6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62
- Thread starter user52165
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by CT8
The tax payers pocket is truly bottomless.
Of course, because our soldiers and Marines don't deserve anything developed in the last 50 years. In fact, think of the savings in ammunition costs if we went back to muskets!
The total cost of this program will be less than the rounding error of the cost of a squadron of F-35s.
The tax payers pocket is truly bottomless.
Of course, because our soldiers and Marines don't deserve anything developed in the last 50 years. In fact, think of the savings in ammunition costs if we went back to muskets!
The total cost of this program will be less than the rounding error of the cost of a squadron of F-35s.
err...and the rest of NATO?
I wonder if the COD fanboys are getting squeamish about being able to resell their .223/556
I wonder if the COD fanboys are getting squeamish about being able to resell their .223/556
Last edited:
This is old news, but doesn't seem so here.
This is not the OICW program, and this is a relatively "cheap" program for the change that it is going to make. I'm including logistics chains, etc..
This program is likely going to happen.
Why?
Because we are having problems with M855 and others penetrating body armor. This is a deficiency that absolutely needs a solution for our warfighters. I believe most would agree, that they deserve this change.
This is not the OICW program, and this is a relatively "cheap" program for the change that it is going to make. I'm including logistics chains, etc..
This program is likely going to happen.
Why?
Because we are having problems with M855 and others penetrating body armor. This is a deficiency that absolutely needs a solution for our warfighters. I believe most would agree, that they deserve this change.
Originally Posted by Timo325
Because we are having problems with M855 and others penetrating body armor. This is a deficiency that absolutely needs a solution for our warfighters. I believe most would agree, that they deserve this change.
I thought the M855A1 improved performance significantly, having more penetration than 7.62 M80 at longer ranges. Keep in mind the 556 was designed for AR-15s, it is good that they design a cartridge and weapons together. That might have been the problem in the past, changing calibers is not so drastic if you are introducing a new gun with it.
Because we are having problems with M855 and others penetrating body armor. This is a deficiency that absolutely needs a solution for our warfighters. I believe most would agree, that they deserve this change.
I thought the M855A1 improved performance significantly, having more penetration than 7.62 M80 at longer ranges. Keep in mind the 556 was designed for AR-15s, it is good that they design a cartridge and weapons together. That might have been the problem in the past, changing calibers is not so drastic if you are introducing a new gun with it.
If we had more of these, we wouldn't be talking about armor-penetrating capabilities...
Originally Posted by maxdustington
Originally Posted by Timo325
Because we are having problems with M855 and others penetrating body armor. This is a deficiency that absolutely needs a solution for our warfighters. I believe most would agree, that they deserve this change.
I thought the M855A1 improved performance significantly, having more penetration than 7.62 M80 at longer ranges. Keep in mind the 556 was designed for AR-15s, it is good that they design a cartridge and weapons together. That might have been the problem in the past, changing calibers is not so drastic if you are introducing a new gun with it.
I will only speak to what I know is open source, and to that I will add the credible statement below:
Gen. Mark Milley testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the service's current M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round will not defeat enemy body armor plates similar to the U.S. military-issue rifle plates such as the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert, or ESAPI.
Originally Posted by Timo325
Because we are having problems with M855 and others penetrating body armor. This is a deficiency that absolutely needs a solution for our warfighters. I believe most would agree, that they deserve this change.
I thought the M855A1 improved performance significantly, having more penetration than 7.62 M80 at longer ranges. Keep in mind the 556 was designed for AR-15s, it is good that they design a cartridge and weapons together. That might have been the problem in the past, changing calibers is not so drastic if you are introducing a new gun with it.
I will only speak to what I know is open source, and to that I will add the credible statement below:
Gen. Mark Milley testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the service's current M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round will not defeat enemy body armor plates similar to the U.S. military-issue rifle plates such as the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert, or ESAPI.
Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
Originally Posted by CT8
The tax payers pocket is truly bottomless.
Of course, because our soldiers and Marines don't deserve anything developed in the last 50 years. In fact, think of the savings in ammunition costs if we went back to muskets!
The total cost of this program will be less than the rounding error of the cost of a squadron of F-35s.
The caliber was an issue back in 1962 !!!
Originally Posted by CT8
The tax payers pocket is truly bottomless.
Of course, because our soldiers and Marines don't deserve anything developed in the last 50 years. In fact, think of the savings in ammunition costs if we went back to muskets!
The total cost of this program will be less than the rounding error of the cost of a squadron of F-35s.
The caliber was an issue back in 1962 !!!
Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
Originally Posted by CT8
The tax payers pocket is truly bottomless.
Of course, because our soldiers and Marines don't deserve anything developed in the last 50 years. In fact, think of the savings in ammunition costs if we went back to muskets!
The total cost of this program will be less than the rounding error of the cost of a squadron of F-35s.
The caliber was an issue back in 1962 !!! We are looking at a similar to a 7.62x39 ish performance, well a bit better.
Originally Posted by CT8
The tax payers pocket is truly bottomless.
Of course, because our soldiers and Marines don't deserve anything developed in the last 50 years. In fact, think of the savings in ammunition costs if we went back to muskets!
The total cost of this program will be less than the rounding error of the cost of a squadron of F-35s.
The caliber was an issue back in 1962 !!! We are looking at a similar to a 7.62x39 ish performance, well a bit better.
Well, I meant include more Hummers as well to take them around... It's always amazed me at how exposed the roof gunner is; you'd think there could be some kind of protective metal "hood" to enclose the turret with bulletproof windows or something. But then again, I wasn't Infantry.
I wish the article had more information on the round itself. It sounds like this is traditional ammunition, not caseless?
You can make lots of ammunition ‘caseless,' and the article only cited a caliber (6.8mm), not a specific cartridge (i.e. 6.8 SPC). Assuming it _is the 6.8spc, though, that ammunition has normally been of conventional construction.
I struggle to understand how a relatively stubby (short, low-SD) .27-cal bullet moving considerably slower than a .223/5.56 bullet is thought to penetrate armor better than the .223/5.56 itself. If bullet construction is significantly different, that's fine but then one could as easily adopt alternate bullet construction for the 5.56.
A larger-diameter bullet makes bigger holes in soft targets, and so is likely to have better ‘knock-down' than a .22-cal on _un_armored personnel, but somebody's gonna have to show me the data before I buy into the notion of superior armor penetration.
I struggle to understand how a relatively stubby (short, low-SD) .27-cal bullet moving considerably slower than a .223/5.56 bullet is thought to penetrate armor better than the .223/5.56 itself. If bullet construction is significantly different, that's fine but then one could as easily adopt alternate bullet construction for the 5.56.
A larger-diameter bullet makes bigger holes in soft targets, and so is likely to have better ‘knock-down' than a .22-cal on _un_armored personnel, but somebody's gonna have to show me the data before I buy into the notion of superior armor penetration.
This article (https://www.janes.com/article/83596...for-6-8-mm-next-generation-squad-weapons) says that it's a brand new cartridge (not 6.8SPC) but doesn't give any information on the round itself.
All the 6.8 is a good compromise between .223 and .308. Buying a new personal battle weapon I'd go with the 7.62 NATO round every time.
- Status
Similar threads
