- Joined
- Apr 21, 2021
- Messages
- 4,543
- Reaction score
- 7,730
Any one know a GI in the 101st? They just received the new weapons in 6.8 and wondered how they like or dislike the round?
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
Whats the word on the new 6.8 GI round?
- Thread starter Greyman50
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
cmj8591
Member
80000psi in a AR platform, two piece cartridge case, training round different than the fighting round. It will be very interesting to see how this shakes out and what it's final form will be.
TJm15.38
Member
So much for maintaining NATO standard munitions. Not sure the real reason to switch from 5.56.
Edit: Guess I don't know much about this round. Sounds like it has better ballistics and firepower.
What’s the firepower like for the Army’s new rifle?.
Edit: Guess I don't know much about this round. Sounds like it has better ballistics and firepower.
What’s the firepower like for the Army’s new rifle?.
Last edited:
Yendor357
Member
To me, cartridges are like a ladder.
How far up the ladder do you want to go? The new 6.8 is probably better than the 5.56. The 7.62 better than the 6.5. The .338 is better than the 7.62.
Our govt/LE/Military can’t decide which rung they want to stand on.
How far up the ladder do you want to go? The new 6.8 is probably better than the 5.56. The 7.62 better than the 6.5. The .338 is better than the 7.62.
Our govt/LE/Military can’t decide which rung they want to stand on.
With right at 3 times the recoil of the 5.56 cartridge it wll be interesting to see how quickly troops want to dump this new cartridge .
There added weight of the carbine ammo. I sure there will be some that do not like this new cartridge or want the added weight of the XM7 carbine .
I do wonder if this new Hybrid case design used for 277 bullet was tested with a .30 bullet but jacked up to the same 80,000psi ???? Maybe a 260win fury with a 143gr bullet as this has been tested but not by siggly . Our military has crawled into bed with sig as if there special .
Hey this new 277 fury ammo is only $1.99 per round for a box of 20
There added weight of the carbine ammo. I sure there will be some that do not like this new cartridge or want the added weight of the XM7 carbine .
I do wonder if this new Hybrid case design used for 277 bullet was tested with a .30 bullet but jacked up to the same 80,000psi ???? Maybe a 260win fury with a 143gr bullet as this has been tested but not by siggly . Our military has crawled into bed with sig as if there special .
Hey this new 277 fury ammo is only $1.99 per round for a box of 20
Last edited:
Another condition of buying new hardware to solve a software problem. Regardless the specifications of the rifle and round (hardware) the human (software) ability to employ the hardware is still lacking. Many who qualify as expert on the range during training - aren’t!
I hope somebody has really thought through the wartime logistics ramifications of this. If all our frontline soldiers/marines are armed with this new caliber and we're the only Nato country making it.... What about full-up war with China, is there going to be sufficient surge manufacturing capability? Are there commercial firms capable of jumping in and helping like there would be for 5.56 and 7.62? Those new hybrid/high-pressure cases make that problematic at best.
Last edited:
Respectfully, in a "full-up" war with China small arms are unlikely to make a measurable contribution to the conflict. Good questions nevertheless. Other than the fact the DOD never seems to like anything that's "off the shelf" I fail to comprehend why the 6.5 Grendel wasn't considered sufficient.
"The 7.62 better than the 6.5. The .338 is better than the 7.62."
Only if you want to carry the ammo and rifle for me. The infantryman is already part pack mule.
Only if you want to carry the ammo and rifle for me. The infantryman is already part pack mule.
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
According to PEO Soldier, key takeaways from that study include:
Aim error reduction has the highest impact on performance. Well no ****!!
Caliber isn’t as important as once believed; it is a secondary performance driver.
Fire control is key.
Advanced bullet technology matters.
Ballistic energy on target provides better lethal effects.
Once again, it's all about the money. Somebody's brother in law wanted a contract with the military so they invented a "new" calibre.
So once again it all comes down to hit what you aim at and everything else takes care of itself
I'm in a pissy mood this morning....
Aim error reduction has the highest impact on performance. Well no ****!!
Caliber isn’t as important as once believed; it is a secondary performance driver.
Fire control is key.
Advanced bullet technology matters.
Ballistic energy on target provides better lethal effects.
Once again, it's all about the money. Somebody's brother in law wanted a contract with the military so they invented a "new" calibre.
So once again it all comes down to hit what you aim at and everything else takes care of itself
I'm in a pissy mood this morning....
cmj8591
Member
You have to wonder what the life of a chrome moly barrel will be. I know that one of the features is a quick swap barrel. I also think that they can swap bolts and barrels and change calibers. 80000psi is going to eat that rifling very quickly even if they chrome plate it. I haven't read anything and I doubt they would talk about it but maybe Sig has engineered a solution beyond throwing the barrel away every 1000 rounds. I do know that the plan is to use a lower pressure training round in a conventional brass case. The choice also has to do with changing the SAW. The 249 that they have now is really lacking when it comes to longer ranges. This is going to be like everything else the military does. They will field this and then adapt it to make it work. I do think that the 5.56 will be around as the main battle round for a long time.
One of the primary drivers-so I've read-of the 6.8 round is the near universal use of body armor by possible/probable peer level threats. I expect extended effective range over the current service cartridge figures in too.
I have to wonder about that pressure level myself and wonder if the "issue" of the system to the 101st is a troop trial of the concept before actual formal adoption. OTOH, it's been 70 some years since there was anything like that in the current procurement system so I expect we may see some level of disfunction like the M16 had in SEA. Wonder if there's been any field trials we don't know about in far flung corners of the world where our troops are "training" the locals against insurgents/terrorists? If not, can we afford to bet on unproven technology?
While there's some truth to the thought that any conflict with China is unlikely to involve ground troops, the US has a history of preparing for the last war. And/or thinking some form of technology is going to make other concepts useless. The F4 aircraft without guns comes to mind here. The .22 caliber infantry rifle was driven by stats that crew served weapons caused ~80+ % of casualties is WWII and Korea. Also, that under combat conditions, 300 yards is the general maximum range a target can be located by eyeball. Most infantry weaponry now has some form of optical sight/sensor that increases that.
So, it's probable that a capability upgrade to the current small arm ammunition is a good idea. the question is if the 6.8 mm cartridge is the best practical answer. Glad I'm not one of those who're gonna find out in person.
LOVE the points Caj makes about accuracy. I'm gonna quibble on energy on target. The bullet must maintain integrity to provide adequate penetration. It also needs adequate energy. I expect $$$$ does have something to do with it, but the main driver is someone getting credit for "innovation that's going to change the dynamic." The question is if it's some desk jockey at the Pentagon or Sig?
Added note: novelist John Sanford had one of his characters note that the 5.56 mm is a great close combat round in a good platform. OTOH, the AR10 isn't as good close up yet generally lacks the accuracy needed out yonder. I expect there are/can be accurate AR10s, but they're also harder to shoot well out yonder.
I have to wonder about that pressure level myself and wonder if the "issue" of the system to the 101st is a troop trial of the concept before actual formal adoption. OTOH, it's been 70 some years since there was anything like that in the current procurement system so I expect we may see some level of disfunction like the M16 had in SEA. Wonder if there's been any field trials we don't know about in far flung corners of the world where our troops are "training" the locals against insurgents/terrorists? If not, can we afford to bet on unproven technology?
While there's some truth to the thought that any conflict with China is unlikely to involve ground troops, the US has a history of preparing for the last war. And/or thinking some form of technology is going to make other concepts useless. The F4 aircraft without guns comes to mind here. The .22 caliber infantry rifle was driven by stats that crew served weapons caused ~80+ % of casualties is WWII and Korea. Also, that under combat conditions, 300 yards is the general maximum range a target can be located by eyeball. Most infantry weaponry now has some form of optical sight/sensor that increases that.
So, it's probable that a capability upgrade to the current small arm ammunition is a good idea. the question is if the 6.8 mm cartridge is the best practical answer. Glad I'm not one of those who're gonna find out in person.
LOVE the points Caj makes about accuracy. I'm gonna quibble on energy on target. The bullet must maintain integrity to provide adequate penetration. It also needs adequate energy. I expect $$$$ does have something to do with it, but the main driver is someone getting credit for "innovation that's going to change the dynamic." The question is if it's some desk jockey at the Pentagon or Sig?
Added note: novelist John Sanford had one of his characters note that the 5.56 mm is a great close combat round in a good platform. OTOH, the AR10 isn't as good close up yet generally lacks the accuracy needed out yonder. I expect there are/can be accurate AR10s, but they're also harder to shoot well out yonder.
Last edited:
Sorry, but this line of thinking goes back to when I was in ROTC, and the Cadre was instructing about the role of the Militia (both organized and unorganized).
Considering how much of a threat is currently at both the front and back doors, will the unorganized militia be available survive with the adoption and distribution of the 6.8 and it's corresponding hardware? Does the DoD plan to still maintain spares for the M16 family of arms, or will they be orphaned, just like the M1, M14, M1911, and the older bolt guns? Should the threat present itself in Middle America, will the Militia still be able to draw 5.56 and spare parts?
In many respects, this adoption can be leaving us at more of a disadvantage than many realize!
Considering how much of a threat is currently at both the front and back doors, will the unorganized militia be available survive with the adoption and distribution of the 6.8 and it's corresponding hardware? Does the DoD plan to still maintain spares for the M16 family of arms, or will they be orphaned, just like the M1, M14, M1911, and the older bolt guns? Should the threat present itself in Middle America, will the Militia still be able to draw 5.56 and spare parts?
In many respects, this adoption can be leaving us at more of a disadvantage than many realize!
sigp220.45
US Veteran
Judging by the amount of harrumphing it has caused, it must be good.
Ground ponders with rifles were considered obsolete at the end of the Second World War. How has that worked out?
Like everything else today, "FOLLOW THE MONEY."
More weight...........
plus more recoil.
Let me think now.
This is a tuffy.
plus more recoil.
Let me think now.
This is a tuffy.
LVSteve
Member
According to PEO Soldier, key takeaways from that study include:
Aim error reduction has the highest impact on performance. Well no ****!!
Caliber isn’t as important as once believed; it is a secondary performance driver.
Fire control is key.
Advanced bullet technology matters.
Ballistic energy on target provides better lethal effects.
Once again, it's all about the money. Somebody's brother in law wanted a contract with the military so they invented a "new" calibre.
So once again it all comes down to hit what you aim at and everything else takes care of itself
I'm in a pissy mood this morning....
Must be all that wet work.
LVSteve
Member
It seems the army intends to issue all their rifles and new SAWs with suppressors. Even so, a supersonic round driven at up to 80k PSI is going to make a fair bit of noise.
WR Moore is bang on with his body armor comment. How far it has come can be seen in the videos coming out of the Ukraine conflict. Even with its impressive sectional density, you just cannot get enough juice into a 5.56 round to have any chance of penetrating the new armor, especially with a sub 20" barrel.
6.5 Grendel doesn't have quite the oomph required and the shape of the cartridge and the amount of bullet protrusion makes transport and safety folks nervous. 6.8 SPC hasn't enough energy using the current case. A sort of +P 6.5 Creedmoor might have met the need, but I am unsure how that cartridge does in mounted infantry friendly barrel lengths. It is generally accepted that larger bores suffer less from reduced barrel length, so maybe that drove the caliber to 6.8.
WR Moore is bang on with his body armor comment. How far it has come can be seen in the videos coming out of the Ukraine conflict. Even with its impressive sectional density, you just cannot get enough juice into a 5.56 round to have any chance of penetrating the new armor, especially with a sub 20" barrel.
6.5 Grendel doesn't have quite the oomph required and the shape of the cartridge and the amount of bullet protrusion makes transport and safety folks nervous. 6.8 SPC hasn't enough energy using the current case. A sort of +P 6.5 Creedmoor might have met the need, but I am unsure how that cartridge does in mounted infantry friendly barrel lengths. It is generally accepted that larger bores suffer less from reduced barrel length, so maybe that drove the caliber to 6.8.
