6.8 Rem v. 6.5 Grendel in Iraq?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A couple NCOs being given permission to use ranges etc. on their own time with equipment and materials supplied by either themselves or others, I can maybe see.. This hardly constitutes "testing" by the Army, or even an Army "unit". The officer giving this permission may have no idea the consequences should there be an accident or even any incident related to this activity.

If you want the real skinny on what the Army has in mind, it's this:

"The XM8 has the capability to switch out barrels, which means you don’t need an M4 and an M16A2,". "You only have one weapon platform and you can configure different variants of what you need. That will really do a couple of things -- it will reduce the logistics tail and the cost of maintaining that weapon and ease the training burden. While the M16 and M4 have operating systems that are about the same, under the XM8, the operating system will be identical. The optics that go with it will be virtually identical. So the training will begin at the basic level. You won’t have guys, for instance, learning how to shoot an M16A2 with iron sights in basic training and then going to the 82nd Airborne and suddenly getting an M4 that’s a modular weapon system with lasers and all that other stuff that they suddenly have to train up on."

"Developmental testing, which was conducted in coordination with Army Test and Evaluation Command, took place during 2004. Depending on the results of that testing, XM8 assault rifles could begin entering the field as early as mid-fiscal year 2006."

Lt. Col. Matthew Clarke, U.S. Army Project Manager for Individual Weapons

No secret "sources", no inuendo.

And for you commandos that don't already know, the XM8 uses the 5.56 NATO.

I've known Matt since he was a 1LT.
 
For what it's worth, the 6.8's military credentials mean absolutely nothing to me.

I do believe that the 6.8 development stemmed from a .mil request. I remember reading specifications issued several years ago (1998?). It sticks out in my befuddled mind because I was working on a similar cartridge and stopped because of the 6.8 SPC.


David
 
I agree that the ideal, clean-sheet, general-purpose military cartridge (which IMO would be of around 6.5mm calibre) would have a slightly longer overall length than the 5.56x45 round.

However, there is a very large number of different 5.56mm rifles and LMGs made in many countries of the world, so the commercial success of such a cartridge would be greatly enhanced if existing gun designs could be easily adapted to fire it. Hence retaining the same overall cartridge length is commercially sensible, even though it does enforce design compromises.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
 
Let's just be sure we keep that "high road" here.

I have seen NCO's blaze away with a double-bl shotgun on the range when I was with 1-5 Infantry in WA. While it was probably possible to get approval to fire 12 gauge on the range because squad leaders had Mossberg shotguns, I doubt that it was mentioned that any civie shotguns were being fired. ;)
Still, one could claim with something almost resembling truth that a double-barreled, external hammer 12 gauge was being "tested by Army units", or somesuch.

From what I've been able to find on the material, the driving factor for 6.8 (if there truly was one) was close-range performance. 6.5, on the other hand, truly does have the potential to replace both 5.56 and 7.62, and I believe that is a worthy objective.

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top