Russian Expert: The U.S. Can’t Afford New 6.8-mm Rifle Ammo

[kev74]

When has the military worried about if something was affordable or not? Fake news!

 

[Robin]

Or even the 6.8 SPC II would be better, and has the same economics of changing out the upper.

The Army does not need a new round. The 5.56 has been working better than fine for decades.

Its been barely adequate, certainly not 'better than fine'. The role of an infantry main battle rifle must serve in many conditions. The fact that the M-14 was resurrected for service by front line infantry units in both Iraq and Afghanistan blatantly shows the M4 is not that rifle. We can argue the virtues of many variations of many incarnations of many rifle designs and calibers till the cows come home, but for an all purpose rifle the .223 does not meet the needs.
Robin

 

[GOPerfect]

Or even the 6.8 SPC II would be better, and has the same economics of changing out the upper.



Its been barely adequate, certainly not 'better than fine'. The role of an infantry main battle rifle must serve in many conditions. The fact that the M-14 was resurrected for service by front line infantry units in both Iraq and Afghanistan blatantly shows the M4 is not that rifle. We can argue the virtues of many variations of many incarnations of many rifle designs and calibers till the cows come home, but for an all purpose rifle the .223 does not meet the needs.
Robin

All I know, everything I have ever shot with the 5.56, died. Everything.

 

[fresch]

If "we" keep the status quo how can the overlords do the LEGAL insider trading!?

 

[holdover]

I think changing the uppers, mags, is a good idea.The problem with the US Army is that it is one of the few armies to have to fight in any environment. They are looking for a do it all weapon that will be superior in citys, jungles, deserts, Artic, woodlands, mountains.Able to penetrate barriers brush and jungle with a high accuracy rate. As opposed to a country like Panama, which only requires the best weapon for that specific environment. In my opinion , In order for the platform to get better, It has to be mission specific to that environment, There is no one round that can do it all equally well . Artillery rounds are mission specific, armor piercing , HE, anti personnel, smoke, incendiary, Short range, long range, ect.
Can you imagine being a commander and only having one type of artillery round or tank or plane to bring into battle? Yes, of course there are cost limitations but you can limit it to only half the army or 25 % of the army since were not likely to deploy a million man army in the near future . Im thinking of 2-3 modular alternates available to only a part of the army for a specific theater.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Or even the 6.8 SPC II would be better, and has the same economics of changing out the upper.



Its been barely adequate, certainly not 'better than fine'. The role of an infantry main battle rifle must serve in many conditions. The fact that the M-14 was resurrected for service by front line infantry units in both Iraq and Afghanistan blatantly shows the M4 is not that rifle. We can argue the virtues of many variations of many incarnations of many rifle designs and calibers till the cows come home, but for an all purpose rifle the .223 does not meet the needs.
Robin

Not true. It was pulled out of storage for the designated marksman. The designated marksman was one squad member who went through the condensed version of only the marksmanship portion of a sniper school. He is mission specific and filled in the gap that Holdover is talking about.

They didn’t just replace every squad members M16/M4 with the M14. If they would have, they would have now compromised their close quarters capabilities.

 

[Robin]

Not true. It was pulled out of storage for the designated marksman. The designated marksman was one squad member who went through the condensed version of only the marksmanship portion of a sniper school. He is mission specific and filled in the gap that Holdover is talking about.

They didn’t just replace every squad members M16/M4 with the M14. If they would have, they would have now compromised their close quarters capabilities.

Well Will, you are not informed. An entire battalion of infantry was equipped with them.
It was done specifically because the M4 lacked range power in the conditions and open ground.

GOP, that would fall under the category of 'anecdotal information', and when held against other anecdotal information to the contrary, your argument would fall flatter than Twiggys' chest.
Robin

 

[Podmonkey]

Either keep the .556 or how about just putting 6.5 Grendel uppers on all the existing rifles. The 6.5 Grendel has already proven it's a better cartridge than .556 and all you need is to change the upper and the magazine. Inventing another cartridge and another rifle to fire that cartridge seems like a waste of taxpayer money to me. Just my 2 cents.

A lot of cartridges are "bettter". The thing is any new cartridge has to be massively better to be worthwhile. The 6.5 Grendel is a fine cartridge but the situation with the boltface is not at all ideal for a military weapon.

Regarding the point about the new 6.8 being only for a squad automatic weapon- So we will have 3 mainline infantry rounds now? 5.56, 6.8 and 7.62 in addition to 9mm, .50 BMG and now .300 Win Mag.
Makes no sense. If an automatic weapon with more oomph than a 249 but lighter than a 240 is required so badly then the Army would be far better served with the new Knights Armament Assault machine guns, the 7.62x51 version being a bit lighter than the current M249 SAW. The Army simply must adopt those guns.

 

[Jmac00]

I think the military should go back to the M1 Garand, 7.62 x 51 (30-06)

Gen Patton called it the finest battle rifle ever created ( or something like that)

 

[Marine Cpl]

Well Will, you are not informed. An entire battalion of infantry was equipped with them.
It was done specifically because the M4 lacked range power in the conditions and open ground.

GOP, that would fall under the category of 'anecdotal information', and when held against other anecdotal information to the contrary, your argument would fall flatter than Twiggys' chest.
Robin

Link? Because every link I have read says “Select Soldiers” rather than the whole battalion.

 

[meketrefe]

Did this so called Russian "expert" explain why the 5.45 is a total failure and why the chinese desinged their own 6mm to avoid the russian 5.45?
I also believe the ideal cartrige for the US and nato is a 6mm but that is another thread.

 

[ManrisFrack]

I don't know why they are labeling this as a new round. From my understanding it was developed by a couple of spec ops guys just after 9/11.
I's been around for some time now. I talked with my local GS owner about it in 2004ish. He said it had a lot of potential but probably wouldn't go far due to the pencil pushers. I feel this round should be fielded with our spec ops. This would allow it to gradually be introduced without "breaking the bank."
It would be great to have another tool available in the box. Slotted and Philips screws are somewhat outdated. Sometimes a torx or square drive screw is better for the task.

The round you're talking about is the 6.8 SPC. It's a good round and rumors abound of it's use in spec ops, but it will never see widespread adoption in the US military. The new round is the same diameter bullet but a brand new cartridge. It's a huge step up in power over 5.56 and even 6.8 SPC - maybe enough of a jump to justify the cost? Even if it gets adopted people will argue that point for 50 years; just like they've done with 5.56.

The Army basically told manufacturers 'Here's a .277" 140gr bullet. Make a round, a carbine and an LMG that pushes this bullet to 3100fps.' They're down to 3 finalist round/weapon system combinations now.

 

[96coal449]

The round you're talking about is the 6.8 SPC. It's a good round and rumors abound of it's use in spec ops, but it will never see widespread adoption in the US military. The new round is the same diameter bullet but a brand new cartridge. It's a huge step up in power over 5.56 and even 6.8 SPC - maybe enough of a jump to justify the cost? Even if it gets adopted people will argue that point for 50 years; just like they've done with 5.56.

The Army basically told manufacturers 'Here's a .277" 140gr bullet. Make a round, a carbine and an LMG that pushes this bullet to 3100fps.' They're down to 3 finalist round/weapon system combinations now.

Ahh, I see said the blind man to the deaf women sitting under the tree.

 

[Robin]

Link? Because every link I have read says “Select Soldiers” rather than the whole battalion.

I can't find one Will. I read about it in a my Division news letter. My old outfit.
Robin

 

[Marine Cpl]

I can't find one Will. I read about it in a my Division news letter. My old outfit.
Robin

And I’m guessing if that was indeed true that the whole battalion and not just select soldiers designated as Marksman just like all the other Marines and Soldiers in every other infantry unit, they no longer are still issued M14’s as primaries.

If I were to bet on this, that article said, “ XYZ battalion to be issued M14’s” and you probably misunderstood it to mean the whole battalion rather than select soldiers from infantry units just like the rest of the Army and Marines. That’s my hunch anyway since there is absolutely nothing out there that says that whole battalions or even whole companies or platoons made a complete switch.

 

[Podmonkey]

Did this so called Russian "expert" explain why the 5.45 is a total failure and why the chinese desinged their own 6mm to avoid the russian 5.45?
I also believe the ideal cartrige for the US and nato is a 6mm but that is another thread.

How in earth do you figure the 5.45 is a failure? It's a great round! The AK-74 is the most controllable rifle caliber full auto I've shot!

 

[Marine Cpl]

I was going to respond to Meke’s post but then I deleted it. He’s right. If it ain’t 6mm with a long barrel outfitted with a foot long 1x8 scope, it ain’t shit.

 

[Robin]

You may be right Will, I have no way of researching that news item.
Robin

 

[meketrefe]

How in earth do you figure the 5.45 is a failure? It's a great round! The AK-74 is the most controllable rifle caliber full auto I've shot!

Yes it is a pleasure to shoot and it will serve many as an affordable defensive round but that doesn't mean anything and it is far from being a good infantry round.
It was the cold war era response to the 5.56 and while the Russians had the opportunity to counter with a better round they came up with something worse. I also think the first iterations of the 5.56 were pretty limited but at least they had the justification that were the first ones to bet in the 22 caliber and learn from experience.
As you know Russians had to abandon the 30 caliber with slow bullets since that is a disaster for modern infantry and tactics.
If one learns something about the AR history is that the M16 had to be designed around a caliber that was already decided and not the other way round. However the 5.45 was designed around an existing firearm and also limited by that factor. Both the US and Russia made a poor decission by going with 22 caliber but the russians was even worse due to the lower pressure and limited speed. Their strategy was to copy the US strategy rather than to do an exahustive analysis to come up with the best possible round and if needed, redesign the firearm. The 5.45 was also designed with the loose fit concept for reliability and to be made of steel that also doesn't help.
As Stoner explained in one of the meetings with General Kalashnikov the round was going to be based on a extremely light varmint type round. he had 3 requirements from the Army, A) Weight B) weight and C) weight. and that is what led to some of the poor decissions.
The solution is in the 6mm that provides the prefect balance between external ballistics, speed (=penetration) and terminal capabilities.
The 5.45 fails in all departments. I mean is an improvement over the ballistics of the preceding service round but it falls short to the 5.56 that is already streched to its limits.

5.45 shortcomings are:
- Speed for its section and mass makes it marginal.
- Hard barrier penetration is less than ideal.
- Momentum on target is also marginal.

In reality it shares some of the same shortcoming of the 5.56 with the only difference that the 5.56 being a more popular bore diameter and made of hard brass with a high pressure cartrige design had more room for improvement.
I would say in the early years hard barrier penetration was not so critical but as body armor, helmets and vehicles have improved it has become a pretty critical part of the round performance. Modern auto glass, doors, gear etc.. present a huge barrier for this round.
These are some of the reasons the Chinese didn't continue with the 5.45 for their MBR and infantry weapons and designed their own 6mm
in order to resolve those issues.

The 5.56 at least has to some degree alleviated these with the latest iterations of the round although we know the upgrade is overdue.

These are not simple baseless online opinions and they are well documented. Just to give you an example a popular test is a penetration test
over a 5/8 hot roll steel plate at 100 yards. The 5.56 will pass that test like the 7.62x51 where the 7.62x39, 5.45x39, blackout, etc... will fail.
There other tests where they will also crap out. The modern Military has a complete battery of tests that designed to represent typical
barrier and target scenarios in modern battlefield requirements.

Again, maybe this doesn't mean much for many but many times we assume a decent and popular infantry round is also a good choice
for law enforcement and civilians who take SD seriously.

I don't mean the 5.45, blackout, 7.62x39 or others are useless but they have been displaced to the obsolete side.

Actually the 7.62x39 has one thing going for it that one can acquire premium ammunition reload and with modern guns and brass can be pumped to very respectable speeds or even loaded with 150gr projectiles for effective hunting. So the 7.62x39 still has some benefits
whereas the blackout and 5.45 are pretty limited. Has anyone ever seen brass for the 5.45 or wildcats derived from it?

I hope this makes sense.

 

[meketrefe]

I was going to respond to Meke’s post but then I deleted it. He’s right. If it ain’t 6mm with a long barrel outfitted with a foot long 1x8 scope, it ain’t shit.

..everything in life has a role. That is why we use screw drivers for screws and hammers for nails.
In the last few years I have seen plenty of folks trying to drive nails with screw drivers.

 

[Glenn B]

I am not much into ballistics or ammo specs but I often wonder why the military ever left the 7.62x51mm NATO round behind in favor of the 5.56mm NATO round in the first place - it is a superior all around cartridge as I see it (but as I indicated I am no ammo or ballistics guru). I often also wonder why our military has not gone back to it. The only things I can think of as possibly being the reason(s) are cost and or payola.

 

[Robin]

Well, there is a weight factor as well. With everyone carrying auto's there is a shit ton of ammo being used, and not very effectively.
Robin

 

[Marine Cpl]

I am not much into ballistics or ammo specs but I often wonder why the military ever left the 7.62x51mm NATO round behind in favor of the 5.56mm NATO round in the first place - it is a superior all around cartridge as I see it (but as I indicated I am no ammo or ballistics guru). I often also wonder why our military has not gone back to it. The only things I can think of as possibly being the reason(s) are cost and or payola.

Weight, rapid fire controllability, and the 7.62 not being conducive to close quarters battle indoors. The battlefield evolved and they had to evolve with it. They never totally got rid of 7.62 though. Those are still used for long range machine guns and long range rifles.