WestKentucky
Member
Mine the oceanic trash floatillas? Nah, too sensible.
Recyclable is good, but seriously, aside from the base range, who picks them up? Obviously, anything to lighten a soldier's load is great, this coming from someone who toted an M-14. lolTrue Velocity claims their cases are 100% recyclable. Using there technology to make currently fielded cartridges (they are making 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO, 338 NM, 50 BMG, 12.7x108mm) they are claiming 50% lighter case resulting in 30% lighter weight ammunition. The ability to carry 30% more ammo for the same weight would certainly be an asset to the soldier even if none of the 6.8 magic comes to being.
Very interesting info. It seems as if this is a task of impossible success which is common when you demand XYZ when those features simply do not work together. It could push for innovation, and could potentially get some more work done on energy based weapons. Metallic core, case not determined (possibly caseless), but the big question is what happens when you cram that much performance into a .277 derivative of a .308? You will get something that’s hard to contain, possibly a large chamber and then ported barrel to bleed off pressure and not rupture a barrel.So just playing in Quickloads... Pushing a 123gr .277 bullet to 3500 fps takes a 270 Weatherby Mag to achieve under normal pressures. If I drop down to 270 Winchester pressures are over 80,000 psi. I can't imagine what it's going to be like in cases roughly the size of 308 Win.
True Velocity claims their cases are 100% recyclable. Using their technology to make currently fielded cartridges (they are making 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO, 338 NM, 50 BMG, 12.7x108mm) they are claiming 50% lighter case resulting in 30% lighter weight ammunition. The ability to carry 30% more ammo for the same weight would certainly be an asset to the soldier even if none of the 6.8 magic comes to being.
But with a bullet 44% heavier than m193 ammo, there will be absolutely zero nominal weight savings, plus the footprint will be greater.
(edit to add, speaking specifically about transitioning to the new bullet specs)
True but for aproximately the same weight as m193 you get a nice performance upgrade.
You really have to wonder sometimes if these news sources intentionally look for writers and sources who are ignorant of the subject matter for their articles. I'm curious if the author came up with this nonsense or if it's a quote from somebody else.From the article:
"Military leaders essentially want a weapon that boasts the firepower — and range — of a machine gun with the precision of a rifle."
I said on another board believe it when you see it. The "plastic" ammo is IMHO a real good idea, lighter, you don't reload it anyway so why not....carry more is one thing....but moving it around on boats, planes whatever is going to allow you to carry more of it....so that is a win.
It is a VERY EXPENSIVE deal to switch over to a new rifle....let alone a new rifle and cartridge. They do have money again so it might get to see the light of day, but I doubt it.....it would really need to be over and done with inside of 10 years otherwise I really think there is little chance.
I am pretty far from an AR fanboi but it is really a good platform even if it is on the otherside of 50 years old.
Composite cases? Just what we need, more single use plastic to screw up the environment.
Think of the number of cases the Army will produce, and leave everywhere, if they adapt this.
Sorry, I’m finally starting to think of things like this in my old age.
I think you would be shocked at the costs.Well yes and no. The costs of small arms is a pittance compared with a Ford class Carrier. I suspect that most of the issues arise are training,logistics, and allies such as NATO.
A Ford class Carrier costs so far about $13 billion and that is not counting logistics and training costs. The Ford class also is not quite fixed yet and may require hundreds of millions more. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...craft-carrier-that-still-isnt-ready-to-deploy And the cost of the aircraft are like batteries, not included.I think you would be shocked at the costs.
A Ford class Carrier costs so far about $13 billion and that is not counting logistics and training costs. The Ford class also is not quite fixed yet and may require hundreds of millions more. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...craft-carrier-that-still-isnt-ready-to-deploy And the cost of the aircraft are like batteries, not included.
The new 6.8 project's estimated cost is about 0.7 billion. It is the last category--Soldier Lethality when you look at the bar graph.
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/army-moves-25b-to-big-six-including-new-6-8mm-rifle/
I don't see costs in the second article you linked....perhaps I missed it.
I don't see costs in the second article you linked....perhaps I missed it.
I don't disagree that something like a carrier costs more....but if you think 1 billion....thats with a B (bonus points if you know where that came from) is chump change well ok.
And also to not get political, you got inside of 10 years to get this in the hands of the troops in large scale otherwise you got another B1 on your hands to be killed by the next dem that gets in office.
I might think from your comment that you might be a tad cynical about the operating procedures of our government. Surely you jest as the government contractors responsible surely have the best interests of the citizenry and soldiers of the US foremost in their hearts .Not going to happen. It’s like computer upgrades, just screw working things up so someone can make a buck.