Pentagon Confirms Move to 6.8mm

[RC20]

I do think the move to 6.5 area rounds make sense

And I did leave out the drag factor involved, a 6.5 done right is really an optimizing of size and range for the need (which with a M4 range is woefully deficient)

The problem with the 300 meter average is that it means that you are in knife fights and fights out past 600 meters. Data is only as good as the analysis.

At the heart of the issue was the nonsense about being outgunned by AK47 because it had 30 round clips. Its how you use those rounds that counts. Sometimes a lot of rounds on target is suppression and often with non trained types, its a total waste.

So yes there is an advantage to moving to a 6.5 class bullet. You retain most of the ammo carrying ability and get a much better range performance. And it has no downside up close (a 1903/M1 had those issues just because of length and recoil) and the 7.62 was not any better.

But, you can never design a bullet that does all things. If it can penetrate armor, its not going to expand. Its a reason hunting rounds were lead tipped (more sophisticated now). No one has ever reported a deer, elk, moose, antelope wearing armor).

On the other hand, Elephants and Cape Town buff rounds are solids to get through the armored head and into the brain.

So, the 6.8 being proved decisively superiors is a load of crap. It could have been 6.4, 6.6, 6.7 or 6.9. Nothing in ballistics is that dicey on the edge.

Realist you have bullet classes of .224/.264/.308 (and then the big boys)

.277 spits the different between the 6.5 and the .308, and how that plays into it is??

But the realty is each jump is there for a reason, it offers something and the 6.5 for hunting and shooting people has a rational that has a lot going for it.

But 6.8 as the end all and be all is bull and its we invented it so its golden is all that is left.

The 6.8 spc had an advantage but it was limited by its weight aspect and velocity.

The same with a 30/30 (to excess). While is .308 is a low perfroman cartridge but did what was intended in the day it was created. It would have made a lousy medium size machine gun round.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The problem with the 300 meter averae is that it means that you are in knife fights and fights out past 600 meters. Data is only as good as the analysis.

You might want to read the data and the analysis, since it is clear you didn’t. But just to clarify, 300m isn’t the average. About 90% of fights occurred inside 300m in Hitchman’s analysis- which is basically the same thing the USMC found when analyzing fights in Iraq circa 2002. The majority occur inside 50m due to terrain and visibility limitations, rules of engagement, etc.

 

[fastbolt]

The Army Research, Development and Engineering Center tested the 6.8 SPC thoroughly more than a decade ago. Its results indicate accuracy from an M4-size firearm in the chambering improved from 0 to 500 yards as well as terminal performance and reliability.

This little tidbit at the end of the OP's linked article reminded me of the industry scuttlebutt I'd heard in the mid 2000's when attending some classes, before my retirement. I'd have to see if I listed it in any of my notes from the various classes I was attending in that time period, but I remember one of the instructors taking a couple minutes to discuss how a couple of 2 bullet weights tested in rifles/carbines modified to use the 6.8SPC was producing some tentative good results. Nothing spectacular, but consistently better than the 5.56 in modified existing military small arms. Baby steps.

Of course, it was also discussed that the length of time the modern military needed to decide upon such a major change, and get political support and funding, would probably take at least several years. Guess that wasn't wrong ...

 

[RC20]

You might want to read the data and the analysis, since it is clear you didn’t. But just to clarify, 300m isn’t the average. About 90% of fights occurred inside 300m in Hitchman’s analysis- which is basically the same thing the USMC found when analyzing fights in Iraq circa 2002. The majority occur inside 50m due to terrain and visibility limitations, rules of engagement, etc.

Ok, bad choice of the math. Same thing that justified the AK, 300 meters then becomes and average though as you want something more.

But it does not cover the reality that the 10% can be 1000 meters.

Or, Iraq in city vs the open country fighting now (more of it) though a lot in city as well.

So if your round (or the gun capacity with short barrels that reduces it) to under 300 meter and you are getting hit at 1000 then you are SOL.

The M16 was designed with a 20 inch barrel, not 14.

A SAW is the suppressor weapon, the Ms whatever now are the nailer and mostly fired in semi auto.

Afghanistan is a whole different range group.

Your round needs to cover all the realistic ranges no the jungle fight alone.

There is a reason a lot of 7.62 is being issued. Even in Iraq you had clear need for DM and Snipers to 800 yards.

For mounted troops a bullpup wold be the better choice.

You could also go with changeable barrels to tune the guns to the missions as well as a more overall optimized 6.5 class caliber.

And no, you don't carry extra barrels, is you are mounted you carry short, infantry can do an average range of lengths from all short ( in city) to all long open country or a mix before you go out or as a set standard set of mixes.

You don't have to be boxed in by artificial limits.

 

[ROCK6]

I'm indifferent; however, if it's ballistically superior with better range capabilities, it's a positive move. The "platform" choice will be more interesting as it looks like they want a next generation M4-like carbine. Size and weight matters and considering burst or full-auto are really not commonly used, it's even less of an issue.

Having just returned from Afghanistan and working with the Germans, it was ironic that many carried their P8 handgun and were issued both their G36 and MP7 SMG. Our advisor missions were close-quarters, so the MP7's were often the choice.

Interestingly enough, some of the "guardian angel" Germans had the new HK417 .308 rifles, and not as DMRs.

As an individual rifleman, I would like the 6.8 upgrade, but knowing tactics and available support weapons, the 5.56mm is still more than adequate for 90% of the combat situations. While we have fought in the jungles of the South Pacific and Vietnam, and more recently the desert terrains of Iraq and Afghanistan, future planning is now focused more on urban and sub-urban terrain.

While caliber gets a lot of discussion here, I think there are far more important aspects such as communication, suppression, night vision/thermal imagery/optics.

ROCK6

 

[JohnKSa]

But it does not cover the reality that the 10% can be 1000 meters.

Reality would be that about 10% are beyond 300m. So 301 and up. Some of those will be 1000 meters and up, but the percentage on those would be nowhere near 10%--it would be some small fraction of a percent.

A plot in the study shows the probability of seeing an enemy at a given distance.

Looking at the plot in the study, about 80% are seen under 200yds, about 90% under 300yds, about 96% under 400yds, and maybe 98% to 99% are under 500yds. The plot doesn't go above 500 yards given that only 1% to 2% of the data is out beyond that distance.

So if your round (or the gun capacity with short barrels that reduces it) to under 300 meter and you are getting hit at 1000 then you are SOL.

True, but based on the study it's more because the odds of even seeing the person who's engaging you at that distance are just about nil than because of what weapon you're carrying.

It certainly makes sense for there to be the capability to engage distant targets for the times when they are out a long way, but it doesn't make sense to give 100% of our troops that capability so they can deal with maybe 1% to 2% of the threat. It doesn't make sense to handicap them 100% of the time with lower round counts on hand, more recoil, heavier weapons, etc. for situations that only happen very rarely.

What would make sense is to have a small percentage of the troops equipped with heavier weapons and trained for the small percentage of longer range engagements while leaving the vast majority of troops armed and trained to deal with the vast majority of situations.

 

[hot chili powder]

Military going 6.8mm

Great news for us .270 users as 6.8mm is 270 caliber, yes the cartridge will be different but bullet size is .270. We all know how the 270 WIN drops deer & elk sized game & now it will win wars for us also. Like old Cactus Jack said, it's a GREAT caliber!!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So if your round (or the gun capacity with short barrels that reduces it) to under 300 meter and you are getting hit at 1000 then you are SOL.

No, not SOL. You just engage with weapons designed to address that range (mortars, gpmgs, grenade launchers) instead of “infantry hand weapons.” Outfitting the entire platoon with a weapon to address a problem that occurs 2% or less of the time doesn’t make sense if you make the weapon less effective at ranges where combat occurs 98% of the time.

 

[44 AMP]

Sometimes I wonder if we don't go too far in our quest for one that that does everything.

A regular camp hatchet has a flat side for driving nails, and usually a notch for pulling them. Works, but a claw hammer works better. On the other hand, the claw hammer sucks at chopping wood.....

One of the lessons learned by the front line guys in WWII was that a mix of weapons works in a mix of terrain and situations. Between M1 Garands M1 Carbines, Thompsons or the Grease Gun, and the BAR, somebody was packing something suited to what ever came along in infantry vs infantry combat. When more was needed, it was time for support weapons, belt fed, or arty or air. I think we still pretty much do that today.

After Korea, the military really focused on trying to reduce the needed arms to one (if possible) that did everything short of belt fed support. For some things that can work, for others, not so much.

With the M16 we got a light weight select fire weapon, SMG firepower and 300yds usable range, but there's no free lunch and long range performance was less than the larger rounds used previously.

IS this really that important, today?? dealing with various "terrorists" is a bit different from facing the Afrika Korps at Kasserine Pass. And its different from Khe San, Chosen, or Guadalcanal, or the Normandy bocage or ...or... or...

I don't know what it is in our system (other than perhaps greed) that causes us to re-invent the wheel every time someone notices we need something that rolls, but we do it, over and over.

Am I saying we should still be using WWII weapons and tactics? No. not ALL of them, at any rate. I just think that if we did use them, they would still work. We still use the M2 .50 BMG don't we??

One last point, if we equip everyone with the "wonder weapon that does it all" and they do get into a situation where its not the best tool for the job, then nobody handy has the best tool for the job.

 

[Charlie98]

As an individual rifleman, I would like the 6.8 upgrade, but knowing tactics and available support weapons, the 5.56mm is still more than adequate for 90% of the combat situations. While we have fought in the jungles of the South Pacific and Vietnam, and more recently the desert terrains of Iraq and Afghanistan, future planning is now focused more on urban and sub-urban terrain.

That's part of the problem with a discussion like this... on the modern battlefield (which may or may not be a 'field' so to speak) the idea of 'one size fits all' is completely out the window. Because of the locked up mindset of the military, reducing everything to the lowest common denominator, the idea of adapting a firearm to the mission at hand will never be realized. The AR platform is ideal in this role... 2 pins and you have any number of options at your fingertips.

 

[Jim Watson]

We all know how the 270 WIN drops deer & elk sized game & now it will win wars for us also.

There was the legend that a ranking member of the original selection group was an avid .270 hunter and pushed for the caliber in lieu of 6.5 or 7mm.

The AR platform is ideal in this role

What are we going to get, then, an AR in a different caliber? I had hopes for the Textron system.

Operations now are relatively small, we could afford a golf bag system to furnish a variety of infantry weapons to suit the need.

There is also the image of elitism; CO 1 to CO 2, "My troops are more eliter than yours 'cause we got fancier guns."

 

[ed308]

From everything I read, a Textron cartridge is still in the mix. Less weight is still one of the requirements.

 

[603Country]

This reminds me of a discussion I had with an old Marine some years ago. He had fought in Korea and Vietnam, but the discussion was about Korea. I had asked him what weapon he had preferred back then, and his answer was not what I expected. He said he used the weapon that fit his needs for that day/moment/mission. Sometimes he’d carry an M1, and sometimes a carbine, sometimes other weapons, including Chinese SMGs.

Obviously no one weapon covered all the bases for him.

As for today’s needs, I think we need something with a little more grunt than the 5.56, but I have no suggestions any better than what others have mentioned. That said, what would a necked down 30AR cartridge do?

 

[agtman]

As for today’s needs, I think we need something with a little more grunt than the 5.56, but I have no suggestions any better than what others have mentioned.That said, what would a necked down 30AR cartridge do?

If the military wants our soldiers armed with something that sends more 'ummmph' at the enemy than the 5.56, then instead of switching to an untested cartridge, why not just do what the Brits did and adopt LMT's 7.62/.308 MWS?

The 7.62mm is a cartridge the military already has experience with, and the MWS is not just a top-tier '.30-cal AR,' but it's based on their proven MRP platform which allows for easy barrel changes in the field. That, in theory, would allow operators to change over to any barrel with a 308-derivative chambering (provided LMT or a sub-contractor made such a barrel).

The MWS is a familiar 'AR-pattern' platform, has the same modularity and ergonomics as it's 5.56 counterpart, can run a fixed or collapsible stock, uses common SR-25 type magazines, and barrels can be had in various lengths from 16"-20", in standard C/L or SS SPR type, depending on the mission specs or the operator's requirements.

 

[labnoti]

My conclusion is the M4 with M855A1 is the best of the currently available choices to equip most soldiers with. Superior ballistics and increased range are a poor trade-off for most circumstances where increased rate of fire and volume of fire from the squad or platoon as a whole is preferable. No alternative to the 5.56 is going to increase that rate or volume of fire.

Ballistic superiority and longer range is really only attractive when you look at individual soldiers instead of the squad. Would I personally give up 17% of my ammo capacity for superior range and terminal effect? Absolutely. I would rather have 25 rounds of 6.5 Grendel than 30 rounds of 5.56 any day. But would I rather that my squad have 2160 rounds of 556 or 1800 rounds? 2160 rounds for sure.

Ballistically superior and longer range alternatives like 7.62x51 or 6.5 CM are appropriate for designated marksmen and for some machine guns, but I don't see an advantage to equipping most soldiers with these chamberings or a 6.8 chambering like SPC that would reduce the available volume of fire for a squad.

Longer range targets are engaged with the M2 or a Mk19 from a MRAP. A squad does not need to be so far from a target that 6.8 SPC is necessary to engage it effectively, and also so far away from an MRAP that a Mk19 couldn't do it. When there are trade-off's to pay, most soldiers should be equipped for the rule, not the exception.

But I also suspect next-generation carbine ammo will not be 6.8 SPC, but rather something novel like that telescoping case stuff about which we don't know enough to comment intelligently. If it doesn't reduce the rate or volume of fire for a squad, and it also increases range and terminal effect then it's all good.

 

[SIGSHR]

The Unicorn Cartridge-a perfect description.
The Army had more crack shots in the days of the 45-70, 30-40 Krag than it does today.
6.8 ? IIRC the Japanese and Italians found their 6.5MM rounds lacked range and punch.
The 7.62 x 39 lacks the range and punch for a support weapon.
Firearms are only as good as the troops using them.

 

[44 AMP]

...which allows for easy barrel changes in the field. That, in theory, would allow operators to change over to any barrel with a 308-derivative chambering (provided LMT or a sub-contractor made such a barrel).

...can run a fixed or collapsible stock, uses common SR-25 type magazines, and barrels can be had in various lengths from 16"-20", in standard C/L or SS SPR type, depending on the mission specs or the operator's requirements.

These would be fine things, its wonderful when you have a modular weapon, adaptable to virtually any and all mission particulars. Except, when you don't.

There are a few points that need to be considered. #1, There's no free lunch. #2 Murphy is alive and well and still in business.

SO, what are the real world down sides to the idea?
First it when you have a "golf bag" full of different barrels (uppers, assembiles, stocks,) and such so you can fit the weapon to the mission as precisely as possible, SOMEBODY has to carry it.
No, not the operator on the sharp end, he's only carrying one configuration at a time on the mission. But the guys in the support train have to pack it all around (and that means a full set of everything possible for each sharp end troop),

And all those parts not only have to be maintained serviceable, the have to be near enough to the action to be able to be issued. SO, at least part of them have to be forward deployed with the troops, not back at the log base.

This adds cost and complexity to the logistic train. Be sure to figure that into the balance.

And then there will be the inevitable Murphy action of not having the stuff you want to use, ON HAND. Sorry Capt'n we order 14" uppers for this mission but they only sent 6 and the rest are all 20" Things like this (and worse) WILL HAPPEN.

Add in "specialty" cartridges and/or different calibers for different mission needs and it gets even more complex.

And then on top of all those possible issues, consider the cost in the long term. We have literally an institutionalized habit of leaving behind (or destroying) equipment and supplies when we leave.

What's the cost, of leaving or destroying a conex full of barreled uppers, all the different variations for a company issue needs, because some clerk decided it "cost too much to ship it home".

Multiply that a few dozen times and it could be real money. On the books it can be written off as a "combat loss" but its an unneeded waste, that might not be fully made up by the time that company makes its next deployment or maybe even just the next mission, and then the operators are stuck without that versatility that is the claimed advantage to having all those options in the first place.

When (not if) this happens, that unit will go into battle with what every they have in their hands at the time, EXACTLY as they do, today.

I'm not saying there won't be any benefits to a modular system where things work like Legos or Barbie's clothes, only that there will ALSO be drawbacks, which affect both the cost of the system and its operability.

The more options we give the line guys, the more the support guys have to handle, or the line guys suffer when some part of the support system breaks down.

and, one more thing,. it won't be the operators making the choice of what to carry. It never has been and never will be, absent a fundamental change in our system. (the spec ops guys are different, I'm talking about regular line troops)

Some level of planner, (usually an officer) will spell out what is required/allowed for the mission, and all the Squad leaders will get a choice about is which troop carries what, from what is provided.

My big point is that what looks great on a Pentagon powerpoint spreadsheet doesn't mean it will be as great in the field.

 

[agtman]

...which allows for easy barrel changes in the field. That, in theory, would allow operators to change over to any barrel with a 308-derivative chambering (provided LMT or a sub-contractor made such a barrel).

...can run a fixed or collapsible stock, uses common SR-25 type magazines, and barrels can be had in various lengths from 16"-20", in standard C/L or SS SPR type, depending on the mission specs or the operator's requirements.

These would be fine things, its wonderful when you have a modular weapon, adaptable to virtually any and all mission particulars. Except, when you don't.

There are a few points that need to be considered. #1, There's no free lunch. #2 Murphy is alive and well and still in business.
SO, what are the real world down sides to the idea?
First it when you have a "golf bag" full of different barrels (uppers, assembiles, stocks,) and such so you can fit the weapon to the mission as precisely as possible, SOMEBODY has to carry it.
No, not the operator on the sharp end, he's only carrying one configuration at a time on the mission. But the guys in the support train have to pack it all around (and that means a full set of everything possible for each sharp end troop),
And all those parts not only have to be maintained serviceable, the have to be near enough to the action to be able to be issued. SO, at least part of them have to be forward deployed with the troops, not back at the log base.
This adds cost and complexity to the logistic train. Be sure to figure that into the balance.

So, it sounds like the Brit military is fully capable of fielding the MWS among its troops with no real-world logistical or supply problems ... whereas the American Mil branches are so beset by such concerns that they freeze up worse than the typical Fuddley with 'buck fever' on opening morning at deer camp.

Sad Fuddleys, our guys ... if true.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

My big point is that what looks great on a Pentagon powerpoint spreadsheet doesn't mean it will be as great in the field.

And as has already been shown in this process, what what looks good on the powerpoint spreadsheet isn't going to be what actually even gets fielded, if it even gets fielded. Things keep changing in the process.

So yeah, they have chosen 6.8 (until this changes). Now they just need to build a cartridge to go with the bullet and a gun to go with the cartridge and to have it all work harmoniously in battle conditions while at the same time meeting these new standards. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Nanuk]

What the military needs and what they get are two separate things.

In a perfect world they would have an array of weapons to use for specific theatre's of combat. The closest we have today it the M-4 and the ability to swap uppers/calibers. There is always going to be a need for the designated marksman.