New carbine for the military in sight?

[wrtanker]

In all of the target effects talk about the various calibers there is one thing to keep in mind. Maybe this is obvious but just to remind all, the law says that military ammo must be ball rounds (full metal jacket).

Just for my info since I haven't seen this, what is the bullet weight of the 6.8 how much better is the 6.8 round (FMJ)than the 5.56? How does the 6.8 compare to the 7.62?

 

[M. Sage]

The 6.8 runs around 115 grain, IIRC. Power-wise it's in the same league as 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm. Weight-wise comparison to 7.62... which 7.62? I can think of three different 7.62 calibers you're likely to find on a battlefield off the top of my head.

7.62x51mm used by us usually runs 150 grain weight. It has approximately twice the muzzle energy of 5.56 or 7.62x39mm. This was the replacement for .30-'06 and is ballistically close enough that I definitely wouldn't call it an upgrade. The case is shorter and slightly fatter, the shorter part making it a little nicer for magazines. Bullet weight is even the same as the .30-'06 M2 ball.

7.62x39mm used in AKs and variants usually runs around a 120 grain projectile. It's got very similar ballistics to a .30-30 using the same weight bullet.

7.62x54R is used in things like the Dragunov marksman rifle and Soviet GPMGs (those are the most common modern apps I can think of, though you might still find some Mosin-Nagants in regular and sniper form floating around in the sand box). Bullet weights vary - 150 and 180 grain weights are the most common. I think most of the modern production stuff is 150 grain (which usually has a blunt mild steel core wrapped in lead and jacketed). It's slightly more powerful than 7.62x51mm and is the oldest cartridge to still see common use on a battlefield. As far as I know, it's the only rimmed cartridge still in production for military use.

6.8 is better than 5.56 for things like deer, but deer are wholly different than people when they get shot. I know of deer having their lungs and heart blown out and still being able to run 300 yards before stopping.

 

[Burldozer]

Well

My own personal opinion 5.56 is just fine for combat its not like in our current situation there will be one person firing at the enemy. If a "bad guy" is positivly identified I assure you there will be AT LEAST one firing team blasting.

 

[Big country]

That is what every one I know has said when we discuss the 5.56 M4 or M16 that is issued to them. they all say it worked just fine for them in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[TexasRoadDawg]

The .30-40 Krag worked just fine too, but we still upgraded to the .30-06 when we went with the 1903. The point is if we're going to get an entirely new weapon system, we might as well chamber it in a caliber that is better than the last one. The Allies would probably still have won with the Krag, but the -06 was just better.

 

[M. Sage]

The Krag would have made feeding from a magazine a little more problematic, since it's a rimmed cartridge. Definitely wouldn't have worked very well in the Garand...

We kept .30-06 when we switched to the Garand, even though the Garand was originally chambered in .276 Pedersen. That would have given us an even ten for the en bloc (never wondered how the Garand wound up holding eight? Would have been 20 if Big Mac hadn't screwed it up.)

 

[Big country]

Yes the M1A is the way it should have been.

 

[Texas42]

I'm not a student of history that some of you are, but the 30-06 was the "economical" choice.

I believe that is real life.

 

[Big country]

Well the Garand was originally (I could be wrong about this) supposed to have the 20 round mag that the M1A had but General Paten didn't think that looked like enough of a "battle rifle" so they went with the top load instead. I had never heard of the Garand being chambered in .276 Paterson but it dose make sense. And like I said I could be way off on the whole 20 round mag thing as well.

 

[M. Sage]

I'm not a student of history that some of you are, but the 30-06 was the "economical" choice.

I believe that is real life.

Yep, that's why they stuck with .30-06 over .276 Pedersen. It's also why we'll be sticking with 5.56 for a while.

Well the Garand was originally (I could be wrong about this) supposed to have the 20 round mag that the M1A had but General Paten didn't think that looked like enough of a "battle rifle" so they went with the top load instead. I had never heard of the Garand being chambered in .276 Paterson but it dose make sense. And like I said I could be way off on the whole 20 round mag thing as well.

I've heard that he ordered the deletion of the magazine because it didn't "look soldierly" and "interfered with rifle drill". I do know that he was the one who ordered the change from .276 to .30-06. Considering the smaller diameter of .276 cartridges, what would have held 20 .30 cal rounds could probably have taken 30 .276. 25 at the least. That's 21st century firepower right there.

 

[40Arpent]

6.8 is better than 5.56 for things like deer....

Are you then implying that the 6.8 is not better than the 5.56 as a manstopper?

 

[Texas42]

I think he is implying that deer are not built like people. They are tougher, and have much more muscle in the way of vital organs.

 

[M. Sage]

I think he is implying that deer are not built like people. They are tougher, and have much more muscle in the way of vital organs.

Exactly. The law of diminishing returns comes into play for one thing. It's like comparing calibers for killing squirrels. Once you get into "kills pretty efficiently", there isn't a whole lot more improvement needed.

That said, if we'd stop issuing armor piercing ammo to troops who are shooting at unarmored enemies...

 

[Big country]

Then the round count would go down a bit. LOL!

 

[wrtanker]

"That said, if we'd stop issuing armor piercing ammo to troops who are shooting at unarmored enemies... "

Pesky Geneva Convention!

 

[M. Sage]

"That said, if we'd stop issuing armor piercing ammo to troops who are shooting at unarmored enemies... "

Pesky Geneva Convention!

I'm not talking FMJ; they issue way too much M855!

And Geneva doesn't apply in this "conflict" anyway, as it only binds you if your opponent is a signatory, too. I say issue up some soft point and let 'em go to town.

Besides, Geneva is outdated. I think we need to scrap it and rethink.

 

[Texas42]

Out of curiousity, what can this M855 do? (I guess i'm asking why put it out for the 5.56. What is its purpose?)

Mess up a truck? Lightly armored vehicle? Hard Body armor?

 

[M. Sage]

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant M995. M855 is FMJ.

M995 has a tungsten penetrator at it's core. It'll go through about a quarter inch of steel. I know of people showing up at matches with it and holing steel targets which are expensive, not least of all because of the fact that they're best made from rolled armor plate.

I just wanted to add in here, too, that the Soviets must have been quite impressed with the real-world performance of 5.56mm in Vietnam, since they adopted the 5.45x39mm in 1974. It's supposed to be very effective, but some units prefer the older 7.62 for its better barrier penetration. 5.45 doesn't even fragment, it just tumbles... within 3" of impact!

 

[wrtanker]

"And Geneva doesn't apply in this "conflict" anyway, as it only binds you if your opponent is a signatory, too. I say issue up some soft point and let 'em go to town."

Us being the good guys we are we'll follow the GC, at least overtly, even if the bad guys don't (see: Vietnam War). As much as I'd like to up the effectiveness of our rounds we won't do such a thing. On the flip side, there is an advantage to us in the GC ammo. Since all of the major ammo producers are signatories and military ammo is the most plentiful, then the bad guys will almost certainly be shooting ball ammo at us and not something more deadly!