Time to move from 5.56 to 6.8 caliber

nepolean77

New Member
The American army industries have developed a 6.8 caliber round and are fielding it in a AR15 configuration I would like to see the Steyr do the same,what are your views.
 

Vajt

New Member
The American army industries have developed a 6.8 caliber round and are fielding it in a AR15 configuration I would like to see the Steyr do the same,what are your views.
Steyr's website actually posts that their new A3 rifle can be chambered for 6.8mm. I think it's just a matter of which country decides to jump on the 6.8mm bandwagon.

-----JT-----
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
6.8 is a good round but it's not going to be adopted by the US anytime soon if ever, due to the cost to convert our standard battle rifles and M249's. I mentioned this in another thread, 6.5 MPC would be a better solution, it only requires a barrel change for 5.56 weapons, existing mags work unmodified with same capacity, and the M249's can run the ammo with existing links as well...ballistics are close enough to say they are equals.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
6.8 is a good round but it's not going to be adopted by the US anytime soon if ever, due to the cost to convert our standard battle rifles and M249's. I mentioned this in another thread, 6.5 MPC would be a better solution, it only requires a barrel change for 5.56 weapons, existing mags work unmodified with same capacity, and the M249's can run the ammo with existing links as well...ballistics are close enough to say they are equals.
Well if they are going to change to 6.5 MPC why not just go to the 6.8? I think the cost is worth the effort and it sure as hell wont hurt to convert to the 6.8mm. Yeah it may be expensive but with cuts to the FCS I think the funds saved from that could go into upgrading the M4/M16 and M249 family of weapons.
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Well if they are going to change to 6.5 MPC why not just go to the 6.8? I think the cost is worth the effort and it sure as hell wont hurt to convert to the 6.8mm. Yeah it may be expensive but with cuts to the FCS I think the funds saved from that could go into upgrading the M4/M16 and M249 family of weapons.
But what net benefit would 6.8 provide, if the 6.5 MPC performs as well? Seems like alot of extra money for no benefit to speak of. I don't even know if they've been able to get the 6.8 to run in the M249 or other FN Mini-Me based systems.

I agree it would be great to see the M4 get a meaningful facelift, ditto for the M249. With the Air Force involved and having say in a new battle rifle design, I'm not optimistic that anything "new" would be an improvement, and that's assuming the Marines don't come up with something of their own with their cute little copyright plastered all over it. ;)
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
But what net benefit would 6.8 provide, if the 6.5 MPC performs as well? Seems like alot of extra money for no benefit to speak of. I don't even know if they've been able to get the 6.8 to run in the M249 or other FN Mini-Me based systems.

I agree it would be great to see the M4 get a meaningful facelift, ditto for the M249. With the Air Force involved and having say in a new battle rifle design, I'm not optimistic that anything "new" would be an improvement, and that's assuming the Marines don't come up with something of their own with their cute little copyright plastered all over it. ;)
Although a bigger round would be nice I think the 5.56 NATO still effective 99% of the time. I think people like to exaggerate about the weakness and if the weapon is used in its effective range the 5.56 will drop the enemy 99% of the time and kill him.
 

sgtgunn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Although a bigger round would be nice I think the 5.56 NATO still effective 99% of the time. I think people like to exaggerate about the weakness and if the weapon is used in its effective range the 5.56 will drop the enemy 99% of the time and kill him.
I have to disagree. While the 5.56mm does work (you can kill someone with a .22 LR if your shot placement is good), the trend towards shorter barreled carbines (M4) and the attendent loss in muzzle velocity combined with the increase in urban combat with lots of hard cover, the time is right to start looking hard for a new more powerful round. We are now starting so see insurgents in Afghanistan (most likey foreign fighters) with helmets and body armor - a trend that will no doubt continue. Also as magnified combat optics increasingly replace iron sights, it makes sense to field a weapon and cartridge combination that can fully utilize the capabilities of such optics for accurate longer range shooting. If we are going to field a new rifle (which seems increasingly likely), we should look for a new weapon and cartridge combination that provides increased accuracy, range and terminal energy than the 5.56mm. One idea that I have not seem come up in this discussion is telescoped ammo with plastic cartridges. They are being aggressively developed by AAI for their LSAT light machine gun demonstrator for the US Army, and it stands to reason that if such technology is potentially going to be used in future SAW/MG for the US Army, it needs to be looked at for a future rifle/carbine as well.

http://www.aaicorp.com/pdfs/lsatps09-09-08.pdf

Adrian
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Hey, another thread about calibres...
One should have in mind that the actual rifle calibre has little impact on the outcome of a conflict.
Not on the war on terror and even much less on a big scale conventional conflict.

The change of calibre is not going to change much (it's not as if one couldn't kill somebody with a 5.56mm round) and is defenitely not going to have any impact on the outcome of a conflict.
There are tons of other stuff which are more important and influences current and future conflicts much more than a simple change of rifle calibre.
 

Vajt

New Member
I have to disagree. While the 5.56mm does work (you can kill someone with a .22 LR if your shot placement is good), the trend towards shorter barreled carbines (M4) and the attendent loss in muzzle velocity combined with the increase in urban combat with lots of hard cover, the time is right to start looking hard for a new more powerful round. We are now starting so see insurgents in Afghanistan (most likey foreign fighters) with helmets and body armor - a trend that will no doubt continue. Also as magnified combat optics increasingly replace iron sights, it makes sense to field a weapon and cartridge combination that can fully utilize the capabilities of such optics for accurate longer range shooting. If we are going to field a new rifle (which seems increasingly likely), we should look for a new weapon and cartridge combination that provides increased accuracy, range and terminal energy than the 5.56mm. One idea that I have not seem come up in this discussion is telescoped ammo with plastic cartridges. They are being aggressively developed by AAI for their LSAT light machine gun demonstrator for the US Army, and it stands to reason that if such technology is potentially going to be used in future SAW/MG for the US Army, it needs to be looked at for a future rifle/carbine as well.

http://www.aaicorp.com/pdfs/lsatps09-09-08.pdf

Adrian
Actually AAI is also working on a future assault rifle which will use either a CTA or caseless round. This would be the perfect opportunity to also go for a better calibre (6.5mm or 6.8mm).

LSAT rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should be interesting to see what comes out of it...

-----JT-----
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
I have to disagree. While the 5.56mm does work (you can kill someone with a .22 LR if your shot placement is good), the trend towards shorter barreled carbines (M4) and the attendent loss in muzzle velocity combined with the increase in urban combat with lots of hard cover, the time is right to start looking hard for a new more powerful round. We are now starting so see insurgents in Afghanistan (most likey foreign fighters) with helmets and body armor - a trend that will no doubt continue. Also as magnified combat optics increasingly replace iron sights, it makes sense to field a weapon and cartridge combination that can fully utilize the capabilities of such optics for accurate longer range shooting. If we are going to field a new rifle (which seems increasingly likely), we should look for a new weapon and cartridge combination that provides increased accuracy, range and terminal energy than the 5.56mm. One idea that I have not seem come up in this discussion is telescoped ammo with plastic cartridges. They are being aggressively developed by AAI for their LSAT light machine gun demonstrator for the US Army, and it stands to reason that if such technology is potentially going to be used in future SAW/MG for the US Army, it needs to be looked at for a future rifle/carbine as well.

http://www.aaicorp.com/pdfs/lsatps09-09-08.pdf

Adrian
I agree with you somewhat with the shorter 14.5 inch barrel on the M4 issue but with the full 20 inch barrel on the M16A4 and the 20.5 inch barrel on the M249 the 5.56 has good stopping power most of the time. Almost every person hit with an M16 is no longer breathing anymore.

However I do think a larger round is still need to replace the 5.56 and I think ether the 6.5 or 6.8 should be used on all M4s, M16s and M249s.
 
Top