This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Wes, On your comment before I get to my own information here, I suppose that all the bad press about the M9 Beretta not having enough stopping power compared to the trust .45 round is unjustified too? Heres the problems I see with adopting this round. How much more does the bullet weigh? How much less ammo will be carried on the standard weight loadout of most soldiers and will they have to look for a 6.8mm setup for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon? Now back to you Wes. You say stopping power isn’t talked about. When was the last time you heard a soldier talk about the great temporary cavities their rounds made in the enemy? Also most of the exploding bodies you talk about, find out if they were actually hit by a single 5.56mm round. The other issue with these rounds is over-penetration. A 5.56mm with its higher velocity can penetrate through its intended target and hit another behind it. In Close Quarters Combat that makes a big difference, especially with hostages. There are benefits in range and accuracy with the 5.56mm round, but most combat takes place in ranges less than 500 meters. A larger round will work much better there. Wes, this is also an easy addition to the military if adopted, from the looks of it, you just have to buy the upper receiver, magazines, and ammunition for this weapon system if what Mac says is correct about the lower receiver being exactly the same as the M16 or M4.
Wes, When was the last time your “ballistic” experts were on a battlefield getting shot at? If the troops are asking for a bullet with more stopping power why not at least test some? The 6.8 sounds like a good round with a compromise between the 7.62 and the 5.56. Yes, it sucks that most of our allies shoot 5.56 but if the best round for a battlerifle (or assault rifle) is the 6.8 why not use it? As far as the videos you talk about, I’ve seen a video of an RPG gunner getting hit by a SAW but it took 3–6 hits to put him down, one of those being a head shot. I have yet to see any kind of “great results” from the 5.56. Then again, I don’t put a lot of time into searching for it.
First: the 9mm vs. .45 argument is completely different. Pistol rounds are an order of a magnitude slower than rifle bullets. Rifle bullets kill by velocity, pistol rounds kill by mass and wound channel size. So in this case the .45 is superior to the 9mm by virtue of its greater mass, and the larger temporary cavity it creates. Secondly: The Troop complaints about the ineffectiveness of the 5.56. These are cherry picked comments. I can cite just as many or more quotes from troops in Iraq who found the 5.56 to be lethal and effective. Next the 7.62: The round weighs over twice what the 5.56 does. When you are carrying 200+ rounds on long patrols, this is a deal-breaker. Also, the recoil of the 7.62 is so high it prevents quick follow-up shots, which are quite common in Iraq. 7.62 weapons are also quite long and heavy, not what you want for long patrols, or getting into and out of vehicles. As to your other point on the 7.62 Ed, overpentration with it is a much greater problem than with the 5.56. And as for Jeff’s disdain for ballistics experts, that is nonsense. These people have amassed mountains of statistics from thousands of real life shootings, including dissections of cadavers. Taking the heresay evidence of soldiers who might have actually missed their target in the heat of combat but attribute lack of kills to inadequate stopping power, over evidence gathered using the Scientific Method, is just plain stupid. ***** The 5.56 is no instant death ray. We need quantum improvent in lethality to justify changing calibers, due to the logistic impacts, and the fact is that a change to 7.62 or 6.8 would set such improvements in lethality back by decades, given the expense of re-equipping.
The only thing my critical eye caught was that a suppressor would be pretty useful in urnban combat if you want to move unnoticed and unsupported. I think the point around the 6.8 is that they are fighting more urban battles.… Where they may not need the stopping power at 400 meters anymore.. but would probably prefer the 6.8 because the fire fights are happening at shorter distances. Thus the 6.8 would be better because the extra range isn’t needed and the damage of the round would be just a little better. The size/mass of the round doesn’t matter on its own… but if you can get a weapon to fire a 7.62 with the same kinetic energy as the 5.56 then your onto something. Its all a combination of the velocity, the Mass (size of the round), and it’s kinetic energy. Weight of ammo hasn’t really been a concern of the new contest for a new rifle.
all im thinkin about is is a 5.56 enough to get threw some of the new body armor out there its startin to get around and the chinese are making some thats cheap and tough.….oh and guess who there selling it to .…..
Wes, I’ll put it this way, when the SF guys are using/asking for 6.8 I believe that over a bunch of lab talk. Real world experience trumps lab work in combat.
Okay…saw the video. A former seal using the media hyped (non-existent classification)term of assualt rifle…give me a break. Supressors used in automatic mode.…give me a break. I also agree about issues of ammo sharing with the SAW. The SAW was selected to replace the M-60 to ensure the troopies could share ammo and carry ammor compatible with every weapon in the squad/platoon. Can the SAW be converted as easily to the 6.8 ?
The lethality of the 5.56 could be greatly improved by the adoption of a heavier round in the 77 grain weight range (Full Metal Jacket, not the 77 grn. Open Tip Match bullet in use by SOCOM. Why one has not been adopted is baffling…The West Germans designed such a round in the mid-1970s.
I’d partly agree with Wes. I’m thinking this new gun is unnecessary, the round can be modified to be heavier, a more powerful charge, and there are so many other guns already to choose from, armalite makes a slew of .308 AR-10, I think this is just another sweet talkin’ contract deal. If they want a bigger round they should use the AR-10, that way at least they share the second most used small arms round.
give mac a break guys, the show maybe a bit cheesy and over hyped at times but its nice to see the stuff being developed. U need to remember he may use civie kind of terms because its a tv show ffs. The audience isnt necessarily hardened veterans or armchair generals like u lot, theyre trying to appeal to a wider audience and thus require simple phrases so they understand.
“Pistol rounds are an order of a magnitude slower than rifle bullets“ This statement above by Wes is incorrect. Pardon me Wes if you were just using a “figure of speech” but technically, an order of magnitude is a factor of 10X. If you compare the slowest air pistol to the highest velocity rounds out there, you’d maybe have 5X, but on average, most handguns are about 2X-3X slower than rifles.
There’s (supposedly) the 6.8x45mm Kramer Urban Combat Cartridge (UCC) by Kramer Defense (supposedly of Kramer Cartridge & Carbine LLC), claimed to be “6.8mm but with much more logistical compatibility.” (The only weapon modification needed being the barrel, while a 6.8x45mm magazine would be compatible with 5.56x45mm… although not vice versa.) Haven’t found the Web site for either KD or KCC, so I hope it’s not vaporware; only first-hand source I’ve seen has been Defense Review’s article here: http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1143
Bring back the 6mm Lee Navy! In the 1980s the Army developed a new cartridge for the SAW program (the 6mm SAW round); though it was a very good performer at long ranges, it did not offer enough to justify introducing another cartridge. What is now needed is a totally new technology. Plastic cased fully telescoped ammo is in advanced development right now. But I think the 6.5 is prolly the best bullet diameter. Sectional Density out the wazoo. My Swedish Mausers firing the 6.5X55 round are wonderful shooters: great range, penetration, and accuracy, with low recoil. Tne new 6.5 Lapua brings promise of great things too.
okay, I will give you Mac having to “apeal” to a wide, non-technical, adudience, but coming from both a military and computer background, with a little law enforcement throw into the mix, nothing bugs me more then “sensationalized” information being distributed to the “uninformed masses”. This is part of the problem with perpetuating inaccurate or misinforming data…such as assualt rifles. Next, I agree with the 6.5X55 sweedish. I had more clover leaf holes with my sweedish, with either reloaded fire formed necked down 270 or commercial Norma ammo, then just about any other rifle/ammo combo. Sweetest shooting rifle I ever owned. Hard to argue with a 300 yard zero.
Wes,
On your comment before I get to my own information here, I suppose that all the bad press about the M9 Beretta not having enough stopping power compared to the trust .45 round is unjustified too?
Heres the problems I see with adopting this round. How much more does the bullet weigh? How much less ammo will be carried on the standard weight loadout of most soldiers and will they have to look for a 6.8mm setup for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon?
Now back to you Wes. You say stopping power isn’t talked about. When was the last time you heard a soldier talk about the great temporary cavities their rounds made in the enemy? Also most of the exploding bodies you talk about, find out if they were actually hit by a single 5.56mm round. The other issue with these rounds is over-penetration. A 5.56mm with its higher velocity can penetrate through its intended target and hit another behind it. In Close Quarters Combat that makes a big difference, especially with hostages.
There are benefits in range and accuracy with the 5.56mm round, but most combat takes place in ranges less than 500 meters. A larger round will work much better there. Wes, this is also an easy addition to the military if adopted, from the looks of it, you just have to buy the upper receiver, magazines, and ammunition for this weapon system if what Mac says is correct about the lower receiver being exactly the same as the M16 or M4.
Wes,
When was the last time your “ballistic” experts were on a battlefield getting shot at?
If the troops are asking for a bullet with more stopping power why not at least test some? The 6.8 sounds like a good round with a compromise between the 7.62 and the 5.56. Yes, it sucks that most of our allies shoot 5.56 but if the best round for a battlerifle (or assault rifle) is the 6.8 why not use it?
As far as the videos you talk about, I’ve seen a video of an RPG gunner getting hit by a SAW but it took 3–6 hits to put him down, one of those being a head shot. I have yet to see any kind of “great results” from the 5.56. Then again, I don’t put a lot of time into searching for it.
First: the 9mm vs. .45 argument is completely different.
Pistol rounds are an order of a magnitude slower than rifle bullets. Rifle bullets kill by velocity, pistol rounds kill by mass and wound channel size. So in this case the .45 is superior to the 9mm by virtue of its greater mass, and the larger temporary cavity it creates.
Secondly: The Troop complaints about the ineffectiveness of the 5.56.
These are cherry picked comments. I can cite just as many or more quotes from troops in Iraq who found the 5.56 to be lethal and effective.
Next the 7.62:
The round weighs over twice what the 5.56 does. When you are carrying 200+ rounds on long patrols, this is a deal-breaker. Also, the recoil of the 7.62 is so high it prevents quick follow-up shots, which are quite common in Iraq. 7.62 weapons are also quite long and heavy, not what you want for long patrols, or getting into and out of vehicles.
As to your other point on the 7.62 Ed, overpentration with it is a much greater problem than with the 5.56.
And as for Jeff’s disdain for ballistics experts, that is nonsense. These people have amassed mountains of statistics from thousands of real life shootings, including dissections of cadavers. Taking the heresay evidence of soldiers who might have actually missed their target in the heat of combat but attribute lack of kills to inadequate stopping power, over evidence gathered using the Scientific Method, is just plain stupid.
*****
The 5.56 is no instant death ray. We need quantum improvent in lethality to justify changing calibers, due to the logistic impacts, and the fact is that a change to 7.62 or 6.8 would set such improvements in lethality back by decades, given the expense of re-equipping.
The only thing my critical eye caught was that a suppressor would be pretty useful in urnban combat if you want to move unnoticed and unsupported.
I think the point around the 6.8 is that they are fighting more urban battles.… Where they may not need the stopping power at 400 meters anymore.. but would probably prefer the 6.8 because the fire fights are happening at shorter distances. Thus the 6.8 would be better because the extra range isn’t needed and the damage of the round would be just a little better.
The size/mass of the round doesn’t matter on its own… but if you can get a weapon to fire a 7.62 with the same kinetic energy as the 5.56 then your onto something. Its all a combination of the velocity, the Mass (size of the round), and it’s kinetic energy.
Weight of ammo hasn’t really been a concern of the new contest for a new rifle.
all im thinkin about is is a 5.56 enough to get threw some of the new body armor out there its startin to get around and the chinese are making some thats cheap and tough.….oh and guess who there selling it to .…..
Wes,
I’ll put it this way, when the SF guys are using/asking for 6.8 I believe that over a bunch of lab talk. Real world experience trumps lab work in combat.
Okay…saw the video. A former seal using the media hyped (non-existent classification)term of assualt rifle…give me a break.
Supressors used in automatic mode.…give me a break.
I also agree about issues of ammo sharing with the SAW. The SAW was selected to replace the M-60 to ensure the troopies could share ammo and carry ammor compatible with every weapon in the squad/platoon. Can the SAW be converted as easily to the 6.8 ?
The lethality of the 5.56 could be greatly improved by the adoption of a heavier round in the 77 grain weight range (Full Metal Jacket, not the 77 grn. Open Tip Match bullet in use by SOCOM.
Why one has not been adopted is baffling…The West Germans designed such a round in the mid-1970s.
I’d partly agree with Wes. I’m thinking this new gun is unnecessary, the round can be modified to be heavier, a more powerful charge, and there are so many other guns already to choose from, armalite makes a slew of .308 AR-10, I think this is just another sweet talkin’ contract deal. If they want a bigger round they should use the AR-10, that way at least they share the second most used small arms round.
give mac a break guys, the show maybe a bit cheesy and over hyped at times but its nice to see the stuff being developed. U need to remember he may use civie kind of terms because its a tv show ffs. The audience isnt necessarily hardened veterans or armchair generals like u lot, theyre trying to appeal to a wider audience and thus require simple phrases so they understand.
“Pistol rounds are an order of a magnitude slower than rifle bullets“
This statement above by Wes is incorrect. Pardon me Wes if you were just using a “figure of speech” but technically, an order of magnitude is a factor of 10X. If you compare the slowest air pistol to the highest velocity rounds out there, you’d maybe have 5X, but on average, most handguns are about 2X-3X slower than rifles.
There’s (supposedly) the 6.8x45mm Kramer Urban Combat Cartridge (UCC) by Kramer Defense (supposedly of Kramer Cartridge & Carbine LLC), claimed to be “6.8mm but with much more logistical compatibility.” (The only weapon modification needed being the barrel, while a 6.8x45mm magazine would be compatible with 5.56x45mm… although not vice versa.)
Haven’t found the Web site for either KD or KCC, so I hope it’s not vaporware; only first-hand source I’ve seen has been Defense Review’s article here: http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1143
Bring back the 6mm Lee Navy!
In the 1980s the Army developed a new cartridge for the SAW program (the 6mm SAW round); though it was a very good performer at long ranges, it did not offer enough to justify introducing another cartridge.
What is now needed is a totally new technology. Plastic cased fully telescoped ammo is in advanced development right now.
But I think the 6.5 is prolly the best bullet diameter. Sectional Density out the wazoo. My Swedish Mausers firing the 6.5X55 round are wonderful shooters: great range, penetration, and accuracy, with low recoil. Tne new 6.5 Lapua brings promise of great things too.
okay, I will give you Mac having to “apeal” to a wide, non-technical, adudience, but coming from both a military and computer background, with a little law enforcement throw into the mix, nothing bugs me more then “sensationalized” information being distributed to the “uninformed masses”. This is part of the problem with perpetuating inaccurate or misinforming data…such as assualt rifles.
Next, I agree with the 6.5X55 sweedish. I had more clover leaf holes with my sweedish, with either reloaded fire formed necked down 270 or commercial Norma ammo, then just about any other rifle/ammo combo. Sweetest shooting rifle I ever owned. Hard to argue with a 300 yard zero.