The U.S. Army Chose a New Bullet for Its New Rifles

[kcofohio]

Has anyone heard of this before? The Army guideline requires the new weapon to share ammo mags. Will it be a swap out of uppers or a completely different weapon?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23654011/army-68-calliber-bullet-replace-556/

The U.S. Army has selected a new round to replace those equipping its M4A1 carbine and M249 Squad Automatic Weapons. The Army selected five companies to produce prototype weapons in the new, mysterious 6.8-millimeter round.

Not much is known about the Army’s new 6.8-millimeter round. A 6.8mm Remington Special Purpose Cartridge, invented in 2002 by U.S. Special Forces, exists but critics charge it exhibits only marginal improvements over 5.56. It could be the round in question, but maybe not. It could be an enhancement of that round, or something different altogether that shares the same width.

 

[<*(((><]

The 6.8 SPC was developed by Remington in conjunction with some U.S. Special Forces guidelines. From the beginning Remington shot themselves in the foot so to speak, in how they chambered the 6.8 SPC and left a lot of room for improvement by the private sector. The current iteration of the 6.8 SPC is known as the 6.8 SPC II chambering which allows for significant increase in velocities while maintaining safe pressure levels. Most of the comparisons between the 5.56, Grendel and the 6.8 SPC are with the old Remington 6.8 SPC chambering and not the improvements that have come under the 6.8 SPC II chambering.

Not too long ago the U.S. military requested their M249 SAW to be chambered in 6.8 SPC to run tests and performed said test with good results. Several special forces have used the 6.8 SPC in missions, and there are several countries around the world that utilize the 6.8 SPC. From time to time you can find military loaded 90 gr. gold dot 6.8 SPC ammo for sale.

The current article and discussion is vague at best as to whether they are looking at the 6.8 SPC, 6.8 SPC II, 6.8 ???, or a telescoping caseless 6.8 cartridge.

There was an attempt a few years back for Colt to purchase LWRC (https://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/02/24/colts-purchase-lwrc-troops-rifle/) which was hypothesized by the public that this was to get on the ground floor of their Six8 development (6.8 SPC II). That purchase effort by Colt fell through. However, there is renewed current rumors that Colt has/or is trying to buy LWRC again. But take all of this last sentence with a grain of salt.


There are lots of these types of platitudes given by the government, a lot of the time its much ado about nothing.

Here are some current articles about the subject:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...ARM&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/army-moves-25b-to-big-six-including-new-6-8mm-rifle/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23654011/army-68-calliber-bullet-replace-556/

 

[Deus Machina]

Still a peeve when they mix up mm and caliber. Especially in a magazine that is supposed to know its mechanical stuff.
6.8 caliber would be huge, while 68 caliber would be huge, as would .68. Though .68 caliber still just makes me think of paintball.

Anyway, there are already plenty of 6.8 mags out there, so I don't see any issues.
Can imagine they're probably buying whole rifles, instead of dealing with new uppers on worn lowers and maybe having to change springs and buffers.

 

[MikeInOr]

---

 

[cheygriz]

I'm not vgoing to buy a 6.8 upper for my AR-15 just yet.

They've been "replacing" the 5.56 since the early eighties.

 

[kcofohio]

The cartridge looks to be one they want to replace both the 5.56 & 7.62 cartridges!?

That program continues so far, but the new notice will mean the three companies selected will deliver both the rifle and machine gun in 6.8mm for testing and a potential contract.

The ammunition will be a 6.8mm general purpose, or GP, round that’s not tailored to one specific shooting scenario but is instead an all-purpose round suitable to combat, limited training and basic qualification.

Am I reading that right?
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...ARM&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

And each of the 3 or 6 companys may come up with their own variation of cartridge with the 6.8mm caliber bullet. If I'm reading it right, the lower for the rifle could be totally different for strength of a rifle and machine gun cartridge.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

The cartridge looks to be one they want to replace both the 5.56 & 7.62 cartridges!?


Am I reading that right?
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...ARM&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

Reading between the lines, I would guess they mean "machine gun" as in SAW.

Anyway, there's kind of two possibilities I see

-The army just hit on something crazy, like a new propellant or telescoping ammo or something, and devised a caliber that just blows the 5.56 away.

-or B, the army wants to go to a whole new rifle like the HK 416 or something with a super short barrel, and decided that if they are going to sink hundreds of millions into new guns, they might as well end the awkward marriage between the 100% speed-dependent 223 and the velocity-robbing SBRs that they love to field. Something like 6.8 SPC wouldn't be at any real loss to the 5.56 velocity-wise in a 10 to 13 inch barrel.

The 6.8 caliber they're talking about may not be the SPC, but if it's an AR-length bullet built to run in an M4 barrel, it's probably not that far off.

 

[WestKentucky]

I hope it is the SPC2. Mine is a tack driving beast. I love that upper. It’s high time I built a quality lower underneath it.

 

[MistWolf]

The latest I read about was the Army looking into replacing the 308 with the 6.5 Creedmore, particularly in their sniper rifles.

 

[kcofohio]

The latest I read about was the Army looking into replacing the 308 with the 6.5 Creedmore, particularly in their sniper rifles.

I remember reading that too. I doubt though, that they would use the Creedmoor for a general purpose type weapon. Just because of the weight factor. Not to mention the barrel length.

 

[JONWILL]

I predict they won’t replace the 5.56 for the standard issue round. If it is adopted it will be for certain units only
The M855A1 has been issued for several years and has performed well
IMHO it is a project that a General/Colonel uses to secure themselves a job after retirement

 

[MistWolf]

If by general purpose, you mean the M4, you're correct. The article I read said the Army was considering the 6.5 Creedmore as a possible replacement for the 308 in some machineguns as well as their sniper rifles.

 

[FL-NC]

That was put to bed long ago. 5.56 is going anywhere any time soon.

 

[<*(((><]

That was put to bed long ago. 5.56 is going anywhere any time soon.

You are most likely correct. These reports and requests of the military seem to come around every other year. The articles talk about this branch and that branch, when there is a huge hurdle of logistics supply chain they must overcome with a new round. And to have different branches within the same military using different ammunition is a large obstacle to overcome on spending, time allocation and supply risk in an extended war effort. I can see smaller specialized branches adopting a new platform/cartridge (ie what’s already being done with some special forces) but to switch the entire army or marines etc by themselves will be a huge undertaking.

I do know that they’ve been looking into the 6.8 SPC for about 10 years or so now, and there is a following of it in the military, along with some higher ups been reporting they like the performance.

As @MistWolf has said there are some smaller branches of the military reporting that they are looking into switching over to the 6.5 Creedmoor for their role the .308 served for mid to long range applications. This would be a much smaller hurdle to overcome as the sheer size difference of use between the 5.56 and .308.

https://www.militarytimes.com/off-d...rs-are-dumping-308-for-this-long-range-round/

Most of the articles I’ve read recently talk about their testing of the 6.8 SPC but then go on to talk about caseless or steel base/rim with a plastic body ammo utilizing a 6.8 caliber bullet. The articles do make it seem they are sticking with a 6.8 caliber bullet in their testing but aren’t necessarily settled on any specific cartridge or case technology.

 

[Browning]

Definitely interesting *IF* they actually do it.

I liked the 6.8 SPC that I had, just got sick of having to order mags and ammo off the net.

Haven't they done this before though?

 

[ATLDave]

Ratio of stories about DoD/Army "decisions" to commit to a new gun/caliber as standard issue to actual instances of DoD/Army deciding to commit to a new gun/caliber as standard issue = approximately 100:1.

 

[FL-NC]

You are most likely correct. These reports and requests of the military seem to come around every other year. The articles talk about this branch and that branch, when there is a huge hurdle of logistics supply chain they must overcome with a new round. And to have different branches within the same military using different ammunition is a large obstacle to overcome on spending, time allocation and supply risk in an extended war effort. I can see smaller specialized branches adopting a new platform/cartridge (ie what’s already being done with some special forces) but to switch the entire army or marines etc by themselves will be a huge undertaking.

I do know that they’ve been looking into the 6.8 SPC for about 10 years or so now, and there is a following of it in the military, along with some higher ups been reporting they like the performance.

As @MistWolf has said there are some smaller branches of the military reporting that they are looking into switching over to the 6.5 Creedmoor for their role the .308 served for mid to long range applications. This would be a much smaller hurdle to overcome as the sheer size difference of use between the 5.56 and .308.

https://www.militarytimes.com/off-d...rs-are-dumping-308-for-this-long-range-round/

Most of the articles I’ve read recently talk about their testing of the 6.8 SPC but then go on to talk about caseless or steel base/rim with a plastic body ammo utilizing a 6.8 caliber bullet. The articles do make it seem they are sticking with a 6.8 caliber bullet in their testing but aren’t necessarily settled on any specific cartridge or case technology.

I was in the unit that initially pushed, and was instrumental in developing, the 6.8. Yes, it did see limited use in the sand. I also worked R&D with small arms and sniper systems my last 3 years in. We messed with a lot of stuff. Some of it was good, some of it was junk. When discussing new calibers for any system, just because "we liked something" didn't always mean we would get it, or that it was worth getting. Sniper systems and the rounds they fire are the most active portion of R&D as it applies to small arms. After that, its targeting and optics for already existing systems. SOF highly resisted the SCAR, and it was reduced to a small niche weapon for limited use, since it was a fix for what most considered a non-existent problem.

 

[<*(((><]

I was in the unit that initially pushed, and was instrumental in developing, the 6.8. Yes, it did see limited use in the sand. I also worked R&D with small arms and sniper systems my last 3 years in. We messed with a lot of stuff. Some of it was good, some of it was junk. When discussing new calibers for any system, just because "we liked something" didn't always mean we would get it, or that it was worth getting. Sniper systems and the rounds they fire are the most active portion of R&D as it applies to small arms. After that, its targeting and optics for already existing systems. SOF highly resisted the SCAR, and it was reduced to a small niche weapon for limited use, since it was a fix for what most considered a non-existent problem.

I've felt the same about much of this talk over the past few years about the military replacing the 5.56. I'm not a military man like yourself, so take that in consideration of my thoughts (thank you for serving), but people love to hate on the 5.56; however there is no getting around the fact that it is really efficient in terms of round count and load out weight for our service members. And with the new bullet technology some of the downsides to the 5.56, namely coming out of the 10.5" barrels has been mitigated with the heavy MK262 77 gr loads.

I think your spot on in your assessment that there will always be changeover in the sniper rounds as they are a much more manageable size of use and the logistical support for that limited size makes it easy to chase performance gains. When you are talking about the 5.56, there are significant hurdles to overcome for the performance gains that is seen with new calibers. Personally, I think it will need to be a greater technological change (i.e. telescoping ammo, polymer cased/steel rim ammunition) that will eventually make the difference for such a huge undertaking. In that scenario, it wouldn't just be terminal performance that improves but load out weight, logistics support and cost. But that will be a long time coming as they will want to make sure this new technology won't put service members at greater risk with reliability problems.

Here is one type of ammunition change that is being considered (polymer case with a brass/steel rim). I wonder how the polymer holds up to extended spring pressure against a BCG and/or how it would handle prolonged chamber time in a hot chamber and whether it would cook off.

 

[FL-NC]

I've felt the same about much of this talk over the past few years about the military replacing the 5.56. I'm not a military man like yourself, so take that in consideration of my thoughts (thank you for serving), but people love to hate on the 5.56; however there is no getting around the fact that it is really efficient in terms of round count and load out weight for our service members. And with the new bullet technology some of the downsides to the 5.56, namely coming out of the 10.5" barrels has been mitigated with the heavy MK262 77 gr loads.

I think your spot on in your assessment that there will always be changeover in the sniper rounds as they are a much more manageable size of use and the logistical support for that limited size makes it easy to chase performance gains. When you are talking about the 5.56, there are significant hurdles to overcome for the performance gains that is seen with new calibers. Personally, I think it will need to be a greater technological change (i.e. telescoping ammo, polymer cased/steel rim ammunition) that will eventually make the difference for such a huge undertaking. In that scenario, it wouldn't just be terminal performance that improves but load out weight, logistics support and cost. But that will be a long time coming as they will want to make sure this new technology won't put service members at greater risk with reliability problems.

Here is one type of ammunition change that is being considered (polymer case with a brass/steel rim). I wonder how the polymer holds up to extended spring pressure against a BCG and/or how it would handle prolonged chamber time in a hot chamber and whether it would cook off.

View attachment 806854

I saw polymer 5.56 rounds at least 15 years ago- maybe more. They were being tested at a school. Never used them myself, don't know what became of the concept. 5.56 is a great GP round. It works fine from the very close range engagements in an urban area to the 300 meters or so it is intended for as far as achieving lethal results in combat.

 

[Bfh_auto]

Unlike civilian .22 rounds however the 5.56 round is heavier, longer, and travels at greater velocity, transferring much more energy to the target and causing much more serious wounds.

Weird...

 

[herrwalther]

Couldn't read the article. Way too many technical errors. Should expect better from Popular Mechanics. But oh well.

In any case, I will believe it when I see it. DoD has been thinking of replacing the 5.56 and the M16 family since it was introduced. Hasn't happened yet.

 

[CoalTrain49]

OK, I'll make a guess.

Lets see, the 30-06 served the military for almost 50 years. The 5.56 has been in service for a little over 50 years. So I would guess it's about time to be replaced. My gut feeling is it's not going to be replaced with anything like a 6.8 or even a 6.5mm cartridge. I would guess 6mm something or other based on lighter recoil and higher velocity. The military loves that combination.

Given the fact that the rifle will be designed around the cartridge it would be like choosing a cartridge in the PRS open division. The 6mm is the trend. These guys can shoot just about anything 30 cal and under and less than 3200 fps.

I'll go with something like a 6x47 Lapua. Of course the military will spend 10 million dollars and tweek it a little but when they're finished it will be a thing of beauty. Free brass will litter the range and a good bullet will cost 10 cents.

 

[piettakid]

6.8 mm is .268 inches so caliber 268. They gonna use the 270 so beloved by jack o'connor?

 

[hdwhit]

kcofohio quoted: "The Army selected five companies to produce prototype weapons in the new, mysterious 6.8-millimeter round."

The fact they have selected five companies to produce prototypes tells you right there they haven't decided to adopt 6.8mm.

This is yet another in a series of tests for a potential replacement for the 5.56 that has been going on since at least the early 1980's.

The bottom line is that there is now so much "inertia" involved in changing from the 5.56 that whatever the candidate for replacement might be, there will have to be a very compelling case that it is so superior that only an idiot wouldn't spend the money and incur the hassle of switching. Unfortunately, nothing in the realm of conventional brass-cased cartridges has come along in the last half-century that has been able to make that compelling case.

So, the testing will continue.

 

[hdwhit]

CoalTrain49 wrote: "I would guess 6mm something or other based on lighter recoil and higher velocity."

When I was a graduate student, I worked with a professor who had a contract from the Department of Defense to do some, largely computational, studies of potential replacements for the 5.56. I have posted about this before.

What we came up with was that whatever the replacement might be, it would require a cartridge case with a larger head diameter than the 5.56, and at the time recommending that was the kiss of death. From subsequent events, I assume that our computational studies were filed away and essentially ignored.

While I can lament that fate, the work provided me the money I made participating in that study enabled me to stay alive for another couple of semesters and complete my degree.