kato13
01-21-2010, 11:17 PM
antimedic 07-10-2004, 09:35 PM I have been reading alot about U.S Spec Ops guys using a 6.8 mm round. Seems the bad guys do not notice when they get plugged by our little friend Mr. 5.56. So, what are the groups thoughts of the U.S adopting the heavier round for general issue, and if other nations may follow. Maybe even a rebirth of "battle rifles" of 7.62 mm. I think the Army needs to look at most Law Enforcment Agencies, who are getting away from 9mm and going to 10mm or .45 cal.
********************
TR 07-10-2004, 11:32 PM 6.8x43mm Remington SPC yeah... it has been getting a lot of attention. I think however the 5.56 round has killed a lot of people the world over. Part of the problem has been the types of rounds used, for example during the fighting in Mogadishu in 93 some of the troops were issued AP rounds. Great for punching through armored material but didn't have stopping power to get the job done. That's why for the past couple years there have been new rounds developed for the weapon. The 6.8mm may indeed be a step in the right direction however and the idea of weapon upgrades (new uppers and mag replacements compared to a whole new weapon) is saving the tax payers money.
A lot of police departments are using intermediate rounds like the 40 Smith & Wesson, 357 SIG and the like... the 10mm Auto and 45 ACP are not normally standard issue for the common beat cop. Personally I have always found it a shame the 357 Magnum has not been commonly seen in semi-autos as it has excellent stopping capabilities... of course I'm slightly biased.
Until Later
TR
********************
TiggerCCW UK 07-11-2004, 06:01 AM My own personal belief is that we should never have dropped the 7.62 as a standard round - the 5.56 is only a .22 on steroids. Having said that I still wouldn't fancy getting hit by one:D
********************
Chuck Mandus 07-11-2004, 10:57 AM I often wonder why that instead of trying to push a new 6.8mm round, why don't they just go back to using the 7.62mm (.308 Winchester) round? I figure it is already a standard so why not make it easier? Maybe not being in the military, I am missing something but I figure I would ask.
Chuck
********************
Grimace 07-11-2004, 03:48 PM It's a fine balance between stopping power, range, and weight of carrying the ammunition. The 5.56 is lighter, but has less stopping power. The 7.62 is heavier, but has good stopping power. The thing that basically took it out of mainline service was the weight issue. Now their realizing that stopping power might be more important, especially since body armor is getting better. Thus they'll waste enormous amounts of money to try something new out and see how it works, rather than use something they've already deemed "unworthy".
For better or worse, I think the 7.62 will only be relegated to the few battle rifles still in service and the medium machineguns of some nations.
********************
ReHerakhte 07-11-2004, 04:35 PM And to add to what Grimace has said, the 7.62mmN could over-penetrate and with urban warfare, that can be something you don't want (like when it goes through a wall and hits a civvie on the other side). Although in the bush, the ability to shoot through a modest sized tree can come in handy!
It's interesting to see the attempts by other nations to cope with this situation, like the Russian 9mm rifle round. Although I don't know much about its ballistics, it seems to have been developed with urban warfare in mind. TR, do you have info on this round?
Cheers,
Kevin
********************
Chuck Mandus 07-11-2004, 04:53 PM Originally posted by ReHerakhte
And to add to what Grimace has said, the 7.62mmN could over-penetrate and with urban warfare, that can be something you don't want (like when it goes through a wall and hits a civvie on the other side). Although in the bush, the ability to shoot through a modest sized tree can come in handy!
It's interesting to see the attempts by other nations to cope with this situation, like the Russian 9mm rifle round. Although I don't know much about its ballistics, it seems to have been developed with urban warfare in mind. TR, do you have info on this round?
Cheers,
Kevin
I know i've seen films of .30-06 fired from BAR's and it really carved up cinderblocks very well although that could have been the AP ammo that was used. I know myself, if there had been a lighter rounded needed for the average footsoldier, I think I would have settled for something on the par of a .243 Winchester round which is roughly 6mm. I've heard of the Russian 9mm rifle round, I heard it was also used for hunting game as well.
Chuck
********************
Antenna 07-11-2004, 08:56 PM For 6.8x43mm weapon see this link ;) Barrett M468 (http://www.ludd.ltu.se/users/antenna/dc/weap/rifles/m468.htm) The page is for DC but can of course be adopted for M2k or T2k if there are wishes for that :)
Antenna
********************
jtar7242 07-12-2004, 02:41 AM http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifles/rifles_m468.htm
There's the official site, and below is a good read on it.
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M468,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech .nl
It's a cool idea, but the Army has already all but comitted to the M8 rifle. You might see this adopted for special forces, and in all likelyhood I wouldn't rule out a near future limited or complete adoption by the USMC. The higher emphasis on marksmanship in the Marine Corps and the "one shot, one kill" philosophy makes the idea of going back to a heavier round while retaining the flexibility and utility of the M16 weapon, as well as drastically lessening the retraining. Familiarization with an ndividual weapon is huge. All the muscle memory of the M16 weapon would be more or less retained with this over an entirely new system like the M8.
The biggest drawback, however, is logistics, and supply. There is a tremendous amount of 5.56 ammunition in the inventory right now. And while that isn't truly a terminal issue (it could easily be "sold" or given to the Army, what also counts against it is the fact that the M249 SAW still utilizes 5.56mm, and the logistical ease of having all basic fireteam weapons fire the same ammunition is a big factor. There would need to be a new weapon to replace or upgrade the SAW in order to make this weapon more palatable to the brass.
********************
graebarde 07-12-2004, 11:10 AM Just a bit of history of American small arms ammo for the rifles as I recall it.
At the end of WW2, the US was using the .30-06 as it's 'standard' round for the basic rifle, at the time the M1 Garand. When NATO came to be, and standardization became the focus, the British propose as the standard a round that was about .280, but the US being the 'leader and supplier' balked. They had warehouses full of -06 ammo, and would have to completely retool for this to come about. The US proposed the 7.62 NATO round, which is just a shorter necked -06. They could use the powder and bullets, and resize the -06 brass, and wala the 7.62 is born.
Then comes along a brush war in south east Asia. The M14 and 7.62 is too heavy to hump through the jungles, so Colt (really Armalite originally) (and Matell of course) came up with the M16, which fired .223 (5.56 mm). It was sooooooooo much lighter and you could hump alot more rounds for the same weight, (of course it was a piece of shit at the time and took the same weight in ammo to stop the guy coming at you, but what the hell.. Colt was making a killing, and pockets were being lined).
NOW we have the NEW improved round in ALMOST the same caliber as the one the Britisgh proposed FIFTY years ago. And it is OUR idea? Give me a break.. too bad NATO didnt tell the US to stick it and go with the .280 then. It is a good compromise round for weight and stopping power. But alas that is water under the bridge, and what ifs will never be.
WHO is the contractor for this NEW round?
********************
evilmike 07-12-2004, 04:25 PM 5.56mm will whackify folks real good; just make sure you are not using AP rounds or as the man said, you will be having to shoot the target many, many times.
Doesn't penetrate cover worth a damn, but hey, that's what the M60 is for..:)
And yeah, us Marines would LOVE to get a New And Improved M-14.....with modern materials you could make it lighter, at least. Use 30 round mags, stick some optics on it, and voila! My new love goddess...;)
But since we've got umtpy-billion rounds of 5.56mm in the inventory, I don't see it happening any time soon.
*waves to all his fans*
Been busy.
********************
TR 07-17-2004, 04:19 PM It's interesting to see the attempts by other nations to cope with this situation, like the Russian 9mm rifle round. Although I don't know much about its ballistics, it seems to have been developed with urban warfare in mind. TR, do you have info on this round?
I assume you mean the 9x39mm round?
Their a necked up 7.62x39mm cartridge fitted to a 9mm bullet... they have sniper match grade ammo, AP ammo and the like for it. Originally designed for the VAL sniper rifle of the 90's it has been expanded to other weapons since.
Some links on the round can be found on the web at:
http://world.guns.ru/sp-e.htm#sp5
On the road from Tulsa,
TR
********************
********************
TR 07-10-2004, 11:32 PM 6.8x43mm Remington SPC yeah... it has been getting a lot of attention. I think however the 5.56 round has killed a lot of people the world over. Part of the problem has been the types of rounds used, for example during the fighting in Mogadishu in 93 some of the troops were issued AP rounds. Great for punching through armored material but didn't have stopping power to get the job done. That's why for the past couple years there have been new rounds developed for the weapon. The 6.8mm may indeed be a step in the right direction however and the idea of weapon upgrades (new uppers and mag replacements compared to a whole new weapon) is saving the tax payers money.
A lot of police departments are using intermediate rounds like the 40 Smith & Wesson, 357 SIG and the like... the 10mm Auto and 45 ACP are not normally standard issue for the common beat cop. Personally I have always found it a shame the 357 Magnum has not been commonly seen in semi-autos as it has excellent stopping capabilities... of course I'm slightly biased.
Until Later
TR
********************
TiggerCCW UK 07-11-2004, 06:01 AM My own personal belief is that we should never have dropped the 7.62 as a standard round - the 5.56 is only a .22 on steroids. Having said that I still wouldn't fancy getting hit by one:D
********************
Chuck Mandus 07-11-2004, 10:57 AM I often wonder why that instead of trying to push a new 6.8mm round, why don't they just go back to using the 7.62mm (.308 Winchester) round? I figure it is already a standard so why not make it easier? Maybe not being in the military, I am missing something but I figure I would ask.
Chuck
********************
Grimace 07-11-2004, 03:48 PM It's a fine balance between stopping power, range, and weight of carrying the ammunition. The 5.56 is lighter, but has less stopping power. The 7.62 is heavier, but has good stopping power. The thing that basically took it out of mainline service was the weight issue. Now their realizing that stopping power might be more important, especially since body armor is getting better. Thus they'll waste enormous amounts of money to try something new out and see how it works, rather than use something they've already deemed "unworthy".
For better or worse, I think the 7.62 will only be relegated to the few battle rifles still in service and the medium machineguns of some nations.
********************
ReHerakhte 07-11-2004, 04:35 PM And to add to what Grimace has said, the 7.62mmN could over-penetrate and with urban warfare, that can be something you don't want (like when it goes through a wall and hits a civvie on the other side). Although in the bush, the ability to shoot through a modest sized tree can come in handy!
It's interesting to see the attempts by other nations to cope with this situation, like the Russian 9mm rifle round. Although I don't know much about its ballistics, it seems to have been developed with urban warfare in mind. TR, do you have info on this round?
Cheers,
Kevin
********************
Chuck Mandus 07-11-2004, 04:53 PM Originally posted by ReHerakhte
And to add to what Grimace has said, the 7.62mmN could over-penetrate and with urban warfare, that can be something you don't want (like when it goes through a wall and hits a civvie on the other side). Although in the bush, the ability to shoot through a modest sized tree can come in handy!
It's interesting to see the attempts by other nations to cope with this situation, like the Russian 9mm rifle round. Although I don't know much about its ballistics, it seems to have been developed with urban warfare in mind. TR, do you have info on this round?
Cheers,
Kevin
I know i've seen films of .30-06 fired from BAR's and it really carved up cinderblocks very well although that could have been the AP ammo that was used. I know myself, if there had been a lighter rounded needed for the average footsoldier, I think I would have settled for something on the par of a .243 Winchester round which is roughly 6mm. I've heard of the Russian 9mm rifle round, I heard it was also used for hunting game as well.
Chuck
********************
Antenna 07-11-2004, 08:56 PM For 6.8x43mm weapon see this link ;) Barrett M468 (http://www.ludd.ltu.se/users/antenna/dc/weap/rifles/m468.htm) The page is for DC but can of course be adopted for M2k or T2k if there are wishes for that :)
Antenna
********************
jtar7242 07-12-2004, 02:41 AM http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifles/rifles_m468.htm
There's the official site, and below is a good read on it.
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M468,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech .nl
It's a cool idea, but the Army has already all but comitted to the M8 rifle. You might see this adopted for special forces, and in all likelyhood I wouldn't rule out a near future limited or complete adoption by the USMC. The higher emphasis on marksmanship in the Marine Corps and the "one shot, one kill" philosophy makes the idea of going back to a heavier round while retaining the flexibility and utility of the M16 weapon, as well as drastically lessening the retraining. Familiarization with an ndividual weapon is huge. All the muscle memory of the M16 weapon would be more or less retained with this over an entirely new system like the M8.
The biggest drawback, however, is logistics, and supply. There is a tremendous amount of 5.56 ammunition in the inventory right now. And while that isn't truly a terminal issue (it could easily be "sold" or given to the Army, what also counts against it is the fact that the M249 SAW still utilizes 5.56mm, and the logistical ease of having all basic fireteam weapons fire the same ammunition is a big factor. There would need to be a new weapon to replace or upgrade the SAW in order to make this weapon more palatable to the brass.
********************
graebarde 07-12-2004, 11:10 AM Just a bit of history of American small arms ammo for the rifles as I recall it.
At the end of WW2, the US was using the .30-06 as it's 'standard' round for the basic rifle, at the time the M1 Garand. When NATO came to be, and standardization became the focus, the British propose as the standard a round that was about .280, but the US being the 'leader and supplier' balked. They had warehouses full of -06 ammo, and would have to completely retool for this to come about. The US proposed the 7.62 NATO round, which is just a shorter necked -06. They could use the powder and bullets, and resize the -06 brass, and wala the 7.62 is born.
Then comes along a brush war in south east Asia. The M14 and 7.62 is too heavy to hump through the jungles, so Colt (really Armalite originally) (and Matell of course) came up with the M16, which fired .223 (5.56 mm). It was sooooooooo much lighter and you could hump alot more rounds for the same weight, (of course it was a piece of shit at the time and took the same weight in ammo to stop the guy coming at you, but what the hell.. Colt was making a killing, and pockets were being lined).
NOW we have the NEW improved round in ALMOST the same caliber as the one the Britisgh proposed FIFTY years ago. And it is OUR idea? Give me a break.. too bad NATO didnt tell the US to stick it and go with the .280 then. It is a good compromise round for weight and stopping power. But alas that is water under the bridge, and what ifs will never be.
WHO is the contractor for this NEW round?
********************
evilmike 07-12-2004, 04:25 PM 5.56mm will whackify folks real good; just make sure you are not using AP rounds or as the man said, you will be having to shoot the target many, many times.
Doesn't penetrate cover worth a damn, but hey, that's what the M60 is for..:)
And yeah, us Marines would LOVE to get a New And Improved M-14.....with modern materials you could make it lighter, at least. Use 30 round mags, stick some optics on it, and voila! My new love goddess...;)
But since we've got umtpy-billion rounds of 5.56mm in the inventory, I don't see it happening any time soon.
*waves to all his fans*
Been busy.
********************
TR 07-17-2004, 04:19 PM It's interesting to see the attempts by other nations to cope with this situation, like the Russian 9mm rifle round. Although I don't know much about its ballistics, it seems to have been developed with urban warfare in mind. TR, do you have info on this round?
I assume you mean the 9x39mm round?
Their a necked up 7.62x39mm cartridge fitted to a 9mm bullet... they have sniper match grade ammo, AP ammo and the like for it. Originally designed for the VAL sniper rifle of the 90's it has been expanded to other weapons since.
Some links on the round can be found on the web at:
http://world.guns.ru/sp-e.htm#sp5
On the road from Tulsa,
TR
********************