Army thrilled as next-gen 6.8mm squad weapons once thought 'unachievable' are revealed

Mine the oceanic trash floatillas? Nah, too sensible.

mcb said:

True Velocity claims their cases are 100% recyclable. Using there technology to make currently fielded cartridges (they are making 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO, 338 NM, 50 BMG, 12.7x108mm) they are claiming 50% lighter case resulting in 30% lighter weight ammunition. The ability to carry 30% more ammo for the same weight would certainly be an asset to the soldier even if none of the 6.8 magic comes to being.

Click to expand...

Recyclable is good, but seriously, aside from the base range, who picks them up? Obviously, anything to lighten a soldier's load is great, this coming from someone who toted an M-14. lol

So just playing in Quickloads... Pushing a 123gr .277 bullet to 3500 fps takes a 270 Weatherby Mag to achieve under normal pressures. If I drop down to 270 Winchester pressures are over 80,000 psi. I can't imagine what it's going to be like in cases roughly the size of 308 Win.

Is there a weight spec? Especially on the rifle. You want Magnum Power in an all day weapon, you are going to get Magnum Recoil.

I predict the system will be so expensive that only the most elitest of the eliter elite will get it. Commanding officers will be scrambling for them to prove their outfit is elite enough.

That’s

mcb said:

So just playing in Quickloads... Pushing a 123gr .277 bullet to 3500 fps takes a 270 Weatherby Mag to achieve under normal pressures. If I drop down to 270 Winchester pressures are over 80,000 psi. I can't imagine what it's going to be like in cases roughly the size of 308 Win.

Click to expand...

Very interesting info. It seems as if this is a task of impossible success which is common when you demand XYZ when those features simply do not work together. It could push for innovation, and could potentially get some more work done on energy based weapons. Metallic core, case not determined (possibly caseless), but the big question is what happens when you cram that much performance into a .277 derivative of a .308? You will get something that’s hard to contain, possibly a large chamber and then ported barrel to bleed off pressure and not rupture a barrel.

Oh by the way, bullpup will likely be a design feature that is asked for, so put that bomb under your chin and touch it off.

mcb said:

True Velocity claims their cases are 100% recyclable. Using their technology to make currently fielded cartridges (they are making 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO, 338 NM, 50 BMG, 12.7x108mm) they are claiming 50% lighter case resulting in 30% lighter weight ammunition. The ability to carry 30% more ammo for the same weight would certainly be an asset to the soldier even if none of the 6.8 magic comes to being.

Click to expand...

But with a bullet 44% heavier than m193 ammo, there will be absolutely zero nominal weight savings, plus the footprint will be greater.

(edit to add, speaking specifically about transitioning to the new bullet specs)

beeenbag said:

But with a bullet 44% heavier than m193 ammo, there will be absolutely zero nominal weight savings, plus the footprint will be greater.

(edit to add, speaking specifically about transitioning to the new bullet specs)

Click to expand...

True but for aproximately the same weight as m193 you get a nice performance upgrade.

mcb said:

True but for aproximately the same weight as m193 you get a nice performance upgrade.

Click to expand...

maybe, we shall see. I would think there would have to be some crazy advancements in propellants to be able to get that kind of performance out of a case like that. Not to mention major advancements in the firearms themselves to be able to stand that kind of "performance". It would be great if it is pulled off, however I see a lot of smoke and not much fire at this point.

Aim1 said:

From the article:

"Military leaders essentially want a weapon that boasts the firepower — and range — of a machine gun with the precision of a rifle."

Click to expand...

You really have to wonder sometimes if these news sources intentionally look for writers and sources who are ignorant of the subject matter for their articles. I'm curious if the author came up with this nonsense or if it's a quote from somebody else.

I used to write an occasional article for magazines (never gun related...) but that's over now that magazines are on their last legs in general... Having an in-house technical writer might be on the program for a gun or military magazine but they'd have to be fat (or have someone that really can wear more than one hat..). Failing that they probably farm out the work to someone claiming expertise - but might not have an editor who catches stuff that they just don't recognize as bad or exaggerated...

Face it, the general reading public might not be as sharp as the average member of this forum on things gun related...

fpgt72 said:

I said on another board believe it when you see it. The "plastic" ammo is IMHO a real good idea, lighter, you don't reload it anyway so why not....carry more is one thing....but moving it around on boats, planes whatever is going to allow you to carry more of it....so that is a win.

It is a VERY EXPENSIVE deal to switch over to a new rifle....let alone a new rifle and cartridge. They do have money again so it might get to see the light of day, but I doubt it.....it would really need to be over and done with inside of 10 years otherwise I really think there is little chance.

I am pretty far from an AR fanboi but it is really a good platform even if it is on the otherside of 50 years old.

Click to expand...

Well yes and no. The costs of small arms is a pittance compared with a Ford class Carrier. I suspect that most of the issues arise are training,logistics, and allies such as NATO.

Speedo66 said:

Composite cases? Just what we need, more single use plastic to screw up the environment.

Think of the number of cases the Army will produce, and leave everywhere, if they adapt this.

Sorry, I’m finally starting to think of things like this in my old age.

Click to expand...

Two words, compostable cartridges.

boom boom said:

Well yes and no. The costs of small arms is a pittance compared with a Ford class Carrier. I suspect that most of the issues arise are training,logistics, and allies such as NATO.

Click to expand...

I think you would be shocked at the costs.

fpgt72 said:

I think you would be shocked at the costs.

Click to expand...

A Ford class Carrier costs so far about $13 billion and that is not counting logistics and training costs. The Ford class also is not quite fixed yet and may require hundreds of millions more. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...craft-carrier-that-still-isnt-ready-to-deploy And the cost of the aircraft are like batteries, not included.

The new 6.8 project's estimated cost is about 0.7 billion. It is the last category--Soldier Lethality when you look at the bar graph.
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/army-moves-25b-to-big-six-including-new-6-8mm-rifle/

boom boom said:

A Ford class Carrier costs so far about $13 billion and that is not counting logistics and training costs. The Ford class also is not quite fixed yet and may require hundreds of millions more. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...craft-carrier-that-still-isnt-ready-to-deploy And the cost of the aircraft are like batteries, not included.

The new 6.8 project's estimated cost is about 0.7 billion. It is the last category--Soldier Lethality when you look at the bar graph.
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/army-moves-25b-to-big-six-including-new-6-8mm-rifle/

Click to expand...

I don't see costs in the second article you linked....perhaps I missed it.

I don't disagree that something like a carrier costs more....but if you think 1 billion....thats with a B (bonus points if you know where that came from) is chump change well ok.

And also to not get political, you got inside of 10 years to get this in the hands of the troops in large scale otherwise you got another B1 on your hands to be killed by the next dem that gets in office.

fpgt72 said:

I don't see costs in the second article you linked....perhaps I missed it.

Click to expand...

3rd paragraph under the graph under the expense graph. The .7 Billion includes the whole kit the soldier is equipped with and includes a new heads up display for soldiers to wear along with the new rifle/ammo. The article mentions that upgrading the soldiers kit will be the first to come to fruition because it's the smallest and easiest hurdle to tackle... We'll see about that.

fpgt72 said:

I don't see costs in the second article you linked....perhaps I missed it.

I don't disagree that something like a carrier costs more....but if you think 1 billion....thats with a B (bonus points if you know where that came from) is chump change well ok.

And also to not get political, you got inside of 10 years to get this in the hands of the troops in large scale otherwise you got another B1 on your hands to be killed by the next dem that gets in office.

Click to expand...

I have no arguments as to whether it is prudent to dump the Stoner rifle and do not have a dog in the fight. I find it more ridiculous to be spending 13 billion on an aircraft carrier that kinda works which also has to have a battlegroup of other ships to protect it in an age of missiles, drones, and hi tech submarines. Enemies sink one aircraft carrier and the loss of life would probably exceed the 9/11 disasters as well as cost more.

It is just that out of 4.7 trillion dollars, one billion is a small amount compared with other hi-tech weapons. Even out of the defense budget which was 989 billion for FY 2018, a billion is about 1 percent and it is my understanding from the graph that the money for the project was the total spent over time. In comparison, we pay over one billion per day in interest payments now. At some point, the dance of deficit spending will stop either by default, inflation, or debt suppression (feds setting interest rate for govt debt at some .01 percent or some such) but if you can bet when and where it will, you might just be Nostradamus.

Not going to happen. It’s like computer upgrades, just screw working things up so someone can make a buck.

GEM said:

Not going to happen. It’s like computer upgrades, just screw working things up so someone can make a buck.

Click to expand...

I might think from your comment that you might be a tad cynical about the operating procedures of our government. Surely you jest as the government contractors responsible surely have the best interests of the citizenry and soldiers of the US foremost in their hearts .

Thank God that the Norwegians saved the LCS from being just an under armed yacht.

From a veteran friend: "How about using the weight savings to actually save weight?"
They keep adding to to the load; I don't think I have a vet friend with knees or a lower back that still work right. Any time they save 30% weight on something, they give you 40% more of it.
For jobs that don't need more of something--and I understand no one ever complained about having too much ammo unless they're marching--how about giving someone the same amount but taking a couple pounds off?
After all, it would just be that much easier to keep a truck stocked with it.

Really, all we have here is a journo incredibly happy to be getting paid 1¢ per word to gush over maybeware.
Author does not know the difference between an individual rifle and a squad automatic weapon, or a crew-served support (platoon level) MG.
The Holy Grail has long been a squad weapon that is "more" than an infantry rifle, while also being "less" than a GPMG.

The theory is that the M-242 SAW gunners will be able to better hump 3-400 rounds if a kilo or two can be knocked off the weight of that gear. Giving that gunner a "constant recoil" weapng might shave another couple of kilos of carry weight, too.

Now, they will have to add like one truck in 5 or 6 to carry all the new ammo for these squad weapons.

At which point, some bottom-half of their graduating class type will go, "Let's make all the ammo the same!" Except, we have long proven that infantry rifles are best used out to only 200-300m or so, and in semi-auto only. "Constant recoil" has no effect on semi-auto fire. And, ammo meant to be leathal at squad weapon ranges will be hugely over-powered at infantry ranges (which will make the weapons harder to shoot, harder to qualify on, etc.)

Also, ther eis no reason to give up 7.62nato in the GPMG role, it works and works well.

Some well thought out replies here... got the feeling that this sort of stuff is a sore point for career military types... can't imagine why...

Something about this thread makes me to read "Starship Troopers" again.

Need new rounds for bugs. Charging and yelling kill them all , didn’t go so well on Klendathu.

Now if you had the book’s MI suits, the guns under discussion would be pop guns