New 6.8 mm Round a Game-Changer for Ground Troops

[gtolbert09]

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... und-troops

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/art ... he-future/

[crazy2medic]

My memory tells me the 6.8spc was suppose to replace the 5.56 nato but military turned it down because of warehouses full of 5.56 ammuntion!

[The Annoyed Man]

My memory tells me the 6.8spc was suppose to replace the 5.56 nato but military turned it down because of warehouses full of 5.56 ammuntion!

There may well have been other reasons too. For instance, with a standard bullet weight of 110 grains (at the light end for 6.8 SOC), each round of 6.8 will weigh roughly twice the weight of of M193 ball, and just a little less than twice the weight of a round of M855....unless .mil standardizes on the 120 grain bullet, which just makes the weight penalty worse. Of course this means that an individual soldier can only carry half as much ammo as with 5.56 NATO. I could easily be wrong, but I’ll bet that will play a big part in whether or not 6.8 SPC (or something like it) will ever make it down to the level of the individual infantryman's rifle/carbine.

Another possibility, given the amount of 5.56 NATO ammo on hand, is that maybe 5.56 weapons will become the new "M1 Carbine" for service troops, while the 6.8 weapon becomes the "M1 Garand" for combat infantrymen.

Either way, I don’t think that 5.56 NATO is going to go away all that quickly.

[Liberty]

My memory tells me the 6.8spc was suppose to replace the 5.56 nato but military turned it down because of warehouses full of 5.56 ammuntion!

There may well have been other reasons too. For instance, with a standard bullet weight of 110 grains (at the light end for 6.8 SOC), each round of 6.8 will weigh roughly twice the weight of of M193 ball, and just a little less than twice the weight of a round of M855....unless .mil standardizes on the 120 grain bullet, which just makes the weight penalty worse. Of course this means that an individual soldier can only carry half as much ammo as with 5.56 NATO. I could easily be wrong, but I’ll bet that will play a big part in whether or not 6.8 SPC (or something like it) will ever make it down to the level of the individual infantryman's rifle/carbine.

Another possibility, given the amount of 5.56 NATO ammo on hand, is that maybe 5.56 weapons will become the new "M1 Carbine" for service troops, while the 6.8 weapon becomes the "M1 Garand" for combat infantrymen.

Either way, I don’t think that 5.56 NATO is going to go away all that quickly.

Not just the ammo but the gun itself. While the military is strong on tradition, maybe they actually learned something from the early introductions of the m14 and m16. Combat testing a weapons system is a great way of wringing the bugs out of things but it can come at the cost of real lives. Bringing the weapons into the system slowly and let the troops learn the strengths and idiosyncracies. Tweak the issues.

No gun is best for all situatations. Sometimes an M4 might be the perfect weapon yet other times not so much.

[The Annoyed Man]

My memory tells me the 6.8spc was suppose to replace the 5.56 nato but military turned it down because of warehouses full of 5.56 ammuntion!

There may well have been other reasons too. For instance, with a standard bullet weight of 110 grains (at the light end for 6.8 SOC), each round of 6.8 will weigh roughly twice the weight of of M193 ball, and just a little less than twice the weight of a round of M855....unless .mil standardizes on the 120 grain bullet, which just makes the weight penalty worse. Of course this means that an individual soldier can only carry half as much ammo as with 5.56 NATO. I could easily be wrong, but I’ll bet that will play a big part in whether or not 6.8 SPC (or something like it) will ever make it down to the level of the individual infantryman's rifle/carbine.

Another possibility, given the amount of 5.56 NATO ammo on hand, is that maybe 5.56 weapons will become the new "M1 Carbine" for service troops, while the 6.8 weapon becomes the "M1 Garand" for combat infantrymen.

Either way, I don’t think that 5.56 NATO is going to go away all that quickly.

Not just the ammo but the gun itself. While the military is strong on tradition, maybe they actually learned something from the early introductions of the m14 and m16. Combat testing a weapons system is a great way of wringing the bugs out of things but it can come at the cost of real lives. Bringing the weapons into the system slowly and let the troops learn the strengths and idiosyncracies. Tweak the issues.

No gun is best for all situatations. Sometimes an M4 might be the perfect weapon yet other times not so much.

But if they do this, the don’t need a new firearm. They just to either rebarrel existing uppers, or new uppers with new barrels. The BCG should be fine with a bolt swap.....possibly a different buffer. The poi t is that they can do all these things for considerably less money than the cost of an entirely new weapon system.

[jason812]

The articles never mentioned the case just the 6.8mm projectile. Something along the lines of a 277 Wolverine would only require a new barrel if upgrading current M4's. Something similar to that would make the most sense, but we are talking about the government so don't expect their decision to make sense.

[Jago668]

The articles never mentioned the case just the 6.8mm projectile. Something along the lines of a 277 Wolverine would only require a new barrel if upgrading current M4's. Something similar to that would make the most sense, but we are talking about the government so don't expect their decision to make sense.

It's the 6.8 spc. It was talked about awhile back in a few places. As far as rifles, you'd need barrels and bolts. Though I suspect they'd want to just buy all new rifles. I don't know if it's actually going to happen, I like the round so would be all for the massive production and spillover into civilian markets. Plus if they decided to dump the surplus of 5.56.

[Grayling813]

My memory tells me the 6.8spc was suppose to replace the 5.56 nato but military turned it down because of warehouses full of 5.56 ammuntion!

There may well have been other reasons too. For instance, with a standard bullet weight of 110 grains (at the light end for 6.8 SOC), each round of 6.8 will weigh roughly twice the weight of of M193 ball, and just a little less than twice the weight of a round of M855....unless .mil standardizes on the 120 grain bullet, which just makes the weight penalty worse. Of course this means that an individual soldier can only carry half as much ammo as with 5.56 NATO. I could easily be wrong, but I’ll bet that will play a big part in whether or not 6.8 SPC (or something like it) will ever make it down to the level of the individual infantryman's rifle/carbine.

Another possibility, given the amount of 5.56 NATO ammo on hand, is that maybe 5.56 weapons will become the new "M1 Carbine" for service troops, while the 6.8 weapon becomes the "M1 Garand" for combat infantrymen.

Either way, I don’t think that 5.56 NATO is going to go away all that quickly.

All of the above weights are why the military switched to 5.56 in the first place. Of course the military has to relearn lessons while spending shiploads of taxpayer money. And probably less than 10% of the people making the decisions have ever had to nor ever will have to hump a full load of weapons, ammo and other gear into battle.

[OldCannon]

It's the 6.8 spc. It was talked about awhile back in a few places. As far as rifles, you'd need barrels and bolts. Though I suspect they'd want to just buy all new rifles. I don't know if it's actually going to happen, I like the round so would be all for the massive production and spillover into civilian markets. Plus if they decided to dump the surplus of 5.56.

The 6.8 SPC is not an ideal caliber, and I'm guessing that this will get squashed....again. The reasons have been discussed to death lots of other places, and the costs are VERY non-trivial. Changing standard calibers/weapons is a HUGE deal. Pretty much the biggest logistical change you can make for any military.

[LeonCarr]

The easiest solution is to issue Mk262 to everybody. No new barrels, bolts, or magazines.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[Noggin]

All of this development just goes to prove that we should have all gone with the .280 round way back in 1951. Pity you cannot change the past, heck those decisions were taken even before I was born.

[Paladin]

I think this part was the most noteworthy:

Last year’s announcement that the 6.5 Creedmoor will soon replace the familiar 7.62 NATO in many of the rifles shouldered by USSOCOM precision marksmen did little to quash the rumor. The ballistic advantages it offers special forces are also well-documented.

Documented battlefield performance is the most important thing and 6.5 Creedmoor seems to me more likely to replace the 7.62 NATO than anything replacing the 5.56mm

[K-Texas]

The story about having too many stored rounds to change to a new caliber service rifle started with the M1 Garand and Douglas MacArthur's decision that the Garand would have to be chambered in .30-06.

Another development that cooled the heels on the 6.8mm SPC was Chris Kyle convincing Spec-Ops that the 77 gr. bullet at 2700 FPS minimum would be more effective than previous 5.56mm NATO loads. That's been proven in combat and pretty much put the 6.8 SPC on the back burner.