Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: Army looking at a new 6.8mm round?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,300
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)

    Army looking at a new 6.8mm round?


  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    17,382
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.
    The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.

    It's that simple.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    74
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,655
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by pubb View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,272
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    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).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,300
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by mack7.62 View Post
    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...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    N.E. OH
    Posts
    7,595
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by pubb View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,655
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    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.)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Roaming
    Posts
    889
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by pinzgauer View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,300
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by constructor View Post
    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

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •