Pentagon Confirms Move to 6.8mm - Page 11

Bartholomew Roberts · September 13, 2019, 05:39 AM

It will be interesting to see when they start showing up in public with weird optics. One of the proposed benefits Milley discussed is that they are going to be able to train using new optics without firing real ammo. So far though, the rifles are shown either bare or with traditional optics.

stagpanther · September 13, 2019, 05:54 AM

What's the benefit of not using live ammo--other than maybe trigger control practice?

Bartholomew Roberts · September 13, 2019, 06:13 AM

The benefit is this ammo is expensive and not all of the existing training areas are going to be able to accommodate a projectile with .270 Win Mag ballistics that can penetrate any currently fielded body armor at 600m.

But what Milley was describing wasn’t dryfire practice, it was more virtual reality type training using the same optic they would use in the field,

stagpanther · September 13, 2019, 06:19 AM

As a taxpayer I'd MUCH rather my money go to real world live practice than having a half billion dollar jet sit on the tarmac most of the time.

MagnumWill · September 27, 2019, 11:27 AM

All three of those cartridges are going to require a re-tool from legacy processes. IMO I think Textron's CT entry has the greatest benefit and will actually "move the needle" for the warfighter in regards to weight. If companies now could make current cases out of polymer/steel case heads/etc. they'd be doing it now. We've been using brass cases for over a century now, there's only so many times we can re-hash it without introducing new technology or higher pressure.

Quote:

6.8x51????

How do you run a ctg that size in a platform the size of a 249?

Exactly right, another vote for CT ammunition. One must think, if the Armed Forces wanted a higher power .308, they'd just keep the M14 and 240B

Bartholomew Roberts · September 27, 2019, 03:44 PM

I think you’re right on that Will. Unless the other rifles just really outperform the CT rifle, it will be tough to beat the logistical footprint of a CT cartridge.

MagnumWill · September 28, 2019, 11:31 AM

...the only reason they wouldn't is they weren't serious about the entire endeavor and abandon it again... remember, their decision is going to end up on the other side of an election...

...and (slightly OT) something my subconscious tells me is that if the blue side would never, ever would want AR15's to NOT resemble "weapons of war"...

RC20 · September 28, 2019, 09:36 PM

Not trying to start anything, but as a progressive, my take on gun issues has less than zero affect on what the military needs to do their job. I support whatever gives the women and men out there on the pointy end of the spear the best chance to come home. I love Javelin. Best thing for infantry since sliced bread.

Effective wise I think the M16/4 platform is an ergonomic atrocity and the 5.56 is a poor cartridge that is best used on wood chucks and watermelons.

I also think you are never going to get past the technology disconnect between a bullet that expand and kills cleanly (human or animals) and one that you want to poke holes though things that resist it (armor, walls, bricks etc) - 7.62 ball just leaves a slightly bigger hole. The day someone figure out a bullet that adjust itself to what its hit is going to be a fine one.

What hopefully come out of this is a ammo that is close to 5.56 in weight and has the ballistics to be effective out to 800-1000 yards (which means it works fine under that)

The real world says you won't alwyas have mortars or air support to deal with a guy behind a rock with a rifle 1000 yard out and the boots on the ground have to handle it.

jetinteriorguy · September 30, 2019, 05:19 AM

Ok, here is what I don't get. At the same time they are developing a new rifle on a fast track they have also ordered so many new rifles that Colt is discontinuing the sale of AR15's to the public. What gives? Or is it more likely the demand for a genuine Colt on the open market is so small it's not worth pursuing. But, this still doesn't explain ordering so many new rifles this close to them being replaced.

Bartholomew Roberts · September 30, 2019, 07:01 PM

Olin (part of the AAI/Textron/H&K team) wins the contract to run Lake City. A sign?

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...unition-plant/

MagnumWill · October 2, 2019, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Not trying to start anything, but as a progressive, my take on gun issues has less than zero affect on what the military needs to do their job.

I needed to be a little more clear than I was. I'm more concerned about the program being sacrificed from a governmental financial and optics perspective, in order to fit a narrative that isn't conducive to our defense department. I'm right there with you man.

Bartholomew Roberts · October 16, 2019, 07:16 PM

General Dynamics team reveals their entry - the RM277, a bullpup configuration using hybrid ammo: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...pon-the-rm277/

Rob228 · October 16, 2019, 08:25 PM

The next fight isn't going to be against dirt farmers. Being able to punch through level 3-4 armor is going to be a consideration. As is noise signature and the inevitable logistical support to the weapon itself.

Not a problem I would want to have to solve, but I'm excited to see what comes of it, mostly because I have spent 18 years beating up M16s and M4s in various configurations and they have always done what I've needed from them. I do think that maybe a focus on the next infantry rifle may not be what we need to be looking at with today's problem set, but I also just sat in an 8 hour class that pretty much said if we don't learn to think differently and soon we are going to lose the next war (with some pretty convincing arguments).

Any way we go with this, if we put a better product in the hands of the LCpl walking point, its not a bad thing.

Jim Watson · October 17, 2019, 07:59 AM

Quote:

General Dynamics team reveals their entry - the RM277, a bullpup configuration using hybrid ammo:

An automatic rifle with a 20 round magazine. Shades of the BAR.

MTT TL · October 17, 2019, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

General Dynamics team reveals their entry - the RM277, a bullpup configuration using hybrid ammo: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...pon-the-rm277/

If performance is good it is what I would pick. There is potential for a lot of problems with the unproven tech of the ammo but if that is worked around it has all kinds of potential.

American Man · October 17, 2019, 05:38 PM

I would like to see the M203 equivalent already mounted on it. I wouldn't mind getting rid of the M249, but the 203 is a must have. And I'm so glad they are worried about the weight... now that I'm retired. lol

Bartholomew Roberts · October 17, 2019, 07:02 PM

For all the talk about the rifle, it seems to me the two big problems are:

1) We don’t detect enemies past 300m
2) With iron sights, even our best shooters do poorly past 300m.

It would be interesting to see combat statistics of early OIF/OEF Marines (Muskets, ACOGs, and trained to shoot 600m) vs. same period Army (M4s, Aimpoints, 300m ranges). If we’ve made some advances in better hit percentages, that comparison should show it.

In any case, it seems to me that optics are going to be more important than the rifle in helping this fulfill its stated role. I noticed though that every picture we’ve seen shows pretty plain vanilla sights mounted.

MTT TL · October 17, 2019, 07:45 PM

Gosh if an ELCAN Specter DR 1-4x is "pretty plain vanilla" I gotta ask what you think qualifies as "high speed, low drag"? Certainly my wallet would disagree with you.

Bartholomew Roberts · October 17, 2019, 07:52 PM

Eh, it’s a 1-4x variable. It might boost identification and hits past historical examples; but it isn’t going to create a 200% improvement and that’s what this rifle’s being built around.

MTT TL · October 17, 2019, 08:16 PM

The soldier will be able to see objects at 400% their normal size.

Ben Dover · October 18, 2019, 08:07 AM

We know that big, heavy bullets are good man-stoppers.

Heck, just ask George Custer!

rickyrick · October 18, 2019, 09:40 PM

Ben Dover, your screen name made my day.

davidsog · October 19, 2019, 08:29 AM

Oh, Are they still not doing this at the Pentagon??

rickyrick · October 19, 2019, 01:46 PM

Probably not located at the pentagon per se, but yes, the project is still in the trial/prototype phase.
The rifles have yet to be approved, produced or issued at this point.

Ben Dover · October 19, 2019, 04:45 PM

rickyrick!

Glad i could help!

September 13, 2019, 05:54 AM	#252
stagpanther Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2014 Posts: 11,786	What's the benefit of not using live ammo--other than maybe trigger control practice? __________________ "Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill *I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!*

September 13, 2019, 06:19 AM	#254
stagpanther Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2014 Posts: 11,786	As a taxpayer I'd MUCH rather my money go to real world live practice than having a half billion dollar jet sit on the tarmac most of the time. __________________ "Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill *I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!*

September 28, 2019, 11:31 AM	#257
MagnumWill Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 2009 Location: Central Colorado Posts: 1,001	...the only reason they wouldn't is they weren't serious about the entire endeavor and abandon it again... remember, their decision is going to end up on the other side of an election... ...and (slightly OT) something my subconscious tells me is that if the blue side would never, *ever* would want AR15's to NOT resemble "weapons of war"... __________________ Those who hammer their swords into plow shares will plow for those who didn't... Last edited by MagnumWill; September 28, 2019 at 11:39 AM.

September 28, 2019, 09:36 PM	#258
RC20 Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2008 Location: Alaska Posts: 7,014	Not trying to start anything, but as a progressive, my take on gun issues has less than zero affect on what the military needs to do their job. I support whatever gives the women and men out there on the pointy end of the spear the best chance to come home. I love Javelin. Best thing for infantry since sliced bread. Effective wise I think the M16/4 platform is an ergonomic atrocity and the 5.56 is a poor cartridge that is best used on wood chucks and watermelons. I also think you are never going to get past the technology disconnect between a bullet that expand and kills cleanly (human or animals) and one that you want to poke holes though things that resist it (armor, walls, bricks etc) - 7.62 ball just leaves a slightly bigger hole. The day someone figure out a bullet that adjust itself to what its hit is going to be a fine one. What hopefully come out of this is a ammo that is close to 5.56 in weight and has the ballistics to be effective out to 800-1000 yards (which means it works fine under that) The real world says you won't alwyas have mortars or air support to deal with a guy behind a rock with a rifle 1000 yard out and the boots on the ground have to handle it. __________________ Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not

October 16, 2019, 08:25 PM	#263
Rob228 Senior Member Join Date: May 29, 2010 Location: Hampstead NC Posts: 1,450	The next fight isn't going to be against dirt farmers. Being able to punch through level 3-4 armor is going to be a consideration. As is noise signature and the inevitable logistical support to the weapon itself. Not a problem I would want to have to solve, but I'm excited to see what comes of it, mostly because I have spent 18 years beating up M16s and M4s in various configurations and they have always done what I've needed from them. I do think that maybe a focus on the next infantry rifle may not be what we need to be looking at with today's problem set, but I also just sat in an 8 hour class that pretty much said if we don't learn to think differently and soon we are going to lose the next war (with some pretty convincing arguments). Any way we go with this, if we put a better product in the hands of the LCpl walking point, its not a bad thing. Last edited by Rob228; October 16, 2019 at 08:37 PM.

September 13, 2019, 05:39 AM	#251
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	It will be interesting to see when they start showing up in public with weird optics. One of the proposed benefits Milley discussed is that they are going to be able to train using new optics without firing real ammo. So far though, the rifles are shown either bare or with traditional optics.

September 13, 2019, 06:13 AM	#253
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	The benefit is this ammo is expensive and not all of the existing training areas are going to be able to accommodate a projectile with .270 Win Mag ballistics that can penetrate any currently fielded body armor at 600m. But what Milley was describing wasn’t dryfire practice, it was more virtual reality type training using the same optic they would use in the field,

September 27, 2019, 03:44 PM	#256
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	I think you’re right on that Will. Unless the other rifles just really outperform the CT rifle, it will be tough to beat the logistical footprint of a CT cartridge.

September 30, 2019, 05:19 AM	#259
jetinteriorguy Senior Member Join Date: April 28, 2013 Posts: 3,175	Ok, here is what I don't get. At the same time they are developing a new rifle on a fast track they have also ordered so many new rifles that Colt is discontinuing the sale of AR15's to the public. What gives? Or is it more likely the demand for a genuine Colt on the open market is so small it's not worth pursuing. But, this still doesn't explain ordering so many new rifles this close to them being replaced.

September 30, 2019, 07:01 PM	#260
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Olin (part of the AAI/Textron/H&K team) wins the contract to run Lake City. A sign? https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...unition-plant/

October 16, 2019, 07:16 PM	#262
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	General Dynamics team reveals their entry - the RM277, a bullpup configuration using hybrid ammo: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...pon-the-rm277/

October 17, 2019, 05:38 PM	#266
American Man Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2018 Posts: 218	I would like to see the M203 equivalent already mounted on it. I wouldn't mind getting rid of the M249, but the 203 is a must have. And I'm so glad they are worried about the weight... now that I'm retired. lol

October 17, 2019, 07:02 PM	#267
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	For all the talk about the rifle, it seems to me the two big problems are: 1) We don’t detect enemies past 300m 2) With iron sights, even our best shooters do poorly past 300m. It would be interesting to see combat statistics of early OIF/OEF Marines (Muskets, ACOGs, and trained to shoot 600m) vs. same period Army (M4s, Aimpoints, 300m ranges). If we’ve made some advances in better hit percentages, that comparison should show it. In any case, it seems to me that optics are going to be more important than the rifle in helping this fulfill its stated role. I noticed though that every picture we’ve seen shows pretty plain vanilla sights mounted.

October 17, 2019, 07:45 PM	#268
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	Gosh if an ELCAN Specter DR 1-4x is "pretty plain vanilla" I gotta ask what you think qualifies as "high speed, low drag"? Certainly my wallet would disagree with you. __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

October 17, 2019, 07:52 PM	#269
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Eh, it’s a 1-4x variable. It might boost identification and hits past historical examples; but it isn’t going to create a 200% improvement and that’s what this rifle’s being built around.

October 17, 2019, 08:16 PM	#270
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	The soldier will be able to see objects at 400% their normal size. __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

October 18, 2019, 08:07 AM	#271
Ben Dover Senior Member Join Date: April 11, 2013 Location: High up in the Rocky Moun Posts: 665	We know that big, heavy bullets are good man-stoppers. Heck, just ask George Custer! __________________ The soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as the prisoner's chains. Dwight Eisenhower It is very important what a man stands for. But it is far more important what a man refuses to stand for.

October 18, 2019, 09:40 PM	#272
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,237	Ben Dover, your screen name made my day.

October 19, 2019, 08:29 AM	#273
davidsog Senior Member Join Date: January 13, 2018 Posts: 1,326	Oh, Are they still not doing this at the Pentagon??

October 19, 2019, 01:46 PM	#274
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,237	Probably not located at the pentagon per se, but yes, the project is still in the trial/prototype phase. The rifles have yet to be approved, produced or issued at this point.

October 19, 2019, 04:45 PM	#275
Ben Dover Senior Member Join Date: April 11, 2013 Location: High up in the Rocky Moun Posts: 665	rickyrick! Glad i could help! __________________ The soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as the prisoner's chains. Dwight Eisenhower It is very important what a man stands for. But it is far more important what a man refuses to stand for.