G&R Tactical
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by dpast32 View Post
    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 View Post
    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

    Last edited by vicious_cb; 07-02-19 at 21:30.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Minneapolis, MN
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    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.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by LRRPF52 View Post
    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.

    “That is why there isn't an AK chart.” -SteyrAUG

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Feedback Score
    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

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Posting Permissions

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