The Army's new Squad Automatic Rifle will be Chambered in .270 Win. ...ish.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Having played a bit within the "Military-Industry Complex", the specificity and inflexibility of the 6.8 caliber requirement sort of pegs my BS meter. Anytime a requirement by a government agency that is not a performance spec (ie specifying 6.8 caliber as opposed to a performance spec like penetrate .250 inches of homogeneous steel armor at 200 yards or less) gets overly or arbitrarily specific you can almost always bet that its being done, not to meet some needed end user performance requirement, but to funnel your tax dollars somewhere specific. JMHO

The requirement is that is has to penetrate level IV body armor at 600 yards.
 
Another thing people need to consider is logistics. The SAW and the M27IAR are used to fill the automatic rifle role at the fire team level because they are light enough to be used by one man and because they take the same ammunition as the standard issue rifle. The IAR and the standard issue M249 can both even take the standard issue ammo in the standard issue magazine. So while I understand the limitations of the 5.56 is the support role, esp with regard to penetration and range, I also understand this is done because it is logistically expedient.
Adding another weapon system and cartridge to the mix doesn't make a lot of sense from a logistical standpoint. It adds more complexity than performance. We are now talking about providing weapons, training, ammunition for three different cartridges--a standard issue rifle and infantry cartridge, a SAW specific round, and the standard issue support and LMG round. Each of these will have multiple types of ammunition that need to be fed to the front lines and make it to the right people, and the added complexity in doing this arguably outweighs the performance advantages.
The new M80A1 features a 130 gr bullet @ 3100 fps from an M240. It reportedly has enough velocity to fragment reliably to almost a quarter of a mile and can defeat all current and projected body armor threats at that range from a system that is already fielded and logistically supported.
I have been saying that a medium bore caliber is the best way to eliminate our dependence on two different infantry rounds. Done right, a 6.8mm cartridge could replace both the 5.56 and the 7.62 NATO cartridges. But this would be a massive logistical undertaking in peace time, to say nothing of having troops deployed and actively fighting in several different theaters. It doesn't seem like a practical time to do this, especially given all the systems, like the IAR, M855A1, and M80A1, that we have recently spent time and money testing and implementing.
Like I said, I will believe it when I see it.
 
Imagine if the WW1 store of .30'06 had been depleted and the two gun smiths competing at the Springfield Armory had gotten 10 rounds of .276Peterson in the chosen rifles?
They actually did, 20 or 30 cases, actually.
It was not so much the ±1.2e10 rounds of M2 Ball in inventory as the Depression had set in, and there was likely going to be no new money for the War Department to improve the range fans at all of the freshly-built ranges across CONUS.

That, and MGs were still expected to be able to put 150-17gr ball ammo out to 2000-3000m and be effective.

We in the present have the math & science to get a BC that might support a 120-130gr round out to 2km. Maybe. The question becomes one of will the weight offset help the weapons platoon guys better hump GPMGs.

There's no real change in the logistics train for a new round. The trains still have to support bot h 5.56nato and 7.62nato for GPMGs, and certain volumes of .50bmg, depending upon the mix of who/what the trains support.
 
Watched as much of the above video as I could handle. With the pressure specs they're looking at, it might be more feasible than we think to send a 135 gr bullet at 3000fps. They're looking at somewhere in the range of 80Kpsi if I heard and did the conversion correctly. You could probably push a 6.8 that would fit in the AR envelope that fast at that pressure.

I found this, looks like the project has inertia. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...oth-fire-this-more-accurate-and-deadly-round/ There's a link to the actual bid package if somebody is really hungry for alphabet soup, and if somebody knows how to navigate to the actual specs of the prototype ammunition to be submitted, I'm all ears. It may be classified, so don't get us in trouble.
 
Last edited:
I'm waiting for huge lots of military surplus 5.56 x 45 to hit the civilian market.
Would be a long wait. Infantry will be toting 5.56nato for the foreseeable future.

And, more importantly, DRMO no longer releases loaded ammo in any form. If the 5.56 is ever dropped (and entirely, meaning Reserves and NG units entire), might be a glut of pulled projos and empty cases, but that will be it. Historical note, California NG units were still using M2 Ball in BAR and 1919 MGs up to about 1978. So, if the 5.56 were mothballed today, there would liekly still be units using it in 2050 or 2075.
 
Would be a long wait. Infantry will be toting 5.56nato for the foreseeable future.

And, more importantly, DRMO no longer releases loaded ammo in any form. If the 5.56 is ever dropped (and entirely, meaning Reserves and NG units entire), might be a glut of pulled projos and empty cases, but that will be it. Historical note, California NG units were still using M2 Ball in BAR and 1919 MGs up to about 1978. So, if the 5.56 were mothballed today, there would liekly still be units using it in 2050 or 2075.

That's too bad. I guess I'll just keep reloading.:D
 
I mentioned this today to a friend that shoots military matches. He told me that his buddy in the military told him they are testing a 6.5 caliber. So-o-o, one rumor is as good as another to me.
 
This round is going in the M249 SAW replacement. It's not being touted as a replacement for 5.56 in a standard rifle.

They tried replacing the 5.56 with the 6.8 SPC years ago. I worked with a former SEAL who was on the teams that tested the 6.8. His response was "meh". They found no advantage to it over 5.56. Good hits were good hits and bad hits were still bad hits.

I do think a cartridge with more mass than 5.56 and less recoil than 7.62 would be a good SAW round. I was a SAW gunner for a while and I think a little bit better penetration would be a good trade off.

This sums up my experience with both cartridges as deer hunting rounds, consider that you are comparing a 120 gr. bullet out of a 6.8 at 2500 fps muzzle against a 77 gr 5.56@ 2700 fps muzzle
 
An examination of how it got that way is in order. M855 ammo fired from the barrel of the M16A2 rifle was effective on unprotected personnel to 500 meters.

Then the US Army:

1. Sawed off the M16 barrel to 14.5 inches and called the gun the M4/M4A1. Result: Muzzle velocity was reduced.

2. Sawed the barrel off again to 11.5 inches. In some cases the barrel was shortened to 10.3 inches. Result: Muzzle velocity was further reduced.

3. Developed a new round, the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round; the so called "green round", with a hardened steel penetrator and a copper slug. That bullet will penetrate 3/8 inch of mild streel plate at 300 meters.

4. The M855 round generates about 52,000 psi when fired. The M855A1 round generates about 62,000 psi. That increase causes barrels to wear out faster; sometimes bolts break and bolt lugs shear. Years ago i obtained 200 rounds of M855A1 ammo. A friend loaded up ten rounds in his old Colt AR-15. The sixth round broke the bolt.

5. The designer of the AR-15/M16 rifle is L. James Sullivan: He scaled down the AR-10 rifle designed by Stoner. Mr. Sullivan has recently re-designed some parts of the M4/M4A1 rifles in order to make them more durable.

i'm a retired US Army M/Sgt. After the problems associated with the adoption of the M16 rifle, i'm not sure the Army will do the right thing.
 
Last edited:
Watched as much of the above video as I could handle. With the pressure specs they're looking at, it might be more feasible than we think to send a 135 gr bullet at 3000fps. They're looking at somewhere in the range of 80Kpsi if I heard and did the conversion correctly. You could probably push a 6.8 that would fit in the AR envelope that fast at that pressure.
This has to be a science fair project and nothing more. The problems of running at those sorts of pressures are numerous and not easily solved. There's a reason no current small arms operate above 65 KPSI.
 
With the pressure specs they're looking at, it might be more feasible than we think to send a 135 gr bullet at 3000fps. They're looking at somewhere in the range of 80Kpsi if I heard and did the conversion correctly. You could probably push a 6.8 that would fit in the AR envelope that fast at that pressure.

I have commented many times on the clueless nature of Army Ordnance Bureau personnel. They are right up there with the group that investigated Bernie Madoff, three times, and never figured out that Madoff was running the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world.

A good service rifle round operates in the lower 40 kpsia. I don't know if they still make student drivers sit through the old "Speed Kills" movies, but there ought to be a version for the Ordnance Corp. The slope of the pressure curve is exponential and when you start out with a 60 kpsia round, little changes in anything, be it temperature, aged ammunition, slightly different manufacturing tolerances, and rims gets pulled off and rounds stop extracting. The best service rounds were in the 40 kpsia range, when units were deployed to desert environments, their weapons worked, even when stored in vehicles. When the Army Ordnance Bureau "cooks" its people to 160 F in HMMWV's , because the vehicle is so over loaded that they can't fit an AC unit, and it is simpler to cook the occupants than fix the over weight problem, well the ammunition gets cooked with the people. And there is plenty of evidence the Army is having pressure problems with the current 5.56 ammunition in the Sandbox. You can hear of the design features they have had to adopt in M4's, because of the unreasonable pressures, one of which is a very long throat. They cut a long smooth bore section to reduce breech pressures. This is stupid and creates inaccuracy and a short barrel life.

What the Ordnance Corp ought to do is buy well designed rifles and ammunition from the Chinese Military. An examination of the current Chinese round shows it is superior at all distances to the 5.56, and it operates in the lower 40 kpsia range. Just eyeball the round, lots of taper. Taper is good, the AI improved cartridges, which the 5.56 falls into that category, are too straight and finicky about feeding. They also drag on extraction. Straight cartridges don't steer or feed as well as ones with lots of taper and they drag on extraction. And then, the Chinese round has a nice thick rim. Makes it harder to rip the rim off under extraction. And those are first order, eye ball evaluations. I have no doubt going deeper would show even more good ideas with these Chinese rounds. If you don't know, China graduates vastly more Scientists and Engineers per year than the US, and more Chinese get Science and Engineering PhD's in US Colleges, than native born Americans!. The country has a lot of highly educated, intelligent people.

Of course the US Ordnance Department wants a big expensive research program, call it white collar welfare, want to throw a lot of money down a rat hole, and don't want to adopt a well engineered foreign round and rifle system, because they can't admit there is someone out there with more technical expertise then themselves.

Bbu89Am.jpg

1gfvWmb.jpg
 
Taper is good, the AI improved cartridges, which the 5.56 falls into that category, are too straight and finicky about feeding.

You've stated this several times before that 5.56 nato has less body taper than other us service rounds and it is still a false statement. I have drawn them out in solidworks myself to get the body angle from the top of the extractor groove to the base of the shoulder.

6.5 creedmoor = .177 degrees
30-06 Ackely improved = .257 degrees
6.5 grendel = 2.99 degrees
7.62 nato = .344 degrees
30-06 = .469 degrees
6.8 spc = .473 degrees
5.56 nato = .497 degrees
30 carbine = .518 degrees
7.62x54r = 5.71 degrees
7 and 8mm mauser = .659 degrees
7.5x55 swiss = .703 degrees
5.45x39 = .801 degrees
50 BMG = .934 degrees
chinese 5.8x42 = .936 degrees
7.62x39 = 1.342 degrees

PerryHubbling Feb. 04, 2019 12.28 PM.jpg
 
The Next Generation Squad Weapon-Rifle (NGSW-R)
and the Next Generation Squad Weapon-Automatic Rifle (NGSW-AR),
will both be chambered in the Army’s new specification general purpose 6.8mm round.​


“The 6.8mm caliber projectile cannot change. A 6.8mm caliber is large enough to
achieve Government’s required outcomes whereas a 6.5mm caliber cannot.”


.270 Winchester.
Welcome to the club.

:D




GR





Never going to happen.
 
You've stated this several times before that 5.56 nato has less body taper than other us service rounds and it is still a false statement. I have drawn them out in solidworks myself to get the body angle from the top of the extractor groove to the base of the shoulder.

6.5 creedmoor = .177 degrees
30-06 Ackely improved = .257 degrees
6.5 grendel = 2.99 degrees
7.62 nato = .344 degrees
30-06 = .469 degrees
6.8 spc = .473 degrees
5.56 nato = .497 degrees
30 carbine = .518 degrees
7.62x54r = 5.71 degrees
7 and 8mm mauser = .659 degrees
7.5x55 swiss = .703 degrees
5.45x39 = .801 degrees
50 BMG = .934 degrees
chinese 5.8x42 = .936 degrees
7.62x39 = 1.342 degrees

View attachment 824726
You forgot 3 very nice tapers
218 bee
22 savage hp
Oh theyre too small
And
300 HH
Oh yeah it’s too big
Then there’s always the 275 HH
And the two HHs already have their own belt!!!!!!
 
You forgot 3 very nice tapers
218 bee
22 savage hp
Oh theyre too small
And
300 HH
Oh yeah it’s too big
Then there’s always the 275 HH
And the two HHs already have their own belt!!!!!!

Well since you brought it up

218 bee = .632 degrees
22 savage = 1.300 degrees
300 H&H = .817 degrees
 
The MG42 is not a squad automatic rifle, it's a crew served light machine gun. Lighter machine guns like the MG34 and M60 are kind of half in between. A squad automatic rifle is to be carried and operated by a single soldier, more like a BAR or a Bren. Today we use the M249 for that purpose.

Pretty much all army's of the time issued the majority of their rifles in the same cartridge. The American army in WW2 used the 30-06 in the M1903, M1917, M1 Garand, the Johnson rifle, BAR, and our light machine gun the M1917A1 and M1919.
I’m a bit confused on the 34 vs 42 post. The 42 was lighter than the 34 because the 34 had more milled steel parts and the 42 was stamped. Even so, both were within a couple pounds of eachother. I wouldn’t say they serve any different roles. Apart from the 34 having a better barrel change technique for confined spaces, and the 42 benefitted from cheap and fast manufacturing
 
Last edited:
I’m a bit confused on the 34 vs 42 post. The 42 was lighter than the 34 because the 34 had more milled steel parts and the 42 was stamped. Even so, both were within a couple pounds of eachother. I wouldn’t say they serve any different roles. Apart from the 34 having a better barrel change technique for confined spaces, and the 34 benefitted from cheap and fast manufacturing

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that the mg34 was most often used in an offensive role with the ammo belt in the drum on the left side, allowing it to be carried and operated by one man with an assistant gunner acting as ammo carrier and reloader. The mg42 was issued with a tripod that the assistant gunner carried and their were dedicated ammo carries assigned to feed it, and were used primarily from fixed positions.

So if that's the case they used the mg34 like we did the later m60 and the mg42 like we did the m1919.
 
An examination of how it got that way is in order. M855 ammo fired from the barrel of the M16A2 rifle was effective on unprotected personnel to 500 meters.
In my experience, this isn't 100% correct. M855 has been found to be wanting in terminal performance since it starting being used on bad guys, not to mention the inconsistency lot-to-lot. This was first evident in '93 in somalia. SOF users preferred to use the older 55 grain A1 round there for operational use because it performed better in those 90 pound savages than green tip. The current "go-to" as of late in the SOF community is the MK262 (77 grain) or (if you are lucky enough to obtain them) the 75 grain Hornady BTHP match. We used both, and enjoyed the improvements in accuracy and terminal performance. I have heard great things about the newer 69 grain Barnes, but I never had the opportunity to shoot anything but paper with it.

Then the US Army:

1. Sawed off the M16 barrel to 14.5 inches and called the gun the M4/M4A1. Result: Muzzle velocity was reduced.

Yes. Designed for and adopted by SOF forces, then later the rest of the military. Prior to the M4, I was issued a MK727 carbine As the soldier's load increased and the missions changed from the cold war era, I never heard any of the conventional guys bemoaning the loss of their A2's.

2. Sawed the barrel off again to 11.5 inches. In some cases the barrel was shortened to 10.3 inches. Result: Muzzle velocity was further reduced.

These weapons (MK18 and similar) exist almost exclusively in the SOF community. They are also used by USN personnel who search vessels at sea. They are primarily used by SOF and the navy search guys in order to keep the overall length of the weapon down to a manageable size for close range engagements- especially when a suppressor is attached. This is particularly handy when engaging in close combat, not to mention fast roping from a hovering helo, while in free fall, swimming, etc.- with your 100 lbs of lightweight gear. When most of us were doing missions that didn't involve such activities, we mostly carried the M4 with the standard 14.5" upper, and some type of magnified sight. Or a MG or sniper rifle.

3. Developed a new round, the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round; the so called "green round", with a hardened steel penetrator and a copper slug. That bullet will penetrate 3/8 inch of mild streel plate at 300 meters.
IF you can hit the plate at 300 meters. While the accuracy is slightly better than the old green tip, it is nowhere near the level of the other rounds I mentioned, and is still wanting in terminal performance.

4. The M855 round generates about 52,000 psi when fired. The M855A1 round generates about 62,000 psi. That increase causes barrels to wear out faster; sometimes bolts break and bolt lugs shear. Years ago i obtained 200 rounds of M855A1 ammo. A friend loaded up ten rounds in his old Colt AR-15. The sixth round broke the bolt.
Yep, it absolutely causes barrels to wear out faster- and the projectiles have also been found to damage feed ramps. As a civilian contractor overseas, we got most of our munitions from military stocks, but our weapons were not standard US military issue. We were specifically directed NOT to fire the M855A2 through our weapons due to the accelerated wear, and the fact that our guns weren't 100% compatible with military guns for repair purposes. The only catastrophic bolt failures I saw in my 23 years in the mil were from guns that had seen heavy use in full auto. The bolts would actually lose their temper and fail- and not always while the full auto jackassery is happening. As for me, I have an AR (no full auto) on which I have shot out 3 barrels in 18 or so years. I have also broken many other parts on this rifle over the years. I have fired 2-3000 M855A2 rounds from it. It still has the original bolt.

Between the numerous issues that surround the M855A1 round, and the fact that there much better rounds available that have been combat-proven, the idea that such a turd of a round was adopted by the military makes me want to puke.

5. The designer of the AR-15/M16 rifle is L. James Sullivan: He scaled down the AR-10 rifle designed by Stoner. Mr. Sullivan has recently re-designed some parts of the M4/M4A1 rifles in order to make them more durable.

i'm a retired US Army M/Sgt. After the problems associated with the adoption of the M16 rifle, i'm not sure the Army will do the right thing.

For all of its problems and "teething pains", the M4 carbine family is still about the best thing going for our guys taking care of business. I worked both in operational positions as well as an instructor and in R&D. No one wanted anything to do with the SCAR- we accepted the H version and it morphed into its own small family of weapons, but only because "higher" wouldn't entertain the idea of a carbine version of the SR25/MK11 series of rifles, at least not at the time. Outside of JSOC, the idea of adopting the 416 for the rest of SOF was a non-starter. I do find it very amusing that the USMC pulled a fast one and was able to get it into their inventory- and that chapter is just beginning. The 6.8 SPC? I served with the guys in the 90's who were the brain trust for the idea. I know others who opted to use it in the land of bad things. Did it perform? Yes. But there is something comforting about knowing that you can resupply your ammo from any NATO or coalition unit in theater- whether it is from stocks of ammo in storage, or in the field off of some other guys gear- not to mention repairing your weapons if needed, in most cases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top