Tactical Life posts that the military is changing to the 6.8 in SAW and M4

[rickt300]

A facebook post says so anyway.

[NugginFutz]

Yeah - Facebook is a go-to source for accurate, up-to-date information.

Sorry if that comes off smarmy, but how about a link to a credible source, such as the author of the article being alluded to?

Here's something,
https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/10/0...apons.html
which was posted on an earlier thread, here:
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...ration-SAW
and here:
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...AW-and-LMG

[Sniper3142]

There is very little in common between the 6.8mm Caseless round the military has selected and the standard 6.8 SPC cased ammunition available to regular citizens.

[rickt300]

Tactical life is where the post originated. And yes Fbook is not much for reliability. John Hafner wrote the piece.

[LRRPF52]

They're working on a 125gr .277" EPR projectile with a stated goal of shooting it at 3500fps from a 16" barrel.

Not even a 26" .270 Winchester will do that, and the .270 works at 65,000psi with 63gr of case capacity.

1923-1932 (Experimental) .276 Pedersen Garand Cancelled
SALVO Various Experiments led to numerous cancelled programs
1951-1968 SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon) Cancelled
1955 M14 Adopted (for a few years, then replaced immediately with the AR15)
1959 M60 Adopted
1974 6mm SAW Cancelled
1980 SAW M249 Adopted
1986 ACR (Advanced Combat Rifle) Cancelled
1994 M4 and M4A1 Adopted
1997 M240B Adopted
1995-2000s OICW testing and development of Hk XM29 Cancelled
2003 Hk XM8 Cancelled
LSAT......????
2017 ICSR 7.62 NATO rifle Cancelled
2018 6.8 EPR 3500fps 16" barrel..........

All of the small arms programs that were overly ambitious in terms of technical ability, major technology developmental hurdles to overcome, with large RDT&E budgets ended up being cancelled. Look at the SPIW, OICW, and even the ACR (which had caseless ammo introduced by Hk with the G11).

Many of the reasonable designs that didn't represent significant technical challenges weren't adopted either, like the .276 Pedersen Garand (a superior chambering for an infantry rifle), 6mm SAW (this would have been a much better SAW cartridge with tangible armor/barrier defeat and effective range increases), or Hk XM8.

The technical challenges of making a shoulder-fired rifle/machinegun launch a 125gr solid EPR at 3500fps from a 16" barrel and still remain lightweight, with low recoil, and a long-lasting barrel/action is huge, some would say completely unrealistic.

Chances of it being successful in the light of previous programs and the engineering challenges associated with it project it as an almost guaranteed failure from the start.

[BluntForceTrauma]

None of this "6.8" news should be considered a continuation of the Great Intermediate Cartridge Wars.

First of all, as LR and others have noted, this 6.8 does NOT mean the 6.8 SPC.

Second, the 6.5 Grendel has already won, in the sense that any new cartridge will NOT use a stubby, low BC bullet like the 6.8 SPC, but will use a sleek, high BC bullet like the 6.5 Grendel.

Hello?!? That's what we've been telling them since 2003. . . .

It is the CONCEPT that matters for our military, not the caliber.

Having said that, I don't know why they wouldn't use the 6.5mm caliber, which is the perfect compromise — splitting the difference between .22 and .30 cals. Any research department that seriously thinks there is a meaningful difference between 6.5 and 6.8 bullets of the same form factor is seeking to self-perpetuate their federal funding.

I'd be fine with a military 6.8 Grendel. But the 6.5 Grendel remains the cartridge to beat.

[NugginFutz]

Here's the PON everybody is buzzing over.

https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportun...ode=list&=

From the fourth paragraph is a sentence which everyone seems to be oblivious to...

This is a DRAFT NGSW PON only and should not be construed as a Request for Proposal or a commitment by the U.S. Government.

Emphasis theirs, not mine.

That PON is rife with qualifiers such as "intends to award" and "subject to change" and "anticipated".

Same paragraph 4 states

"A formal NGSW PON release will be subject to availability of funds and new start authority."

So, while I can see why some folks are getting spun up, the Fed has committed to nothing, at this point.

[stanc]

So, while I can see why some folks are getting spun up, the Fed has committed to nothing, at this point.

They seem committed to having a 6.8mm cartridge.

[grayfox]

...The technical challenges ... 125gr solid ... at 3500fps ... lightweight, with low recoil, ... completely unrealistic.

From a physics standpoint, these specs make it self-contradictory on its face...
Using a JBM recoil calculator, such a round from an 8 lb rifle ("lightweight") has more recoil velocity and more recoil energy than a 308 rifle with 168 gr bullet, 2700 ft/s!!!.....
hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[stanc]

None of this "6.8" news should be considered a continuation of the Great Intermediate Cartridge Wars.

First of all, as LR and others have noted, this 6.8 does NOT mean the 6.8 SPC.

Second, the 6.5 Grendel has already won, in the sense that any new cartridge will NOT use a stubby, low BC bullet like the 6.8 SPC, but will use a sleek, high BC bullet like the 6.5 Grendel.

Hello?!? That's what we've been telling them since 2003. . . .

It is the CONCEPT that matters for our military, not the caliber.

The Grendel concept was a sleek, high-BC bullet at low-moderate velocity.

The Army's concept is a sleek, high-BC bullet at EXTREMELY high velocity.

HUGE difference. More like 6.5-300 Weatherby Magnum than 6.5 Grendel.

Having said that, I don't know why they wouldn't uses the 6.5mm caliber, which is the perfect compromise — splitting the difference between .22 and .30 cals. Any research department that seriously thinks there is a meaningful difference between 6.5 and 6.8 bullets of the same form factor is fooling themselves.

There are other factors to consider. For one, with bullets of equal weight, 6.8mm permits higher muzzle velocity (than 6.5mm) at the same operating pressure.

[BluntForceTrauma]

There are other factors to consider. For one, with bullets of equal weight, 6.8mm permits higher muzzle velocity (than 6.5mm) at the same operating pressure.

OK, sure, I'll give you an extra "free" 25 fps due to the "piston area effect."

But your bullet of "equal weight" will give some of that back due to reduced BC.

[grayfox]

Ok, here's another question maybe I don't understand military thinking..... why doesn't the spec say xxx moa target hit ability at yyy yds at least 80% of the time... or something like that.

Why continue to promote the highest-quickest-blitzkrieging-est MV mumbo jumbo when accuracy (and hit KE) at range is more important.

Face it it doesn't need to be 1 moa but a high speed scatter gun doesn't help that much in my opinion...

[stanc]

Ok, here's another question maybe I don't understand military thinking..... why doesn't the spec say xxx moa target hit ability at yyy yds at least 80% of the time... or something like that.

Why continue to promote the highest-quickest-blitzkrieging-est MV mumbo jumbo when accuracy (and hit KE) at range is more important.

No, it is not. Since the ability to defeat body armor is the goal, penetration is more important than precision.

Face it it doesn't need to be 1 moa but a high speed scatter gun doesn't help that much in my opinion...

And such hyperbole doesn't help at all.

[stanc]

But your bullet of "equal weight" will give some of that back due to reduced BC.

Uh huh. There are a number of design tradeoffs involved.

[rickt300]

3500 fps from a 16 inch barrel! This is possible to attain but how long will the barrel last? Going to be a loud SOB too. Recoil will be brisk. Don't see this happening.

[Recondo]

And all future infantry men will get disability payments for hearing loss when service separated. Would need to also award a contract for advanced combat hearing protection.

[n9nwo]

None of this "6.8" news should be considered a continuation of the Great Intermediate Cartridge Wars.

First of all, as LR and others have noted, this 6.8 does NOT mean the 6.8 SPC.

Second, the 6.5 Grendel has already won, in the sense that any new cartridge will NOT use a stubby, low BC bullet like the 6.8 SPC, but will use a sleek, high BC bullet like the 6.5 Grendel.

Hello?!? That's what we've been telling them since 2003. . . .

It is the CONCEPT that matters for our military, not the caliber.

Having said that, I don't know why they wouldn't use the 6.5mm caliber, which is the perfect compromise — splitting the difference between .22 and .30 cals. Any research department that seriously thinks there is a meaningful difference between 6.5 and 6.8 bullets of the same form factor is seeking to self-perpetuate their federal funding.

I'd be fine with a military 6.8 Grendel. But the 6.5 Grendel remains the cartridge to beat.

The 6.5 Grendel would be perfect in the current M16/M4/AR world. Not sure that the 6.8mm would do as well.

Long term a 6.5x45 would be superior. But that would mean a whole new rifle/SAW

[depletedyourcranium]

The USMC has been experimenting without outfitting entire battalions with suppressors km their service rifles.

[VASCAR2]

Electronic ear muffs built into helmets is getting common and might be a better alternative to suppressors. The use of portable radios is common today in the military so the headset for comms might as well help with hearing protection.

[montana]

No, it is not. Since the ability to defeat body armor is the goal, penetration is more important than precision.

.

This could be the reason.https://www.bitchute.com/video/agWDW2jTsZk/