Remington 6.8mm, Does it Have a Future?

[merocaine]

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.

I'd agree with that, there have been efforts at a radical departure, the G41 had an almost ray gun preformance, but perfecting the ammo proved too difficult to be economically fesabile. american/german XM8 system just did'ent improve enough on what was already avalible to be worth the effort.

If body armour keeps improving I think we'll be looking at large calibre caseless ammo soon enough, whats the point of an 5.56 or 6.8 or 7.62 round if you have to be within 20 30 yards or even closer to punch through body armour. Who knows the days of heavily armoured close combat may soon be upon us again!

 

[Rich]

Ive been a big game hunter for 40 years and while Ive never hunted game with a 6.8 I have with 5.56mm, 6mm, 6.5mm, 7mm, and 7.62mm. The difference in killing power between a 5.56 round and even a 6mm round is very real, and when compared to the 6.5mm, 7mm, and 7.62, can better be described as "profound". I had a few sporterized Mausers in 6.5 Swede and the other chambered in 7x57 mauser and with either rifle, with proper bullets/loads, I wouldn't hesitate to take either hunting for critters up to Moose, which is a 900lb class animal. Even with a 6mm,/.243 win when using a 95 grn bullet, compared to 55 grn or 62 grn in 5.56mm, a hunter is able to cleanly take deer, antelope sized game far more efficiently then with a 5.56.

None of this is secret, nor is the fact that 6mm to 7mm rounds will kill an enemy faster and better. Which is why a hard core element in the military and shooting world has kept alive this dream of a better round for the M-16. About every 10 years the rumor of a replacement crops up, of course this time around Remington actually created the round.

But the logistics alone of changing will prevent the Military from adopting it. Imagine what it would cost to go full time to the 6.8? I hope it happens, Ive seen enough in the hunting fields. But I dont believe it will.

 

[TrangleC]

The hunting comparison isn't much of a use in this discussion.
Snipers always kept using bigger bullets and deer doesn't shoot back at you.
The average soldier needs a assault rifle system that enables him to get as much rounds into the air as possible in stressful and hard to grasp situations. Having a small round (which can be carried in big amounts) and a low recoil is clearly the best choice.
And it is not only that, as i said before in this thread.
A dead enemy means just one less shooting back at you. A wounded enemy can mean that two or three stop shooting because they try to help him - and maybe even risk exposing themselves by doing so. That is a concept that might be hard to explain to a soldier in the field who wants to have as much "killing power" as possible, but i guess the people who see the bigger picture and analyze the statistics do stick with the 5.56-philosophy for a reason.

 

[MG 3]

Imagine a situation that you are in afghanistan during a firefight with members of the Taliban. He is firing from behind a dirt-wall(material of choice in that region) and so are you. When you fire your 5.56 it will not have that much of an effect in the wall but when you fire a 7.62 burst on it, it starts to give way. So you decide which is better.

TrangleC you made the point that a wounded man will slow down tow maybe more but not in todays warfare. You see most conficts today are regular armies against terrorists, insurgencies, and the lot. So your friendly terrorists do not go out and rescue their buddy but leave him there. So what matters is to stop him before he fires.

 

[merocaine]

TrangleC you made the point that a wounded man will slow down tow maybe more but not in todays warfare. You see most conficts today are regular armies against terrorists, insurgencies, and the lot. So your friendly terrorists do not go out and rescue their buddy but leave him there. So what matters is to stop him before he fires.

dont make the mistake of fighting todays wars tomorrow! the logic of the 5.56 round has'ent changed.
Your point about irreguler troops leaving there dead and wounded on the battlefield is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. It is much more difficult to get treatment if your not fighting in a regular army, it is one thing to be shot and killed, another if you have to drive your buddy 30 miles to find a friendly doctor, while he's lying there bleeding all over the shop.
Irreguler troops do there upmost to disguise there true causulties, that means where possible evacuating dead and wounded.

 

[powerslavenegi]

Imagine a situation that you are in afghanistan during a firefight with members of the Taliban. He is firing from behind a dirt-wall(material of choice in that region) and so are you. When you fire your 5.56 it will not have that much of an effect in the wall but when you fire a 7.62 burst on it, it starts to give way. So you decide which is better.

TrangleC you made the point that a wounded man will slow down tow maybe more but not in todays warfare. You see most conficts today are regular armies against terrorists, insurgencies, and the lot. So your friendly terrorists do not go out and rescue their buddy but leave him there. So what matters is to stop him before he fires.

Well a mud wall giving away to 7.62 fire will certainly oblige to 5.56 ammo too only the rate of distintegration will vary(until and unless terrorists in afganistan make custom built mud walls for 5.56 ammo ),realistically speaking guys on both the sides wont waste the precious ammo on the wall(on the contrary for a given weight guy with 7.62mm will carry only 2/3rd or less number of bullets than the other ).As far as the philosophy that 5.56 rounds just wound the enemy while 7.62 mm kills might hold good for single shot weapons not for modern assault rifles that fire at 600rpm or more.Infact if encountered with an enemy at 200 or so meters accuracy of 5.56 ammo will ensure one of at least having better chances of hitting the target(for at point blank range a salvo of 5.56 or 7.62 both will be fatal ,yes I concede that 7.62 will make a mess of the target but does that matter ?).

 

[MG 3]

dont make the mistake of fighting todays wars tomorrow! the logic of the 5.56 round has'ent changed.
Your point about irreguler troops leaving there dead and wounded on the battlefield is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. It is much more difficult to get treatment if your not fighting in a regular army, it is one thing to be shot and killed, another if you have to drive your buddy 30 miles to find a friendly doctor, while he's lying there bleeding all over the shop.
Irreguler troops do there upmost to disguise there true causulties, that means where possible evacuating dead and wounded.

Well I am talking form the experience of the Pak army in the Tribal areas. They DO leave their wounded behind. Just look at the latest op in afghanistan and the number of wounded they have left behind.

 

[MG 3]

We are not talking about the superiority of the 5.56 or the 7.62 but about replacing these with the 6.8mm. What I understand is that the 7.62 is heavy(just dont ask, have carried it and it becomes a pain in the a**) but has more of a punch than the 5.56. So theoritically the 6.8 is a good compromise between the two but bringing it in to active service will be a chalange.

 

[LancerMc]

Concerning the 7.62's high amount of recoil, the U.S. ammo manufacturer Hornady recently developed a new 110 grain TAP Police Defense Round. The standard NATO round is 150 grains. The added advantage is the bullet still performs like a 7.62 in close combat (200 or less yards) but has significantly less recoil. My brother has put some of the 110 TAP through his SOCOM II and says there is a noticeable difference between the 110 and 150 grains. Plus the round is very popular with many police departments that want a round to penetrate but not have a lot of recoil.

 

[Rich]

The hunting comparison isn't much of a use in this discussion.

Really? So the terminal performance of loads, bullets, and calibers isnt pertinent?

Snipers always kept using bigger bullets and deer doesn't shoot back at you.
The average soldier needs a assault rifle system that enables him to get as much rounds into the air as possible in stressful and hard to grasp situations. Having a small round (which can be carried in big amounts) and a low recoil is clearly the best choice.

Snipers use bigger bullets because they perform better in the wind and at distance, as well as having more killing power. Also a sniper isnt as worried about the amount of ammo they can carry.

Thanks for reminding me deer dont shoot back. When youv hunted long enough, for enough critters including some that make an enemy soldier look safe, with enough loads,calibers, and bullets, you do gain a feel for the effectivenss of a load. Thats why ammo studies are often done using live animals. Be it a 200lb deer or a 200lb naked ape meat is meat.

Except for all the ex special forces you meet on the internet its hard to talk to someone who has used all these different round/loads/weapons to kill in combat.

 

[TrangleC]

It seems we are not talking about the same thing.

I didn't doubt that you know about the deadliness of different bullet sizes. I'm just saying that those generals and scientists who decided to switch from 7.64 to 5.56 did WANT a less deadly bullet and they had their reasons.
So the argument that a bigger bullet would be better because it is deadlier sinply is pointless.
That is all i'm saying.

 

[Whiskyjack]

It seems we are not talking about the same thing.

I didn't doubt that you know about the deadliness of different bullet sizes. I'm just saying that those generals and scientists who decided to switch from 7.64 to 5.56 did WANT a less deadly bullet and they had their reasons.
So the argument that a bigger bullet would be better because it is deadlier sinply is pointless.
That is all i'm saying.

Two things I will say and I apologise as some of this is from memory of stuff I have learned over the years.

1. One of the reasons for smaller calibres was the fact that when the 5.56 came into being NATO was looking at war in Europe where studies showed that the average infantry fire fight was carried out at 300m or less (data from WWII). I speculate that in the jungles of Vietnam this would have been much the same. Of course in the Deserts and Mountainous terrain that soldiers are fighting in now that 300m can and is much greater, due to all that open space. You can carry all the 5.56 you want, not much use if the enemy is out of effective range.
2. It depends on your armies training, I know that the USMC, British Army NZ Army etc (or they have in the past) teach one shot one kill, conserve ammunition. This would lead to a larger calibre being preferred as you do not need a high rate of automatic fire.

NZ used the 7.62 SLR in Vietnam and from what I have been told by the guys that were there and read they would take the 7.62 over the 5.56 any day!

 

[LancerMc]

I have been reading a lot of articles written by Army and Marine vets from Iraq, and the full auto or burst mode is hardly used by our soldiers. Whiskyjack is correct, the marksmanship of our soldiers is so good, they rarely needed to put a lot of lead on a target. Most of the instances when the soldiers were dealing with a small number of insurgents they had their AR's on semi-auto. The insurgents often did what the veterans called "Spray & Pray" since the insurgents would often just pop out and let loose with their AK's and hope to hit American soldiers.

I think the 6.8mm would help with the penetration problems of the 5.56 in urban conditions and provide a better knock down hit at a longer distances. Though the decisions to buy equipment are normally not made by the right people.

 

[Rich]

It seems we are not talking about the same thing.

I didn't doubt that you know about the deadliness of different bullet sizes. I'm just saying that those generals and scientists who decided to switch from 7.64 to 5.56 did WANT a less deadly bullet and they had their reasons.
So the argument that a bigger bullet would be better because it is deadlier sinply is pointless.
That is all i'm saying.

Not just sizes but also bullet construction and weight. I know what their reasons were but dont understand your statement,

"So the argument that a bigger bullet would be better because it is deadlier sinply is pointless."

Even with the M-16 system we went to a heavier bullet, and rifle barrels twisted faster to stabalize it. In part because the heavier bullet is "deadlier", as well as behaves better at distance. Of even more importance is bullet contruction, which we are restricted in under the Geneva convention.

But any sniper rifle will use heavy for caliber bullets. Even rifles chambered in 7.62x51, when used for military snipers, will shoot the heavier 173 grn load.

In the end its all a trade off. When you look at the big pciture I guess the M-16 and 5.56mm makes the most sense.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Two things I will say and I apologise as some of this is from memory of stuff I have learned over the years.

1. One of the reasons for smaller calibres was the fact that when the 5.56 came into being NATO was looking at war in Europe where studies showed that the average infantry fire fight was carried out at 300m or less (data from WWII). I speculate that in the jungles of Vietnam this would have been much the same. Of course in the Deserts and Mountainous terrain that soldiers are fighting in now that 300m can and is much greater, due to all that open space. You can carry all the 5.56 you want, not much use if the enemy is out of effective range.
2. It depends on your armies training, I know that the USMC, British Army NZ Army etc (or they have in the past) teach one shot one kill, conserve ammunition. This would lead to a larger calibre being preferred as you do not need a high rate of automatic fire.

NZ used the 7.62 SLR in Vietnam and from what I have been told by the guys that were there and read they would take the 7.62 over the 5.56 any day!

M16 and Steyr rifles firing 5.56mm NATO rounds are accurate at ranges in excess of 500m's. We used to do minimal qualification level shoots at 300m and that was as a starting point for your marksmanship training.

The SLR unfortunately whilst it was a powerful and reliable weapon could not provide automatic fire (the FN-FAL could, but it was virtually un-controllable on full-auto) and was heavy (roughly the same weight as a Minimi).

In Vietnam, Australian an NZ carried a mixture of weapons, to maximise the sections combat capability by combining the various weapons relative strengths (SLR, M-16, M-60). After Vietnam they shied away from this approach, thinking that standarisation on a single calibre was better from a logistical POV and wanting the lighter weight for the ammunition and weapons that fired them to relieve some of the burden on the infantryman who had to carry same.

Ironically enough, now that we are back in the business of conducting operations, "old school" weapons that are tough, reliable and highly lethal (MAG-58 7.62mm GPMG's and other 7.62mm calibre weapons) are starting to make a comeback in popularity. In the Australian context the maneuvre support team concept which will operate in each platoon, will operate exactly these weapons, including a semi-automatic 7.62mm "marksmans" rifle, to provide accurate long ranged rifle fire, but at a level slightly below that of a dedicated Sniper...

Perhaps it's time to conduct a THOROUGH evaluation of weapons calibre's and determine the best available. It seems that some company designs a new calibre every few years and it's the best thing since sliced bread. Quite a few years ago it was an FN 5.7mm round that was going to replace 5.56mm. Then someone came up with a 7mm round, now there's 6.8mm.

None have actually managed to displace 5.56mm though...

 

[merocaine]

Well it seems plain from the above posts that there is no universal best round only a series of trade offs, I like the sound of the ozzy approach mixed calibers in the one squad, must be a bitch to supply through.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well it seems plain from the above posts that there is no universal best round only a series of trade offs, I like the sound of the ozzy approach mixed calibers in the one squad, must be a bitch to supply through.

There are only 2 separate calibre's to supply per platoon in terms of small arms ammunition and both are already manufactured for our Army. When you think of the range of weapons and armaments that already need to be supplied (5.56mm, 7.62mm, 12.7mm, 25mm, 30mm, 40mm, 66mm, 81mm, 84mm, 105/120mm and 155mm) additional ammunition of a type already in-service won't make much difference, it may require a ramp up in ammunition production, but that capability is already being planned for ADF's ammunition suppliers thanks to large scale capability enhancements that have recently been funded.