Jump to content
308AR.com Community
  • Visit Aero Precision
  • Visit Brownells
  • Visit EuroOptic
  • Visit Site
  • Visit Beachin Tactical
  • Visit Rainier Arms
  • Visit Ballistic Advantage
  • Visit Palmetto State Armory
  • Visit Cabelas
  • Visit Sportsmans Guide
survivalshop

6.8 Cal. for the US Military

Recommended Posts

Yep,  like the old song,  "...and the beat goes on,  the beat goes on."  I read one sentence that said a decision was made.  The rest of the article not so much.  Do you think the decision is solid?  Me,  not so sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RedRiverII said:

Yep,  like the old song,  "...and the beat goes on,  the beat goes on."  I read one sentence that said a decision was made.  The rest of the article not so much.  Do you think the decision is solid?  Me,  not so sure.

More and more noise about it happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the thread title (of the actual article, linked) say 6.8mm, but the article starts off talking about the 6.5 Creedmoor? 

Sounds like the person that wrote the article is confused AF about what they're trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is bullshiit.  The only thing that's been contracted is the new SOCOM sniper round, at 6.5 Creedmoor, over the .260 Remington.

All these Generals talking about the 6.8mm wonder-cartridge are being fed a bunch of BS, yet they still talk about it.  Look up some of the stuff these guys have said about that magic 6.8.  There's somuch wrong with what they state about it, as far as it's capabilities.  It's a 6.8mm pipe dream...

6.5mm projectiles, and cartridges, could pull off what they're saying, but not anything that's in a 6.8mm can...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed,  there are many developers standing by with 6.8 hoping for an approval.  Many small time operations are betting on a shot at the big time.  I opted for the 308 and 6.5 and got rid of all 6.8spc stuff.  Well I am stuck with 900 pieces of once fired brass and a set of dies that sit on my bench smiling at me.  Most 6.8 shooters use the round for hunting,  not for the 3 to 5 hundred yard distance the Army wants improved.  Hands down the 6.5 cm is the better round. If 110gr is better than 55-62gr,  the 140gr is absolutely the way to go.  The non-official slogan " Reach out and touch someone."  begs for the 6.5 or 260.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if you noticed , it read 6.8 caliber , but did not give any specifics of what Cartridge, as it did with the 6.5 CM , it was mentioned specifically . You can say 6.8SPC , but it doesn't say anything about what Cartridge , except caliber of 6.8 . I would not take anything fro granted . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood survivalshop.  I threw in the spc all by my lonesome.  It was 3 am and just woke up from the nightmares I often get.  Two cups of coffee fixes that pretty good.  These contracts are worth millions at the very least and many concerned folk are often betting their lives on them.  I'm no expert but I did get involved with submitting government paperwork.  I think you should get the contract if you fill the forms out correctly.  Thank you for the notice.  Believe me no pun or BS intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, survivalshop said:

Not sure if you noticed , it read 6.8 caliber , but did not give any specifics of what Cartridge, as it did with the 6.5 CM , it was mentioned specifically . You can say 6.8SPC , but it doesn't say anything about what Cartridge , except caliber of 6.8 . I would not take anything fro granted . 

However, there hasn't been any "6.8mm anything" that does what they state this new cartridge for the military will do - do it has to be some wonder-round that someone dreamed up.  No 6.8-anything that's out there can do what they state this round can do.  It MUST be something new, and when they adopt this magic round and release it - it's gonna be a ground-breaking leap in 6.8mm technology...   :thumbup:

Or, it's some 6.8mm PipeDream that just keeps getting pushed around the Pentagon, and pimped by people that only know what someone is briefing them on, with zero personal knowledge on ballistics...  which doesn't make it accurate...   :thumbup:

The development of 6.8 SPC came from 5th Special Forces Group, and one person in 5th Group was also the "father" of the Mk12 SPR design, and all it's derivatives. They were movers and shakers in AR development and progression, hands down.

Edited by 98Z5V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 6.5mm went to SOCOM. That drives the Regular-Army train right there, in the future.  I'll bet right now that anything "new" in cartridge development in Regular Army follows exactly what SOCOM does.   :thumbup:   SOCOM doesn't care what Regular Army Generals are mouthing off about to the press - they just do what they do, and make shiit happen.  The Talking Heads can all sort it out later...  :laffs:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Belt Fed said:

I doubt they are going to change calibers on their main battle rifle any time soon. the cost would be enormous.

Yep, my thoughts exactly. There is a bizillion rounds of 7.62 in the pipeline not to mention all the weapons that feed on them. Same can be said for 5.56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any logic changing out the 7.62x51 for what its used for in Belt fed's , any more then you will see a change in calibers for the M2 50 cal. . Now the 5.56x45 , yes , I don't see an issue with swapping out barrels in M4's & SAW's . Cost , they don't care about cost , they had no problem changing out from 45 acp to 9 mm . Of course it fell right into NATO use of the 9 mm , since most NATO use the 9mm , but look how long the US had the 45 ACP as a side arm caliber , since side arms are not that big of a deal in most military's , it was a very large cost to the US , NATO didn't have to change a thing . Now changing out the 5.56 to another cal. , you will have to drag NATO in , as they did with the 7.62x 51 , though it will be a much different story now a days , but I don't see an issue with it , I'm sure they have the same issues with the Cartridge as we do .

Look how many changes to the 5.56x45 rd.in the last twenty years  or more & they are still trying to get the lethality of a .30 cal from that .22 cal. .They are not going to issue 7.62 x 51 Rifles to replace the M4 . In reality , there is nothing wrong with Mr..Stoner's design , changing to a 6.8 cal. ( or something like it )should not be a problem , though mag capacity & amount of ammo carried , is always an issue & may be why the military is trying so hard to wring as much lethality as they can from the 5.56 . The environmental thing with lead is another issue working against all ammo for the military , in general .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,  if they are looking for the sweet spot,  or a magic round they need to look no further.  I believe the 'Calvin and Hobbs'  transmogrifier is available. Or is it still hush hush?

See the source image

Edited by RedRiverII
sp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just a .308 Win case necked down to .270 cal. A .270 Winchester is a 30-06 necked down to .270, and it's a wonderful performer. Why would you neck down a .308 Win case (7.62x51) to a .270, when the .264 is a superior aerodynamic projectile?...   By the way, the .264x51 would be... .260 Remington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this research is a two headed coin in my eyes.  On the one side I think of all the wasted resources,  the wasted resources.  not the necessary.  On the flip side if we spend one million dollars and it saves one troop it is well spent.  Just thinking on paper,  glad it's not my decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2019 at 8:27 PM, 98Z5V said:

That's just a .308 Win case necked down to .270 cal. A .270 Winchester is a 30-06 necked down to .270, and it's a wonderful performer. Why would you neck down a .308 Win case (7.62x51) to a .270, when the .264 is a superior aerodynamic projectile?...   By the way, the .264x51 would be... .260 Remington.

  I also just read of a 6.8 Sherwood being tested , don't ask me why , I don't know why they test or do a lot of crap .😏

2056292955_6.8Sherwood.thumb.jpg.597c795cace42442c85082dac59ec1cd.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, survivalshop said:

  I also just read of a 6.8 Sherwood being tested , don't ask me why , I don't know why they test or do a lot of crap .😏

2056292955_6.8Sherwood.thumb.jpg.597c795cace42442c85082dac59ec1cd.jpg

All this work to get a 7.62x39 lookalike!🤣 I-know that is over simplification, but I couldn’t help it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 12, 2019 at 3:46 AM, RedRiverII said:

Agreed,  there are many developers standing by with 6.8 hoping for an approval.  Many small time operations are betting on a shot at the big time.  I opted for the 308 and 6.5 and got rid of all 6.8spc stuff.  Well I am stuck with 900 pieces of once fired brass and a set of dies that sit on my bench smiling at me.  Most 6.8 shooters use the round for hunting,  not for the 3 to 5 hundred yard distance the Army wants improved.  Hands down the 6.5 cm is the better round. If 110gr is better than 55-62gr,  the 140gr is absolutely the way to go.  The non-official slogan " Reach out and touch someone."  begs for the 6.5 or 260.

Do you still have the brass ?

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...