Will the Army choosing the 6.8 make it as popular as the 5.56 and perhaps even eclipse it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"The 6.8mm is supposed to be able to pierce most available body armor (not plates), have longer supersonic velocity, more stability, flatter trajectory, and softer recoil than the 5.56 it would be replacing."

""It will fire at speeds that far exceed the velocity of bullets today, and it will penetrate any existing or known ... body armor that's out there," Gen. Mark Milley

Say what? Someone just repealed the laws of physics! It's just plain magic!
 
Believe it when it happens.
Several years ago there was talk of the DOD making the switch to 6.5 grendel, mostly because of the easy upper swap.
Never happened.
So, all talk about "converting" over to something else is highly pre-mature.
 
Interesting
No one commented on my comment that it’s my understand8ng that this is only for snipers and SAM.

So it would be a special use caliber.

So again, am I missing something, or folks just spun up on OPs question and not looking at the whole picture?

I took this as being different than the special adoption of the 6.5CM by some snipers.

That, of course, is a vastly easier switch to make than changing the caliber of the standard individual arm.
 
I'm not terribly familiar if there are military standards for calibers. I'm just thinking of our troops fighting alongside allies (British, French, Irish, Canadian, etc.) and not using the same caliber as they are generally using. Could make logistics difficult, just a thought.
 
Such rubbish, a change in the laws of physics requires a constitutional amendment, which we all know is politically infeasible in the current political climate.
You're absolutely right. It would require bipartisan support and that's not likely to happen.

Of course free realistic physics have been available in Canada for decades. So if you have a passport I recommend you run on up to Canada and get some because there's going to be a 25% tariff on them enacted in January.
 
It's nice to say that Canadian physics are "free," but someone has to pay for them. The entropy burden is 42% higher north of the border, and that's a real killer for the growth of business and other ordered systems.
 
I'm not convinced a change is imminent. Looking at the numbers I don't see where the 6.8 offers a significant advantage over 5.56 shooting 75 gr bullets. But whatever round the military chooses will eventually become popular. It may take a while. Maybe not in my lifetime. It took the 5.56 and AR over 30 years to become popular.
 
Ideally, the military does its war plans, evaluates the most likely areas of conflict, and then chooses the weapons that are optimal. In reality, politics, international alliance considerations, end user reports, the egos of generals and civilian leadership of the DOD, service rivalries, bureaucratic inertia, training and logistics considerations, and some input by actual front line trigger pullers, gets stirred into a hot mess.

An example was Gen. Douglas MacArthur overruling Ordinance and requiring the M1 Garand be chambered in .30-06 on the grounds of past ammo stores in that caliber. DOD Secretary McNamara in Vietnam is another example where his frustration with the slow rollout of the M14 and dislike of government armories resulted in ordering the AR replacement for the M14. And Gen. Curtis LeMay's demand for AR's came from LeMay's desire to reequip the Air Force forces with a replacement for the M1 Carbine, in part, to avoid dealing with Army Ordinance and Logistics on those weapons.

Different considerations are needed in desert warfare versus jungle versus urban warfare versus open country, thus plans for the likelihood of conflict must reconcile differing demands. Then there are ensuring manufacturing capacity exists or will exist for an adequate supply of arms and ammo. Training must then be tweaked to the new round.

If the military stays with the AR type package, then the laws of physics, metallurgy, and geometry come into play. E.g. there is only so big a cartridge that you can stuff into the current AR 15 design and still ensure reliable function. There is the POF oddball in-between package (allows .308 but smaller in size than an AR10, bigger than AR15). I seriously doubt that the military will go to the .308 in the AR 10 package because of training issues and integration of women into combat units. There is already a weight issue on carrying capacity for soldiers that is causing serious injuries and even disability issues. I am sure that DOD would prefer to go to caseless ammo or even energy weapons but the technology is just not good enough on caseless ammo to go to war with and personal energy weapons are even more distant in development.

Right now, the current 5.56 issue ammunition along with the AR itself--barrel lengths for example, have been tweaked repeatedly to try to hit the just right Goldilocks solution along with the new requirement for "green" ammunition. By some reports, this has resulted in higher pressure ammo that shortens the life span of key parts, others reject that. What is true is that Marines and Army cannot even agree on a common issue 5.56 round which complicates logistics and training issues. While a handloader might have several tailored loads with different bullets, military logistics greatly prefers a common round that works "good enough" rather than multiple different specialty cartridges.

Right now, the groundwork has already been laid for a switch in cartridges. There have been repeated studies, trials, etc. that give policy makers the background to make a switch if the desire is there. There is also the development of newer polymer cases that appear promising and fit in with general goals of the military (greener, cheaper, lighter, unable to be reloaded, etc.) Fortunately, most of these fit within the current AR design which helps lessen transition issues and has proven remarkably flexible in being adapted to new cartridges with minimal changes in the design.

Thus, the fuel is there to make the switch to a new cartridge but whether it actually takes place depends political leadership from the generals and the DOD.

Sadly, whatever comes will probably not come from actual trigger pullers and their experiences but rather to meet the politics of the situation at the moment.
 
Regardless of what the military does I can guarantee you capitalism will keep the 5.56 alive, with all of the guns out there that use it.

Theres not an ammo manufacturer in the world that going to slow production of the 5.56.

One comes to mind. Lake City.

Interesting
No one commented on my comment that it’s my understand8ng that this is only for snipers and SAM.

So it would be a special use caliber.

So again, am I missing something, or folks just spun up on OPs question and not looking at the whole picture?

The article says squad automatic weapons and rifles.


I really hope that the military will move away from the poodle shooter. The past 17 years have really shown the weaknesses of the current cartridge.

Any new cartridge selected by the military will become popular very quickly with civilians IF it's possible. If the military moved to caseless ammo it would be as popular. However I don't see that happening. Now if they move to a polymer cast that's not reloadable then again it's not going to be as popular.
 
My gut tells me that we are in the twilight of the metallic cartridge era (how long this dusk lasts remains to be seen). While I dont think caseless ammo is right around the corner, I do see polymer case ammo being the next big commercial step.

Polymer ammo casings would reduce weight and ammo cost. I'm my mind, popularity will be a moot point. Bullet and primer manufacturing will be what they are going to be, but having to tool up to roll and shape brass will be a thing of the past. The cases will be just be extruded to whatever flavor is required.

In short, i see two things happening, on the civilian side of things the gap between popular and oddball (as long as standard bullet caliber and weights are taken into consideration) will shrink. I also think that if a cost saving, weight saving, and reliable polymer ammo of comparable performance to 5.56 or above can be devised that .Gov will elect to go that route in some fashion.

I see the next front being bullet technologies squeezing performance that we didnt know was possible from older rounds, the mentioned polymer cases becoming more reliable, and ultimately 3D printing technologies on the battlefield that will result in logistical efficiencies to tailor and fabricate specialized weapons and munitions for specific objectives. My guess is that most folks in the think tank are looking this direction over just reinventing the rifle cartridge.
 
Small arms weapons acquisition and fielding get a lot of attention from shooters, but it's a minor budget item in the big picture. That is something many don't want to recognize. It get's a lot of importance now in many of the low intensity conflicts we were drawn into but the reality is that we still have armor, artillery, bombers, etc all still practicing and training. Crew served weapons are the real dominant force on the battlefield, like it or not.

What the Army dislikes it that it can't have it both ways with the soldier's weapon - light weight and high power. That will take some kind of superweapon that uses directed energy. In the meantime we are stuck with the fielded method - with all it's infrastructure - and that is equipping soldiers with bullet launchers which do not act as a disincentive to fire and which stop the enemy from fighting.

Note carefully, that projectile is not required to stop the enemy dead right there. It never did anyway. All that is meant is for the enemy to stop fighting, and when enough stop, we overcome the objective and win. In our worst engagements in the last 15 years that took a 10 to 1 numerical advantage to defeat us, and it was rare - we are usually smart enough to keep our forces close enough for tanks, artillery, and bombers. Never forget the #1 tool any solder has isn't his rifle, it's The Call For Fire. And when we dispose our situation correctly, we can bring the heat.

Extending the range of the soldiers weapon from say, 400 m to 600? It also requires higher level training and that gets expensive. One shortcut we did take was adding red dot scopes, which not only increased the acccuracy of fire but also the rapidity of targeting. It helps make a mediocre shooter become above average. It still does not tell him/her how to read the wind at 600 m or know his rifle won't even reach that far unless he cranks in another 36 inches of drop.

Most engagements are line of sight - both parties do all they can to remain hidden as long as possible, it's not going to change. So, if one General or another - we have an excess - states that a new combat weapon is going to do X,Y, and Z, be advised he is not likely a combat expert. More than 2/3's are logistics experts - few have worked their way up thru a continuous series of combat positions and most of those risk a lot to even survive that long when warfare is the daily diet of operations. What the general was doing was ASKING - and seeing if the industry can supply it.

Maybe - maybe- we will get a 'caseless' round with squeezebore barrel which can achieve it. So far, tho, the battle rifle has reached a working plane where things have not really changed in 45 year. Look around. Same kind of development curve other items have had - like, binoculars. Not game changing great leaps forward in quite a while, just incremental improvements as technology marches on. With gunpowder as the propellant, I don't see any major advance for the next few decades, if at all.

One thing you might see is the selected round protected by "national security" and no surplus or copycat allowed. Which implies that 5.56 may well be the last cheap round we can get. Once the government contracts are gone, cheap surplus brass dries up, and supplies sold off, it will go the same as .45 and .30-06 - commercial priced only. If that sounds distasteful, it's time to consider reloading.
 
To answer the OP's query, no, the 6.8 isn't going to eclipse the 5.56 anytime soon, particularly since it isn't going to be a regular cartridge. It WILL become popular, that may be decades down the line.

I really hope that the military will move away from the poodle shooter. The past 17 years have really shown the weaknesses of the current cartridge.

That is one way of looking at it, and if so, it is the same problem with just about all technology when you attempt to use in a manner not intended where a balance is needed from other technology. I would argue that it isn't so much a weakness in the cartridge, but in the fact that the military keeps changing the cartridge and the platform, often one without actual consideration for the other, and/or without proper evaluation AND/OR developed to meet specific goals only to then realize said goals don't actually meet field conditions. You can see all of this in the developmental history of the platform and cartridge as used by the military.
 
Wasn't the 6.8 SPC going to save us all a few years ago? "Made" by the SF community even!

This seems to be the new small arms story of the month as they finally selected a new pistol after years of messing around. Which, is 9mm like the last one.

Unless they really do something different I with they would just leave things alone and not throw away a lot of our money. Going from .22 to .23 or .24 cal in a powder powered brass case cartridge isn't doing much. Use the proven .308 which is already in the system. As others have pointed out physics is a little hard to beat, no matter how much you want to do so.
 
I highly doubt they are going to abandon the NATO cartridge 5.56. They like the fact they can carry more ammo than their counterparts with heavier rounds. Not to mention they really like the fact that they can shoot more accurately than most others. So no the Army isn't going to quit carrying it anytime soon. Now what they might be doing is looking at something that shoots more accurately than a .308 which has held a place in special branch for a really long time, but if it aint broke don't fix it.
 
I'm not terribly familiar if there are military standards for calibers. I'm just thinking of our troops fighting alongside allies (British, French, Irish, Canadian, etc.) and not using the same caliber as they are generally using. Could make logistics difficult, just a thought.
Funny you should mention this....I've got a few cases of Radway Green 5.56 that was made for the Brits SA80 and needed to be loaded differently to accommodate their inferior weapon which then makes the ammo not work well in some of our M4/M16's. I think our troops were to use the RG only for training purposes just because it's not totally reliable and have found this to be true in my AR's. The KT PLR-16 eats it like candy so there's no problem having it on hand but it's pretty weak ejecting from the Colt Carbine and forget using it in a Varminter.
 
Right now, the groundwork has already been laid for a switch in cartridges. There have been repeated studies, trials, etc. that give policy makers the background to make a switch if the desire is there. There is also the development of newer polymer cases that appear promising and fit in with general goals of the military (greener, cheaper, lighter, unable to be reloaded, etc.) Fortunately, most of these fit within the current AR design which helps lessen transition issues and has proven remarkably flexible in being adapted to new cartridges with minimal changes in the design.

I think the big mistake was not adopting the 276 Pedersen. That was the right cartridge at the right time.

KMp8zlZ.jpg

The 5.56 was a poor choice. The 223 round was not so much “designed” as it was a wildcat. The guys who came up with the round wanted a certain velocity at a certain range. I read the 1971 Guns & Ammo article The 223 is here to stay by Robert Hutton. Robert Hutton was technical editor of Guns and Ammo magazine and must have been very wealthy as he owned a big piece of real estate in Topanga Canyon California. It was called Hutton’s Shooting Ranch. What the adoption of the 223 round as a service round shows is how well connected wealthy elites run the country. Hutton’s article documents how he developed the 223 round. If you have any sort of technical background, it is apparent he is an amateur and his cartridge represents what an amateur would do. He took an existing cartridge, necked it up and down, blew the shoulder out, changed shoulder angles, he had a chronograph, got the velocity he wanted at distance. The crowning achievement in the article was punching holes in the wobble pot helmet at 500 yards. That is about all the lethality testing Hutton did, punching holes in a helmet. He used the Powell Computer, a paper slide rule, to estimate pressures. He did not pressure test his cartridge. This cartridge was then adopted as the US service round.

I have no idea of his background, maybe he was the typical liberal arts major you find in the print industry, obviously he was a firearm enthusiast, and being the Technical Editor of a Gun magazine made him well connected. What an ego trip it must have been to have his cartridge adopted as the US service round. Imagine all the bragging you get to do at the dinner parties, “I developed the service round for the Army”. Unfortunately, amateurs don’t have the time, equipment, or understanding to really sweat out the tiny details. These guys did not have the analytical capability nor probably, had the comprehension to thoroughly study cartridge case design. William Davis, the Government Technical Expert at the Icord hearings, said on the History Channel that the technical data provided the Government on the 223 round did not come with a pressure curve. These guys developed a cartridge and never thought of documenting what the pressure curve looked like. Pressure curve is absolutely critical to the timing of an automatic weapon. How long energy is available, the maximum pressure and how fast it drops off is fundamental to the design of a automatic gas mechanism.

oMRSvid.jpg

AnNpROa.jpg

This is from Chinn's Machine Gun series.

OvuSHJk.jpg


Hutton did not look at case hardness, taper, expansion or contraction. A professional would have looked at the expansion and contraction of the case in the chamber and adjusted case taper, thickness, and established case hardness in the sidewalls and case head. You would have to work with manufacturing to determine realistic hardness parameters throughout the case, but this is important as it affects the Young’s Modulus. As it turns out, the brass case 223 drags on extraction, there is not enough clearance between the case and chamber. Steel case is even worse. I have seen many failures to extract steel case ammunition on the firing line with AR15’s.

It turns out the 223 is fairly straight tapered. This was a fad, highly promoted by P.O Ackley, and widely copied. I am not a fan of very straight tapered cartridges. The one and only advantage of a very straight taper is maximizing the amount of powder you can get in the case. The wildcat era of the late 1940’s through the 1960’s was all about high velocity, and only high velocity. It was very one dimensional thinking, ignoring other aspects of cartridge design that are very important. One of the things you trade off for a straight case is that the cartridge does not “steer” well during feeding. Anyone can test this, which shape feeds better into the end of the tube, a taper, or a straight cylinder? Alignment to bore is important for feeding with all cartridges, but the really straight ones are going to jam up more often when alignment gets slightly out of whack. Straight cartridges will drag on extraction because the case walls are relaxing off the chamber walls in a straight line, not a diagonal. It turns out portions of the 223 case are still sticking to the chamber walls during extraction and a major reason for extractor lift. Understanding Extractor Lift in the M16 Family of Weapons www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003/smallarms/din.ppt This is very undesirable as jams will get you killed in combat. Lots of good American Boys died in Vietnam with jammed M16’s in their hands. Ideally, the case will be fully relaxed off the chamber walls during unlock and there will not be any resistance between case and chamber during the residual blowback period. If you look at good case design, the Russian 7.62 X 39 and the recent Chinese service cartridge, both have more case taper than the 5.56 Nato and both were designed with steel as a case material. Both have nice thick rims, which is also important for machine gun rounds.

The Russians took into account the material characteristics of steel as a case material, examining the expansion and contraction, along with the production technology, aiding the excellent function design of SKS's and AK47's. As such, these steel rounds are outstanding in feed and extraction. The 5.56 was created without spending any time or effort on alternatives, alternate materials, anything. As such, given the fact the case shape is not optimum for brass, it most certainly is not optimal for steel.

If anything, the US should adopt the Chinese service round and probably, the Chinese service rifle. The cartridge has lots of taper, thick extractor rim, you can tell it was designed by real technical experts. The so called in house experts employed by the Army Ordnance Bureau are procurement and contract management experts. The titles of these people are Contract Specialists, sometimes Technical Contract Managers, and they are totally expert on the rules and laws of awarding contracts, managing contracts, putting money on a contract. But when it comes to actual system engineering, design and mechanics, the Bureau has to hire support contractors to tell them which end of the tube the round comes out of.

1gfvWmb.jpg

Adopting well designed Chinese weapons would reduce procurement costs and quickly put better weapons out in the hands of our troops. As an example of the well thought out nature of these Chinese rounds, the 5.8mm operates at a much lower pressure than the US service round. It only generates a 41,500 psi (284 MPa) chamber pressure which is marginally higher than that of the old single-base propellant used by the vintage 7.62x39mm and much lower than the 5.56mm M855/SS109’s 55,000 psi (380 MPa). The current pressures of the latest 5.56 rounds have been kept out of public view, but it seems to be in the range of 62,000 to 65,000 psia. Considering the proof round is 70 kpsia, the Army is operating its cartridges at pressures that are guaranteed to crack bolt lugs very quickly. You see, the AR15 was designed for a 50 kpsia round, not a 65 kpsia round. Lower pressures means fewer failures to extract when the weapon gets hot, or the Trooper is in a hot environment. It is always true that doing the job at lower pressures is better than doing the job at higher pressures.
 
Last edited:
All that exists right now is vaporware.

Army (via popular press, not official publication) has indicated wanting another option other than 7.62nato for support and specialty weapons. Six millimeter keeps being brought up, but never a specific round. And we have a plethora in current production. Now, those popular press articles often speculate on whether the new specialty ammo will become a universal one.

While that has some tiny amount of logistical appeal, it ignores the tactical reality that support arms really need different performance than infantry weapons. There's a huge military logic in having a SAW/LMG in a heavy intermediate; GMG in a heavier cartridge, and some 'big boys' for serious sub-artillery use.

For that SAW/LMG, there's not really a lot of difference between 6.8, 6.5, or even a rejuvenated 7x45.

This is a calculus you kind of have to sudy up on--a 1 rifleman v. 1 rifleman is actually a tactical failure. You want the squad to be able to force the bad guys into an unfavorable situation using their SAW/LMG fires; which are supported by heavier Platoon level fires. Preferably with that all fitting into Company level operations. What you get--real generally--is rifles engaging at 200-400m; SAW/LMG for 400-800m, then Platoon weapons for 800-1200m. Past a kilometer you need Company support, .50bmg & mortars.
Note how that suggests at least three calibers.

Now, as to whether the civilian ammo market will mirror the military--that's a different question. There are so many calibers out there now as to meet any perceived need. The US military is much smaller now, and does not much surplus off its own ammo supplies as it once did. The factories are less inclined to "over run" military contracts, too.

Now, if the US adopted a 7x45 (or even the 7x47pedersen), that would spark a bunch of civilian arms developments. But, only to a point. Mostly because the .270 and .280 are already in that niche, just not in a military guise.
 
I keep hearing about this new 6.8 mm round but nothing official on the caliber
There is a ghost in the closet that gets over looked when the 6.8 comes up, and that would be the .277 Wolverine.
Here it is next to a 5.56.
34AB2742-28DA-4063-A3FB-6FDA703D5348.jpeg
 
I've wondered exactly what the 6.8 cartridge is, there is not much info on it. What I hope more than anything is that the 6.5 gets passed by. I don't hate the 6.5 but most of the 6.5 fans are a little to obnoxious for my liking.
 
There are nearly infinite volumes written about the 6.8 SPC II and its predecessor - you aren't searching correctly.
 
The bullet will be a "green" bullet of some kind. Based on Gen. Milley's description of substantially increased velocity and penetration I wouldn't be surprised if it were a saboted flechette. I anticipate distribution of the cartridge to be controlled similar to M855A1.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top