U.S Army switching to 6.8mm

[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 ?