Pentagon Confirms Move to 6.8mm

[44 AMP]

Does the US have enough tungsten to produce sufficient quantity of AP bullets? How many billion can it produce in one year?

DU!

Tungsten has a lot of uses. Depleted Uranium isn't quite as versatile.

[labnoti]

The US is supposed to have about 750,000 tons of DU and about 200,000 tons of tungsten. According to the estimates in this article: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...blem-tungsten/

The 200,000 pounds, plus what the US could import from friendly nations and reclaim from industrial operations, would only last three years in a major conflict. Supposing DU were to be used instead, it might provide several more years supply of small arms ammunition -- of course, it wouldn't be without controversy and other dilemmas.

But how does the 277 Fury factor into this? 308 or even 223 with tungsten penetrators are just as viable against body armor as 277 would be. What's the supposed advantage of the Fury?

[Ignition Override]

Could somebody here summarize whether there was generally a Single reason to consider the change From 5.56,

or possibly the two most important reasons?

It makes no difference to me (I don't own anything in 5.56/.223), simply curious.

[44 AMP]

or possibly the two most important reasons?

1) Because they could
2) the money was there to do it with

The military spent the best part of half a century tweaking the M16 and its ammo, and it appears that finally, NOW, they have given up on that, and since they never seem to go back to what worked before and was abandoned, they must go forward, with the latest, greatest "new" thing.

I can think of no situation where a .277 caliber rifle can provide a significant practical advantage over a .308 caliber rifle. A measurable difference, yes. A significant improvement? I don't see it.

Do note that comparisons against the 7.62 NATO are nearly always against M80 ball and standard, current GI ball ammo is not the only loading possible, its just what is in common use. And its was created to replicate the WWII GI .30-06 performance.

Sure, the new 6.8 outperforms that in several ways. Makes the 6.8 look really good. What happens when you load the 7.62 NATO up to its potential, using the same kind of "tricks" the 6.8 uses??

The basic problem faced by our military is they want a one ring to rule them all, and don't want to accept the fact that there's no free lunch.

[Steve in Allentown,]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

1) Because they could
2) the money was there to do it with

The basic problem faced by our military is they want a one ring to rule them all, and don't want to accept the fact that there's no free lunch.

Well said.

[Jim Watson]

It sticks in my head that the original plan was for a new machine gun and the rifle just scabbed on later. Common ammo, si. Other features, maybe.

Has anybody compared expensive AP (Say, is it metallic tungsten or cemented tungsten carbide? I sense some confusion and conflation.) and exotic AP (Uranium, really?) with good old WWII hard steel?

[44 AMP]

Did a little checking, and WWII (and I believe still currently) .30 AP uses a hardened steel core, not tungsten.

Current "plate protection" will stop rifle caliber ball, not sure if it will stop AP, and the plates are not large, and, of course no vest will stop the energy dump.

The amount of DU on hand is, essentially only limited by what the govt is willing to spend "refining" it. Literally, all spent nuclear fuel can be refined to remove the Uranium, which makes up over 90% of the mass. Refining the Uranium from the fuel is a strait forward chemical process, and while not cheap to build, one refining plant could process then of thousands of tons a year.

We have a LOT of spent nuclear fuel in storage, left overs from Cold War weapon production, spent fuel from Navy reactors and even the fuel from Commerical power plant reactors can be a source for DU.

It would be interesting to see some testing results from hitting the "dreaded new body armor" with standard .30 M2 AP. Comparing those results with the 6.8mm against the same armor. And also what might be the results if we "upgraded" our standard .30 AP.

Not going to see that, until after we get our hands on what ever the enemy's new body armor actually is, but it would be interesting, I think.

I find it somewhat ironic that the 62gr 5.56mm with its steel penetrator insert was developed and fielded to counter the (then new) Soviet pact body armor, that (as far as I know,) we have never faced, to date.

Are we doing something similar with the 6.8mm?? Time will tell.

[rickyrick]

I did see a test using both the 277fury and the 6.8 military cartridge on level 4 plates both failed to penetrate on the first hit, I think the military cartridge did get through on the second shot, but neither version had penetrator bullets. Both made a mess of the plates, but the military version packed more punch than the 277fury.

[labnoti]

M2 is hardened steel and it is the standard that all level IV plates are tested to, so by definition, the ammo's performance would have to exceed that of M2 AP (hardened steel penetrators out of .30-06) to defeat level IV plates. 7.62x51 AP (M61) is less capable than M2, so while it may be more prevalent nowadays, there's no point to testing it since level IV plates stop the superior M2.

To defeat level IV plates requires tungsten penetrators or something more powerful than .30-06, like 338 Lapua AP485 or 50 BMG API.

Uranium is not unprecedented. It has been or is being used in Ukraine and it's use is controversial because it contaminates the area where it is used. Although it is "depleted," it's still radioactive and it can contaminate an area for a very long time. Spraying entire countries with tens of billions of radioactive uranium bullets, amounting to scattering hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste would be disastrous in the very long term on top of what the war itself would destroy in the shorter term. While I don't doubt that DU would be used on the battlefield, I expect it would see greater demand for use in 30mm canons, 120mm anti-tank rounds, 105 and 155mm artillery and more. Consuming it for small-arms use by regular infantry forces (non-SOCOM) seems an unlikely scenario.

[2damnold4this]

There are plenty of people being killed or suffering disabling injuries from being shot by small arms cartridges that aren't the new 6.8 common cartridge. But the real killer in Ukraine isn't small arms, it's artillery.

[Sharkbite]

But the real killer in Ukraine isn't small arms, it's artillery.

It has always been so….

[rickyrick]

Artillery is called “The King of Battle” for a reason

[44 AMP]

7.62x51 AP (M61) is less capable than M2, so while it may be more prevalent nowadays, there's no point to testing it since level IV plates stop the superior M2.

My references state M61 AP is an approx. 150gr @ 2750fps and M2 AP is a 166gr (+/-) @ 2715fps.

I don't see where the slight difference makes the M61 less capable in significant terms.

Uranium is not unprecedented. It has been or is being used in Ukraine and it's use is controversial because it contaminates the area where it is used. Although it is "depleted," it's still radioactive and it can contaminate an area for a very long time

It is controversial due to the number of people who don't fully understand radiation and contamination. Depleted uranium is just that, depleted, it has the dangerous high dose rate elements removed, and while it remains detectibly radioactive, it is not dangerously so.

Significant parts of the Ukraine are already contaminated, with things much more hazardous than DU, thanks to Soviet era nuclear accidents, particularly Chernobyl.

Contamination means a detectable level of some kind of material where you don't want it to be. IT is the levels, and type of contamination that determine if concentrations are hazardous, or not.

Radiation detection instruments are extremely sensitive. They will detect level of radiation well below natural background levels. Few people outside the nuclear industry (and nuclear medicine) know much about radioactive materials, and much of what they do "know" is flat out wrong.

DU is not a radioactive threat to health and life. Natural Uranium ore is actually slightly worse in that regard. You don't want to breath DU vapor or dust, Uranium fines (dust/small particles) are highly pyrophoric, meaning the catch fire and burn readily, and that's a significant hazard, too.

Metallic DU is no where near the threat some people make it out to be.

[44 AMP]

7.62x51 AP (M61) is less capable than M2, so while it may be more prevalent nowadays, there's no point to testing it since level IV plates stop the superior M2.

My references state M61 AP is an approx. 150gr @ 2750fps and M2 AP is a 166gr (+/-) @ 2715fps.

I don't see where the slight difference makes the M61 less capable in significant terms.

Uranium is not unprecedented. It has been or is being used in Ukraine and it's use is controversial because it contaminates the area where it is used. Although it is "depleted," it's still radioactive and it can contaminate an area for a very long time

It is controversial due to the number of people who don't fully understand radiation and contamination. Depleted uranium is just that, depleted, it has the dangerous high dose rate elements removed, and while it retains detectibly radioactive, it is not dangerously so.

Significant parts of the Ukraine are already contaminated, with things much more hazardous than DU, thanks to Soviet era nuclear accidents, particularly Chernobyl.

Contamination means a detectable level of some kind of material where you don't want it to be. IT is the levels, and type of contamination that determine if concentrations are hazardous, or not.

Radiation detection instruments are extremely sensitive. They will detect level of radiation well below natural background levels. Few people outside the nuclear industry (and nuclear medicine) know much about radioactive materials, and much of what they do "know" is flat out wrong.

DU is not a radioactive threat to health and life. Natural Uranium ore is actually slightly worse in that regard. You don't want to breath DU vapor or dust, Uranium fines (dust/small particles) are highly pyrophoric, meaning the catch fire and burn readily, and that's a significant hazard, too.

Metallic DU is no where near the threat some people make it out to be.

Artillery is called “The King of Battle” for a reason

Also known as the "ultimate argument of kings"

Both terms created centuries before the existence of airpower.

[davidsog]

JohnKSa says:
No, it's anecdotal until there is some sort of confirmation of it, along with something that suggests that it is representative, as opposed to an outlier experience.

What do you think Aberdeen did?

rickrick says:
They do not mention that the main purpose of the new cartridge and subsequent weapons is to increase lethality in CQB.

Sure they do but your selective reading and entrenched position is blinding you.

Coordinating modernization priorities in this area is the Soldier Lethality Cross-Functional Team, based at Fort Benning, Georgia. Brig. Gen. Larry Q. Buris serves as the CFT’s director and as Fort Benning’s Infantry School Commandant, ensuring the needs of the Close Combat Force — a group that includes select infantry, scouts, combat medics, forward observers, combat engineers and Special Operations Forces — are at the forefront of Soldier Lethality CFT efforts.

Not all Combat Forces engage in the close in fight and very few conduct CQB.

“Close combat is warfare characterized by brutal physical confrontation,” Buris said. “The CCF designation identifies those positions in the brigade combat team that are truly the tip of the spear, those who close with and destroy our adversaries.”

Buris noted that CCF “make up 4% of the military, but since World War II, have sustained 90% of the casualties — and they receive less than 4% of the DoD budget for Science and Technology.”

One of the CFT’s signature efforts is the Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW) program.

https://www.army.mil/article/254732/...t_capabilities

[JohnKSa]

What do you think Aberdeen did?

I find it amazing that you can respond to my post like this, confirming that you have either not been reading or not been understanding my posts, and in the very same post accuse someone else of "selective reading" and being blind.

You need to take a deep breath, actually read what's being posted and respond to the content of posts--that's going to be a much more effective tactic than browbeating, repetition and large text. What you're doing is a recipe for how to not be taken seriously.

Your response to rickyrick is a perfect example. You either didn't understand his post, or didn't read it, or chose to ignore the content. You posted a response that didn't directly address his comments--not even the very brief portion of his post you chose to quote--and added large text formatting as if that's going to make your response more relevant. It doesn't.

[44 AMP]

The use of oversize fonts and special colors is the forum equivalent of shouting or screaming at the top of your lungs.

It is the written expression of the common tactic used by people who don't have a valid argument. You cannot "shout down" your opposition in a written forum, and doing so just makes you look foolish, and actually diminishes the weight people will give to your points.

[Mal H]

After 4 1/2 years and 19 pages, this topic has been discussed ad nauseam, bent, spindled, and mutilated. The time to close it down has finally come.