6.8 Rem M16 = Returning full Circle???

[BigG]

I took a quick look at the 6.8 Rem article in the latest issue of AmRiflMan and it struck me we have an AR15/M16 that has similar ballistics to the good ole Rusky 7.62X39. Maybe it was the Crispy Creme donuts I ate for breakfast but it seems we could issue captured SKSs or AKxx and get it over with. What do you think?

 

[ny32182]

It has a flatter trajectory from what I've read, but other than that, the ballistics sure do look similar...

There are a couple people here with a good bit of experience with it though. Also, there was another thread on the same topic a while back that could probably tell you exactly what you want to know.

 

[BigG]

Thanks, tt, I mean apart from the HYPE and the guys who have a vested interest in the thing, does it offer anything tangible? I mean we can always use ANOTHER caliber and the marketing guys are quick to fasten on ANY marginal superiority.

I think cutting 6 inches off the M16 barrel (making the M4) was the mistake as it neutered the advantage of high velocity at much over spitting distance - that and the 62 grain bullet to make the M16 a better TARGET rifle.

No gun is going to be all things to all people and I think that's their (MISGUIDED) aim for the basic infantry weapon. It just ain't going to happen, imho.

If the soldiers need something for house sweeping, issue the old grease guns or contract for UZIs, or similar weapons.

 

[Langenator]

From what I've read, the 6.8 is much better than the 7.62x39 beyond 200 meters.

FWIW, the US and the USSR both missed the boat IMO back in the 50s. In both cases, an ally had a better cartridge, but the big boys had their pets and forced them on their respective alliances.

In our case, it was the Brits and their 7x43mm. Ballistics very similar to the 6.8.

For the Russkies, it was the Czechs and their 7.62x45mm. Again, ballistics similar to the 6.8.

 

[Rebar]

I still think the 6.8 is too comprimised, the 6.5 grendel is clearly a superior round that can replace both 5.56 and 7.62 Nato.

 

[Zak Smith]

Please read the 6.8SPC FAQ and the threads we've already had here. (ETA: We've also hashed 6.8 vs 6.5 to death here, so search on that too.)

6.8SPC external ballistics are virtually identical to 75-77gr 223 from similar length barrels. In other words, almost 2x better than 7.62x39 in drop and wind drift. 6.8SPC's terminal ballistics are significantly improved over the best 223/556 rounds. 7.62x39's terminal ballistics are very poor, with basically no fragmentation.

 

[Zak Smith]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=130193
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=122939
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=119327

 

[Silent Bob]

"7.62x39's terminal ballistics are very poor"

I think the tens of thousands killed by 7.62x39 everywhere from Vietnam to the Middle East to stinking little bush wars in Africa might disagree with that statement...

 

[Zak Smith]

Silent Bob,

That is a lame and ignorant argument.

Nobody will dispute that .22LR or 9x18 Makarov can kill, but they are not good choices for self-defense or military use.

When 7.62x39's terminal ballistics are studied using methods developed by the professionals in that field, it is clear they are inferior to the other cartridges as discussed.

I encourage people to read the research in the field of terminal ballistics. You can find links in the other 5 gazillion threads we've had about it.

-z

 

[Coronach]

I think the tens of thousands killed by 7.62x39 everywhere from Vietnam to the Middle East to stinking little bush wars in Africa might disagree with that statement...

The exact same statement can be applied to the 5.56 NATO if you vary the locations slightly. The question is not whetehr or not it can kill. Both can and do. The question is whether or not it is more effective than other possible cartridges at the task while maintaining other desirable characteristics.

Mike

 

[TODD3465]

So far the 6.8 is supposed to be an alternate round for SOCOM and that's it so far.

 

[Kjay]

Perhaps it's been suggested before or I'm just not well informed but I wonder if the 7mm TCU wouldn't do the job of both these 6.8's. Perhaps with less need to modify the AR platform or mags?

 

[Crosshair]

Things I like about 7.62x39.

1. Heavy taper on the case meand easier extraction and to a lesser extent, more reliable feeding. Example: Every 7.62x39 weapon I know of will take Wolf ammo, shoot it, and then ask for more. Most .223 weapons tend to gum up with wolf ammo. (Again, there are alway's exceptions.)

2. Consistency. .223 is a better round against humans IF it fragments. That does not alway's happen. 7.62x39 will alway's put a bigger hole in the target than 223, it does not RELY on fragmentation for its lethality. Some 7.62x39 does fragment and when it does it beats anything that .223 could do.

3. Barrier penitration. Aside from steel plate (That few people hide behind anyway.) 7.62 is far better penitrating cover like concrete, wood/trees, etc.

 

[Fumbler]

Every 7.62x39 weapon I know of will take Wolf ammo, shoot it, and then ask for more. Most .223 weapons tend to gum up with wolf ammo.

You think that has anything to do with the fact that most auto .223's come in the form of a rifle with direct gas impingement?

 

[Cosmoline]

When you boil it down, the military is still playing around with 100 year old target bullets. If we want any REAL innovation, we need to renounce the Hague Convention and let the soldiers benefit from the last century of bullet design.

 

[Zak Smith]

Perhaps it's been suggested before or I'm just not well informed but I wonder if the 7mm TCU wouldn't do the job of both these 6.8's. Perhaps with less need to modify the AR platform or mags?

Does it feed reliably full auto in an M4?
Does it have enough powder capacity to get a decent muzzle velocity?

Most .223 weapons tend to gum up with wolf ammo.

A friend of mine is a Class III dealer and rents machineguns. He runs only Wolf through his Colt M4s because it's cheaper than anything else. They run for many thousands of rounds without issue.

Consistency. .223 is a better round against humans IF it fragments. That does not alway's happen. 7.62x39 will alway's put a bigger hole in the target than 223, it does not RELY on fragmentation for its lethality. Some 7.62x39 does fragment and when it does it beats anything that .223 could do.

By this argument we should be using .45-70 because it makes a bigger hole than 308.
M193 and M855 normally fragment when the terminal velocity is above 2600-2700fps. They are not the best 5.56 can offer. The 75, 77, and 100gr .224" bullets produce terminal effects superior to M855 or M193, and they reliably fragment down to 2000-2200fps.

You think that has anything to do with the fact that most auto .223's come in the form of a rifle with direct gas impingement?

This downside of the M16 platform is highly over-rated. A properly built AR15 or M4 will run many thousands of rounds without cleaning, assuming foreign material does not enter the action. Grit, sand, or dirt will eventually disable any autoloading rifle.

 

[ChiefPilot]

1. Heavy taper on the case meand easier extraction and to a lesser extent, more reliable feeding. Example: Every 7.62x39 weapon I know of will take Wolf ammo, shoot it, and then ask for more. Most .223 weapons tend to gum up with wolf ammo. (Again, there are alway's exceptions.)

I think this says more about Wolf ammo than it does about anything else....

 

[Alfadog]

When you boil it down, the military is still playing around with 100 year old target bullets. If we want any REAL innovation, we need to renounce the Hague Convention and let the soldiers benefit from the last century of bullet design.

I second the motion! When we are fighting against evil fanatics who recognize no rules of warfare, why are we clinging to rules that govern warfare between civilized nations?

 

[Solo]

When you boil it down, the military is still playing around with 100 year old target bullets. If we want any REAL innovation, we need to renounce the Hague Convention and let the soldiers benefit from the last century of bullet design.

I may not be right on this, but from what I can remember, the United States never signed the Hague Convention.

 

[Alfadog]

I think you are correct but we abide by its restrictions nonetheless.

 

[Crosshair]

Yup, we never signed the 1899 convention. I believe that we signed the 1907 one, but that one didn't cover bullet types.

 

[Ivy Mike]

I dunno, perhaps ball is cheaper and we've already seen that most shots don't actually find their mark.

The military is concerned with making holes in soldiers. If the first one doesn't do it, you've got 29 more rounds in that magazine soldier...fire again.

I'd think our best choice would be to quit screwing around with direct gas impingement and just adopt an AK pattern rifle as the standard issue US rifle. They can be chambered in so many calibers and are rugged to a fault.
Sure, crud will jam up any autoloader, but it will jam an AR pattern a lot sooner than it will an AK pattern.

Modernize the 7.62x39 with new bullets and extend the case. A new higher velocity 7.62x43 would do just fine. Big hole, lotsa velocity and a rifle that won't quit.

Oops, sorry Colt and FN didn't mean to step on your toes. Nevermind the whole AK and modern cartridge thing. Lets just keep using band-aid fixed AR's and .22 caliber bullets.

 

[Langenator]

Modernize the 7.62x39 with new bullets and extend the case. A new higher velocity 7.62x43 would do just fine. Big hole, lotsa velocity and a rifle that won't quit.

Already been done, as I noted a few posts back. The 7.62x45mm, developed by the Czechs and used in the VZ-52 rifle. The Soviets forced the 7.62x39 on them, leading to the VZ-52/57, until that was replaced by the VZ-58, which was built in 7.62x39 at Soviet insistence.

Personally, with that case length, I'd shrink the bore diameter a tine bit, to the 6.5-7mm range to get better sectional density and allow a longer bullet for better BC.

Which brings you to things like the old Brit 7x43mm, or the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel.

Everythings that's old is new again.

 

[pinetree64]

They aren't the same. I thought so, at first. The 6.8 SPC is the balllistic twin of the 6.5 Swedish Mauser. I had thought one of the main aspects of the new round would be that it maintained the same rim size and case diameter of the 5.56. Research had been done with many bullets, the 6mm on the 556 case looked good w/ better penetration at long range. However, on paper, doesn't yield much more than the 77g 556. I think heavy bullets in the 556 is the way to go. Also, many proponents say it approaches 7.72x51 stats. Yes, technically it is an approvement over the 5.56, but it is still closer the performance of the 5.56 than 7.62.

tjg

 

[chopinbloc]

I second the motion! When we are fighting against evil fanatics who recognize no rules of warfare, why are we clinging to rules that govern warfare between civilized nations?

because WE are a civilized nation. by that logic we should rape, pillage and burn villages, too, right?
the 6.8 does have unique ballistics, but the reason they adopted it was for use in the current envelope and as was mentioned for the socom community. as a matter of fact it was developed by this community from the bottom up along with remington rather than the usual channels the army uses. if that's what these boys think they need to do their jobs, then great, but if you want to buy one for personal use, that's on you.