Author Topic: New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops  (Read 1578 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
« on: January 20, 2019, 02:10:47 pm »
New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
1/18/2019
By Nick Adde
 

Army leadership is committed to moving toward the adoption of 6.8 mm round for the Next-Generation Squad Weapon. However, its development hinges upon addressing two key concerns.

The round must be suitable for close- and medium-range conflicts, such as house-to-house urban engagements. Likewise, it must function properly in long-range environments, such as those found in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Additionally, the larger ammunition should not add to the weight — and ideally, would lessen the burden — soldiers now currently carry. Of equal importance, it must be lethal.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/1/18/new-68-mm-round-a-game-changer-for-ground-troops

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,855
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2019, 02:42:40 pm »
New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
1/18/2019
By Nick Adde
 

Army leadership is committed to moving toward the adoption of 6.8 mm round for the Next-Generation Squad Weapon. However, its development hinges upon addressing two key concerns.

The round must be suitable for close- and medium-range conflicts, such as house-to-house urban engagements. Likewise, it must function properly in long-range environments, such as those found in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Additionally, the larger ammunition should not add to the weight — and ideally, would lessen the burden — soldiers now currently carry. Of equal importance, it must be lethal.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/1/18/new-68-mm-round-a-game-changer-for-ground-troops

They want a round that is good for shooting in living rooms,but also has  a heavy enough bullet to be effective at hundreds of yard,and they also want this same round to be as light as the 5.56 mm round while being as lethal as a 30/06 round.

What color is the sky on their home planet?
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Online GtHawk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,633
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't believe in Trump anymore, he's an illusion
Re: New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2019, 05:52:48 am »
They want a round that is good for shooting in living rooms,but also has  a heavy enough bullet to be effective at hundreds of yard,and they also want this same round to be as light as the 5.56 mm round while being as lethal as a 30/06 round.

What color is the sky on their home planet?


Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,397
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2019, 06:45:48 am »
They want a round that is good for shooting in living rooms,but also has  a heavy enough bullet to be effective at hundreds of yard,and they also want this same round to be as light as the 5.56 mm round while being as lethal as a 30/06 round.

What color is the sky on their home planet?
6.5X55 (Swedish Mauser, Ljungman)
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,855
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2019, 12:56:40 pm »
6.5X55 (Swedish Mauser, Ljungman)

@Smokin Joe

They want a new main battle rifle that is reliable,accurate,selective fire,and comes in a caliber that allows for a long bullet with enough weight to buck wind and hit hard at ranges up to 1,000 yards.

I keep telling everybody that will listen to have the DoD weapons procurement guy to pick up his GD phone,call FN in Belgium,and tell them "We want a shipload of FN-FAL's in 7x57 Mauser,parts and armorer kits,bayonets,slings,and ammo. How much including shipping and when can we have them?"

Problem solved,but nobody wants to listen. To justify their jobs,the SOB's want to keep re-inventing the wheel by inventing a new round and then creating loads for it,as well as a new rifle and accessories for it. All of which increases the initial purchase price by a factor of at least 5,and IF you are lucky,you end up with a new battle rifle that is as good as,but NOT better than the FN-FAL in 7x57,a caliber that has been around since the late 1800's and was only improved by modern powders and bullet types.

As for the FN-FAL,rifles just don't get any gooder. It is a standard "off the rack" rifle that has been in continuous production for decades,and used by every army in the world other than the Soviet,Chinese,and US armies. Even Canada used them. Maybe they still do,for all I know?

 It has been in production for decades because they got it right,and if you want a main battle rifle,it can't BE improved on. You can buy them right off the rack in semi-auto only or selective fire,and the damn things even have an adjustable gas system so it will handler hot or mild rounds with no malfunctions. You can even buy them with folding or collapsible stocks for special mission units.

AND........,in ALL configurations it is a standard "off the rack item" No research and development needed. You call FN on the phone,tell them what boxes to put the check marks in,get a bulk buy price that includes spare parts and all accessories,and FN starts loading crates on a ship. If you want,FN will even manufacture them right here in the US to help create jobs after the initial purchase has shipped.

What could be simpler,cheaper,or more effective?
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,855
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2019, 01:09:37 pm »
6.5X55 (Swedish Mauser, Ljungman)

6.5 is a good round,but IMHO,not as good as a 7 mm round because you can get heavier bullets in a 7mm.  In fact,I think the 30 caliber round is the only round with wider bullet selection available,but 30 caliber rounds usually have too much recoil for the girl soldiers,they are heavier,and they are more expensive.

Then again,you can get a FN-FAL in 308 or 8 MM,also,and both are order boxes you could put a check mark in. Since you have to make a compromise and the prime reason the US Military wants to upgrade is because instead of swapping bullets with the enemy at 50 yards or less we are now swapping bullets across mountain valleys with swirling winds at 500 meters or more,the 7mm has a MUCH better bullet selection when it comes to the long,heavy bullets that buck the wind. Yeah,the 30 cal has heavier bullets for dangerous game,but you don't need 220 grain or heavier bullets to kill humans at a distance.

The 7x57mm is a compromise,but so are any other caliber you might mention,and I think it is the best compromise when you consider weight,expense, and effectiveness for expected use. Plus,you can pick up the phone and order a gazillion rounds of loaded ammo for it from any ammo manufacturer in the world and have them shipping out some the same day. The damn thing has been in production since the 1890's in one load or another.

AND.......just think of all the money the taxpayers can save by not having to pay for a new rifle design,new ammo load,and all the R&D that goes along with it.

Not to mention all the time and lives saved from having the new rifle and round you need TODAY,available TODAY.
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Offline RetBobbyMI

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,543
  • Gender: Male
Re: New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2019, 01:10:15 pm »
@Smokin Joe

They want a new main battle rifle that is reliable,accurate,selective fire,and comes in a caliber that allows for a long bullet with enough weight to buck wind and hit hard at ranges up to 1,000 yards.

....
What could be simpler,cheaper,or more effective?
Sounds to me like they’ve been there before, but don’t realize it.  Like a 7.62 and an M14.  Drag it through mud and water and still works
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid."  -- John Wayne
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.� ? Euripides, The Bacchae
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.� ? Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.� ? Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,855
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2019, 01:35:00 pm »
Sounds to me like they’ve been there before, but don’t realize it.  Like a 7.62 and an M14.  Drag it through mud and water and still works

@RetBobbyMI

The 7.62x51 Nato round is ok,but has more recoil than the 7x57.

As for the M-14,it's junk compared to the FN-FAL. It's basically a M-1 Garand that uses magazines and the gas system is not adjustable. They can be VERY accurate after being worked over by an armorer that knows what he is doing,though.
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Offline RetBobbyMI

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,543
  • Gender: Male
Re: New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2019, 02:16:04 pm »
@RetBobbyMI

The 7.62x51 Nato round is ok,but has more recoil than the 7x57.

As for the M-14,it's junk compared to the FN-FAL. It's basically a M-1 Garand that uses magazines and the gas system is not adjustable. They can be VERY accurate after being worked over by an armorer that knows what he is doing,though.
Don’t disagree.  However, having worked in acquisition, most of the time the army will settle on an idea, proven or not, and then try to justify the requirement to meet something a general saw someplace, the test it enough to convince everyone they made the right decision
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid."  -- John Wayne
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.� ? Euripides, The Bacchae
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.� ? Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.� ? Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,397
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2019, 09:13:01 pm »
6.5 is a good round,but IMHO,not as good as a 7 mm round because you can get heavier bullets in a 7mm.  In fact,I think the 30 caliber round is the only round with wider bullet selection available,but 30 caliber rounds usually have too much recoil for the girl soldiers,they are heavier,and they are more expensive.

Then again,you can get a FN-FAL in 308 or 8 MM,also,and both are order boxes you could put a check mark in. Since you have to make a compromise and the prime reason the US Military wants to upgrade is because instead of swapping bullets with the enemy at 50 yards or less we are now swapping bullets across mountain valleys with swirling winds at 500 meters or more,the 7mm has a MUCH better bullet selection when it comes to the long,heavy bullets that buck the wind. Yeah,the 30 cal has heavier bullets for dangerous game,but you don't need 220 grain or heavier bullets to kill humans at a distance.

The 7x57mm is a compromise,but so are any other caliber you might mention,and I think it is the best compromise when you consider weight,expense, and effectiveness for expected use. Plus,you can pick up the phone and order a gazillion rounds of loaded ammo for it from any ammo manufacturer in the world and have them shipping out some the same day. The damn thing has been in production since the 1890's in one load or another.

AND.......just think of all the money the taxpayers can save by not having to pay for a new rifle design,new ammo load,and all the R&D that goes along with it.

Not to mention all the time and lives saved from having the new rifle and round you need TODAY,available TODAY.
The FN/FAL has been around forever it seems, and would be a good choice (would that be English or metric, sir?)  I brought up the 6.5 X 55 because of the longer bullet, good ballistic coefficient, and range, which put it nearly on par with the .30-06 and 7.62 X 54 R, but lighter ammo, which the military wants. At the crossroads of impact energy, light ammo, long range, it seemed to fall pretty close to the paper. it doesn't kick as much as tho .30-06 or the 7.62 X 54. which is something else they apparently desire. (I guess shoulder bruises from pack straps and recoil just don't go with evening wear, and the ladies must be accommodated.) 
Seriously, though, if our guys have any more to lug around with all that battle rattle, they'll need wheels on their asses. 100+ lbs of gear in the frigging desert? I won't badmouth anyone who can do that all day.

Recoil should be moot in any well designed modern battle rifle, simply because it will use some of that energy cycling the action, and it will be significantly reduced.
 
The M-14 is a decent rifle, imho, but my knockoff (M1-A) is in full USMC furniture, and far heavier with just a full box than the Stoner variants are dressed for the dance. At 13 lbs. plus ammo/magazines and optics, it is a lot for the average person to pack around, although that pales to the 'light' machine gun dad carried in Korea.  The Garand action is reliable though, the rifle easy to clean, but an adjustable gas valve would be nice.

I haven't shot the FAL, and would like to, but the local guy who had them was known for hashing stuff together and I didn't trust anything he might have had a hand on. I'll leave that at that. Maybe someday. They definitely have a following, and, as you pointed out, are common among West bloc armies and have been for quite a while.

Like the BUFF, some basic designs just are difficult to improve on.

I noticed the Russians (Soviets) went for smaller when they re-did the AK to the -74, with the 5.45X39 round. Those have long bullets with great ballistic coefficient, are fast, and come 1000 to the spam can. Allegedly, the bullets behave very erratically on impact because of internal design, and were especially disliked by those downrange in Afghanistan when the USSR was there. But that's a smaller caliber, lighter bullet, and not what the Army wants.

Alternatively, the current Stoner variants can be re-done in virtually any caliber the military wants, with minor modifications. Unless the objective is to abandon the 'Mattel" altogether, which, unless the NFA is overturned, will likely end up in the hands of the police, given to some foreign country, or destroyed. They won't end up in civilian hands with the current trends in politics because the lowers are set up for select fire, and uppers (bolt carriers) could be adapted to work with that by anyone with a little know-how.
 
As far as price point, efficiency, and getting the job done, I think you are right, something proven, off-the-shelf, and readily available is cost efficient. But there is almost no way the US military will sign off on a foreign design for our troops' main battle rifle.
Instead, they'll reinvent the wheel and send it to the field to 'get the bugs out'. In the end, it seems like someone in ordnance in chasing their tail on this (or someone is going to make a grundle when the contracts are let).

The proven rounds have been around for a century or so because they work. Discovering yet another for general applications could happen, but why?

« Last Edit: January 21, 2019, 09:16:52 pm by Smokin Joe »
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,855
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2019, 09:38:51 pm »
Don’t disagree.  However, having worked in acquisition, most of the time the army will settle on an idea, proven or not, and then try to justify the requirement to meet something a general saw someplace, the test it enough to convince everyone they made the right decision

@RetBobbyMI

You just defined the meaning of the word "bureaucracy".
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Offline Elderberry

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,279
Re: New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2019, 09:50:33 pm »

Offline Elderberry

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,279
Re: New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2019, 10:02:40 pm »
The M1 Garand, as issued, was not gas adjustable, as all the supplied ammo ran at the same pressure profile. It's a simple thing to replace the gas plug with an adjustable one.

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,855
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2019, 10:04:27 pm »
Quote from: Smokin Joe lihttp://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,348397.msg1895015/topicseen.html#newnk=topic=348397.msg1895529#msg1895529 date=1548105181
Quote
The FN/FAL has been around forever it seems, and would be a good choice (would that be English or metric, sir?)
 

Metric. Seems like the British and Canadians had problems with parts interchanges in the ones they had built to the inch standard. Which never made any sense too me at all since they are both on the metric standard

WTH??????


Quote
I brought up the 6.5 X 55 because of the longer bullet, good ballistic coefficient, and range, which put it nearly on par with the .30-06 and 7.62 X 54 R, but lighter ammo, which the military wants. At the crossroads of impact energy, light ammo, long range, it seemed to fall pretty close to the paper. it doesn't kick as much as tho .30-06 or the 7.62 X 54. which is something else they apparently desire.


True,but there is a better/wider bullet selection with the 7 mm rounds,and bore/chamber erosion with heavy loads isn't such a factor with the 7mm.
 
 
Quote
Recoil should be moot in any well designed modern battle rifle, simply because it will use some of that energy cycling the action, and it will be significantly reduced.
 

As I have mentioned several times,the FN-FAL has an adjustable gas system. I have on in 7.62 and can fire the heavy Israeli surplus stuff without getting beat up,and then turn around and shoot up the Argentine surplus stuff that is lightly loaded and never have a malfunction. This makes the FN-FAL very versatile and since FN can sell you factory versions that are semi-auto only or selective fire,makes it perfect for the old doctrine of "1 BAR man (full auto) per squad and the rest riflemen" that seemed to be making a comeback the last time I paid any attention to that stuff. It is also directly related to your comment about the typical infantryman of today being burdened down with weight. Give the typical teen PFC infantryman a full-auto weapon,and he will put it on rock and roll and try to hit every atom in the universe. Give him a semi-auto,and he might actually try to do some of that old-fashioned "aiming stuff" and NEED less ammo.


 
 
I
Quote
noticed the Russians (Soviets) went for smaller when they re-did the AK to the -74, with the 5.45X39 round. Those have long bullets with great ballistic coefficient, are fast, and come 1000 to the spam can. Allegedly, the bullets behave very erratically on impact because of internal design, and were especially disliked by those downrange in Afghanistan when the USSR was there. But that's a smaller caliber, lighter bullet, and not what the Army wants.

The Russians LOVE spray and pray,and I doubt you will ever get them away from that philosophy. They are willing to take the casualties it takes for an advancing army to get close enough those tiny bullets are effective. Part of this is because the Russian military doctrine has always been to have poorly trained troops in case they turn on you. The American doctrine has always been about accuracy and riflemen. Probably because we come from a hunting culture where accuracy is the goal,and we never worried much about armed citizens with accurate rifles.


Quote
Alternatively, the current Stoner variants can be re-done in virtually any caliber the military wants, with minor modifications.

I've heard that,but have never had the chance to get my hands on a Stoner to check it out.

 
 
Quote
As far as price point, efficiency, and getting the job done, I think you are right, something proven, off-the-shelf, and readily available is cost efficient. But there is almost no way the US military will sign off on a foreign design for our troops' main battle rifle.
Instead, they'll reinvent the wheel and send it to the field to 'get the bugs out'. In the end, it seems like someone in ordnance in chasing their tail on this (or someone is going to make a grundle when the contracts are let).

Sadly,very true. No current Colonel or General is ever going to sign off on a new system that proves previous Ordinance Generals were wrong.

Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!