View Full Version : Army looking at a new 6.8mm round?
Is this a typo?
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/05/08/armys-next-squad-weapon-will-fire-a-never-before-seen-ammo-combination/
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-09-18, 08:20
Sounds like the Holy Grail of a caseless round for weight- ala ‘Aliens’ rifles. Brass isn’t light, but I don’t see some polymer/steel combo being that much lighter. Optimizing caliber/bullet tech seems a better solution in the long term.
See it mentions the 6.5 switch for snipers as a related topic.
How the heck could you have a caseless round? As long as there's gunpowder as opposed to electromagnetically/hydraulically/pneumatically propelling a cartridge, the powder is going to have to go somewhere.
6.8SPC is already a USGI round, would just require barrels/muzzle devices to be replaced and new bolts installed. Maybe, but not likely a heavier buffer weight. Magazines would be unaffected, but would lose slight capacity.
How the heck could you have a caseless round? As long as there's gunpowder as opposed to electromagnetically/hydraulically/pneumatically propelling a cartridge, the powder is going to have to go somewhere.
6.8SPC is already a USGI round, would just require barrels/muzzle devices to be replaced and new bolts installed. Maybe, but not likely a heavier buffer weight. Magazines would be unaffected, but would lose slight capacity.Many write-ups on the caseless unicorn, program briefs, etc.
6.8 spc and 6.5 Grendel do not justify the logistics change apparently. And have weight/capacity tradeoffs, which is one of the aggressive goals of caseless.
I'm a longtime Grendel shooter, but I sortoff see their point.
Good lord lots of non-information in that article, caseless is still a dead end with current tech, the round they are moving towards is a 6.5 polymer cased telescoped. Do a google on LSAT (Lightweight Small Arms Technologies).
Good lord lots of non-information in that article, caseless is still a dead end with current tech, the round they are moving towards is a 6.5 polymer cased telescoped. Do a google on LSAT (Lightweight Small Arms Technologies).
I've read literally everything that's publicly available on LSAT in it's various incarnations.
That's why my OP was really framed as a question to spark discussion. Typo? This news about 6.8 is really out of the blue. Everything thus far has been .264USA, 6.5 Creed, 6.5CT, 6.5CTLD, etc...
I am not sure if it is a typo or another group on the .gov teat pushing a different caliber just to keep the paychecks coming. From what I understand 6.8 is an excellent mid range round but a dead end for long range which is where the 6.5 shines and lots of development is being done on the 6.5 cased telescoped. So IMO this is either a big ol' typo or someone fishing for mo' taxpayer money.
How the heck could you have a caseless round? As long as there's gunpowder as opposed to electromagnetically/hydraulically/pneumatically propelling a cartridge, the powder is going to have to go somewhere.
6.8SPC is already a USGI round, would just require barrels/muzzle devices to be replaced and new bolts installed. Maybe, but not likely a heavier buffer weight. Magazines would be unaffected, but would lose slight capacity.
The “case” is a solid propellent that reacts and becomes gas upon fireing.. Previous issues included degredation due to heat.
If you look at the deaired max recoil and ammo weight profile combined with the performance expectations down range it's pretty clear that a 6.5 projectile will be a sweet spot for carbines.
Especially when vest penetration (requiring velocity) , BC, sectional density is factored in.
I expect we'll see 90-115g projectiles, lead free, etc. 6.5mm is the sweet spot for those.
This also applies to comments in the other thread on creedmore about adoption of 6.8 spc. My prediction: ain't gonna happen. (Or Grendel, or any other non-caseless breakthrough)
Just too many compromises (capacity, weight) with the offsetting improvements1 not solving perceived critical problems at hand. (Talking about big army priorities, I know all the advantages Grendel/spc offers. I'm sold. They are not, yet.)
6.5mm and .338 (8.6mm) seem to be the sweet spots.
All that said, SSD had an article today or yesterday that showed the small arms roadmap and it was really interesting.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Edit: http://soldiersystems.net/2018/05/10/ussocom-small-arms-modernization-update/
constructor
05-12-18, 13:06
If you look at the deaired max recoil and ammo weight profile combined with the performance expectations down range it's pretty clear that a 6.5 projectile will be a sweet spot for carbines.
Especially when vest penetration (requiring velocity) , BC, sectional density is factored in.
I expect we'll see 90-115g projectiles, lead free, etc. 6.5mm is the sweet spot for those.
This also applies to comments in the other thread on creedmore about adoption of 6.8 spc. My prediction: ain't gonna happen. (Or Grendel, or any other non-caseless breakthrough)
Just too many compromises (capacity, weight) with the offsetting improvements1 not solving perceived critical problems at hand. (Talking about big army priorities, I know all the advantages Grendel/spc offers. I'm sold. They are not, yet.)
Sorry but SD doesn't mean jack unless the projectile is a solid and never changes shape. As soon as the bullet contacts something and the bullet changes shape that SD figure means nothing. Any caliber bullet can be made with the same BC using a /cal formula. The weight difference between a 6mm, 6.5 and 6.8 bullet with the same BC is only about 6-8gr. With a case the capacity of the Grendel or 6.8(36gr) the 6mm will have better exterior ballistics for long range but the 6.8 or 7mm will have better terminal performance considering bullets of identical construction.
Sorry but SD doesn't mean jack unless the projectile is a solid and never changes shape. As soon as the bullet contacts something and the bullet changes shape that SD figure means nothing. Any caliber bullet can be made with the same BC using a /cal formula. The weight difference between a 6mm, 6.5 and 6.8 bullet with the same BC is only about 6-8gr. With a case the capacity of the Grendel or 6.8(36gr) the 6mm will have better exterior ballistics for long range but the 6.8 or 7mm will have better terminal performance considering bullets of identical construction.That's basically the reason Murray said 7mm was there ideal infantry caliber, the difference in terminal performance.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
constructor
05-12-18, 13:35
That's basically the reason Murray said 7mm was there ideal infantry caliber, the difference in terminal performance.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Right. We talked about it several times while I worked on his 7mm UIAC bolts but I just couldn't make myself like a 130-140gr bullet going slow.
Art at SSA made a 97gr AP bullet for the 6.8 that would defeat LIV armor over 80% of the time at 100yds. It had a thick jacket that would come apart and do the damage if no armor was present and the core would do the damage if they were wearing armor. At that time it was the only bullet usable in a AR15 that would defeat LIV. A 97gr at 2950fps out of a 16" barrel is pretty impressive.
Sorry but SD doesn't mean jack unless the projectile is a solid and never changes shape. As soon as the bullet contacts something and the bullet changes shape that SD figure means nothing. Any caliber bullet can be made with the same BC using a /cal formula. The weight difference between a 6mm, 6.5 and 6.8 bullet with the same BC is only about 6-8gr. With a case the capacity of the Grendel or 6.8(36gr) the 6mm will have better exterior ballistics for long range but the 6.8 or 7mm will have better terminal performance considering bullets of identical construction.
Seem to have missed my point.
Yes, any caliber has it's sweet spot for BC. And sectional density is not the only factor in penetration (but it is a factor). And yes, SD only matters if it does not flatten/fragment (pay much attention to mainstream issue ammo lately?)
It's just that for 6.5, that sweet spot is close to the sweet spot for the combination of carbine recoil, flat trajectory, and downrange energy. With decent penetration, especially with (the probably required) lead free projectiles.
That "only 6-8 grains" difference is tangible performance difference when you are trying to optimize for a carbine with a particular weight/recoil profile while keeping downrange performance.
The USSOCOM update a few posts back is worth a scan. Nary a mention of 6.8 and 7mm, yet several 6.5mm references and not just about creedmore.
I'm a hardcore 7mm advocate for hunting, and used to compete IHMSA with a 7BR pistol. Love the 270. Still hunt with a 308, especially now that I can get decent BC bullets at lighter weight with excellent performance (TTSX).
But when constrained to the recoil/trajectory/ammo weight envelope they (big Army) are working with, it means lighter bullets.
The 6.8 bullet you mentioned with great vest/armor penetration sounds great, but normally sub-100g 6.8 projectiles are getting far out of the sweet spot for BC/trajectory and associated longer range performance (even accounting for lead free designs).
I know you are a hardcore 6.8 SPC advocate on your commercial site, but I personally do not believe big Army will adopt SPC or Grendel, or any other intermediate with brass case (7x46, 6x40) short of caseless that has a breakthrough which improves ballistic performance without compromising weight/ammo loadout & recoil to do so.
I'm a fan of the intermediate cartridge concept, but the logistical challenge and tradeoffs (15-20% less rounds for same weight) are just to big.
Especially with the improved performance they are apparently seeing with the new 77g and 855A1 5.56 loadings. Which buys them time to develop/push caseless/poly case.
constructor
05-14-18, 08:03
Seem to have missed my point.
Yes, any caliber has it's sweet spot for BC. And sectional density is not the only factor in penetration (but it is a factor). And yes, SD only matters if it does not flatten/fragment (pay much attention to mainstream issue ammo lately?)
It's just that for 6.5, that sweet spot is close to the sweet spot for the combination of carbine recoil, flat trajectory, and downrange energy. With decent penetration, especially with (the probably required) lead free projectiles.
That "only 6-8 grains" difference is tangible performance difference when you are trying to optimize for a carbine with a particular weight/recoil profile while keeping downrange performance.
The USSOCOM update a few posts back is worth a scan. Nary a mention of 6.8 and 7mm, yet several 6.5mm references and not just about creedmore.
I'm a hardcore 7mm advocate for hunting, and used to compete IHMSA with a 7BR pistol. Love the 270. Still hunt with a 308, especially now that I can get decent BC bullets at lighter weight with excellent performance (TTSX).
But when constrained to the recoil/trajectory/ammo weight envelope they (big Army) are working with, it means lighter bullets.
The 6.8 bullet you mentioned with great vest/armor penetration sounds great, but normally sub-100g 6.8 projectiles are getting far out of the sweet spot for BC/trajectory and associated longer range performance (even accounting for lead free designs).
I know you are a hardcore 6.8 SPC advocate on your commercial site, but I personally do not believe big Army will adopt SPC or Grendel, or any other intermediate with brass case (7x46, 6x40) short of caseless that has a breakthrough which improves ballistic performance without compromising weight/ammo loadout & recoil to do so.
I'm a fan of the intermediate cartridge concept, but the logistical challenge and tradeoffs (15-20% less rounds for same weight) are just to big.
Especially with the improved performance they are apparently seeing with the new 77g and 855A1 5.56 loadings. Which buys them time to develop/push caseless/poly case.
I'm sure they will not adopt the Grendel or 6.8 but possibly LSAT or something with one of those calibers.
The velocity of that 97gr AP is why it worked. With a case of 36gr capacity they needed a lighter bullet to get the velocity up even at 58000psi. A 123 going 2450 would never defeat LIV regardless of what it is made from. A 123 out of a long barrel Creedmoor at 2800 may work but no one we know of has ever developed a 6.5AP that will defeat LIV. If they decide to go with a 260 or Creed for sniper rifles they may.
constructor
05-14-18, 08:16
Seem to have missed my point.
Yes, any caliber has it's sweet spot for BC. And sectional density is not the only factor in penetration (but it is a factor). And yes, SD only matters if it does not flatten/fragment (pay much attention to mainstream issue ammo lately?)
It's just that for 6.5, that sweet spot is close to the sweet spot for the combination of carbine recoil, flat trajectory, and downrange energy. With decent penetration, especially with (the probably required) lead free projectiles.
That "only 6-8 grains" difference is tangible performance difference when you are trying to optimize for a carbine with a particular weight/recoil profile while keeping downrange performance.
The USSOCOM update a few posts back is worth a scan. Nary a mention of 6.8 and 7mm, yet several 6.5mm references and not just about creedmore.
I'm a hardcore 7mm advocate for hunting, and used to compete IHMSA with a 7BR pistol. Love the 270. Still hunt with a 308, especially now that I can get decent BC bullets at lighter weight with excellent performance (TTSX).
But when constrained to the recoil/trajectory/ammo weight envelope they (big Army) are working with, it means lighter bullets.
The 6.8 bullet you mentioned with great vest/armor penetration sounds great, but normally sub-100g 6.8 projectiles are getting far out of the sweet spot for BC/trajectory and associated longer range performance (even accounting for lead free designs).
I know you are a hardcore 6.8 SPC advocate on your commercial site, but I personally do not believe big Army will adopt SPC or Grendel, or any other intermediate with brass case (7x46, 6x40) short of caseless that has a breakthrough which improves ballistic performance without compromising weight/ammo loadout & recoil to do so.
I'm a fan of the intermediate cartridge concept, but the logistical challenge and tradeoffs (15-20% less rounds for same weight) are just to big.
Especially with the improved performance they are apparently seeing with the new 77g and 855A1 5.56 loadings. Which buys them time to develop/push caseless/poly case.
Above you said the 90-115 is a sweet spot so I gave you a 97gr AP then you say that is too light. You Grendel guys make it sound like a 123gr 6.5 is perfect but anything close is bad if it isn't a 6.5. It's been going on for 12 years on barfcom. We are all working off data of 2 cartridges that exist. A 6.8 will propel a bullet that is 8-10gr heavier the same vel as a 6.5 that is lighter out of the same length barrel. A heavier 6.8 bullet with the same BC at the same velocity will have the same trajectory but more energy.
The 2 cartridges are much closer than the Grendel crowd wants to admit. If the military were to consider either the 6.5 or 6.8 the strength of the bolts and cases make the 6.8 case a better choice. There are way too many photos of broken Grendel bolts and swelled cases for that cartridge to be reliable for combat use.
I'm sure they will not adopt the Grendel or 6.8 but possibly LSAT or something with one of those calibers.
The velocity of that 97gr AP is why it worked. With a case of 36gr capacity they needed a lighter bullet to get the velocity up even at 58000psi. A 123 going 2450 would never defeat LIV regardless of what it is made from. A 123 out of a long barrel Creedmoor at 2800 may work but no one we know of has ever developed a 6.5AP that will defeat LIV. If they decide to go with a 260 or Creed for sniper rifles they may.
Above you said the 90-115 is a sweet spot so I gave you a 97gr AP then you say that is too light. You Grendel guys make it sound like a 123gr 6.5 is perfect but anything close is bad if it isn't a 6.5. It's been going on for 12 years on barfcom. We are all working off data of 2 cartridges that exist. A 6.8 will propel a bullet that is 8-10gr heavier the same vel as a 6.5 that is lighter out of the same length barrel. A heavier 6.8 bullet with the same BC at the same velocity will have the same trajectory but more energy.
The 2 cartridges are much closer than the Grendel crowd wants to admit. If the military were to consider either the 6.5 or 6.8 the strength of the bolts and cases make the 6.8 case a better choice. There are way too many photos of broken Grendel bolts and swelled cases for that cartridge to be reliable for combat use.
I'm sure they will not adopt the Grendel or 6.8 but possibly LSAT or something with one of those calibers.
The velocity of that 97gr AP is why it worked. With a case of 36gr capacity they needed a lighter bullet to get the velocity up even at 58000psi. A 123 going 2450 would never defeat LIV regardless of what it is made from. A 123 out of a long barrel Creedmoor at 2800 may work but no one we know of has ever developed a 6.5AP that will defeat LIV. If they decide to go with a 260 or Creed for sniper rifles they may.It's not that it's too light, it's too stubby in 6.8, poorer BC to meet the overall parameters.
Grendel is not even relevant to the point I was making. But even Bill Alexander has pointed out that the 95-115g range is the stronger performance area for Grendel.
It's almost an accident of availability that the 120-123g 6.5 bullets became so popular in Grendel. I wish instead of making the 123g 6.5 amax and sst that Hornady did it at 115g. (Though I think 120-123g was the right call for an AR oriented 6.8 projectile).
I don't give a rat's ass about barfcom debates, just was pointing out that if you look at the parameters big army is trying to meet, odds are that they will end up with 6.5 projectiles IF they commit to move away from 5.56. And most likely in some LSAT config. But that's a big IF.
The performance envelope/profile they need/want to hit:
- Same or less weight for std carbine loadout: 180 rounds + loaded carbine (SPC and Grendel are both 15-20% over this for same ammo loadout)
- Reasonably flat trajectory out to 300, and ideally further. Reasonable meaning battle sight'ish, no crazy hold overs for 300m. 5.56 is the baseline, but current Grendel and especially SPC loadings being borderline.
- improved 300m+ performance over 5.56 (lethality, penetration). Implies higher velocity than most current 5.56 and even SPC/Grendel loadings
- reasonable recoil impulse given carbine weighing similar to current M4. Upper boundary being less that 7.62 NATO in light carbines. Probably in the same range or slightly higher than current SPC/Grendel in M4s.
When you factor in those constraints, many reasonable sounding cartridges and even projectiles are not viable.
constructor
05-19-18, 05:45
It's not that it's too light, it's too stubby in 6.8, poorer BC to meet the overall parameters.
Grendel is not even relevant to the point I was making. But even Bill Alexander has pointed out that the 95-115g range is the stronger performance area for Grendel.
It's almost an accident of availability that the 120-123g 6.5 bullets became so popular in Grendel. I wish instead of making the 123g 6.5 amax and sst that Hornady did it at 115g. (Though I think 120-123g was the right call for an AR oriented 6.8 projectile).
I don't give a rat's ass about barfcom debates, just was pointing out that if you look at the parameters big army is trying to meet, odds are that they will end up with 6.5 projectiles IF they commit to move away from 5.56. And most likely in some LSAT config. But that's a big IF.
The performance envelope/profile they need/want to hit:
- Same or less weight for std carbine loadout: 180 rounds + loaded carbine (SPC and Grendel are both 15-20% over this for same ammo loadout)
- Reasonably flat trajectory out to 300, and ideally further. Reasonable meaning battle sight'ish, no crazy hold overs for 300m. 5.56 is the baseline, but current Grendel and especially SPC loadings being borderline.
- improved 300m+ performance over 5.56 (lethality, penetration). Implies higher velocity than most current 5.56 and even SPC/Grendel loadings
- reasonable recoil impulse given carbine weighing similar to current M4. Upper boundary being less that 7.62 NATO in light carbines. Probably in the same range or slightly higher than current SPC/Grendel in M4s.
When you factor in those constraints, many reasonable sounding cartridges and even projectiles are not viable.
I think you missed my point. There isn't that much difference in a 6.5 and 6.8 bullet. A 6.5 and a 6.8 bullet can be made with the same BCs and under 10gr difference. The difference in weight and velocity is offset by the bore area being able to create more force and overcome the weight. Think of the difference in diameters of hydraulic rams and capacity rating. A 6.8 with less case capacity can push a 130 Berger as fast as a Grendel can push a 123gr bullet. A 97gr copper and Tungsten bullet is as long as a 115 and I believe the BC was over .400. The mistake most people make is comparing existing bullets on the market. There are lots of match bullets for the 6.5 and lots of hunting bullets for the 6.8. The military will not use either, they will design their own. If we assume the smaller diameter bullet is always better a .257 would be a better choice for saving weight. Higher BCs, less weight more velocity. or Maybe a 6mm or a 224...Valkyrie. You don't think with Federal/ ATK having the biggest "IN" you could possibly have that maybe them dropping the Valkyrie on the market may be a hint? Saying they may be trying to show the military what a larger 224 can do like the Russian 7N6 but better.
You also have to look at this in terms of carbine length barrels.
Suppressors are also becoming more mainstream in the military.
Since the US Army will likely never adopt bullpup rifles, swept volume will have to be a significant consideration.
.224 Valkyrie wouldn't be a great fit, but I understand why it's mentioned.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
turnburglar
05-21-18, 17:45
I think 224 Valk would be a great SAW cartridge. On a 249 style weapon you dont mind a little longer barrel length, and plunging fire on a distance target would be greatly improved over a a similar 556 gun. The higher velocity and BC would mean 308+ reach in a very light platform. (something we desperaetly wanted in Afghanistan)
Of course I believe the 249 is a poor weapon system and should be replaced sometime soon. The relibability just isnt there, and there is definetely weight to be cut from the over al package. Something like the Ares MCR in 224 valk would be the business.
For carbines though, I dont think you could do much better than a 6.8 caliber with a M855A1 style bullet. Im sure if a little attention was left in the BC department: a 500 meter devastator could be a reality.
Posted last week: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/10/05/the-armys-saw-and-m4-replacements-will-both-fire-this-more-accurate-and-deadly-round/
The Army has selected 6.8mm as the new common round for both its Squad Automatic Weapon and M4 replacement.
A Prototype Opportunity Notice posted on the government website fbo.gov is going to give three companies the chance to submit their versions of the new individual service rifle, the Next Generation Squad Weapon, chambered in 6.8mm, the same round that developers are using for the Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle program.
Until recently, officials would only say that developers were being encouraged to look at requirements in the intermediate caliber range, somewhere between the existing 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds common to individual, sniper and machine guns in the Army’s inventory.
Until recently, the goal was to first develop the NGSAR and then allow its advancements to inform the development of the M4 replacement, the NGSW-Rifle.
Didn't they say not too long ago (less than a year ago) that 7.62 would be their new round to replace their M4's and SAWS?
I guess that project didn't work out. Take the statements and rumors with a grain of salt.
They already have it right. You aren't going to get significantly better terminal performance with the 6.8 compared to the 5.56 using ball rounds. Especially when compared to the 77 gr MK 262. It's not worth the cost for such a marginal increase.
Don Quijote
10-09-18, 11:51
Doesn't this thing (new rifle/new cartridge) come and go every 3 - 4 years?
Going to be interesting to see what comes out of it as they did not specify a cartridge, or even a performance envelope. Just they had to use the provide projectiles.
Seems to me like they are free from M-16/AR-15 constraints, so could go a bit longer.
Yet the various announcements state the expectation is same capacity/weight in terms of battle load. Only way to do that is caseless or similar breakthru.
Way I read this it's just a contract to build prototypes of MGs and carbines sharing the same ammo. I hope something comes out of it that sticks!
Some additional info.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23654011/army-68-calliber-bullet-replace-556/
Don Quijote
10-11-18, 06:04
Some additional info.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23654011/army-68-calliber-bullet-replace-556/
Since the 1960s, the U.S. Army has used the 5.56-millimeter round. The number refers to the diameter of the bullet, which also corresponds to .22 inches. 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
Derp is strong with this one.
Derp is strong with this one.All the articles are pretty sketchy... They start with "the Army has selected a new round...". They have not in those solicitations anyway.
They provided projectiles, so it would have been accurate to say "the Army appears to be heading to a new *caliber*". It appears tahe exact cartridge has not been selected, nor is anything specified in the gov solicitations.
The self interest side of me hopes it's something like 6.8spc so civvys would benefit. But I hope for the Army's sake it's a breakthrough beyond the AR/M-16 bound cartridges. A true intermediate not restricted by 40+ year old magwell length.
Aqnd if you look at the performance objectives I don't see how they're going to do it without something like caseless.
vicious_cb
10-11-18, 21:25
Derp is strong with this one.
Never trust mainstream media to get it right. All anyone can say with certainty is that it APPEARS that the army has chosen 6.8mm as the diameter of the projectile.
All the articles are pretty sketchy... They start with "the Army has selected a new round...". They have not in those solicitations anyway.
They provided projectiles, so it would have been accurate to say "the Army appears to be heading to a new *caliber*". It appears tahe exact cartridge has not been selected, nor is anything specified in the gov solicitations.
The self interest side of me hopes it's something like 6.8spc so civvys would benefit. But I hope for the Army's sake it's a breakthrough beyond the AR/M-16 bound cartridges. A true intermediate not restricted by 40+ year old magwell length.
Aqnd if you look at the performance objectives I don't see how they're going to do it without something like caseless.
What the army is hoping to achieve is some kind of polymer cased telescoped ammo. The technology already exists in cannon sized caliber guns, its just needs to be adapted to small arms. Caseless has too many thermodynamic problems for it to be a thing in terms of today and near future technology so that wont be a thing.
https://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/caseless-and-cased-telescoped-lightweight-ammunition.jpg
http://www.militaryparitet.com/forum/uploads/65454/LAST4.GIF
Here is the .gov RFP, give it a read. Looks like they are set on 6.8.
https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=0954032272b6d0e198b5263ac57e848e&tab=core&_cview=0
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=61586b35d41e905fcfcc98449ca459c9
Another interesting article,
"The U.S. Army's chief of staff said Monday that its 6.8mm... "It will fire at speeds that far exceed the velocity of bullets today, and it will penetrate any existing or known ... body armor that's out there," Gen. Mark Milley"
https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/10/08/army-chief-offers-new-details-68mm-next-gen-squad-weapons.html
Another interesting article,
"The U.S. Army's chief of staff said Monday that its 6.8mm... "It will fire at speeds that far exceed the velocity of bullets today, and it will penetrate any existing or known ... body armor that's out there," Gen. Mark Milley"
https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/10/08/army-chief-offers-new-details-68mm-next-gen-squad-weapons.htmlGotta love it... "Fire at speeds that far exceed the velocity of bullets today".
Yet it's 6.8mm, so 90-130 grains is about as light as you can go and still have decent downrange perf. And has to beat armor.
Sounds like 270 performance, which would be great ballistically.
But also from the PR statements, both the ammo and carbine/mg have to have same weight or less for the same combat load out.
So the new cartridge approach (case telescoped or whatever) has a pretty big order to fill.
And then you get to talk about recoil impulse, which is probably going to be double current platforms, at least for the carbines. So add that to the list of magic technology breakthroughs that will be needed.
It will be interesting to see how close the manufacturers can get do this performance profile, and I truly hope there are some technology breakthroughs. But this feels like more jetpack and hover car experiments than a procurement that will lead to actual usage in our lifetime.
I hope I'm wrong!
Another interesting article,
"The U.S. Army's chief of staff said Monday that its 6.8mm... "It will fire at speeds that far exceed the velocity of bullets today, and it will penetrate any existing or known ... body armor that's out there," Gen. Mark Milley"
https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/10/08/army-chief-offers-new-details-68mm-next-gen-squad-weapons.html
That is a pretty stupid statement right there, so faster than a .22-250? And since there is now body armor that will stop .50 cal that's going to be a heck of a round.
I agree with you pinzgauer. It sounds like 270 like performance, but to me it also seems like something isn't adding up. 270 with a 90 grain out of a 15" is going maybe 3100fps, that doesn't seem like "far exceed" to me. Can't get around physics, recoil would have to come into play with the speeds they are portraying given the bullet weights of a 6.8. It will be interesting, hopefully it isn't vaporware.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-12-18, 12:00
That Knights gun is one that came first to mind.
On the round, Can you direct inject fuel behind a bullet and get enough energy (and pressure) to get a bullet moving fast enough? Cars engines have made a lot or progress on direct injection. I thought a few years ago that the new Paladin was looking at direct injection? Unless you are looking at electrical charge or liquid propellant, I don't see what else would fundamentally change the brass-case/primer/gunpowder model.
Color me skeptical. With existing cartridges, 6.8mm weighs more, has less capacity per In3 of box magazine, and has more recoil, if only slightly. With SPC, in most (all?) commercial loads that currently exist, we get similar velocity with a lower BC, or similar BC with less velocity compared to 5.56. Perhaps the tech thats been talked about for decades without fruition will solve some of this.
I’ll be interested to see @Constructor continue to post in this thread. I genuinely want to be proven wrong, but I’m happy with M855a1 at this time.
MorphCross
10-12-18, 16:50
Plates rated to stop .50BMG worn by members of Infantry? No. For Helicopter pilots yes but ESAPI is the extent for infantry.
As for the projectile the Military has a design and material composition in mind, it will be up to the competitors to take that info and create a cartridge to deliver the desired penetration range, with reliable feeding from both proprietary magazines and belt links for both the individual rifle and the squad automatics. From there they can develop the weapons without the bs of having to shoehorn into the M4 or the SAW.
The military will be providing the projectile, proposal calls for delivery for 50 NGAR and 50 NGR and 850,000 rounds of ammo with mags, drums, links whatever is needed. So basically "here's a bunch of bullets, go develop a cartridge that can defeat any armor vest at X00 meters and build a Auto Rifle and Rifle to shoot it". I have seen a drawing of what is supposed to be the XM1168 projo that looks like a scaled up M855A1 but I am not sure if it is legit. But it does kind of make sense that it will be based on the 855A1 design.
constructor
10-13-18, 17:59
SSA developed a 97gr AP bullet in a 6.8spc early in 2008 that will defeat L IV armor at 100 yds. Some of the remarks made sound like BS though unless they stuff that same 97gr in a 277 USA(Based on Murrays 7mmUIAC) Roughly 43gr powder capacity and would propel that 97gr to around 3100 out of a 16" barrel. That cartridge would need an OAL of 2.6" meaning a complete new rifle and mags.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-13-18, 20:37
NATO cool with this?
NATO cool with this?
Like Trump cares. :dirol:
“The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.”
Lol /5
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.