I read about this new cartridge on the internet somewhere. This is to be the replacement for the .223 in the M4. Is this just a joke?

If you do a search on this site, you'll find this cartridge was discussed earlier, and at some length. I believe that it is intended for special ops type scenarios, if I recall correctly. - Dan

A friend had some hands on with this round. He didn't think the concept would make it to the troops.

IMHO the cartridges closest to perfect for the military are 6.5 MS throated for pointed 129 to 139 grs bullet, 25 Rem with spitzer bullet or 7.62x45 Czech.

Slightly larger body than .222 class, slightly slimmer than .473 Mauser head.

Regards, Hermann

In next 20 years, we all be back at 7.92x33 and STG-44 design

Just funny, for the first time, necking down, then necking up, what next ??? (like 7.62x39, then 5.45x39, then 9x39) . . .

Jiri

>>> as the 6.8x43 seems to be the closest thing yet to an 'ideal' military rifle/LMG round

Exactly my opinion also. Too bad that .223 is propably far too integrated to todays military systems to be replaced - even with considerably better alternative.

Mark V

Nice to see you here Tony. World is truly small indeed. We have met occasionally around the net. Have your book. It is excellent, and would recommend it to anyone interested about autoguns 57mm and under.

Hi Mark, nice to hear from you - thanks for your comments!

Any cartridge in the 6.25-6.8mm range developing 2,300-2,600 joules muzzle energy would be in the right class to be a good 'universal' cartridge. The main problem with the 6.8x43 is that the need to keep the overall length the same as the 5.56mm restricts the ability to use long, well-streamlined bullets, but that's acceptable given its other advantages.

The main hope is that as a SOCOM development it might see limited service with special forces. If it performs to expectations there, it will be in a stronger position to see wider use. After all, that's pretty much how the .223/5.56mm got started.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

I�ve posted it before, but here it goes:

Why not chamber the M 16 for the 7.62x45 Czech???

Or the 6 mm PPC?

25 rounds or so should fit the mag, lenght - at least of the PPC is shorter than the 5.56, couldn�t check OAL for the Czech cartridge.

A shortened rimless 6.5 mm Arisaka or the shortened 25 Rem come to mind also ...

I personally would opt for 6.5 mm calibre, 125 to 135 grs bullets. If you ever compare military bullets, the .30�s suck ( up to 147 grs ), the only thing to compare to a 139 or 144 grs 6.5 mm is a sS 196 grs!

Have fun! Hermann

Hermann,

The Rem cartridge is very close indeed to the shortened .25 Rem using the same basic brass shortened to fit in the mag.

For those who might be unaware, the .25 Rem can be formed from the .30 Rem. Remington apparently started with the .30 Rem brass because it is the only brass of the series for which it still does production runs.

What's really hilarious about this is the Army figured out about the mid 1930s that a .27 caliber cartridge with a 125 grain bullet at 2500 fps was the perfect infantry cartridge and it was the cartridge around which the original Garands were designed...the .276 Pederson.
Now we have the 6.8x45 throwing a .27 bullet at 2650...
How often do we have to reinvent the kinetic energy rifle round?
Lets face it...all the troops I have talked with who have been to Afghanistan have been less than impressed with the 62 gr M855 ammo when the shots get to be 300-400 yards...which in Afghanistan seems to be the norm. All my friends in Iraq have had good things to say about the same ammo but engagements seem to happen at less than 150 yards...
The Army has been using the 77 grain SMK in Afghanistan lately with better results. But still not kind of performance they hoped.