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

fpgt72 said:

...it is really a good platform even if it is on the otherside of 50 years old.

Click to expand...

That's what the wife said about me, but I think she was just being nice.

mokin said:

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

Click to expand...

Amen to READ. Not watch. READ.

The movie was kinda fun, I guess, but whoever wrote it didn't understand much about the book. Correction, ANYTHING about the book.

mcb said:

In addition I don't believe this new 6.8 mm bullet will have any lead in it for both environmental reasons and for enhanced armor penetration characteristics.

Click to expand...

I'm as much a fan of protecting this Earth that God gave us as the next person, but to the extent that environmental concerns override tactical efficiency, someone needs to be court martial-ed.

The military's job is to break things and kill people, or present the credible threat to do so. We have multi-megaton nuclear warheads in our arsenal. Are we really going to evaluate a new weapon system based on whether its polymer case is bio-degradable? Or whether its projectile might marginally increase the percentage of lead in the environment of our enemy?

Give me a break.

Maybe we deserve to fade away.

I understand that technical students at university today often choose Chinese as a foreign language due to the likelihood of needing to interface with native Chinese speakers in the workplace. Maybe we should all follow suit. Just give it up, already.

Mycin said:

I'm as much a fan of protecting this Earth that God gave us as the next person, but to the extent that environmental concerns override tactical efficiency, someone needs to be court martial-ed.

The military's job is to break things and kill people, or present the credible threat to do so. We have multi-megaton nuclear warheads in our arsenal. Are we really going to evaluate a new weapon system based on whether its polymer case is bio-degradable? Or whether its projectile might marginally increase the percentage of lead in the environment of our enemy?

Give me a break.

Maybe we deserve to fade away.

I understand that technical students at university today often choose Chinese as a foreign language due to the likelihood of needing to interface with native Chinese speakers in the workplace. Maybe we should all follow suit. Just give it up, already.

Click to expand...

Breath of fresh air!

FWIW (and it's not worth much, I grant)...

As fpgt72 wrote up-thread, the M16/M4/5.56mm platform is over 50 years old, now. If it was fundamentally flawed, it wouldn't have lasted this long.

Personally, I like a heavier projectile, which is why I own a FAL rather than an AR. When I heard the new caliber was to be 6.8mm, I approved.

But requiring 3500 fps? Are there no people in the Pentagon who understand basic physics? Physics is an unforgiving b-with-an-itch. You can't get around it.

It's cool but it's a dumb idea. 270 WSM power levels, 80000-100000+ psi, from barrels ranging from 13-18". More noise, concussion, recoil, less barrel life, less ammo carrying capacity, etc. Neat for a video game or sci-fi movie, waste of money in real life.

Mycin said:

I'm as much a fan of protecting this Earth that God gave us as the next person, but to the extent that environmental concerns override tactical efficiency, someone needs to be court martial-ed.

The military's job is to break things and kill people, or present the credible threat to do so. We have multi-megaton nuclear warheads in our arsenal. Are we really going to evaluate a new weapon system based on whether its polymer case is bio-degradable? Or whether its projectile might marginally increase the percentage of lead in the environment of our enemy?

Give me a break.

Maybe we deserve to fade away.

I understand that technical students at university today often choose Chinese as a foreign language due to the likelihood of needing to interface with native Chinese speakers in the workplace. Maybe we should all follow suit. Just give it up, already.

Click to expand...

I think you mis-interpret my post. The primary concern is armor penetration and lethality with environmental concerns being an important secondary goal. Remember we have to train on our own land and we don't need to poison that more than necessary. But back to that primary goals of armor penetration and lethality. What AP round have you ever hear of that uses lead core? Vanishingly few, AP round are nearly always made from harder metals. Yes a lead core bullet is very lethal as we have proved in the past military uses and we continue to prove with the large variety of lead core bullet we use for hunting every thing from squirrels to elephant but we are trying to kill other humans (as grim as that reality is) and those enemy's are more an more often armored. A lead core bullet is almost always a liability not an asset against armor and the hard the armor the more liability it is. Much as the M855 and M80 have gone from a partial lead core to the new M855A1 and M80A1 that have no lead in them and perform better than the older ammo. This is also true of this new round. The primary goal of this new ammo is lethal penetration of typically fielded body armor at 600 meters. I don't believe even M995 or M993 (Tungsten core) can achieve that currently.

Polymer cases are primarily for weight savings. Ask any soldier that has fought for real if he could carry more ammo for the same weight would he? The answer is always yes.

These secondary environmental befits are nice but more importantly they also help these programs sell to the US population and bureaucracy, but the primary goal is still the same as it has always been.

I don't know if this has been covered before and I haven't followed the FN MK-48 belt fed machine gun in 6.5 Creedmoor, seems like a natural succession to the 7.62x51 and it's in production.

https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/fn-announces-new-belt-fed-6-5mm-creedmoor-machine-gun/360908

Seems legit. Considering it only took 50 years for them to figure out we should lube an AR-15 these new wonder rifles should come included with a return authorization form. AT 80-100k pressure that should really stand the test of time putting thousands of rounds through it.

Junk.

I hate to break it to the US military but the AR-15 and AK-47 will still be mainstay rifles at the time of the battle of armageddon. Followed by the 74's, FAL, CETME, and G3 rifles.

fireside44 said:

Seems legit. Considering it only took 50 years for them to figure out we should lube an AR-15 these new wonder rifles should come included with a return authorization form. AT 80-100k pressure that should really stand the test of time putting thousands of rounds through it.

Junk.

I hate to break it to the US military but the AR-15 and AK-47 will still be mainstay rifles at the time of the battle of armageddon. Followed by the 74's, FAL, CETME, and G3 rifles.

Click to expand...

The M256 (Rheinmetall Rh-120) main gun for the Abrams (and similar model on German Leopard 2) operate in that 80 - 100 ksi and it does OK on barrel life. With relatively recent improvements that getting well over 1500 rds barrel life on that big gun. I think the technology exists to make it work at the smaller scale if we are willing to pay for the materials and manufacturing techniques.

The 6.8 is very similar to the 7mm Enfield that the US Army originally agreed to share as a joint "intermediate" cartridge, before deciding they absolutely must have even more power than the current .30-06 loading. So we wound up with the .308 for a few years, before it was largely replaced with the 5.56, which was less powerful than the Enfield cartridge. And now we've completed the circle back to the Enfield.

Any of the designers at Enfield Lock who haven't passed on by now are probably sniggering into their tea, muttering about "bloody Yanks!"

Of course we need new rifles. If we only continue to need replacements for worn out current ones, well, that's not very many. How is the military-industrial complex going to get their due rewards on those?

No, we need total replacement of all rifles, along with the huge fortune that will provide. And if the specs wear out rifles (and soldiers) at an alarming rate, well, like Doritos, they'll just make more.

Is there any empirical evidence, that we will be facing hordes of high tech armored foes? Do the Chinese or Russians so equip their troops? Is this the Gerald Ford of small arms?