Army selects 6.8mm as the new common round...

[ed308]

According to this article, the Army has selected the 6.8mm as the new common round for both its Squad Automatic Weapon and M4 replacement. If true, interesting development.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...-deadly-round/

[Art Eatman]

All sorts of questions about the cartridge: E.g., will it be longer than the 5.56? Or a larger diameter case?

[Erno86]

Originally Posted by Art Eatman

All sorts of questions about the cartridge: E.g., will it be longer than the 5.56? Or a larger diameter case?

More info on the 6.8x43mm SPC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8mm_Remington_SPC

[Don Fischer]

Just wondering, it is a 270 cal isn't it? If so I seem to recall reading about a wildcat in the Ackley book years ago. 270-300 savage. I guess it was designed to work in the mod 99 but nothing ever came of it.

[marine6680]

Is it the 6.8spc?

It's a decent round for the use. Not as flat shooting as 5.56, but it will reach out to 500yds without much difficulty.

I would have went with a 6.5 at the largest though. Something between 6-6.5mm with a slightly larger case, with a smidge more taper... For more powder volume... So that it could push an 80-90gr projectile at the current 855 62gr velocity. The extra mass, plus a well designed shape, could result in good external ballistics, holding energy and velocity better at 300+ yards.

This could be done with the current rifles, as things like 6.8spc fit in the mags.

If we are going with a new rifle entirely, I would probably go with a slightly longer case and OAL rather than try to gain extra powder volume with only larger diameter cases. This would allow for a longer projectile for better ballistics.

Body armor is a concern the military has now... So velocity is more important than mass... Maybe even look at 75gr rather than something like 85gr, for the extra velocity. You wouldn't lose much ballistic efficiency that way. But keeping the velocity up and getting more mass is nice, if recoil can be kept in check. Accurate and rapid fire is very important in modern combat.

[Nanuk]

It is just a fishing expedition. They have announced nothing.

[Mobuck]

If this IS the 6.8 SPC, then good for them. I've been fairly pleased with the SPC after a couple year's use on deer. It doubles the bullet weight over the 5.56 while losing 10-15% velocity in a 20" barrel(and even less velocity differential in shorter barrel length like the 14.5").
The SPC suppresses better than a 5.56 w/o going to heavier bullet weights. From experience, the SPC is much quieter using 90 grain game bullets out of a 16" barrel vs .223 using 60 grain game bullets from the 16". The 90 grain bonded base 6.8 bullet is a FAR better deer killer than ANYTHING coming out the muzzle of a .223.

[bfoosh006]

Quote...

"This is not the 6.8 SPC cartridge evaluated by SOCOM in the mid-00s and available commercially. The only thing this has in common, is caliber. "

From here....
http://soldiersystems.net/2018/10/04/161298/

[Roamin_Wade]

I read an article a few years back about how the Chicom's were going to a 6.8mm round.

[Fishbed77]

Army Times' source:

https://www.zazzle.com/random_decisi...69915972263669

[Jim Watson]

I think the PRC infantry rifle is a 5.8mm.

Interesting the Army has still another 6.8mm looky-loo.
Legend was that a senior member of the infantry board that favored the 6.8 SPC was a hunter who loved his .270 and pushed the caliber through the selection process.

[Drm50]

I think they should stick to 30cal. Get rid of AR platform and build a new rifle
around a new cartridge. They should also get away from light bullets and the
concept of one caliber doing it all. The house to house combat that has been going on in Middle East requires a different weapon than is required of troops
in mountains and deserts. At one time the different ammo was a major problem.
With today's technology and communications it should be no problem. These
rifles aren't to deer hunt. If you have ever witnessed the difference of 7.62 and
5.56 chewing through block you know what I mean. With all the new technology
they should be able to come up with a small package 30cal cartridge firing a
125g bullet as a minimum. I guess anything bigger than 5.56 will be a improvement. What gets me is the M16 we had in RVN has been turned into a
8 or 9 pound weapon with all the stuff they are hanging on them.

[jmr40]

If it is this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8mm_Remington_SPC

I don't see any improvement over 5.56 with 75 gr bullets. Especially at distances over 200-300 yards. They're talking about short stubby 85-110 gr bullets in 27 caliber that will slow down rapidly beyond 200 yards. It is bullet length that determines penetration, not a little more weight in a bigger caliber. If they're going to go larger than 22 caliber they've got to go to a heavier bullet than 110 gr to see any benefit.

Every time I look at the options that will fit in an AR platform the 6.5 Grendel with 123 gr bullets is the only thing currently available that offers any advantage over what we already have. And even it isn't a huge difference.

If they want a bigger cartridge they've got to think outside the box and build it in a completely different platform and maybe based off a completely new cartridge.

[HiBC]

Up front,I'm a non Veteran who has never been in combat.

I say this with respect and deference to those who are Veterans.

I don't recall the exact numbers,but S L A Marshall noted a tremendous amount of ammo,tens of thousands of rounds,is expended for each enemy casualty.

What I see on YouTube combat videos certainly does not make me an armchair expert, but for every troop that appears to be using his sights and actually trying to hit a target he can see,

I see at least 10 others holding rifles over their head and spraying magazines,or holding the rifle in the general direction and banging away.

I understand fire superiority,suppression,etc. I'm not questioning accepted tactics.

It seems like,as an outside observer,small arms fire makes a danger zone to inhibit enemy movement till the Cavalry( The A-10's,Helicopter gunships,or artillery) arrive.


I'm making a smart alec joke here,I'm not serious,but in those circumstances,an accoustic weapon that would make bang-bang,pew-pew noises and flying bullet cracks would be equally effective for about 9 out of 10 troops. They could carry batteries rather than all that heavy ammo.

As I said,thats a joke.

But the point is all the effort and discussion over some quantum leap of small arms effectiveness coming from a new cartridge only pays off when the projectile atually hits an enemy troop and creates a casualty.

If that comes from penetrating cover,GREAT! If it comes from making more trauma,fine! Penetrating body armor,or any other ballistic advantage,I'm for giving our troops whatever kills enemy and helps bring out troops home in one piece. If a 6.8 truly does that,lets get her done.

I wonder if better sighting systems..better optics,seriously figuring out how to lighten combat load,upping the number of effective aircraft for air support,casualty evac,and ammo/water resupply,etc would do as much or more for our troop effectiveness and safety.

I don't know the answer,I'm asking the question.

Where are the legit priorities,? Are we addressing a specific,identified shortcoming in the M-4/5.56 package that is getting our troops killed?

When is it about contracts,bic money,and the "new cool" factor?

Back in the 1700's,William Blake wrote "Progress is illusion,each solution brings new problems" (or something like that)

A certain number of elk hunters think "I didn't see any elk this year,I need a bigger gun".

What is real,what is illusion?

How many folks ruin their lives imagining that some exciting other woman/man is better than the spouse at home?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Believe it when it happens. The military is short on funds for much more crucial issues than redoing the entire supply train for a wonder cartridge of the month.

[ed308]

Whatever the go with, it will likely be larger than the 6.8 SPC. Like the proposed .277USA. Larger than 5.56 but smaller than .308. If I remember correctly, 2.4 OAL.

[Charlie98]

Sounds to me like they are just trolling the waters.

[Double Naught Spy]

NOT 6.8 SPC, but a new round.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-magnum-round/
https://www.range365.com/us-armys-my...new-68mm-round


The problem with going to new rounds and new platforms is that there will be a combination of developmental problems with each. No doubt the platform will be plagued with issues, as most are, and it will take a while to work out most of them.

[marine6680]

I think they should stick to 30cal. Get rid of AR platform and build a new rifle
around a new cartridge. They should also get away from light bullets and the
concept of one caliber doing it all. ***SNIP***
they should be able to come up with a small package 30cal cartridge firing a
125g bullet as a minimum. I guess anything bigger than 5.56 will be a improvement. What gets me is the M16 we had in RVN has been turned into a
8 or 9 pound weapon with all the stuff they are hanging on them.

No...

Just... No...

The M16 based rifles are among the lightest of the modern military rifles. The M4 is base configuration is lighter than all of the current rifles I can think of, and lighter than many proposed. They get heavy when you add a bunch of crap, and most other military rifles would weigh more, especially at the muzzle end. And the current models are also on par with other rifles for reliability. It is poor armorer maintenance and poor training for the guys on the ground for proper cleaning and lubrication that cause issues. They are also one of the easiest to shoot quickly, which is important.


30cal is a horrible idea... I think 6.8 is a bad idea. Well, for a general purpose round for individual infantry anyway. It would be fine for a medium machine gun and as a DMR round if designed right. Basically a step up from current intermediate rounds, but maybe not quite 308 sized.

Russia moved away from 7.62x39 for a reason... 5.45 is their standard round and has a good reputation as a stopper.


Bumping the projectile mass to 85gr, and the caliber to 6-6.5mm, and giving it a case able to hold the powder needed to obtain M855 velocities would be an improvement on 5.56 without sacrificing too much of the great handling characteristics.

[Mobuck]

"Every time I look at the options that will fit in an AR platform the 6.5 Grendel with 123 gr bullets is the only thing currently available that offers any advantage over what we already have."

If you look closely at ballistics charts, you'll find the 6.5G is significantly behind the 6.8 SPC from barrels shorter than 20". Using 16" barrels , the 6.8 is a head above the 6.5G.

[ed308]

More on the new 6.8 round....

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/...w-6-8mm-rifle/

[COSteve]

Originally Posted by marine6680

30cal is a horrible idea... I think 6.8 is a bad idea. Well, for a general purpose round for individual infantry anyway. It would be fine for a medium machine gun and as a DMR round if designed right. Basically a step up from current intermediate rounds, but maybe not quite 308 sized.

Russia moved away from 7.62x39 for a reason... 5.45 is their standard round and has a good reputation as a stopper.

Bumping the projectile mass to 85gr, and the caliber to 6-6.5mm, and giving it a case able to hold the powder needed to obtain M855 velocities would be an improvement on 5.56 without sacrificing too much of the great handling characteristics.

The military makes decisions on arms using much more than combat effectiveness of the caliber. You'd expect them to include elements like accuracy, combat load weight, down range effectiveness, ergonomics, barrel life, attactments, weight, etc. However, main drivers in service weapon selections include things like wear of the platform affecting service life, logistical support costs including ammo costs, maintenance frequency, MTBF, replenishment transportation costs (a large consideration), as well as overall size and weight considerations due to the smaller, weaker average service members.

A primary consideration swaying the selection of the M16 was the fact that it was light and small for use by the South Vietnamese and suitable for high rates of fire more effective in jungle conditions. Another primary consideration was that the low cost of the ammo, plus it's small size meant larger quantities could be loaded on ships so that the logistical costs of supporting the weapon system were lower.

None of that speaks to combat effectiveness which is why, when we were give 'instruction' based upon the cost of each rd, to use the M16 to shoot at individuals, the 30cal MG at masses, the 50 cal at hardened targets, and the 90mm main gun of our tank only at large targets, we ignored it. If something moved in the jungle and we received fire, I returned it with a 90mm canister rd (3.5" dia shotgun blast) and my 50 cal MG, screw the difference in cost of each rd.

[RC20]

As I understand it, they are going to exotic ammo with CTR

https://www.textronsystems.com/what-...r-systems/LSAT

[JJ45]

Wow, then it must have been a logistic headache transporting 30-06 M2 Ball all over the world during, WWI, WWII, Korea, etc.

Can't argue with the stopping effectiveness of the '06 though...if this 6.8 is based on the .30 Remington, I may be wrong, but I think that cartridge originated as competition for the 30-30 Winchester but never rivaled the 30-30 in popularity.

[marine6680]

For a general issue infantry round... Balancing the factors is important.

I am a fan of 5.56, using modern bullets it has good terminal ballistics and low recoil for easy to control rapid fire, but it does have drawbacks in certain environments.

A slight bump in weight of the ammunition, that allows for better downrange performance, may be a good trade off.

Body armor use by the enemy is a concern being voiced now, so keeping velocity high is better. Frankly, I don't see the insurgent forces we are against using body armor, I see them spending the money on ammo and weapons, and keeping a light individual load for guerrilla tactics.

Light barrier penetration is lackluster in 5.56, hard barriers like block walls usually need more mass to get through.

Terminal performance could be better, when constrained to certain bullet types like the military, a new caliber can help make a more effective bullet, without the need to boost pressures like the m855a1.


This is why I don't think a significantly larger caliber is the way to go, nor is a huge jump in total energy of the system, as that can adversly affect handling in rapid fire and increase ammo weight too much.

Designed right, you can reduce the wear on the firearms components, increase the effectiveness of the round for a wide range of uses, and not increase the ammo weight too much. Polymer hybrid cases are showing promise, so long as they don't deform under long term spring pressure, they can help offset the ammo weight.


As far as the old 30-06... The round used by infantry in WWII used older powders... When the 308 was introduced, due to better powder, the ballistics of the round were pretty close to the old 30-06 stuff.

And the 6.8spc was developed as a combat round from the get go, it was the brain child of some special forces guys.