Can of Worms time guys!

longrange1947 · 01-26-2004, 20:53

I have listened to the 6.8 vs 6.5 vs 6mm vs 5.56mm for awhile. I have had my wee wee smacked for some of my comments on the subject.

SO! What do yo guys feel about he rounds and do you think that these new rounds are really needed?

**The Reaper** · 01-26-2004, 22:00

My .02 is that there are better ammo solutions to be had in 5.56 that have not been explored yet.

The 6.8 will be a great LEO round and will be fine on small deer, but it has a couple of serious negatives.

One, no one else in the world, or even in the US military will be using the round. The days of bopping over to the German compound, or to the 3rd ID to pick up some ammo would be over. For a unit like SF, which may have to take months of supplies in when they infil, this is a critical deficiency.

Second, anyone using it is going to be leaving an absolutely unique signature behind on the battlefield. For an HVT like SOF, which is seriously hunted by the Bad Guys, this is more than a minor concern. The unit scattering these expended cases behind them will soon have a new group of motivated fans following them with hostile intent.

Third, the round has not been field tested for numerous parameters, and is even now still being tweaked.

Fourth, we have sold NATO on the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45 NATO cartridges in the past as standards against their will. I do not see them, in a time of declining defense budgets, adopting a new round while they have billions of 7.62 and 5.56 ammo and hundreds of thousands of weapons in the old calibers.

For the above reasons, if I were going in harm's way in another country, I would prefer the 5.56 or 7.62x39. In fact, IMHO almost any solution would be preferable to the 6.8 for the next 5-10 years, at the soonest.

Just my .02, and worth what you paid for it.

TR

longrange1947 · 01-27-2004, 13:21

I was hoping for a rabid supporter so we could have a discussion of this oddity or flavor of the month round. No takers or has Reaper instilled too much common sense into the game?

Come on, bring it on!

Cazador 01 · 01-27-2004, 22:12

I posted a piece on the issue of 5.56 combat failures on ANOTHER board and got beat up a bit.

TR has considerably more knowledge and information than I.

I understand that weapons in 7.62 NATO are in great demand in the field these days.

NousDefionsDoc · 01-27-2004, 22:18

I think some people (not on this site) don't understand the difference between a carbine and a rifle and what their intended uses and limitations are.

**The Reaper** · 01-27-2004, 22:42

Quote:

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I think some people (not on this site) don't understand the difference between a carbine and a rifle and what their intended uses and limitations are.

Here, here!

M-16 Rifle (20" barrel) w/M193 ammo:

Longer barrel and faster, lighter bullet has higher MV

Will fragment and wound effectively out to 200m.

Will outpenetrate the M-4/M855 out to 100m. or more

Has longer sight radius which is generally conducive to better accuracy

M-4 Carbine (14.5" barrel) w/M855 ammo:

Slower round, shorter barrel = significantly reduced MV

Will not fragment and wound effectively beyond 75m. or so

Will not penetrate effectively as the M-16/M193

Has shorter sight radius and is almost always less accurate

Is now being fielded to units with inadequate marksmanship training and maintenance programs

NousDefionsDoc · 01-27-2004, 22:57

Then add 7.62 into the mix. I recently supported a man who I consider to be knowledgeable when he said "Hey guys, its a carbine, not a precision rifle." Right tool for the job.

01-28-2004, 05:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Cazador 01
I posted a piece on the issue of 5.56 combat failures on ANOTHER board and got beat up a bit.

There are documented combat failures by the .50 BMG, the .30-06, the 7.62mm NATO, the 8mm Mauser, the 7.62x39mm, the .30 Carbine, the .45 ACP and the 9mm Parabellum and on and on and on. Documented combat failures do not in themselves prove much.

longrange1947 · 01-28-2004, 07:49

Actually we have two types of combat failures. One is th eround not downing a bad guy. The other is the shooter not hitting what he is shooting at. While the first is actaully a relatively rare event, the second occurs all too often.

From this comes multiplex rounds, flechette rounds, and everyother type of round to mechanically fix a stress/training problem.

How much of the second do you think is driving the current "need" for the new round? We already have an increase in effectiveness with the 77gr and the "old" non-penetrator round.

Just some thoughts.

**Team Sergeant** · 01-31-2004, 13:22

I just purchased a case of 77gr. Will let you know what I think as soon as I get to the range.

longrange1947 · 01-31-2004, 14:09

Use them for my 200 and 300 yard events, use the 80 gr for my 600 yard event. There are some that use the 77gr for 600 as well. Had a Navy female officer clean my clock at 600 using 77gr.

She was on the Navy rifle team though so did not feel too bad. Also had a 20 point brain fart that really lowered my score.

The 77gr will fit in the mag while the 80 gr will not. There are others and an AMU armeror out shot the rest fo the team at 1000 using the 90 gr.

Room for thought. Add the newer bi and multi metal desintigrating rounds and you have a lethal mix.

KevinB · 02-28-2004, 07:44

Rick not to burst your bubble on M193 but...

I recently did pen tests with M193, M855, Mk262 and LeMas Ltd.'s Urban Warfare BMT round.

Shooting at 1/2" 12x12 AR500 Plate
None of the round penetrated (I did not really expect them too)

The deepest Penetration was the UW round (46gr going at Mach Chicken or something like it).

Then in the 'conventional' rounds the Mk262 (mod0) penetrated the next greatest depth - then followed by the M855 - (which may have out penetrated the Mk262 in some instances - for the penetrators "porcupined" in the plate and until the plate is cut up we wont know total penetration.

The M193 scuffed the plate the least.

I will sign off on the Reapers reasons for the 6.8 fading from view. MikeH did a very good rationale before he went to Remington...

-Kevin

**The Reaper** · 02-28-2004, 08:42

Kevin:

At what range?

If you have a copy of Mike's write up and don't think he would mind, put it up.

TR

longrange1947 · 02-28-2004, 09:14

Quote:

Originally posted by KevinB
Rick not to burst your bubble on M193 but...

I recently did pen tests with M193, M855, Mk262 and LeMas Ltd.'s Urban Warfare BMT round.

Shooting at 1/2" 12x12 AR500 Plate
None of the round penetrated (I did not really expect them too)

The deepest Penetration was the UW round (46gr going at Mach Chicken or something like it).

Then in the 'conventional' rounds the Mk262 (mod0) penetrated the next greatest depth - then followed by the M855 - (which may have out penetrated the Mk262 in some instances - for the penetrators "porcupined" in the plate and until the plate is cut up we wont know total penetration.

The M193 scuffed the plate the least.

I will sign off on the Reapers reasons for the 6.8 fading from view. MikeH did a very good rationale before he went to Remington...

-Kevin

Not sure how you are bursting my bubble when you only confirmed what I have stated. There is a lethal mix of 5.56 out there and going to a new 6.8 round is an utter waste of time.

As far as penetration, one of hte problems right now is over penetration and no energy dump on the target.

I seldom shoot at 1/2 thick steel with a 5.56 and use larger rounds for that activity.

**The Reaper** · 02-28-2004, 10:07

Quote:

Originally posted by longrange1947
Not sure how you are bursting my bubble when you only confirmed what I have stated. There is a lethal mix of 5.56 out there and going to a new 6.8 round is an utter waste of time.

As far as penetration, one of hte problems right now is over penetration and no energy dump on the target.

I seldom shoot at 1/2 thick steel with a 5.56 and use larger rounds for that activity.

Rick:

I believe that we can all agree that in order to inflict an injury, first, you must hit the target.

I think we are all also in agreement that the M855 is abysmally inaccurate. The M193 is better yet, and the Mk 262 is the best of all of the issued rounds. I will try the LeMas for accuracy as soon as I can figure out which rifle/twist it likes best and get out to the range with it. Incidentally, as I understand it, the new "Green" ammo is a horrible accuracy load, basically, it will be a real challenge even to qualify with it.

To hit the target, you must also get through whatever cover is between the shooter and the target. The M193 is inadequate and M855 only marginally better, except for the specific tests it was designed for. I have not conducted penetration tests with the Mk 262, but I would expect it to exceed the M193 and possibly the M855. The LeMas outpenetrates any conventional rounfd I have tested it against out to 100m. I suspect that at extended ranges, the retained energy and greater mass of the projos would make the Mk 262 the superior performer, at some range.

As far as the lethality or wound potential of the rounds once the target is hit in a significant area, the M193 and M855 will both do roughly the same damage if the threshold velocity of 2500 to 2700 fps for the fragmentation effect to occur. Becuase of the M193's greater initial MV, it will do that to a longer range. The Mk 262, especially in the most recent version, the Mod 2(?) with the cannelured bullet, will do somewhat greater damage as it goes through its first yaw cycle and breaks apart because it will do so at a lower velocity than the M193/M855 due to its longer bullet length and greater payload of material. The LeMas will "catastrophically" frag at a full range of velocities and will disperse minute particles over a large area of the target internally, shredding tissue thoroughly. I have seen several tissue impacts from the LeMas rifle ammo and I have yet to see one exit a target.

Hope this helps, soapbox off.

TR