Anybody still shoot 6.8?

[PatEgan]

GREAT post Constructor, thank you.

Pat

[MadAngler1]

Again, it’s a shame 6.8 SPC has not been adopted. LWRC’s larger mag well lowers and the PMAGs seem like a good solution. 6.8 SPC performs better out of shorter barrels than 5.56. Makes more sense in a ~12.5” platform over a Mk18 or 14.5” M4.

[Vorpal_weapon]

group

Link Posted: 7/10/2013 11:49:59 PM EDT
DocGKR
Basic
Offline

Joined Aug 2002
Posts 1014
EE Offline

USA CA, USA

Kyle Lamb is a great American and true hero. However, the SOF organization that developed 6.8 mm was NOT Kyle's old unit and there was quite a bit of "not-invented here" involved in the early days of 6.8 mm. Kyle old organization was not the major RDT&E proponent of 6.8 mm.

From 2002-2006 the JSWB-IPT performed over 10,000 test shots while evaluating 53 different weapon systems and establishing Effective Damage Rankings. 6.8 mm systems dominated the testing, taking 1st, 3rd, 5th, & 6th places. The best performing 5.56 mm system was Mk262 fired from a 20" barrel which was ranked in 7th place. Pages 13-19 of the following document contain information from that testing: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf. The Joint FBI-USMC ammunition testing from 2006 had similar results, with 6.8 mm outperforming the 5.56 mm and 6.5 mm options it was measured against.

A large comprehensive USG 6.8 mm test in 2007 using both military SOF and Federal LE personnel stated that the 6.8 mm systems performed equal to the control 5.56 mm M4 carbines in several areas, including accuracy, qualification scores, controllability, and ease of use; the test personnel stated the 6.8 mm systems were better than the control M4 carbines in a variety of areas, including target effects, double tap controllability, and suitability for standard carbine use. A 210 page report was published detailing the results of this testing. While the document has a restricted distribution, I previously requested and received permission to publicly publish the following information from pages 179 and 180 regarding the 5.56 mm vs. 6.8 mm timed testing from the MURG evaluation:

”Each shooter fired both test articles from both the 10 and 15 yard lines on two USBP TQ-15CB targets spaced approximately 6 feet apart (center to center). The shooter was directed to start from the standing unsupported shoulder firing position with the weapon aimed at the first target. With the command to fire (PACT timer tone) the firer was to engage target one with two semiautomatic rounds (double tap) and then target two in the same manner. All rounds were fired at the center of mass (torso) of the target. The elapsed time from the command to fire to the firing of the last shot was recorded with a PACT timer…

Average time in seconds for 10 yards: M4 = 1.99 sec / 6.8 mm MURG=1.90 sec
Average time in seconds for 15 yards: M4 = 2.86 sec / 6.8 mm MURG = 2.57 sec

The final results of this test evolution were quite interesting if not surprising to the participants. Contrary to what most would have believed, 16 of the 20 times fired with the 6.8x43 m SPC MURG platform were faster than those fired with the 5.56x45 mm NATO US M4A1 Carbine. This was especially noteworthy considering that the US M4A1 Carbine test article was 2 ounces heavier the 6.8 mm test article and clearly all test personnel were far more familiar with firing the US M4A1 carbine versus the MURG platform in this type of drill.”


This is the factual data published by the USG from their INDEPENDENT testing comparing the 5.56 mm M4A1 against 6.8 mm MURG platforms fired by end-user Federal LE and DOD SOF personnel. Many thousands of rounds were fired from the USG testers--no bolts were broken and 6.8 mm offered substantially better terminal performance than 5.56 mm systems.

I am aware of several LE agencies that have purchased 6.8 mm systems, including one west coast agency that has had very good success using 12" 6.8 mm weapons to replace both 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm systems for many missions.

Both 6.8 mm and 6.5G or compromises designed to fit into the AR15 FOW. To truly design an optimal caliber, a new rifle is needed, engineered around an entirely new cartridge. A 6.5-7mm barrier blind projectile fired from a cartridge case with about 40 gr of capacity loaded with flash suppressed, heat stable powder optimized for full burn in a 16" barrel would be about perfect. Case head should be smaller diameter than current 7.62x51mm and case length should be a bit shorter--perhaps something around .440-460 base with a 46-47mm length; maybe using polymer case technology. Even better, something like a cased telescoping 7 mm could be used.

I'd seen some of Dr. Roberts' commentary on this subject before, and I have a copy of that paper he submitted for the conference at Crane (somewhere - it was a while back). Thanks Constructor for posting that information - spot on. Unlike most other alternative AR calibers, 6.8 was not some niche commercial development intended to "WOW" the American civilian market. As I understand it, 6.8x43 was specifically designed by SME soldiers to wring the best combat performance out of a short-barreled carbine based upon the extant dimensional limitations of the AR's main components (e.g. the lower receiver). It was specifically intended to give SOF operators an edge vis-a-vis AK-armed hadjis following early actions in OEF - maintaining reliability was as important to the design team as improving terminal performance.

[constructor]

I'd seen some of Dr. Roberts' commentary on this subject before, and I have a copy of that paper he submitted for the conference at Crane (somewhere - it was a while back). Thanks Constructor for posting that information - spot on. Unlike most other alternative AR calibers, 6.8 was not some niche commercial development intended to "WOW" the American civilian market. As I understand it, 6.8x43 was specifically designed by SME soldiers to wring the best combat performance out of a short-barreled carbine based upon the extant dimensional limitations of the AR's main components (e.g. the lower receiver). It was specifically intended to give SOF operators an edge vis-a-vis AK-armed hadjis following early actions in OEF - maintaining reliability was as important to the design team as improving terminal performance.

It isn't a big thing but I know 1 regional DEA office and 2 city SWAT teams have switched to the 6.8. I've sent barrels to the FBI and a company contracted to the Border Patrol. I believe LWRC had contracts with Jordan and Saudi Arabia, seems like certain guard teams not their general military.

[BillB]

Wow, this has been a great thread.

[Tokarev]

I've sent barrels to a company contracted to the Border Patrol.

How many barrels to USBP?

An agency buying a handful for T&E is not the same as buying them for duty use.


Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[constructor]

How many barrels to USBP?

An agency buying a handful for T&E is not the same as buying them for duty use.


Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

Did you read what I posted? Then asked how many to the USBP?
Do you still believe Mark when he says he is working close with SAAMI and the 277 wolverine should be approved any day? What we heard that the first time 4,5, 6 years ago?

[1168]

Did you read what I posted? Then asked how many to the USBP?
Do you still believe Mark when he says he is working close with SAAMI and the 277 wolverine should be approved any day? What we heard that the first time 4,5, 6 years ago?

I read what you posted and had basically the same question and statement Tok had.

[constructor]

I read what you posted and had basically the same question and statement Tok had.

Here is what I posted- I've sent barrels to the FBI and a company contracted to the Border Patrol.

The answer to the question you and TOK asked would be ZERO.

[Vorpal_weapon]

I bought my first 6.8 as a complete upper from AR performance (back in the days when they still sold that product directly) for on-duty use. My agency issued Colt 6920s and M16s (actually there were HK33s and an M14 rifle in the armory too, but they were not much used except for training and senior staff amusement). I spoke to Harrison Beene at ARP on my order, and he was very knowledgeable and helpful. Between him, Tony at PRI and the LE sales folks at SSA we got everything we needed. Most LE agencies around here did not have an abundance of rifle-certified officers at that time (however, my training team did what we could to change that demographic ;-{D ). Most officers in my AO are still carrying 5.56 for their patrol rifle just because that is what is issued and agency administrators are opting for 5.56 because that's the established norm (and ammo is considerably cheaper). I was serving high risk warrants with a regional taskforce team (local, state and federal participants). 6.8 was just I needed. I demo'd mine in classes and to other officers on the taskforce. AFAIK, no agency purchases followed, but a fair number of officers bought one for on-duty use with their own money just like I did. A local tribal agency briefly considered 6.8, but went with P90s instead (what a farce). I told their weaps guys that 5.7 was major mistake. Fortunately, that 5.7 thing didn't last long and no good guys got hurt. As for my going with 6.8, it was the best choice, and I have zero regrets. I highly recommend a quality 6.8 for patrol use and for any dangerous game.