Future 6,8mm US military cartridge in Lake City existing production line. 20% lighter than existing rounds.


https://www.janes.com/article/...rmy-s-next-gen-rifle

Sig-Sauer LMG
https://www.thefirearmblog.com...g-light-machine-gun/

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...ation-squad-weapons/

This is stupid on their part. You can’t fit a long enough bullet in that caliber to have a good BC and still fit it in an intermediate rifle. 6 or 6.5 is more appropriate.

That said the 5.56x45 and it’s rifles are too large for 80% of military users and too small for maybe 3%.

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
This is stupid on their part. You can’t fit a long enough bullet in that caliber to have a good BC and still fit it in an intermediate rifle. 6 or 6.5 is more appropriate.

Why should things change now? IMHO The only American military adoption of an appropriate cartridge was the 50 BMG. roger

neither of those articles tells us anything.
it could be a 300 BO necked up err down to 270 or a 308 case necked down from all that info they got there.

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
neither of those articles tells us anything.
it could be a 300 BO necked up err down to 270 or a 308 case necked down from all that info they got there.

Agreed that the snippet had almost no real info. I "assume" it's referring to the LWRC 6.8X43, used by the Jordanian and Saudi royal guards and other special forces.

Here's a thought most rounds fired in a military battle miss so does it really matter what caliber they use.

Most rounds miss but they serve to make the other guy keep his head down or pin him in place so you can maneuver on his position. Also when a hit is scored you'd kinda like it to do some good.

Military procurement is a mystery to us mere mortals it seems. As far as a new improved round; hard to see why all the work on and success ov the 6.5 cm would not be taken advantage of.

"This is stupid on their part. You can’t fit a long enough bullet in that caliber to have a good BC and still fit it in an intermediate rifle."


Look at the 3d link Textron systems telescopic ammo, but its probably a more conventional new cartridge.


A 6,5 or 6,8 penetrate body armor at a longer distance. Precission at long range can not be used because of the expensive extra amount of training needed for a soldier.

Ive always thought the .223 is a bit weak for military purposes. Great for training, but the whole "wounding is better" concept flys in the face of what war really is IMO. If the other guy can still kill our troops, then DEAD is better!

The one thing I like about the 300 BO is I wouldn't have to wear a bullet proof vest, I could just use a catcher mitt.

Well the general consenses is it takes two people to pack out a wounded soldier, so three or 4 are not in battle and that changes the odds..Only a government body could come up with something like that,sounds good, but probably not.

As to the cartridge itself, I think is awesome,flat shooting caliber and will work just fine and what the hell our tax dollars will pay the bill..

Why they all the sudden think the 308 is no longer a capable round is beyond me!! necking iti down to a .277 is foolish, but the idiots behind these changes are the least professional folks around,,,kinda like game depts deciding what we can shoot and what we can't, talk about a clusterF....

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
This is stupid on their part. You can’t fit a long enough bullet in that caliber to have a good BC and still fit it in an intermediate rifle. 6 or 6.5 is more appropriate.

That said the 5.56x45 and it’s rifles are too large for 80% of military users and too small for maybe 3%.

It is my understanding the new 6.8mm cartridge is not the SPC but rather one that uses a new case midway in size between the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45 in both length and girth. That mid-size, if you will, cartridge is exactly what has long been needed. The new weapons will not just be something rebarreled and rechambered. They will be appropriately sized for the new cartridge.

As to the 5.56 M16 round, it was primarily designed for use in Southeast Asia where 30 yard engagements were the norm. "Maximum rifle ranges in Vietnam were the minimums in World Wars I and II and Korea."

quote:

Out of seven notebooks filled with basic data on our fighting operations in Vietnam, there are only three examples of enemy soldiers being killed by M16 fire at range 100 meters or more, these are all in one operation, the January, 1967 attack on the Iron Triangle. In not more than half a dozen instance is there recorded the killing of a VC at around 50-60 meters, all of these in comparatively open country such as the valley east of Trung Luong outpost. - https://www.americanrifleman.o...the-short-range-war/

The M16A1 had a maximum effective range of 460m. That distance is significantly more than what was required in Southeast Asia but is far short of what is needed to fight in the Middle East and West Asia. A larger cartridge and rifle is the sensible answer.

AR-10 in 7x51 (7mm-08)

"It is my understanding the new 6.8mm cartridge is not the SPC but rather one that uses a new case midway in size between the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45 in both length and girth. That mid-size, if you will, cartridge is exactly what has long been needed. The new weapons will not just be something rebarreled and rechambered. They will be appropriately sized for the new cartridge."


It was to early for US to choose a good intermediate cartridge in the 50s.

280 British

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British

Actually, both versions of the US 6mm SAW are much closer to the description of the new cartridge. I'm guessing it will be a cartridge in size between both of those 6mm SAW cartridges but in 6.8mm. With today's requirement for non-lead bullets the projectile, and cartridge neck, will have to be long.



"On the right are the two major iterations of the 6mm SAW, the 45mm steel cased version, and the 50mm aluminum cased version. In the middle is a modified .25 Winchester experimental round used for ballistic testing in the early part of the SAW program. On the far left is 5.56mm M855, which became the eventual chambering for the resulting M249 SAW"

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
This is stupid on their part. You can’t fit a long enough bullet in that caliber to have a good BC and still fit it in an intermediate rifle. 6 or 6.5 is more appropriate.

That said the 5.56x45 and it’s rifles are too large for 80% of military users and too small for maybe 3%.

Who said the case had to be brass and conventionally shaped?

From my reading they've only stipulated the bullet and not much else. I can see Textron racing to create a 6.8mm CT, if it doesnt already exist
https://www.textronsystems.com...tion%20datasheet.pdf

https://www.textronsystems.com...quad-automatic-rifle

The cartridge has to be 20% lighter than a brass cases + copperjacketed leadbullet. At least some part has to be polymer to get the weight down.

Initial buy of the ngsw will be 100000 rifles.

https://defence-blog.com/army/...ing-m4-and-m249.html

SPC I failed the cartridge. The 6.8 SPC II had a better chance. I have a Ruger Mini30 that was an SPCI but was sent to Accuracy Systems to get rebarreled to SPCII and have the MOA work performed on the rifle. Sweet shooter...but I see its declined in popularity as I have been purchasing brass and loaded ammunition on large discounts. The 6.5 Grendel and .300BO may have buried this round.

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
This is stupid on their part. You can’t fit a long enough bullet in that caliber to have a good BC and still fit it in an intermediate rifle. 6 or 6.5 is more appropriate.

That said the 5.56x45 and it’s rifles are too large for 80% of military users and too small for maybe 3%.

Nothing wrong with the 7.62. Now that the millitary is done playing with popguns, they should return to what works. If you can hit what you are shooting at, double ammo numbers because it is lighter is not necessary.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Well the general consenses is it takes two people to pack out a wounded soldier, so three or 4 are not in battle and that changes the odds..Only a government body could come up with something like that,sounds good, but probably not.

Yea, dead soldiers do not heal and rejoin the battle later in the war. Make mine a .308 Winchester of 30-06.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nordic2:
"It is my understanding the new 6.8mm cartridge is not the SPC but rather one that uses a new case midway in size between the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45 in both length and girth. That mid-size, if you will, cartridge is exactly what has long been needed. The new weapons will not just be something rebarreled and rechambered. They will be appropriately sized for the new cartridge."

It sounds suspiciously like the .276 Pederson, which, if Douglas MacArthur hadn't nixed it, would have been the standard rifle cartridge for the newly adopted M1 Garand rifle. It would then have held an en bloc clip of ten cartridges instead of eight .30-'06's, and would have weighed significantly less. Same trajectory as the .30-'06 out to 1000 yards.

The .280 British had almost identical performance.

US army looks for interested manufactorers for 6,8mm ammunition and components.

https://defence-blog.com/army/...-8mm-ammunition.html

The next US military squad rifle will have artificial intelligence.

https://defence-blog.com/army/...ence-algorithms.html

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Well the general consenses is it takes two people to pack out a wounded soldier, so three or 4 are not in battle and that changes the odds..Only a government body could come up with something like that,sounds good, but probably not.

Wounded soldiers can fight again after recovery, dead ones can't. Give me a .308 or 30-06.

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
]It is my understanding the new 6.8mm cartridge is not the SPC but rather one that uses a new case midway in size between the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45 in both length and girth. That mid-size, if you will, cartridge is exactly what has long been needed.

In other words, the .276 Pedersen or the .280 British, cartridges which were rejected respectively in the early '30's and the early '50's, bear a striking resemblance to the 6.8 mm cartridge recently adopted. The M1 rifle was designed around the .276 Pederson, using a ten shot en bloc clip. The FN/FAL rifle was chambered for the .280.

Nordic, I can safely assume that your military intelligence (an oxymoron) is the same as everyone else's; inept. Basically, the folks that REALLY know what they're doing aren't consulted. As the old saying goes "Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity." In Nam weight was an issue (you can NEVER carry too much ammo). But you are dealing with close targets. Sure the 223 is inferior to the 308 but since the dawn of time, NO soldier has ever liked the weight of his equipment.

Well they had to do something to justify their vary exhistence...oops on the misspell, but no matter...Im busy..

VK Integrated systems submits XR-68.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...rmys-ngsw-programme/

"The XR-68 weighs ‘no more than 9lbs‘ unloaded"

Just like a old flintlock rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
This is stupid on their part. You can’t fit a long enough bullet in that caliber to have a good BC and still fit it in an intermediate rifle. 6 or 6.5 is more appropriate.

That said the 5.56x45 and it’s rifles are too large for 80% of military users and too small for maybe 3%.

Agree, lots of great cartridges out there already. They could've gone with a 243, 6mm Rem, 257 Roberts, 7mm/08. Why do we the taxpayers have to pay for another new cartridge?

I understand they announced they are accepting and implementing the new plastic ammo and the gun that goes with them.

MARS and Cobalt kinetics NGSW carbine , light machine gun and 6.8mm cartridge.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...s-army-ngsw-program/

AAI Textron, Sig-Sauer and General Dynamics are awarded contracts for prototypes, expected first delivery in 2022.

https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?...e49c48e0bd8&_cview=0

True velocity composite cased 6,8mm ammo.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...ite-cased-ammo-ngsw/

General Dynamics RM277 rifle and light support weapon.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...ad-weapon-the-rm277/

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
This is stupid on their part. You can’t fit a long enough bullet in that caliber to have a good BC and still fit it in an intermediate rifle. 6 or 6.5 is more appropriate.

That said the 5.56x45 and it’s rifles are too large for 80% of military users and too small for maybe 3%.

Nothing wrong with the 7.62. Now that the millitary is done playing with popguns, they should return to what works. If you can hit what you are shooting at, double ammo numbers because it is lighter is not necessary.

Or go back even further to the 30-06

https://youtu.be/RTtKblRY1qs
I like the first one.

New Sig-Sauer Cross bolt action hunting rifle will come in .277 Sig Fury Hybrid round.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...g/2019/12/18/972500/

http://soldiersystems.net/2019...-cross-277-sig-fury/