U.S. Military's 'New' 6.8 Caliber Round ?

Hello Folks, We have all recently noted the various news reports concerning the U.S. Military's 'pending' adoption of an 6.8 Caliber projectile / cartridge for use by our forces.
MY QUESTION IS; Is the 6.8 caliber round they're referring to the 'old', circa 2005 or so 6.8 SPC Load, or something new entirely ? Personally, I feel the original 6.8 SPC was, & remains an excellent choice for short to medium+ range infantry engagements. ( In fact, I thought so highly of the 6.8 SPC load that I purchased an Stag Arms M-5, along with a 500 rd case of Hornandy's 110 gr. TAP loads, divided equally between their Standard TAP & Urban TAP varieties. ) If anyone knows for certain exactly which 6.8 Caliber variant will be chosen / adopted for further study, & or final issue, I will be very interested in hearing about it. Yes, there are other suitable candidates out there to choose from. But, for the interim, the 6.8 SPC Cartridge will fill it's intended mission quite well, provided we don't ask it to perform a role for which it wasn't intended.


Best, dpast32

I believe that “they” are going for a .277 bore, but not necessarily 6.8SPC.

I’m happy with 5.56.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...iers-shooting/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dpast32

But, for the interim, the 6.8 SPC Cartridge will fill it's intended mission quite well, provided we don't ask it to perform a role for which it wasn't intended.

---

In practical terms, for us, this makes sense. We have no crystal ball on which specific 6.8 the Army will finally select, or when they will do it. Also, we don't know whether the other services will adopt it either. From what I can see, the Marines are not yet on board.

Bottom line: I wouldn't base any caliber selection today on the fact that the Army is talking about moving to some type of 6.8. Even the article suggest 5.56 is still going to be around for a long time. As your OP implies, I agree best thing to do for us to do is figure out functionally what we need to do with your rifle, and base the caliber decision around that. Currently I'm considering upgrading my AR's by adding an upper that meets hunting requirements for medium game in my state (at least .243). First I considered the platform issue, moving to AR10 vs staying with all AR15. In the end because of extra weight, cost, the nonstandard/proprietary nature of AR10's, and finally the extra recoil, I decided to stay with AR15 platform. Most likely I'll go with one of the three leading options that has a lot of factory loads and parts available: .300 BO, 6.8 SPC II, or 6.5 G, leaning toward the last. Not because it'll make any difference over say 6.8 loads for hunting within 300 yards. But only because I like 6.5G ballistics for longer range target shooting--gives a little more flexibility with the caliber.

Not the 6.8 SPC, I believe they gave the competitors performance quidelines and will be providing the bullets only, I found this in the comments of the linked article:

"People see "6.8mm" and just assume that it will be the SPC. The Army is basically leaving the cartridge case design to the manufacturers, as long as it uses the government-designed projectile and meets the thresholds for velocity and weight. The velocity threshold is reportedly somewhere over 3,000 fps with a ~135gr projectile."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mack7.62

The velocity threshold is reportedly somewhere over 3,000 fps with a ~135gr projectile."

---

.270WSM is going to be super awesome for the great Moose eradication of 2025 after we conquer Canadia.

Yeah I had some doubt about the 3000 fps, after some more searching it looks like it will be in the 2800-2900 range.

135gr at 3000 fps.....necked-down 7.62 NATO?

It will need to have powder capacity equivalent to 7.62 but another requirement is that it be 20 % lighter, I would not be surprised to see a cased telescoped cartridge come out of this. I also saw somewhere it needs to penetrate class IV body armor at 600 meters, not sure how realistic the whole thing is.

I've seen and held some of the submission competitors' cartridges.

They range from hybrid polymer/alloy .270 WSM to .270-08 (SiG), to an old school brass cased wildcat.

They have as much in common with 6.8 SPC as .300 RUM has with .30-30 Winchester.

The initial desired performance was a .277" 125gr EPR going 3400-3500fps from a 16" barrel.

Then they changed the requirement to 3200fps from a 14.5" barrel but with a 135gr EPR.

Then they shifted to 3100fps from a 13" barrel pushing the 135gr EPR.

I see this fiasco in the same vein as the 1960s SPIW, 1970s 6mm SAW (actually a good cartridge), 1980s Advanced Combat Rifle (ACR), 1990s OICW, 2000s XM8, the recent 7.62 NATO ISCR abortion, 2000s LSAT (actually a great platform and cartridge system, albeit with some challenges) and now this.

I do suspect that the NGSW SAW variant might get some traction, but if they chamber it in a cartridge as large as or larger than 7.62 NATO, they haven't learned a thing.

The entire premise of the program is based on the idea that dismounted US Infantry soldiers will be engaged in intermediate and long range combat with body armor-clad Russians and Chinese.

Dismounted Infantry in the US are not used in that capacity and have not been involved in anything close to it since 1953, well before we had air superiority, and now air dominance.

Dismounted Infantry have been extensively and almost exclusively engaged in Counter Insurgency (COIN) and Low Intensity Conflict since 1965, including the Vietnam War, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

We deal with organized threat motorized infantry units using our air power, armor, artillery, organic CAS, and USAF/USN CAS. If you want an example of how to deal with a conventional motorized/armored battle group, look at February 2018 in Syria.

What this proposed 80,000-100,000psi NGSW cartridge will do for dismounted Infantry is add insane soldier's load bulk in excess of the basic load for the M14 rifle back in the late 1950s/early 1960s, before that folly was recognized and replaced with the M16 and the 5.56x45mm cartridge.

It's almost as if someone high up at Department of the Army got a crazy idea in their heads that we need to defeat Russian body armor at 600m in some type of fantastical battle, where commanders have failed every step of the MDMP, and committed dismounted infantry against each other in a Napoleonic stand-off in open terrain somewhere on a terrain model that represents nowhere.

In this pipe dream, all organic and slice direct and indirect fire assets including:

* 81s
* 105s with Excalibur PGMs
* M-1A2 MBTs
* Bradleys
* MQ-9s armed with AGM-114s and SDBs
* AH-64Es armed with AGM-114s, TALON LGRs, & 30mm chain gun
* F-15Es/A-10Cs/F-16Cs with LITENING Targeting pods and Link-16
* F-35s

...are not available for some reason. Nope, Joe is on his own, facing down hordes of Russians wearing armor (who will be motorized with lots of weapons that make big boom booms, including thermobaric RPGs, main guns, ATGMs, RPGs, heavy machine-guns, mortars, etc.).

It really makes me question the decision-making process behind all of this. I can see pushing the industry to get away from the limitations of World War II-era metallurgy and late-1800s metallic cartridge technology, but the premise for the NGSW carbine seems to defy everything we've learned about dismounted infantry service rifle realities in the last century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dpast32

Hello Folks, We have all recently noted the various news reports concerning the U.S. Military's 'pending' adoption of an 6.8 Caliber projectile / cartridge for use by our forces.
MY QUESTION IS; Is the 6.8 caliber round they're referring to the 'old', circa 2005 or so 6.8 SPC Load, or something new entirely ? Personally, I feel the original 6.8 SPC was, & remains an excellent choice for short to medium+ range infantry engagements. ( In fact, I thought so highly of the 6.8 SPC load that I purchased an Stag Arms M-5, along with a 500 rd case of Hornandy's 110 gr. TAP loads, divided equally between their Standard TAP & Urban TAP varieties. ) If anyone knows for certain exactly which 6.8 Caliber variant will be chosen / adopted for further study, & or final issue, I will be very interested in hearing about it. Yes, there are other suitable candidates out there to choose from. But, for the interim, the 6.8 SPC Cartridge will fill it's intended mission quite well, provided we don't ask it to perform a role for which it wasn't intended.


Best, dpast32

---

No, because 6.8 SPC is a terrible choice if you are looking for any sort of ballistic efficiency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MontanaMarine

135gr at 3000 fps.....necked-down 7.62 NATO?

---

Sig's design is indeed a 7.62 NATO sized case pushing a 135gr bullet ~3000 fps

http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-c...5/img_9124.jpg

I think cased telescopic would be good if they get it working correctly. A 6.8 WSM equivalent Cased telescopic not so much. I understand the why but this whole thing seems so misguided. I hope the Marine Corps doesn't follow them down this path but I am sure if the Army goes through with it they will get pulled in as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LRRPF52

I've seen and held some of the submission competitors' cartridges.

They range from hybrid polymer/alloy .270 WSM to .270-08 (SiG), to an old school brass cased wildcat.

They have as much in common with 6.8 SPC as .300 RUM has with .30-30 Winchester.

The initial desired performance was a .277" 125gr EPR going 3400-3500fps from a 16" barrel.

Then they changed the requirement to 3200fps from a 14.5" barrel but with a 135gr EPR.

Then they shifted to 3100fps from a 13" barrel pushing the 135gr EPR.

I see this fiasco in the same vein as the 1960s SPIW, 1970s 6mm SAW (actually a good cartridge), 1980s Advanced Combat Rifle (ACR), 1990s OICW, 2000s XM8, the recent 7.62 NATO ISCR abortion, 2000s LSAT (actually a great platform and cartridge system, albeit with some challenges) and now this.

I do suspect that the NGSW SAW variant might get some traction, but if they chamber it in a cartridge as large as or larger than 7.62 NATO, they haven't learned a thing.

The entire premise of the program is based on the idea that dismounted US Infantry soldiers will be engaged in intermediate and long range combat with body armor-clad Russians and Chinese.

Dismounted Infantry in the US are not used in that capacity and have not been involved in anything close to it since 1953, well before we had air superiority, and now air dominance.

Dismounted Infantry have been extensively and almost exclusively engaged in Counter Insurgency (COIN) and Low Intensity Conflict since 1965, including the Vietnam War, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

We deal with organized threat motorized infantry units using our air power, armor, artillery, organic CAS, and USAF/USN CAS. If you want an example of how to deal with a conventional motorized/armored battle group, look at February 2018 in Syria.

What this proposed 80,000-100,000psi NGSW cartridge will do for dismounted Infantry is add insane soldier's load bulk in excess of the basic load for the M14 rifle back in the late 1950s/early 1960s, before that folly was recognized and replaced with the M16 and the 5.56x45mm cartridge.

It's almost as if someone high up at Department of the Army got a crazy idea in their heads that we need to defeat Russian body armor at 600m in some type of fantastical battle, where commanders have failed every step of the MDMP, and committed dismounted infantry against each other in a Napoleonic stand-off in open terrain somewhere on a terrain model that represents nowhere.

In this pipe dream, all organic and slice direct and indirect fire assets including:

* 81s
* 105s with Excalibur PGMs
* M-1A2 MBTs
* Bradleys
* MQ-9s armed with AGM-114s and SDBs
* AH-64Es armed with AGM-114s, TALON LGRs, & 30mm chain gun
* F-15Es/A-10Cs/F-16Cs with LITENING Targeting pods and Link-16
* F-35s

...are not available for some reason. Nope, Joe is on his own, facing down hordes of Russians wearing armor (who will be motorized with lots of weapons that make big boom booms, including thermobaric RPGs, main guns, ATGMs, RPGs, heavy machine-guns, mortars, etc.).

It really makes me question the decision-making process behind all of this. I can see pushing the industry to get away from the limitations of World War II-era metallurgy and late-1800s metallic cartridge technology, but the premise for the NGSW carbine seems to defy everything we've learned about dismounted infantry service rifle realities in the last century.

---

Pentagon’s drunk again.

3100fps/135gr/13”??? Give me your keys; I’m summoning an Uber.

Hey Guys, Please remember that I was asking a question here, as in, "Does anyone know for certain if the new, 2019 6.8 round will be the original 6.8 SPC Load" ? ( Spec. I I chamber, of course. ) I then went on to comment on my personal affection for the round, provided it's utilized within its design parameters, which IMHO is between 0 - 550 Meters, or so. That's basically what I was asking, period. Remember, our Military does many things that just don't make any sense to the rest of us. In fact, if 'they' we're seeking a 'COTS' product for immediate issue, perhaps the 6.5 Grendal would have given them better long range performance over & above the 6.SPC SPC ? I too agree that when reading over the assorted articles, it becomes apparent that they're not certain as to which ctg design will ultimately be adopted, other than one with an 6.8 diameter projectile. ( At least for now ? ) I really won't be surprised to see some form of 'caseless' ammunition put into use, 1st least on a limited issue / trials basis.
[ Particularly for use in the LMG variants currently being issued. Our Military has been looking at this for quite a few years now. ]
Yup, it all depends on how the Military decided to deal with this particular issue. If they decide upon a short term, COST approach, or decide to go full force into an ultimate, longer lasting solution ? So, as usual for us Folks, it remains a wait & see proposition.

Best, dpast32

Sorry, up all night again! Meant to reply directly to the last comment about summoning a Uber...hahaha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1168

Pentagon’s drunk again.

3100fps/135gr/13”??? Give me your keys; I’m summoning an Uber.

---

Now that was funny as hell! Thanks...I needed the laugh hahaha

I worked for years with my factory's compliance to various government regulations (safety, environmental, etc). Some of the laws were written so badly that I eventually developed a theory: before any regulation is written, the authors sit down and drink a bunch of beer. Later I added freeway on and off ramps and bridges to the list of beer-related designs.
There are your one keggers: they aren't so bad, but are really annoying
There are your two keggers: it is immediately obvious that no sober person had a hand in it
Then there are your three keggers: reference the .270 Next Generation Squad Weapon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mack7.62

The velocity threshold is reportedly somewhere over 3,000 fps with a ~135gr projectile."

---

Isn't that basically a definition of 7.62x51 M80A1 round?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alx01

Isn't that basically a definition of 7.62x51 M80A1 round?

---

Yes, but with 22” of barrel, not 13”. And with the case size of 7.62x51, which I do not find desireable.

That velocity in a 13” barrel is.... hot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1168

Yes, but with 22” of barrel, not 13”. And with the case size of 7.62x51, which I do not find desireable.

That velocity in a 13” barrel is.... hot.

---

Yup, once you start cutting the barrel down, the amount of gunpowder goes up. If you start crunching numbers, a 270 Winchester Short Magnum is hard pressed to do the job.

We used to joke that using a magnum cartridge with a SBR gave you a rifle, flame thrower and flash-bang device all in one. - We didn't expect anyone to take us seriously!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1168

Yes, but with 22” of barrel, not 13”. And with the case size of 7.62x51, which I do not find desireable.

That velocity in a 13” barrel is.... hot.

---

Thanks for the clarification. So, are they looking to replace both of 7.62 and 5.56 in multiple applications with a single cartridge?

That specification probably requires development of some new type of gunpowder. Any word on this? I remember reading an article a few years back about a new high-tech lower volume/lower temperature powder development, but not sure if that went anywhere.

What you guys are probably forgetting is that the pentagon isnt worried about fighting the last war. They want to fight wars of the future. This round may not even be fired from the M4 carbine as we know it. Most likely this is next gen space force solcitions for their mobile infantry.

https://i.imgur.com/dqQlq4Q.jpg

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-ngsw-program/

That’s intriguing, not only the round but the platform and long recoil system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1168

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-ngsw-program/

---

That cartridge will be hell on barrels. However, I like the design of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How will all this help if there is no additional money for more training?

Someone smart can probably come up with a calculation of this program vs. equipping standard M4A1's with

- Free float handguard
- Better trigger ( sturdy for field use )
- 4-6x optics being procured already
- Ammo improvements

And most importantly, more good training and range time.

How many servicemen have the actual weapon handling and marksmanship skills to utilize the performance gains this would give ? ( keeping in mind the negative effects, such as increase recoil, weapon weight/size )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1168

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-ngsw-program/

---

This? Really? Okay then... I guess the industry delivered what the army spec'ed out.

I have a sarcastic tone here as *I personally* see zero chance of this being ever adopted. They might as well adopt an existing platform something like this: https://falkordefense.com/rifles/petra/

I have been wrong before though and we have seen multiple examples of some weird small arms platforms being widely adopted, albeit typically for a short period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuukka

How will all this help if there is no additional money for more training?

Someone smart can probably come up with a calculation of this program vs. equipping standard M4A1's with

- Free float handguard
- Better trigger ( sturdy for field use )
- 4-6x optics being procured already
- Ammo improvements

And most importantly, more good training and range time.

How many servicemen have the actual weapon handling and marksmanship skills to utilize the performance gains this would give ? ( keeping in mind the negative effects, such as increase recoil, weapon weight/size )

---

The Army is working on addressing the training issue: https://gatdaily.com/the-army-update...on-tc-3-20-40/

The article is relatively lengthy for those who zone out after 250 characters. It does point out that this new standard is not the "be all, end all" but it is a step up from the old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alx01

This? Really? Okay then... I guess the industry delivered what the army spec'ed out.

I have a sarcastic tone here as *I personally* see zero chance of this being ever adopted. They might as well adopt an existing platform something like this: https://falkordefense.com/rifles/petra/

I have been wrong before though and we have seen multiple examples of some weird small arms platforms being widely adopted, albeit typically for a short period.

---

No one is addressing the weight/bulk issue.

Any combination that is better on paper but decreases rounds carried for the same weight loadout is a non-starter.

Or increased weight for the same loadout.

Until a breakthru happens this is a non-starter. Caseless, new powder, etc.

I think it's a good idea to keep pushing the state of the possible, I just don't see this particular implementation as a practical solution yet. But interesting idea.

They have to address, weight, recoil, and bulk. Otherwise as mentioned they could just pick 270 WSM now, that's not what they're trying to do.

I see this going the way of the OICW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pinzgauer

No one is addressing the weight/bulk issue.

Any combination that is better on paper but decreases rounds carried for the same weight loadout is a non-starter.

Or increased weight for the same loadout.

Until a breakthru happens this is a non-starter. Caseless, new powder, etc.

I think it's a good idea to keep pushing the state of the possible, I just don't see this particular implementation as a practical solution yet. But interesting idea.

They have to address, weight, recoil, and bulk. Otherwise as mentioned they could just pick 270 WSM now, that's not what they're trying to do.

---

Agreed 100%. Especially with the load out most combat arms Soldiers/Marines carry today that doesn't even include their rifle/ammo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LRRPF52

...The entire premise of the program is based on the idea that dismounted US Infantry soldiers will be engaged in intermediate and long range combat with body armor-clad Russians and Chinese.

Dismounted Infantry in the US are not used in that capacity and have not been involved in anything close to it since 1953, well before we had air superiority, and now air dominance.
...

---

I think that the Pentagon may be considering sources such as this article from the Modern War Institute at West Point by Dr. Phillip Karber, The Russian Way of War. It's long, but very interesting, and apropos to understanding why the Army, and the DoD generally, are shifting their priorities away from low-intensity Counter-Insurgency warfare and back towards near-peer warfare. The problems faced by actual 4GW against near-peer will include EW and SAM/AAA threats that will render our current reality of air dominance far more anemic than most people are comfortable admitting. There has not been combat of this type, or on this scale, since the Iran/Iraq war, the Six Days War, or to a more limited extent, Operation Desert Storm.

6.8 / .270 cartridges are, given the scale of these problems, a somewhat minor consideration.

Distributing anti-drone capability down to an organic level in forward deployed units would be a better start, but there's no reason to believe that such capability is not currently being worked on, if on a much quieter level.

Why does everyone think we are gonna have this epic, anime World War 3 showdown with the Russians and the Chinese?

This smacks of pointless kickback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoringGuy45

I see this going the way of the OICW.

---

Same. The RoK or some Oil Farming country might bite but this is just a pointless waste of time and money.

.338 NM Belt Feds? Cool.
6.5 CMR SASS? Yes please.

A pointless barrel burning gun in a wildcat chambering? Naw

I'm all for it even if it's ultimately doesn't go anywhere.

Innovation is always good. This may not go anywhere but it may lead to something else. Not long ago 300BLK was a wildcat cartridge. 222 spawned 223 and why do we need 223 when 308 already did everything..... which came from 3006 ...from 3003...etc..

Everything we have today was at one point in time pointless because we already had other stuff. People using the atlatl were probably looking at the guy building the first bow as a waste of time and energy

Like concept cars. They may never be built for sale but their tech eventually bleeds into cars that are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arik

I'm all for it even if it's ultimately doesn't go anywhere.

Innovation is always good. This may not go anywhere but it may lead to something else. Not long ago 300BLK was a wildcat cartridge. 222 spawned 223 and why do we need 223 when 308 already did everything..... which came from 3006 ...from 3003...etc..

Everything we have today was at one point in time pointless because we already had other stuff. People using the atlatl were probably looking at the guy building the first bow as a waste of time and energy

Like concept cars. They may never be built for sale but their tech eventually bleeds into cars that are.

---

I agree, I'm all for innovation too. And one of my pet peeves is that the gun community declares anything new to be a solution in search of a problem. If that mentality were followed the way the gun community wanted, we'd still be using muzzle loaders. Even if we were getting our asses kicked by bad guys with AKs, the sticks in the mud would STILL insist that the problem is a training issue, we shouldn't waste money on some new assault rifle, and that money should go towards more ball and powder.

HOWEVER, this still reeks of the government trying not to get their budget cut, or some government insider getting kickbacks. Reason being, whenever a relatively cheap and incremental change is brought up, such as upgrading from 5.56 to 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel, suddenly, logistics, cost, supply lines, and worry about upgrading barrels, bolts, and magazines makes such an idea unfeasible. But suggest something like this or the OICW, that's going to require a complete retooling of all our small arms equipment and cost a few hundred billion dollars, and suddenly, they Army is drooling. It makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firefly

Same. The RoK or some Oil Farming country might bite but this is just a pointless waste of time and money.

.338 NM Belt Feds? Cool.
6.5 CMR SASS? Yes please.

A pointless barrel burning gun in a wildcat chambering? Naw

---

Who doesnt want a 270 WSM coming out of a bullpup?

Making it a bullpup is the only way an O type would go for something like this.

But on a serisous note: can ANYONE explain to me the intended purpose of this caliber? It is WAYYY to spicy to be a general issued carbine.

80-100K PSI chamber pressure. Ouch, my ears.

I'm not poopooing anything 6.8 and we all know that some day, the 5.56 will be phased out. Maybe even for something in 6.8. But it's interesting how headlines of "amazing new 6.X caliber round is about to take over" headlines are on such a cycle that it's almost predictable. What would it be, like every 30 months or so?

And I'm not a regular reader of Army Times but what I have seen kinda reminds me of Popular Mechanics or how it used to be when I was a kid. Seemed like ever issue was promising flying cars and robotic houses were just around the corner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ned Christiansen

80-100K PSI chamber pressure. Ouch, my ears.

I'm not poopooing anything 6.8 and we all know that some day, the 5.56 will be phased out. Maybe even for something in 6.8. But it's interesting how headlines of "amazing new 6.X caliber round is about to take over" headlines are on such a cycle that it's almost predictable. What would it be, like every 30 months or so?

And I'm not a regular reader of Army Times but what I have seen kinda reminds me of Popular Mechanics or how it used to be when I was a kid. Seemed like ever issue was promising flying cars and robotic houses were just around the corner.

---

I remember reading a PM article about 20 years ago. They were showing the military technology that they predicted would be standard issue by the 2010s. It was a full body uniform that had some kind of technology that could change color like a chameleon. So you just had one combat uniform and you would program it to be color of your environment. The weapon was a small, wrist mounted thing that had mini heat-seeking missiles, as well as a small chain gun (with the ammo on a backpack). There was a helmet with a heads up display that would allow you to lock your missiles on a target and aim the gun, and of course it was Bio/chem/nuclear proof. If I remember correctly, I think the suit also had some kind of strength enhancement and flying technology as well. Essentially, it was like the suit the Martian Marine Corps wears in The Expanse. And we were only ten or so years away from adopting it.

Do they even remember the main objective of the program? Was it to lighten the infantryman’s load? Or better ballistic performance? Or cheaper logistics?

Because it looks like they are trying to accomplish conflicting goals and likely will not achieve any of them. Instead compromising until they have a heavier weapon, bulky ammo that while also lighter on the pallet now takes up more space on the pallet and still cannot lift anymore than before, heavy ass weapons that shoot a 135 gr bullet at 3,200 from 13” bbl reduced to 120 gr bullet at 2,900 FPS from 15” bbl, and too expensive to replace across the board so it will be parceled out and then airlift will have to deliver two pallets for every unit one of 6.8 polymer and another of 5.56 brass.

I love innovation but govt rarely innovates efficiently or reliably. With enough billions and decades they can squeak something out. But an un-repressed commercial market could innovate circles given realistic objectives.