US military to adopt new round

[Harry136]

It would appear that the US has started to look for a replacement for the M4 in the 6.8mm calibre. The round in question has a plastic case. If this is adopted what is the likelihood of the uk and NATO following?

[The Mighty Prawn]

Ooh you can’t have plastic now, due to the environmental lobby new cases must be made from rolled lettuce leafs!!

[NoBodyImportant]

Every couple years the US military spends millions looking at new rounds only to decide that it doesn’t offer any measurable advantages and scraps the program.  But if they did adopt a new round then nato would slowly phase into it.   

[DoolinDalton]

8 hours ago, The Mighty Prawn said:

Ooh you can’t have plastic now, due to the environmental lobby new cases must be made from rolled lettuce leafs!!

...and the lettuce will have to be organic!

[figgy]

Saw a new feed on Russian expert saying America can't afford to adopt a new round. It went on to explain how much kit they'd need to bin and but new. I was surprised at how much.

Didn't we adopt 5.56 so wounding was more likely than killing to take more people off the field and soldiers could carry more rounds.  What's with a caliber between 5.56 and 7.62, somebody have a brain wave.

Link to article

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russian-expert-us-can’t-afford-new-68-mm-rifle-ammo-95246

Edited November 18, 2019 by figgy

[discobob]

11 minutes ago, figgy said:

Didn't we adopt 5.56 so wounding was more likely than killing to take more people off the field and soldiers could carry more rounds.  What's with a caliber between 5.56 and 7.62, somebody have a brain wave.

Yep, that was the thought behind it - a civilized war. However, every conflict we have been involved in since then has been the opposite. I did hear that the SLR was brought out of retirement for some of the "eastern" campaigns because when you hit somebody with one of them they generally ended up dead due to the amount of wound exit damage. With the SA80, you could shoot somebody and they would carry on fighting back because they didn't value their own life and their associates would leave them

[Harry136]

I believe that there is more to it this time as several companies have been invited to develop and submit trials weapons.

[figgy]

When you read into it, your right there is more to it. Modern body armour is rendering the smaller calibers obsolete. Russia went from the 7.62mm AK-47 round to the AK74 5.45mm round and they too are looking for a new better round 

The new 6.8mm round can fly twice as far and penetrate all modern body armour.  The current NATO round needs special tungsten carbide core bullets do do this. Not mass produced so costly.

Looking online at the offerings of 6.8 SPC, 6.8 Grendel and 6.5 creedmore the creedmore is a better round.

Edited November 18, 2019 by figgy

[Kalahari]

280 British?

 

David.

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, figgy said:

Looking online at the offerings of 6.8 SPC, 6.8 Grendel and 6.5 creedmore the creedmore is a better round

The 6.5 CM might well be, but when you think really hard about it, what makes the 6.5 'better' then 7.62x 51?

Is it the bullets ballistics? Whatever it is, wouldn't it be better to do some work on the 7.62 round and not have to replace all of that hardware? 

Aah, but then the military contractors don't get to make billions out of it, do they? 

Much like computer motherboards simply HAVE to be completely redesigned every year or so, with virtually no backwards compatibility. 

Just a big money making effort. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

26 minutes ago, Kalahari said:

280 British?

 

David.

Was that what became 7mm Nato?

[MirokuMK70]

Happens all the time... they spent years and millions of $ developing the xm8/xm25 system and then cancelled it because of the logistics replacing the m4/m16 variants currently in service

Edited November 18, 2019 by MirokuMK70

[bavarianbrit]

I was in Roswell new Mexico last week and Homeland Security agency had opened a training centre in Artesia New Mexico and I was told that they are using 1 million rounds per week just in training their agents in the centre. 5.56 up to .5 bmg.

[figgy]

Watched a program in America on the ban of .50 BMG. They redesigned a round the public .could own and it's a much better round.

Military are certainly one for keeping some outdated gear on the go.

[Kalahari]

I think it was hoped it would become the NATO round but the USA decided on the on the 7.62 and then the 5.56 so I guess that was that. I believe it was an efficient round in all respects. I am sure somebody better qualified than I will fill in more details.

 

David.

[Stonepark]

8 hours ago, Kalahari said:

280 British?

 

David.

Indeed, we were ahead of the game and let ourselves down by following the Yanks down the 308 route and then 5.56.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

When you consider we were looking at 4.85mm at the time of EM2.

[NoBodyImportant]

10 hours ago, figgy said:

 

Didn't we adopt 5.56 so wounding was more likely than killing to take more people off the field and soldiers could carry more rounds.  What's with a caliber between 5.56 and 7.62, somebody have a brain wave.

 

Some  of the team that brokered the 556 adoption to the US military was members on the AR15.com forum.  There was a big write up about 10 years ago from them and they have no idea where that started.  The 556 was adopted because it was the lightest round that was combat effective( meaning it would kill).  Studies showed that to kill one enemy you had to fire X amount of rounds.  Studies showed that a 556 hole was just as likely to drop a enemy as a 762.  So it made more since to have a man carry more smaller rounds.  

4 hours ago, figgy said:

Watched a program in America on the ban of .50 BMG. They redesigned a round the public .could own and it's a much better round.

Military are certainly one for keeping some outdated gear on the go.

Lol, yea.  California banned the 50, so they necked down 50 brass and made the 416 barret.  It’s faster, flatter shooting and penetration is better.  Go California. I have shot 50, it’s a thumper. I wish someone would make a 50bmg double rifle as 50bmg is relatively cheap. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by NoBodyImportant

[NoBodyImportant]

9 hours ago, figgy said:

When you read into it, your right there is more to it. Modern body armour is rendering the smaller calibers obsolete. Russia went from the 7.62mm AK-47 round to the AK74 5.45mm round and they too are looking for a new better round 

The new 6.8mm round can fly twice as far and penetrate all modern body armour.  The current NATO round needs special tungsten carbide core bullets do do this. Not mass produced so costly.

Looking online at the offerings of 6.8 SPC, 6.8 Grendel and 6.5 creedmore the creedmore is a better round.

Speed defeats armor, not size.   

[bluesj]

10 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

Speed defeats armor, not size.   

Energy defeats armour not speed. I'd rather be hit by a feather at 2000 ft/sec than a train at 100ft/sec

[Rewulf]

10 minutes ago, bluesj said:

Energy defeats armour not speed. I'd rather be hit by a feather at 2000 ft/sec than a train at 100ft/sec

But were talking penetration here. 

Throw a 1 lb lump of steel at a tank at 500 mph, it bounces off. 

Throw a 1 oz ball bearing at the tank at 50,000 mph, it penetrates the armour and kills the occupants. 

The material the projectile is made from certainly helps, but speed is required to defeat armour. 

[figgy]

Funny that a bullet proof Kevlar vest could be beaten by a tanto blade knife. 

The type of projectile and it's properties is what will defeat the armour.

[Rewulf]

6 minutes ago, figgy said:

Funny that a bullet proof Kevlar vest could be beaten by a tanto blade knife

I'll take your word for that! 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Gentlemen, the SS109  5.56mm British round is a world beater, with its sintered steel cone and two lead sections it will defeat light vehicle armour and kill easily.

[NoBodyImportant]

I can shoot ar500 steel targets at 50 yards with 762x39,  but 556 will crater it.