|
|
Post by grasshopper on Apr 20, 2022 9:04:05 GMT -7
Hello friends! I just read an interesting article some of you may have also seen. The Army announced that Sig Sauer USA has been awarded a 20.4 million dollar contract to produce its new battle rifle the XM5 and the new squad automatic rifle the XM250 both to be chambered for the 6.8 cartridge. Seems as if the Army is trying to have the best of both worlds, trying to find that magical cartridge that will do both what a 5.56 and a 7.62 round will do. I just wondered what y’all might have to say about all of this. Remember I’m just the messenger!😁 hopefully we’ll have a nice friendly discussion about it!
|
|
|
|
Post by todddoyka on Apr 20, 2022 9:20:20 GMT -7
they have been looking at 6.8 for years. Sig has an eXperimental rifle and SAW (notice the X, it means Experimental Model 5 and 250). i think that its beyond time that we go for the 6.8 and leave the 5.56 behind. i'd stay with the 7.62x51. its an awesome round, being the shooter and the shootee.
|
|
|
|
Post by missionary on Apr 20, 2022 18:38:04 GMT -7
At least they finally decided to put a better cartridge into the hands of our Military.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Apr 21, 2022 7:07:39 GMT -7
I would like to see a ballistic comparison of the three cartridges. I wonder what Jack Oconner would have to say about it. As for Elmer he would likely rebut Jack and say the military went downhill when they left the 45-70.
|
|
|
|
Post by todddoyka on Apr 21, 2022 10:46:20 GMT -7
I would like to see a ballistic comparison of the three cartridges. I wonder what Jack Oconner would have to say about it. As for Elmer he would likely rebut Jack and say the military went downhill when they left the 45-70.  |
|
|
|
Post by grasshopper on Apr 21, 2022 16:02:27 GMT -7
I’m really not sure what to think about it yet, I spent a career using the 5.56 and it has its short comings for sure but I also saw it kill a bunch of bad guys over the years. The 7.62 is king for sure compared to the 5.56 but when you’re humping a huge pack on your back that ammo gets heavy real fast! I’m going to reserve judgement for now and see how the tests go because I just don’t have the knowledge about the 6.8 yet to really have an opinion about it good or bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by missionary on Apr 22, 2022 3:36:06 GMT -7
Looking at balistics the 6.8 with a 110 bullet will do all the .223 can with a 62 grain with 40% thwap at 300 yards. Not a 7.62x51 but at least more than a rodent rifle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Apr 22, 2022 8:26:37 GMT -7
A wound is as good as a kill so for this I dont think kinetic energy is as important as hit probability. Weight of ammo like Rob said is also a major consideration. If I were to be headed into a potential extended fire fight I would want as much ammo as possible with me. It makes sense that if one cartridge is twice the weight of another that for the same weight one allows twice as many rounds and a large quantity of ammo on hand in what could be an extended fight cut off from resupply has got to be a comforting feeling.
|
|
|
|
Post by todddoyka on Apr 22, 2022 10:37:42 GMT -7
A wound is as good as a kill so for this I dont think kinetic energy is as important as hit probability. Weight of ammo like Rob said is also a major consideration. If I were to be headed into a potential extended fire fight I would want as much ammo as possible with me. It makes sense that if one cartridge is twice the weight of another that for the same weight one allows twice as many rounds and a large quantity of ammo on hand in what could be an extended fight cut off from resupply has got to be a comforting feeling. as we are waiting to see what Mariupol does. the 6.8 is just a dream, we and NATO aren't going to throw the 5.56 to the wolves. |
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Apr 22, 2022 12:54:35 GMT -7
I think the three most popular cartridges world wide are #1 7.62x39 #2 9mm Para #3 5.56 nato in that order. Stiff competition for any new cartridge. If I remember correctly Johnson Automatics had a 270 caliber that was meant to compete with the M-1 Garand 30-06.
|
|
|
|
Post by grasshopper on Apr 22, 2022 15:23:33 GMT -7
Just a few observations and my replies to a few of the comments so far. I understand how a lot of folks don’t like the 5.56 and consider it a puny “rodent” round, it’s not a long range cartridge we all agree, I’ve also see a lot of bad guys killed with the 5.56 and believe me it will flat get the job done. Some of the wounds from that round just have to be seen to be believed. I understand folks like Pastor Mike that don’t have much of an opinion for the 5.56 and it’s not a 300 yard round for sure, in my experience in modern combat though only snipers or designated marksman will engage targets at that range and they will be using a 7.62 when they do it and those engagements are rare when on any type of platoon or company level. Todd makes an excellent point also, the Army may have announced giving Sig a 20 million contract for the new M5 and M250 in 6.8, but 20million sure won’t go far buying weapons and the ammo for the Army so the 5.56 will be around for a long time, not to mention it’s also NATOs main battle round. Dan is correct about ammo and it’s weight but more important is the number of rounds each individual soldier can carry. Just think about when we were in Somalia, each soldier would of probably only had a third of the rounds had they been using the 7.62 but the number of targets would of been the same, no way can you engage the same amount of targets with less ammo, Dan is also correct about the Johnson LMG starting out in 270, these are just my observations after spending over half my life in the Army running around the world and engaging bad guys every few years, I hope everyone gets I’m sure not saying anyone is wrong. We all have our thoughts and opinions about cartridges and the debate about the 5.56 has been going on since probably before the 5.56 was adopted for field use in the 1960s in Vietnam, and we all know the issues with the weapons and the powder used in those early rounds is another story. I really enjoy these discussions and it’s one of the things that makes this site so much fun!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Apr 22, 2022 16:08:28 GMT -7
Not that I dont use them because I do but I have never developed a great fondness for the 7.62 or 5.56 cartridges. Its a weird thing too because its not because they are not good accurate cartridges because they are but its likely because they are boringly so. There never seems to be a challenge to get them to shoot good and I guess its the chase that I enjoy. Truth be told if I am testing any new bullets in 30 caliber it is a 308 that they will be tried in simply because its a dependably accurate cartridge. I also have a butt ugly old Savage 223 with a Bushnell scope with 223 bdc reticle and when I have to grab something quick for a shot to 300 to 400 yards its the same story , DEPENDABLE ! Ya just cant knock that truth. If it has any chance of capturing the fame and glory of these two this new 270 caliber cartridge will also have to possess that same attribute, it has to be dependable for the most boringly common jobs it may be used for.
|
|
|
|
Post by missionary on Apr 23, 2022 3:46:13 GMT -7
Biggest issues I heard in the Army mostly from troops that had been with the Cav units was the 55 grain had horrible penetration power. Vines, twigs, large green but soft stem floral could and would deflect the projectile. If a combatant was behind a root, tree forget shooting through. Troops on the move in the open was best.
Then there were the nice little .22 holes. Little blood trail / leakage. The 3 burst selector was an aid in this. But now do the math. What weights more,,, 3x .223 or one .308.
All SP OP troops I have talked with from the Nam...None wanted an AR. Anything but an AR.
The sand box was a whole different world. But you still have walls, barricades and that itt-bitty .223 hole.
Bigger holes are always better.
|
|
|
|
Post by grasshopper on Apr 24, 2022 6:06:34 GMT -7
The “modern” projectile that the M16A4 uses today is often called a green tip, it weighs 62 grains and has a small steel rod or penetrator if you will. These modern rounds are far far superior to the 55gr ones they used during the Vietnam war. My father served with the 2/503 part of the 173 Airborne(maybe that’s why I wanted to jump outta planes🤣) anyway he always hated the M16A1 and he told stories of guys having to take a steel cleaning rod to extract rounds that had gotten stuck in the chamber. For sure it was tough for those guys to go from a wood and steel weapon to a “Mattel” battle rifle. Like I stated before, the problems with these first files were they went from an extruded powder to a ball powder and the new powder couldn’t handle the heat and humidity of that country and in course the rounds would swell just enough to become jammed in the chamber and wouldn’t extract, that and the fact the Army considered it such a modern weapon it didn’t need to be cleaned like previous battle rifles. I can tell you the modern M16 and it’s counterpart the M4 are fine battle rifles! I currently own two, I also own a Springfield M1A, closed thing to an M14 I can get and finally I own a Polytec AK47 with an actual milled receiver, not the cheap stamped variation. Out of those rifles if I had to go back to war today I would take either of my Cold M16 type rifles. Mainly cause I grew up using them and they have save my bacon more than a few times. I dearly love my AK but the 7.62 is basically a 30-30 by ballistics and the M1A is a 308, an excellent round but again it goes back to how many of those rounds can I hump. Also the new green tip 5.56 rounds make some truly horrific wounds and wound channels! Dan can correct me but I believe it’s called cavatation, where when the bullet enters the body it tumbles and makes some impressive wound channels and not just some small 22 holes like some of the first 55 grainers may have. These are just my observations after spending 21 1/2 years in Uncle Sams Army running around the world jumping outta aircraft chasing bad guys. It’s like the old saying says, your mileage may vary!😁
|
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Apr 24, 2022 7:53:32 GMT -7
A tumbling even non expanding bullet will certainly make a large nasty wound but its a trick to get a projectile that is fully stabilized in flight to dependably tumble on impact. There are two ways to get a bullet to tumble on impact. One is by marginal stabilization where the bullet is not spinning on its center of axis . The problem with that is long range accuracy will be terrible. The other way is to have the balance point of the bullet extremely to the rear which is exactly the oposite of form stability.
In form stability a projectile has its balance point extremely forward so that even with the total absence of spin stability the projectile will fly nose forward and not tumble in flight. In trying to design a bullet that has the greatest chance of tumbling on impact but still also have adequate accuracy to its maximum intended range use by design setting the balance point as far as possible to the rear and at the same time by use of fast rifling twist rate giving that projectile an extremely high rotational velocity to overcome the tendency of such a projectile to want to swap ends in flight (tumble) that bullet will for the most part spin very close to its center axis but at the slightest contact can tumble. The one problem there is that there are now two gyro forces at work the one with the bullet spinning on its front to rear axis and another caused by it high rotational velocity tumble. With those to forces as well as its forward momentum the direction that such a projectile will take on impact is impossible to predict and can and will make angular changes as much as 90* from original flight path. End result is hellasious wounds but totally unpredictable penetration.
Its quite a tall order to design a ballistically efficient non expanding bullet that has the ability to create the trauma in a wound of an expanding bullet so if they have done it I would guess that some performance compromise on one end has had to be accepted in order to gain on the other end.
|
|
|
|
Post by grasshopper on Apr 24, 2022 11:15:28 GMT -7
I knew my good friend Dan the man could do a much better job describing it than I could and he certainly did! Thank you brother!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Apr 24, 2022 12:39:32 GMT -7
Thanks Rob! Always got your back.
|
|
|
|
Post by grasshopper on Apr 24, 2022 12:46:51 GMT -7
Brother, that’s one thing for the last 30 years I’ve never had a doubt about! I just hope you know and understand the same goes for me too! I feel very blessed the lord let us enter each other’s lives and remain close as brothers no matter where we may actually live. You’re the best! Nuff said! You guys take care up there my friend!!
|
|
|
|
Post by missionary on Apr 24, 2022 12:48:46 GMT -7
I know this is near my whole life running argument.
But if we simply just ask if weight of ammo is the issue, why did the smallest stature combatants do so well with a cartridge that weighed twice what our.223 did. If we add in the Nagant rifles now we are up to 3x+ weight.
We were doing fine with the M-14. Our fathers did fine with the heavier 30-06. We had a one caliber Infantry. We had a battle proven, hard hitting cartridge that did not require multiple torso hits. It would shoot through vegetation, trees, walls and complete the task.
Pre- 1965 armor crews could re-supply any Leg with 7.62x51. We carried 12,000 rounds.
At least the Army went with a heavier bullet ad fatter caliber. I feared they would go to the .17!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Apr 24, 2022 15:35:15 GMT -7
Army ordinance decision making is based as much on politics as good sense but occasionally logic prevails. Some of their thinking heads must feel the need to continue the search for perfection in an all around battle round. Any change in ballistic performance is always a comprise. To get higher velocity you either go smaller in caliber of larger in case volume. To get heavier projectile weight you either go larger in caliber or faster in rifling twist rate but there certainly are limits there in having COAL limits. Its always a compromise but at some point there has to be a best balance of each and I think that is the quest to find that best balance between ballistic performance and cartridge dimensional boundaries. From a lifetime spent in a similar personal search I applaud the effort. Its is possible though that combustion based projectile weapons will become obsolete before that perfect balance is discovered.
New generation weapons may well use a magnetic pulse or laser or some currently unknown technology. As a fallen generation we may well still have much to learn from the fallen angles to bring this generation full circle and the beginning of a new.
|
|
|
|
Post by grasshopper on Apr 24, 2022 21:31:38 GMT -7
One thing to ad to Dan’s comments, the Army as we speak is doing some intensive tests with “careless” ammunition in order to lower the weight of the carried ammo and do away with the brass case all together. Mike I certainly get what you are saying about generations past using the 30 cal rifle, carbine or light machine gun. These were great weapons and they got the job done. That being said I wouldn’t trade an M4 with full auto capability for my bring back M1 Garand simply because you’re carrying a rifle that weighs four times what a M4 does, the Garand carries 8 rounds and the M4 carries 30. Like I’ve stated here before these are just my observations having used the M4 series in combat. The Garand is a fine weapon for sure but for the modern battlefield I think it’s a little dated. This is just my opinion, I can definitely see you point and I respect it but I do believe this is just gonna be a case of we agree to disagree. 😁
|
|
|
|
Post by missionary on Apr 25, 2022 1:59:09 GMT -7
Our Army had the AR10 (7.62x51) on tests. Modern rifle. But still keeping one ammo... 7.62x51. Thailand still uses it. Little people carrying the 7.62x51. Using it very well.
I was not meaning to imply still using the Garand. I would carry our M1A long before our Garand. Especially our Plastic stocked M1A.
The M14 with a plastic stock (same material as the AR15) and scaling back the steel made a 7 pound rifle more than capable of the same mission the AR15 was hoped to accomplish.
The M4 Carbine is not the rifle the AR15 was. You benefited (Thanks to God) from 15 years of "fixing" a rifle that was rushed into production for very bad reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by grasshopper on Apr 25, 2022 5:14:56 GMT -7
I do respect your opinion pastor Mike, I really do, but as I stated earlier I think this topic is just gonna have to be one where we agree to disagree. Hope you are enjoying your time down south, stay safe and take care!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Apr 25, 2022 7:03:31 GMT -7
I always found it interesting looking through old SOF magazines and seeing the variety of odd weapons chosen by the early mercs that hired on for Nam. I think maybe a lot was left behind by the French. I once read long ago and I dont remember where that Vietnam asked president Lincoln for help to expel the French. Lincoln allied with France so Vietnam went to China for help and Chinese influence is still there. Ho Chi Min later said it would have been better to eat French shite for awhile longer than to eat Chinese shite forever. They say hind sight is a precise science that is proving Ho Chi Min right.
|
|
|
|
Post by missionary on Apr 25, 2022 11:15:23 GMT -7
Found a couple new articles about distribution of the "new rifle". Looks like the M4 will remain in the system as a secondary arm and the SIG will be issued to the "line troops". Makes sense. Must be a huge pile of .223 in ammo bunkers through out the world.
During my time at FT. Hood we were still burning up WW2 caliber .50 rounds. At MG range supply would bring out 2 tons of belted caliber .50 and we could not leave until it was fired. It made for alot of barrel changing on the M85 .50.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Apr 25, 2022 12:09:10 GMT -7
Kind of weird that the 50 Browning transitioned from blaster to sniper but still in service.
|
|
|
|
Post by missionary on Apr 25, 2022 15:25:28 GMT -7
Hard to eliminate a proven cartridge.
I do not know the first theater the M2 Browning was first used as a sniper weapon but I think I read after MOUNT Austin was taken an M2 was used to snipe at jap artillery that was firing on Henderson Field. But mounting a scope on one we do know Heathcock in Nam did so.
So it was just time before someone put a receiver on a barrel as the ammo was already developed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Apr 25, 2022 17:02:06 GMT -7
For long range precision they revamped the ammo too. I think the Barett rifle firing precision ammo is the ultimate LR rig making hits to 2 miles.
|
|
|
|
Post by missionary on Apr 26, 2022 6:06:49 GMT -7
You are right Dan. Do you know if our military developed a "long range Match" bullet before civilian outfits?
Once Barrett went to work, the better projectiles changed the life expectancy of 1500 yard+ targets drastically.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bullshop on Apr 26, 2022 6:58:20 GMT -7
I really dont know who did it first but as often is the case its likely that a group of dedicated LR shooters first started kicking the ball and getting undeniable results enough that others took notice.
|
|
