Pentagon Confirms Move to 6.8mm

[SIGSHR]

Logistics-which include maintenance-require a very high degree of standardization, it's "one size fits all" because that eases resupply and repair.
Our "caliber wars" are fine for us armchair commandos, when you have to supply 100,000 or more troops in the fields for months on end, you want things as uniform as possible. There were problems in Vietnam in having a rifle in 5.56 and a machine gun in 7.62, plus grenades, both hand and the M-79. And again, the training is too often inadequate.

 

[44 AMP]

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 ...

It might sound like that, but be not so certain the Brits have no issues, just because we don't hear they have issues. Nobody advertises their foul ups.

If its just here and there, once in a while, then probably no one outside the Brit services will hear about it. Unless it becomes something frequent and system wide, odd are no one with hear about it other then the folks it happened to, bitching about it over a pint or three at the pub.

My point was to recognize that it can, and very likely will happen, to someone, somewhere, at some time, and that should be taken into consideration when doing the cost/benefit assessment of the idea. Generally the possible cost of screwups doesn't outweigh the benefits, but that decision can't be made accurately without taking the cost of the possible screw ups into account.

The other side of the coin is that while it might be a very minor thing in the big picture, when a logistic screwup affects you or I in our small picture world, its a rather big thing, to us.

we've come a long way since WWII, where we had a lot of screwups several so notorious they made it into the general history books. The problems with the M16 in Vietnam are famous, still, and part of those were logistic screwups (accidental or deliberate). I'm confident Desert War vets have their own stories of screwups, here and there, that weren't bad enough or big enough to make it into the history books, or haven't made it there, yet.

Our guys work hard at doing it right, but we are all humans and best laid plans...etc. As long as that is accounted for in the initial planning of a weapon (or other system) we're doing all anyone can do.

 

[RC20]

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!!

270 is .274 and its a tweener. Not that it does not do fine, but a 130/150 grain 30-06 would do the same thing and more so with a VLD design.

 

[RC20]

First and foremost your weapon systems should be on par or better in dealing with your most capable adversary. Thatr would be China (not unlikely with their imperialist take over anything they ever sailed by or walked to in the past policy ala SEAS region (my new term, South East Asia Sea)

As for mortars and such, if they are not there when you need them then you have an issue. Air support and other artillery are the same. All that stuff is either over tasked or not available at all times.

So, historically it started out at 50 yards and muskets with a bayonet cause you got one shot off (or the bloody Brits just charged you anyway and yes I know I am mixing up all sorts of stuff here time line wise)

Then when modern cartridge came into being they went overboard the other way. Sights out to 2500 yards, volley fire, area suppression (left to machine guns).

The Germans returned some sanity to it with the 7.92 Kurtz. If they had changed the caliber to a 6.5 they would have had something.

The US eventually in Vietnam then went overboard and dropped to a varmint round.

A 6.5 class returns things to a reasonable compromise. With a SAW you can reach out to 1000 for suppression as well as DM kill em or keep em down.. It still a small enough cartridge to allow a good combat load-out.

Its all a compromise and I think 6.5 class is a good balance.

Unless you offer diffetnt bullets you will never ben able to offer a

 

[RC20]

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.

WWII was not deliberate, it evolved and a lot of Horse trading went on. At the end you saw about half a rifle company would have Thompson or M3. While the M1 was an effective open field weapon, it was a hindrance in city fighting.

The problem is even belt fed might not be there, mortars/arty and air support is not always there when you need it and in a large battle was overtasked - The BAR was just a compromise as the US did not have a good belt fed setup (Bren was better wiht more rounds and on top feed). Certainly better than nothing but not as effective and round limited as a bipod 30 caliber belt fed would have been ak MG42.
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.

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...

China particularity is going to be an issue and to ignore Russia is a really bad thought considered their actions of late. US is re-building the Armored Combat Brigades and looking for a light tank to support the Infantry.

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.

We used to be deliberate until M16, we are again and too much so. There is a compromise in between. Keep in mind the M1 was an anathema to the Army with its single load selector on the 1903. The stupid Nam era mad minutes proved a point. Select fire for the most part wastes ammo. They get that now and its semi auto most of the time save the SAW which is suppression.

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??

Nothing has changed. WWII set the standard for Combined Arms that the Brits set in the 1800s. Tools have changed of course (all from 1800s and some from WWII) but the concept is the same. It works right for the macro, just not the micro all the time.

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.

We aren't talking wonder, no such thing exists. But it should be the best of what we can offer.

Currently its gone to all Tommy guns.

 

[fourbore]

I understand 6.5, but; what planet did the 6.8 come from. Ok, I know 277. But really, why not 6.9mm! It is just this in your face, I am a dumb american theme that will not die.

 

[kraigwy]

Will likely piss off the Creedmoor fans.

Why would it piss off the Creedmoor fans. Regardless what rifle/ammo chosen, I doubt the Army is going to give me one to hunt antelope with.

I'm old school, I was issued and used the M16a1 in Vietnam, It worked great, I had no complaints.

I'll let the youngsters worry about it.

My concern is with the soldier himself. Just had a long talk with my Grandson, a Captain just back from the IOAC. Just like in my days, a vast majority of infantry soldiers dont care and worse cant shoot what they have.

If I had a vote (which I dont) I'd dump the money into Marksmanship Training. Which in reality wouldnt matter anyway because the Army will not allow the time and ammo required to practice what they taught in that Marksmanship Training.

I have a copy of a report where the Army compared their snipers with civilian competitors. The military snipers didnt stand a chance. The test was done with Civilian Target Rifles, and Military Sniper Rifles. The Civilians dominated with both guns. Why, because (unless the sniper on his own to shoot more at his expense and time) he cant compete. Reason is, the Civilians devote more time and expense into shooting.

I know, there is more to sniping then shooting, but I'm addressing marksmanship.

And in the Marksmanship dept, it doesnt matter what the Army Chooses.

 

[T. O'Heir]

The Pentagon doesn't get to decide that kind of stuff. Nor would it be announced in an on-line NRA magazine. Those decisions are very decidedly political and would not be made without input by NATO Allies.
And nowhere in that article does it say anybody is "Moving" anywhere. It simply says the busy work for senior officers in looking at 6.8mm calibre projectiles.
"...300m isn’t the average..." It is in Europe. Mind you, that was based on W.W. II battle fields with no input whatever from the Middle East or anywhere else.
"...medium size machine gun round..." Anything that is not a .50(14.5mm for the Russians) cal. is considered to be Medium or Light. However, it's due to the weight of the gun, not the calibre. The BAR, for example, was a Light MG. The .30 Browning a Medium MG.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

"...300m isn’t the average..." It is in Europe. Mind you, that was based on W.W. II battle field

From the Hitchman link I posted earlier: “For attack and defense in the European actions, it was found that about 80 percent of effective rifle and LMG fire takes place at less than 200yds and 90 percent at less than 300yds.”

That’s from AORG and FECOM studies during WWII according to the study.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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!!

LOL, the notion that .270 is a great caliber because it drops deer and elk is spurious at best. Lots of calibers are capable of dropping deer and elk just just fine. It really isn't the caliber so much as the cartridge/bullet combo and how well the shooter can put the shot into the right anatomy. All calibers are great calibers as much as they aren't.

The argument might be more salient if the military was after deer and elk, but they aren't.

270 is .274 and its a tweener. Not that it does not do fine, but a 130/150 grain 30-06 would do the same thing and more so with a VLD design.

LOL, again, every caliber is a 'tweener' except the very largest and the very smallest.

----------------------------

Late last year, they were talking about a 6.8 caliber miracle rifle that could shoot farther than guns today, penetrate any body armor today or that is expected to be developed in the next quarter century (how do you test for that?), in an 'impressive gun' that will withstand the rigors of weather, use, soldier abuse, etc.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...cs-will-make-soldiers-marines-a-lot-deadlier/

Of course, it will have superduper electro-optics, be suppressed, etc.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...-new-next-generation-squad-weapons-prototypes

So everything is going to be new and different and they want to field this very quickly as they are looking for "rapid development."

There are a lot of corners that are going to get cut.

 

[davidsog]

No alternative to the 5.56 is going to increase that rate or volume of fire.

Which for the most part, is meaningless in terms of suppression. Unless they are totally green, will look around, see you are snapping the trees or air, and maneuver.

Suppressive fire isn't the number of rounds sent down range.

It is the first time the enemy looks out from cover he gets his head blown off and everyone else near him says, "Screw that!".

 

[greentick]

...
Suppressive fire isn't the number of rounds sent down range.

It is the first time the enemy looks out from cover he gets his head blown off and everyone else near him says, "Screw that!".

lol, so true

 

[Ignition Override]

44AMP: Did you read the comments in "The Gun" about how some senior officers with the DoD (allegedly) bypassed almost the entire, normal selection process for the Armalite AR / "M-16"?
Somebody...correct my memory if this wasn't the gist of what Chivers documented.

I don't remember the sources for any of CJ Chiver's info (former USMC Infantry Captain & graduate of Ranger School), but I only read/skimmed over a few of the sections while standing in the 'late' Borders Books years ago. This segment might still be linked on the Amazon website, if I remember ----

Even if his reporting of the US' initial AR selection is seen as very incomplete or distorted (not defending him, just baffled if the basic scenario is valid), the guy has acquired some interesting awards in journalism.

One of you guys/gals has read parts of, or even owns this book.

 

[RC20]

For what its worth

https://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-a...ent-next-generation-family-of-ammunition.html

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So they confirmed that they are going to try to develop a new round?

 

[Ignition Override]

How many million rounds of 5.56 ammo does our DoD have stored in the US, excluding overseas?

Maybe it's not only a rhetorical question.

 

[davidsog]

How many million rounds of 5.56 ammo does our DoD have stored in the US, excluding overseas?

Enough to make it very cheap for you to shoot your AR15 for years to come.

 

[fastbolt]

Not bad, considering they've been pondering upon it for 10-15 years. Once they've actually gotten the ball rolling, maybe they'll actually have it online and in some warfighter hands in another 10 years.

By the time it's in common military service, the 5.56 will have served our military for probably 60+ years.

 

[davidsog]

Well when the issues with the lack of lethality appeared in the beginning of the GWOT the Army tried to overcome the limitations of 5.56mm.

Years of trying but alas......no wonder bullets existed and the physics could not be overcome.

Once they've actually gotten the ball rolling, maybe they'll actually have it online and in some warfighter hands in another 10 years.

IIRC, 2021 is the deadline to be fielded.

 

[fastbolt]

...

IIRC, 2021 is the deadline to be fielded.

They may well start putting some in some hands by then, but imagine how long it's going to take to fill the contracts and start replacing old with new at the depot levels ... everywhere.

I'd think having the changeover complete within 5 years, worldwide, would be amazing.

Our military industrial complex doesn't seem to often do "amazing" anymore. Nature of gov work.