Pentagon Confirms Move to 6.8mm

[44 AMP]

Not long after the US Army’s entry into Afghanistan, reports from the field began to surface that in close quarters engagements, some Soldiers were experiencing multiple “through-and-through” hits on an enemy combatant where the target continued to fight.

Curiously, the same thing happened in Viet Nam, or so I've been told by numerous veterans. At short ranges (25m or less) the M16 was less effective at stopping people than it was at longer ranges.

Field reports are accurate and can be explained by the phenomenon of bullet yaw.

Field reports are accurate about what happened, but notoriously less accurate about the specifics of why the results were what they were.

Lots of things work great on paper, and test out well on the range or in the lab but don't work as well as predicted in the field. Combat conditions come with a huge host of factors that even the best testing simply cannot completely replicate, and sometimes those factors are the deciding factors.

Again, I would point out the frequently overlooked fact that the number of shots needed and the number used are often different as just one factor among many.

 

[2damnold4this]

It is not 900 saw combat. It is not my fault you misunderstand the conversation. It is 900 actually closed with and destroyed the enemy in actively killing enemy combatants in a direct fire engagement.

What is patently ridiculous is the idea 68,000 support guys were out slaying the enemy. The war would have been over in a week, LMAO. It is irrelevant to the fact 5.56mm is being replaced because of lethality issues. Factually, that is happening. Nor does it invalidate the documented experience of those whose primary mission was direct fire engagements at close quarters.

What is fact is that vast majority of CAB are given out for reason other than direct fire engagements with the enemy.

I'm not buying your assertion that only 900 US personnel actually closed with and destroyed the enemy in direct fire engagements. The 68,000 Marines who got the combat action ribbon between 2001 and early 2006 weren't just fobbits that had a mortar round land within a mile of them.

It seems to be important to your argument to discount the experience of others instead of building a strong argument on its own merits. If your argument relies on downplaying or ignoring the experience of others then it's suspect.

Your link to the article on small caliber lethality is an example of what you should be doing to build an argument as it has some interesting points.
From the article you linked:

Not long after the US Army’s entry into Afghanistan, reports
from the field began to surface that in close quarters engagements,
some Soldiers were experiencing multiple “through-and-through”
hits on an enemy combatant where the target continued to fight.
Similar reports arose following the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Those reports were not always consistent – some units would
report a “through-and-through” problem, while others expressed
nothing but confidence in the performance of their M4 carbines
or M16 rifles. The M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, which fires
identical bullets as the M4 and M16, did not receive the same
criticism. Often, mixed reports of performance would come from
the same unit.

That's an example of providing evidence to support your claim that 5.56 doesn't always work well at CQB distances. Some units thought it worked great and other units thought it was a problem of through and through holes being poked without enough wounding. The performance of the 5.56 ammunition these units were issued was inconsistent and that is an issue.

What your argument could benefit from now is evidence that the new 6.8 cartridge fixes the issue of inconstancy at CQB distances. From what I have seen, the Army says the new cartridge will be better at distance than the 5.56 and be better at defeating body armor. There is no question the new cartridge has more energy than the 5.56. Does it perform better at various distances, including CQB? Does it do better at defeating body armor? If there are benefits in greater lethality at various ranges and in defeating body armor, do they justify any downsides such as weight/bulk, and etc.?

The link you posted mentions this: The following chart (Figure 3)
shows the rounds of interest plotted together. The specific values
of the chart are not meaningful; what is meaningful is the fact
that all of the rounds act in the same band of performance. Interestingly, the one 7.62mm round that received the full evaluation,
the M80 fired from the M14 rifle, performed in the same band of
performance, which would indicate that for M80 ammunition at
least there appears to be no benefit to the larger caliber at close
quarters range

What evidence do you have that the new 6.8 round will outperform the 7.62x51 ball round at CQB distances? The 5.56 did as well as the 7.62x51 M80 ball at CQB distances so why should we expect the new 6.8 round to do better? If there is something special about the new round and its wounding at CQB distances, could that be applied to the much lighter and lower recoiling 5.56?


If the problem with lethality at CQB ranges of 5.56 is inconsistency, is that something that could be solved with more consistent ammunition or does it require a major change?

 

[rickyrick]

There isn’t any free lunch really. If you use bullets capable of penetrating armor, then you are going to have over-penetration issues.
If you use more lethal expanding bullets you will have issues when encountering body armor.

 

[davidsog]

I'm not buying your assertion

You seem to think I care whether you believe it or not.

You also do not seem to understand the circumstances of that 900 approximation.

If the problem with lethality at CQB ranges of 5.56 is inconsistency, is that something that could be solved with more consistent ammunition or does it require a major change?

The answer is kind of obvious isn't it????

The 6.8 mm has proven to outperform most modern 5.56mm and 7.62mm ammunition against a full array of targets.

“We should know that this is the first time in our lifetime — this is the first time in 65 years the Army will field a new weapon system of this nature, a rifle, an automatic rifle, a fire control system and a new caliber family of ammunition,” said Brig. Gen. Larry Burris, the Soldier Lethality Cross-Functional Team director. “This is revolutionary.”

Army units that engage in close-quarters combat will be the first to receive the weapons including those with 11B infantrymen, 19D cavalry scouts, 12B combat engineers, 68W medics and 13F forward observers.

https://www.army.mil/article/256697/ngsw_signifies_an_evolution_in_soldier_lethality

The U.S. Army is preparing to introduce a new arsenal of small arms capabilities to its “close combat force” — the approximately 103,000 soldiers identified as those most directly responsible for closing with and destroying the enemy.

A cornerstone of these new capabilities can be found in the service’s Next-Generation Squad Weapons program emerging from Army Futures Command’s soldier lethality cross-functional team. Focused on enhancing squad-level lethality for the close combat force, the initiative is a prototyping effort that consists of a rifle (NGSW-R) and automatic rifle (NGSW-AR) with a common 6.8mm cartridge and fire control (NGSW-FC) between the two systems. The goal is to field the NGSW-R to selected units as the planned replacement for the current M4A1 and the NGSW-AR as the planned replacement for the current M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2021/10/7/sweating-to-next-gen-soldier-lethality

AN ARMY OUTGUNNED

By contrast, there have been many instances, especially in close quarters, house-to-house combat in Iraq, when the small 5.56 mm projectile, with a high velocity of 3,000 ft/s, would zip through an enemy combatant center mass without causing effective incapacitation, allowing further attacks on our forces. The projectile’s entrance and exit occurred so quickly (the ice pick effect) that the enemy combatant did not realize he had been shot until later when either additional rounds or internal blood loss finally downed him.

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Por...es/English/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdf

 

[2damnold4this]

What cartridge has our army outgunned at CQB distances?

Your link that you advertised with the super big font talks about the 5.56 falling short of the 7.62x39 and 7.62x54r at longer distance and suggests the 6.5 Grendel as a solution. It's kind of stupid as it doesn't provide any actual evidence that the 7.62x39 is more lethal in the form of ballistic testing and claims that the m4 suffers from unreliability and questions the ability of 5.56 to penetrate paper mache. It's a joke despite the large font you used to advertise it.



Do you have a link to an article that shows that the new 6.8 cartridge will be better than the 5.56 or 7.62 at CQB distances with something evidence like gel tests?

You seem to think I care whether you believe it or not.

You also do not seem to understand the circumstances of that 900 approximation.

You don't care but you seem to need to keep posting about it. If your 900 claim is that important to your argument, it's a weak argument.


From your link on soldier lethality: In 1964, before the Army entered the Vietnam conflict, the M16A1 rile was introduced into the service’s weapons rotation. It was a significant improvement on the M14 rifle, and it became the standard service rifle for Soldiers.


What made the M16a1 with its 5.56 cartridge a significant improvement on the M14 and its 7.62x51 cartridge? What makes the new 6.8 cartridge better than both of the two older cartridges?

 

[davidsog]

How many military members go into combat?
To get a better grasp on what this looks like, here are some key statistics:

Roughly 40% of those who join the military never get deployed to a combat zone at all.
10% to 20% of those who do find themselves on a deployment wind up in a combat zone. Remember, that is not 10 to 20% of the total. It is just 10 to 20% of the 60% who get deployed.
Most of the troops who do end up in combat zones do not actually enter combat against the enemy. They are support troops backing up those who do.
When you break it down, about one out of every 10 soldiers in the military — 10% overall — actually go to combat and have to fire their weapons.

https://www.midwestdisability.com/blog/2019/12/what-percentage-of-soldiers-see-combat/

Most of those who fire their weapon never seen the enemy or the results of their fire.

What cartridge has our army outgunned at CQB distances?

The Army after extensive testing says it is 5.56mm. You should write them at tell them they are wrong. I am sure your opinion will sway them.

 

[davidsog]

Not long after the US Army’s entry into Afghanistan, reports
from the field began to surface that in close quarters engagements,
some Soldiers were experiencing multiple “through-and-through”
hits on an enemy combatant where the target continued to fight.
Similar reports arose following the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Those reports were not always consistent – some units would
report a “through-and-through” problem,

"Some Units" refers to those who mission was Close Quarter Battle......
Those units were equipped with SOCOM M4's which are SBR.....
Weird huh?

 

[rickyrick]

If the issue is with through and through wounds within arm’s reach of the bad guy, I’m not the .277 fury designed to penetrate body armor at range is going to solve that issue…

I’m not sure why there’s so much discussion devoted to CQB when the new cartridge is intended to penetrate body armor at further range than what the current 5.56 weapons are capable of.


All this disparaging of hundreds of thousands of honorably serving veterans and CQB talk is pretty much irrelevant of the purpose of the new cartridge.

I do have a better understanding of the new cartridge, that is AFAIK still un-fielded, than I did 5 years ago.

It has impressive performance specs and is pretty much revolutionary.
But in the end, wars aren’t won with a few hundred special operators. That’s hogwash, I’ve known many soldiers who served in special forces, and none of them has ever discounted the service of other soldiers such as been happening in this thread. As a matter of fact, they especially appreciate the contributions and skills of support soldiers.

 

[stagpanther]

This discussion has kinda veered off into a strange place; sorta like "I've seen some stuff--but no you didn't." So I'm going to (attempt) to get a little back on track. The thing that interests me the most about the new cartridge is that it is going to operate at significantly higher pressures. From my purely simplistic point of view--that also means "when things go wrong"--those higher pressures will be there for the party.

 

[rickyrick]

The higher pressures is part of what is gonna make the magic happen, but I also am thinking that it could just be an unreliable mess in the future. The military does seem have that in mind and they are certainly doing their due diligence before fielding the weapons.
There is more than a significant increase in energy at the bullet’s final destination. My question is, how much energy is going to stay in the body of a skinny under-fed conscript and how much is going to simply pass through; that, I don’t know.

 

[2damnold4this]

The Army after extensive testing says it is 5.56mm. You should write them at tell them they are wrong. I am sure your opinion will sway them.

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or just didn't understand what I thought was a simple question. When I ask what cartridge has our military outgunned at CQB distances, I am asking what cartridge our enemies use that has us outgunned at CQB distances.

"Some Units" refers to those who mission was Close Quarter Battle......
Those units were equipped with SOCOM M4's which are SBR.....
Weird huh?

From your link it seems that some units engaged in CQB complained about 5.56 performance out of M4s and M16s and some units engaged in CQB thought it worked great. From the link:

Not long after the US Army’s entry into Afghanistan, reports
from the field began to surface that in close quarters engagements,
some Soldiers were experiencing multiple “through-and-through”
hits on an enemy combatant where the target continued to fight.
Similar reports arose following the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Those reports were not always consistent – some units would
report a “through-and-through” problem, while others expressed
nothing but confidence in the performance of their M4 carbines
or M16 rifles. The M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, which fires
identical bullets as the M4 and M16, did not receive the same
criticism. Often, mixed reports of performance would come from
the same unit.


The article goes on to describe how the 5.56 ammunition can have inconsistent performance based on testing and that its performance in M855 form depends on things like yaw. It compares other 5.56 cartridges with the M855 and says that they and 7.62x51 M80 ball all fall in the same band of performance.

What we don't know is if the new 6.8 cartridge does any better than the 5.56 cartridges and the M80 ball cartridge they tested at CQB distances.


I'll ask again: What cartridge (used by our enemies) has our military outgunned at CQB distances?

 

[2damnold4this]

This discussion has kinda veered off into a strange place; sorta like "I've seen some stuff--but no you didn't." So I'm going to (attempt) to get a little back on track. The thing that interests me the most about the new cartridge is that it is going to operate at significantly higher pressures. From my purely simplistic point of view--that also means "when things go wrong"--those higher pressures will be there for the party.

There could be several downsides to the new cartridge that would need to be weighed against potential upsides. Higher pressures are one of the potential downsides.

 

[davidsog]

All this disparaging of hundreds of thousands of honorably serving veterans and CQB talk is pretty much irrelevant of the purpose of the new cartridge.

Nobody is disparaging anybody's service on this end and the only reason the CQB was brought up was because of that's were the round experienced issues. The claim was then made hundreds of thousands of soldiers were in the situation of a close quarters room distance firefight with a SBR.

Then I was told to prove what the US Army has already tested and proved.

Weird is an understatement.

I’m not sure why there’s so much discussion devoted to CQB when the new cartridge is intended to penetrate body armor at further range than what the current 5.56 weapons are capable of.

And eliminate the short comings at CQB distances of the 5.56mm. Why do you think they chose a 13 inch barrel for the M7?

By contrast, there have been many instances, especially in close quarters, house-to-house combat in Iraq, when the small 5.56 mm projectile, with a high velocity of 3,000 ft/s, would zip through an enemy combatant center mass without causing effective incapacitation, allowing further attacks on our forces. The projectile’s entrance and exit occurred so quickly (the ice pick effect) that the enemy combatant did not realize he had been shot until later when either additional rounds or internal blood loss finally downed him.

Does another half-century have to pass before American forces shoulder a basic combat weapon that is reliable and can match the full-spectrum combat environments faced by current and future American combat forces? Do we really need another major study to bury this issue when good replacement systems already exist? The time has arrived for our military forces to have a basic weapon that can effectively compete against the capabilities of our adversaries

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Port...831_art004.pdf

 

[2damnold4this]

If the issue is with through and through wounds within arm’s reach of the bad guy, I’m not the .277 fury designed to penetrate body armor at range is going to solve that issue…

I’m not sure why there’s so much discussion devoted to CQB when the new cartridge is intended to penetrate body armor at further range than what the current 5.56 weapons are capable of.


All this disparaging of hundreds of thousands of honorably serving veterans and CQB talk is pretty much irrelevant of the purpose of the new cartridge.

Those are good points. The new cartridge seems to be aimed at penetrating body armor and having better long range performance instead of improving CQB performance.

 

[davidsog]

Those are good points. The new cartridge seems to be aimed at penetrating body armor and having better long range performance instead of improving CQB performance.

The new cartridge was developed for increase lethality in BOTH situations. That is the facts. The cartridge is the culmination of the search for a replacement to cover 5.56mm short comings that began in earnest after our first tour when the Army got on board with our search for a more lethal cartridge.

5.56mm lack of lethality is in both areas and one just as much as problem as the other.

The panel declined to give specifics on the ammunition’s performance and capabilities beyond saying that it “provides greater energy at target, close in and far out, than our current systems do.”

https://www.overtdefense.com/2022/04/20/us-army-discusses-ngsw/

 

[rickyrick]

It seems from reading all of the articles about this new gun is that the intention was to increase lethality at range against targets wearing modern body armor. The CQB lethality also is mentioned as a consequence.
The carbine aims to maintain the footprint and weight of the M4 while achieving significant gains in power. It really is incredible, even more so than I originally thought when this first started.
There are many articles out there, but they are just that, articles mostly from the firearm community and a few from military journalists.
Every single article I’ve read states that the goal is to increase lethality at range against soldiers wearing body armor. All I’ve read states that the 5.56 is still considered effective at short range. The new gun is also effective at close range but that has never been the main objective for the project. If proven reliable in prolonged combat, this is pretty revolutionary and taking a hit in the plates at close range with this cartridge will sideline a combatant even if it doesn’t penetrate. I’ve watched a couple of videos testing the 277 fury and the 6.8x51mm against level 4 plates and it’s a real eye opener, the 6.8x51 especially.
On a side note, I think the next issue the American armed forces is going to have to contend with is the proliferation of low cost drones on the battlefield.

 

[2damnold4this]

You do understand that "providing greater energy at target, close in and far out" isn't the same thing as saying the ammunition will be more lethal in CQB than 5.56. For example, the M80 ball ammunition mentioned in your link above has about twice the energy at CQB range than 5.56 but was still in the same performance band of various 5.56 cartridges according to your link. If this new ammunition has the same problem as 5.56 with inconsistent performance, it won't be any better.

From your link:

The following chart (Figure 3)
shows the rounds of interest plotted together. The specific values
of the chart are not meaningful; what is meaningful is the fact
that all of the rounds act in the same band of performance.
Interestingly, the one 7.62mm round that received the full evaluation,
the M80 fired from the M14 rifle, performed in the same band of
performance, which would indicate that for M80 ammunition at
least there appears to be no benefit to the larger caliber at close
quarters range

I will ask again: What cartridge (used by our enemies) has our military outgunned at CQB distances?

 

[davidsog]

From your link:

Honestly,
I have to question your understanding of the issue when you tote this line as some sort of proof.

What is the barrel length of an M14?

What are the conditions that 5.56mm experienced penciling?

Answer those two questions correctly and you will see how silly your assumption is on this point. It is also why the Army did not just switch to 7.62mm.

 

[davidsog]

The new gun is also effective at close range but that has never been the main objective for the project.

Not according to the Army. The purpose was to fix BOTH situations as neither is acceptable in combat.

“provides greater energy at target, close in and far out, than our current systems do.”

It does not say provides greater energy far out and as a secondary side benefit greater energy close in. The issues at CQB distances with 5.56mm are the catalyst that started this search for a better cartridge in earnest with the Army because of the push from SOCOM. 7.62mm covered the long distance shortcoming of 5.56mm in Army Doctrine. Once 5.56mm was shown to be deficient at both CQB distances and long ranges....a solution was required.

Morphing into something more palatable for internet arguments does not change that fact.

 

[2damnold4this]

You seem to think that more energy = more lethality but your own link refutes that assumption. Given the fact that your link showed the M80 ball ammunition to be in the same range of wounding as 5.56 ammunition at CQB distances, what makes you think the smaller 6.8 bullet will be better at CQB than M80 ball?


Your link says that 5.56 icepicked for some in CQB and worked well for others in CQB. M80 ball with almost twice the energy did no better in the ballistic testing than the various 5.56 rounds tested, according to your linked article. M80 ball has about the same energy at the muzzle as the 6.8x51 and uses a bigger bullet. Why would 6.8x51 be better than M80 ball at CQB and by extension 5.56?