THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM MODERN MILITARY RIFLES FORUM

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Rifles  Hop To Forums  Modern Military Rifles    What do we know about the U.S. military's new 6.8 round?
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
What do we know about the U.S. military's new 6.8 round?
 Login/Join
 
one of us
posted
I've heard that it's polymar cased, light and packs a wallop on the receiving end.

What else do we know?
 
Posts: 1443 | Registered: 09 February 2004Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
That's what they claimed about the 5.56 when it first came out. Bullet was supposed to tumble on impact and cause massive tissue damage. Big Grin

Grizz


When the horse has been eliminated, human life may be extended an average of five or more years.
James R. Doolitle

I think they've been misunderstood. Timothy Tredwell
 
Posts: 873 | Location: Central Alberta, Canada | Registered: 20 July 2019Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Clan_Colla
posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 628 | Location: Texas | Registered: 30 December 2012Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of NormanConquest
posted Hide Post
It sounds like all around that will have good performance capabilities. I have always been a fan of the 6.5 bullets although for years that metric never caught on in this country. The only objection that I can see is the age-old one of giving the troops too many various calibers. I need not elaborate.


Never mistake motion for action.
 
Posts: 15824 | Location: Austin, Texas | Registered: 11 March 2013Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by NormanConquest:
It sounds like all around that will have good performance capabilities. I have always been a fan of the 6.5 bullets although for years that metric never caught on in this country. The only objection that I can see is the age-old one of giving the troops too many various calibers. I need not elaborate.

The 6.8 is a .270, not a .264, just for clarification purposes.


When a politician uses the words "common sense ", you'd better keep one hand on your wallet and the other on your firearms.
 
Posts: 483 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 January 2015Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
We know that all that is still in the experimental stage, and likely will not come to fruition. Many careless cartridges have been developed; where are they now? My prediction; we will have particle beam weapons before we have a caseless cartridge.
OTOH, we have one for the M256 tank cannon.......
 
Posts: 14311 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by hogfarmer:
quote:
Originally posted by NormanConquest:
It sounds like all around that will have good performance capabilities. I have always been a fan of the 6.5 bullets although for years that metric never caught on in this country. The only objection that I can see is the age-old one of giving the troops too many various calibers. I need not elaborate.

The 6.8 is a .270, not a .264, just for clarification purposes.


What would be better then the 6.8 would be a 6.5 on a 6.8 case!!! Some form of 6.5 cartridge has been used at one time or another by major militaries around the world. They were of course on more full size cartridges that wouldn't fit the M16 platform.
 
Posts: 662 | Registered: 15 May 2018Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by vzerone:
quote:
Originally posted by hogfarmer:
quote:
Originally posted by NormanConquest:
It sounds like all around that will have good performance capabilities. I have always been a fan of the 6.5 bullets although for years that metric never caught on in this country. The only objection that I can see is the age-old one of giving the troops too many various calibers. I need not elaborate.

The 6.8 is a .270, not a .264, just for clarification purposes.


What would be better then the 6.8 would be a 6.5 on a 6.8 case!!! Some form of 6.5 cartridge has been used at one time or another by major militaries around the world. They were of course on more full size cartridges that wouldn't fit the M16 platform.

Not going to get into the quagmire that is the discussion of the merits of various calibers. I have seen incredible vitriol espoused over literally less thickness than that of a human hair.

I own rifles from .22 to .45 caliber and each has its own strengths and weakness. Everything is a compromise.


When a politician uses the words "common sense ", you'd better keep one hand on your wallet and the other on your firearms.
 
Posts: 483 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 January 2015Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of NormanConquest
posted Hide Post
It might be just another round-robin affair. After years of "improvments," the troops in the know have gone back to the 1911 platform for the sidearm of choice + performance.


Never mistake motion for action.
 
Posts: 15824 | Location: Austin, Texas | Registered: 11 March 2013Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of dpcd
posted Hide Post
Not sure how a regular soldier armed with a 9mm would be able to get ahold of a .45. Privately owned weapons are not allowed on deployment. Special troops can get anything they think they need.
Actually the Army has stayed with the 9mm and is now buying and fielding the Sig Sauer M17.
I have one, and it handles and shoots very well. Even though it is plastic, I like it better than the Beretta. And although I carried M1911s throughout my career, (later Berettas), the 9mm is a better weapon for that use. That is after seeing many hundreds of soldiers qualify with both weapons. They hit better with the 9mm, and a hit with that is worth 100 misses with a .45. Most soldiers do not have the time to learn how to shoot a pistol like AR members do.
 
Posts: 14311 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of NormanConquest
posted Hide Post
As the old adage says "Practice Makes Perfect". But as we all know that the police just like the military is not providing funds for extracurricular training knowledge of their carry pieces. Mores the pity for all. You are right of course that a 9mm is easier to shoot than a 45ACP. especially women troops (not sexism; reality). True it seems that the 1911 platform is deemed for Spec. Ops. That in itself should say something. I have a range on my property + thus as human nature doles out, I never shoot as much as I should/could. But I am still a student of the Col. in my appreciation of the 45 ACP round. That being said since I did value his opinion so much; when he expounded on the CZ 75 I took heed. It is a great piece. I have never known it to fail. Although I keep 1911 as a carry piece I keep the CZ in the nightstand. As always, your piece is only as good as you are able to use it.


Never mistake motion for action.
 
Posts: 15824 | Location: Austin, Texas | Registered: 11 March 2013Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Actually from the military's point of view that 6.8 bullet is better because of the 6.5's ability for the bullet to go to sleep so well thus penetrating the enemy's body without much damage whereas the 6.8 not being as stable tumbles in the body.
 
Posts: 662 | Registered: 15 May 2018Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Matt Norman
posted Hide Post
We must remember that somewhere there is a Major and a small crew on a two-year assignment to do a lot of testing on this caliber/rifle/pistol (along with a bunch of GS-16+ that load magazines). He really wants to make Colonel so he becomes a champion of his project and will say all manner of good things about his darling. And then there is another Major doing the same thing jockeying for position. And they are all schmoozing with the suppliers/contractors in hopes to get a good job after their military careers end.

Very, very few are going to say ' this sucks '
 
Posts: 3133 | Location: Western Slope Colorado, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Bill/Oregon
posted Hide Post
Wow. I wonder where this platform is in the testing phase almost two years after the announcement.


There is hope, even when your brain tells you there isn’t.
– John Green, author
 
Posts: 14337 | Location: Alamogordo, NM | Registered: 03 June 2000Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
Wow. I wonder where this platform is in the testing phase almost two years after the announcement.


Hasn't the military let a multi-million dollar contract for new 5.56 weapons in that period.

Don't think the 6.8 is going any place.
 
Posts: 17440 | Location: wis | Registered: 21 April 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
They hit better with the 9mm, and a hit with that is worth 100 misses with a .45. Most soldiers do not have the time to learn how to shoot a pistol like AR members do


Comes down to the 90-7-3 equation. 90 percent of all gun owners users do very little with their firearms.

7 percent care a bit more and practice some what on a regular basics.

3 percent are the gun guys and special troops. They live breath their firearms. Shoot unbelievable amounts of ammo according to the 97 percent.

Point my cousin wanted a "bear defensive Pistol"

He brought a 629 along with it he received two factory 50 round boxes of ammo.

His first statement was now I have enough ammo for the rest of my life. I should have asked him if he was planning on dying in the next hour.

Just have to shoot a few round to make sure it works.

He is a piss poor pistol, rifle, shotgun shot and thinks spending money on practice is a waste of money.

90 percent of firearm owners/users think the same way.
 
Posts: 17440 | Location: wis | Registered: 21 April 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of NormanConquest
posted Hide Post
Sad but true.


Never mistake motion for action.
 
Posts: 15824 | Location: Austin, Texas | Registered: 11 March 2013Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
P dog shooter is correct. Most gun owners and shooters shoot little to none, practice seldom and believe that they will perform well if they need to shoot. Even many who depend on a firearm professionally practice only when demanded by policy. I could never understand this and never will. If you want to be proficient shoot often and train with your firearm. Slim your collection down if needed and spend the cash on ammo for what you use most. The more you shoot the better you will be and you will enjoy it even more.
 
Posts: 772 | Registered: 25 February 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
The properties of a good military rifle cartridge must be a moving target.... Remember when the 30-06 could be improved on...... so here came the 308....
But that wasnt the best, so here comes the 5.56 [223]..... smaller bullets work better, etc etc.

Now we have to have a military cartridge with larger bullets....

All of this is for the benefit of the firearm/munition companies. They would like us to finance the invention of a slightly larger wheel.

ANother example: the insistence that we send people to Mars. This is for the benefit of the aero space companies. We can [and have] send robots much more cheaply.
 
Posts: 60 | Location: minnesota | Registered: 16 July 2012Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
.250 Savage (6.35 x 50 mm). 3,000 fps with a 100 grain bullet. Look no further. Its been there the whole time. Bridges the gap between the 5.56 and the 7.62 (Mama Bear). Low recoil, controllable, hard hitting, deep penetration.
 
Posts: 2900 | Location: SC,USA | Registered: 07 March 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
What ever happen to the 6.8 SPC?
I think they like slimmer case to maximize magazine capacity.
 
Posts: 2768 | Location: Texas | Registered: 06 January 2009Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Rifles  Hop To Forums  Modern Military Rifles    What do we know about the U.S. military's new 6.8 round?

Copyright December 1997-2021 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia