[SwedeSteve]

Dark1- What you just described is just another instance of the Army hunting/hoping for a quick fix !! Just because they test something does not mean it will be fielded/adopted. You have to know that they've been searching for a replacement weapon/caliber for many years. As you stated, there isn't ONE perfect caliber for the multitude of situations a weapon may be deployed in. Factor in the high cost of rearming the Army and it becomes obvious why it is taking so long. Then you must consider the politics of the whole thing. The rumor mill has everyone jumping all over themselves, including you. Now for the facts. The Army is not looking for a 6.8 caliber weapon. The Army is hoping to field a completely new "modular" weapon system that can adapt to the task at hand. SPECOPS have tested a variety of platforms towards that end. None were caliber specific. Finally, CRTC isn't testing anything in 7.62 at the moment, and EVERYTHING the Army adopts spends time there !! Just because you were a joe involved in a single test does not qualify you as a SME.

[LarryO1970]

Defense Review - Update: 6.8x43mm SPC SPECOPS Cartridge in Trouble? 6.5 Grendel on the Rise?

This says it all...

[SwedeSteve]

Thanks for the read Larry.

[LarryO1970]

Quote:       Originally Posted by SwedeSteve

Thanks for the read Larry.

Defense Review is a much better source than speculative people. These are the people "in the know".

My last base (Eglin AFB) is the Air Force Development and Test Center for weaponry... and I certainly will not say I know what is new or even out there... and I am certainly no SME either... even as a witness to some of the testing.

I am also certain that these types of tests (even small arms) are conducted secretly with higher classifications than most of us here even have.

We'll just have to wait to see what happens... but I think we can at least all agree that the 5.56 will not continue as the main small arms rifle cartridge very much longer.

Larry O

[Dark1]

if they are not testing 7.62 in what do you call the SCAR heavy setup Sf is using .... it is definitely 7.62 and and all our testing you are right was unit lvl testing our unit is some what special so we get to get a lot of our toys from the civ side of the house you saw the pix of my SPR i posted 70% of that gun was not army stranded . and as for stuff you are seeing in Iraq today i just left from there about a month ago and there are us soldiers running around with DSA FAL's and SCAR's both in 7.62
the army is weird atm a lot of units are given check books and told to get want equipment they think they may need like atm the 3id is starting to replace there 249 saws with a [COLOR=#363636]MK48 MOD 0 7.62mm Lightweight Machine Gun i have seen a few of thees in line units popping up in the last fue months so they are testing lots of 7.62 stuff lately

o ya hand i am a regular on defense revue and Janes defense but most of my xp is from seeing and using the tools of war in the field

yah i was righting in a rush had to get back out the spelling should be fixed now =)

[LarryO1970]

Dark1 ... please ... use a spell check. I'm not ripping on ya... it will help make your comments much easier to read.

While I agree about the various 7.62 platforms in the field, these are experimental, not common issue. There is another thread that talks of this in the M14 area.

[SwedeSteve]

+1 on the spell check !! Youre commwnts are almist ti the oint of beeingt unreedabllw ! if you wernt illegible. maybe your converation/debate eould cary moore wait in tnis forem !! It's pkay to be illetirate, but not necessarrily so when attacking !!

[texnmidwest]

This reminds me of the time an old high school buddy came to visit me just after the first Gulf War. He was just out of the army and had been assigned to HAWK missiles. We were in a neighbor's garage having a cold one and talking. This friend started telling the group about how scared he was when he was in a C-5 Galaxy flying a load of Patriot Missiles into Iraq under heavy anti aircraft fire. Unknown to him, the second in command of Bergstom AFB was standing right beside me. I just looked at Major White and he asked the guy one question..."who was manning the tail gun?"

End of conversation.

[LarryO1970]

LOL ... pretty good Tex, I would have laughed.

[Dark1]

To start things off yes my spelling may be pore I right this stuf a lot in a rush between jobs or at lunch then I go back latter and edit it LOL even I see how screwed up its first it looks. When I go back and do my editing that still gives SwedeSteve no right to act like he is a 7 year old mocking people. This was sed to be a ADULT msg board about guns not a place to act petty like that. I say one thing on the last page to help people put because a lot of people are comparing the 6.8 and 6.5 it is one of the biggest things I here at the gun shops or around the unit when people are talking about AR’s.

O yeah and tex ask me any thing you want and c-5s do not have tale gunners =P the last us plane to have one was the B52 A i am not like your friend if i was i would be here telling war tales from the sand box not about unit lvl tests

[LarryO1970]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Dark1

To start things off yes my spelling may be pore I right this stuf a lot in a rush between jobs or at lunch then I go back latter and edit it LOL even I see how screwed up its first it looks. When I go back and do my editing that still gives SwedeSteve no right to act like he is a 7 year old mocking people. This was sed to be a ADULT msg board about guns not a place to act petty like that. I say one thing on the last page to help people put because a lot of people are comparing the 6.8 and 6.5 it is one of the biggest things I here at the gun shops or around the unit when people are talking about AR’s. O yeah and tex ask me any thing you want and c-5s do not have tale gunners =P the last us plane to have one was the B52 A i am not like your friend if i was i would be here telling war tales from the sand box not about unit lvl tests

I think it is safe to say that we all know that C5 Galaxy's do not have tail gunners. That practice ended a long time ago...

Remember... we (SwedeSteve, Texnmidwest and I) were not picking on you about your spelling ... recall what I said, "please ... use a spell check. I'm not ripping on ya... it will help make your comments much easier to read."

... I know what it is like having to go back to edit ... as I (and most other people ) do the same thing.

... the 6.8SPC and the 6.5 are different... for different reasons. These two are meant for different applications... as I stated before... the 6.8SPC is more of a short .270 for close-in application whereas the 6.5 Grendel is not. Obviously, there are going to be contending opinions on these two rounds... it is what it is.

... the other factors mentioned in that Defense Review are very telling though... as for start-up costs, sustainability, manufacturing infrastructure, etc. ... and I believe we all realize that sometimes the fastest horse is not always the winner. A great example of that is the USAF F-22 engines. Believe it or not... the fastest engine was too expensive for mass production, thus, not the winner. It happens.

... the beauty of this forum, Dark1 ... is for us all to learn from one another. It is up to us to teach (through our individual experiences) the people who need to know... and those who are just getting into the shooting sports. No one person knows it all ... and on occasion, we'll bust each others' chops. It's all in good humor.

[texnmidwest]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Dark1

To start things off yes my spelling may be pore I right this stuf a lot in a rush between jobs or at lunch then I go back latter and edit it LOL even I see how screwed up its first it looks. When I go back and do my editing that still gives SwedeSteve no right to act like he is a 7 year old mocking people. This was sed to be a ADULT msg board about guns not a place to act petty like that. I say one thing on the last page to help people put because a lot of people are comparing the 6.8 and 6.5 it is one of the biggest things I here at the gun shops or around the unit when people are talking about AR’s. O yeah and tex ask me any thing you want and c-5s do not have tale gunners =P the last us plane to have one was the B52 A i am not like your friend if i was i would be here telling war tales from the sand box not about unit lvl tests

Please accept my apology. I am truly thankful for your service and glad you are here in this forum.
P.S. Dark1 you may know C-5s, but do you know the airspeed velocity of an unladen English Swallow 24 feet above sea level?

[SwedeSteve]

When you say unladen, do you mean without armament ??
dark1- I am not 7, nor am I petty. Don't be a baby when someone pulls your chain a little.

[texnmidwest]

By unladen I mean with out coconuts.

[Dark1]

Quote:      

P.S. Dark1 you may know C-5s, but do you know the airspeed velocity of an unladen English Swallow 24 feet above sea level?

mmmmmmm . i have no clue ..... AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH splat ... i hate when I do that

Quote:      

I am not 7, nor am I petty. Don't be a baby when someone pulls your chain a little.

I am not i just take stuff very seriously when it is a serious discussion people keep telling me i need to loosen up a little but i need drunks to do that LOL

[texnmidwest]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Dark1

i was not talking about you i was peeking on texnmidwest by that quote he used he was comparing them so do not say he were not even in his words "Compare the 6.8 ballistics with the Grendel" so before you start mouthing off make shore someone is talking about you or is it your little angle on your shoulder =P was bothering you because you were comparing them =P and you told someone looking at a short range 7.62mm round to look at the extremely long range round someone looking at 7.62x39 would be more looking at the 6.8 then the 6.5 sens if he is looking at a 7.62x39 he is looking for short range stopping power not shooting things 1km out

No argument from me on that one. I was looking at pure long range ballistics because that was what I was interested in. At that time Had no clue as to the respective designed purpose.

[Crzazyhoss]

I own an AR-15 in 7.62x39, I have loved shooting this weapon, I have owned it for 6 years and I have NEVER had any problems with it. It's a Colt lighweight sporter, I did have problems finding a clip for over 20 rounds, but at our local gunshow I found a dealer that actually welded an SKS clip to a hand made stainless steel AR-15 insert.
I bought two 30 round clips and haven't needed anymore than that, but I would really like a cylindrical 100 round mag......if anyone knows where to find one..please share.

[dhermesc]

I'm reading this and wondering how it turned into a pissing match between 6.8 and 6.5 when the thread originator was asking about 7.62 X 39. For "medium" range shooting the 7.62 X 39 has it covered - especially since no here mentioned the cost of ammo between the three rounds - since they all know the answer.


Personally I'd buy a .308 and be done with it - ammo is cheaper and both the 6.5 & 6.8 rounds essentially claim "We're almost as good as a .7.62 NATO" but not quite getting there.

[Capn Jack]

Heck, I may as well throw my 2 cents in.
I have a DPMS 7.62x39 upper with about 100rnds of Wolf through it. The only problem I have had is magazines, until I found CProducts Mags. Now every time I pull the trigger, it goes bang! Just remember as far as hunting, all you've got is a semi-automatic 30-30. Personally my next upper will be a .458 SoCom. I love my LEGO BLOCK RIFLE and BIG BULLETS.

[kaaa]

Quote:       Originally Posted by azguy

I was looking up some AR-15 companies and came across a manufaturers web site I think it was DPMS and there was an AR-15 chambered in 7.62x39. I was thinking of getting a M4 carbine, but I am not a real big fan of the 5.56 round. Does anyone know if the legendary accuracy of the AR style rifle is compromised by being chambered in 7.62x39. Or am I better off looking at the AR 10 in .308. I am thinking long term in that the 7.62x39 is much cheeper to shoot than .308.

go for it and report back i would like to have one in 7.62x39