Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

New rifle and cartridge for the Army


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Crooked River Pete, SASS 43485 said:

One thing people seem to be missing is that the army wants a round that will penetrate body armor, 5.56 and 7.62 wont do it.

7.62 won’t penetrate body armor? Do you mean 7.62x51? That 7.62? Or do you mean 7.62x39? That I can believe. 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Tex Jones, SASS 2263 said:

It's not the 7.62X39, it's the 7.62X51 or .308.  According to the Army Project Manager, the 6.8 has a flatter trajectory than the 556 and is lethal out to 600 yds compared to 300 yd lethality with the 556. 

5.56 is lethal out past 300 yards. 6.8 may have flatter trajectory but at 600 isn't going to be a magic bullet either. Either will work on soft targets but harden the target with armor and both are going to have a hard time. Heck I know a guy that makes regular kills on deer with a 223/5.56 with 70ish grain bullets out to 700 yards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Slapshot said:

5.56 is lethal out past 300 yards. 6.8 may have flatter trajectory but at 600 isn't going to be a magic bullet either. Either will work on soft targets but harden the target with armor and both are going to have a hard time. Heck I know a guy that makes regular kills on deer with a 223/5.56 with 70ish grain bullets out to 700 yards.

I'd wager, with a bolt gun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Slapshot said:

5.56 is lethal out past 300 yards. 6.8 may have flatter trajectory but at 600 isn't going to be a magic bullet either. Either will work on soft targets but harden the target with armor and both are going to have a hard time. Heck I know a guy that makes regular kills on deer with a 223/5.56 with 70ish grain bullets out to 700 yards.

Shot placement is the key . I’ve killed plenty of deer with a recurve bow , not allot of foot pounds there . A friend of my fathers used to love to hunt with a handgun, when he got older a .357 was all he could stand and he killed deer past 100 yards. 
All that being said they were taking M14’s out of mothballs when they went to the Middle East . And I can see wanting something that defeats as much body armor as you can get . 
I don’t mind seeing money spent on our troops , the government certainly spends it on less important things . A 270 win is a formidable cartridge , which it’s supposed to get the ballistics of .

So it’s a step up from a 308 .
Sig certainly seems to have the inside track right now . I would like to think it’s because of innovation rather than having the best lobbyist  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Army went through this in around 2005.  Remember the 6.8 SPC?  Here is a description of the round.

 

"The 6.8mm Remington Special Purpose Cartridge (6.8 SPC, 6.8 SPC II or 6.8×43mm) is a rimless bottlenecked intermediate rifle cartridge that was developed by Remington Arms in collaboration with members of the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit and United States Special Operations Command to possibly replace the 5.56 NATO cartridge in Short Barreled Rifles (SBR) and Carbines. Based on the .30 Remington cartridge, it is midway between the 5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO in bore diameter. It uses the same diameter bullet (usually not the same weight) as the .270 Winchester hunting cartridge."

 

The two piece cartridge case looks interesting in the exploded views I have seen.  I can already see situations where the case head is ejected and the body of the shell stays stuck in the chamber.  It is also interesting that Sig is a German company and is now making our handguns and rifles.  What happened to the good old days when Springfield was operational.

Edited by Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be nice if our Armed Forces actually bought body armor for our troops. When my nephew went to Iraq we bought his armor for him. The USMC didn’t provide it. 
 

They can buy them guns and ammo and then “upgrade” all that to line the pockets of government officials but they won’t buy our troops what they need to protect themselves in regards to armor, knifes, basic essentials. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

I think it would be nice if our Armed Forces actually bought body armor for our troops. When my nephew went to Iraq we bought his armor for him. The USMC didn’t provide it. 
 

They can buy them guns and ammo and then “upgrade” all that to line the pockets of government officials but they won’t buy our troops what they need to protect themselves in regards to armor, knifes, basic essentials. 

Same here , I hear that story all the time . Our troops should have quality gear . That’s why I always chuckle when I hear someone touting military grade , it doesn’t always mean the best 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

I think it would be nice if our Armed Forces actually bought body armor for our troops. When my nephew went to Iraq we bought his armor for him. The USMC didn’t provide it. 
 

They can buy them guns and ammo and then “upgrade” all that to line the pockets of government officials but they won’t buy our troops what they need to protect themselves in regards to armor, knifes, basic essentials. 

Don't forget their changing uniforms every 5 years, too.<_<

 

That can't be cheap but it sure is wasteful.  You know, like the blueberry camo pattern fatigues the Navy had to have since everybody else was getting new digicam (except for the Air Force which went with a washed out, gray Tiger Stripe).

 

As a side note, I saw some GI's from Benning around town yesterday wearing the new 'retro' uniform.  Looked much better than the double knit polyester greens or the blue pants, white shirt and black beret.  It was in the 80's, so no Ike jacket.  They were in slacks, a slightly lighter tan shirt and a garrison cap the same shade as the pants.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

  It is also interesting that Sig is a German company and is now making our handguns and rifles.  What happened to the good old days when Springfield was operational.

 Like China, I am sure they are on the approved countries list in the so called “Buy American” Act.

Edited by Dirty Dan Dawkins
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dirty Dan Dawkins said:

 Like China, I am sure they are on the approved countries list in the so called “Buy American” Act.

I’m not sure who’s who with Sig , there’s the Swiss Sig , German Sig and American Sig . I’m not sure who owns what but they must have enough here to satisfy the guberment . I remember Beretta had to open a factory here for the M9 when they were the go to company for pistols 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Buckshot Bob said:

Shot placement is the key . I’ve killed plenty of deer with a recurve bow , not allot of foot pounds there . A friend of my fathers used to love to hunt with a handgun, when he got older a .357 was all he could stand and he killed deer past 100 yards. 
All that being said they were taking M14’s out of mothballs when they went to the Middle East . And I can see wanting something that defeats as much body armor as you can get . 
I don’t mind seeing money spent on our troops , the government certainly spends it on less important things . A 270 win is a formidable cartridge , which it’s supposed to get the ballistics of .

So it’s a step up from a 308 .
Sig certainly seems to have the inside track right now . I would like to think it’s because of innovation rather than having the best lobbyist  

Exactly shot placement is key. And then you have to balance performance and weight into the equation. And yes a .270 is formable as is the old 6.8 SPCII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Slapshot said:

Exactly shot placement is key. And then you have to balance performance and weight into the equation. And yes a .270 is formable as is the old 6.8 SPCII.

I’ve read a couple articles where the authors were thinking some branches were going to start swapping all their m4/m-16’s over to 6.8spc , I’ll believe it when I see it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rip Snorter said:

 

Seeing is believing.

The fact is you would loose that wager whether you believe it or not. . Hell I had a 277 wolverine and a 6.8 spc II at one time that would hang with any non custom bolt gun out there. This guy I'm talking about regularly shoots long distance so you can believe it or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2022 at 5:25 PM, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

The two piece cartridge case looks interesting in the exploded views I have seen.  I can already see situations where the case head is ejected and the body of the shell stays stuck in the chamber.

 

That's what I've been thinking. We could end up with both the early M14 and early M16 fiascoes rolled into one (no controllable FA fire and extraction failures).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This means cheap 5.56 once they roll it out. Win!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me a lot of the .276 round the British developed after the Boer War and chambered in the P13 rifle. Ballistically it was very close to a modern 7mm Remington Magnum. The project ended with the start of WW1 and the rifles were rechambered in .303 as the P14 and in .30-06 as the US M17. Personally I feel the new weapon has more to do with the mountains of Afghanistan then a possible future war in Eastern Europe.

Edited by Steel-eye Steve SASS #40674
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Steel-eye Steve SASS #40674 said:

Personally I feel the new weapon has more to do with the mountains of Afghanistan the a possible future war in Eastern Europe.

 

What, wait... are we going back there? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Pepi Lepeu said:

This means cheap 5.56 once they roll it out. Win!

 

That's until the 5.56 is no longer standard issue, then the ammo will become more expensive just like .30 Carbine and .30-06 M2 ball did.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steel-eye Steve SASS #40674 said:

This reminds me a lot of the .276 round the British developed after the Boer War and chambered in the P13 rifle. Ballistically it was very close to a modern 7mm Remington Magnum. The project ended with the start of WW1 and the rifles were rechambered in .303 as the P14 and in .30-06 as the US M17. Personally I feel the new weapon has more to do with the mountains of Afghanistan then a possible future war in Eastern Europe.

They say we’re always fighting the last war with out equipment choices. I think they just need choices that are more mission specific. A rifle for urban and a different one for wide open spaces 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Buckshot Bob said:

They say we’re always fighting the last war with out equipment choices. I think they just need choices that are more mission specific. A rifle for urban and a different one for wide open spaces 

The other issue is that the soldier in question has the training, practice, and qualification to be issued a specialist weapon.  Anything else is a waste of resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2022 at 1:59 AM, Crooked River Pete, SASS 43485 said:

One thing people seem to be missing is that the army wants a round that will penetrate body armor, 5.56 and 7.62 wont do it.

This.

 

I don't know about you guys but every Aussie soldier that goes into harms way has front and back BA for the upper body vitals and a very good helmet.

I know a couple of guys who have a memento of their trip complete with the marks where they were hit.

You wouldn't believe the paperwork they had to do to be able to keep it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.