[Darth AkSarBen]

Quote:       Originally Posted by gun monkey

The argument that "it takes more than one round to stop them" is the SAME argument that snipers were using when they got the SASS. And they were shooting 7.62x51 and still had to put two and three rounds in an insurgent.

This is the statement I was disagreeing with. Gun Monkey himself said it took 2 to 3 rounds with a 7.62 NATO to put down insurgents. I personally would think that our snipers are a bit better than that. 75 kills with 77 rounds is excellent. However if you had to shoot 150 rounds of sniper fire to kill the 75 that is not so good.

The whole point of this thread is if there is some rumor of going to 6 mm or some of the other rounds, IE 6.8 SPCII, or 6.5 Grendel. Personally I have not heard. I have heard from those in the military that are experienced in combat, that have not liked the effectiveness of the 5.56 NATO. Retired Colonel Darrel Elmore was one of those. He thought the 5.56 NATO was not as effective as it should be at combat. His actual words here:

YouTube - LWRC PSD Future Weapons

YouTube - LWRC PSD Future Weapons

I do not think it is wrong to point out possibilities that this round can possibly do to help our troops. If the 6.8 SPCII were to ever become a new round of the military, it would cost very little, per round, once the manufacturing process started. You are looking at a very small additional amount of smokeless powder, the case would cost a bit more from the grams of brass used, but otherwise, the case would be nearly identical in costs. The bullet would cost a bit more as there is more lead and copper in it than the 5.56. Primers are the same cost.

I just believe that it does give some advantage in it's use in combat weapons. And, I think that the short stroke gas piston system has merit over the gas impringment system for it's overall reliability.

[ZombieHunter]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

This is the statement I was disagreeing with. Gun Monkey himself said it took 2 to 3 rounds with a 7.62 NATO to put down insurgents. I personally would think that our snipers are a bit better than that. 75 kills with 77 rounds is excellent. However if you had to shoot 150 rounds of sniper fire to kill the 75 that is not so good.

Actually, 150 rounds spent to kill 75 people is still pretty damned outstanding, anyway you look at it. Regardless, the point was that only 77 rounds were used to kill 75 people...which means that at least 73 of those people were killed with only one round of 5.56, over a period of less than two days and in one setting.

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

The whole point of this thread is if there is some rumor of going to 6 mm or some of the other rounds, IE 6.8 SPCII, or 6.5 Grendel. Personally I have not heard. I have heard from those in the military that are experienced in combat, that have not liked the effectiveness of the 5.56 NATO. Retired Colonel Darrel Elmore was one of those. He thought the 5.56 NATO was not as effective as it should be at combat. His actual words here: YouTube - LWRC PSD Future Weapons

The 5.56 obviously has its limitations, as does every other round. The biggest limitation of the 6.8mm is the same as the 5.56mm round, when we're sticking to the laws of land warfare requiring us to use FMJ rounds. If you have "twice the kinetic energy" in something that will place only 1.3mm more of a projectile downrange, what's going to happen if it won't deform? The 5.56 NATO doesn't "deform", nor does it have a problem going through tempered glass, contrary to what the discovery channel would have you believe. A steel-core round is called a "penetrator" round for a reason...it will penetrate hardened steel, and was designed to do exactly that. The difference between a 6.8 steel-core and a 5.56 steel-core is that the 6.8 will penetrate heavier armor. When we're talking about the "armor" of a car door, it's really a non-issue.

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

I do not think it is wrong to point out possibilities that this round can possibly do to help our troops. If the 6.8 SPCII were to ever become a new round of the military, it would cost very little, per round, once the manufacturing process started. You are looking at a very small additional amount of smokeless powder, the case would cost a bit more from the grams of brass used, but otherwise, the case would be nearly identical in costs. The bullet would cost a bit more as there is more lead and copper in it than the 5.56. Primers are the same cost.

I can tell you're not too hip to what the "manufacturing process" entails....but I can assure you that it's not quite as simple as a new set of blueprints and a fraction of a gram per round more brass and lead. For starters, every rifle firing this new round would have to get a new upper. DoD contractors would have to re-tool their machines, and retrain their operators, to make them. Ammo plants would have to retool, as well...because there aren't enough NATO-supervised plants currently producing the 6.8 round. We're talking about billions of dollars for something that simply isn't necessary.

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

I just believe that it does give some advantage in it's use in combat weapons. And, I think that the short stroke gas piston system has merit over the gas impringment system for it's overall reliability.

In all honesty, the gas piston system is useful...to a certain extent. It is not, however, necessary. A friend of mine has literally NEVER cleaned his off-the-rack Bushmaster. He bought it over ten years ago, when another friend of ours worked at a gun store after we graduated. Literally thousands of rounds have been fired through this rifle. Aside from the FCG and the bolt carrier being set up for semi-auto, it functions almost identical to the full-auto.

Regardless, a gas piston setup is already available for the 5.56 if we really wanted to go that route.

We don't really need a new round, when the current one works just fine if the user knows how to use it.

[Darth AkSarBen]

It was an intersting touch in that Discovery Chanel video talking about kinetic energy when they are using steel plates. I have hunted a lot back in Nebarkas. One of the requirements of any bullet/caliber is to transfer energy to the target. The steel plates receive and absorb 100% of the energy. Soft tissues does not. A round through and through, whether it be from 5.56 or 6.8mm is not enough difference to really show kinetic energy. If the round passes clear though a body, the energy is mostly expended on the dirt or wall or other structure behind the target. The speed of the round going through a living body does cause a hydrostatic shock. That's pretty much a given for any bullet in test. A bullet that enters the body and stays within the body transfers all it's energy to that body. That is a given, and it works well to that end.

I am nieve about total manufacturing costs on large scale ammunitions. It would seem to me to not be that much of a cross over, but it may, as you have pointed out, be a MUCH larger undertaking that what I would be led to believe. Only time will tell what, if any, changes the military decide upon regarding any changes to the specific rounds our soldiers use.

[ZombieHunter]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

It was an intersting touch in that Discovery Chanel video talking about kinetic energy when they are using steel plates. I have hunted a lot back in Nebarkas. One of the requirements of any bullet/caliber is to transfer energy to the target. The steel plates receive and absorb 100% of the energy. Soft tissues does not. A round through and through, whether it be from 5.56 or 6.8mm is not enough difference to really show kinetic energy. If the round passes clear though a body, the energy is mostly expended on the dirt or wall or other structure behind the target. The speed of the round going through a living body does cause a hydrostatic shock. That's pretty much a given for any bullet in test. A bullet that enters the body and stays within the body transfers all it's energy to that body. That is a given, and it works well to that end. I am nieve about total manufacturing costs on large scale ammunitions. It would seem to me to not be that much of a cross over, but it may, as you have pointed out, be a MUCH larger undertaking that what I would be led to believe. Only time will tell what, if any, changes the military decide upon regarding any changes to the specific rounds our soldiers use.

First off, "hydrostatic shock" is a myth. Ask anyone who's ever had kidney stones dealt with...if he still has balls, you know the theory of "hydrostatic shock" is Bravo Sierra.

You are correct about the bullet that stays within the body transferring all of its energy to the body. However, in the realm of the Geneva Convention requirement for non-deforming bullets, anything larger than a .22LR is non-applicable to this fact.

Our grunts have been using the 5.56 since before either of us had grown a bit of fuzz. I know far too many Marines who have killed far too many men with a 5.56, to say it is "unreliable" or "inferior". When you see a man-size target receiving kill-shots at 600m through open irons, the shooter has abilities squared away.

The fact remains that the 5.56 is a man-stopper. At 600 rounds per minute, a three-round burst in three tenths of a second is going to put three holes on target. You can have ONE 6.8 round, or three 5.56 rounds, out of the same ten pulls of the trigger per magazine. What would you prefer?

[Laufer]

Gentlemen:
My hat is off to you. This is one of the first combat rifle debates (I've read quite a few) where people have not insulted each other, but use information for their disagreements. Nice job.
'Gunandgame' seems to be civilized compared to 'THR', 'Thefiringline'.

Do you veterans mind a dumb question? In Iraq or Afghanistan, is there an average distance for most typical firefights using only rifles in streets and fields? I never had any combat or LEO training.

[Darth AkSarBen]

I'm a winemaker, who grew us shooting and hunting in Nebraska. May I offer you a glass of Gewürztraminer?? LOL Seriously, I'm just a guy, who enjoys firearms, that sees some things on the internet, read about the problems and concerns of our troops in fighting in Afghanistan and am interested in seeing if something might be done to improve their odds. I read recently where there was a firefight and our troops had malfunctions with their M4s so that got me thinking of something better....perhaps.

[pathdoc]

At the risk of starting a flame war, if you're going to go to a .277" bullet at moderate velocities, doesn't this prove that the British were right the whole time about the EM-2 and the .280 Mk1z round (.284", 139gn, 2550fps or so)? Because going purely on the numbers, that's exactly what these new rounds boil down to, isn't it?

Ultimately if you DO end up accepting the 6.8 as your service round, I suspect you're going to get bitter Brits coming out of the woodwork and telling you they told you so fifty or more years ago. Not that it'll matter if the new round does the job, whatever you choose. The important thing is that it works.

[Darth AkSarBen]

With the 6.5 Grendel you fit up to 26 round per magazine. With the 6.8 SPC II you can fit up to 28 rounds per magazine. I think the basis was that the 6.5 Grendel, with it's very high ballistic coefficient, would stay faster longer than the 5.56 NATO, and perhaps it was a single bullet for both close in encounters as well as long range sniper fire. Again, this is stuff I've found on the internet and on a youtube video that compared the 6.5 Grendel with the 6.8 SPCII. BTW there is a difference between the SAAMI 6.8 SPC and the SCPII rifles, as the chambers are cut slightly longer in the throat on the SPC II , and the rounds can be pushed faster without dangerous build up of pressure. Some have even relaxed the rate of twist to 1:11 and 1:12 in the newer SPCII barrels.

[srt 10 jimbo]

I think the re-coil would be a little much with a .270 round.

[Darth AkSarBen]

Well, yes, a .270 winchester would be a bit of a recoil. But, I used to have a Ruger in .270 Winchester and it is a longer cartridge, more powder, etc than what is proposed with the 6.8 SPC II cartridge.

Interestingly, I contacted Robinson Arms about any future plans for a chambering in the 6.5 Grendel, and the tech wrote me back this morning and said that the 6.5 Grendel is a trademark of Alexander Arms. So they are looking at a different 6.5.

[ZombieHunter]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

With the 6.5 Grendel you fit up to 26 round per magazine. With the 6.8 SPC II you can fit up to 28 rounds per magazine. I think the basis was that the 6.5 Grendel, with it's very high ballistic coefficient, would stay faster longer than the 5.56 NATO, and perhaps it was a single bullet for both close in encounters as well as long range sniper fire. Again, this is stuff I've found on the internet and on a youtube video that compared the 6.5 Grendel with the 6.8 SPCII. BTW there is a difference between the SAAMI 6.8 SPC and the SCPII rifles, as the chambers are cut slightly longer in the throat on the SPC II , and the rounds can be pushed faster without dangerous build up of pressure. Some have even relaxed the rate of twist to 1:11 and 1:12 in the newer SPCII barrels.

I apologize...that was another round I was thinking of, using the standard mag but fitting only ten rounds.

[chucksnee]

The 5.56 is a descent round...I would have liked something bigger than that or a more reliable rifle....in 91...we picked up AKs for our guard duty...just for the fact that it would fire if you dropped it in the sand...

People are not trained to shoot the m16...been to a qualification latley? Not a very desirable thing to watch...hell most kids cannot even hit the damn 25 meter zero target....I don't know how many we sent home not qualified...(at least 23 out of 40 had to hit target) and they owuld hit less than that...one kid hit less than 10 rounds...

Just give them a more reliable weapon and keep the round...

[ZombieHunter]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Laufer

Gentlemen: My hat is off to you. This is one of the first combat rifle debates (I've read quite a few) where people have not insulted each other, but use information for their disagreements. Nice job. 'Gunandgame' seems to be civilized compared to 'THR', 'Thefiringline'. Do you veterans mind a dumb question? In Iraq or Afghanistan, is there an average distance for most typical firefights using only rifles in streets and fields? I never had any combat or LEO training.

I am personally NOT a combat veteran, nor have I had any LEO training.

That being said, I have spoken to my numerous friends who are. In Iraq, the majority of the actual firefights were at ranges of less than 200m for the people I've spoken to. In AfPak, the ranges were extended a bit, most notably due to the differing terrain (read: non-urban environments).

I know for certain that with a standard iron-sight M16A2 rifle sighted in at 200m, you're going to aim for center mass and still make kill-shots out to at least 400m without having to really adjust for anything if you're shooting a 5.56, but this is just not the case with a 6.8mm round. The bullet drop is almost twice what the 5.56 is at that range, due to twice the lead and less speed to sling it downrange. That's really the biggest drawback I'm seeing here, the trajectory.

With the Geneva requirements of using an FMJ round, there's really no drastic benefit of using a round that isn't going to put that much larger of a hole in something it zips right through...especially when it comes at such a great financial cost, and will make it more difficult for the average grunt to hit his target.

One of my friends in the Corps told me that ranging was quite simple with the 5.56...you zero it at 100m. You aim for that spot in the chest directly centered between the shoulders. If your rounds are on point, you're going to hit him in a vital area regardless of how far away you are, unless your rifle is firing from the outer limits of its effective 600m range...and the burst will handle the rest.

[ZombieHunter]

Quote:       Originally Posted by chucksnee

The 5.56 is a descent round...I would have liked something bigger than that or a more reliable rifle....in 91...we picked up AKs for our guard duty...just for the fact that it would fire if you dropped it in the sand... People are not trained to shoot the m16...been to a qualification latley? Not a very desirable thing to watch...hell most kids cannot even hit the damn 25 meter zero target....I don't know how many we sent home not qualified...(at least 23 out of 40 had to hit target) and they owuld hit less than that...one kid hit less than 10 rounds... Just give them a more reliable weapon and keep the round...

That's just sad, dude. Unfortunately, that isn't a result of an inferior weapon (the boys not hitting their targets, I mean)...it's the result of a lack of training.

I was lucky enough to have been introduced to rifles before my junk got fuzzy...first it was my Crossman pellet rifle, then my Norinco .22LR. I shot that Norinco until we got tired of reloading, back when you could still buy a $6 brick. It was my father and uncles who taught me the fundamentals of accuracy, and I was a marksman long before I was a licensed driver.

Unfortunately, far too many of our children these days are being raised in urban and suburban environments without being taught the essential skills of marksmanship and gun safety. If/when I ever have a son, he'll be shooting at roughly the same time he learns to ride a bicycle.

[Deep13]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

They (military) need to adopt either the 6.8 SPC (with the II chamber) or the 6.5 Grendel and do it fast! The troops in Afghanistan could sure use some new weapons that have more punch. It is one thing to shoot someone with 1 round and put them down, totally unacceptable to keep on shooting someone with the 5.56 NATO and have them keep right on fighting and killing our soldiers. Either of those rounds have both punch and accuracy, and if they go with a piston system you will find less problems with rifle failures due to dust, sand and the like. I bought a Saiga because of the reliability factor of Stoner's AR platform is just lacking in reliability. One needs to shoot if one wants to live. The soldiers need to have better ground equipment to meet the combatants that are using "superior" yes, I said it, weapons against them. That AK is one of the finest fighting and killing weapons world wide, and it's time we (United States) put something out on the table that beats it!

If only someone had a piston-operated, powerful, reliable and accurate automatic rifle our people could use..

[chucksnee]

Quote:       Originally Posted by ZombieHunter

That's just sad, dude. Unfortunately, that isn't a result of an inferior weapon (the boys not hitting their targets, I mean)...it's the result of a lack of training.

Yes and no....the way that people treat there weapons is not the best...I do agree with you that it is the training part...however you can only bring them to the water...

I'm like you, had a .22 in my hand while still in diapers...and so will my son...

[Darth AkSarBen]

Yep, I started shooting a .22 LR single shot back when I was 8, in 1961. A 30-30 when I was 11, and bought my first pistol when I was 17 (black powder). It is nice growing up in a rural environment. Just an aside.

The 6.8 SPC II may not be the ticket at long ranges, but the 6.5 Grendel would hold it's own because of the tremendous BC of that bullet. True as you say, though, a FJM going through and though is not like our hunting and expanding bullets we use here in America. Really not much difference between 5.56 and 6.5mm for holes. Their effectiveness would be being able to shoot long and hit hard even though some barriers. Urban warfare, the 6.8 would have an edge over the 5.56 NATO, but at open distances it's more in favor of the 5.56 NATO. Is this how I am understanding it?

The 6.5 Grendel is just plain fast from 100 yards on. It may even rival the 5.56 for speed (fps) at 1000 yards the Lapua FMJBT is still doing 1,213 ft/sec souce : 6.5 mm Grendel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I'm not sure how it yaws of fragments. I need to do some research on the 5.56 for different distances. I did find a piece about yaw and fragmentation, and concerning effectiveness at this link: :: Ammo Oracle

If all else, one thing these "other" calibers do provide to the American hunters is that they have a larger diameter bullet and in some states that makes all the difference in the world if you can use it for taking deer or not.

[chucksnee]

Just give everyone an M240....yea they would have to get big....but DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!the lead it can throw....

[gunadvocate]

For ballistic tests on penetration (and some curious entertainment) and fragmentation check out "the box of truth" just google it... or click here The Box O' Truth - Ammo Penetration Testing A retired gentleman living the dream.. very good information though

[jrswanson1]

Quote:       Originally Posted by srt 10 jimbo

I think the re-coil would be a little much with a .270 round.

Actually, the felt recoil on the 6.8 is not much more than the heavier 5.56 ammo. I had an 8 year old kid shoot my 6.8 carbine with my handloads, and he did not have a problem with it. In fact, he seemed to be having more fun shooting my 6.8 than the .243 bolt gun his dad had him shooting. If you haven't shot one, try it out, you're not really going to notice much difference recoil wise from the 5.56.

Jim