6.8 mm

[dvollmer]

Hello all.

I've searched for "6.8" and read the relevant threads, including the 30 page monster on Le Mans ballistics, and wasn't able to find what I was looking for.

I did see occasional references to 6.8 mm as a hunting round, but what I'm really wondering is this: Is 6.8 mm effective in combat? What I mean is, would you (QP's) take 6.8 mm over the 5.56 into a firefight?

At the risk of turning this question into a homework assignment, why or why not?

I've read elsewhere that it's being tested in the field in a limited capacity, so basically I'm just looking for opinions you may have.

Thanks for your time
Dave

[kachingchingpow]

I bet Jack O'Connor has a little grin on his face.

I've been thinking for years that an AR-15 built around the .25 or .27 caliber bullet with a rebated rim to marry things up would be a great round. Heck, even a 6.5mm Swede is a kick butt round when all things are considered... weight, range, recoil, etc.

I'd be interested in the field reports as well.

[brownapple]

Personal Opinion:

It isn't the round that makes the difference. It is where you place it.

During WWII, there were failure to stop reports for the .30-06, the .303, the 8mm Mauser and the .50 BMG. During Korea, many individual accounts mention having to fire multiple rounds (this with the M1 Garand) into enemies to get them to drop.

Put a round where it has an impact on the central nervous system, and regardless of ballistics, it will have an effect. Put a round where it doesn't have an impact on the central nervous system, and there is a chance that the effect of the round will not be noticable.

Round placement. That's what does the job.

[rubberneck]

I have read a bunch of threads on the 6.8 here and on Socnet and the round almost always meets with less than enthusiastic support from the Quiet Professionals that have played with it. I find that interesting because every last gun rag writer claims that the round came into being because the Special Forces community asked Remington for it.

Why do I get the feeling that the "Special Forces asked for it" is nothing more than a marketing line and has very little to do with reality.

[The Reaper]

Hello all.

I've searched for "6.8" and read the relevant threads, including the 30 page monster on Le Mans ballistics, and wasn't able to find what I was looking for.

Dave:

As GH noted, shot placement is the key. I have seen no data that anyone has walked off a well-placed 5.56x45 head shot yet.

This round is one of those hot topics for armchair warriors. You might be better going to AR15.com to talk about it with like minded people. Are you actually old enough to purchase a firearm or ammunition?

Obviously, you are not familiar with the "gray man" approach, nor have you found the relevent posts concerning this topic. This horse has been flogged to death before.

I did see occasional references to 6.8 mm as a hunting round, but what I'm really wondering is this: Is 6.8 mm effective in combat?

I don't know. AFAIK, if the 6.8 SPC has ever been used in combat, it has not been used by enough people to determine effectiveness. Effectiveness is a relative term and would be a difficult term to define considering the multiple variables of bullet placement, range, target weight/size, motivation, cover, etc. It seems to work okay in Jell-O, if you are ever attacked by a blob type creature. It might make a decent short range hunting round, if you needed to hunt with a military-type weapon.

What I mean is, would you (QP's) take 6.8 mm over the 5.56 into a firefight?

Maybe. If there was a rifle that fed it reliably. The ones I have seen were significantly less reliable than the M-16 or M-4. And if I could get the rounds from any other US or NATO soldier. And if it really was a significantly better performer ballistically than the 5.56. And if I could carry as many rounds of 6.8 as 5.56. And if it didn't leave very distinctive signs behind that the only special unit using it had just been in the area.

If we had no rifles or ammo on hand right now, and were starting an Army from scratch, it MIGHT make sense. IMHO, it could also make a good LE round, if they wanted or needed a new round.

During the opening phases of OIF, we could not keep our troops supplied with 5.56 and 7.62 ammo. Now you want to add a new caliber to the mix??:rolleyes:

BTW, we do not get to vote on our weapons, or calibers, or take whatever we want to a firefight. The US Government does that for us.

At the risk of turning this question into a homework assignment, why or why not?

We forced NATO into adopting our 7.62x51 as the standard rifle cartridge. Then only a short time later, we abandoned it for the 5.56x45, which we also foisted onto NATO a few years ago. We also appear to be leaving the 9x19 NATO pistol round for our own caliber. Since changing the caliber means that everyone has to change mags, spare parts, ammo stockpiles, production tooling, etc., which is a significant cost after recently going to the 5.56, that we recently had them change to, and military funding is not a big priority right now, especially small arms, I would say no. If we were looking for a new round, it could be proven to be better, and we were willing (and funded) to replace every 5.56 weapon with a 6.8, and all of the mags, parts, ammo, etc., maybe.

I've read elsewhere that it's being tested in the field in a limited capacity, so basically I'm just looking for opinions you may have.

Thanks for your time
Dave

You got my opinion. Please avoid starting any "which is better " threads in the future.

Have a very SF day.

TR

[dvollmer]

Apologies. Won't happen again.

[Team Sergeant]

TR beat me to it but heres another point of view:

dvollmer,

A .22 can be as effective as a .50

The current combat round (5.56) is as effective as the any kinetic delivery system existing today. And as a combatant I will say that in all situations placement of the round is paramount. A .22, .223, .50 and a 6.8 will all have the same effect on a human shot through the forehead from zero meters. That said why don’t we carry 10,000 rounds of .22’s in combat? The same reason we don’t each carry a .50.

While a .22 and a .50 can both be equally effective at one range a .50 will neutralize a biped well beyond 1500 meters. The .22 effectiveness can be measured in feet, thus not a good choice for today’s combatants.

So why don’t we all carry .50’s? Weight of the delivery system and bullet weight puts this idea out of reach for most combatants. While you may not believe this studies have been done as to which kinetic delivery system would be most effective in today’s environment (the last few decades) and the decision was made to field the 5.56.

Would the 6.8 be a more effective round? Sure, but so would just about every round that is bigger and heavier than the 5.56. (WOW. Is the light going on?) Bigger on the battlefield sometimes is better but you pay a premium in weight and how many rounds a soldier can carry, training issues etc. Are there situations when a bigger round is better? Sure and the same reason we have many different weapons systems and calibers at our disposal.

Having said that most "civilians" calling for the 6.8 to replace the 5.56 have one common foundation: profit motive. Another example of learn to think for yourself. Those yelling the loudest are those that have most to profit in the industry. Another factor they have in common is most are civilians that have only seen combat while sitting on their couch 10,000 miles removed. They have never walked on a battlefield, have zero in the way of experience and yet they are the ones yelling the loudest. (And another reason this website does not have sponsors, advertisers or civilian ownership; we answer to no one.)

Also remember, the United States Military abides by the Geneva Conventions concerning what we can and cannot employ to dispatch the enemy, rules of land warfare. Thusly as combatants we are restricted as to what the actual bullet consists of and that is currently a full metal jacket.
If you go to your local hunting outfitters you will notice there are no full metal jacket bullets offered by the big manufacturers for hunters, wonder why? They’re not effective bullet designs for killing.

Nuff said.

Team Sergeant

[7624U]

TS
What hurts more plastic or metal BB's out of airsoft guns ? :D

[x SF med]

TS
What hurts more plastic or metal BB's out of airsoft guns ? :D

Ow!!! 762, that's gonna leave a mark.

[7624U]

I know I couldent help myself, we all know how much TS loves the sport of Airsoft on this board ;)

[swatsurgeon]

6.8 and .45 GAP belong in the same trash can. Ever wonder why they were developed: MARKETING IDEA and supposed need.
You convince enough people that the .223 isn't effective enough or that a .45 ACP is too much gun for people and what you get is a marketing ploy for the average person with little first hand knowledge about the weapon, the cartridge, the wound ballistics profile, the ability to hit the intended target area and they become the consumers keeping these great ideas alive the the minds of few.
The 6.8 debate is truly laughable. Hit your target in the correct spot and the .22 short, LR or magnum , .25, .32, .380 will all be equally as effective as a 6.8. Hit the target with a better performing ammo and then who cares about the larger 6.8 caliber, the .223 would and still can do the job....that's another story.

Train to shoot to a level of performance where the caliber means less and the effects mean more: wow, what a concept, sounds like an SF motto in the making!!

ss

[x SF med]

Swarsurgeon-
You mean kind of like the "one shot one kill" thing or "well placed, well aimed shots"? I reember those from somewhere.

I agree with you, a .22 LR can be as effective as a .50 Cal, depending who is behind the trigger.

[swatsurgeon]

Swarsurgeon-
You mean kind of like the "one shot one kill" thing or "well placed, well aimed shots"? I reember those from somewhere.

I agree with you, a .22 LR can be as effective as a .50 Cal, depending who is behind the trigger.



yeah, something along those lines..........but those phrases seem so 'common'

ss

[rubberneck]

6.8 and .45 GAP belong in the same trash can. Ever wonder why they were developed: MARKETING IDEA and supposed need. You convince enough people that the .223 isn't effective enough or that a .45 ACP is too much gun for people and what you get is a marketing ploy for the average person with little first hand knowledge about the weapon, the cartridge, the wound ballistics profile, the ability to hit the intended target area and they become the consumers keeping these great ideas alive the the minds of few.

I thought the logic behind the 45GAP was to be able to offer shooters with small hands the power of a 45ACP in a 9MM frame.

[swatsurgeon]

I thought the logic behind the 45GAP was to be able to offer shooters with small hands the power of a 45ACP in a 9MM frame.


Rubberneck,
Then why not get a single stack .45, 4-4.25 inch barrel, lightweight ? Most of the major manufacturers make a .45 that can fit small hands. I have held Springfield Armory, Para and Kimbers that were smaller than my Glock 19 interms of grip width. The .45 gap was a higher capacity alternative to the .45 ACP while maintaining the .45 bullet. As good a bullet to miss with as any going back to the premise of: Train to shoot to a level of performance where the caliber means less and the effects mean more, and pick the caliber you shoot best, not just the biggest.....The QP's will boast about this point.

ss

[rubberneck]

Rubberneck,
Then why not get a single stack .45, 4-4.25 inch barrel, lightweight ?

They already tried that approach with the G36. It would have worked if they had filled in the backstrap and then reduced the grip like Robar, but they didn't. What they got was a gun with ergonomics slightly better than the G21 but it still wouldn't work for women or men with small hands.

I guess it was easier to invent a whole new cartridge than to redesign the 21 and 36. :munchin Having played with the new Springfield XD in 45ACP I would say that they have gotten that one right.