CapnMac
Member
The other issue to remember is that Army wants a harder hitting SAW, not a newer AR.
The premise of a SAW--Squad Automatic Weapon--is to provide cover fires in both offense and defense. So, it really needs to be able to outrange the rifles in the squad.
The 249 was meant to use its slightly longer & heavier barrel to this end. It also used belted ammo to keep the round count up as well. So, the doctrine was that you were meant to apply the SAW to targets in the 300-600m range, typically in suppression mode. The reality was that most squads were not engaging much beyond the 300m range of their own rifles. And, that when used at longer ranges, the 5.56 ammo was having direct effect on opponents. The Infantry Squad already being overloaded as is, could not just be given an M-240 in 7.62nato. (Doctrinally, that belonged to the Platoon and Company level of fires, and more importantly, of Supply.)
What to do, then. Well, find an intermediate between 5.56 and 7.62. So, there has been a very long search to figure out what "light" projo is "heavy" enough to the task. This winds up being somewhere in the 6.5 and 6.8mm range.
The military often identifies a round first, then orders up weapons to use it. There's a theory that using a clean slate offers innovation on that front. The boffins seem to feel that the consensus will fall in somewhere in 6.8 bore, and from 45-50mm long cases. Seems logical. even if we are quibbling over 0.02mm to not just call the new round 7x45 or 7x50.
Now, it will be interesting to see how Infantry copes with having an additional caliber to hump into the field. Or if the tactical advantages of the ammo over-rides the supply complexity. No major military has tried fielding three calibers at the Company level successfully. Which does not mean it's a bad idea, just that there's no prior experience in doing that.
Will that generate a new chambering for non-military arms? Maybe. May depend on if over-run ammo gets put on the public market or not.
The premise of a SAW--Squad Automatic Weapon--is to provide cover fires in both offense and defense. So, it really needs to be able to outrange the rifles in the squad.
The 249 was meant to use its slightly longer & heavier barrel to this end. It also used belted ammo to keep the round count up as well. So, the doctrine was that you were meant to apply the SAW to targets in the 300-600m range, typically in suppression mode. The reality was that most squads were not engaging much beyond the 300m range of their own rifles. And, that when used at longer ranges, the 5.56 ammo was having direct effect on opponents. The Infantry Squad already being overloaded as is, could not just be given an M-240 in 7.62nato. (Doctrinally, that belonged to the Platoon and Company level of fires, and more importantly, of Supply.)
What to do, then. Well, find an intermediate between 5.56 and 7.62. So, there has been a very long search to figure out what "light" projo is "heavy" enough to the task. This winds up being somewhere in the 6.5 and 6.8mm range.
The military often identifies a round first, then orders up weapons to use it. There's a theory that using a clean slate offers innovation on that front. The boffins seem to feel that the consensus will fall in somewhere in 6.8 bore, and from 45-50mm long cases. Seems logical. even if we are quibbling over 0.02mm to not just call the new round 7x45 or 7x50.
Now, it will be interesting to see how Infantry copes with having an additional caliber to hump into the field. Or if the tactical advantages of the ammo over-rides the supply complexity. No major military has tried fielding three calibers at the Company level successfully. Which does not mean it's a bad idea, just that there's no prior experience in doing that.
Will that generate a new chambering for non-military arms? Maybe. May depend on if over-run ammo gets put on the public market or not.