5.56 VS 6.8

[pz3]

i know thats why i said it will be common soon....

remington has been making the spc rounds for sometime but wno one were allowed to sell them.... and now they areselling them

and people do make the rounds but there wasnt a lot of guys that did

[Militiaman]

Here are some interesting specifications I figured out with ammunition weight and magazine weights.

Total weight of one fully loaded M-16 30 round magazine (using ammo with 77 grain bullets): 1.62 pounds

Total weight of one fully loaded M-14 20 round magazine: 1.55 pounds

Total weight of one fully loaded AK-47 30 round metal magazine: 1.81 pounds

Total weight of one fully loaded M-468 28 round magazine: 1.7 pounds

I may be a little off on the M-468 magazine as I don't have the exact specifications of magazine weight and ammunition weight either, but I think I am fairly close.

Does anyone also know if the U.S. Army is going to use any form of the XM-8 translucent magazines? I really like the idea of being able to easily see how many rounds you have left in your rifle.

Edited June 11, 2005 by Militiaman

[kjs7]

so if the new 6.8 caliber was adopted, would we just slap 6.8 uppers on the colt M4's we have now or order Barret M468s?

[FA sear]

so if the new 6.8 caliber was adopted, would we just slap 6.8 uppers on the colt M4's we have now or order Barret M468s?

←

Yes, (unless something has changed). That is one of the selling points of the 468. The savings would be enormous and the current accessories are compatible as are the rail systems. I have even heard that the ACOG scope adjustments will work with the 6.8mm rounds trajectory (correct me if this has been proven wrong).

I personally cannot say that I like the 5.56mm upper or that I trust the reliability of a current M4. I know what Hatchetforce has said and am wondering how I compares to some of the experiments that I have done. I do recognise that I am not carrying these rifles into combat either, but I still think that there is some relavance to what I have done.

The M16 has been a favorite of mine since I was a kid, so when I finally had the opportunity to own one I bought it. I bought a Bushmaster J15 commando, and then came across two GunTec receivers that were being sold as a pair for cheap, so I bought them and put an Armalite M4 upper on one, and a Bushmaster 20in upper on the other.

I took the M4 upper and wanted a super fast cyclic rate, so I took the bolt and machined the material between the two contact points down to about 1mm. Next I took all of the material off of the rear section of the bolt except where the forward assist groves are and an equal portion on the opposite side. I took the buffer pulled the pin and plug out and emptied all of the weights. The rifle would cycle through a 40 round mag in about 2sec. The rifle was also prone to overheat and jam, but it was a heck of a lot of fun. A lot of people that heard it run owuld say that it almost sounded like one long blast. Needless to say the barrel did not last long. I also noticed that with these specs a very small pinch of fine dirt in the ejection port would almost instantly jam the gun.

The next experiment was adding weight to see if it would be more reliable. I took the bolt carrier and added a stainless steel weight in the back section without intruding into the space the hammer travels through. I added a 1.5" X 9 or 10/16 inch weight (can't remember the specific measurements) by taking a hammer and tapping it into the rear of the bolt carrier. I then drilled the carrier through the wieght in two places and put pins into them to prevent the weight from coming loose. I then took an AR15 buffer and filled it with the heavy machine gun weights and did not even use the spacers and then put an A2 buttstock and buffer tube on it. The rifle had some trouble cycling properly. It was a lot like firing subsonic ammo out of an AR15/M16 with a reflex suppressor on it. It would fire the first round and then the bolt carrier would move just enough to put another round into the chamber, but would not lite it off. Removing some of the heavy weights in the buffer for the standard AR weights solved the problem. The rifle cycled perfectly, albeit slowly. A 40 round mag would take about 4 seconds to unload. I never replaced the upper, and after about 10,000 rounds I sold it as it was except that the weight in the bolt carrier was removed, and the original buffer specs with the collaspable stock was put back on. With the added weight the rifle could survive a very small pinch of fine dirt, but could not take any more than that.

From these experiments I gathered that the heavier componenets made the rifle more reliable and less likely to jam from particles that were introduced into the ejection port. The only problem I had with the experiments were that the 5.56mm rounds could not handle the weight I added initially, so this is where I concluded that a larger stronger round would also benefit a gun in terms of reliability.

I have also taken an AR10 and an AR15 and tried the pinch o' dirt test in the ejection port and found that the AR10 could take quite a bit before having trouble cycling (about the same as an AK47). The AR15 could not handle much at all. The only trouble with this test was that the rifles were not full auto.

@Hatcheforce

Care to weigh in on this? I would like to hear your opinions on whether any of this is relavent or not, and why. Your comments would be appreciated.

Also, in all fairness to the AK47 your comments that the the rifles are jamming are qualified with reasons as to why they were jamming, so it is not so much that the guns themselves are not good, but that the care they receive is not. However you are right that a lot of the stories about the reliability of an AK is a bit over the top.

@anyone thinking an AK can be made to shoot like an AR15/M16

Also, I have shot a custom AK with a cryo treated barrel, and although it was very accurate out to about 300 yards, the poor trajectory of the 7.62X39mm round ruined any chance of the rifle hitting anything beyond that. Part of the reason I personally do not like AKs is the lame ammo that they use. Great for CQB, but horrible out in a wide open field.

BTW, anyone who wants to try repeating some of these tests be VERY careful that all of your machine work is up to specs and if you do not think it is, have a professional do it for you (good luck it means $$$$$$). Also, this stuff takes a lot of time (I did this stuff years ago when I had time to burn, ah the luxuries of youth), so do not rush any of this stuff as you are dealing with a firearm.

Edited August 17, 2005 by jchung

[RooK]

@anyone thinking an AK can be made to shoot like an AR15/M16

Also, I have shot a custom AK with a cryo treated barrel, and although it was very accurate out to about 300 yards, the poor trajectory of the 7.62X39mm round ruined any chance of the rifle hitting anything beyond that. Part of the reason I personally do not like AKs is the lame ammo that they use. Great for CQB, but horrible out in a wide open field.

BTW, anyone who wants to try repeating some of these tests be VERY careful that all of your machine work is up to specs and if you do not think it is, have a professional do it for you (good luck it means $$$$$$). Also, this stuff takes a lot of time (I did this stuff years ago when I had time to burn, ah the luxuries of youth), so do not rush any of this stuff as you are dealing with a firearm.

←

You don't need a lot of fancy stuff, just get it chambered in a US round like the Galil (.308/.223), Valmet, Saiga, or VEPR. One of the biggest downfalls of the AK accuracy wise is the 7.62 ammo. It is far from top quality fodder. Most Saiga .308s like mine shoot 2MOA with Aussie F4 NATO ammo. I know one guy has a 22" one that shoots 1" groups at 200 yards with a custom stock and handloads. They can be made to shoot, you just have to pick your rifle and ammo carefully. QC goes a long way.

[FA sear]

@RooK

Ah, yes the conversions. I was specifically referring to people who seem to be convinced that an AK firing the 7.62X39mm round can be made to fire as accurately as an M16. You are right though that if an AK is chambered to fire another round it can be just as accurate. I should have been more specific with my statement.

I was only addressing this because I have run into people over and over again that seem to think that a cryo treatment of the barrel and machine work is enough without addressing the issue of the ammo. So many people that do not really shoot guns or that shoot but don't know what they are talking about seemed to be convinced of this.

[Hatchetforce]

People need to take into account the workmanship on the average AK. I can't count the number of AKs less than a month old I have seen that have no front site post, no selector, broken internals....the list goes on. AKs have an accuracy issue because lack of tolerance control during manufacture inevitably affects their performance. Then their is the ammunition factor and quality control there.

The first thing you must do when beginning an accuracy debate is define what you mean by accuracy. Can the weapon drill a man center mass at 10 meters? Or can you attach a scope and punch a guy at 400 meters. You can bet that if someone hits you with an AK at that distance it wasn't the inherent accuracy in the AK or it's ammo. We rarely fire weapons on full auto. But the accuracy of a weapon under that mode must also be considered.

SVD accuracy? I won't even go there. Now look at a weapon based on the M4/M16. The SPR-80. The accuracy of that weapon is remarkable. It's only failing is the ammunition. 5.56 accuracy at 600m fails not because of the weapon but because 5.56 doesn't have enough sand in it's pants at that range. I can headshoot people at 400m all day long with that gun and I can hit targets center mass at 600m. However at 600m 5.56 is a 2 beer drinker on the backside of a 6 pack.

kjs7 asked if we would just slap uppers on the M4s. Not likely. That is what we have done in SOF. But that is a different process and purchasing and employment is different for acquired systems. For larger numbers there will be a purchase of a complete weapons system. Some of this is for contractual purposes/warranty and some of this may be for political purposes. Usually that is not the case after the Beretta contract. However I hope everyone knows that Beretta got the M9 contract so we could maintain US presence on Italian bases.

Regarding weight, look at what you will be carrying for what mission. On initial entry into Afghanistan and Iraq where we were living on the go and not in an urban situation, I carried 16 magazines on me with one in the weapon. 6 of those magazines were match grade 5.56 for the SPR-80 that could be used in the M4 without hesitation. Later and now when in more controlled, staged operations such as hitting a house, it means that load is cut in half. Of course intitially in Afghanistan nobody was wearing body armor either.

[4ceReconSniper]

@hatchetforce -> is 6.8 better?

[Hatchetforce]

@hatchetforce -> is 6.8 better?

←

Than...?

[4ceReconSniper]

5.56

[kjs7]

Is Colt making a 6.8 rifle? or are they standing by the 5.56mm M4 and M16?

Edited August 20, 2005 by kjs7

[The Warlock]

kjs7 asked if we would just slap uppers on the M4s. Not likely. That is what we have done in SOF. But that is a different process and purchasing and employment is different for acquired systems. For larger numbers there will be a purchase of a complete weapons system. Some of this is for contractual purposes/warranty and some of this may be for political purposes. Usually that is not the case after the Beretta contract. However I hope everyone knows that Beretta got the M9 contract so we could maintain US presence on Italian bases.

Careful, your tinfoil hat is showing. Beretta got the M9 contract because their gun was cheaper than the Sig P226.

As to the discussion at hand: 6.8 is a very nice round. Without further field testing, I wouldn't just come out and say that it's better than the 5.56, because I don't know that, but it is a nice round.

However, we've got billions of rounds of 5.56 in stock right now, not to mention all the ammo that our NATO allies have. Changing caliber would entail more than just buying new guns, we'd have to screw around with our ammo production, too, and then we'd be forcing it on the rest of NATO (and those countries don't have the same obscenely high military budget that we do). So I think it unlikely that we'll be switching anytime soon.

[kjs7]

kjs7 asked if we would just slap uppers on the M4s. Not likely. That is what we have done in SOF. But that is a different process and purchasing and employment is different for acquired systems. For larger numbers there will be a purchase of a complete weapons system. Some of this is for contractual purposes/warranty and some of this may be for political purposes. Usually that is not the case after the Beretta contract. However I hope everyone knows that Beretta got the M9 contract so we could maintain US presence on Italian bases.

Careful, your tinfoil hat is showing. Beretta got the M9 contract because their gun was cheaper than the Sig P226.

As to the discussion at hand: 6.8 is a very nice round. Without further field testing, I wouldn't just come out and say that it's better than the 5.56, because I don't know that, but it is a nice round.

However, we've got billions of rounds of 5.56 in stock right now, not to mention all the ammo that our NATO allies have. Changing caliber would entail more than just buying new guns, we'd have to screw around with our ammo production, too, and then we'd be forcing it on the rest of NATO (and those countries don't have the same obscenely high military budget that we do). So I think it unlikely that we'll be switching anytime soon.

←

Is there a way to make the 5.56 round more effective to void changing to a new caliber?

[snared_gambit]

kjs7 asked if we would just slap uppers on the M4s. Not likely. That is what we have done in SOF. But that is a different process and purchasing and employment is different for acquired systems. For larger numbers there will be a purchase of a complete weapons system. Some of this is for contractual purposes/warranty and some of this may be for political purposes. Usually that is not the case after the Beretta contract. However I hope everyone knows that Beretta got the M9 contract so we could maintain US presence on Italian bases.

Careful, your tinfoil hat is showing. Beretta got the M9 contract because their gun was cheaper than the Sig P226.

As to the discussion at hand: 6.8 is a very nice round. Without further field testing, I wouldn't just come out and say that it's better than the 5.56, because I don't know that, but it is a nice round.

However, we've got billions of rounds of 5.56 in stock right now, not to mention all the ammo that our NATO allies have. Changing caliber would entail more than just buying new guns, we'd have to screw around with our ammo production, too, and then we'd be forcing it on the rest of NATO (and those countries don't have the same obscenely high military budget that we do). So I think it unlikely that we'll be switching anytime soon.

←

Is there a way to make the 5.56 round more effective to void changing to a new caliber?

←

I think that using soft-tip or hollowpoints might make it a little more effective at least stopping power wise. Unfortunately, those are illegal for the military to use. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[FA sear]

@snared_gambit

Yes, you are right. The military is restricted to using ball ammo.

Going to the 77grain Blackhills ammo might help a bit. The only problem that I have run into with this ammo is that at distances of over 400-500 yards the round seems to "fall off" quicker than the current 62grain 5.56mm. However, during windy conditions, the 77grain does seem to stay on target better than the 62grain.

The 77grain also punches through metal plating with greater ease than the 62grain.

[Hatchetforce]

kjs7 asked if we would just slap uppers on the M4s. Not likely. That is what we have done in SOF. But that is a different process and purchasing and employment is different for acquired systems. For larger numbers there will be a purchase of a complete weapons system. Some of this is for contractual purposes/warranty and some of this may be for political purposes. Usually that is not the case after the Beretta contract. However I hope everyone knows that Beretta got the M9 contract so we could maintain US presence on Italian bases.

Careful, your tinfoil hat is showing. Beretta got the M9 contract because their gun was cheaper than the Sig P226.

As to the discussion at hand: 6.8 is a very nice round. Without further field testing, I wouldn't just come out and say that it's better than the 5.56, because I don't know that, but it is a nice round.

However, we've got billions of rounds of 5.56 in stock right now, not to mention all the ammo that our NATO allies have. Changing caliber would entail more than just buying new guns, we'd have to screw around with our ammo production, too, and then we'd be forcing it on the rest of NATO (and those countries don't have the same obscenely high military budget that we do). So I think it unlikely that we'll be switching anytime soon.

←

You should have been involved in the process and seen the testing involved. You are falling victim to the belief that the military's guns (or an weapon for that matter) are made by the cheapest bidder. This is in error and perpetuates the idea of an entirely incorrect purchasing process. Price is not the main factor in a military contract. Myself and two other persons just oversaw the bidding of a 7 figure contract. Guess what? It did not go to the cheapest bidder either. Price is a factor but is not the sole nor main deciding force in the contracting process. Careful, your assumption hat is showing. If you are going to insult someone, check your facts.

[FA sear]

I thought that this letter to Congress was interesting:

An Open Letter To Members of Congress from Col. David Hackworth

WorldNewsDaily.com ^ | July 9, 2002 | Col. David Hackworth

Posted on 07/31/2002 11:36:58 AM PDT by blau993

TUESDAY JULY 9 2002

An Open Letter to Members of Congress

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

Dear Honorable Congresspersons:

One of your vital tasks is to ensure that our warriors who hang it all out on the killing field are equipped with the right stuff.

I don't see that happening anytime soon unless you get enough straight skinny to counteract lobbyist propaganda and other military-industrial-congressional-complex spin. So to help provide more fair and balanced input, I plan to occasionally pass along some of the most commonly recurring bitches that come my way weekly in e-mails, letters, phone calls, etc., from our warriors.

Let's begin with the M-9, the 9 mm Beretta pistol – which our combat troops say is the first item that should be tossed into the junk pile!

"They're constantly breaking," reports a warrior from Afghanistan. "To make matters worse, the 9 mm round is like firing paint balls. I had to pump four rounds into an al-Qaida who was coming at me before he dropped. We're dealing with fanatical crazies out here who won't quit until they die for Allah."

The Beretta can only be used bone-dry. Even then, it jams repeatedly if sand or grit gets into moving parts. Its ball round has proven to be worse than the .38 Colt pistol slug used by the U.S. Army in the Philippines until it was retired almost a century ago in favor of the .45 ACP M-1911 pistol – fielded to stop the Moros, who ironically were also Islamic fanatics.

Now Special Forces and Light Infantry soldiers in Afghanistan want to bring back the century-old .45, and some elite Marine units already have. A Special Forces sergeant says, "The large-caliber, slow-moving .45 bullet puts the bad guys on the ground. Lighter stuff like the Beretta's 9 mm will, too – eventually – but on the battlefield you almost always have to double tap, and in close combat a gunfighter hasn't the time or the ammo to lose firing two rounds."

Rangers, Marines and most Special Ops troops are some of the other elite warriors in the U.S. military who carry personal firearms in combat while the brass look the other way. Quite a few choose to pack two purchased handguns. But the only Rangers who use the Beretta – even as backup – are those who can't afford to buy their own firearms, and they and the rest of these elite fighters unanimously agree that they "can't trust this fragile, unreliable sidearm."

Almost all the Rangers engaged in hand-to-hand combat during Op Anaconda packed their own personal sidearms. "When I ran out of ammo with my rifle, I pulled my pistol," a Ranger sergeant says. "It saved my life. I hit a number of enemy 30-40 yards away who went down immediately from my .45 rounds. With a Beretta, I wouldn't have made it because of the far-too-light 9 mm bullet, play in the action and its limited range."

In another fight, a Ranger fired several torso shots with a .45 pistol before his foe fell. "When we looked at the corpses, we found their mouths full of khat," he says. "It was like these guys were pumped up on PCP. With the Beretta, I'd have had to fire all 15 rounds and then thrown the pistol at this wild-eyed dude."

We went into Vietnam with a bad weapon, the M-16 rifle, which was responsible for killing thousands of our soldiers. It was a jammer, and if you have a jammed rifle in a firefight, you're dead. The M-16 was such a loser that some jungle-smart grunts refused to carry it and packed captured Soviet AK-47s instead.

What the M-16 was to Vietnam, the Beretta is to Afghanistan. And a soldier with no confidence in his weapon isn't the most motivated fighter in Death Valley.

"We're frustrated here that no one in Washington seems to have the slightest concern for our survival," writes a sergeant from Afghanistan. "It's a damn good thing that we have air superiority and so far haven't had many heavy fights."

Perhaps you congressional folks can figure out how to recycle some of the bucks we'll save from the Pentagon-zapped Crusader and get our combat troops a decent sidearm. This would surely relieve some of that frustration and, just by the way, keep our warriors alive.

To be fair to the M16 it has become far more reliable than it ever was in Vietnam. The point of posting this letter was to emphasize the poor quality of the Beretta, and the weakness of the 9mm round.

Edited August 23, 2005 by jchung

[Parabellum]

kjs7 asked if we would just slap uppers on the M4s. Not likely. That is what we have done in SOF. But that is a different process and purchasing and employment is different for acquired systems. For larger numbers there will be a purchase of a complete weapons system. Some of this is for contractual purposes/warranty and some of this may be for political purposes. Usually that is not the case after the Beretta contract. However I hope everyone knows that Beretta got the M9 contract so we could maintain US presence on Italian bases.

Careful, your tinfoil hat is showing. Beretta got the M9 contract because their gun was cheaper than the Sig P226.

As to the discussion at hand: 6.8 is a very nice round. Without further field testing, I wouldn't just come out and say that it's better than the 5.56, because I don't know that, but it is a nice round.

However, we've got billions of rounds of 5.56 in stock right now, not to mention all the ammo that our NATO allies have. Changing caliber would entail more than just buying new guns, we'd have to screw around with our ammo production, too, and then we'd be forcing it on the rest of NATO (and those countries don't have the same obscenely high military budget that we do). So I think it unlikely that we'll be switching anytime soon.

←

You should have been involved in the process and seen the testing involved. You are falling victim to the belief that the military's guns (or an weapon for that matter) are made by the cheapest bidder. This is in error and perpetuates the idea of an entirely incorrect purchasing process. Price is not the main factor in a military contract. Myself and two other persons just oversaw the bidding of a 7 figure contract. Guess what? It did not go to the cheapest bidder either. Price is a factor but is not the sole nor main deciding force in the contracting process. Careful, your assumption hat is showing. If you are going to insult someone, check your facts.

←

LOL Right on HF!

[Specter]

kjs7 asked if we would just slap uppers on the M4s. Not likely. That is what we have done in SOF. But that is a different process and purchasing and employment is different for acquired systems. For larger numbers there will be a purchase of a complete weapons system. Some of this is for contractual purposes/warranty and some of this may be for political purposes. Usually that is not the case after the Beretta contract. However I hope everyone knows that Beretta got the M9 contract so we could maintain US presence on Italian bases.

Careful, your tinfoil hat is showing. Beretta got the M9 contract because their gun was cheaper than the Sig P226.

As to the discussion at hand: 6.8 is a very nice round. Without further field testing, I wouldn't just come out and say that it's better than the 5.56, because I don't know that, but it is a nice round.

However, we've got billions of rounds of 5.56 in stock right now, not to mention all the ammo that our NATO allies have. Changing caliber would entail more than just buying new guns, we'd have to screw around with our ammo production, too, and then we'd be forcing it on the rest of NATO (and those countries don't have the same obscenely high military budget that we do). So I think it unlikely that we'll be switching anytime soon.

←

You should have been involved in the process and seen the testing involved. You are falling victim to the belief that the military's guns (or an weapon for that matter) are made by the cheapest bidder. This is in error and perpetuates the idea of an entirely incorrect purchasing process. Price is not the main factor in a military contract. Myself and two other persons just oversaw the bidding of a 7 figure contract. Guess what? It did not go to the cheapest bidder either. Price is a factor but is not the sole nor main deciding force in the contracting process. Careful, your assumption hat is showing. If you are going to insult someone, check your facts.

←

LOL Right on HF!

←

HOOYAH HF ! !

Although I am no fan of the 9mm, I agree with your points whole-heartedly.

I'm a .45ACP man myself.

Semper Fi.

Edited August 23, 2005 by Hatchetforce

[The Warlock]

kjs7 asked if we would just slap uppers on the M4s. Not likely. That is what we have done in SOF. But that is a different process and purchasing and employment is different for acquired systems. For larger numbers there will be a purchase of a complete weapons system. Some of this is for contractual purposes/warranty and some of this may be for political purposes. Usually that is not the case after the Beretta contract. However I hope everyone knows that Beretta got the M9 contract so we could maintain US presence on Italian bases.

Careful, your tinfoil hat is showing. Beretta got the M9 contract because their gun was cheaper than the Sig P226.

As to the discussion at hand: 6.8 is a very nice round. Without further field testing, I wouldn't just come out and say that it's better than the 5.56, because I don't know that, but it is a nice round.

However, we've got billions of rounds of 5.56 in stock right now, not to mention all the ammo that our NATO allies have. Changing caliber would entail more than just buying new guns, we'd have to screw around with our ammo production, too, and then we'd be forcing it on the rest of NATO (and those countries don't have the same obscenely high military budget that we do). So I think it unlikely that we'll be switching anytime soon.

←

You should have been involved in the process and seen the testing involved. You are falling victim to the belief that the military's guns (or an weapon for that matter) are made by the cheapest bidder. This is in error and perpetuates the idea of an entirely incorrect purchasing process. Price is not the main factor in a military contract. Myself and two other persons just oversaw the bidding of a 7 figure contract. Guess what? It did not go to the cheapest bidder either. Price is a factor but is not the sole nor main deciding force in the contracting process. Careful, your assumption hat is showing. If you are going to insult someone, check your facts.

←

Boy, this is ironic, but you're assuming that I'm assuming. I'm not. I'm basing this off of actual fact.

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg09-e.htm

"Both the SIG-Sauer P 226 and the eventual winner, the Beretta 92 passed each requirement during the trials, beating out offerings from Colt, Ruger, Heckler & Koch and Glock. The P 226 actually represented a lower cost per unit, but Beretta's cheaper accessory cost made the Beretta the winner in terms of overall cost."

So, um, I win.

True, price is not the only consideration in all military purchases, but for the M9, price played a big part (although a secondary part to actually passing the trials, of course, or else the Glock would probably have won).

Edited August 28, 2005 by The Warlock

[Whisper_44]

So, um, I win.

←

Let me get my popcorn

[Hatchetforce]

kjs7 asked if we would just slap uppers on the M4s. Not likely. That is what we have done in SOF. But that is a different process and purchasing and employment is different for acquired systems. For larger numbers there will be a purchase of a complete weapons system. Some of this is for contractual purposes/warranty and some of this may be for political purposes. Usually that is not the case after the Beretta contract. However I hope everyone knows that Beretta got the M9 contract so we could maintain US presence on Italian bases.

Careful, your tinfoil hat is showing. Beretta got the M9 contract because their gun was cheaper than the Sig P226.

As to the discussion at hand: 6.8 is a very nice round. Without further field testing, I wouldn't just come out and say that it's better than the 5.56, because I don't know that, but it is a nice round.

However, we've got billions of rounds of 5.56 in stock right now, not to mention all the ammo that our NATO allies have. Changing caliber would entail more than just buying new guns, we'd have to screw around with our ammo production, too, and then we'd be forcing it on the rest of NATO (and those countries don't have the same obscenely high military budget that we do). So I think it unlikely that we'll be switching anytime soon.

←

You should have been involved in the process and seen the testing involved. You are falling victim to the belief that the military's guns (or an weapon for that matter) are made by the cheapest bidder. This is in error and perpetuates the idea of an entirely incorrect purchasing process. Price is not the main factor in a military contract. Myself and two other persons just oversaw the bidding of a 7 figure contract. Guess what? It did not go to the cheapest bidder either. Price is a factor but is not the sole nor main deciding force in the contracting process. Careful, your assumption hat is showing. If you are going to insult someone, check your facts.

←

Boy, this is ironic, but you're assuming that I'm assuming. I'm not. I'm basing this off of actual fact.

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg09-e.htm

"Both the SIG-Sauer P 226 and the eventual winner, the Beretta 92 passed each requirement during the trials, beating out offerings from Colt, Ruger, Heckler & Koch and Glock. The P 226 actually represented a lower cost per unit, but Beretta's cheaper accessory cost made the Beretta the winner in terms of overall cost."

So, um, I win.

True, price is not the only consideration in all military purchases, but for the M9, price played a big part (although a secondary part to actually passing the trials, of course, or else the Glock would probably have won).

←

So it is all about winning? It ought to be about the truth. Now your being naive. Very naive because

A) you believe what you read on some website, and

B) as I said you were not involved. The guy that sits beside me every day was. So therefore, you lose. Politics Jack, all politics. And quoting a .ru website as fact is idiotic and just grasping at straws on this issue as well. When you grow up and understand how political pressure and international deals work, you might grasp the very obvious facts of the situation.

There are two occurances. What appears to happen on the surface, and what really wields power and occurs behind the scene. Learn the difference. I am frankly stunned that you never saw the slight of hand. I need to do business with you.

Everyone was aware of it and it was the joke of the day when the deal went down. The one thing about which I was mistaken was my belief that people were apprised of the matter. When Italy says the bases will be closed, then they win the contract and they immediately reverse themselves without apparent reason, even Ray Charles was aware of what occurred. Then I have Pete who was involved in the evaluations telling us it was a needed tradeoff. And in a way, he is right. We gained allot by having those bases open in places like Sigonella.

[FA sear]

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg09-e.htm

I knew I recognised that website address from somewhere. This is the site that still says that the FN 5-7 is still only available to Law Enforcement agencies. Talk about getting info from a bad source. I remember surfing this site before and finding some other errors on it and I was only on it for a few minutes.

Edited August 28, 2005 by jchung

[pz3]

"Price is not the main factor in a military contract."

Ill have to agree. Military stuff can be quiet high priced but it seems the military trys to balance cost + peformance for the best overall value of purchasing reliable durable equipment.

ACU camo gets the contract over multicam. While i am a fan of the pattern of multicam, ACU it costs less and IMO ACU when i seen it next to multicam was more impressive at reflecting the lighting enviroment.

multicam still looks like camo but the acu turns a nice purple color.

good choice for the army IMO

[WhiteKnight77]

Someone has never heard of the $600 toilet seats the military bought obviously. The US military will spend tons of money for some of the damnedest things.