Future Weapons,last night

[Satch]

The future weapons show last night had a segment about a possible replacement cartridge for the .223 for the military and a rifle to use it,the M468 with a 6.8 SPC bullet.
It brought to mind what a guy I worked with at our clubs table at a gun show this passed Sunday.This guy was in the National Guard and said there was a chance he would be going to Iraq.At one of their training sessions their was a Sargent their back from Iraq on medical leave and he was telling some things about fighting the terrorist.They were clearing some houses and shot two with the usual 2 rounds from the AR15's and were checking some other things when he was hit in the leg.One of the terrorists was still alive not killed by the 2 rounds. Most of the troops in Iraq agree the AR15's .223 just isn't strong enough with that little .55 to .72 gr. slug,and a heavier round is needed.
The M468 made by Barret might be a good replacement for the AR15.The AR15 can be converted to the M468 by changing out the upper receiver and different mags on the AR15, and it can be done in minutes.
Some branches of the Military have looked at this cartridge,and rifle for it.
The guy I worked at the gun show told me that if he goes to Iraq,he's going to try and get an AK as soon as he can because our people there try to use them as much as possible.

 

[1911 guy]

The guy I worked at the gun show told me that if he goes to Iraq,he's going to try and get an AK as soon as he can because our people there try to use them as much as possible.

Wrong.

Much of the problem is people think a firearm is a magic wand. Nothing short of literal vaporization is a sure stopper in all conditions. "But I shot him, really!" is a lame excuse for not keeping your head on a swivel and watching the threat until it's no longer an issue.

I agree that the 5.56 isn't ideal for the mission. Personally, I'd go with something like the 6.8, I like the 7.62X51, myself. However, the U.S. Military has a habit of doing more with less and doing the impossible with not much more than that. The 5.56 is adequate. I've seen close range COM hits result in jacket/core seperation that resulted in stops like a bolt of lightning. I've also seen the "Hey, who's shooting me?" reaction. Refer to my previous comment about 100% stops.

 

[RNB65]

The Army has been testing the 6.8SPC for quite some time now and so far there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for it. I doubt it will be adopted.

I'm guessing that a modified M16/M4 using the HK piston rod upper and firing caseless 5.56mm ammo is a more likely replacement for what soldiers currently field.

 

[NORTEXED]

Some US troops probably do glean onto AK's, but the problem there is, in CQB, they sound like AK's, and that can get you some unfriendly friendly fire.

 

[jerkface11]

6.8spc is an armchair generals wet dream. But if you look up the ballistics you'll see it isn't an improvement over 5.56 the bullet is far too light for the diameter and the case capacity isn't high enough to get good velocity. It's a necked down shortened .30 remington which is a rimless version of .30-30. It is going nowhere fast.

 

[1911 guy]

If I recall, it's been officially dropped.

I think I recall hearing through the rumor mill that the 6.8 program had been officially shelved, along with the new pistol program.

Like I said before, I don't think the 9mm and 5.56 are optimum, but they are entirely serviceable and capable.

 

[waynedm]

Back in the day (WW1, 2, Korea) we didn't have as many movies with people being shot and flying 50 feet being killed instantly.

Now, these people brought up watching these movies are going to war knowing nothing but myth and expecting Hollywood results out of their M9s and M16s. When they don't get those results they claim the round/gun isn't up to par with (insert favorite round here). They know nothing about physiology and think that hitting somebody in the leg, stomach or any other part of center mass is going to be fatal. They don't realize that even if they hit the subject in the aorta or even destroy the heart that the subject can keep running, pulling the trigger or whatever for upwards of a minute. Deer/elk/caribou ect hunters can attest to this. Hitting them anywhere other than the upper spinal area or brain will not result in instant results. Hitting them anywhere other than the aorta or heart will most likely not even be fatal unless they don't receive medical treatment.

The Fudd generals along with the naive kids on the triggers just need to be educated about what is myth and what isn't. Maybe EMT-B training should be standard education for those going out in the field so they better know what to aim for?

 

[Dravur]

Well, ya know.

<Fake Bubba talking about his time in the Corps> We used to have to pick up the commie weapons and use them as our M-16s and M-4s couldn't shoot the wings off the fly. I once saw a Viet Cong shot with 400 rounds to the chest with an M-16 and he lived!

But, I picked up one of them there AKs and shot a guy in the toe. He literally EXPLODED right there. So, all of our guys started using the commie guns.

Yep, the M-16 ain't good for nuttin except shooting mice.

<End Fake Bubba>

My guess is that the guy who was injured when a shot Terrorist was able to keep fighting wasn't paying attention. How many times do we have to show you in those training films, like Friday the 13th and Halloween, once you shoot a guy, you DONT go up and play pattycakes.

For a good example of what to actually do in that situation. Please watch Army of Darkness with Bruce Campbell. When the cook turns into a demon and starts whacking everyone and is finally shot but is obviously playing dead.... The king tried to touch it, but Ash keeps him from doing it..... Great scene.

MAKE SURE THEY ARE DEAD OR INCAPACITATED.

Also, if they are wearing a hockey mask, well, just get outta there.

 

['Card]

The problem with these discussions is that no one can say they don't think the 5.56 round is adequate for combat without being told they're either ignorant, inexperienced, a Mall Ninja, or overly influenced by movies and television.

You know what? That's garbage, and it's offensive. I'm a veteran, I'm well-educated, I'm an EMT, I'm a life-long hunter and shooter, and if I was getting dropped back into a combat zone tomorrow I'd rather be carrying a 7.62. I'm not particularly a fan of AK's, but a G3, an AR-10, or an FN-FAL would do just fine.

I've shot both cartridges, I've seen what both will do, and I don't think 5.56 is a good choice for combat.

So, what now? From the way these discussions normally proceed, your only options appear to be calling me a liar or a troll.

 

[#shooter]

but Ash keeps him from doing it..... Ashe grabs the kings arm and says "It's a trick, get the ax."

Same for the Princess Bride when Miracle Max said “It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive.”

You would think you should always keep your eye on the enemy and never assume they are dead, sounds like common sense. I haven’t been in combat though so I’m no expert. I do think the 5.56 is to light and small. Considering the enemy may be wearing some crude armor, using cover like trees or bricks, or hopped up on drugs. I think the 7.62 is a good general purpose round.

 

[Sam Adams]

I'm not a veteran, nor am I a ballistics expert. FWIW, I think the fact that most states ban the use of .223 for deer hunting indicates that it is inadequate as a one-shot man-stopper (since deer and men are ***roughly*** the same weight - and by roughly I mean within a factor of 2 or so, rather than 10 like with a coyote). This doesn't mean that .223 cannot be an effective one-shot man-stopper, it doesn't mean that anything short of a .50 BMG is inadequate, it just means that - statistically speaking - your odds of killing or permanently incapacitating an enemy soldier with the first shot from a .30 cal. bullet is greater than that of a .223/5.56 mm bullet.

OF COURSE, shot placement is critical - I'd rather hit someone with a .22 LR than miss with a 16-inch shell - but I think that most people having these discussions are assuming that you're hitting the target, and the argument is over the relative effects of the hits, how much ammo you have, etc.

IMHO, the decision to adopt the 5.56 mm cartridge had more to do with fancy computer models about costs, carrying capacity, the relative drain on enemy resources for a wounded soldier vs. a dead one, the size of our S. Vietnamese allies - i.e. theoretical things, not real-world practical experience.

There's no doubt that you can carry less 7.62 ammo than 5.56. There's also no doubt that the 5.56 is less effective at longer ranges, and that past 150 yards or so the wounding effets are less pronounced/dramatic. Moving to a 16" barrel on the M-4 vs. a 20-inch on the M-16 didn't help (except that a shorter barrel is more practical for urban combat for non-ballistic reasons).

The 6.8 SPC has been mentioned, here and on thousands of other threads across the internet for years. IMHO, it hasn't lived up to its manufacturer's intial promises, and even if it did it isn't terribly effective (vs. competition) past about 200-300 yards. I'd surely rather shoot it instead of 5.56 mm, but there's a better alternative. This alternative has roughly the same one-stop capability as the 7.62 rounds at under 500 yards while being lighter, and is actually more effective (i.e. retains more energy) past that 500 yard range. It is the 6.5 Grendel, the bullet for which is long and slender - perfect for fighting the wind and therefore assuring more energy downrange and more accuracy. Just as with the 6.8, a mere swap of the upper will let you use it. The only drawback is that it needs its own mags, but for a government with a $500 billion defense budget, $100 million or so for new mags over several years is not significant at all (especially when you factor in the greater probability of one-shot stops on the enemy that will lead to less casualties on our side).

Here's a website that discusses the 6.5 Grendel in great detail: http://www.65grendel.com/

The producer of the Grendel, Alexander Arms, has versions with 10.5 inch barrels for close combat all the way up to 28 inch barrels for 1,000 yard sniper shots, showing its versatility for any member of a squad. It is also suitable for use in a light MG, so it would vastly simplify logistics.

Please note that not only do I not have any legal/financial connection to the inventor/manufacturers/resellers of 6.5 Grendel products, I don't even own one (yet - that's a money matter, and if money wasn't a bit tight I'd have one right now). My reason for backing this round is simple: I just believe that it is better than any alternative so far presented, based on the ballistics and the easy changeover for the military.

 

[wooderson]

In a given weight, how much more 5.56 ammo can a soldier carry compared to 7.62?

 

[buzz_knox]

6.8spc is an armchair generals wet dream.

The 6.8SPC was developed by and for the Special Operations community. The cartridge works well for all intended purposes, from CQB to normal rifle distance work. It's not been adopted by the military in any extent because the military has neither the funding nor will to carry forward on the project.

There's a massive amount of information on this cartridge, as much good and bad. Go to www.tacticalforums.com and search for Gary Roberts' posts on the subject. He helped develop and test the round.

As for the 5.56, it works well. The 6.8SPC was designed to create a round that does better than well.

 

[SoCalShooter]

5.56 is a good round, its about shot placement, instead of 2 rounds use 3 two to the body and one well placed shot to the head, BG is going to go down once you shoot him in the head area. My brother in law came back and said he wished he had a better round but since he was a saw gunner he was happy he could have so much 5.56 was not the case for the 7.62 gunners. For house to house clearing his squad had a guy who was armed with a 12 gauge much better weapon for such as task. The 5.56 round is not designed to be a knock down one shot kill, it does funny things when it hits soft tissue, tumbles and tears and does a lot of damage. Marksmanship is the key here.

 

[Satch]

Future

The more I think about it,why don't they just go back to the good ole 30-06. One shot, one kill.