure issues, case design and recoil mitigation rather than spending R&D time running down the rabbit hole of a caliber war or chasing ballistic co-efficients in bullet design.

We’ll see what comes of all this work. If they really do figure out how to develop a rifle that can operate consistently and reliably at above 90k psi in a rough battle environment and still be light enough for an infrantryman to use, then that truly will be a breakthrough. So far, I’m not seeing signs that such a true breakthrough has occurred or will occur. But only time will tell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[davidsog]

Shooting farther with more punch: The Army finally found an M4 and SAW replacement

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...army-finally-found-an-m4-and-saw-replacement/

The XM157 is a magnified, direct-view optic with an integrated laser-range finder, digital compass, environmental sensors, visible and infrared aiming lasers, ballistics solver, and digital display overlay with wireless communication, according to PEO Soldier. The device can be loaded with any ballistics configuration in the Army’s arsenal or future ballistics data to provide the same capabilities on other small caliber weapons systems, officials said.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...like-for-the-armys-new-rifle-automatic-rifle/

 

[44 AMP]

Looking through the linked articles makes me wonder about some things...

why are medics on the priority list to get the new rifles??

How is adding 5lbs and giving up 70 rnds to the basic grunt's load going to be a significant improvement?

Where are the "emergency use" (iron) sights? Are there any??

"The trigger requires an extra pull for firing - a safety feature"
Just what is that about?? NO explanation was given.

The optic runs on two (2) batteries and apparently does everything but make the GI's breakfast in bed. Which, and how many of those features are likely to be used, or the GI can remember to use when they are being shot at??

How did the writer(s) miss the obvious selling point of the many holes in the forearm being able to "automatically" pick up local vegetation adding to the camouflage ??

So, we're going to spend billions of dollars for new high tech stuff that will take a decade (if current projections hold) to be a general issue weapon system, no mention of spending anything on improving marksmanship training beyond familiarization with the new gadgets, when they become available.

And, there's also the point about "NATO compatibility" is that concept now being abandoned??

Right now, to me it looks like it will make the bean counters happy, might make the brass happy, will definitely make the folks who make the guns, optics, spare parts, and ammo happy, will add another level of complexity to supply and maint support functions (which won't make them happy), will add weight and reduce ammo carried for the line troops (with the promise of more hits and greater down range effectiveness) which won't make them happy, at least at first, and cost us a buttload of money, effort and time, and might also tick off our allies.

What's not to love??

 

[tangolima]

The weapons still have X designation. They are being issued to units mixed with the 5.56 NATO rounds. Does it mean they are in "field trials"?

The trigger is 2-stage match grade. The extra pull is probably not weight but the 1st take-up. I like 2-stage triggers.

If it works out, there will be 6.8mm NATO.

Every change will come will whinings. Let them.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[rickyrick]

I expected that if anything replaced the weapons using 5.56 there would need to be a significant improvement in performance, looks like this cartridge will deliver.
Still appears to only be an augment in field units, hopefully it becomes the basic infantry weapon in the future.
I also hope it never gets used in battle.

 

[Forte S+W]

SmallArmsSolutions just did a video on the new M7 Rifle and 6.8mm cartridge. I agree with his assessment of the platform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IVYuG1yr8E

 

[davidsog]

And, there's also the point about "NATO compatibility" is that concept now being abandoned??

Whatever the United States adopts, NATO will adopt.

The rifle is adopted and will be the replacement for the M4.

SOF is testing them now. Whatever SOF adopts, the Army Adopts. There is no chance of 5.56mm surviving. It will linger on for a while just as M2 .30 Cal. lingered on but it will not be the future, just the past.

This part of the evaluation is about doctrine not adoption. Understand the rifle is part of system of which the optic/comms/data is a major part of that.

There is a whole level of capability the M4 cannot begin to rise too.

Think of it like the capability the F35's revealed last week in intercepting cruise missiles in flight enroute to Israel. Technology and Capability far above any other platform in existance today or the near future.

 

[JohnKSa]

SOF is testing them now. Whatever SOF adopts, the Army Adopts. There is no chance of 5.56mm surviving.

If it is adopted, then 5.56 is mostly going to go away. But it hasn't been adopted yet. As you say, it is still in testing. It's not yet a sure thing that the outcome of the testing will be favorable.

 

[Jim Watson]

Reminds me of the old joke about the cost of an airplane getting so high that one costs the whole defense budget. The Air Force gets it on even numbered days, the Navy gets it on odd numbered days, the Marines get to fly it on Leap Year Day.

"OK, it's Wednesday, so you get the rifle, Private Smith. The rest of the squad, pick up his ammo and let's march."

 

[davidsog]

But it hasn't been adopted yet

It is in doctrinal trials now and scheduled for General Service adoption by FY2024. This testing is about Doctrine and Logistics in ramping up not whether or not the rifle will be equipping the Army. These trials are about the Army adopting kit and adapting to the technology/capability the NGSW represents. The decision to replace the M4 is a done deal as of two years ago when the contract was awarded to SIG. As long as SIG produces the same rifle the Army tested, it will be the new service rifle. This is also the time period logistical issues in establishing that production quality control will be addressed. It has nothing to do with whether the Army will adopt the rifle or not.

The "X" in M7 is a placeholder. The rifle was to be designated the M5 and was nearing the end of that nomenclature process when Colt raised objections that it already used the name M5. Thus the "XM7" was retained with the nomenclature process starting all over again.

The whole program is only about 6 months behind due to COVID from the timeline I told you two years ago in the replacement of 5.56mm.

The 4.5 Billion has already been outlaid with 250,000 rifles paid for and contracted NOW. SIG Production lines are up and running. In 2029 civilian sales of 6.8 Fury will begin. 20 million is already allocated to Lake City and retooling has begun. SIG will supply all 6.8 Fury until Lake City comes online with a planned timeline of 2-4 years until the Military is making all its own ammunition. You do realize 250,000 rifles will equip all infantry and SOF warfighters in the Active US Army and then some.

 

[davidsog]

Keep in mind, The M16's initial contract order was for 8,500 rifles in 1964. At the same stage of adoption, that is 3.4% of the number of rifles the US Army has bought.

Keep telling yourself this rifle will not replace the M4.

 

[44 AMP]

OK, so the decision is made, contracts enacted, money spent and MASS production is gearing up....

Ordering a quarter million rifles isn't exactly dipping a toe in, to test the water, its a cannon ball jump before even knowing where the bottom is.

This is also the time period logistical issues in establishing that production quality control will be addressed.

This is exactly what I would expect to see in the Power Point presentation (Or what ever the current format is). It's exactly the positive viewpoint of what they expect to happen, and I have no doubt that things will be addressed during that time frame.

I also have full confidence that the real world will throw the planners a curve ball, or three, and that some of what will be addressed will not be resolved until much later than predicted.

There is great potential here, both ways. Which way it goes is going to depend on factors both already quantified, and factors as yet unknown.

Either way, there's likely to be a cost unanticipated, and likely paid for in blood. We'll see how it goes.

 

[JohnKSa]

The 4.5 Billion has already been outlaid with 250,000 rifles paid for and contracted NOW.

4.5 Billion is the ceiling value of the contract. That is, it might go up that high, but that's not a guarantee.

The weapons still have X designations, indicating that they are still experimental. Operational assessments are not scheduled to take place until 2025.

SIG is currently addressing some issues with accuracy and toxic fumes that showed up in testing.

I agree that it's starting to look pretty solid, but there's still an 'if' in there.

Keep telling yourself this rifle will not replace the M4.

I'm not saying that it won't replace the M4. You're the one trying to foretell the future. I'm just pointing out the facts. The rifle is still in testing and that means that there is still the possibility that they could run into an issue that could change the outcome.

 

[tangolima]

Even it is done deal, we probably will see M7A1, M7A2 etc. 5.56 and 7.62 will be around, ramping down while the new 6.5 ramps up.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[davidsog]

4.5 Billion is the ceiling value of the contract. That is, it might go up that high, but that's not a guarantee.

4.5 billion is the allocated budget. Your correct that all 4.5 Billion has not been spent but I do not see any relevance whatsoever. Now, Much of that money has already been spent outside in tooling and logistical support with the rest set aside to pay for the ordered 250,000 rifles SIG is currently producing.

Once again, Lake City has spend over 22 million retooling their production lines for 6.8 Fury.

The Army’s new manufacturing capability will produce the 6.8 mm next-generation family of ammunition without affecting Lake City’s ability to deliver legacy 5.56 mm, 7.62 mm and .50-caliber ammunition. (Photo courtesy of Lake City)

https://asc.army.mil/web/news-extreme-makeover/

They demolished building 4, the old .30 caliber production line, cleared the lot, and are breaking ground on the 6.8 Fury dedicated production line. Once that comes online, SIG's ammunition contract ends.

Not sure what your point is on the X designation. The rifle is in the experimental phase but no longer in question about adoption. All questions being answered are logistical and doctrinal changes to integrate the new rifle. You seen to think the rifle is in question and the Army is going to suddenly reverse course keeping the M4 for another 50 years. It's not going to happen at this point. This is not some off the shelf purchase of an existing design like the SCAR 17 we rejected.

You're the one trying to foretell the future.

Hardly. You are just trying to win some non-existent argument. Facts are Facts. It is not my fault you have misconceptions about Government Procurement. I think this stems from some belief the Army will suddenly reverse course, wake up, and realize it has made a mistake in abandoning 5.56mm. Pigs can Fly given enough help I suppose.

 

[davidsog]

Even it is done deal, we probably will see M7A1, M7A2 etc. 5.56 and 7.62 will be around, ramping down while the new 6.5 ramps up.

Absolutely and then some. The Government just demolished the production line for .30 cal ammunition previously used before 5.56mm/7.62mm NATO. That some 60 years after the Government stopped using that ammunition.

They will be around for a long time. They just won't be around for much longer in the hands of US Army warfighters. You can bet NATO will follow up and adopt 6.8 Fury too.

 

[JohnKSa]

4.5 billion is the allocated budget.

It is the maximum budget.

Your correct that all 4.5 Billion has not been spent but I do not see any relevance whatsoever.

It's relevant because it's specifically set up as a ceiling amount, it's not guaranteed that all of it will be spent. There's the option to spend less if that turns out to be what they want to do. As in, if the few dozen weapons they have purchased so far and/or the ammo they have turn out to be problematic and/or SIG can't fix the current problems or other problems discovered later in testing.

Once again, Lake City has spend over 22 million retooling their production lines for 6.8 Fury.

According to your own source, the changes at Lake City are to:

• add new capability to manufacture the 6.8 mm next-generation family of ammunition
• numerous manufacturing process improvement opportunities--moving toward a modern manufacturing facility
• integrate modern manufacturing technologies <to continue delivering legacy calibers including 5.56 and 7.62> in conjunction with ammunition development efforts

So, yes, some of it is certainly to set up for the new ammunition, but they are also doing a lot of modernization to improve all their processes including, as stated explicitly, to continue to support the manufacture of legacy calibers including 5.56 and 7.62.

I think this stems from some belief the Army will suddenly reverse course, wake up, and realize it has made a mistake in abandoning 5.56mm.

No, it's based on the fact that the weapons still have X designations, that they are still in testing, that problems with them are being discovered and worked and that they are not operational yet. When all of those things have been resolved, then it will be a sure thing. Until then, it's possible that something could arrest the process. I don't think that would result in staying with 5.56 for another 50 years, but it could result in them sticking with the status quo for awhile until they can find another solution/replacement.

 

[44 AMP]

I think this stems from some belief the Army will suddenly reverse course, wake up, and realize it has made a mistake in abandoning 5.56mm.

It doesn't have to be the ARMY......

Here's a name to consider, Robert McNamara....

and the "Whiz Kids".....

Look what they were able to do....

As long as there are political appointees in charge of the Defense Dept (which is our system) there is ALWAYS the possibility that the project might be reversed, or abandoned, and no matter how enthusiastically supported today, the latest "wunder waffen" program(s) may go away, as soon as the next election cycle.

It can (and has) happen after the weapons are in the hands of the troops. How do you think we got the M16 and 5.56mm as our general service rifle and round in the first place? It wasn't because the Army wanted it. The Air Force did, because they needed something to replace the M1 Carbines used by their security forces. The AR happened to fit their needs.

McNamara's Defense Dept, decided it would fit everyone's needs, and so ordered. You can look at the last 60 years of history to see how well that worked out.

The same kind of thing, or the exact opposite is possible for the new 6.8mm system. Stating its a done deal, and it WILL happen, with 100% certainty is just an opinion. It looks likely, sure, but until it does happen, (or doesn't), its an opinion, not a fact.