I have recently read two different opinions: one that the project is dead and even SOCOM aren't interested any more because of the ammo weight and supply problems, the other that the Army is seriously considering it for the XM8.
Possibly both views are correct, but are held by different parts of the armed forces. Time will tell!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Posts: 238 | Location: Derbyshire, UK | Registered: 24 May 2002
2 weeks ago, i spent the week at H.K. obtaining cert' in tactical medic, basic swat, mp5, facility in sterling, VA. there were generals coming to shoot the xm8. we had a 15 min lecture on the weapon and it's advantages.
the students were told that the xm8 is a sure thing to be adopted when the colt K expires in 1 year. the factory, 700 acres will be in georgia.
The h.k. .45 usp is also supposed to be adopted when the baretta k expires nest year.
The last I heard was that this round is to be used, at least initially, as a "special-purpose" munition to be issued to a select few individuals, and not as a replacement for ALL current weapons chambered for the 5.56mm.
Well, you've got to start somewhere - if the 6.8mm does make it into service, and proves its worth, it's easy to see a head of steam building up behind extending its use.
The 5.56mm AR-15 was first ordered by the USAF for its airfield guards. Then the US Army ordered a small batch as an interim measure until its SPIW flechette-firing wonder-rifle was ready. Which it never was...
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Posts: 238 | Location: Derbyshire, UK | Registered: 24 May 2002
Quote: Well, you've got to start somewhere - if the 6.8mm does make it into service, and proves its worth, it's easy to see a head of steam building up behind extending its use.
The 5.56mm AR-15 was first ordered by the USAF for its airfield guards. Then the US Army ordered a small batch as an interim measure until its SPIW flechette-firing wonder-rifle was ready. Which it never was...
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Yes, old Curt LeMay got to shoot an AR 15 once at a picnic somewhere. He was impressed with the way it busted watermelons(!!??), and the rest, as they say, is history.
Yeah, but Eldeguello, when is the last time the military went into combat against Watermellons?
I can see where that makes sense to the Air Force, but our grunts need something with a little more GRUNT to it.
I think the 6.8 Rem is going in the right direction since they won't load 22 bullets like the Russians use in their 22 PPC military round, whatever they call it.
And to think that the case is made from something that has been around since the same time as the 30/06 was developed. Who said a step backwards was always a Bad thing???
Quote: Yeah, but Eldeguello, when is the last time the military went into combat against Watermellons? Someone should have asked "Old Ironpants" this very question, but I suspect no-one had the guts to ask him!!< !--color-->
I can see where that makes sense to the Air Force, but our grunts need something with a little more GRUNT to it.I always thought the M1 and M14 filled this requirement rather nicely - at least they did for me!!! < !--color--> I think the 6.8 Rem is going in the right direction since they won't load 22 bullets like the Russians use in their 22 PPC military round, whatever they call it.5.45X39mm Soviet< !--color-->And to think that the case is made from something that has been around since the same time as the 30/06 was developed. Who said a step backwards was always a Bad thing???
Cheers and Good shooting. seafire
Seafire, we've been "going backwards from the .30/'06" ever since WWII ended. VIS, the 7.62 NATO, which is essentially the .30/40 Krag stuffed into a rimless bottle, then the 5.6 NATO, which is, which is, well, just WHATis it, anyway?? A prairie-dog rifle!!
As I recall, the original M16 was also adopted due to the "spectacular" reports returning from our military advisors who tested it in Vietnam. Apparently wounds were quite nasty when the round was fired from it's original 1/14 twist barrel. Then the Army decided to change it to 1/12 to improve long range accuracy.
I for one was quite fond of the original M16 in Viet Nam. Carried it and the Car15 for 2.5 years, never had a jam, never took any wounded prisoners. You fellas are welcome to hump your Garand and M14's around all you want, I'm just gonna carry more ammo. It wasn't broke then, I have no idea why they fixed it. The 14" twist was a killer.
I think the 6.8 Rem is going in the right direction since they won't load 22 bullets like the Russians use in their 22 PPC military round, whatever they call it.
Personally I think pulling a 6.8mm out of your butthole, when we have nearly (over?) 100 years ballistics expirience with 7mm and a lot (but not as much) with 6.5mm is sorta dumb. I mean, we know about as much about the 7mm as the .30 caliber, and I'm sure the powers that be in the Western world know a lot of the 6.5 as well, so lets come up with a brand new one that we dont know as much about
The caliber you're referring to is the 5.45x39 and it is a bad little mother the way the Russians load it. While the 5.56 NATO relies on velocity to incite fragmentation at the cannelure or tumble, when velocity falls the bullets become more or less ice picks. The FMJ 5.45 (used in AK74, Krinkov, and most modern forces that still use AKs) uses a copper spizter jacket over a flat nose lead base, leaving an air pocket in the front of the bullet. When this hits resistance, the jacket rips, tears, or flattens, and all hell breaks lose in the body. Much less dependant on velocity.
During the Russo-Afghan War, the Mujahadeen lobbied the Hague to ban these "poison bullets" because they claimed they violated the deforming bullets law.
Posts: 510 | Location: North Carolina, USA | Registered: 27 August 2002
What I hear is that there 2 possibilitys:1. heckler & koch build a new assult rifle 2. heckler & koch have a new gas expansion system for the M 16 and related and they exchange the system of the existing guns but this is only a temporary solution. In any case you have the rigth boy's for this job, only the german's build good guns
The xm8 is going to be adopted by the army first,with a plan of having the USMC follow later.
Bringing back the .45 would be nice,but I doubt it. Select groups will always have access to the .45,but the main stream army won't. Its on par with replacing the .308 with the .223 in a squad automatic.
With the ballistic knowledge that america has in small arms,the .223 could be loaded in a similar manner that the 5.45 is loaded. The problem is Nato is a bunch of pussies. Russia is actually into killing the enemy,not just wounding them.
Posts: 837 | Location: wyoming | Registered: 19 February 2002
Bringing back the .45 would be nice,but I doubt it. Select groups will always have access to the .45,but the main stream army won't. Its on par with replacing the .308 with the .223 in a squad automatic.
Here is a rumor I've heard.
In 2007 all the "civilized" nations are going to stop using lead core bullets because its bad for the enviroment or something
Supposedly, this will negatively effect small bore weapons more, and create a shift across the small arms board to larger projectiles to get heavier weights. It is expected that 9mm hardball would fall to 80 grns, while .45 hardball would be ~160.
Posts: 510 | Location: North Carolina, USA | Registered: 27 August 2002
If they got rid of lead and went with a barnes x style bullet design,life could be good. I highly doubt they will though. I wouldn't doubt that with the american movement towards humanitarian bullshit in the battlefield,that a tactical "safe bullet"(pulverizes on contact with anything other then soft tisue) isn't used in large quantities .
Posts: 837 | Location: wyoming | Registered: 19 February 2002
Here's a site on mil. cartidge wound ballistics: Terminal effects Not surprisingly, the understabilised .223 bullets did nasty things to the enemy. The russian stuff faired poorly however - This site confirmed what a Ranger I chatted up a couple of years ago at a gun show said: that the Russian stuff goes in and out and doesn't really create a "Traumatic" injury but rather just a pencil hole thru. The rules changed, he said, when they used western ammo in russian guns - very nasty effects - something to do with the jacket seperation.
Toolmaker
Posts: 1000 | Location: in the shop as usual | Registered: 03 April 2004
Jiri, what you say makes alot of sense in regard to the link I posted. That said, I don't understand why you would want to wound the enemy instead of kill them - I've heard all the rationale that is used from a "strategic" level, however at the combat level, wounded enemies can still fight back, dead ones can't. The ideal cartridge from the link seems to be the german 7.62mm NATO, the jacket seems to self destruct in tissue, making even relatively "minor" wounds in the body cavity fatal.
Toolmaker
Posts: 1000 | Location: in the shop as usual | Registered: 03 April 2004
Of course the 6.8 isn't really anything new. Anyone who knows about the history of the M1 Garand knows it wasn't originally designed around the 30-06 nor was it recommended that the 30-06 be adopted by the Army board in 1936. The cartridge that got the nod from the Army board was the .276 Pederson which from all I've read was the rough ballistic equivilent of the new 6.8... McArthur nixed the new round and made the Army adopt the 30-06... They knew a thing or two about ballistics in those days...
Posts: 457 | Location: Kentucky | Registered: 25 February 2002
Quote: What I know especially about russian ammuniton in 80's (what my father was learned at military) is that this ammo was primary made for wounding enemy, not for killing, because wounded enemy need much more resources . . .
This one keeps coming round, but it doesn't really make sense. It takes very little power to inflict a lethal wound (the .22LR rimfire has killed tens of thousands) but it takes a lot more to disable an opponent quickly (which is what the military wants).
Basically, if your weapon is powerful enough to put your opponent out of the fight, it's more than powerful enough to kill him.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Posts: 238 | Location: Derbyshire, UK | Registered: 24 May 2002
A prairie-dog rifle!!
