The past couple of years the gun world has been talking about Remington's new 6.8mm round developed with the help U.S. Special Forces. The round has improved stopping power over the old 5.56mm NATO round, plus provides good accuracy out to 500+ yards. It has been a difficult design and testing process for the new round, with problems especially dealing in cold climates. I am very curious to hear from members outside the U.S. if they have heard anything about the 6.8mm. It hasn't gotten any major military orders so it has yet to become a standard round for any army. Have there been any prospects in using it on any other types of rifles that are used outside the U.S.?
Remington 6.8mm, Does it Have a Future?
- Thread starter LancerMc
- Start date
knightrider4
Active Member
6.8mm
It supposedly has less recoil than the 7.62mm.
It supposedly has less recoil than the 7.62mm.
I once heard about plans by Heckler&Koch to use a special 5.56 round for the G36. Rounds with a shell of a special copper alloy that would build up a potent static electricity charge due to the friction inside the rifle's tube during firing that would discharge a electric shock like from a tazer at impact. Even a glancing hit could paralyze a leg or arm or knock out the central nervous system.
Didn't hear about that for a long time now. Maye it turned out to be too expensive.
But that sounds like a clever way to increase the stopping power without using a bigger round.
Didn't hear about that for a long time now. Maye it turned out to be too expensive.
But that sounds like a clever way to increase the stopping power without using a bigger round.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
The recoil of a 7.62 x 51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) is a lot more then a 5.56 NATO. I own a Bushmaster M4 and Springfield Armory M1A. The felt recoil of the M4 is considerably less then the M1A. Plus a 30 round magazine of 5.56 weighs less then a 20 round mag of 7.62. I would think a 6.8 would be somewhere in the middle. It has the plus of using very similar magazines as to standard AR-15/M4 mags. I would also think if the 6.8 proven to be viable the ability to use older AR lower receivers would be an advantage. The U.S. and other militaries would like this feature since it would cost less money to put them into service.
After all there was a reason and a philosophy besides the lower recoil and weight that led to the switch from 7.62 to 5.56.
They calculated that smaller rounds would cause less kills and more wounds to the enemy force, which would be better from a tactical point of view, because a dead enemy is just dead, but a wounded enemy keeps his comrades busy and distracts them by needing their help.
So if that tactical concept still is valid (the development of the by now legendary G11 which even used 4.70 mm rounds indicates it is), then there is more to consider than just recoil, weight and long range accuracy when switching to a bigger and thus deadlier ammunition.
Besides, i doubt that the "average small arms fighting range" in a military conflict, if there is a statistic about that, has increased since the introduction of the 5.56 round. When was the last bigger battle of soldier against soldier in a non-urban environment?
They calculated that smaller rounds would cause less kills and more wounds to the enemy force, which would be better from a tactical point of view, because a dead enemy is just dead, but a wounded enemy keeps his comrades busy and distracts them by needing their help.
So if that tactical concept still is valid (the development of the by now legendary G11 which even used 4.70 mm rounds indicates it is), then there is more to consider than just recoil, weight and long range accuracy when switching to a bigger and thus deadlier ammunition.
Besides, i doubt that the "average small arms fighting range" in a military conflict, if there is a statistic about that, has increased since the introduction of the 5.56 round. When was the last bigger battle of soldier against soldier in a non-urban environment?
I've seen some diagrams of the effect that the two rounds have on the human body, and the smaller 5.56 tended to fragment more, creating messer harder to treat wounds, and much more tissue damage. I dont now about stopping power but if I had a choice I'd rather be hit buy the 7.62 round.
Sorry I dont have the link
Sorry I dont have the link
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #10
The biggest advantage for the 7.62 over the 5.56 is the penetration power of the bullets. A 7.62 can go through and through a car (with the exception of an engine block), and a 5.56 would barely go through a car door. The 6.8mm would probably be ideal because it could penetrate a car door an effectively kill a occupant, but not go all the way through.
You want to get hit by a 7.62 round. It takes half of your body with it as it exits. So no point in operating if organs are missing.merocaine said:I've seen some diagrams of the effect that the two rounds have on the human body, and the smaller 5.56 tended to fragment more, creating messer harder to treat wounds, and much more tissue damage. I dont now about stopping power but if I had a choice I'd rather be hit buy the 7.62 round.
Sorry I dont have the link
The 6.8 I think will remain a caliber used only by the special forces and no one else. The rest will continue to use the 5.56 or the 7.62.
from what I seen of the ballistic studies the 7.62 round (commonly from the kalasnikov family) has less of a tunnelling effect ie the shock wave that causes most of the soft tissue damage when a round hits, the 5.56 fired from a M16 type causes a lot more soft tissue trauma as it tunnels through the body.You want to get hit by a 7.62 round. It takes half of your body with it as it exits. So no point in operating if organs are missing.
The Two rounds also behave differently when they hit bone, the 7.62 round will ricoshay around before popping out, the 5.56 will break apart on impact bounce around and pop out in a couple of places, if your lucky.
Both rounds cause horrific damage, but the nato 5.56 wound is more complicated to deal with, something Waylander brought up, the 5.56 is designed to be more distuctive in the human body. An altogether nastier piece of work if you ask me.
and maybe police forces if the want to put someone down fast?The 6.8 I think will remain a caliber used only by the special forces and no one else. The rest will continue to use the 5.56 or the 7.62.
merocaine I am talking about 7.62 rounds from a G3 or a MG3. I agree that the 5.56 disintigrates but to say that the 7.62 ricoshay's is wrong it shatters the bone easy. I have seen a 7.62 wound from both an AK and a G3. The AK round has its problems but the result is very different from a NATO rifle.merocaine said:from what I seen of the ballistic studies the 7.62 round (commonly from the kalasnikov family) has less of a tunnelling effect ie the shock wave that causes most of the soft tissue damage when a round hits, the 5.56 fired from a M16 type causes a lot more soft tissue trauma as it tunnels through the body.
The Two rounds also behave differently when they hit bone, the 7.62 round will ricoshay around before popping out, the 5.56 will break apart on impact bounce around and pop out in a couple of places, if your lucky.
The 7.62 makes sure that you are dead while the 5.56 turns you in to a liability for your mates. But in todays conflicts(anti-terrorist) wounding no longer helps to slow down the enemy. The wounded are just left behind as seen in Iraq and Astan. All that matters is that one shot that kills that bomber before he detonates. or fires an RPG.
From memory the British and Belgium developed a 7mm round that was very similar to the 6.8mm in the 1950s, but due to Nato Politics the 7.62mm was made the standard round.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #16
WhiskyJack you are correct, the French also supported the round, but the U.S. won out in wanting the 7.62 x 51mm.
My local gunstore has an Vietnam Veteran Navy SEAL, he has always said the the 5.56mm is a good round, but he absolutely prefers a 7.62mm. I know military brass wanted a round to wound soldiers, but some wounded soldiers can fight back. He said if you hit a man with the 7.62mm he was down and you move on, and you do not to have to worry about him ever again.
My local gunstore has an Vietnam Veteran Navy SEAL, he has always said the the 5.56mm is a good round, but he absolutely prefers a 7.62mm. I know military brass wanted a round to wound soldiers, but some wounded soldiers can fight back. He said if you hit a man with the 7.62mm he was down and you move on, and you do not to have to worry about him ever again.
Ah ok, misunderstanding.merocaine I am talking about 7.62 rounds from a G3 or a MG3. I agree that the 5.56 disintigrates but to say that the 7.62 ricoshay's is wrong it shatters the bone easy. I have seen a 7.62 wound from both an AK and a G3. The AK round has its problems but the result is very different from a NATO rifle.
powerslavenegi
New Member
Well I do not have an Idea about the difference in dammage inflicted by 7.62 mm from that caused by 5.56 mm ,but one thing is certain if you hit right areas with a 5.56 mm too the man aint gonna trouble you and then of-course we have SAW's,G-36's,Styer's so accuracy aint an issue.Now I dont know what is so good about this new 6.8mm round (appears to be a simple trade off btw 5.56 and 7.62)? for tomorrow some-one might claim x.y mm is even better than the 6.8mm.IOW I am just trying to impress upon the compatibility issue that this new round is gonna face.To me all assault riles have reached their pinnacle with 5.56 mm and it will take a while for some entirely new approach to ballistics and gunnery that would change the status quo.