[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by dvollmer

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.

Originally Posted by dvollmer

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??

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.

Originally Posted by dvollmer

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.

Originally Posted by dvollmer

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