The Army's New Cartridge Will Be Epic... - Page 2

Red Devil · February 21, 2019, 06:51 PM

Sounds like a very high pressure .270-08, that will drive a VLD 135 gr. bullet at .270 Winchester velocities, out of a 16" barrel.

Coupled with a self-adjusting ballistic computing scope?

A 600 meter "melon rifle" that even a basic marksman can hit with.

Red.

davidsog · February 21, 2019, 10:05 PM

Quote:

they’ve been trying to replace it every few years for longer than I’ve been alive now and still can’t get rid of it.

I disagree.

Up until the GWOT experience, we loved the M16/M4 series. There was no push or real appetite from the Army to get rid of it AFAIK. Sure the Army looked at developing technology but all previous bids were done as litmus test of technology more so than serious replacement effort. The mid-1990's ACR program never came with a bid for production unlike the current solicitation.

Up until the GWOT experience, there was no real reason to replace it. Like I said, it was a very popular platform.

NWPilgrim · February 21, 2019, 11:21 PM

It sounds like a great goal. I am all for our troops have the best, superior weapons.

But
Sounds very expensive per unit. Is it realistic our DoD is really going to spend that much on all infantry troops? I hope they would but the actual fighters seem to always get the tail end of the supply push and a lot of geewhiz falls to the wayside or warehouse.

The ammo seems pie in the sky. I have not heard of a major successful production breakthrough in ammo design that would allow dramatically superior performance to the 5.56 without a significant weight and or recoil penalty. The 6.8 SPC uses a 110 GE bullet correct? And a case slightly larger than the 5.56. This article alludes to even greater performance than that so what is the weight, platform size and recoil cost to achieve that with a 130 gr 6.8 bullet?

Are these computerized optics still usable if battery/electronics go out or revert to iron sights? Hunting is no where near as critical task or harsh on equipment than patrolling in a combat zone, yet I was raised never to depend solely on just a scope. Always have irons and even a backup rifle along just in case and know how to use them. Is this system going to be compact and light enough to use for Urban CQB as well as extended ranges?

Making a rifle rugged enough to double as a SAW seems it would be quite a bit heavier than one intended for normal rifleman use. Beefing the rifle up to handle a much heavier bullet and possibly higher pressure would seem to require significant additional weight, let alone also beefing up for extended full auto fire.

February 21, 2019, 06:51 PM	#26
Red Devil Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2010 Posts: 274	Sounds like a very high pressure .270-08, that will drive a VLD 135 gr. bullet at .270 Winchester velocities, out of a 16" barrel. Coupled with a self-adjusting ballistic computing scope? A 600 meter "melon rifle" that even a basic marksman can hit with. Red.

February 21, 2019, 11:21 PM	#28
NWPilgrim Senior Member Join Date: September 29, 2008 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,346	It sounds like a great goal. I am all for our troops have the best, superior weapons. But Sounds very expensive per unit. Is it realistic our DoD is really going to spend that much on all infantry troops? I hope they would but the actual fighters seem to always get the tail end of the supply push and a lot of geewhiz falls to the wayside or warehouse. The ammo seems pie in the sky. I have not heard of a major successful production breakthrough in ammo design that would allow dramatically superior performance to the 5.56 without a significant weight and or recoil penalty. The 6.8 SPC uses a 110 GE bullet correct? And a case slightly larger than the 5.56. This article alludes to even greater performance than that so what is the weight, platform size and recoil cost to achieve that with a 130 gr 6.8 bullet? Are these computerized optics still usable if battery/electronics go out or revert to iron sights? Hunting is no where near as critical task or harsh on equipment than patrolling in a combat zone, yet I was raised never to depend solely on just a scope. Always have irons and even a backup rifle along just in case and know how to use them. Is this system going to be compact and light enough to use for Urban CQB as well as extended ranges? Making a rifle rugged enough to double as a SAW seems it would be quite a bit heavier than one intended for normal rifleman use. Beefing the rifle up to handle a much heavier bullet and possibly higher pressure would seem to require significant additional weight, let alone also beefing up for extended full auto fire.