View Full Version : 6.5 and 6.8 new official calibers for Big Green?
Claiming Army will adopt a 6.5 for rifles, "...this new round is 30% more lethal than 7.62mm NATO."
I have my doubts on that claim but:
http://americangg.net/armys-next-battle-rifle/?fbclid=IwAR1U3NOguxyCw4psk-LYXune2XhWEHzuljlkQahM5G3TZrLYmJqByoqSLXs
Claiming Army adopting 6.8 for SAW:
https://www.tactical-life.com/news/us-army-6-8mm-weapon-systems/
Claiming Army will adopt a 6.5 for rifles, "...this new round is 30% more lethal than 7.62mm NATO."
I have my doubts on that claim but:
http://americangg.net/armys-next-battle-rifle/?fbclid=IwAR1U3NOguxyCw4psk-LYXune2XhWEHzuljlkQahM5G3TZrLYmJqByoqSLXs
Claiming Army adopting 6.8 for SAW:
https://www.tactical-life.com/news/us-army-6-8mm-weapon-systems/
That 30% claim comes with the qualifier of "downrange" performance that they defined as 1200 yards. At that distance, then yes, it is an accurate statement. Bring the distance to 800 yards, then it's inaccurate statement. 7.62 holds the near/middle range energy advantage. That crossover point is of course dependent upon the actual projectile and load being used as well as environmental conditions. All that said, in the areas that .308 holds that advantage, I don't think that the difference is going to cause anyone to look at the hole in their chest and say "I'm sure glad it wasn't a .308!". However, the 6.5 round discussed isn't going to do anything beyond 1200 in reality. 6.5 CM in most high BC loadings will start to go subsonic somewhere after 1400 yards. Not that the average GI can use it, but at least it's there.
IMHO, I don't think it is a big game changer either way, but it is nice to see progress.
That 30% claim comes with the qualifier of "downrange" performance that they defined as 1200 yards. At that distance, then yes, it is an accurate statement. Bring the distance to 800 yards, then it's inaccurate statement. 7.62 holds the near/middle range energy advantage. That crossover point is of course dependent upon the actual projectile and load being used as well as environmental conditions. All that said, in the areas that .308 holds that advantage, I don't think that the difference is going to cause anyone to look at the hole in their chest and say "I'm sure glad it wasn't a .308!". However, the 6.5 round discussed isn't going to do anything beyond 1200 in reality. 6.5 CM in most high BC loadings will start to go subsonic somewhere after 1400 yards. Not that the average GI can use it, but at least it's there.
IMHO, I don't think it is a big game changer either way, but it is nice to see progress.
It seems evolutionary vs revolutionary improvements.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-21-18, 15:23
Always fighting the last war...
Always fighting the last war...
Yeah, ain't that the truth!
BoringGuy45
10-21-18, 15:50
I don't see the telescoping ammo, in its current stage of technology, getting picked up. It seems to be trading a bit of weight loss for quite a bit of bulkiness. I think its a step in the right direction, but I don't know if it's ready for the real world yet.
It seems pretty certain that the SAW is on its way out, and it seems like every other year, they're talking about replacing the M4, so it's going to happen eventually. The thing I wonder is if the next gen rifle will be an AR variant like the HK416, or will they go for a whole new system built around the 6.8?
vicious_cb
10-21-18, 15:53
It seems evolutionary vs revolutionary improvements.
What? Functioning polycased or polymer case telescopic ammo is pretty revolutionary. IF they can get it work.
But until is actually proven to work, we'll be stuck with 5.56 and 7.62 NATO.
IMHO the caseless/poly/telescoping/etc. ammo isn't ready for primetime yet. That's what a lot of these proposals seem to revolve around.
At least in their animated video, showing how it works, probably ok in a belt fed, but my guess is for precision work its a disaster. The bullet jump into the barrel is crazy...
What? Functioning polycased or polymer case telescopic ammo is pretty revolutionary. IF they can get it work.
But until is actually proven to work, we'll be stuck with 5.56 and 7.62 NATO.
I was speaking in terms of the calibers and such, but fair points. I don't know much about that tech.
vicious_cb
10-21-18, 22:42
I was speaking in terms of the calibers and such, but fair points. I don't know much about that tech.
But they are one in the same, you arent getting one without the other.
https://americangg.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/new-rifle-01.png
What the 6.8mm round will end up looking like
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/b9221dfc0da3b698_800x800ar-660x438.jpg
RetroRevolver77
10-22-18, 06:59
deleted
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-22-18, 08:07
I’m a materials guy. A plastic that is stable and won’t degrade and at the same time will ignite and burn and won’t foul the gun.....
maybe I am over estimating the size of these rounds, but it seems they are twice as big as a conventional brass cased round...
So they are being designed to save weight, yet they are, again without measurements, twice as large.
So instead of 1 ammo can, you need to carry 2. Or instead of 1 pallet you need 2.
I dont know if weight vs. volume is a good trade off.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-22-18, 11:21
But they are one in the same, you arent getting one without the other.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/b9221dfc0da3b698_800x800ar-660x438.jpg
That end looks like it would collect crap and muddlike crazy. They need to circumcise that thing.
Textron's promo sheet:
https://www.textronsystems.com/sites/default/files/resource-files/TS%20US%20CT%20Weapons%20and%20Ammunition%20datasheet.pdf
Lol nobody is saving any weight. The only result of reducing the weight of something joe has to carry only means joe will now carry something additional. Big green never goes backwards in this regard.
Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk
BoringGuy45
10-23-18, 16:26
This whole thing seems like it's just another OICW: A technology concept that, after millions of dollars spent, is going to get cancelled as they find that the end product is going to be too expensive and creates more issues than it solves.
MorphCross
10-23-18, 19:21
Engineering...only thing I can think of is a fixed ejector at the 8:00 and a long extractor at the 5:00 to pull out the case and facilitate removal from the chamber.
Cagemonkey
10-23-18, 20:33
IMHO the caseless/poly/telescoping/etc. ammo isn't ready for primetime yet. That's what a lot of these proposals seem to revolve around.
They have been working on this since the HK G11 back in the 80's; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_G11 They've had 30 years to get the Technology perfected.
vicious_cb
10-23-18, 22:35
They have been working on this since the HK G11 back in the 80's; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_G11 They've had 30 years to get the Technology perfected.
The G11 used caseless ammunition. This is not caseless, the cases are polymer and eject from the gun just like brass.
BoringGuy45
10-24-18, 01:43
They have been working on this since the HK G11 back in the 80's; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_G11 They've had 30 years to get the Technology perfected.
True, and the G11 suffered from many of the issues and questions that we're raising here about the TS ammo and the guns that shoot them: A slight saving in weight at the cost of bulk, bad ergonomics, and mechanical complexity. The G11's magazines were WAY too long for a soldier to carry (Nearly 30"!), were very slow and cumbersome to load, and I understand that they were never able to completely solve the problem of cookoffs with the caseless ammo.
Now, I'm all for trying new firearm technology, and I know that sometimes technology just takes time to get right. Hell, inventors were trying to develop repeaters as early as the matchlock period; it took another 300 years of firearm evolution before guys like Samuel Colt, Benjamin Henry, and Christopher Spencer finally made it work. The whole idea of caseless or polymer cased rounds may be a good idea with enough time. But right now, it's really more gimmicky.
This whole thing reeks of yet another case of political backroom dealings between the weapons/aerospace industry and the government, or yet another general with an unremarkable career who wants to put his name on something before he's forced to retire.
Cagemonkey
10-26-18, 20:50
The G11 used caseless ammunition. This is not caseless, the cases are polymer and eject from the gun just like brass. Indeed. Still their are similarities. If anything, the case should help reduce cook off and gas sealing issues. Given how far technology has moved in 30 years, it would be a shame that this can't be perfected. The US Ordnance Corps made the same type of arguments against the AR10 and AR15 Rifles.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.