U.S Army switching to 6.8mm

[HCountyGuy]

Just saw this pop up:

U.S. Army ditching 5.56mm for 6.8mm (https://www.tactical-life.com/news/us-army-6-8mm-weapon-systems/)

[JHC]

Just saw this pop up:

U.S. Army ditching 5.56mm for 6.8mm (https://www.tactical-life.com/news/us-army-6-8mm-weapon-systems/)


It's very interesting. I was expecting more like a .264 but I keep seeing this reported as a 6.8. I understand the AMU worked on this cartridge a lot. I have a hunch it is not literally the 6.8 SPC but a new 6.8. Or something.

[HCM]

It's very interesting. I was expecting more like a .264 but I keep seeing this reported as a 6.8. I understand the AMU worked on this cartridge a lot. I have a hunch it is not literally the 6.8 SPC but a new 6.8. Or something.

Agreed - misleading thread title. 6.8 SPC does not meet the requirements.

They are not specifying the round, just that it be a 6.8mm. They are leaving the specific round open in hopes of getting something better than current offerings.

We shall see if this really goes anywhere. We have been down this road before and nothing has been enough of a leap forward to make it worth the massive expense a change from 556 entails.

[jetfire]

Today in “who wants to place odds that Sig is going to get this contract too”

[JRB]

They've said stuff like this many times before. It's all talking heads BS and conjecture until I see that shit in my arms room.

[HCountyGuy]

Agreed - misleading thread title. 6.8 SPC does not meet the requirements.

My apologies - changed thread title to accurately reflect this.

I r dum

ETA: okay apparently I can change the title for my post but it doesn’t change the thread title...

Tom_Jones if you would be so kind..

thread tools here are shit

[alohadoug]

The article states that it's a "Prototype Opportunity Notice"

Just means "hey, we had a thought. What can industry do?"

ARDEC and ARL has been working on a 6.8 polymer cased round for the last....20 years....I don't think the Army is switching any time soon.

The cost and logistics nightmare alone would kill this...people bitched about the F35 cost.... HA!

The Army hasn't bought a new SAW in 25+ years because of priorities and cost. We'll switch from the 5.56 after we finish the phasers.

[JRB]

The article states that it's a "Prototype Opportunity Notice"

Just means "hey, we had a thought. What can industry do?"

ARDEC and ARL has been working on a 6.8 polymer cased round for the last....20 years....I don't think the Army is switching any time soon.

The cost and logistics nightmare alone would kill this...people bitched about the F35 cost.... HA!

The Army hasn't bought a new SAW in 25+ years because of priorities and cost. We'll switch from the 5.56 after we finish the phasers.

I'd have to politely disagree. The scope and demands of the F35 project kept going wildly out of control because nothing like the F35 existed before, at all, in any kind of way. It was a Bugatti Veyron-esque situation where they had an idea of something, said it needed to do XYZ, engineers, figure it out!

Small arms are comparatively very easy. It'd be stupidly simple to build 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC conversion kits for existing SAWs and M4's. The issue is just classic big Army and Politics because nothing about using existing, proven tech in a pragmatic way looks good enough on a General's OER to get them another star. It has to look good for the cameras and wow uninformed people, which 'we're rebuilding our weapons to shooty bigger boolets and buyin bigger boolets' doesn't do.

Hell, just look at what a clusterfuck M855A1 was to get done, and the only reason that even happened at all was thanks to goddamn environmental concerns!

[JHC]

Agreed - misleading thread title. 6.8 SPC does not meet the requirements.

They are not specifying the round, just that it be a 6.8mm. They are leaving the specific round open in hopes of getting something better than current offerings.

We shall see if this really goes anywhere. We have been down this road before and nothing has been enough of a leap forward to make it worth the massive expense a change from 556 entails.

Last year I met a recently ETS'd O3 who had worked on this project at the AMU. He didn't offer much other than "this cartridge is amazing". I got the distinct impression the new cartridge exits.

[Ndbbm]

Saw something about this on soldier systems, they have to use a 6.8 projectile furnished by the government, but how it gets loaded and what cartridge/cartridge type is up to the vender. http://soldiersystems.net/2018/10/08/ausa-18-sig-sauer-unveils-belt-fed-machine-gun-carbine-and-hybrid-ammunition-next-generation-squad-weapon-candidates/

[psalms144.1]

Small arms are comparatively very easy. It'd be stupidly simple to build 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC conversion kits for existing SAWs and M4's. I thought GEN Milley specifically stated the new cartridge was NOT 6.8 SPC or 6.5G. The Army has been after caseless ammunition for a while, I'd be surprised if we don't hear a more "revolutionary" change versus an evolutionary one...

[JRB]

I thought GEN Milley specifically stated the new cartridge was NOT 6.8 SPC or 6.5G. The Army has been after caseless ammunition for a while, I'd be surprised if we don't hear a more "revolutionary" change versus an evolutionary one...

Exactly the point I was making in that post. They have to invent new bullshit that looks good in press releases and on an OER instead of using a pragmatic, inexpensive, easily developed solution.
That whole world lives in a bubble of their own doublespeak and circle jerking about future weapon systems but the Army as a whole is still fielding 20+ year old M4's, SAWs, etc with optics and accessories that are similarly old.
Hell, M16A2's are still issued in some areas. A2's!

So they'll spend millions on this shit just like the LSAT that went nowhere but generated some neat bullet comments for a few career research officers and guys like me will still be carrying rifles that have receivers and other parts that are older than we are... and I'm in my mid 30's.

[HCM]

Last year I met a recently ETS'd O3 who had worked on this project at the AMU. He didn't offer much other than "this cartridge is amazing". I got the distinct impression the new cartridge exits.

Which one? AMU has been playing with several cartridges in the DPS small frame AR-10s

[JHC]

Which one? AMU has been playing with several cartridges in the DPS small frame AR-10s

Yeah that's the question alright. ;) But it was in the context of a mid-caliber replacement to the 5.56.

[Chemsoldier]

I'd have to politely disagree. The scope and demands of the F35 project kept going wildly out of control because nothing like the F35 existed before, at all, in any kind of way.
Hell, just look at what a clusterfuck M855A1 was to get done, and the only reason that even happened at all was thanks to goddamn environmental concerns!

It is still a cluster. I know of one unit that has shoothouses that are not built with M855A1 in mind and the Army is in the process of divesting all non-M855A1 from the ammo procurement system.

[the Schwartz]

Exactly the point I was making in that post. They have to invent new bullshit that looks good in press releases and on an OER instead of using a pragmatic, inexpensive, easily developed solution.
That whole world lives in a bubble of their own doublespeak and circle jerking about future weapon systems but the Army as a whole is still fielding 20+ year old M4's, SAWs, etc with optics and accessories that are similarly old.
Hell, M16A2's are still issued in some areas. A2's!

So they'll spend millions on this shit just like the LSAT that went nowhere but generated some neat bullet comments for a few career research officers and guys like me will still be carrying rifles that have receivers and other parts that are older than we are... and I'm in my mid 30's.


Since the trend always seems to be towards a larger caliber―I have always suspected that the .30-caliber is the 'holy grail' of these pursuits―I guess that I'll never understand why the .mil does not just go with the .300 AAC Blackout, or its ballistic twin, the 7.62x39 and have it all done with. Yeah, sure 'fatter' bullets are not all 'long and snaky' like the slender ones (.224 through .270) are for the same weight, but let's not kid ourselves...'fatter' rifle bullets make a better 'terminal' impression. ;)

There, I said it. :)

[HCM]

Yeah that's the question alright. ;) But it was in the context of a mid-caliber replacement to the 5.56.

there was at least one, the .264 USA that was a 6.8mm.

[ranger]

there was at least one, the .264 USA that was a 6.8mm.

From TFB in the past, "The RFP linked above specifies that the .264 USA be capable of producing 2,875 ft/s with a 107gr lead-cored Sierra HPBT from a 16.7″ barrel, or 2,657 ft/s with a 123gr Sierra from the same length. Also mentioned is a .277 USA, producing 2,527 ft/s with a 135 gr Sierra, but much less is known about this cartridge."

[HCM]

Since the trend always seems to be towards a larger caliber―I have always suspected that the .30-caliber is the 'holy grail' of these pursuits―I guess that I'll never understand why the .mil does not just go with the .300 AAC Blackout, or its ballistic twin, the 7.62x39 and have it all done with. Yeah, sure 'fatter' bullets are not all 'long and snaky' like the slender ones (.224 through .270) are for the same weight, but let's not kid ourselves...'fatter' rifle bullets make a better 'terminal' impression. ;)

There, I said it. :)

.300 BO is a niche round. It does what it does well but is unsuitable for a general purpose service round.

Read the requirement. The .MIL is concerned about punching through body armor at distance. Some of our "near peer" opponents issue armor comprable to ours and even third world opponents are wearing plates now.

Armor aside, at rifle velicoties the difference between a .264 and a .30 bullet are irrelevant.

[HCM]

From TFB in the past, "The RFP linked above specifies that the .264 USA be capable of producing 2,875 ft/s with a 107gr lead-cored Sierra HPBT from a 16.7″ barrel, or 2,657 ft/s with a 123gr Sierra from the same length. Also mentioned is a .277 USA, producing 2,527 ft/s with a 135 gr Sierra, but much less is known about this cartridge."

I seem to recall the .277 started as a wildcat round called the .277 Wolverine ?

[ranger]

I seem to recall the .277 started as a wildcat round called the .277 Wolverine ?

I do not know about 277 USA but I believe 277 Wolverine is 223 based - similar to 300 BO but with a 6.8 projectile. You see it discussed on the 6.8 Forum. I have 6.8 SPC and 6.5G AR uppers so I spend time on those forums. 9 vs 45 discussions are nothing compared to 6.5G vs 6.8SPC "discussions".

[Stephanie B]

Just saw this pop up:

U.S. Army ditching 5.56mm for 6.8mm (https://www.tactical-life.com/news/us-army-6-8mm-weapon-systems/)

I’m putting my chips down on “never”.

[Drang]

Since the trend always seems to be towards a larger caliber...

???
Historically the trend is to a smaller caliber. A Brown Bess was a .72 and a Charleville was a .69; Mid-19th Century .50 - .54, then .45-70, then 30-40...

The M1 Garand was supposed to be a .276, but they had all this .30-'06 laying around...
After WWII, the Brits were pushing for something in a .27x too, but we rammed .308 Winchester 7.62x51 through, because.

[Greg]

Many years ago I read (or hallucinated) that those dirty Nazis did extensive testing of various calibers (probably shooting live prisoners) and concluded a 6mm midpowered cartridge was ideal for rifles and automatic weapons.

Anything larger/faster was overkill for dropping the typical human male.

Does this sound familiar to anyone else?

[JHC]

there was at least one, the .264 USA that was a 6.8mm.

Oh. I thought 6.8 = .270

But I dunno.
I just crushed a big bottle. 😉

[Bucky]

We should go the other way, 4.5 mm at 6,000 FPS. :cool:

[Jim Watson]

Dirty NAZI assault rifle work started at 7mm but they had all those 8mm reamers...

[olstyn]

Oh. I thought 6.8 = .270

But I dunno.
I just crushed a big bottle. 😉

You're not wrong. .264" = 6.7056 mm

[Mjolnir]

Many years ago I read (or hallucinated) that those dirty Nazis did extensive testing of various calibers (probably shooting live prisoners) and concluded a 6mm midpowered cartridge was ideal for rifles and automatic weapons.

Anything larger/faster was overkill for dropping the typical human male.

Does this sound familiar to anyone else?

No.

Doesn’t sound familiar.

Ze Germans were very intellectual - as they are now.

We knew that a small deer and a man are “close enough” and firing rapidly and accurately requires a smaller cartridge.

No evil required for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LSP552]

I’m going to buck the trend and say this will happen. SAW first. Rifles only to Infantry. The .223 isn’t going away.

[Moshjath]

If I believed every Army Times article I’ve seen over the last twelve years about getting a new rifle, I should have had an M8, something out of the ICR project, and an M4A1+. To me the M4A1+ made the most sense, and is in spirit being accomplished by other communities as the M4A1 URGI replacement for Block II SOPMOD uppers. So much great off the shelf tech that we can go for available right now. If I was King of the Army for a day, an INF Platoon would have a mix of free floated uppers like the LMT MRP, the KAC Light Assault Machine Gun for the same role the SAW fills in a fire team to generate overwhelming (yet actually highly portable) fires as you assault the objective, and the GD Lightweight Medium Machine Gun in .338 NM in the Weapon Squad. You could achieve excellent echelonment of fires with that forming the core of a Platoon.

[the Schwartz]

???

Taking a small portion of my original statement out of context is likely the source of your confusion. I was simply alluding to the fact that many folks, many of them professional military, are drawn to larger (.30-caliber and higher) projectiles for their greater terminal effect in human tissue. Since the military appears to be considering moving upward in caliber from .223 to something in the realm of .265 to .277, the trend is certainly an upward one.

[the Schwartz]

We should go the other way, 4.5 mm at 6,000 FPS. :cool:

That'd be one helluva BB gun. :D

[Shoresy]

We should go the other way, 4.5 mm at 6,000 FPS. :cool:

Wasn't that the general concept of PO Ackley's Eargesplitten Loudenboomer? (IIRC, 22 caliber, but still...)

[DocGKR]

"We should go the other way, 4.5 mm at 6,000 FPS."

Why? This has been tested at LAIR in the 1980's--wounds were not particularly impressive.....

[Bucky]

Why? This has been tested at LAIR in the 1980's--wounds were not particularly impressive.....

Sarcasm.

[Hambo]

I don't believe sea stories, fairy tales, or stories about infantry fielding exotic calibers in the not so near future.

[Mjolnir]

What kind of costs are we looking at if we were to change?

The cost of one F-22? One F-35?

The EFFORT would be huge as would logistics but I’ve no clue on the costs associated with this.

Edit:

Rifle barrels
Perhaps bolts
PM schedule changes
Pick up or expend the existing 5.56 NATO
WHAT OF OUR ALLIES??

(This assumes no other changes would be required for the existing rifle platform)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

I’m going to buck the trend and say this will happen. SAW first. Rifles only to Infantry. The .223 isn’t going away.

I think as you do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JSGlock34]

I'd rather see the Army take a page from SOCOM and introduce the URG-I across the force, starting with Infantry units. It's a low cost, incremental update, that will work better with the new standard M855A1 round than current uppers. Free-float tube improves accuracy and mid-length gas system will handle the new round better. Win-win.

Why we're still buying M4A1s with the KAC RAS in 2018 is beyond me.

[DocGKR]

Bingo.

DOD should have been doing incremental upgrades and field testing new ideas since 9/11; instead progress has been glacially slow, inordinately expensive, and utterly muddled in bureaucratic intransigence and sloth.

[ranger]

In the big scheme of things, the point of the spear that actually uses carbines, rifles, carbines, pistols, etc. is small - suggest Army/USMC buy the best available solution for those most likely to close with and destroy the enemy and the rest of MIL will be well served with current versions of M4, SAW, etc.

[AMC]

Bingo.

DOD should have been doing incremental upgrades and field testing new ideas since 9/11; instead progress has been glacially slow, inordinately expensive, and utterly muddled in bureaucratic intransigence and sloth.

Gosh, Doc.....you make it sound like part of government!:rolleyes:

[DocGKR]

Since Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders stormed up San Juan Hill into the hail of fire from 7 mm Mausers most folks knowledgeable in the field have known that projectiles in the 6.5-7mm range offer ideal terminal performance for military rifle use.

The British realized this and attempted to adopt the Enfield P14 in .276 caliber, unfortunately WWI broke out before the development work was complete so the UK forces reverted back to .303 as stocks of weapons and ammunition were readily available.

Likewise, in the late 1920’s, John Garand originally designed the M1 rifle in .276 caliber for which Frankford Arsenal provided the new ammunition that used a 125 gr bullet at approximately 2700 f/s. Ordnance trials determined that Garand’s .276 caliber T3E2 rifle was an ideal combat weapon, however, development of the .276 rifle was halted in 1932 because of the large remaining stocks of old .30-06 caliber M1906 150 gr FMJ ammunition left over from WWI.

Following WWII the British developed their EM2 rifle, experimenting with both .270 and .280 caliber 130 to 140 gr ammunition fired at approximately 2400 f/s but were forced to scuttle the effort and go with the 7.62x51 mm as churlishly pushed by the US.

More recently the USASOC ARC, JSWB-IPT, CTTSO-TSWG MURG and AIM programs, as well as the 2010 ARDEC caliber study yet again all clearly and conclusively demonstrated the superior efficacy of projectiles in the 6.5-7mm range for an infantry rifle.

[LittleLebowski]

Added paragraphs :D

[Shotgun]

Going to jump off the diving board into the deep end where I have little business of swimming. Fortunately, there is adult supervision and a lifeguard.

The article said Army wanted lethality at 600 meters against an enemy wearing body armor. Doesn’t 7.62x51 already give them that, and don’t we already have that in our arsenal?

[HCM]

Going to jump off the diving board into the deep end where I have little business of swimming. Fortunately, there is adult supervision and a lifeguard.

The article said Army wanted lethality at 600 meters against an enemy wearing body armor. Doesn’t 7.62x51 already give them that, and don’t we already have that in our arsenal?


Already discussed here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?25113-Soldier-Systems-US-Army-Considers-Adopting-an-Interim-Battle-Rifle-in-7-62-NATO

The short answer is the weight penalty, increased recoil and reduced round count make it an impractical choice.

https://primaryandsecondary.com/army-doesnt-need-battle-rifle/

[spinmove_]

Going to jump off the diving board into the deep end where I have little business of swimming. Fortunately, there is adult supervision and a lifeguard.

The article said Army wanted lethality at 600 meters against an enemy wearing body armor. Doesn’t 7.62x51 already give them that, and don’t we already have that in our arsenal?

If the Army wants lethality out to 600M then they should be spending whatever “new shinies” money on training and ammo so they can actually HIT at 600M. Buying stuff that they still can’t hit anything with at 600M isn’t going to do anyone any good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the Schwartz]

If the Army wants lethality out to 600M then they should be spending whatever “new shinies” money on training and ammo so they can actually HIT at 600M. Buying stuff that they still can’t hit anything with at 600M isn’t going to do anyone any good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Surely marksmanship is much of the problem. The fact is that anything that'll neutralize armor ('soft' or 'hard') is always going to involve some sort of 'penalty' in terms of the physics underlying its performance. Defeating armor at range (whatever range that might be) carries with it a requirement that the round produce a certain amount of kinetic energy (defeating armor is strictly an energy v. Bernoulli pressure as it relates to erosion of both the target and the penetrator) at any given engagement range to generate those forces (pressures) needed; TANSTAAFL.

One need only look at the Alekseevskii-Tate (1967) equation, which describes armor penetration events as an equilibrium or balance of Bernoulli pressures between both the armor and the penetrator; 1/2ρ(V-U)2 + Yp = 1/2ρU2 + Rt . The manipulation of this seemingly simple model is unexpectedly complex due to the the penetrator's erosion rate (V-U) over time (t).

[spinmove_]

Surely marksmanship is much of the problem. The fact is that anything that'll neutralize armor ('soft' or 'hard') is always going to involve some sort of 'penalty' in terms of the physics underlying its performance. Defeating armor at range (whatever range that might be) carries with it a requirement that the round produce a certain amount of kinetic energy (defeating armor is strictly an energy v. Bernoulli pressure as it relates to erosion of both the target and the penetrator) at any given engagement range to generate those forces (pressures) needed; TANSTAAFL.

One need only look at the Alekseevskii-Tate (1967) equation, which describes armor penetration events as an equilibrium or balance of Bernoulli pressures between both the armor and the penetrator; 1/2ρ(V-U)2 + Yp = 1/2ρU2 + Rt . The manipulation of this seemingly simple model is unexpectedly complex due to the the penetrator's erosion rate (V-U) over time (t).

...which doesn’t amount to a hill of beans if you can’t bloody well hit the target at the intended range in the first place.

So if you miss the target by 1.265 feet, congratulations, you were able to sufficiently defeat the body armor of...a tree maybe?

If my kid can’t drive a 4-cylinder compact hatchback around town without hitting other cars or keeping it under the posted speed limit, why on earth would I give them a brand new Chevy Camaro?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TiroFijo]

Since Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders stormed up San Juan Hill into the hail of fire from 7 mm Mausers most folks knowledgeable in the field have known that projectiles in the 6.5-7mm range offer ideal terminal performance for military rifle use.

The British realized this and attempted to adopt the Enfield P14 in .276 caliber, unfortunately WWI broke out before the development work was complete so the UK forces reverted back to .303 as stocks of weapons and ammunition were readily available.

Likewise, in the late 1920’s, John Garand originally designed the M1 rifle in .276 caliber for which Frankford Arsenal provided the new ammunition that used a 125 gr bullet at approximately 2700 f/s. Ordnance trials determined that Garand’s .276 caliber T3E2 rifle was an ideal combat weapon, however, development of the .276 rifle was halted in 1932 because of the large remaining stocks of old .30-06 caliber M1906 150 gr FMJ ammunition left over from WWI.

Following WWII the British developed their EM2 rifle, experimenting with both .270 and .280 caliber 130 to 140 gr ammunition fired at approximately 2400 f/s but were forced to scuttle the effort and go with the 7.62x51 mm as churlishly pushed by the US.

More recently the USASOC ARC, JSWB-IPT, CTTSO-TSWG MURG and AIM programs, as well as the 2010 ARDEC caliber study yet again all clearly and conclusively demonstrated the superior efficacy of projectiles in the 6.5-7mm range for an infantry rifle.

I think what is delaying the "new caliber" adoption is not only choosing the caliber, bullet type, and muzzle velocity that does X to a Y target/intermediate barrier at Z distance; but mainly the desire to "have your cake and eat it" regarding recoil but very especially cartridge weight. This requires the maturity of lighweight case technology (be it case telescopic, conventional with steel/brass/aluminum base, or whatever) and this is taking forever.

This desire to have a really big leap ahead instead of a series of small steps is the big obstacle to change.

[the Schwartz]

...which doesn’t amount to a hill of beans if you can’t bloody well hit the target at the intended range in the first place.

So if you miss the target by 1.265 feet, congratulations, you were able to sufficiently defeat the body armor of...a tree maybe?

If my kid can’t drive a 4-cylinder compact hatchback around town without hitting other cars or keeping it under the posted speed limit, why on earth would I give them a brand new Chevy Camaro?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I get it. If the system exceeds the operator's abilities, then why bother? :)

[the Schwartz]

.300 BO is a niche round. It does what it does well but is unsuitable for a general purpose service round.

Read the requirement. The .MIL is concerned about punching through body armor at distance. Some of our "near peer" opponents issue armor comprable to ours and even third world opponents are wearing plates now.

Armor aside, at rifle velicoties the difference between a .264 and a .30 bullet are irrelevant.

Yes, I read it, HCM. My post was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Well aware that the .300 AAC Blackout is 'niche' material; just seems that many folks don't consider anything to be a 'real' main battle cartridge unless it is at least .30-caliber.

When one looks at defeating armor, especially the hard ceramic armor plates, like B4C, SIALON, SiC, and the CMCs, the length of the projectile is what matters most, velocity being whatever it is for a given cartridge. This is where smaller calibers tend to excel since there is less mass 'penalty' (in the form of increased recoil) associated with lengthening the penetrator to get the job done. Of course, cartridge OAL eventually comes into play as well which means that the penetrator cannot be lengthened anymore and increased velocity becomes the variable to chase again.

ETA: Perhaps the the 6.5 × 52mm Carcano has finally come into its own. :p

[Stephanie B]

My memory is that there have been a number of studies done that show that the requirement to be able to engage targets at 600 meters is a pipe dream. I believe that they studied infantry engagements over several 20th century wars and came to the conclusion that 100 yards, maybe 200 yards, was the maximum effective range of a rifleman in combat.

600 meter engagements are akin to 100 yard gunfights with handguns: They do happen, bur are you going to let that outlier drive your training and procurement?

[the Schwartz]

My memory is that there have been a number of studies done that show that the requirement to be able to engage targets at 600 meters is a pipe dream. I believe that they studied infantry engagements over several 20th century wars and came to the conclusion that 100 yards, maybe 200 yards, was the maximum effective range of a rifleman in combat.

600 meter engagements are akin to 100 yard gunfights with handguns: They do happen, bur are you going to let that outlier drive your training in procurement?

Good perspective. I remember training from many moons ago that insisted that at ranges in excess of 300m, we should be displacing, not engaging.

[HCM]

Yes, I read it, HCM. My post was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Well aware that the .300 AAC Blackout is 'niche' material; just seems that many folks don't consider anything to be a 'real' main battle cartridge unless it is at least .30-caliber.

When one looks at defeating armor, especially the hard ceramic armor plates, like B4C, SIALON, SiC, and the CMCs, the length of the projectile is what matters most, velocity being whatever it is for a given cartridge. This is where smaller calibers tend to excel since there is less mass 'penalty' (in the form of increased recoil) associated with lengthening the penetrator to get the job done. Of course, cartridge OAL eventually comes into play as well which means that the penetrator cannot be lengthened anymore and increased velocity becomes the variable to chase again.

The "real battle rifles are .30 crowd" are all either collecting social security or have no real world experience and are simply regugitating Jeff Cooper. It was stupid when the 7.62 NATO was adopted in the 50's and it is stupid now.

Ballistic overkill aside, the "one shot, one kill" crowd fails to account for the tactics / fighting issues, be it suppressive fire, or mutiple shots required to fix and eliminate moving opponents. Investments in marksmaship training are the number one priority, if Johnny cant shoot, and has a poor hit ratio with 5.56 what makes anyone thing reducing his basic load giving him a round that is harder to shoot due to increased recoil and recovery time between shots like 7.62 sure as hell isnt going to help.

Your comment may have been tonuge and cheek but 7.62 battle rifles were, until recently a real interim proposal by people pushing exactly the sort of institutional bullshit that refuses to die.

Oh ads since I'm ranting the M14 is a piece of shit. It was a piece of shit when it was adopted and it hasn't gotten any better with age.

[TiroFijo]

My memory is that there have been a number of studies done that show that the requirement to be able to engage targets at 600 meters is a pipe dream. I believe that they studied infantry engagements over several 20th century wars and came to the conclusion that 100 yards, maybe 200 yards, was the maximum effective range of a rifleman in combat.

600 meter engagements are akin to 100 yard gunfights with handguns: They do happen, bur are you going to let that outlier drive your training in procurement?

That 200 yds limit for effective engagement was also due to limitations in the sighting system. Modern optics/rangefinders do increase effective range, but IMO 600 m is still a pipe dream for the average shooter in the real world.

[HCM]

My memory is that there have been a number of studies done that show that the requirement to be able to engage targets at 600 meters is a pipe dream. I believe that they studied infantry engagements over several 20th century wars and came to the conclusion that 100 yards, maybe 200 yards, was the maximum effective range of a rifleman in combat.

600 meter engagements are akin to 100 yard gunfights with handguns: They do happen, bur are you going to let that outlier drive your training and procurement?

One of the limiting factors is being able to see and postively ID oppenents. Seeing someone who doesnt want to be seen at 300 yards is tough even with optics.

While improved optics are a thing, from 4x ACOG's to the current 1-6x optics, you generally need 1x per 100 yards to hit targets and 2x per 100 to PID them. So unless you have a spotter with Binos or a spoting scope to ID targets the 1-6 buys you out to about 300 in the real world.

Some of this is being driven by current conditions in Afghanistan. It's not like this is the first time we have tried to procure gear to re-fight the last war.

[the Schwartz]

The "real battle rifles are .30 crowd" are all either collecting social security or have no real world experience and are simply regugitating Jeff Cooper. It was stupid when the 7.62 NATO was adopted in the 50's and it is stupid now.

Ballistic overkill aside, the "one shot, one kill" crowd fails to account for the tactics / fighting issues, be it suppressive fire, or mutiple shots required to fix and eliminate moving opponents. Investments in marksmaship training are the number one priority, if Johnny cant shoot, and has a poor hit ratio with 5.56 what makes anyone thing reducing his basic load giving him a round that is harder to shoot due to increased recoil and recovery time between shots like 7.62 sure as hell isnt going to help.

Your comment may have been tonuge and cheek but 7.62 battle rifles were, until recently a real interim proposal by people pushing exactly the sort of institutional bullshit that refuses to die.

Oh ads since I'm ranting the M14 is a piece of shit. It was a piece of shit when it was adopted and it hasn't gotten any better with age.

That's why I made the crack about the .300 AAC B/O.

Levity aside, the 6.5 x 55 Swede seems to be tailor made for this. Sure, case length is a little greater than the 5.56 NATO, but the cartridge, especially when firing projectiles in the 120 ± 20 grains range, is a real 'cream puff' to shoot. With correctly hardened penetrators and the case capacity to handle them, it'd be a formidable choice against the current ceramics (not to mention metallic) armors.

[HCM]

That's why I made the crack about the .300 AAC B/O.

Levity aside, the 6.5 x 55 Swede seems to be tailor made for this. Sure, case length is a little greater than the 5.56 NATO, but the cartridge, especially when firing projectiles in the 120 ± 20 grains range, is a real 'cream puff' to shoot. With correctly hardened penetrators and the case capacity to handle them, it'd be a formidable choice against the current ceramics (not to mention metallic) armors.

If you abandoned the AR platform for something with a constant curve magazine that would allow 6.5 grendel to feed reliably it would also be a good option.

[TiroFijo]

If you abandoned the AR platform for something with a constant curve magazine that would allow 6.5 grendel to feed reliably it would also be a good option.

Constant curve mag in the AR would require just a small modification of the pattern...

Apparently the US Army is looking for something with more MV than 6.5 Grendel. This means the new caliber will be closer recoil wise to a full power round than to an intermediate caliber like the 5.56x45 or even the 7.62x39

[Bucky]

I think what is delaying the "new caliber" adoption is not only choosing the caliber, bullet type, and muzzle velocity that does X to a Y target/intermediate barrier at Z distance; but mainly the desire to "have your cake and eat it" regarding recoil but very especially cartridge weight. This requires the maturity of lighweight case technology (be it case telescopic, conventional with steel/brass/aluminum base, or whatever) and this is taking forever.

This desire to have a really big leap ahead instead of a series of small steps is the big obstacle to change.

Which makes one wonder, did we hit a wall in powder and bullet development? I'm not a rifle guy, but we've made some strides in the past 20 years increasing the velocity of 9mm ammo, while staying within the same pressure levels. Could the next advancement simply be a 200, 300 increase in velocity without a change in pressure, recoil, or wear on our existing rifles? And if so, will the bullet technology keep up to ensure stability and ballistics to take into effect the increase in velocity?

Basically what I'm saying, is there any technology on the horizon to improve our existing weapons systems?

[TiroFijo]

Which makes one wonder, did we hit a wall in powder and bullet development? I'm not a rifle guy, but we've made some strides in the past 20 years increasing the velocity of 9mm ammo, while staying within the same pressure levels. Could the next advancement simply be a 200, 300 increase in velocity without a change in pressure, recoil, or wear on our existing rifles? And if so, will the bullet technology keep up to ensure stability and ballistics to take into effect the increase in velocity?

Basically what I'm saying, is there any technology on the horizon to improve our existing weapons systems?

AFAIK, there have been lots of incremental developments in powder and primers, more developements in bullet design (but still no design can do it all), and yet to be realized but potentially very significant improvements in case strength and weight. Action and barrel strength is not the limiting factor.

So think of the nicest wildcat that you can dream of, hot loaded, and couple it with a good bullet and a (hopefully) lightweight case. That's where the technology is now.

[the Schwartz]

Constant curve mag in the AR would require just a small modification of the pattern...

Apparently the US Army is looking for something with more MV than 6.5 Grendel. This means the new caliber will be closer recoil wise to a full power round than to an intermediate caliber like the 5.56x45 or even the 7.62x39

That'd be right where the 6.5x55mm fits into this new requirement. It was a full power service cartridge designed specifically for use in light, medium and heavy machine guns such as the Madsen, Schwarzlose, Browning BAR, Kg/1940 LMG, Bren Gun, Browning M1917, Browning M1919 and FN MAG and it pushes bullets in the 120 ± 20 grain weight-class 200 - 300 fps faster than the 6.5 Grendel.

[Hambo]

That'd be right where the 6.5x55mm fits into this new requirement. It was a full power service cartridge designed specifically for use in light, medium and heavy machine guns such as the Madsen, Schwarzlose, Browning BAR, Kg/1940 LMG, Bren Gun, Browning M1917, Browning M1919 and FN MAG and it pushes bullets in the 120 ± 20 grain weight-class 200 - 300 fps faster than the 6.5 Grendel.

Pump the brakes there, Schwartz. There's no way to stretch program development to retirement by adopting a cartridge that's been around for a century or more.

[TiroFijo]

That'd be right where the 6.5x55mm fits into this new requirement. It was a full power service cartridge designed specifically for use in light, medium and heavy machine guns such as the Madsen, Schwarzlose, Browning BAR, Kg/1940 LMG, Bren Gun, Browning M1917, Browning M1919 and FN MAG and it pushes bullets in the 120 ± 20 grain weight-class 200 - 300 fps faster than the 6.5 Grendel.

The 6.5x55 ballistics can be currently replicated with a much shorter case. The 7x46 Murray uses a 7.62x39 case head and reportedly can launch a .284" 130 high BC bullet @ 2650 fps out of a 16" barrel. Apparently the US Army is looking for a .270"ish bullet with a bigger case and much higher velocity, I don't know if a 16" barrel is still the objective.

In any case, since they are looking for a lightweight case that works well and reliably, it is anyone's guess what the actual case may look like.

[the Schwartz]

Pump the brakes there, Schwartz. There's no way to stretch program development to retirement by adopting a cartridge that's been around for a century or more.

Now that is funny! Well done. ;)

[the Schwartz]

The 6.5x55 ballistics can be currently replicated with a much shorter case. The 7x46 Murray uses a 7.62x39 case head and reportedly can launch a .284" 130 high BC bullet @ 2650 fps out of a 16" barrel. Apparently the US Army is looking for a .270"ish bullet with a bigger case and much higher velocity, I don't know if a 16" barrel is still the objective.

In any case, since they are looking for a lightweight case that works well and reliably, it is anyone's guess what the actual case may look like.

Well, I reckon that they can go with the SFM (Short Fat Magnum) concept that hit the market here a couple of decades ago, but either way they are going to have to enclose that 'full-power' case capacity with a case material that is suitable for the job. Unless the .mil is planning on going with aluminum cases (ala CCI Blazer), the cartridge is not going to be 'light-weight'. Of course, the option of going 'caseless' remains, but that approach has its own set of problems that may, or may not, be solvable.

[TiroFijo]

Well, I reckon that they can go with the SFM (Short Fat Magnum) concept that hit the market here a couple of decades ago, but either way they are going to have to enclose that 'full-power' case capacity with a case material that is suitable for the job. Unless the .mil is planning on going with aluminum cases (ala CCI Blazer), the cartridge is not going to be 'light-weight'. Of course, the option of going 'caseless' remains, but that approach has its own set of problems that may, or may not, be solvable.

Caseless is a dead end.

Steel cases are not worth it, too little weight savings.

Aluminum case: the aluminum industry has been trying for over a decade now but still apparently they cannot produce something reliable in a high pressure round.

The future case (if all goes well, yet to see...) will likely be some kind of polymer or poymer+metal case head hybrid.

[TGS]

Well, I reckon that they can go with the SFM (Short Fat Magnum) concept that hit the market here a couple of decades ago, but either way they are going to have to enclose that 'full-power' case capacity with a case material that is suitable for the job. Unless the .mil is planning on going with aluminum cases (ala CCI Blazer), the cartridge is not going to be 'light-weight'. Of course, the option of going 'caseless' remains, but that approach has its own set of problems that may, or may not, be solvable.

I'm guessing that a SFM would be a significant hinderance to capacity, unfortunately. I'll danger that the current length of a 30 round 5.56/25 round 6.5 mag would likely be 15 rounds with SFM cases.

I'm personally of the opinion that 5.56 is here to stay until a breakthrough technology outmoding ammunition as we understand the concept. The 5.56 has developed just the same as any other cartridge technology, and a 5.56 weapon's platform is much more capable than it was in the year 2000 at both 10 yards and 500 yards, while still giving troops high ammunition capacity and low recoil.

[ranger]

I would like to see a cartridge based on 6.8 SPC case with high BC 6.5 projectile in 100 to 120 grains. There are wildcats like that but not factory loads. 6.5 Grendel has issues with bolts breaking due to case head size vs AR bolts.

[Baldanders]

Replacing the 7.62 with some sort of short-case, reduced-weight cartridge that duplicates the 6.5x55 ballistically makes far more sense that replacing the 5.56 with any current option.

If caseless ammo worked, it might be a different story. But the heat sink problem, the fact that the rifle would still need an extractor for duds, the vulnerability of caseless ammo to the elements and general fragility make that a near impossibility. A caseless 6mm might be amazing.

As it stands, I wouldn't be shocked if we stick with 5.56 until magnetic or electrothermal (anyone still working on this?)propulsion powers our main longarm, which won't happen until batteries get way better. A 6mm coilgun with varible velocity settings would be real interesting. (No silencer needed on subsonic setting!)

[Baldanders]

Every time I read one of these articles, I think "there really should be a club for Boomers still butthurt over the M16 adoption. Where they can talk about how we never should have stopped issuing the M14. A real man's gun!"

[Joe in PNG]

Every time I read one of these articles, I think "there really should be a club for Boomers still butthurt over the M16 adoption. Where they can talk about how we never should have stopped issuing the M14. A real man's gun!"

Likewise moving away from the 1911A1 in .45acp.

[JSGlock34]

Every time I read one of these articles, I think "there really should be a club for Boomers still butthurt over the M16 adoption. Where they can talk about how we never should have stopped issuing the M14. A real man's gun!"

Sorry, but I'm stuck in 1989. Where's my ACR?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWK1G6gUw38

[Joe in PNG]

Sorry, but I'm stuck in 1989. Where's my ACR?

Jammed up with a bad lot of advanced ammo.

[the Schwartz]

Caseless is a dead end.

Steel cases are not worth it, too little weight savings.

Aluminum case: the aluminum industry has been trying for over a decade now but still apparently they cannot produce something reliable in a high pressure round.

The future case (if all goes well, yet to see...) will likely be some kind of polymer or poymer+metal case head hybrid.

yeah...that's why I don't get all 'warm & fuzzy' over the caseless option; there are HUGE technical difficulties that I don't think that will be solved for a long time.

70/30 cartridge brass is it, I think, for the time being.

[Baldanders]

Jammed up with a bad lot of advanced ammo.
The most gun porny RPG ever, GURPS, had an article in their monthly mag that had stats for the whole ACR line-up. I'm still waiting for duplex 5.56.

To those who despise RPGs, the old GURPS supplement "High-Tech" had an excellent concise technical history of firearm actions and cartridges. It's where I learned about the Rolin White patent issues.

[the Schwartz]

I'm guessing that a SFM would be a significant hinderance to capacity, unfortunately. I'll danger that the current length of a 30 round 5.56/25 round 6.5 mag would likely be 15 rounds with SFM cases.

I'm personally of the opinion that 5.56 is here to stay until a breakthrough technology outmoding ammunition as we understand the concept. The 5.56 has developed just the same as any other cartridge technology, and a 5.56 weapon's platform is much more capable than it was in the year 2000 at both 10 yards and 500 yards, while still giving troops high ammunition capacity and low recoil.

You're most likely right. I think that the .224 Valkyrie offers some potential as it launches some heavier bullets at pretty decent velocities (the 90-grain Fusion at 2,700 fps shows promise), but then we run into the dual logistical issues of system distribution and upgrade and training. Sounds like too much trouble to go to if you ask me....

Perhaps there'll be more development in propellant technology that can wring a little more velocity out of the 5.56, but in the end, I suspect that even that avenue will net only a minimal improvement.

[JSGlock34]

The most gun porny RPG ever, GURPS, had an article in their monthly mag that had stats for the whole ACR line-up. I'm still waiting for duplex 5.56.

To those who despise RPGs, the old GURPS supplement "High-Tech" had an excellent concise technical history of firearm actions and cartridges. It's where I learned about the Rolin White patent issues.

This could probably be a thread in itself. My early education in firearms was definitely skewed by the Q Manual for the James Bond RPG...

31593

[Baldanders]

This could probably be a thread in itself. My early education in firearms was definitely skewed by the Q Manual for the James Bond RPG...

31588

When I have a night relatively free from work (HAHAHAHAHAHA) I will start that thread.

Possible titles:"Remember when we had to work for our gun porn?" Or "RPGs= why I knew what a Dardick was before seeing Life Size Potato show off his on YouTube."

I have a Q manual somewhere.

80s RPGs definitely focused on odd guns. Forgotten Weapons is sort of the spiritual successor to the gun sourcebooks back in the day.

[Hambo]

Which makes one wonder, did we hit a wall in powder and bullet development?

Until we field something in the 40 watt range, yeah. There have been definite bullet improvements, and some powders give you a little extra gas, but mainly it's been finding the sweet spot of caliber, BC, and velocity.

[Robinson]

Likewise moving away from the 1911A1 in .45acp.

Hey!

:)

[JHC]

Or 6.5. No better
https://americangg.net/armys-next-battle-rifle/?fbclid=IwAR0dSFi6sWOBsE7GlfEgSubgt8f-bCKgwHsAipcIQ1sesoU3JMXklrJznqg

[OlongJohnson]

Until we field something in the 40 watt range, yeah. There have been definite bullet improvements, and some powders give you a little extra gas, but mainly it's been finding the sweet spot of caliber, BC, and velocity.

It's definitely going for that last little bit. Like cleaner burn, decoppering (itself an ancient technology), accuracy, etc. Even then, lots of people still continue to get best results with powders that have been around well over 50 years.

Most of the bullet improvements have been in non-Hague-compliant technology.

Kinda like a 350-ish cubic inch pushrod V-8 has been competitive for an all-around combination of power output, reliability, durability, fuel economy, emissions and cost for sixty-some years. Everybody thinks there should be something better by now, but there keeps not being something better.

[the Schwartz]

Or 6.5. No better
https://americangg.net/armys-next-battle-rifle/?fbclid=IwAR0dSFi6sWOBsE7GlfEgSubgt8f-bCKgwHsAipcIQ1sesoU3JMXklrJznqg

Hmmm, while a 6.5mm 130-grain bullet at 2,850 fps seems to be a fairly potent arrangement, according to the company's literature it, ''offers 30 percent more lethality than 7.62mm x 51mm brass ammunition''.

Given that the 7.62NATO is pretty effective to begin with, even with ball ammo, I wonder how they arrived at that number (30 percent more lethality)? I am sure that this claim is more likely than not just a little bit of manufacturer hype.

[Jim Watson]

A bit hotter than the .256 Pedersen, which was reportedly more lethal than the anointed .276 in livestock trials.

[Trigger]

Sounds a lot like 6.5x47 Lapua to me. 130gr bullet at 2850fps. Might need a 20” barrel to get there, and 62000psi.

[Drang]

Hit the Strategy Page: Weapons: Americans Go For New Rifle And Caliber (https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20181110.aspx)

November 10, 2018: The U.S. Army has called on five manufacturers to deliver six competing designs for the new SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon, or light machine-gun) and M4 assault rifle replacements chambered for a new 6.8mm round. Current rifle and SAW designs in development or production can be offered as long as they accommodate new 6.8mm round. Prototypes will be delivered in 2021 and a winning design will be selected for low rate production a year or two after that.

Apparently, the 6.8mm round is also subject to further development and those firms willing to offer weapons prototype are expected to deliver a novel and practical 6.8mm cartridge design. The army is taking advantage of the substantial innovation in SAW and assault rifles design that has taken place since the 1990s. There has also been a lot of new ammo, of various calibers, designed. However, the new weapons and ammo may not displace the current weapons unless there are demonstrable improvements in performance without incurring loss of reliability. The new 6.8mm round may be caseless or have non-metallic (and lighter) cartridge case.

In some respects this is back to the future because in the 1930s the United States was developing a new combat rifle and weapons using both 6.8mm and 5.56mm rounds were evaluated. The winning American rifle design was the M1 Garand, which was originally designed to use the .270 Winchester cartridge. This was a 6.8mm round and was preferred because it was more accurate than the then standard 7.62mm 30-06 round. There were also proposals to use the 5.56mm 220 Swift (or similar rounds similar to the current 5.56mm rounds).

[Chemsoldier]

Maybe someone is going to innovate something badass, but the growing curmudgeon in me (which couldn't possibly be age) just thinks this is a waste. It is going to chase a lot more expense, gun wear, weapon weight to gain range that most soldiers will not be skillful enough to exploit. The expense, wear and weight is contraindicative of attempts to build more skill.

The rational side of me says the terminal ballistics against body armor is a real concern. Anything that reduces the ability of the individual soldier to eliminate threats with their weapon is troubling.

[Jim Watson]

Hit the Strategy Page: Weapons: Americans Go For New Rifle And Caliber (https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20181110.aspx)



The winning American rifle design was the M1 Garand, which was originally designed to use the .270 Winchester cartridge.


That kind of knocks the whole thing in the head. If there was ever a Garand design made in anything but .30 and .276, I have not seen or heard of it. (Other than some one off attempts at sporterizing surplus.)

[HCM]

That kind of knocks the whole thing in the head. If there was ever a Garand design made in anything but .30 and .276, I have not seen or heard of it. (Other than some one off attempts at sporterizing surplus.)

That is not the only factual error in the linked article.

[RevolverRob]

Given that 6.5mm has bullets with among the highest BC, I don't understand why they don't simultaneously adopt a 6.5CM platform for DMR/long-range/machine gun work and then build a proper new 6.5 based on a 5.56 case (the 6.5PCC is close). I'd actually take a .300BLK and neck it to 6.5 with as steep a shoulder as possible and design a bullet with a decent cannelure, so the bullet doesn't need to sit deep in the neck (think a 6.5 Grendel, but in a 5.56 case, instead of a .220 Russian case).

It would take some work and engineering, but I can almost guarantee you could build a better round, in theory if you designed the bullet right, you could use the same bullet (not ammo, but same bullet) and reduce manufacturing costs. In the process, a standardized bullet weight would be established (I'm guessing right at 100-grains if not 120), barrel twists would be standardized. With 5.56 as the parent case, it will only require new barrels, new recoil springs (maybe), and maybe minor gas adjustments to the M4/M16 family. Bolts can stay the same, mags the same, etc.

In addition 6.5CM can be chambered in just about anything that is currently in 7.62NATO, with a barrel swap and minor tuning.

Why do we need to replace good guns if we can rebuild them and chamber them in a better round? But then again, I'm not in military procurement, so being logical doesn't matter much.

[Jim Watson]

That is not the only factual error in the linked article.

It was enough that I didn't bother reading the whole article to look for more nonsense. l

[Stephanie B]

My money is still on “Happen; not going to.”

[willie]

I'm not up to date on the big issue of what's wrong with the current round. If it has to do with poor performance because of bullet velocity, would not increasing the M4's barrel length by two inches and also tweaking the bullet's design remedy most complaints? When I was a kid, I would read articles telling of the 7.62 Nato's shortcomings and extolling virtues of the all new .22 cal round that "ought to be adopted". Then it was.

[OlongJohnson]

Given that 6.5mm has bullets with among the highest BC, I don't understand why they don't simultaneously adopt a 6.5CM platform for DMR/long-range/machine gun work and then build a proper new 6.5 based on a 5.56 case (the 6.5PCC is close). I'd actually take a .300BLK and neck it to 6.5 with as steep a shoulder as possible and design a bullet with a decent cannelure, so the bullet doesn't need to sit deep in the neck (think a 6.5 Grendel, but in a 5.56 case, instead of a .220 Russian case).

It would take some work and engineering, but I can almost guarantee you could build a better round, in theory if you designed the bullet right, you could use the same bullet (not ammo, but same bullet) and reduce manufacturing costs. In the process, a standardized bullet weight would be established (I'm guessing right at 100-grains if not 120), barrel twists would be standardized. With 5.56 as the parent case, it will only require new barrels, new recoil springs (maybe), and maybe minor gas adjustments to the M4/M16 family. Bolts can stay the same, mags the same, etc.

In addition 6.5CM can be chambered in just about anything that is currently in 7.62NATO, with a barrel swap and minor tuning.

Why do we need to replace good guns if we can rebuild them and chamber them in a better round? But then again, I'm not in military procurement, so being logical doesn't matter much.

DocGKR has reported several times that 6.5CM (and any other case with a steeper shoulder) doesn't feed in self-loaders as reliably as .260 Remington. There are people he couldn't talk about in detail putting a lot of .260 through self-loaders.

For a machine gun, it may be relevant that smaller bores with the same case volume tend to erode throats faster.

Doing a .300BK-like solution gives up too much case volume to be a solution to the long-range problem that is ostensibly motivating this activity.

I still can't figure out why 6.8 SPC isn't the answer to this question, unless they want to spend China's bond-purchase money on all-new rifles fer e'er'body to get a case with 35 grains of powder. The latter may be it. The 7.62x51 has ~80 percent more powder than a 5.56x45. Rather than that, maybe what is wanted is 40-50 percent more. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any remotely popular cartridge in that space.

I'm not a firearms designer, but if I was working on a program for this, and it was agreed that nobody is interested in just another wildcat that you can run in an AR, my first draft outline would be a lengthened SPC case with ~35-38 grains powder capacity (or whatever was needed to meet ballistic targets, doing cartridge development work with a series of cheap test barrels in addition to pressure test barrels - maybe build a small fleet of Remages with single-shot receivers) and stretch the magwell section (upper, lower and bolt carrier) of an AR to fit it. Adjust the recoil system and keep everything else the same, except maybe go to a piston system with provision for an easily-cleaned suppressor for the piston chamber exhaust. Might come out quieter with a can than a suppressed DI gun.

If the resources were available, or if it turned out there wasn't a very specific 6.8 projectile already engineered that we were expected to use, I might do some development of a 6.5mm version just to have that in my pocket in case someone who mattered asked.

Nearing the end... "Can we do this in 6.5mm?"

"Yeah, how about tomorrow? And here's our data so far."

[DocGKR]

The AMU developed .264 USA and .270 USA would be viable options; for that matter an updated version of the British .270 or .280 cartridges for the post-WWII EM2 would probably also be viable. The other option is to use a cased telescoping design.

The main problem is that the cartridge and projectiles must be selected FIRST, then tell vendors to design weapons that function with the optimized cartridge that was selected. Having vendors submit different cartridges with their weapons is illogical, as you end up with the same type of fiasco as occurred with XM17....

[OlongJohnson]

I agree that requiring the DOD to shyte or get off the pot and do some good old fashioned engineering to come up with the cartridge that features the ballistics they want might be a good thing. Like have the folks at Picatinny or wherever competence lies take it on. Which perhaps may already have happened.

I'm curious about details of the "AR-12" that was developed along with the "USA" cartridges. Info is thin on the ground. Anyone have links?

[HCM]

The AMU developed .264 USA and .270 USA would be viable options; for that matter an updated version of the British .270 or .280 cartridges for the post-WWII EM2 would probably also be viable. The other option is to use a cased telescoping design.

The main problem is that the cartridge and projectiles must be selected FIRST, then tell vendors to design weapons that function with the optimized cartridge that was selected. Having vendors submit different cartridges with their weapons is illogical, as you end up with the same type of fiasco as occurred with XM17....

This ^^^.

Plus in the big picture machine guns (belt fed) do the majority of the killing with small arms. What ever round is selected need to be a good machinegun cartridge first, rifle cartridge second.

The round will in some ways dictate the design of your new rifle. For example, are you going to have a tapered case or a straight wall case ? That will dictate the shape of your magazines for optimal feeding. Tapered cases need constant curve magazines for optimal feeding. The choice of round and magazine in turn drives the design of your rifle.

[Hambo]

I'd actually take a .300BLK and neck it to 6.5 with as steep a shoulder as possible and design a bullet with a decent cannelure, so the bullet doesn't need to sit deep in the neck (think a 6.5 Grendel, but in a 5.56 case, instead of a .220 Russian case).

There is nothing new under the sun. In this case it's called 6.5TCU and it's been around since the 80's. There are 6mm and 7mm versions as well.

https://loaddata.com/Cartridge/65-TCU-65mm-TCU-Hodgdon-Pistol-Data/3603

[DocGKR]

About 40 gr of current propellant is going to be necessary to meet the requirements.

Necking a 5.56 mm/.300BLK to take a .270 bullet is a no go--not enough case capacity; likewise 6.5G and 6.8SPC do not have the required case capacity.

[HCM]

About 40 gr of current propellant is going to be necessary to meet the requirements.

Necking a 5.56 mm/.300BLK to take a .270 bullet is a no go--not enough case capacity; likewise 6.5G and 6.8SPC do not have the required case capacity.

I’m guessing because because needed to generate the velocity required to get through newer armor without going back to 20” barrels or bullpups ?

[TiroFijo]

About 40 gr of current propellant is going to be necessary to meet the requirements.

Necking a 5.56 mm/.300BLK to take a .270 bullet is a no go--not enough case capacity; likewise 6.5G and 6.8SPC do not have the required case capacity.

And pesky physics being what they are, this means that the new cartridge is much closer in recoil to M80 ball than to M855...

This looks like a move to a much more capable cartridge (in effective range and penetration) at the expense of more recoil. Full auto is of very little use in carbines anyway.

[RevolverRob]

I mean, basically, they just want a .280 British necked to 6.5-6.8mm.

Why not just do a .25 WSSM and call it a day? :eek:

[TiroFijo]

I mean, basically, they just want a .280 British necked to 6.5-6.8mm.

Why not just do a .25 WSSM and call it a day? :eek:

Because the 25 WSSM cannot do what they want...

They want a relatively fast 6.5-6.8 bullet that still has good SD and BC and can have good performance out of short barrels. It's a balancing act.

The question is: what kind of bullet will be used as the main loading? A fragmenting one with a penetrator like the M855A1, or a expanding "barrier blind" one like the SOST? A true armor piercing bullet?

[Jim Watson]

Are you likely to have to reload a rifle off a MG belt?

Wasn't there mention of separate 6.8 rifle and MG ammo?

[HCM]

Are you likely to have to reload a rifle off a MG belt?

Wasn't there mention of separate 6.8 rifle and MG ammo?

This isn’t about feeding an individual rifle from MG belts- it’s about big picture logistics.

It’s also about the other compromises you have to make to use the same round in MG and rifles. Given
the central role MG play in fights, those decisions are normally resolved in favor of the a good MG around.

[Jim Watson]

We already have two rifle-MG calibers to supply. Two superior calibers would not be operationally different.
I propse a MG cartridge and gun lighter than 7.62 M240, more powerful than 5.56 M249.
Rifle TBD.

[Nephrology]

Today in “who wants to place odds that Sig is going to get this contract too”

I'll call and raise with a "...and you'll never be able to figure out why..."

[Drang]

... adopt a 6.5CM ....

"Holy Marx, the Americans are arming their troops with six and a half centimeter rifles!"

[RevolverRob]

"Holy Marx, the Americans are arming their troops with six and a half centimeter rifles!"

Frankly, I propose we go general issue with the 8.4cm - Carl Gustaf M3A1. It’s heavier than an M14, but the capability is really there to outperform any other small arms munition.

[the Schwartz]

Frankly, I propose we go general issue with the 8.4cm - Carl Gustaf M3A1. It’s heavier than an M14, but the capability is really there to outperform any other small arms munition.


The 30-round magazine for that is gonna be HUGE!

[RevolverRob]

The 30-round magazine for that is gonna be HUGE!

About 3kg for 1100 rounds ;)...https://www.smallarmsreview.com/archive/detail.arc.entry.cfm?arcid=20371

[TiroFijo]

In the mean time, to keep the perspective....

US Army Orders $180 Million-worth of M4s from Colt & FN

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/11/14/us-army-orders-m4s/

The Department of Defense has announced the purchase of $177,214,218 worth of M4 carbines with orders split equally between Colt and FN America. The orders were made on behalf of the US Army’s Contracting Command.

Sadly, no quantity is stated in the contract award notices, however, both are valued at $88,607,109. With a roughly estimated per carbine cost of $600, that would suggest orders for just short of 300,000 M4s. It seems likely that most of these weapons are destined for the Army rather than foreign military sales, as no buyers have been mentioned in the Department of Defense contract award notices (as previous FMS contract notices have). Additionally, the contracts are handled by Army Contracting Command’s New Jersey department, which normally handles Army, rather than FMS, procurement.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Given the reports that we are behind the curve on major issues with the Chinese and Russians - https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/11/14/a-crisis-of-national-security-new-report-to-congress-sounds-alarm/ and elsewhere, is it worth redoing all the small arms in the various services and losing compatible with allied nations?

Having a 6.8 isn't going to stop a cybertalk or a hypersonic antiship missile.

[ranger]

Given the reports that we are behind the curve on major issues with the Chinese and Russians - https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/11/14/a-crisis-of-national-security-new-report-to-congress-sounds-alarm/ and elsewhere, is it worth redoing all the small arms in the various services and losing compatible with allied nations?

Having a 6.8 isn't going to stop a cybertalk or a hypersonic antiship missile.

Honestly, how big a deal is ammo compatibility with all our allies when we supply almost all of the combat power in the first place. I will never forget sitting in Kuwait at a 3rd Army briefing where a daily briefer described how we were an "alliance" of 20+ nations in our Iraq fight. He then started naming off the names of countries and how many troops they had on the ground. Multiple European allies with less than 10 "boots on the ground" in several cases counted as combat power. Except for the Brits (and they did not have that much), our biggest "allies" with boots on the ground were former Soviet Republic states such as Rumania and Georgia. The Rumanians were not ammo compatible (former Soviet bloc arms) and I think we outfitted the Georgians (The nation - we were the US kind of Georgians!).

[RevolverRob]

Given the reports that we are behind the curve on major issues with the Chinese and Russians - https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/11/14/a-crisis-of-national-security-new-report-to-congress-sounds-alarm/ and elsewhere, is it worth redoing all the small arms in the various services and losing compatible with allied nations?

Having a 6.8 isn't going to stop a cybertalk or a hypersonic antiship missile.

Say what?!?! The same group tasked with creating, fielding, and selling weapons, is simultaneously tasked with assessing threat profiles of other nations. And low and behold they conclude that what we need is more new weapons? Eisenhower was right about the Military Industrial Complex.

I'm not suggesting we sit on our laurels and not develop new tech. But I don't actually believe that we can't fight a two front war as necessary (where are these two fronts supposed to be anyways?). We've been fighting a two front insurgency campaign for 17-years. Arguably, insurgency campaigns are the hardest to fight. A two front war with battle tanks, artillery, and airplanes? That's a hell of a lot easier war.

I also do not believe that the development of near-peer technology exists in Russia. In China, maybe, but in Russia? No. Russia can't field an aircraft carrier. As far as we can tell, their missile technology still lags behind ours by a dozen+ years. Russia has not invested substantially in upgraded radar technologies, either. We have a pretty good tech advance on Russia.

China is a different story, but I'm not now, nor have I ever been, worried about a war with China. Economically, they need us and Europe to buy their shit. A war with us shuts virtually all of it down. And economically China will grind to a halt. Inner turmoil will spill over faster than you can blink, because China is currently running on the ragged edge of population control and dynamics. The Japanese and South Korean militaries in conjunction with the U.S. would be able to sink most of China's navy in short order and while China has a huge airforce, it's not made up of peer-level aircraft of even the F15, let alone the F22 and F35 (and our anti-aircraft systems).

Besides, I think we could launch a dozen or more US-backed insurgencies against China that would really screw with them. Imagine a bunch of Mongol horsemen riding around with Gustafs, and a bunch of M4s, occasionally backed by drones, blowing holes in the Great Wall? Or what would happen if an insurgency managed to seize control of the hydroelectric dams in Tibet? Ghurkas + SOF + Insurgents = Bad time for China. China doesn't exactly make friends and influence people everywhere and the U.S. is often better at that.

In fact, the only actual factual landwar that isn't an insurgency that I am concerned about is DPRK-ROK, because we will absolutely have to come to the aid of ROK (though I'm not sure if the Japanese will, but it would help significantly). As long as China does not back DPRK, I think we'll be okay. But that's an unfortunate shooting war in an isolated place, where the potential for insurgency and/or economic sanctions are highly limited.

[HCM]

Say what?!?! The same group tasked with creating, fielding, and selling weapons, is simultaneously tasked with assessing threat profiles of other nations. And low and behold they conclude that what we need is more new weapons? Eisenhower was right about the Military Industrial Complex.

I'm not suggesting we sit on our laurels and not develop new tech. But I don't actually believe that we can't fight a two front war as necessary (where are these two fronts supposed to be anyways?). We've been fighting a two front insurgency campaign for 17-years. Arguably, insurgency campaigns are the hardest to fight. A two front war with battle tanks, artillery, and airplanes? That's a hell of a lot easier war.

I also do not believe that the development of near-peer technology exists in Russia. In China, maybe, but in Russia? No. Russia can't field an aircraft carrier. As far as we can tell, their missile technology still lags behind ours by a dozen+ years. Russia has not invested substantially in upgraded radar technologies, either. We have a pretty good tech advance on Russia.

China is a different story, but I'm not now, nor have I ever been, worried about a war with China. Economically, they need us and Europe to buy their shit. A war with us shuts virtually all of it down. And economically China will grind to a halt. Inner turmoil will spill over faster than you can blink, because China is currently running on the ragged edge of population control and dynamics. The Japanese and South Korean militaries in conjunction with the U.S. would be able to sink most of China's navy in short order and while China has a huge airforce, it's not made up of peer-level aircraft of even the F15, let alone the F22 and F35 (and our anti-aircraft systems).

Besides, I think we could launch a dozen or more US-backed insurgencies against China that would really screw with them. Imagine a bunch of Mongol horsemen riding around with Gustafs, and a bunch of M4s, occasionally backed by drones, blowing holes in the Great Wall? Or what would happen if an insurgency managed to seize control of the hydroelectric dams in Tibet? Ghurkas + SOF + Insurgents = Bad time for China. China doesn't exactly make friends and influence people everywhere and the U.S. is often better at that.

In fact, the only actual factual landwar that isn't an insurgency that I am concerned about is DPRK-ROK, because we will absolutely have to come to the aid of ROK (though I'm not sure if the Japanese will, but it would help significantly). As long as China does not back DPRK, I think we'll be okay. But that's an unfortunate shooting war in an isolated place, where the potential for insurgency and/or economic sanctions are highly limited.

You think a two front near peer war will be “easier” than two insurgencies ?

You really don’t understand what you are talking about.

Fighting a near peer like the PRC or Russia will be costly in both men and materiel even if it goes “well.”

The biggest advantage we have over the PRC is our operational experience. The PRC even acknowledges this, their military thinkers call it “the peace disease.” It is why you now see the PRC trying to get involved in overseas operations like peace keeping etc.

I could go on but instead, watch this lecture on lessons learned in Ukraine from Dr Philip Karber at the Modern War Institute. It sounds a lot like the warnings about the changes wrought by new technology from military observers which came out of the Russo-Japanese war prior to WWI.


https://youtu.be/_CMby_WPjk4

I like guns as much as anyone here but in a near peer war small arms are just not that important.

[ranger]

"I like guns as much as anyone here but in a near peer war small arms are just not that important."

I think you have a very good point. I am a retired US Army Infantry officer, I know that Close Air Support, Artillery, etc. are the primary killers. However, at the end of the day, an Infantry soldier - US Army or Marine - has to stand on key terrain to truly finish a war. We tend to not "finish" a war in that manner so we seem to have endless wars.

[alohadoug]

Say what?!?! The same group tasked with creating, fielding, and selling weapons, is simultaneously tasked with assessing threat profiles of other nations. And low and behold they conclude that what we need is more new weapons? Eisenhower was right about the Military Industrial Complex.

I'm not suggesting we sit on our laurels and not develop new tech. But I don't actually believe that we can't fight a two front war as necessary (where are these two fronts supposed to be anyways?). We've been fighting a two front insurgency campaign for 17-years. Arguably, insurgency campaigns are the hardest to fight. A two front war with battle tanks, artillery, and airplanes? That's a hell of a lot easier war.

I also do not believe that the development of near-peer technology exists in Russia. In China, maybe, but in Russia? No. Russia can't field an aircraft carrier. As far as we can tell, their missile technology still lags behind ours by a dozen+ years. Russia has not invested substantially in upgraded radar technologies, either. We have a pretty good tech advance on Russia.

China is a different story, but I'm not now, nor have I ever been, worried about a war with China. Economically, they need us and Europe to buy their shit. A war with us shuts virtually all of it down. And economically China will grind to a halt. Inner turmoil will spill over faster than you can blink, because China is currently running on the ragged edge of population control and dynamics. The Japanese and South Korean militaries in conjunction with the U.S. would be able to sink most of China's navy in short order and while China has a huge airforce, it's not made up of peer-level aircraft of even the F15, let alone the F22 and F35 (and our anti-aircraft systems).

Besides, I think we could launch a dozen or more US-backed insurgencies against China that would really screw with them. Imagine a bunch of Mongol horsemen riding around with Gustafs, and a bunch of M4s, occasionally backed by drones, blowing holes in the Great Wall? Or what would happen if an insurgency managed to seize control of the hydroelectric dams in Tibet? Ghurkas + SOF + Insurgents = Bad time for China. China doesn't exactly make friends and influence people everywhere and the U.S. is often better at that.

In fact, the only actual factual landwar that isn't an insurgency that I am concerned about is DPRK-ROK, because we will absolutely have to come to the aid of ROK (though I'm not sure if the Japanese will, but it would help significantly). As long as China does not back DPRK, I think we'll be okay. But that's an unfortunate shooting war in an isolated place, where the potential for insurgency and/or economic sanctions are highly limited.

The Army Chief of Staff GEN Milley said it best in addressing some of the scientists and engineers where I work (one of the US Army RDECs): "You want to know about the next war, go look at World War II. No more of the basing garbage, no more sitting around in FOBs or fortified static locations. If we stop for more than 48-72 hours it will be because we've ceased to function as a fighting force."

Casualty estimates for DPRK-RoK conflict are staggering. Estimates are that the city of Seoul is completely destroyed in the first 4 hours. One estimate states that US casualties will exceed the GWOT casualties in the first 90 minutes! When the 2nd Infantry Division was based on the peninsula (most of it is now at Joint Base Lewis-McCord Washington) , it's life-expectancy was measured in minutes, not hours. 25th Infantry Division from Hawaii - on the ground 18 hours after initiation of conflict, combat ineffective 2-4 hours after landing. 82nd Airborne Division on ground 24 hours after initiation, combat ineffective 3-5 hours after landing. The DPRK would control most of Northern South Korea within the first 36 hours. Southern part of the peninsula would be held through air-power alone until US armor could arrive THREE WEEKS LATER!

And all of those numbers (now several years old) were based on the assumption that the 2.035 Million members of the PLA do not get involved.

The Russian numbers aren't as bad, but I'll point out that we have now stationed an armored brigade back in Germany full time (rotation) and have pre-positioned an armored division worth of equipment in Germany/Poland/Czech Republic. Poland is negotiating for a full-time armored brigade as well to augment their own force. They can at least field tanks. Germany has reported to their Parliament that they have less than 30 functioning tanks in the ENTIRE country.

Insurgence sucks long term, conventional war sucks short term.

[RevolverRob]

You think a two front near peer war will be “easier” than two insurgencies ?

You really don’t understand what you are talking about.

Fighting a near peer like the PRC or Russia will be costly in both men and materiel even if it goes “well.”

The biggest advantage we have over the PRC is our operational experience. The PRC even acknowledges this, their military thinkers call it “the peace disease.” It is why you now see the PRC trying to get involved in overseas operations like peace keeping etc.



I'll watch the lecture later, thanks for posting it.

For starters, I don't actually think we will fight a two-front near peer war, period. But if we did, we would have to be extremely strategic about it and yes it would be exceptionally costly in terms of men and materials. I harbor no illusions about that.

BUT, I again return to this - where are these wars going to be? How will they start? As long as America remains strategically isolated, it will be extremely difficult to stop us in a war. While we do not have the man power to throw in waves like Russia or China, we have superior air and naval assets in addition to superior unmanned assets that can aid us tremendously. In two world wars, no one has successfully entered Russia and directly bombed Moscow, similarly no one was able to ever effectively bomb Beijing. We'd be capable of doing that in weeks if not days from the onset of a war. Crushing infrastructure with strategic bombing and missile strikes may well damage them enough to cease hostilities.

The biggest problem we have is a US culture that has a weak stomach for civilian casualties. We could strategically hit both countries hard enough to send them into civil war, if we wanted to. Unlike an insurgency, where your targets move, we know where to hit Russia and China. Sure, some of their infrastructure will remain hidden away and it will keep them running on life support. But drop a few dozen bombs in downtown Beijing during rush hour and it will get their attention. I don't like bombing civilians of other countries, but you cannot argue with success. Firebombing of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, and nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrate the efficacy of mass civilian causalities on convincing people to quit fighting.

If we had to fight a near-peer war for whatever reason, I'd rather there be millions of dead Russians and Chinese than Americans. And that's from your local friendly generally globalist academic.

[scjbash]

No one quit fighting because of bombing Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo. The bulk of people a whole lot more knowledgeable about winning wars than us consider them to be examples of what doesn't work.

[RevolverRob]

No one quit fighting because of bombing Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo. The bulk of people a whole lot more knowledgeable about winning wars than us consider them to be examples of what doesn't work.

No, they didn't quit fighting. It just destroyed military infrastructure (in the case of Germany) and demoralized our opponents. Neither the Chinese nor Russian citizens will be fanatical about fighting a war as the Japanese were.

___

We should not sit on our laurels and not develop new technology or improve our fighting forces. I said that up front.

Nor should we be as concerned about fighting a near-peer, one or two-front, World War, as people (whose paying jobs, I remind you, are to make and sell weapons) would have us believe. It is a possibility, yes, but the likelihood of it is relatively low. We should be and rightfully are, much more concerned about a potential DPRK-RoK conflict than fighting Russia or China.

While I'm all for hypothetical scenarios and planning for the worst case, we spend ~600+ billion every year on the military. The only thing we spend more on is Social Security and Medicare. We spend more on the military than China and Russia combined (in U.S. dollars). If all of that money is not being used to adequately prepare for near-peer wars, etc. Then we have a real fucking problem with the way our money is spent. Seriously guys, we spend more on the military than the eight nearest countries (in military spending) to us combined (it takes adding RoK to get over our budget).

___

I've digressed far enough in this topic and will get back to the main topic. When is this new 6.8 coming out? I'm going to have hogs that need killing sooner rather than later. And I'm gonna need the latest in killing technology. I might as well recoup the value of my tax dollars. :rolleyes::eek::cool:

[JRB]

Given the reports that we are behind the curve on major issues with the Chinese and Russians - https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/11/14/a-crisis-of-national-security-new-report-to-congress-sounds-alarm/ and elsewhere, is it worth redoing all the small arms in the various services and losing compatible with allied nations?

Having a 6.8 isn't going to stop a cybertalk or a hypersonic antiship missile.

I'd like to see marksmanship and weapons competency elevated to the top priority Army-wide, right along with the APFT. Going to a new weapon system won't fix the lack of skill that entirely too many Soldiers suffer from. But if going to a new weapon system gets big Army excited about doing more ranges, familiarization time/ammo, etc then I am 100% all about a new weapon system.

Ammo compatibility? I've been in 10 years and I haven't seen or heard of one instance of US forces using ammo or any other arms support from an allied nation, let alone depend on it. Not once. But we sure do supply our allies with a shitload of ammo and materiel, as Ranger already mentioned. The Georgians bought lots of TDP Bushmaster-made M4's IIRC. So if anything it's the other way around, and if we adopt a mystery 6.8mm round we'll see our allies follow suit for the sake of compatibility with *our* ammo.

Your second point stands, of course. Philosophically the Army really needs to return to the fundamentals and move away from this profound dependence on technology in the field. I love having advantageous toys, and we should maximize their effect and use - but we should be just as ready to pull out the compasses and shoot azimuths.

[TiroFijo]

The biggest problem we have is a US culture that has a weak stomach for civilian casualties. ...and military too

The next war is likely yet another proxy war. But who knows where and why, and it could get WAY bigger and costlier. And IMO just a modest human cost (civilian + military) the current US won't stomach. And I'm afraid most NATO big allies won't, either. That's what US/western opponents are betting on, not massed hordes, all out conventional war, or mutual nuclear annihilation. Just good 'ol taking advantage slice by slice of self-doubting, complacent countries with inept and even more complacent governments that don't have a well defined policy.

The way Russia has won the Syrian war.

[OlongJohnson]

The way Russia has won the Syrian war.

QFT.

https://www.amazon.com/Suicide-West-Meaning-Destiny-Liberalism/dp/1594037833/

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think that the reports indicate that if a major war starts against the Chinese, for instance - we can easily be against the wall in the initial stages. We were against the wall against the Japanese in the beginning of WWII. Only our longer term productive capacity reversed the initial gains. If we lost a significant number of the 11 CVNs, kiss overseas operations good bye.

If you read the naval literature, you see that we don't have the capacity to move troops around the world again in large numbers. That would have to be rebuilt.

Exercises have repeatedly shown the big carriers are sub bait. Our availability of fighters is not that hot and Mattis has mandate a crash program to get it up into reasonable numbers.

If we had to fight on the borders of China or Russia, it would not be easily. Mongols and drones - too much Tom Clancy. The idea that the Russians and Chinese would fold with the limited number of strategic strikes with cruise missiles or our small numbers of bombers relative to the size of those countries is just as silly. We just as likely to fold if there were attacks against us that knocked out our 401Ks in a cyberwar.

[HCM]

"I like guns as much as anyone here but in a near peer war small arms are just not that important."

I think you have a very good point. I am a retired US Army Infantry officer, I know that Close Air Support, Artillery, etc. are the primary killers. However, at the end of the day, an Infantry soldier - US Army or Marine - has to stand on key terrain to truly finish a war. We tend to not "finish" a war in that manner so we seem to have endless wars.

True but in that scenario the soldier or marine, his training and leadership are all more significant than his rifle as long as it it functional. Push comes to shove you could finish with M16A2’s and green tip. Would be my first choice but large scale, it would work.

Japanese small arms in WWII were generally shit and we had to nuke them....

At this point enablers like optics, NODS and lasers are as or more important than a new caliber. In a near peer situation passive systems like thermal would be a better investment than a new caliber.

[ranger]

I suspect we still have US military units with M16A2s - or we did just a few years ago. They drew the M4s and M240Bs for deployments then turned them at demobilization station.

I suspect the biggest issue will be the logistics of supplying our military for an extended, "high intensity" fight. How long can we fight one peer much less two peers before we run out of precision munitions, then "dumb" munitions, etc. In WW2 we mobilized the nation and transformed our industrial complex. Do you think we can convert the KIA, BMW, Ford, etc. plants to make M1 tanks, M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicles, M109A6 Paladins, M22 and M35 fighters, etc. as fast as they will be consumed? How long to manufacture replacement ships? We do not have the industrial capacity to sustain a long term fight. (Besides being an Infantry officer, I worked as a manufacturing engineer for a major defense contractor making missiles, etc.).

[OlongJohnson]

That scares me even in peace time. It's not just that the jobs are in China. We no longer have the know-how to manufacture very much. There is no machine connected to a switch we can flip. If China's debt-fueled bubble bursts and the world's factory stops pumping out widgets, we are all hosed.

[Stephanie B]

I suspect the biggest issue will be the logistics of supplying our military for an extended, "high intensity" fight. How long can we fight one peer much less two peers before we run out of precision munitions, then "dumb" munitions, etc. In WW2 we mobilized the nation and transformed our industrial complex. Do you think we can convert the KIA, BMW, Ford, etc. plants to make M1 tanks, M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicles, M109A6 Paladins, M22 and M35 fighters, etc. as fast as they will be consumed? How long to manufacture replacement ships? We do not have the industrial capacity to sustain a long term fight. (Besides being an Infantry officer, I worked as a manufacturing engineer for a major defense contractor making missiles, etc.).
We were two years into the war before the Essex-class CVs began showing up in any appreciable numbers. The Navy had to make do with converted merchies, cruiser hulls and then the Casablanca-class CVE.

[RevolverRob]

I suspect we still have US military units with M16A2s - or we did just a few years ago. They drew the M4s and M240Bs for deployments then turned them at demobilization station.

I suspect the biggest issue will be the logistics of supplying our military for an extended, "high intensity" fight. How long can we fight one peer much less two peers before we run out of precision munitions, then "dumb" munitions, etc. In WW2 we mobilized the nation and transformed our industrial complex. Do you think we can convert the KIA, BMW, Ford, etc. plants to make M1 tanks, M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicles, M109A6 Paladins, M22 and M35 fighters, etc. as fast as they will be consumed? How long to manufacture replacement ships? We do not have the industrial capacity to sustain a long term fight. (Besides being an Infantry officer, I worked as a manufacturing engineer for a major defense contractor making missiles, etc.).

We didn’t have that capacity at the beginning of WW2, either. In theory it’s easier today, because we just load the files into the CNC and hit GO. In practice, I know it isn’t that simple or easy, but a production line can be converted. If small businesses can do it, a national need can do it.

My biggest concern isn’t airplanes though, it’s naval ships, as Glenn eludes to. Presumably, we’ll draft in a few super tankers to transport stuff, but it will have to be done covertly, because otherwise those boats will be sitting ducks for subs.

As for a land war in Russia or China. I’m not sure what value that would be. We aren’t going to conquer either country. I suspect it would be much more like The Gulf War. Expel and hold the line.

[Inkwell 41]

Wasn't the original proposal for the SAW a 6MM caliber cartridge? Seems like the Army keeps going down this road and keeps running back to 5.56. 6.8, 6.5, .264.... if any of these cartridges have any gravitas behind them, I'm willing to bet that there is a promotable O6 in the drivers seat with close ties to SIG. But then, I'm fast tracking to curmudgeonhood and have zero faith in governmental entities when there is potential wasted tax dollars at stake. (Thinking of the new Army Class A's)
I hope they choose wisely.

[HCM]

I suspect we still have US military units with M16A2s - or we did just a few years ago. They drew the M4s and M240Bs for deployments then turned them at demobilization station.

I suspect the biggest issue will be the logistics of supplying our military for an extended, "high intensity" fight. How long can we fight one peer much less two peers before we run out of precision munitions, then "dumb" munitions, etc. In WW2 we mobilized the nation and transformed our industrial complex. Do you think we can convert the KIA, BMW, Ford, etc. plants to make M1 tanks, M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicles, M109A6 Paladins, M22 and M35 fighters, etc. as fast as they will be consumed? How long to manufacture replacement ships? We do not have the industrial capacity to sustain a long term fight. (Besides being an Infantry officer, I worked as a manufacturing engineer for a major defense contractor making missiles, etc.).

You also know that after being caught flat footed in WWI, we started prepping for WWII in 1940 (or earlier).

I’m more concerned about the tech items like NODS, Micro processors etc than the heavy industry part.

Listen to Dr Karber’s westpoint talk on Ukraine. The Ukrainians lost more armored vehicles in one battle than the entire inventory of Germany or Poland. One battle.

[ranger]

Revolution in/of Military Affairs. RMA. Took the courses at Leavenworth and Carlisle. Do not need Infantry and Armor. We will overwhelm digitally. That is what was said pre 9/11. So 17 years later we still have traditional Combat Arms engaged and investing to improve the M1s, M2, Paladins, etc. because the first RMA wasn't all that. Now we are talking 2nd gen RMA.

[Ed L]

BUT, I again return to this - where are these wars going to be? How will they start? As long as America remains strategically isolated, it will be extremely difficult to stop us in a war. While we do not have the man power to throw in waves like Russia or China, we have superior air and naval assets in addition to superior unmanned assets that can aid us tremendously. In two world wars, no one has successfully entered Russia and directly bombed Moscow, similarly no one was able to ever effectively bomb Beijing. We'd be capable of doing that in weeks if not days from the onset of a war. Crushing infrastructure with strategic bombing and missile strikes may well damage them enough to cease hostilities.


I'm not even going to get into the problems with bombing Russia or China with conventional bombs or hitting them with conventional cruise missiles. Bith have stout air defense systems and it would not be as easy as you would think to inflict significant damage. Both countries have developed anti-ship missiles that could overwhelm our ship defenses. China has lots of short and intermediate range ballistic missiles that could hit our bases in the Pacific. If they were to launch a surprise attack they could inflict enormous damage.

Then there is the whole cyber arena. Imagine the damage and disruption that shutting down the Internet in the US would do. They could go as far as shutting down everything from traffic lights to even utilities.

[Ed L]

We spend more on the military than China and Russia combined (in U.S. dollars). If all of that money is not being used to adequately prepare for near-peer wars, etc. Then we have a real fucking problem with the way our money is spent. Seriously guys, we spend more on the military than the eight nearest countries (in military spending) to us combined (it takes adding RoK to get over our budget).

Spending isn't a good comparison. Manpower for Russia and China is vastly cheaper--especially when you consider what troops and the factory workers who build weapons in those countries make. Recruits in China earn less than $80 US a month. Russia and China's weapons are bought from state owned or quasi state owned industries, and are less expensive than their western equivalents. The US has to pay its soldiers much more than Chinese conscripts, and it has to buy its equipment from private companies as opposed to state owned companies who pay their workers less and can produce weapons for far less money for numerous reasons. Also, the US defense budget has all types of medical and retirement benefits and other expenses that are either not present or not factored into many county's military budgets. Do you think that potential adversaries spend anywhere near on troop comfort and facilities?

I guess I am guilty of thread drift. Mea culpa.

[JRB]

I suspect we still have US military units with M16A2s

Yep, we do. You'd be amazed how old some of them are, too. A lot of them are still converted M16A1's.

Strategy wise, they're preaching a new focus on Reserve elements being a 'ready force' service-wide. As in, 72hr mobilization ability - no mobilization stations, no pre-MOB medical, etc, deploy and fight with the gear we have and the weapons we have in 72hrs or less. Had a 2 star level CSM at our unit not too long ago preaching that ideal. Which sounds great, except that with our current vehicles and gear, it'd look like a Desert Storm re-enactment, just with a mix of OCP/ACU instead of DCU/BDU.
Of course, the same CSM answered questions about voluntary deployments with a blathering rant that was somehow self-aggrandizing, condescending, insulting, and sanctimonious all at the same time, and ended with 'be careful what you wish for'. Nothing like getting rambled at that we should have more pride in our service and be pumped and ready to fight with our crappy old equipment - but if we're actually ready to fight and willing, the answer is fuck you, you're stuck here, just stay green on medical & APFT so your uptrace command's OER's and NCOER's look good.

[Tabasco]

You also know that after being caught flat footed in WWI, we started prepping for WWII in 1940 (or earlier).

I’m more concerned about the tech items like NODS, Micro processors etc than the heavy industry part.

Listen to Dr Karber’s westpoint talk on Ukraine. The Ukrainians lost more armored vehicles in one battle than the entire inventory of Germany or Poland. One battle.

^^^^^
This

The Ukrainians lost their power grid for a time due to Russian hacking. They were able to restore it pretty quickly as was the old manual equipment was still in place and functional. There's a reason the Navy started teaching old school navigation again.

[ranger]

I have the t-shirt and scars from previous experience with Big Army and "readiness" from my own mobilizations from Desert Storm and OIF plus deploying multiple BNs and COs to OEF. 90 days would be a fast deployment for a National Guard maneuver unit of BN size and hopefully longer for a Heavy Brigade. First issue is you have to "prove" to First Army all the skills from individual through crew through PLT, CO, BN, and BDE culminating at a CTC like event. All the qualifications during Title 32 time are typically ignored.

PS - we do not have enough airlift or sealift to move the ARNG Heavy Brigades so we will have time to spin up.

[HCM]

^^^^^
This

The Ukrainians lost their power grid for a time due to Russian hacking. They were able to restore it pretty quickly as was the old manual equipment was still in place and functional. There's a reason the Navy started teaching old school navigation again.

In the west point lecture I linked, Dr Karber (a former marine officer) says straight out - if you can read a map / use a compass get out of the Army.

[jetfire]

I have the t-shirt and scars from previous experience with Big Army and "readiness" from my own mobilizations from Desert Storm and OIF plus deploying multiple BNs and COs to OEF. 90 days would be a fast deployment for a National Guard maneuver unit of BN size and hopefully longer for a Heavy Brigade. First issue is you have to "prove" to First Army all the skills from individual through crew through PLT, CO, BN, and BDE culminating at a CTC like event. All the qualifications during Title 32 time are typically ignored.

PS - we do not have enough airlift or sealift to move the ARNG Heavy Brigades so we will have time to spin up.

A huge amount of our tactical airlift capability is in the ANG and AFRC as well; that takes time to spool up the guys who need to load and fly the troops and equipment into place.

[RevolverRob]

So, I recognize that one of the major lessons from WW2 was stashing a large portion of your logistical transports in one place is a bad idea (Pearl Harbor). But what are the best ways to meet the logistical needs of a war in say Korea? Presumably we will deploy out of Japan and the Philippines, but we have to get people there first, right? We know carriers and transport vessels are sitting ducks for submarines.

I guess I'm really curious to know why we haven't built a substantial fleet of transport submarines? Obviously, you can't transport as much in a submarine as a gigantic transport ship, but even still...

[Ed L]

I guess I'm really curious to know why we haven't built a substantial fleet of transport submarines? Obviously, you can't transport as much in a submarine as a gigantic transport ship, but even still...

Budget priorities, manpower limitations, plus give the way subs are designed you really can't carry much in a submarine. We have not had enough money to fund more pressing items. Subs are limited in dimensions in terms of height and width in ways that surface ships are not. So if you could design a submarine that could carry anything substantial it would be an awkwardly long and bulky monsterous beast that would be so big that it would be hard to navigate into docks and harbors. It would be a failure because you cannot load or unload material off a submarine as quickly or easily as a surface ship.

[KeithH]

Could this be something totally brand new, like a caseless cartridge, or is the article just click bait?

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/12/10/more-than-a-rifle-how-a-new-68mm-round-advanced-optics-will-make-soldiers-marines-a-lot-deadlier/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ebb-12-11&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

[Jim Watson]

Puff piece with no solid information.

[jetfire]

Could this be something totally brand new, like a caseless cartridge, or is the article just click bait?

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/12/10/more-than-a-rifle-how-a-new-68mm-round-advanced-optics-will-make-soldiers-marines-a-lot-deadlier/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ebb-12-11&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

Military Times is like HuffPo for milnews

[KeithH]

Thanks....I thought I was being teased. The article was so frustratingly vague. Like words were being multiplied without knowledge.

Guess I'll have to wait.

[DamonL]

The article is ok for a general military publication. It references Jim Schatz and Dr Gary Roberts in the article who are SME'a is this area. Doc GKR posted in this thread. For more detailed info, I found these presentation by Jim Schatz with a google search.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2016/armament/18260_Schatz.pdf

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2015/smallarms/17354_Schatz.pdf