1911Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,756 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Recent vid, good watch. Wow, didn't know the new mil 6.8 ammo has to have a stainless base. That sounds expensive.

 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
79,244 Posts
Word is that the military will train almost exclusively with the lower-pressure all-brass ammo, and save the hot stuff with the stainless steel bases for when they go on deployment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2aCrisis

·
Administrator
Joined
·
79,244 Posts
Personally I think the whole thing is a screw-up, but that's just the view from my PC chair. I think we could find something that could better defeat body armor without having to go with such a large and heavy rifle, and going back to what is essentially a full-power battle rifle cartridge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Longslide10mm

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
Personally I think the whole thing is a screw-up, but that's just the view from my PC chair. I think we could find something that could better defeat body armor without having to go with such a large and heavy rifle, and going back to what is essentially a full-power battle rifle cartridge.
Right, you know not every enlisted person is going to be able to handle the extra weight or recoil of a 7.62 case with a 6.8 bullet . You've seen the types they're trying to recruit? Better off keeping 5.56 for some and the specialist having choice of 7.62. Contrary to what they think, there is no one gun for every person or every job
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
I'd hope. You know there's only like 5 other calibers that already closely duplicate the ballistics
This new caliber is supposedly to shoot a 140-grains bullet with muzzle velocity of 3000-FPS out of a 16” barrel, and has overall length and shape of the .308 cartridge.

.308 machine guns like the M240 will simply need barrel change to use this new cartridge while waiting for the M250 to be manufactured.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
Right, you know not every enlisted person is going to be able to handle the extra weight or recoil of a 7.62 case with a 6.8 bullet . You've seen the types they're trying to recruit? Better off keeping 5.56 for some and the specialist having choice of 7.62. Contrary to what they think, there is no one gun for every person or every job
First of all, the M5 is going to be general issued to the infantry. I don’t know about the rest of the pogs, but GIs who make it through infantry training can definitely handle a 6.8 round fired out an 8-lbs rifle. Hell, even non infantry chicks can handle M60 and M240 machine guns. Or the M203.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
First of all, the M5 is going to be general issued to the infantry. I don’t know about the rest of the pogs, but GIs who make it through infantry training can definitely handle a 6.8 round fired out an 8-lbs rifle. Hell, even non infantry chicks can handle M60 and M240 machine guns. Or the M203.
Uh well not really. Females are different than males. Most have long sinewy muscle fibers where guys will have the fibers fill out into large muscles. Does it matter?Well it depends on how far up that hill they have to run with all their other gear, then that extra 23 pounds of the M60.Do not remember exactly but when I was running up those hills with the M60 I carried 4 boxes of ammo. each box was 100 rounds belted, they were over 4 pounds each My ammo guy carried 8 boxes,

Just saying. People with skinny muscles did not do so well. When was the last time you watched a Lady run up a hill with a 60?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
First of all, the M5 is going to be general issued to the infantry. I don’t know about the rest of the pogs, but GIs who make it through infantry training can definitely handle a 6.8 round fired out an 8-lbs rifle. Hell, even non infantry chicks can handle M60 and M240 machine guns. Or the M203.
Yes, if they're riding on the back of a tank or truck. SIG is in tight with the pentagon. Army brass turned down the H&K m110 even though the US Army Infantry loved it. Explain that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
Uh well not really. Females are different than males. Most have long sinewy muscle fibers where guys will have the fibers fill out into large muscles. Does it matter?Well it depends on how far up that hill they have to run with all their other gear, then that extra 23 pounds of the M60.Do not remember exactly but when I was running up those hills with the M60 I carried 4 boxes of ammo. each box was 100 rounds belted, they were over 4 pounds each My ammo guy carried 8 boxes,

Just saying. People with skinny muscles did not do so well. When was the last time you watched a Lady run up a hill with a 60?
Back in 1988 when I went though PLDC, the national guard student chick in my squad carried the M60 just fine much to the chagrin of us big bad blue cords.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
Yes, if they're riding on the back of a tank or truck. SIG is in tight with the pentagon. Army brass turned down the H&K m110 even though the US Army Infantry loved it. Explain that?
Explain what? SIG and the other contenders were evaluated by real fighting soldiers for two years, and SIG won. SIG had former spec ops, Ranger people to aid their design team.

Not everything is a conspiracy, brah.

BTW, HK ain’t all that. The Navy SEAL may like their 416 and the Marines may like their Mk27, but CAG stayed with shorty M4.

Anyway, it’s a done deal. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to join up or buy the civilian version.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
I'm just saying there have been lawsuits over SIG buying their way into military contracts (golock). I'm old, I won't have to carry around some heavy universal, one for all weapon, .270 weaker win mag with with a 3 piece case, but it is a waste of money and won't serve our troops well. Thank goodness the other branches don't follow blindly behind the politics of the Army
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
I'm just saying there have been lawsuits over SIG buying their way into military contracts (golock). I'm old, I won't have to carry around some heavy universal, one for all weapon, .270 weaker win mag with with a 3 piece case, but it is a waste of money and won't serve our troops well. Thank goodness the other branches don't follow blindly behind the politics of the Army
How do you know that it won’t serve our troops well? It’s not even fielded yet.

It’s 2022 and you still think that GIs are better off with a 1950s design pop gun chambered in a poodle shooter cartridge?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,756 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
This new caliber is supposedly to shoot a 140-grains bullet with muzzle velocity of 3000-FPS out of a 16” barrel, and has overall length and shape of the .308 cartridge.

.308 machine guns like the M240 will simply need barrel change to use this new cartridge while waiting for the M250 to be manufactured.
Right at 6:40 in the vid he says it's a 13" barrel. It's why it needs such a hot round.

(comments)
In the vids they both explain the main data was from recent Afghanistan where lots of battle for boots was at long distance.

Barrel life appears to be dismal, but perhaps not a technical issue? How do they know how many rounds are on a Army rifle?

Readers should watch the vid fully, he explains some of the metrics important to soldiers. One of the biggest take-away for me was the round count, soldier is gonna carry less. He mentions "less and more weight", but I am not sure it's really less weight, like 500 556 vs 375 of this new 6.8, possibly just same weight. But when in full auto it's gonna chew through rounds fast. The rifle is also a good much heavier than before. I can only imagine carrying more weight in very hot & sweaty environment, can't be fun, and can wear down a soldier faster. Perhaps now the soldier does not need to carry other things to balance out the weight?

I see fnfalman says the 2yr trials were done and the Spear was chosen. But, what was the new criteria for the trials? Something has changed.

Does this mean the AR-15 is no longer a weapon of war and there is no need to ban them?
The anti-gunners believe every gun is a weapon of war, "because they were designed to kill people".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,627 Posts

More than 1000 soldiers were involved during the 27-months testing to give feedbacks, plus snake eaters and Marines as well.

I’m sure that these current active duty GIs somehow must have overlooked the many aspects concerning using this new service rifle that YouTubers and civilians are pontificating about. What do these active duty GIs know about having to hump the bush with the XM5, or engaging in fire and maneuver? Or basic load out and round counts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
The new Sig offers lighter PER ROUND weight, so the soldier can carry MORE rounds for the same gross load weight. (Recall this was the same argument used in favor at the time that the M16 was adopted over the M14. The opponents were also making many of the same arguments opponents of the new Sig are using today.)

The new Sig offers greater penetration at longer ranges, so it's able to defeat a number of newer body armor designs fielded by the Chinese and Russians (in particular).

The new Sig is designed to work in concert with the newly adopted and soon to be fielded Vortex optics so that soldiers can take full advantage of the longer-range capability.

The new Vortex scope is also a modular and upgradable design that can be evolved into a more fully integrated battlefield system for small-unit command and control as well as taking advantage of extreme long-range precision fire aiming. (Think giving the infantryman and squad the same kind of control leverage that the current tank platoon and company has to designate targets, control fires, and indicate movement commands.) It can also be used on a number of different weapons, so eventually the entire infantry squad and platoon will be using variations of the same device.

The multi-piece (compound) cartridge design is certainly debatable, but the ballistic advantages of the 6.8mm are pretty definitive over the current 5.56mm. One can argue all day over some of the minor changes that could have been made and selected with the new cartridge (and in the end, the US DoD may still go with the old stand-by single cartridge case design as more economical and practical), but the need for an evolved and improved rifle and cartridge have been pretty clear for quite some time.

The AR-15/M16/A1/A2/M4 has given outstanding service for decades, and the AR-15 still remains "America's rifle," but time marches on. New body armor, new optics, new ballistics and networked C2 have all changed the modern battlefield. It's past time that America's military troops get the next generation of rifles and take the small arms high ground over our enemies.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top