5.56 VS 6.8

[Snake@War]

While searching for something on the 6.8mm caseless rifle showcased in GR3, I found an interesting article on what ammo would be more effective/cost effective.

It's a good read.

It basically says that while the troops would prefer their assault rifle to be 6.8 mm, it's not cost effective. Seeing the purpose of the SAW's role, basically to suppress it only would need 5.56. If both the assault rifle AND SAWs were 5.56, they could both be basically the same rifle, with different length barrels and mags.

And, if possible, this is from me by the way, we could STILL use the same rifle for LMG role and marksman as well. This would basically mean using a ammo conversion kit and 2 mags, one high cap, and 1 scope.

Basically, the entire squad could use the same rifle, with different configurations.

So, what do you think?

Edited May 28, 2005 by Snake@War

[RooK]

Sounds like the M16. I've already stated this a while back, but the ARES has developed a belt-fed upper for them. All you do is pop the existing upper off and put the new one on, then used a belt-feeding magazine box in place of a mag. It can be converted back just as easily.

http://www.aresdefense.com/images/03A-Shrike-006.jpg

http://www.aresdefense.com/images/03A-SPW-vs-Ares16.jpg

[Snake@War]

And aren't there 7.62 conversion kits for the M16?

[Pfarrer]

While searching for something on the 6.8mm caseless rifle showcased in GR3, I found an interesting article on what ammo would be more effective/cost effective.

It's a good read.

It basically says that while the troops would prefer their assault rifle to be 6.8 mm, it's not cost effective. Seeing the purpose of the SAW's role, basically to suppress it only would need 5.56. If both the assault rifle AND SAWs were 5.56, they could both be basically the same rifle, with different length barrels and mags.

Two things spring to mind. There was a post in one of the earlier 5.56 vs 6.8 threads to this effect: switching over to 6.8 would be hugely, hugely expensive, not only for the U.S., which has hundreds of thousands of 5.56 weapons and billions of 5.56 rounds, but it would also throw a huge monkey wrench into NATO, which is standardized on 5.56 as the AR round. Either you have a situation where U.S. and NATO troops can't share ammo, or you have all of the NATO militaries switch over as well. Not gonna happen.

Second, I think the SCAR is based on the one-rifle-many-uses concept, developed by Stoner.

[Hatchetforce]

While searching for something on the 6.8mm caseless rifle showcased in GR3, I found an interesting article on what ammo would be more effective/cost effective.

It's a good read.

It basically says that while the troops would prefer their assault rifle to be 6.8 mm, it's not cost effective. Seeing the purpose of the SAW's role, basically to suppress it only would need 5.56. If both the assault rifle AND SAWs were 5.56, they could both be basically the same rifle, with different length barrels and mags.

Two things spring to mind. There was a post in one of the earlier 5.56 vs 6.8 threads to this effect: switching over to 6.8 would be hugely, hugely expensive, not only for the U.S., which has hundreds of thousands of 5.56 weapons and billions of 5.56 rounds, but it would also throw a huge monkey wrench into NATO, which is standardized on 5.56 as the AR round. Either you have a situation where U.S. and NATO troops can't share ammo, or you have all of the NATO militaries switch over as well. Not gonna happen.

Second, I think the SCAR is based on the one-rifle-many-uses concept, developed by Stoner.

←

First of all, we already have a 7.62 version of the M16. That is really all the SR-25 is anyway. Over 60% of the parts are interchangeable with an M16. And we do have assault versions of the SR-25. Also we have been employing 6.8. It is an M4 with the upper replaced and chambered for 6.8. On a cursory inspection it looks just like an M4 HB. We initially called it the M468, which is where Barrett got the name. The rest of the military may not see that weapon in the near future, but with the M8 on hold - call it permanent hold - look for the next Army wide weapon to be 6.X.

[Zebb]

In your opinion HF how does it compare with both the 5.56 and the 7.62 ?.

What sort of effective range do you get ?.

[Hatchetforce]

In your opinion HF how does it compare with both the 5.56 and the 7.62 ?.

What sort of effective range do you get ?.

←

The 6.8 is the best of both worlds for us. We get lower, more controllable recoil than 7.62, good accuracy at mid ranges yet we get a round that produces a considerably larger ITC than a 5.56 round. Naturally we have retained the 7.62 and larger calibers for sniping past the 600m point. We tried 7.62 in our close quarters weapons. This included some tests on modified, suppressed and unsupressed, G3s. Too heavy for the supressed version and way too much recoil on the unsupressed. Like Will Rogers said about communism, "It's a nice idea but it won't work."

We needed more of an all around caliber. CQB + short to mid range sniping. The 6.8 offers that and it kills bugs dead without causing a bunch of people to get their panties in a wad over the Geneva Convention.

[Pfarrer]

First of all, we already have a 7.62 version of the M16. That is really all the SR-25 is anyway. Over 60% of the parts are interchangeable with an M16. And we do have assault versions of the SR-25. Also we have been employing 6.8. It is an M4 with the upper replaced and chambered for 6.8. On a cursory inspection it looks just like an M4 HB. We initially called it the M468, which is where Barrett got the name. The rest of the military may not see that weapon in the near future, but with the M8 on hold - call it permanent hold - look for the next Army wide weapon to be 6.X.

←

Well, I was basically repeating a post I remember from one of the other 5.56 vs 6.8 discussions, so I can't vouch for it. Just something to think about.

[Militiaman]

There is no way the United States military will adopt another round. Far too expensive for our allies. I would love to see the 5.56 x 45 go but it's not going to happen.

What they probably will do is improve the 5.56 x 45 by increasing the bullet weight from 62 grain to 77 grain (bullet basically weighs one gram more). United States Marines have already done testing and found the 77 grain bullets are very effective out to 300 meters from a twenty inch M-16 barrel. The new 5.56 x 45 round is called the Mk262 Mod1.

6.8 x 43 would definately be a more effective round than the 5.56 N.A.T.O. With a twenty inch barrel I am sure you would get great effectiveness at 500 yards with 6.8 SPC.

7.62 x 51 will also always be around for long range riflemen and snipers. There are current U.S. units in Iraq using 7.62 x 51 M-14 rifles.

I also really hope they dump the M-16 and go with a more effective rifle. The gas system of the M-16 fouls up the chamber when fired causing the rifle to jam if not cleaned. They could simply adopt a new upper portion of the rifle like Heckler and Koch has recently made.

Picture of the HK-416

Edited May 31, 2005 by Militiaman

[Hatchetforce]

I am not sure what you mean by that post Militiaman but I will say this. The US is going to adopt a different caliber. The smoke is already on the horizon. Here is how it works. First Special Ops adopts a weapon or idea. I do not mean in a limited use fashion, but on a grand scale. Then in 5-7 years the rest of the military does likewise.

Special Ops has begun their adoption of a larger caliber round. We started to receive and employ 6.8 uppers on our weapons last year. And every branch - except the Air Force, is begining the process. The key is when the Army Special Ops comes on line as they have the most people. It is going to happen. The Army has pretty much killed the XM8 program out of caliber alone. There is also another major design issue at fault, but it is pretty much dead.

You can slap the M-4 if you want, but operators had their chance and still preferred the design. We didn't want another weapons system, we wanted the M4 in 6.8. As I said above, we have assault versions of the 7.62 round and it is just too much when you are trying to work close.

Also H&K has some good ideas, but they have proven to be crap for us once the design leaves the table. By crap I mean H&K is great at building a weapon system for a single purpose, but not something that goes from the jungle, to the desert, to the city, to the ocean in one fell swoop.

[Zebb]

The M4 with a 6.8 round sounds like a good balance for a multi purpose weapon..

[Militiaman]

We didn't want another weapons system, we wanted the M-4 in 6.8.

Adoption of the 6.8 x 43 will be a great choice for the armed forces.

I really wish they would adopt a better design than the M-4 as is. Eugene Stoner's gas system stinks. They should implement the AR-18 gas system design into the M-4. It would allow the rifle to be fired more with less cleaning.

That is exciting news to hear. The 6.8 SPC is a great round and will perform well for our soldiers. I am sure they will also have variants of the new rifle with different barrel lengths (from 14.5 to 20 inch) for the different soldiers in each unit.

Our allies in N.A.T.O. will surely complain about us switching calibers, but I agree the Vietnam small caliber cartridge has got to go. We may lose about three rounds of magazine capacity, but the exchange for more power and further effective range is definately worth it. A 115 grain .268 round traveling at 2700 feet per second certainly has more power in it than a 62 grain .223 bullet at 3100 feet per second.

Do you know if they are seriously looking at Barrett's design of the M-468? Barrett's gas system is similar to the AR-18 from what I understand.

Edited May 31, 2005 by Militiaman

[Hatchetforce]

I can't go into detail, but I can tell you Barrett is getting a hard look.

[jay316]

cool thx for the info hatchet force.

[RooK]

Militiaman, the gas system in the AR is not Eugene Stoner's design, I believe it came from the Ljungman. You'll have to look that up. Anyway, it blows gas back, into the bolt and into the lower, it does not dirty the chamber any more than a normal rifle. Tests have shown them to last 10k rounds easy without cleaning, but apparently people aren't cleaning them like they should and a lot of weapons that need servicing are in use.

The use of a barrel over 18" for the 6.8 is almost a waste. Guys that have been playing with it ever since its introduction and have tried different barrel lengths with various loads. The velocities from the 18" are optimized, those longer than that give better velocities but not enough to warrent the length. Also, the 6.8mm uses a .277" bullet, not .268" as the metric designation would have you think.

Edited June 1, 2005 by RooK

[Militiaman]

The M-16A2 is a higher maintenance rifle than the M-1 Garand or the M-14. The M-1 and M-14 can endure longer periods of time than the M-16A2 without cleanings and still function. I think some of this has to do with the carbon fouling in the chamber of the M-16A2 because of the gas system. It may also be because the bolt is tighter in the chamber than the M-1 or M-14.

But I think there are problems mainly because the 5.56 x 45 cartridge is smaller and just doesn't feed as well as the 7.62 cartridges especially with dirt or sand in the rifle. A Marine I was talking to confirmed this. He said the 5.56 x 45 M-249 jammed more than the 7.62 x 51 M-240 machine gun.

However, the 5.45 x 39 AK-74 has the same functioning reliability as the 7.62 x 39 AK-47. The AK-74 round is just shaped better for feeding than the 5.56 N.A.T.O.

I hope and think the 6.8 x 43 round will also feed better than the 5.56 x 45.

Edited June 1, 2005 by Militiaman

[Rebar]

I like the 6.5 Grendel round, if loaded into the new polymer case, it's just a bit heavier then the 5.56, and the ballistics are such that it can replace both the 5.56 and the 7.62 Nato.

[RooK]

The M-16A2 is a higher maintenance rifle than the M-1 Garand or the M-14.  The M-1 and M-14 can endure longer periods of time than the M-16A2 without cleanings and still function.  I think some of this has to do with the carbon fouling in the chamber of the M-16A2 because of the gas system.  It may also be because the bolt is tighter in the chamber than the M-1 or M-14.

←

The function is directly a result of the close tolerances and gas system. That said, the M16 gas systen does not foul the chamber; the action, bolt, FCG, and buffer tube are fouled, but not the chamber. That should be on par with all other semi-auto weapons with the exception of blowback and delayed blowback.

[Hatchetforce]

All this talk about the M4 fouling is a load of horse dump. The old AR-15/M-16 had issues. But with newer manufacturing processes, alloys, etc. this just isn't a major issue with the M4. It really isn't. Afghanistan has the worst dust...ever. I mean dust like talcum powder. All you do is you take the precautions you would with any weapon. I love these ###### stories about the AK being dipped in mud and still working. Guys it's a load of crap. I love the Iraqis I have seen dusted becaue their AK wouldn't work. Usually the cause was ###### ammo or operator headspace and timing needed adjustment.

The US military is the worst, the absolute worst for over cleaning weapons. It gets drilled into you by mom when she checks your ears and snowballs after that. More time is wasted in basic training cleaning weapons than I can believe.

Carbon up to a certain point acts as a lubricant. Issues arise when certain parts cannot seat properly due to a change in tolerance induced by carbon buildup. Otherwise, leave it alone. I see these regular Army troops and they clean their weapons like they were wiping their ass and it is just ridiculous. I have operated in every possible environment. I have served most of my time on dive teams and I have never had an issue with the M4 because I did't clean it. Lube it and leave it.

There is what people tell you in books, and there is the way it works in combat. You can choose which one you want to believe. At the end of the day that's what people do anyway. But the M4 doesn't need anymore TLC than any other weapon system we have seen or employed. If some dummy is laying his weapon in the mud, then he deserves to have it jam. I am not saying don't clean your M4. I am saying you really don't spend anymore time on it than any other weapon.

While assigned to a SMU for several years(SOF Special Mission Unit) my primary weapon was a MP5SD. I did not clean it anymore than I do an M4. The fact is that weapon was fired less than an M4 because the nature of the missions saw it fired less. The perception is that it did not get as fouled as other weapons. But on a round for round basis, it was, if anything, cleaned more. Not out of necessity, but out of habit.

Guess what, in the kind of conditions that jam a M4, practically any weapon outside of a tennis ball butane cannon is going to jam.

[Zebb]

Lmao, i think thats covered the subject .....

[Dan]

"owned"

[SnowFella]

owned indeed!

Though I somehow doubt the words of someone who's been there, done that and got the bloody T-shirt is going to convince the "google squad" members that frequent this site thinking they know it all.

[Militiaman]

There is what people tell you in books, and there is the way it works in combat. You can choose which one you want to believe. At the end of the day that's what people do anyway. But the M-4 doesn't need anymore tender loving care than any other weapon system we have seen or employed. If some dummy is laying his weapon in the mud, then he deserves to have it jam. I am not saying don't clean your M-4. I am saying you really don't spend anymore time on it than any other weapon.

←

That is good news to hear about the M-4. If the 6.8 x 43 were employed with the M-4 it would definately make it an even better weapon.

I think the AK-47 gets the worst rap of all rifles. Quality AK-47 rifles are fairly accurate and they definately have a better effective range than the M-4. My experience with firearms has taught me that most accuracy issues deal with the rifleman and not the rifle.

[snared_gambit]

owned indeed!   

Though I somehow doubt the words of someone who's been there, done that and got the bloody T-shirt is going to convince the "google squad" members that frequent this site thinking they know it all.

←

Yeah, I used to be one of those

"But this website says this."

After a few bad threads, I figured it out. Someday, they will too.

[RooK]

Hatchetforce, what's that saying? Cleaning wears out more firearms than shooting them? The guys in the AR community have preached the reliability of the rifles for ages, even ones with NFA legit M16s that they rent out as range guns. They have thousands of FA ammo through them without cleaning or a jam. I think the only complaint they have is unburned powder dumping in the FCG making the trigger gritty, but it's not a reliability issue.