Link to article
"Old" does not equal "bad", but this is a defense industry magazine.
I wonder if it'll accept AK mags as well.
"Old" does not equal "bad", but this is a defense industry magazine.
I wonder if it'll accept AK mags as well.
SOCOM Looking For Next-Generation Weapon
- Thread starter glockten
- Start date
- Status
George Hill
Member
That is very interesting.
otomik
Member
no mention of 6.8x43mm Special Purpose Cartridge, i guess it's just a flash in the pan.
artherd
member
Eww... 7.62x39...
Why can't we design a rifle with a pair of chambers on some kind of ratcheting mechanism that would share a barrel?
Combine with mags that would feed 7.62 NATO and the much smaller 7.62x39 withought change, and we'd have a gun that could shoot any ammo that our guys could find.
Half a mag of NATO, and the rest from some guy's AK? Fire 10 shots, click the block over, and keep firing!
Tony Williams
Member
Grump
Member
First of all, having personally fired .308 bullet loads in an SKS, the accuracy was equal to the .311 bullets. Cheap gun, 4 MOA, I'd want something better for your troops,
BUT
I have personally heard firsthand reports that you can get 2 MOA or better with caliber mismatch of only .003 in either direction. Some printed sources said so to, IIRC.
Now,
Well, M14 expectations except for the lubeless firing--that was the initial M16 debacle, before they spent a million buck$ to PIP the thing to include a forward assist and stopped spewing BS at the troops about "no cleaning required" and also cut the excess calcium carbonate stabilizer from the powder.
It also sounds like a two-caliber disaster. Sheesh.
I believe they could get everything they need by going to the 6.5 Badger, with accuracy in the sniper versions more than likely much more easily repeatable than for any .30 caliber. Going to ONE caliber sure makes more sense to me, but what do I know, I'm just a "civilian." Sheesh.
The rifle can be done, probably at 8 lbs or less minus optics. Just let's not botch it by duplicating the WWII/Korea complications of having three or more small-arms calibers.
BUT
I have personally heard firsthand reports that you can get 2 MOA or better with caliber mismatch of only .003 in either direction. Some printed sources said so to, IIRC.
Now,
Doesn't that sound suspiciously like the guaranteed-to-fail expectations the M14 was saddled with? Sheesh.
Well, M14 expectations except for the lubeless firing--that was the initial M16 debacle, before they spent a million buck$ to PIP the thing to include a forward assist and stopped spewing BS at the troops about "no cleaning required" and also cut the excess calcium carbonate stabilizer from the powder.
It also sounds like a two-caliber disaster. Sheesh.
I believe they could get everything they need by going to the 6.5 Badger, with accuracy in the sniper versions more than likely much more easily repeatable than for any .30 caliber. Going to ONE caliber sure makes more sense to me, but what do I know, I'm just a "civilian." Sheesh.
The rifle can be done, probably at 8 lbs or less minus optics. Just let's not botch it by duplicating the WWII/Korea complications of having three or more small-arms calibers.
Nightcrawler
Member
It's really not that big of a deal for Special Operations Command, with their typically small teams and specialized logistical setups.
Besides, the Big Army has been doing two calibers for a long time. I don't think 6.8 or 6.5 or whatever should replace the 7.62x51mm general purpose machine guns.
artherd
member
I still maintain that a group of 5 guys, 4 with rugged .223 'battle' rifles, and one guy with an accurised, and maybe not-so-accurate, .308 SR-25/M-14/AR-10/etc with a scope is a really good idea.
Grump
Member
I still sez it's a better idea to have all five guys shooting the same ammo, or at least the same caliber ammo (e.g., M80 and M118 in 7.62x51, or equivalent in a newer round that uses smaller amounts of defense-critical resources, allowing more rounds per pound to be carried). It's a bummer to have your sniper out of the fight because the ammo is gone and the other guys' stuff won't chamber.
itgoesboom
member
I wanna know how they plan on being able to get 7.62x39 tobe effective at 500 meters. 
Not to mention, a sniper varient? in 7.62x39? This I have got to see.
I.G.B.
Not to mention, a sniper varient? in 7.62x39? This I have got to see.
I.G.B.
Nightcrawler said;
Actually, it is that big a deal...so big that it's probably what's going to relegate the 6.8x43 round to obscurity. SOCOM doesn't want to pay the frieght themselves, and having weapons that used non-standard ammunition would be a logistical nightmare.
Jeff
Actually, it is that big a deal...so big that it's probably what's going to relegate the 6.8x43 round to obscurity. SOCOM doesn't want to pay the frieght themselves, and having weapons that used non-standard ammunition would be a logistical nightmare.
Jeff
It looks to me like everything they described wanting is going to be present with the XM-8. 5.56 and 7.62 Carbine and sharpshooters versions....
I mean... this rifle is already in the makes... Does SOCOM just want a different rifle to call their own?
I mean... this rifle is already in the makes... Does SOCOM just want a different rifle to call their own?
Tony Williams
Member
There are several different issues here.
First, is it possible to produce one cartridge which will be controllable in a light carbine but hard-hitting enough to be effective at small-arms firing distances? You bet - between 6mm and 7mm has long been recognised as the ideal for a general-purpose military cartridge. The fact that such a round has never made it into service since WW2 (apart from the Swedish 6.5x55, which is really too powerful) is down to historical accident rather than design.
Could the new 6.8x43 fulfil that role? Yes it could, although long-range performance would be better with a heavier bullet (the designers were restricted by having to keep the overall length the same as the 5.56x45). Even so, the ballistic coefficient is comparable with the 7.62x51 and it is certainly capable of hitting hard out to 600m and providing suppressive fire to 800+m (compared with perhaps 800m and 1,000m for the 7.62x51 - not enough of an advantage to be worthwhile). If you want to reach out with a long-range sniper, go for a .338.
Will the 6.8x43 be adopted? That's a different matter altogether and depends on a range of factors. It is worth pointing out, however, that with the USA contemplating a new rifle system (XM8) with magazines and accessories incompatible with the M16, and with the 5.56mm M249 LMGs wearing out and needing replacement, there will probably never be a better opportunity to change calibre.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
First, is it possible to produce one cartridge which will be controllable in a light carbine but hard-hitting enough to be effective at small-arms firing distances? You bet - between 6mm and 7mm has long been recognised as the ideal for a general-purpose military cartridge. The fact that such a round has never made it into service since WW2 (apart from the Swedish 6.5x55, which is really too powerful) is down to historical accident rather than design.
Could the new 6.8x43 fulfil that role? Yes it could, although long-range performance would be better with a heavier bullet (the designers were restricted by having to keep the overall length the same as the 5.56x45). Even so, the ballistic coefficient is comparable with the 7.62x51 and it is certainly capable of hitting hard out to 600m and providing suppressive fire to 800+m (compared with perhaps 800m and 1,000m for the 7.62x51 - not enough of an advantage to be worthwhile). If you want to reach out with a long-range sniper, go for a .338.
Will the 6.8x43 be adopted? That's a different matter altogether and depends on a range of factors. It is worth pointing out, however, that with the USA contemplating a new rifle system (XM8) with magazines and accessories incompatible with the M16, and with the 5.56mm M249 LMGs wearing out and needing replacement, there will probably never be a better opportunity to change calibre.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Kaylee
Member
The SCAR-L is intended to be easily field-convertible between several chamberings, 7.62x39, .223, and the new 6.whatsit. I guess the idea is to be able to "live off the land" such as they do with that 7.62x39 M4 that Knights (I think) has brought out for 'em.
For longer ranges and "sniper" or "designated marksman" use, there's a requested SCAR-Heavy, which is also supposed to take several chamberings, to include .308 if I recall correctly.
I don't believe the SCAR-L and the SCAR-H *need* to have many interchangeable parts, but that would be a bonus.
Finally.. though the XM8 could likely in most cases do the job, there's some things on the drawing board and in private R&D right now that so far as I've heard and seen blow the G36-in-sleek-clothing right out of the water. Some makers you already know and love, as well as some dark horse workshops, are putting together pieces for the SCAR trials that are just well....
yum.
(which is why, incidentally, that I'm so cool on the XM8 for general adoption. Once some of these SCAR candidates are off the drawing board, as they should right quick, I suspect the XM8 will be seriously yesterday's news)
-K
For longer ranges and "sniper" or "designated marksman" use, there's a requested SCAR-Heavy, which is also supposed to take several chamberings, to include .308 if I recall correctly.
I don't believe the SCAR-L and the SCAR-H *need* to have many interchangeable parts, but that would be a bonus.
Finally.. though the XM8 could likely in most cases do the job, there's some things on the drawing board and in private R&D right now that so far as I've heard and seen blow the G36-in-sleek-clothing right out of the water. Some makers you already know and love, as well as some dark horse workshops, are putting together pieces for the SCAR trials that are just well....
yum.
(which is why, incidentally, that I'm so cool on the XM8 for general adoption. Once some of these SCAR candidates are off the drawing board, as they should right quick, I suspect the XM8 will be seriously yesterday's news)
-K
- Status