Pentagon Confirms Move to 6.8mm
- Thread starter ed308
- Start date
- Status
mikejonestkd
New member
You have missed the point, the Gov't Requisition and purchasing process is not nimble. It'll take a decade for them to get their ducks in a row.
The shear logistics of procurement and distribution of a new rifle and cartridge for the general troops will be a mammoth undertaking.
2damnold4this
New member
2damnold4this
New member
I imagine that the Army wants something that shoots flatter, weighs less, has better armor penetration, and lethality than .308.
The Draft PON on FedBizOps clearly states the TDP was awarded to 6 companies:
June 2108 + 2 years and 2 months = August or September 2021.
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/DRAFT_NGSW_PON%20(3).pdf
https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opp...e594f10ba26c75694e032&tab=core&tabmode=list&=
The intention is to award a production contract. If the United States Army adopts 6.8 mm then the rest of the US Armed Forces will follow suit as will all of NATO.
From the article linked in post 85One thing that is consistent about all of these reports is the inconsistency of them.
But, we all know the army never changes, budgets never get axed, programs never get canceled, timelines and deadlines never get behind, politicians stay forever and the army’s interest never follows a new direction. But somehow after 55 years of dragging it’s feet on the 5.56 and other failed attempts at fielding a new weapon... they are finally going to get this one right, ahead of schedule and under budget all within the next election cycle. No need to cross our fingers on this one.
Myself I don’t care, I don’t have a dog in the fight. But these things rarely pan out on time and are often changed. And at this point, there’s not even a gun yet. Has a name, has a bullet diameter and performance requirements that can’t be met with conventional ammunition and a couple of prototypes.
And yes, it is about physics.
And yes, it is about physics.
Ah, on cartridge selection, the military screwed the pooch a long time ago, back when McArthur vetoed the .276 Pedersen cartridge.
The Pedersen cartridge would've given the troops a lighter, easier-to-shoot M1 Garand, fed off a 10-rd clip. Not to mention, the .276 was demonstrably more accurate than the 30-06 and equalled it in penetration out to 300-/400-yds. The '06 was a better penetrator beyond that distance.
Hatcher's 'Book of the Garand' explains those details.
Ahhh, NO. The first submissions are being test now...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=21&v=O7QqppSKGzw
http://soldiersystems.net/2019/06/0...-small-arms-technology-demonstrator-in-6-8mm/
From a performance of the round point of view, I get it, but one needs to balance that against the other practical considerations the military operates under.
Not only is cost one, but so it the attitudes of the people who hold the purse strings. Getting money for a new rifle in the midst of the Depression was one thing, getting money for a completely new cartridge is another thing. The 06 wasn't considered in any way inadequate in those days, only the bolt action rifle we used was. So not only did we have a HUGE investment in the .06, it worked well enough by everyone's standards at the time.
And consider the cost, and added complexity of adding in a new round that only one rifle used. We had one rifle round, used by our service rifle, the BAR, and our medium machine guns. Our .45 pistol round, was used by both the 1911A1 and our SMG.
Again, remember that this is before WWII and in the middle of the Great Depression. During the war we developed the .30 Carbine, an additional round to add to the logistics system, but conditions, and attitudes had changed by then, because we were actively at war.
Always remember the primary purpose of the military is not to field the best weapons possible, it is to accomplish the mission at the most reasonable cost, in terms of both equipment and men.
Simply put, those in charge at the time decided the advantages of the .276 were outweighed by the disadvantage of the cost to produce and convert to it.
And unless what is being studied now produces some truly spectacular improvement over what we are currently using, I suspect the same thing will happen to it. A slight improvement won't do it, absent top down support ordering its adoption.
Which is why the Small Arms Survey was conducted and reached its conclusions BEFORE prototyping occurred.
Simply put, 5.56mm capability to defeat body armor is non existent and is lacking at CQB range legality enough to warrant replacement now.
The studies have been done...the military knows what it wants cartridge wise and is simply looking for a platform to load it into....'
That ship has sailed.
Those platforms are either built or rushing to get into a rapidly closing window. What ever is submitted will enter next phase testing.
They are not going to wait around for pie in the sky when 5.56mm simply is inadequate for the warfighter.
But I guess we can hope, right?
- Status