Nolo
Member
We're not reinventing the wheel, we're improving on it. There's a difference.
Last edited:
What would you Change the US Assault rifle to
- Thread starter 68'chevelle
- Start date
- Status
HorseSoldier
Member
The people who developed the 6.8 Rem SPC cartridge started out testing calibers between 6mm and (if I recall correctly) 7mm.
They settled on the 6.8mm caliber as it offered the best combination of performance characteristics they were looking for.
External ballistics are only part of the equation. They were also concerned with barrier penetration and terminal/wound ballistics the round produced. Any bullet caliber and weight selected would be a compromise of things they wanted the round to do (especially with the case OAL restriction the M16/M4 magwell imposed) but there were very specific reasons why they went with 6.8mm rather than something smaller caliber.
stubbicatt
Member
Magpul Masada. Modern, modular, easy to maintain, easy to clean, reliable AR-180 gas system, readily interchangeable to the other military calibers.
When this comes out in the spring, I'm getting one (assuming of course the AWB is not in place by then?)
When this comes out in the spring, I'm getting one (assuming of course the AWB is not in place by then?)
Nolo
Member
I'm not sure I understand the benefit that 6.8mm gives you over 6.5mm for the same bullet weight. Anyone care to enlighten me?
zedheadmc
Member
deleted my reply
My understanding is that the 6.8, using Hague compliant bullets, performed better in Ballistic Gelatin than 6.5. That's experimental rather than theoretical.
The problem is that there really isn't a good 6.5 hague compliant bullets. Lapua makes a 100gn FMJ, but it is a very old design. What is need is an M193/M855 equavlent in 6.5.
Alexander Arms has been touting the 6.5 Gredel by using bullets like the Lapua scenar and comparing them to ball ammo. Natually, a high BC target bullet has better long range performance. Performance in tissue with an FMJ is the question.
I expect that a properly designed canneleured 6.5mm DMJ would perform similarly to the 115gn 6.8 bullet - perhaps a little better thanks to higher velocity - the 6.5 has much more case capacity.
However, as I noted, if you use a case like the 7.62x45 as a starting point, and don't worry about super heavy match bullets, you can great a 6.5 Grendel like round that delivers more velocity and better case design for semi weapons.
Finally, anything is just moving some characteristics around: velocity, weight, range, etc.
The problem is that there really isn't a good 6.5 hague compliant bullets. Lapua makes a 100gn FMJ, but it is a very old design. What is need is an M193/M855 equavlent in 6.5.
Alexander Arms has been touting the 6.5 Gredel by using bullets like the Lapua scenar and comparing them to ball ammo. Natually, a high BC target bullet has better long range performance. Performance in tissue with an FMJ is the question.
I expect that a properly designed canneleured 6.5mm DMJ would perform similarly to the 115gn 6.8 bullet - perhaps a little better thanks to higher velocity - the 6.5 has much more case capacity.
However, as I noted, if you use a case like the 7.62x45 as a starting point, and don't worry about super heavy match bullets, you can great a 6.5 Grendel like round that delivers more velocity and better case design for semi weapons.
Finally, anything is just moving some characteristics around: velocity, weight, range, etc.
Nolo
Member
I see. So it has better terminal performance. Supposedly. Okay. Makes sense.
I agree, GunTech. I think 6.8 SPC is good for what it does, in fact, I think it is probably the best round out there for assault rifles.
By the way, how is 6.8 SPC catching on?
I hope "DMJ" is a typo for "FMJ", because if it isn't, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I agree, GunTech. I think 6.8 SPC is good for what it does, in fact, I think it is probably the best round out there for assault rifles.
By the way, how is 6.8 SPC catching on?
kcmarine
Member
Meh... took my idea.
Though come on, guys. Forget AR based platforms. The 40- watt plasma rifle is obviously the way to go... duuh...
Sorry, bad typing. Meant FMJ.
The big thing holding back 6.8 and 6.5 Grendel is that they are highly specialized rounds. Both are designed to imporve the effectivness of 5.56x45mm rifles that are limited by case length and diameter. There aren't as many applications outside of paramilitary ones.
The 6.8 is now available in the Ruger mini-14, as well as several brands of AR-15. The advantage here is that you can bow have an AR or other 223 based semi that is legal to hunt deer in most states (223 is unlawfull in many states for deer).
The 6.5 g is another matter. Alexander Arms originally tried to completely control their proprietary round, charging a license fee to anyone who wanted to make guns or ammo. That made many people shy away. Wolf is now going to offer factory ammo, which may help, but basically it is a custom round. At least 6.8 has the backing of Remington.
The long tern survival of both these rounds will depend on whether there developes a large civilian following sinve neither has much future as a military round from current appearances.
If the 6.5 or 6.8 could find home in a lightweight, compact hunting rifle, either could go a long way. For example, if CZ were to release a factory version of their 527 miniMauser in 6.5 or 6.8, you could have a sub 6 pond bolt action rifle that would appeal to a lot of hunters, particularly women and youth, but also people who like a light, easy to pack mountain rifle.
I've been toying with making another 6.5G CZ-527 with a lighteight synthetic stock. It should be easy to get under 5 pounds. However, just the rebarreling is a $400 investment, which now makes the CZ well over $1000.
That's not going to sell well.
The big thing holding back 6.8 and 6.5 Grendel is that they are highly specialized rounds. Both are designed to imporve the effectivness of 5.56x45mm rifles that are limited by case length and diameter. There aren't as many applications outside of paramilitary ones.
The 6.8 is now available in the Ruger mini-14, as well as several brands of AR-15. The advantage here is that you can bow have an AR or other 223 based semi that is legal to hunt deer in most states (223 is unlawfull in many states for deer).
The 6.5 g is another matter. Alexander Arms originally tried to completely control their proprietary round, charging a license fee to anyone who wanted to make guns or ammo. That made many people shy away. Wolf is now going to offer factory ammo, which may help, but basically it is a custom round. At least 6.8 has the backing of Remington.
The long tern survival of both these rounds will depend on whether there developes a large civilian following sinve neither has much future as a military round from current appearances.
If the 6.5 or 6.8 could find home in a lightweight, compact hunting rifle, either could go a long way. For example, if CZ were to release a factory version of their 527 miniMauser in 6.5 or 6.8, you could have a sub 6 pond bolt action rifle that would appeal to a lot of hunters, particularly women and youth, but also people who like a light, easy to pack mountain rifle.
I've been toying with making another 6.5G CZ-527 with a lighteight synthetic stock. It should be easy to get under 5 pounds. However, just the rebarreling is a $400 investment, which now makes the CZ well over $1000.
That's not going to sell well.
Nolo
Member
Yeah, I hear you.
I'm I just think the SPC would give a distinct improvement to the 5.56mm rifle. What do you think on that?
I'm I just think the SPC would give a distinct improvement to the 5.56mm rifle. What do you think on that?
jaholder1971
Member
Knowing I'm waay behind on this discussion, but do we really need a change to our existing service rifles? I mean just where is the existing M16/M4 not performing?
I know they had trouble with M855 performing as advertised in Afghanistan with M4's in the cold but seem to have resolved that with Mk.262 ammo loaded with Sierra 77 Matchkings.
I know they had trouble with M855 performing as advertised in Afghanistan with M4's in the cold but seem to have resolved that with Mk.262 ammo loaded with Sierra 77 Matchkings.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The theory seems to be that a new, but unproven weapon is better than an older weapon with nearly 45 years of combat service and thousands of improvements and upgrades.
Nolo
Member
No, it's just natural human drive to improve. At least, it is for me. I used to be in the camp that said that the M16/M4 is just a Mattel Poodle-Shooter, but I don't think that now. I just know that there is better out there. Was there anything wrong with the Springfield when they replaced it with the Garand? No. But the Garand was a significant improvement.
Vern Humphrey
Member
But not every change is an improvement.
On the other hand, every change -- particularly in a combat weapon -- has inherent risks. Theoretically good weapons turn out to be actual dogs when exposed to real combat.
Therefore, to justify the risk, the new weapon must offer a substantial technological advantage. Look at the success stories in new weapons:
From flintlock to caplock
From roundball to minie ball
From muzzle loader to breechloader
From black powder to smokeless powder.
From a rimmed, limited design to a rimless Mauser style
From manual (bolt) operation to semi automatic.
From big (.30 caliber) to small (.22 caliber)
Is there a leap forward like those listed?
On the other hand, every change -- particularly in a combat weapon -- has inherent risks. Theoretically good weapons turn out to be actual dogs when exposed to real combat.
Therefore, to justify the risk, the new weapon must offer a substantial technological advantage. Look at the success stories in new weapons:
From flintlock to caplock
From roundball to minie ball
From muzzle loader to breechloader
From black powder to smokeless powder.
From a rimmed, limited design to a rimless Mauser style
From manual (bolt) operation to semi automatic.
From big (.30 caliber) to small (.22 caliber)
Is there a leap forward like those listed?
Nolo
Member
You are absolutely right. And, to answer your question, I believe that there is a leap forward. I think that the Knox powders, assuming credibility, are that leap. If they aren't credible, well then I see no reason why someone else could do it. It seems like a reasonable jump. Even if we haven't figured out how to significantly reduce the weight of our cartridges, we will. And I think it is on the horizon.
GT,
If you are talking or playing with the 6.5G some more, Robinson Arms are currently testing their XCR modular rifle in this calibre and have released it in 6.8SPC to supplement the core 5.56.
I will admit to a particular fondness for my XCR in 5.56 but am looking forward to spending the necessary lucre to try out the 6.5
One thing at least, I will be able to do direct one to one comparisons beween the calibres and hit my comfort zone.
Oh for those who haven't used/heard of the rifle, it combines many of the positive points of the AR, FAL an AK in one package.
RA are really listening to their clients with this weapon and using the feedback in a very positive manner.
If you are talking or playing with the 6.5G some more, Robinson Arms are currently testing their XCR modular rifle in this calibre and have released it in 6.8SPC to supplement the core 5.56.
I will admit to a particular fondness for my XCR in 5.56 but am looking forward to spending the necessary lucre to try out the 6.5
One thing at least, I will be able to do direct one to one comparisons beween the calibres and hit my comfort zone.
Oh for those who haven't used/heard of the rifle, it combines many of the positive points of the AR, FAL an AK in one package.
RA are really listening to their clients with this weapon and using the feedback in a very positive manner.
68'chevelle
Member
They could always bump up the caliber to .50 Beowulf, with a op-rod instead of the gas-tube.
Strings
Member
IIRC, you have to have a slightly wider opening for the Beowulf to feed out of the mags. That, and the 30 RD .223 mag only holds around 12 .50 Beowulf rounds (again, IIRC)
68'chevelle
Member
That would be a problem
Elm Creek Smith
Member
The 6.8mm SPC was designed to overcome the shortcomings of the 5.56mm in the M4 at the longer ranges in Afghanistan. If the troops in Afghanistan were using the longer-barreled M16 instead of the M4 the 5.56mm ammo would have been more effective at the longer engagement ranges. It was the Special Ops guys that drove the developement because they were the orginal big users of the M4. Out of the M4's short barrel, the 6.8mm SPC hits harder at longer ranges and still works well up close.
I think the 6.8mm SPC is a good idea and like a piston-rod system much better than the direct impingment of the M16.
If the GPMG needs to be updated, the .260 Remington might be a good choice, but I don't have a problem with the 7.62x51mm NATO.
ECS
I think the 6.8mm SPC is a good idea and like a piston-rod system much better than the direct impingment of the M16.
If the GPMG needs to be updated, the .260 Remington might be a good choice, but I don't have a problem with the 7.62x51mm NATO.
ECS
atblis
Member
Hmmm
6.8 SPC might be about right.
6.8 SPC might be about right.
Dr. Peter Venkman
Member
Give them an E-11:
- Status