The U.S.military has been actively working on its "next" military standard infantry cartridge since the adoption of the 5.56 and even before.

In 1977 it had the 6x50 SAWS almost ready to go, but the effort was dropped because of the numbers of weapons and supporting "stores" still on hand in 7.62x51 and the 5.56, and the fact that mid-cold-war wasn't deemed a good time to start shaking up supply situations in NATO.

For an interesting read, try this:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

Never thought the 6.8 was anything new conceptually. But, it IS a .270, not a .243- big difference. The Chinese Army had a .270 Mauser in the late 1890's - 6.9X57mm. There's really been nothing new in conventional arms since about that era....

I think that' where Winchester got the idea for a .270 instead of a U.S. version of the 7X64mm.......

I think it's a silly idea.

I did some consulting for a bullet company earlier this year on the 6.8 SPC cartridge. If I were going into combat tomorrow carrying the M-16 platform (we called them rifles in the old days) I would use the 6.8 SPC. It is a significant improvement over any version of the 5.56 for killing haji's without the weight penalty and recoil issues of the 7.62.
When I go back in as a doctor (last hurrah) I will likely be riding, not walking to work. Given that I will carry an AR-10 in 7.62 and put a lifetime's worth of trigger control and precision shooting training to work. Besides, if I pop a bad guy with the 7.62 I don't have to worry about having to patch him up later in the day if he is captured.

lawndart

It may not be a new idea, but it is something new that is desperately needed. IMO anyway.

What is "desperately needed" is a return to the M1 Garand and the 1911 Colt.

Well, when I was in the ARMY (87-91), I would have gladly traded my M16 or M249 (SAW) for a M14 any day. The only way a SAW could effectively be fired (full auto) was if you were down of the prone position with it or if you had it braced up against a tree or building (and it was 5.56!). When we switched from M16A1s to the M16A2s, we went from auto fire to three shot bursts . . . thus auto fire capabilities really no longer mattered too much. Therefore, why still use a weak 5.56 when recoil on full auto when full auto was no longer an issue?

I think the only reason that the 5.56 is still around is LOGISTICS. The 5.56 is cheap, you can carry alot of it, and many of the weapons we have are geared toward it. Read as: Bean counters! Yes, some city folk can learn to shoot a little easier with a low recoil round, but these new rounds we have now (6.8/6.5) don't kick much more than a .223 does.

I think the 6.8 is a great idea. One can almost carry the same amount of ammo as with a 5.56 weapon, while gaining significantly more knock down power (especially with these new short barreled rifles).

I really don't care for the M16-type rifles anyway. The A1s sucked, and the A2s sucked only a little less. I've tried the civilian version of the M4, and it is no different. You still have to slap the magazine in, and it is still not as reliable as an AK or HK type rifle. Give me an AK or HK in 6.5mm or greater, and you have a new buddy!

I think you're both right!

We desperatwly need to get off that .223!

If we would have gone with the British 280 cartridge, and the FN rifle, instead of the M-14 and the 308 all of this would be moot.
PS. the 308 is one of my favorite cartridges and I like the M1-A a lot, and I like the 223 too. But the British 280 would have solved all the "problems" since WWII, the War we "wanted" to win, and we won.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
If we would have gone with the British 280 cartridge, and the FN rifle, instead of the M-14 .

FWIW. A light weight woodless M14 style in 7X41 roger

quote:

What is "desperately needed" is a return to the M1 Garand and the 1911 Colt.

Hooray for Steve!



Since when did the Army become a bunch of pansies not man enoough to carry some 30-06 medicine and a trusty .45 off to do battle with the Jihad?

-Spencer

About the military using a .277 bullet.

In 1923 the US Army developed the .276 Peterson for a semi-auto rifle. They tested 10 different case configurations and loaded bullets weighing from 120 grains to 150 grains.

In 1932 MacArthur put the squash to it! Why? Because it was his beliefe that anything less than .308 caliber was basically useless as a man-killer in combat situations.

I recently spent some time with an operator just back from Iraq. He told me that his "people" were having NO problems "knocking people down" with the AR's shooting the standard "green tip 855 ammo".
They tried the 77 grain Match HP, but prefered the Green tip for its better penetrative ability.
He also told me they were lubricating their AR's with Break Free, and were not having any functioning problems.

One justs has to remember when someone is shooting at you "The other guys gun never jam and always kills better then yours."

Teat Hound The only way full machine guns can be fire effectivly is prone or braced against something.

Even with sub machine guns bursts are the way to go.

quote:

Teat Hound The only way full machine guns can be fire effectivly is prone or braced against something.

That is something that can be overcome with some experience. I have fired the M16(auto) quite a bit one handed with substantial effectiveness, and have seen a multitude of door gunners do the same with M60s while feeding the belt with the left hand. It requires that you counter the recoil impulse with the forward weight of the gun, something easily learned if one has the chance to shoot it a fair bit.

quote:

Originally posted by ricciardelli:
About the military using a .277 bullet.

In 1923 the US Army developed the .276 Peterson for a semi-auto rifle. They tested 10 different case configurations and loaded bullets weighing from 120 grains to 150 grains.

In 1932 MacArthur put the squash to it! Why? Because it was his beliefe that anything less than .308 caliber was basically useless as a man-killer in combat situations.

Interesting, and I think MacArthur was right if what you suggest is true. However, I don't think today's bean counters would go for it.

I wonder what the bean counters would think if they ever got their a$$es in the field with the skinnies and their AK-47s?

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Teat Hound The only way full machine guns can be fire effectivly is prone or braced against something.

True, but that wasn't really my point. My point was that the perceived "controllability" of the 5.56 is not there with the SAW; hence why use a varmint round in a machine gun which is supposed to bring a mother-load of fire power to a fight?

After listening to my uncle tell what they did with their M1s on the front lines From France to Berlin They certianly need to go back to them. Many a time they were charged by a much larger German force and the old M1 kept cranking them out and accrute too! Dirt, sand snow, mud etc and they just kept working. and when they needed a 700 yard shot, no problem.

In the Civil War there was one kill for every 5 rounds fired.

In WWI there was one kill for every 50 rounds fired.

In WWII there was one kill for every 500 rounds fired.

In Nam there was one kill for every 5000 rounds fired.

I believe there are two reasons for this. First of all, bullet weight (and diameter) continued to become lighter (and smaller). AND...rather than accuracy and target identification, our GIs depended more on rate of fire as their arms became more "civilized".

quote:

Originally posted by ricciardelli:
About the military using a .277 bullet.

In 1923 the US Army developed the .276 Peterson for a semi-auto rifle. They tested 10 different case configurations and loaded bullets weighing from 120 grains to 150 grains.

In 1932 MacArthur put the squash to it! Why? Because it was his beliefe that anything less than .308 caliber was basically useless as a man-killer er in combat situations.

Steve I think you may be doing an apples oranges thing here.

The Pederson was the auto 03 conversion. The Garand .270 waskyboshed because our whare houses were full of 30 cal ammo for the 03 and MacArthur wanted to have the than new Garand take advantage of what was available. It was as simple as that.

Had this project been properly founded and void of ignorant military interference it would have taken an expediant natural developement path that woud have given our grunts a weopon similar to the mini 14 utilizing a .270 or 7mm about 39mm to 41 mm in cartridge length.

I was issued an M1 Garand. There is a lot of feeling and nostalgia built around it. The truth is that it is just that, emotion and feeling. It is not by far the best we can give our brave to carry and fight with.Sadly the weapontry technology given our air to air and air to ground was not even closely given to developing truely adequate shoulder weapons or side arms.In fact in the 60s and 70s the Russians made us look like also rans.

For some reason in this area honest delopement efforts have always been thwarted with obstructionist, lobbying, and layer upon layer of red tape. roger

Heyya, lawndart... You blast one or two of them towelhead shitbags for my mom and dad, huh? I owe ya a cold one!

quote:

Originally posted by Blob1:
After listening to my uncle tell what they did with their M1s on the front lines From France to Berlin They certianly need to go back to them. Many a time they were charged by a much larger German force and the old M1 kept cranking them out and accrute too! Dirt, sand snow, mud etc and they just kept working. and when they needed a 700 yard shot, no problem.

There was a problem! They had the clip in there and when emptied out would fly out and land on the only rock for miles notifying the observant enemy where you were and then they'd stroll up and kill you. I thought that was common knowledge

quote:

There was a problem! They had the clip in there and when emptied out would fly out and land on the only rock for miles notifying the observant enemy where you were and then they'd stroll up and kill you. I thought that was common knowledge

The Joes fixed that problem though. To an extent anyway. They learned to carry extra empty clips and would throw them to make the enemy think they were out. The enemy would pop their heads up and POW!

Bartsche

Pederson (an employee of the govt's Springfield Armory) developed both the semi-auto adapter (Pederson device) for the 1903 Springfield and a 27 caliber round for the competition for a semi-auto battle rifle. The competition was basically throughout the 1920's and Garand's design was selected instead of Pederson's design when MacArthur dictated that the rifle had to use the 30-06 cartridge. He simply didn't want to give up the hundreds of millions of 30-06 rounds the Army had in storage in the middle of the depression. A true bean-counter decision. The effect on the M1 Garand was an 8-shot magazine capacity instead of the original 10 shot and a 10+ pound rifle instead of 8 1/2 pounds - and also the several years that Garand took to do the re-design and re-testing.

I am a neurosurgeon, and have treated a number of civillian and military GSW's. I don't claim to be an expert, but I have had a keen interest in following the medical literature on terminal ballistics and wounding.

Two small point worth considering...the military is limited by convention as to the type of projectile.
I have seen animal test data (from a friend who is developing the round for the military) of an 80 grain tungsten powder .224 bullet that is devastating. (The animals were live hogs). This was conducted by DOD, not in his back yard.
Second, I have seen civilian wounds from hunting type .224 bullets (from the 223 Remington) that are VERY different from the FMJ military rounds. Large cavitation, extensive tissue damage.
The 223 isn't too bad as defensive weapon loaded with the right projectile.

Also, military tactics have changed. There is now common use of suppresive fire, to deliberately pin down an enemy, which can then be dealt with using larger ordanance.

I don't feel this second point gets much airplay in the popular press (being the networks or film).

Remember the "fiasco" in Mogadishu?
Everyone focused on the the 14 Americans who were killed (which is tragic enough...I'm not saying that is okay). The soldiers pinned down on the ground are estimated to have killed between 1,000 and 3,000 combatants. That is an incredible defensive action.

I would have no trouble choosing the M4 as a carry weapon...I would just want different ammo for it.

Garrett

The Pederson rifle in 276 was an odd thing. It had a toggle joint action, like a Luger. A buddy has a near mint example, so I base my opinion on my observation of it. It is very precisely fitted and looks to me like it would not do well when dirty. They are really neat and mechanically interesting though. I wish he would let me fire it, he has some original ammo for it. I don't understand his reluctance! : )

http://www.again.net/~steve/jpg/cd276pederson.jpg

Another factor is the need for lubricated ammo. The rifle would not function properly without a thin coating of wax on the cartridges. That sounded to the military brass like something to attract dirt and they did not like the idea. The Pederson was a dead end in semi auto rifle development.

The Garand is a far better rifle. A shorter lighter Garand in a cartridge like the 7-08 or the new 6.5 might have been even better. But, as mentioned before the military brass saw WW-II coming and did not want to switch cartridges. They had huge stock piles of 30-06.

Springfield "SOCOM"
.308
Perfect

quote:

Originally posted by ricciardelli:
About the military using a .277 bullet.

In 1923 the US Army developed the .276 Peterson for a semi-auto rifle.

I assumed that the .276 Pederson used a 7mm bullet (.284 grooves, .276" land-to-land). Does anyone know which is correct?

The contrast in rounds per kill is almost as interesting as the contrast in in how opposing infantries engaged each other. In wars previous to and including the Civil War, they walked up close enough to each other to see facial features. WW I introduced battles of attrition by trench warfare, some say that there were more casualties in the first major engagement of WW I than all of our casualties suffered in Vietnam. The Garand was born out of WW I tactics and the success of the trench broom. Stationary combatants needing a powerful round for distant targets where weight was not the factor it became in various theatres of WW II and beyond.

For better or worse, the battlefield rifle changed forever with the introduction of the Sturmgewehr in 1943 which Hitler was opposed to until he had actually seen the results of its effectiveness against the Russians who also took notice and developed the M-43 round and went on to spawn the Simonov and later the Kalishnokov assault rifles.

After Korea, U.S. Army wound ballistics research concluded that a small caliber high velocity round like the 5.56mm is much more likely to cause increased trauma because of tumbling which is not as likely to occur with a .308 caliber FMJ. Seems the philosophy of generals in war is that wounding your enemy in battle is more effective than killing because of the demoralilizing affects it places on enemy troops that have seen the results of patients leaving the surgeons tent. Thankfully, triage in MASH units has vastly improved.

G.I. Joe's philosophy has always differed from that of his generals anyway. Killing the enemy is more likely to increase his chances of survival and he doesn't concern himself much with the enemies psyche, or that of their comrades after he has survived engagements.

Most troops were thankful for the weight reduction of the M-16 in Vietnam, unless they actually got into a firefight, or had carried the M-14 previously. I am not a fan of the 5.56mm for a combat round, but I don't see the .30 calibers as the solution either because afterall, we now have women in combat. Sure, you can chamber the Stoner design in .308 like Armalite originally did. But it has not been battle tested and the .223 has caused enough function and longevity issues of its own to think the .308 would allow much of a useful service. Ruger found this out when they tried to develop the XG-1 in .308 and .243 Win. The M-14, STG, L1A1 and H&K 91 were designs of next stage development from rifles of WW II, except for the heavy for caliber SKS and AK-47, but the 7.62 X 51mm is not used in the best assault rifles currently in service. Even the Sturmgewehr was heavy for caliber and early H&K designs were little different from the original.

Now we have a 2 horse race between H&K and FN and throughout the world, the FNC has but one peer and that is the SIG at around $5000 a copy. The FN offering is based on the FNC and I personally hope it is chosen in 6.8 X 43mm. It's not a .308, but, a .277" 115 gr. Boat tail bullet at 2800 fps gives G.I. Joe a much better manstopper and effective range than the 5.56mm and in rifles of similar size and weight. It has already proven effective in Iraq and Afghanistan by special forces operators.

I can't comment on whether the 6.8 is a new idea or not, but I think it is a step in the right direction. If you stick with a FMJ projectile you need a large diameter caliber to cause enough tissue damage to be effective. You also have to make rounds small enough that a soldier carrying the ammo can pack a full combat load without it becoming a burden. As others have pointed out we are using more and more ammo per kill because of the faster rate of fire of our weapons, and the increased use of covering fire. I think weight of ammunition is more of a consideration than recoil when the government chooses a round (and lower cost). If you've ever packed the ammo for an M60 in .308 and the same number of rounds for a SAW in 5.56 you definately know the difference. I dont deny the fact that the M60 is a lot better weapon to destroy equipment.

If the army chooses to go to a frangible projectile the smaller calibers would become a lot more effective against personnel, but less effective against hard targets (light wheeled vehicles etc..). A lot of the soldiers in Somalia complained that the FMJ .223 rounds went right through their enemies with little immediate effect unless they hit a bone, the spine, or the brain. They may have died later, but leaving an enemy in a condition where they can shoot back is never a good idea.

I lot of people complain about a round not stopping someone unless you hit bones, spine or the head. That can be said about any round. That was said about the 3040 krag in the phillipines. That is way a lot of personl were filing the tips of their fmj ammo back then.

.

It's a sad commentary on our military that they can no longer shoot well nough to either be classed as markmen nor to hit raggy targets downrange.
Fact is, with the resources spent on PC training and sensitivity training, we no longer have the time to teach our young soldiers to shoot.
Don't believe it? Just watch the ones who show up at a local range to zero hunting arms and you will see few who could reliably hit a 1 foot cirle at 100 yards if they had to hold the weapon in their own two hands.
I'm convnced that the lack of teaching is the critical factor since I have taught literally hundreds of kids to shoot and can't remember one that couldn't learn to shoot that well, and I remember many who became real marksmen, boys and girls alike.
Music and shooting are now almost exclusively rock 'n roll and it ain't about to change back! (More's the pity)

quote:

Originally posted by ricciardelli:
What is "desperately needed" is a return to the M1 Garand and the 1911 Colt.

I would agree if you'd said M14 instead of M1. Having used both in combat operations, I can tell you that after the bugs were removed, the M14 is a superior weapon! If for no other reason than having a 20-round magazine - and, it doesn't go "ka-ching" like the M1 does when ejecting an empty clip-a dead giveaway that you're empty, not to mention pinpointing your location!

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by ricciardelli:
About the military using a .277 bullet.

In 1923 the US Army developed the .276 Peterson for a semi-auto rifle. They tested 10 different case configurations and loaded bullets weighing from 120 grains to 150 grains.

In 1932 MacArthur put the squash to it! Why? Because it was his beliefe that anything less than .308 caliber was basically useless as a man-killer er in combat situations.

Steve I think you may be doing an apples oranges thing here.

The Pederson was the auto 03 conversion. The Garand .270 waskyboshed because our whare houses were full of 30 cal ammo for the 03 and MacArthur wanted to have the than new Garand take advantage of what was available. It was as simple as that.

Had this project been properly founded and void of ignorant military interference it would have taken an expediant natural developement path that woud have given our grunts a weopon similar to the mini 14 utilizing a .270 or 7mm about 39mm to 41 mm in cartridge length.

I was issued an M1 Garand. There is a lot of feeling and nostalgia built around it. The truth is that it is just that, emotion and feeling. It is not by far the best we can give our brave to carry and fight with.Sadly the weapontry technology given our air to air and air to ground was not even closely given to developing truely adequate shoulder weapons or side arms.In fact in the 60s and 70s the Russians made us look like also rans.

For some reason in this area honest delopement efforts have always been thwarted with obstructionist, lobbying, and layer upon layer of red tape. roger

1. The .276 PEDERSON round was a true 7mm (.284"), nopt a .277"...

2. Nope! Mac quashed the .276 Pederson for budget reasons, not ballistic reasons. In 1932, the U.S. 100,000-man army had no money at all, but they did have tons and tons of .30/'06 ammunition. It made no sense at all to scrap all this stuff and buy ammo in some other caliber!

3. The Pederson DEVICE was indeed a semi-automatic "bolt" for the '03 Springfield rifle, BUT this contraption originated during WWI, (called, for security purposes, the U.S. PISTOL, cal. .30, M1918!!). However, the Pederson rifle was developed by Pederson in the late 1920's-early 1930's to compete to be the new U.S. rifle (semi-auto) to replace the '03 Springfield. The Pederson rifle was chambered for the .276 Pederson round, as was the first M1 Garands AS WELL! Garand's rifle was chosen, and it had to be re-engineered to use .30/'06 ammo. Pederson's rifle (had a toggle-link action like a Luger!!) went out the window, along with his nice little 7mm round.

quote:

Originally posted by nelsonted1:

quote:

Originally posted by Blob1:
After listening to my uncle tell what they did with their M1s on the front lines From France to Berlin They certianly need to go back to them. Many a time they were charged by a much larger German force and the old M1 kept cranking them out and accrute too! Dirt, sand snow, mud etc and they just kept working. and when they needed a 700 yard shot, no problem.

There was a problem! They had the clip in there and when emptied out would fly out and land on the only rock for miles notifying the observant enemy where you were and then they'd stroll up and kill you. I thought that was common knowledge

All true! But Patton did not call the M1 "the greatest battle implement ever devised" for no reason!

We should replace the 5.56 with the 6.8 spc
and drop the 9mm in favor of the .40 S&W

The 9mm dont stop people any better than it did when that caliber was replaced with the .45
auto back in the day.


IMO.

The 6.8 is a good idea, but not a great one. What the 5.56 lacked was sectional density and a little momentum, and any way you could make Major and 2000 fps out to 300 yards with a sectional density of at least .200 would have been just the ticket. Hunters would know this as a 6mm bullet of 85 grains with a MV of 3000 fps and 1700 FP of ME. This would take about 34.4 grs of usable water capacity in the case and would net an expansion ratio almost identical to the 5.56 x 45.

Even a 75 grain FMJ in the current 5.56 bore could have met all 3 requirements, simply by increasing the current 5.56x45 case up 4 grains in capacity.