Quantcast

The Army's new Squad Automatic Rifle will be Chambered in .270 Win. ...ish.

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Garandimal, Feb 1, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. C-grunt

    C-grunt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,027
    Location:
    Phoenix Az
    This round is going in the M249 SAW replacement. It's not being touted as a replacement for 5.56 in a standard rifle.

    They tried replacing the 5.56 with the 6.8 SPC years ago. I worked with a former SEAL who was on the teams that tested the 6.8. His response was "meh". They found no advantage to it over 5.56. Good hits were good hits and bad hits were still bad hits.

    I do think a cartridge with more mass than 5.56 and less recoil than 7.62 would be a good SAW round. I was a SAW gunner for a while and I think a little bit better penetration would be a good trade off.
     
  2. Mosin Bubba

    Mosin Bubba Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,419
    20% lighter than an AR cartridge with 270 Win ballistics... I just don't see how that can happen.

    Curious to know what the big advantage of this caliber is vs 308 though. Just off the weight/velocity specs, I don't see that much of a difference. ~10% lighter and ~10% faster, that's literally just a 270.
     
    BigBlue 94 likes this.
  3. Ignition Override

    Ignition Override Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    6,476
    Location:
    The Mid-South.
    Were the Germans in WW1 and 2 smart to have used the same ammo in their infantry rifles and "squad" machine guns such as the MG 34 and 42?
    My impression is that the British also did so.

    Don't get me wrong-I have no infantry nor armor etc experience and don't pretend to understand the many issues and scenarios.
    It just seems too practical to Not use the same ammo, despite machine guns using belted ammo.
     
    CoalTrain49 likes this.
  4. Jessesky

    Jessesky Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    Messages:
    941
    Can individual handloaders compete for the contract? I think I can swing 850million loads for the army with my new progressive press
     
  5. MTMilitiaman

    MTMilitiaman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    3,170
    Location:
    Missoula, Montana
    I know. I can remember when we were for sure going with the OICW. That became the XM8, which became another order of M16s. I can remember when 6.8 SPC came out and people were convinced that was where the future was, for about a week, then became M855A1. Remember Dragonskin body armor? I have an uncle with a "Navy SEAL friend." He's been trying to convince me the military is going back to the M14 and the M60 since I was about 14. I am not 36. He's still dead convinced that any day now...

    I think the new M80A1 for the 7.62 NATO is 130 gr @ 3100 fps from an M240, which is curiously close to the stated specs for new 6.8mm round.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2019
    bearcreek and FL-NC like this.
  6. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,169
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    Like the 5.56 x 45?
     
  7. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,169
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    I was thinking in use, not just the M-14. M240 (7.72 NATO) is still in use.
     
  8. Frostbite

    Frostbite Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Messages:
    691
    Location:
    Québec
    Maybe new bullets will come out of this that will be useable in the .270 Winchester. If such a cartridge was to be adopted, I am pretty sure the .270 Winchester would benefit from it in some way. So, basically, good news, I guess.
     
    TN Outlaw likes this.
  9. Garandimal

    Garandimal Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,627
    Location:
    Lee of Death Valley, ...where Tigers feed.
    Supposedly, the new 6.8mm is an “ultra high velocity” armor piercing round developed through the ARL, which is designed to defeat current body armor to 1,200 meters.

    One of the Ammo contractors is touting 30% lighter polymer cases rated at 80K psi.




    GR
     
  10. someguy2800

    someguy2800 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2015
    Messages:
    5,463
    Location:
    Minnesota
    The MG42 is not a squad automatic rifle, it's a crew served light machine gun. Lighter machine guns like the MG34 and M60 are kind of half in between. A squad automatic rifle is to be carried and operated by a single soldier, more like a BAR or a Bren. Today we use the M249 for that purpose.

    Pretty much all army's of the time issued the majority of their rifles in the same cartridge. The American army in WW2 used the 30-06 in the M1903, M1917, M1 Garand, the Johnson rifle, BAR, and our light machine gun the M1917A1 and M1919.
     
  11. Garandimal

    Garandimal Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,627
    Location:
    Lee of Death Valley, ...where Tigers feed.
    The Rifle is also to be equipped w/ an optic that includes a range-finder/WX station/ballistic calculator.

    Think they are serious about the long range capabilities of this system.




    GR
     
    Mosin Bubba likes this.
  12. d2wing

    d2wing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,862
    As a M-60 gunner, I can see replacing the .308 with a slightly smaller cartridge but with more range. The M60, I don't know much about the SAW, was a lot for one guy to carry and put into action especially with ammo belts. Look slightly left, you will see what I mean.. Some thing lighter with lighter ammo and with more range sounds like a real good idea to me.
     
    Olon and someguy2800 like this.
  13. Random 8

    Random 8 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2018
    Messages:
    1,109
    Location:
    Central MN
    Sounds like a .270 redding +P. 3000ish FPS should be doable within reasonable pressures at that bullet weight. If that is the case, might be an easy conversion for some existing 7.62 SDMRs and LMGs still in the system.
     
  14. Ignition Override

    Ignition Override Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    6,476
    Location:
    The Mid-South.
    someguy2800: Thanks for the clarification and reminder. The WW2 Wehrmacht soldiers apparently trained in a doctrine requiring that they maneuver to support the MG 34 and 42.
    These MGs' weight must be a good bit more than the SAW using the lower energy 5.56.
     
  15. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    6,120
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    This story has been bouncing around various news feeds for close to a year now, and not one of the journos involved has yet demonstrated any subject matter knowledge.

    Various 6.8mm cartridges keep being touted, likely because those calibers pop up in wiki searches. However, if you get to the press releases from the actual agencies, they keep referring to a magical round that is from 6 to 7mm caliber, likely about 45 to 55mm in case length. naturally, this unicorn wil lbe as light as 5.556nato and pack as much punch as 7.62nato.

    Mind, it's like they want ed ignore history altogether. 7x47, aka .280nato, was rejected for not having enough "oomph" for use in SAW or GPMG roles (at least back in the 50s). The 7x51, aka .276pedersen, was rejected for needing a range fan 15% larger than for .30-06 M2 Ball (and for being suspect for use in WWII MG ranges, e.g. 3000-3500m)

    So, the Powers That Be are probably dithering over whether they can gin up a .280rem (7x64.5) that's GPMG suitable crossed wit ha 6.5x55 that would be SAW suitable.

    For 2¢ what that suggests to be is something about 7x45, which would get you a round that could be fit in an AR15 dimension action, with some oomph. The projo people would need to gin up a suitable FMJ & specialty ammo, AP, APT, etc. Which likely would not work best until getting to around 7x50. Or not.
     
  16. Mosin Bubba

    Mosin Bubba Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,419
    To me, that's a much more realistic proposal. An auto-adjusting range finding scope would be a far bigger aid for long-range shooting than a new cartridge.

    If it works out in practice, you could pretty much turn 500+ yard shots in the field - with unknown exact distances, wind blowing, offhand shooting positions, frequent movement, etc - into a literal point and shoot exercise. It'd be like shooting the same target at 50. I mean, short of a fletchette gun, no other cartridge you make is going to give you that kind of range.

    And as far as that new cartridge - ever since the invention of assault rifles, armies have looked for the One Round to Rule Them All that could feed both their rifles and machine guns. I don't think one is out there, for the simple reason that what plays nice with a 7 pound assault rifle doesn't work well in a 20 pound machine gun, and vica versa. Seems like the requirements are just too far apart to be met by one cartridge - and if they could, you think they would have found it over the last 70 years.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2019
  17. FL-NC

    FL-NC Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2016
    Messages:
    5,467
    Location:
    Fl panhandle
    Speaking of machine guns, for some time SOCOM has been using a machine gun known as the MK 48. It is essentially a SAW in 7.62, and uses standard M13 linked ammo. The MK 46 is a product improved SAW used in that command. Depending on the mission, the machine gunners can pick which one they want to use. The M240 is mostly used in a role mounted on vehicles nowadays, at least in SOF units.
     
  18. jeepnik

    jeepnik Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,152
    Location:
    SoCal
    You mean like they did with the pos m16 and its lousy 5.56?

    Long ago the Brits wanted a .280. Hmm, just another rehash of the same old stuff.

    The only reason we would change is to fatten up the pockets of politicians.
     
    Slamfire likes this.
  19. Orcon

    Orcon Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    870
    Location:
    Sidney, MT
    This topic is like the small-arms version of Ground Hogs Day (the event, not the movie). Every year DoD sends out an industry request, everybody gets excited, DoD sees its shadow. Awwww...12 more months of 5.56.
     
    Demi-human, Mike .45, alsaqr and 9 others like this.
  20. Picher

    Picher Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,019
    Location:
    Maine
    A 6.8, 120 grain bullet at just over 3,000 may be workable. Pressures need to be low enough to keep barrel heating at a reasonable level.
     
  21. mcb

    mcb Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,195
    Location:
    North Alabama
    Having played a bit within the "Military-Industry Complex", the specificity and inflexibility of the 6.8 caliber requirement sort of pegs my BS meter. Anytime a requirement by a government agency that is not a performance spec (ie specifying 6.8 caliber as opposed to a performance spec like penetrate .250 inches of homogeneous steel armor at 200 yards or less) gets overly or arbitrarily specific you can almost always bet that its being done, not to meet some needed end user performance requirement, but to funnel your tax dollars somewhere specific. JMHO
     
  22. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,505
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    It's a bunch of hogwash, just like pretty much every other similar "announcement". We get this kind of news, what, 4 or 5 times a year? The new Sig being phased in is really the first rumored change to actually come to fruition since the adoption of the M9.

    Not with a 135 gr. bullet they're not.

    A .277" 135 gr. bullet @ 3,000 FPS MV has only 30 yard MPBR increase over 7.62 NATO ball ammo. And that's assuming a high G1 BC .277 critter like the Sierra Matchking.

    3,000 FPS MV also doesn't translate to notably better armor penetration than 2,750 FPS. Start getting into the 3,200+ range, now you're talking.


    This.
     
  23. clang

    clang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    661
    Sounds like they are looking for something pretty close to 7mm-08.

    Which is probably too close to .308 to justify a change.
     
  24. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,894
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    Yeah and Doug MacArther got his way and the .30'06 lasted from 1906 thru 1957.
    Imagine if the WW1 store of .30'06 had been depleted and the two gun smiths competing at the Springfield Armory had gotten 10 rounds of .276Peterson in the chosen rifles?
     
    theotherwaldo likes this.
  25. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,684
    Location:
    Alabama
    The World War One stocks were deteriorating so fast that in the 1920's the Army had to go to Congress, educate the bastards, to get money to demill the stuff. You see, Congress, exactly like the general public, thinks gunpowder lasts forever. The Army still did not get enough money, because educating Congress is just about impossible. But, by the time you get to the 1930's, any decision made on "stockpiles" was 100% bogus.

    Just go to Small Arms Survey (an anti gun site) http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/ and under the pull down menu for Regulations and Controls, Control measures, Stockpile Management. Everything there is directly related to disposing of millions of tons of old ordnance, before the stuff self ignites and explodes!.. There are reports on exploding Ammunition depots that were not cleared out, before nature (deterioration of gunpowder) cleared them out. About one Ammunition Depot is going Kaboom somewhere, per month.

    I read the MacArthur memo and it was a "do nothing" decision. You know: "life is so hard, money is so tight, we can't change because change costs money". If you have not run against this in your organization, then maybe you are a broom pusher. Even so, at some time in the future, you will need a new mop and bucket. See how management acts then. What I believe happened was whom ever was the Champion of the new replacement round, left the organization. Might have been in the Chief of Staff Office. The fact the Ordnance Board had to run the "pig tests", to prove the lethality of the 276 was equal to the 30-06, shows that the management change had occurred before that nonsense. The pig board was a worthless delaying tactic and eventually, the anti change group won.

    IezEsZZ.jpg


    Based on previous experience, the Army will not voluntarily make a change to its sidearm or cartridges unless Congress or the SecDef forces it down their throats. The Army user will come up with every excuse on the book not to change. While I prefer the 7.62 to the 5.56, I would have preferred the 276 to the 30-06. When he became SecDef in the 1960's, McNamara did not put up with the sort of nonsense he saw in the WW2 Army. SecDef McNamara kept firing Generals, until the Flag Officer club figured out, either support the 5.56 transition, get it implemented now, or the SecDef will retire you now. And it worked. The M16 and the 5.56 were adopted within five years, or so.

    I just noticed, the Army finally reformulated Mil C 872 Rifle Bore Cleaner in 2017. Rifle bore cleaner going back to WW2 removed corrosive primer salts. Corrosive primers went out of inventory in the early 1950's. Been awhile. It is not good at all at removing powder residue, and has no affect on copper fouling. It took from WW2 to 2017 for someone to push through a spec change, that the new rifle bore cleaner finally removes powder residue and copper residue. To expect inhouse change in DoD one has to believe that a mouse can birth to an elephant.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2019
    alsaqr and boom boom like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice