[hillbilly]

I heard on Gun Talk today that the military is going to start using a new AR upper chambered in a new 6.8mm cartridge and that Remington is going to start making the ammo.

Anyone else know anything?

I saw the 6.5mm Grendel in the Shotgun news. But this new round would be 6.8, not 6.5.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.........Time to save up.........And once the AWB expires, that means normal capacity magazines available for the new caliber.......Hmmmmmmm

hillbilly

[4v50 Gary]

Oh, a 6.5 or 6.8. That's a step up and closer to what the Germans had in mind when they developed the 7.92 mm Kurz.

[Kaylee]

If I recall correctly, the new round is supposed to have a OAL more or less equal to the 5.56. If we're lucky, they might even feed from existing magazines.



-K

and oh yeah... off to Rifle Country with you! :)

[JShirley]

6.8x43mm.

[Glock Glockler]

The 7.92 Kurz, while a huge step up at the time, is a very mediocre round by todays standards. While the 6.8 will probably be significantly better than the 5.56 it will not be nearly as good as the 6.5 Grendel.

Oh well, it guess cause it's a child of the Russian 7.62x39 that disqualifies it consideration.

[gun-fucious]

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=532143

[gun-fucious]

New Information of the 6.8 x 43mm

________In the Winter 2003 Edition of Special Weapons for Military and Police Bob Pilgrim's article makes a passing reference to the 6.8x43mm round mentioned on Mike's page as being experimented with for the SPC (Special Purpose Carbine).

________Muzzle velocity is 2750fps with a 125gr bullet, and the actual projectile is a .276 "open tipped match bullet" with a Ballistic coefficient of 0.380. If this is true the bullet is actually 7.01mm and effectively the same calibre (.277) that is used in the .270 Win round. The BC sounds a little low. The .270 130gr XCL from Barnes is a boat-tailed hollow point with a BC of .466

________With this data and using the Ballistics Calculator at www.realguns.com we can gain some idea of how the 6.8mm will perform compared to current rounds

________I've selected a 300yd zero for the 6.8mm and 245yds for the 7.62mm M43 to give them a similar mid-range trajectory to the M855. For the M855 and M193 I've used 300m (328yd) and 250m (273yd) zeros as is common practice.

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/bullet.html

[TX65]

As far as making a comparison between the 6.8RemSPC and 6.5 Grendel. While only .3mm separates the two calibers, the cartridges were designed for different applications.

The 6.5 Grendel is a private development project designed for the commercial market and will be available for civilian purchase in early 2004. The round was designed for competitive long range target shooting as well as ethical hunting for a variety of game including antelope, whitetail deer and hogs.

In Shotgun News, the actual round used in the article was a 6.5 PPC which the 6.5 Grendel is based on. As the article states, the final version of the 6.5 Grendel will be an improved version of the 6.5 PPC and will have increased case capacity over the 6.5 PPC. What this really means is that the performance quoted in the article should be looked at as minimum performance levels and the final performance will come into focus as load development progresses using actual 6.5 Grendel cases.

In other news, the author of the Shotgun News article published on AR15.com his recent results in a competitive match using the same rifle from the Shotgun News Article. The match was a 60 shot 200 & 300 yard prone match and the author scored 599-33X out of a possible 600-60X. This was using a scope firing prone with a sling, not off a bench, bipod or other rest and rounds are loaded and fired one at a time (not from a magazine). An interesting point was he was using a Nosler 120 Ballistic tip which is a hunting bullet, not a match bullet. Needless to say, a rifle that can consistantly place 60 shots in a row at 200 and 300 yards into an area that is comparable to the vital area of a whitetail deer makes for a nice hunting rifle.

As far as a military application of the 6.5 Grendel, the military has seen it at various defense oriented events as documented by Armed Forces Journal International and Defense Review. As far as anything else, take a moment and look at the Alexander Arms website and their GMP division regarding release of information related to government, military and police customers.

http://www.alexanderarms.com/gmp.html

Regarding that the 6.5 Grendel is from the same family of cartridges that include the 7.62x39 possibly influencing consideration. Other then case head diameter, the 6.5 Grendel and 7.62x39 have little in common. In addition, the more direct relative of the 6.5 Grendel is the 6.5 PPC which is an American development.

[Leatherneck]

US SOCOM developed the 6.8 x 43mm and intends it to become the standard caliber for all SpecWar carbines, light rifles and light machine guns (including the SCAR-L being developed). It's purported to be capable of 1 MOA out to 600 yards, and combines desirable features from both the 5.56 and 7.62 cartridges.

As an interim solution, they're using Black Hills 77 gr. Mk 262, Mod 1 ammunition to replace the M855 that has been having "terminal performance problems" like failing to incapacitate BGs reliably.

The 6.8mm is advertised as a relatively simple retrofit to existing Mk12 and M4 weapons with only a barrel change and a minor bolt mod. But something tells me that we're witnessing the birth of the next generation battle rifle. Sure hope we can avoid the birthing problems the M-16 had.

TC
TFL Survivor
edit to add:If we're lucky, they might even feed from existing magazines.
Yup-same 5.56 mags work fine.

[Kaylee]

But something tells me that we're witnessing the birth of the next generation battle rifle.

I think you're right about that. Especially if the "me-too-itis" that gave line army black berets shows up and demands the SCAR become general issue. I'd expect it would be phased in slowly, following retrofitted M16's.

The only concern I have (other than there not being a civilian model, of course :p ) is wasting a whole bunch of time and money retrofitting the M16s in current stock. The "lets go with what we have" gave us the .30-06 M1, the M14/15 debacle, and before that the trapdoor Springfield.*

-K

*No, I'm not saying these are bad guns, any of them. Just that a whole lot of time and money was spent inefficently in their development, and ended up dramatically delaying future development. "good enough is the enemy of great"

[Leatherneck]

Kaylee,
I share that concern. Buy-in has become a stock approach by the services in lieu of outright new development. I mean, it's one thing to re-use in-stock magazines, but I have to believe that a new cartridge deserves at least serious consideration of a new rifle. But of course, the 6.8x43 ammo bought to date has been bought with procurement funds scraped together, and no development program (along with attendant R&D funds) exists. That should change, IMO.

TC
TFL Survivor

[rock jock]

It sounds like the all the AR accessories will still work, but I wonder what will happen to the supply of 5.56 ammo for the civilian market once the transition is made? Do you think that there will be a flood of 5.56 uppers on the market as every civilian shooter follows suit?

Personally, I like the 5.56, but I have never been in combat either.

[Leatherneck]

rock jock,
I don't think the flood is imminent just yet. I suspect this new round and whatever rifle they decide makes sense for general issue are a few years down the road. It's only the commandos using them so far...

TC
TFL Survivor

[Art Eatman]

Leatherneck, if we had the same gun laws and tax laws now as we did around 1900, there would be a really large number of would-be JMBs around. No telling what would be offered to the military.

Unfortunately, we're stuck with a bunch of laws and procurement processes which in essence say, "Government thoughts only; outsiders not welcome."

:), Art

[Leatherneck]

Art,
You've got that right. The reason I've been interested in the 6.8x43 lately is because the minute SOCOM bought over a million rounds, Title 10 Section 2366 kicked in, and we've got to have a live-fire test program. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, as long as there's an old Gyrene around with a soft spot for riflemen, and who might have to "try out" a few rounds. :D

TC
TFL Survivor

[Kaylee]

Art.. while I agree with the first part of your post, about the laws/taxes dissauding some would-be JMBs, I wonder about the last item.

Through most of our history, the US military built a fair amount of their service rifles inhouse in gov't arsenals, and wasn't the M1 developed inhouse? I was under the impression that largely changed with the adoption of the AR-15 as the M16. Now it seems like a goodly amount of the R&D is done in the private sector, with the winners getting grants and such to bring their tooling up to speed. That seems to me a better time than ever to get in on the "making guns for Uncle Sam" bandwagon.

no?

-K




whoah... I disagreed with Art on something... I gotta find a calander and mark this day. :)

[gun-fucious]

Heres some more 6.8 mm data:
http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000512.html

[The Silver Bullet 1719]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the only complaints about M855 is when its shot out of M4s and M4A1s? Why not just switch back to M193? M855 was only made to make the M249 SAW more effective at longer ranges than the M60's M80 ball. So why not just produce M855 for the SAW and return to M193 for all rifles and carbines? The only problem I see is the 1/7 twist makes it less accurate over 300 meters.

[JShirley]

M855 has improved long-range performance. A return to M193 would therefore
be a reduction in performance. I think concerns over long-range performance from M4 are overstated, as the primary goal must be to put a hole in the enemy . The M4, especially with the M68 and other optics increasingly in use, can do this to 300 meters and further out.

The SPC's stated goals include "increasing troop confidence".

So what.

My confidence is engendered by firearms that work, and as long as the M16/M4
platform is used, my trust will considerably less, regardless of the actual round fired.

John
(Who really does believe that a new round capable of replacing the two different rifle calibers currently in use is a good idea.)

[LeonCarr]

I was kinda wondering why a .223 necked up to 6.5 or 7mm, like a 6.5 TCU or 7 TCU, wouldn't work to provide increased performance in the M16/M4. It would be easy to replace barrels, use existing magazines, and provide increased down range energy.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[TX65]

Leon,

Problem with necking up a .223 Remington case to 6.5,6.8 or 7mm is twofold.

The first issue has to do with the magazine length which would restrict bullet selection to only those bullet offerings that could be properly seated within the AR15/M16 magazine length of 2.255 inches. The 6.8RemSPC and 6.5 Grendel are both shorter cases then the .223 Remington and as a result increase to varying degrees the available bullet selection.

The 2nd issue has to do powder capacity. Both the 6.8RemSPC and 6.5 Grendel are larger diameter cases then the .223 Remington offering a net increase in powder capacity, even though the cases are shorter, to propel the heavier bullets at desired velocities.

Converting a .223 Remington rifle to either cartridge only requires a barrel and bolt assembly as new parts. While purpose built magazines will be made for both cartridges, it is possible to modify .223 Remington magazines to function.

[VG]

Amazing advance. The original Garand was chambered in .276 - 6.78mm.

[madmike]

Consider:

The M-16 magazine is now standard throughout NATO for all new rifles. This obviously makes it desirable from a logistical and political viewpoint to make the new ammo fit the same mags, whether or not the round works well in that configuration. Procrustes lives.

The 5.56 round has killed millions of people. It has worked for 40 years. It is better, on HUMAN SIZED TARGETS, than 7.62 X 51, which was designed for DEER SIZED TARGETS. All the arguments to the contrary are prefaced with, "It seems to me that (more power is better)" and fail to provide supporting documents--which is that, based on battle reports, the 5.56 causes more effective casualties (bad guy unable to fight anymore that day) than 7.62. Fact. Wishing otherwise won't change it. I'd never take one deer hunting, but humans aren't deer--they're 8" thick and need a round that puts energy on target quickly. If you get a perfect heart shot, anything will work. But for wounds agianst human targets, the 5.56 is better than the 7.62. Fact. The comparative numbers of bodies in hospitals and morgues say so.

The AR-15 was the choice, as early as 1965, of the SAS, SEALs, Green Berets, Ghurkas, various other elite units, the Israelis (over the POS Galil some people rave about--Israeli infantry swap obscene favors to get hold of M-16s), and is out of patent, freely available, and can be built from a 4" pistol .22 to a 30" .50, just by swapping components.

As Gunny Highway said in Heartbreak Ridge, "Nothin' wrong with that weapon."

Failures encountered by troops in the field fall into three categories:

1) Problems during adoption, caused by inadequate training, faulty info from sales reps with no combat experience, and some yutz in Army logistics changing rifling, and propellant from IMR to ball. All fixed.

B} Case-by-case failures caused by individual weapon problems. Happens with everything. I've seen ONE good Garand of six I've handled. Therefore, I have no interest in taking an ISSUE one into battle. I wouldn't take a personal one, either, but that's for personal reasons. Case-by-case = not repeatable by another weapon.

iii] Troops who were not properly trained to use the weapon at a later date. This would happen with any weapon--see "M1 thumb."

I've used thousands of mags, tens of thousands of rounds, in mud, snow, buried in sand on OPFOR, in dirt, with hard chrome AF issue bolts so carboned as to look parkerized in a non-forward assist stock M16 (not A1), cheap ammo, third world ammo, damaged ammo, dirty ammo, old ammo...

"Nothin' wrong with that weapon."

I think I recall one round shearing the rim and not ejecting, and one bad magazine I reported, which the aggressor chief tossed in the trash.

Now, I'm quite sure a good round can be made in the proposed caliber, and a reliable weapon made to take it.

I'm also quite sure _I_ do not want to be the poor b@$+^rd who first takes it to the field.

After it's had 5 years of real world, however, I can see me getting one.

It will also probably be an improvement over what we have now--knowledge increases.

But it's not going to "fix" the 5.56 and the M-16. There's not a @#%^$ thing wrong with them.

It very likely will be better, though. Eventually. You first.

[Balog]

The 5.56 round has killed millions of people.

What? In what conflict has this happened? Most casualties on a modern battlefield result from supporting arms such as arty and CAS. I don't know if we killed "millions" of VC and NVA in Vietnam with all weapons put together. But the M-16 certainly can't claim that distinction. And maybe I'm missing it, but what war (or "police action") since that's been as large. Where are you whipping this "fact" out of?

It has worked for 40 years. It is better, on HUMAN SIZED TARGETS, than 7.62 X 51, which was designed for DEER SIZED TARGETS.

It hasn't been put to an extensive test since Vietnam, now has it? And call me crazy, but deer were approximately human sized last I checked.

But for wounds agianst human targets, the 5.56 is better than the 7.62. Fact.

It can be. Comparing fragmenting 5.56 with solid 7.62 is disingenuous at best. It's apples to oranges. Fragmenting 7.62 is more lethal than fragmenting 5.56. Same with ball. The problem w/ 5.56 is that it is too limited. To get a round that will cause massive amounts of damage you much sacrifice other important areas of performance (ie penetration). Not to mention the fact that the fragmenting effect occurs within a fairly narrow range. Too close (ie household distances) and the round will fragment on sheetrock. Too far and it won't fragment at all. So yes, if you are shooting a person within a narrow specified range who isn't wearing a flack jacket or body armor or hiding behind something... then yeah, a fragmenting 5.56 will smoke a non-fragmenting 7.62. Yay.

The comparative numbers of bodies in hospitals and morgues say so.

By this logic, we should be using 7.62x39.

[MicroBalrog]

--Israeli infantry swap obscene favors to get hold of M-16s),

ROFLMAO!:D

[Art Eatman]

Kaylee, I guess I was thinking of Browning's various commercial markets, which supported his R&D into machine guns.

An individual entrepreneur, now, either must have deep pockets to deal with the costs, or have some existing contract from the government. He can't readily come up with a "better mousetrap" of a machine gun in a home workshop and then get a commercial start while he's trying to peddle it to our military.

Let's just I hope you're right and I'm wrong, though...

:), Art

[madmike]

Clarification:

tens of thousands, not millions of kills. Perhaps 100s of thousands. A LOT of VC died, and a LOT of M16s were then sold throughout the world--Central America was full of them.

a 7.62 X 51 ball averages 30 inches of penetration before maximum energy dump. It doesn't even notice a body is there. Yes, a critical hit = death. A non-critical hit = wound that can be patched up as fairly routine.

the 5.56 (which has more power than the vaunted .44 magnum...is that round "inadequate"?) dumps most of its energy within 6". Measure any human body. Decide which will put more energy on target. If you don't get the critical kill, the 5.56 causes greater trauma. This is why the Green Beanies practically stole them from the Air Police at Tan Son Nhut, and why the VC warned everyone to stay away from "The Black Rifle."

Per people hit, the 5.56 causes more incapacitating wounds than 7.62. Army battlefield records back this up. The "additional power" of the 7.62 does no good inside normal rifle ranges--less of it is getting to the target. Fact. So why bother? It's a great sniper or machinegun round. It's not needed closer than 400 yards.

7.62 X 39 runs about 100 ft lbs more at the muzzle...negligible difference. So why be a fan of one over the other? My only objections to 7.62 X 39 are that most of the ammo available is of poor consistency, and it's heavier. More ammo = good thing. But I have nothing against the round, and shoot it lots. I'd trust it in any combat situation where precision wasn't an issue.

I'll also trust 7.62 X 51...but it's more rifle than one needs. Very Freudian. I'm confident of my ability to accomplish the job with a smaller round.;)

And while people and deer are similar mass, they are different shapes. Unless you have some VERY odd deer. There's more volume of thorax on a deer to use the 7.62 X 51 on.

Worst case I ever saw was a guy trying to compare .25-06 hollowpoint on deer against .223 ball on people. He never responded to my inquiry as to why the comparison was relevant.

[Balog]

Mike, you're committing the same error as the guy comparing the 25-06 to the .223. Your statements are true ONLY if you compare fragmenting 5.56 with non-fragmenting 7.62. It's like comparing the stopping power of FMJ .45 ACP with 9mm Hydrashoks. With comparable types of ammo, 7.62 is much more lethal and incapacitating. And fragmenting 7.62 will out penetrate 5.56.
And you still haven't answered my other objections. 5.56 is viciously lethal, but only under certain circumstances. What if your the person you shoot is too close, or too far, or hiding behind something? I concede that fragmenting 5.56 can cause more damage than ball 7.62. But so what? I bet 10mm Hydrashoks, under limited circumstances, can probably do more damage than ball 7.62. So what? The 7.62 is more generally useful.

[Joe Demko]

Could you please give an example of a fragmenting 7.62 NATO load that has seen any significant military use? Also, please, expand upon fragment 7.62 being a deeper penetrator than fragmenting 5.56. If the projectile is sufficiently frangible to break up on a human body, it seems to me that it will have limited penetration on harder targets regardless of caliber.

[Grump]

Could you please give an example of a fragmenting 7.62 NATO load that has seen any significant military use?

Well, Fackler documented some extreme results with West German (Bundesrepublik) 7.62mm NATO rounds. In meeting the generalized NATO performance specs, they used a thinner than usual mild steel jacket with copper plating. More volume of lead = shorter bullet, but the materials' net terminal performance was a bigger version of M193 5.56mm, and much different from the thicker-jacketed but also steel-and-copper U.S. M80 Ball bullets.

"Significant" military use? Well, no, since we never had to enlist West German assistance *in battle* to try to stop the Soviets at the Rhine River. I, for one, am quite glad for that.:)

[Balog]

Golgo-13: more mass + equal or higher vel = more penetration, even when fragmenting. And since it was in use manily by the West Germans and one other Euro country (Sweden maybe?), it hasn't had the chance. There have been no major conflicts since Vietnam wherein 7.62 was in common use.

[Bart Noir]

Balog, I refer you to the Falklands conflict, both sides using 7.62 and nearly identical small arms. Bet it was a major conflict to those involved. And during the Iran-Iraq war the Iranians were mostly armed with 7.62 G-1 rifles. I think they likely still are.

Bart Noir

[Balog]

Bart Noir: any conflict is major to those engaged in it, including self-defense shootings. I'd still not classify either of those as "major." And as far as I know no one involved in those fracas used fragmenting 7.62 which was, if you'll recall, what Golgo asked about. I admit I probably should have been more specific. Of course they might have used fragmenting ammo. But I feel safe in assuming they did not. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[JShirley]

You know what? Some things just aren't worth arguing.

The modern era of smaller bore rounds came about because it was discovered that most engagements fell drastically short of the maximum range of the military rifle cartridges (typically in the .308 Win power envelope, ie, 7x57mm, 7.62x54mm, 7.62x63mm, .303, etc). If that extreme range was not needed, less powerful rounds could be used. These less powerful rifle rounds could be carried in larger quantities (more potential adversaries addressed), could be fired in automatic weapons with more control than more powerful rounds, and yet still outranged pistol calibers.

This dithering about terminal bullet effects is very secondary to the main goal, which is to make a hole in the enemy. 5.45x39mm appears to be the first rifle round where terminal effectiveness was considered in the design phase, instead of as an afterthought.

John

[Balog]

JShirley:
You state that some things aren't worth arguing.
Then you present an argument.
Thus, you aren't saying that it isn't worth it because it is an exercise in futility which is not going to convince anyone (which I might agree with); you are saying that your argument is so obviously correct that it would be pointless to try to go against your wisdom. Such arrogance is astounding:barf: :barf: :barf:

[SodaPop]

I have been told by several credible people that Hirtenburger 7.62 NATO does have a thinner jacket than most 7.62 rounds.

[JShirley]

Balog,

Why, thank you, sir. I agreed with many things you said, as well. The argument I was speaking of was the effectiveness of .308 vs .223. I then attempted to demonstate why wound ballistics was not a factor in the decision. Sorry I didn't explain myself well.

John