Can of Worms time guys!

[longrange1947]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[systaltic]

We really need to get Yahoo! up to speed. Yahoo! News published this nearly two hours ago. Some would say four years, three months and two hours too late.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/...g_over_bullets

The report is on 5.56 rounds in contrast to 7.62 rounds. Any new experiences/test data I need to sponge up? Or has the horse been obliterated?

[Pete]

Originally Posted by systaltic

We really need to get Yahoo! up to speed. Yahoo! News published this nearly two hours ago. Some would say four years, three months and two hours too late.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/...g_over_bullets

The report is on 5.56 rounds in contrast to 7.62 rounds. Any new experiences/test data I need to sponge up? Or has the horse been obliterated?

Don't feel bad that same story was front page on the Fayetteville Observer this morning.

[systaltic]

Wow. As I read more and more of the old threads, it seems as though I am actually staring at a crystal ball that predicts future events/thought rationales.

SF != lethargy.

[kgoerz]

Just to add to what TR said about a high enough velocity to induce fragmentation. I just finished reading House to House. About one Infantry Platoons fight in Faluja. They had just gotten the M4 issued to most of their members right before that fight.
They knew nothing about it. One thing they did notice very quickly was that they were having trouble putting the enemy down. Something that wasn't a problem before. They didn't understand why but it was very obvious to them the M4 was the problem.

[Gene Econ]

Originally Posted by systaltic

The report is on 5.56 rounds in contrast to 7.62 rounds. Any new experiences/test data I need to sponge up? Or has the horse been obliterated?

Systaltic:

You can learn every side of the coin on this forum. From the LeMas ammunition through service ammo -- interior, exterior, and terminal theories and views. Huge debates took place with the Le Mas stuff and one can learn an immense amount about all aspects of ballistics and bullet design from that 'unemotional' debate. He, he, he.

I read that article and my first impression was based on the reporter stating that 1/5 of the guys interviewed wanted a bigger bullet. So what did the other 4/5 th's of the guys say? 1/5 is only 2 out of 10 guys. That isn't a real strong statistic. Also, who ever interviewed these guys didn't state what his sample consisted of - which is pretty important when you consider the billions of dollars needed to re-tool an ammunition system and the billions more in terms of logistical requirements.

I am not a strong proponent of the issued M-855. Not because of its terminal effects because for every one shot who didn't go down immediately with M-855. I bet you would find the exact same with the 7.62 NATO, M-2 30-06, etc. Maybe even the coveted .45 ACP. It's (M-855) accuracy is pretty poor due to its composite design and manufacture plus the design and manufacture of the barrels for the M-16's and M-4's. They are service grade blasters which would be OK with 2 MOA ammo. Combine the service grade blaster with 3 MOA ammo (not 4 as the article stated) and you get into issues with hit and kill probabilities. Sum the squares of error probable simply based on firing positions (supported or unsupported) and you get something around 20 minutes extreme spread unsupported and about ten minutes supported.

The issue is this. What do you want the bullet to do for you? If you want it to penetrate things harder than air -- designers will make one that will do so very well. They will remain stable when penetrating things harder than air. Define for us what your standards for such substances are and we can design a bullet to penetrate them to about 500 yards. Just don't piss and moan if they punch a little hole through someone and otherwise don't do much. Or you can have a bullet that will have an entry hole of what ever the caliber is plus and exit hole (through an average male of which you must state his stature) that is three or four times the entry hole diameter (providing you can state the average range). We can figure out the speed needed.

So there you have it. State your requirements but if you want a rifle bullet to penetrate the frontal glascias of an M-1 Tank and then kill the dirver without further penetration -- we need to give you a piss test to see what narcotics you are addicted to.

Gene the Tired

Gene

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Gene Econ

Sum the squares of error probable simply based on firing positions (supported or unsupported) and you get something around 20 minutes extreme spread unsupported and about ten minutes supported.

Is the extreme spread figured by:
es = 2 x square root(sum of squares of all error)

Just curious.
I understand the math side of things, but haven't had any in-depth shooting training.

[NousDefionsDoc]

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.

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]

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.