gunnut

The funny thing is I remember reading somewhere that in the 50s, NATO was experimenting with intermediate cartridges to replace the overpowered 30-06 and 303 British used during WW2. One of the favored was a 270 caliber round. I forgot if it was a British design or an American design. But the momentum for this round died due to American pressure to switch to the 7.62x51 round. If you translate .27" into metric, it's 0.685cm, or roughly 6.8mm.

It's funny how we come a full circle in 50 years of small arms evolution.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Stan187

The 6.8 SPC was actually developed from the .270, so its no accident.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

ofogs

Cato,

1Observer's article seems to go with 28 rounds per mag. I'm also not in whatever loop there is on 6.8mm, so I, too, have only Open Source and anecdotal evidence.

I'm in a heavy weapons company now, so we don't have SDMs. Most of our fight is with stuff that makes much bigger holes . I vaguely remember a conversation with an SDM from another unit who had 262 and liked it. He wasn't using an M4, though. I would think an M16 platform that's been improved to higher grade accuracy should be a tack driver with a match grade round. Given a choice, I'd want the AP round. More accurate, more lethal.

1 Observer

My "differrence" in magazine capacities reffers more to the fact that loading AR platform mags to full capcity Is a good way of finding out what condition they are in, than the fact that the 6.8 spc is a little more plump. But good call.

1 Observer

115 grain .277 bullet

Designed/ developed to:
Improve on both 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39
out to 600 meters
without "loss" in performance from 10"-16" barrels.

Modular integration to the AR platform at company armorrer level.

This round was not devloped to compete with the 6.5 Grendel.

It was made to increase lethality of the current AR platform.
Which it would, if addopted.

Stan187

As far as I've been reading, it is made to go out to 400m not 600. And no, it was not made to compete with the Grendel, because the Grendel knocks it out of the water.

1 Observer

With the exception of "not going to 600" I'd say "Godstruth!" (6.8 is touted to mirror .308 and heavy 5.56x45 loadings trajectory) that 6.5 is about as "slippery" as one could wish for. Course it cost a couple more rounds. Either would be a pretty good change. There is no argument, however,
If one demands A single round to do duty in : crew served, sniper and issue weapon, Im afraid the option goes to the Grendel (as my esteemed colleague points out)

Stan187

That's the beauty of the Grendel, its a good hitter close or far. It could conceivably replace all our rifle and MG options with one. If we run the 6.8, even after all the retooling and retraining, we've still got crew-served MGs and DMRs running 7.62 NATO. If possible, let's save ourselves the logistical headache.

1 Observer

Can't argue ... is no room to argue ... One round that does it all... quite an attractive option by any standard .... I didn't say I was inclined towards the 6.8 ... which is good, but given the choice between good, and better ... or foe, whom are dead, or more dead foe ... thats naught for a choice either I only attempt to sound reasonable cuz no one talks to me when I'm honest I concede the point: sire.


Cato,

1Observer's article seems to ... I'm in a heavy weapons company now, so we don't have SDMs. Most of our fight is with stuff that makes much bigger holes . I vaguely remember a conversation with an SDM from another unit who had 262 and liked it. He wasn't using an M4, though. I would think an M16 platform that's been improved to higher grade accuracy should be a tack driver with a match grade round. Given a choice, I'd want the AP round. More accurate, more lethal.

Point A) SDM rifles of the AR flavor are of the 20" barrel variety which doesn't exhibit the velocity short comings the 5.56x45 round Is excoriated for (fired from the M-4)...
I imagine he (SDM) finds it effective. However this is much due to the fact that "we uses what we is issued... sir. yes sir."

Point B) ... choosing between poor and accurate, or poor and inaccurate ... well you've been witness to the fact that even poor accuracy is enough in most hands. But I must concur that more accurate is regularly beneficial. And 2 hole do bleed better than one. (nod to the AP)

PS anything you may have against the .308 should be kept to ones self ... It has proven hugely effective during it's tenure ... Hugely popular to staff with whom you may prefer to remain on good terms. If you take my meaning

ofogs

Point A) He's a good NCO, he was speaking the truth as he saw it. But yes, the 20" barrel and an improved platform is an entirely different animal.

Point B) Since it has a higher muzzle velocity, the AP will fragment at greater ranges than your usual green tip.

m1tch311

Amen! .308 all the way. SCAR heavys a favorite.

__________________
My RIGHT as an American to PWN!!

Officer of Engineers

Son,

Shut the hell up! Even an old dinosaur like me recognize the advantages the 5.56NATO has over the 7.62NATO. If you can hit what you're aiming, that is far more important than hitting power.

I was trained on the .308 ... before I joined the army. So it was no big deal to me but I do recognize that it takes more than 5000 rounds of 7.62NATO to make gold while it takes less than a 1000 with the 5.56NATO.

And as far as lethality is concerned, the 5.56NATO has it over the 7.62NATO. There is a big difference in the wounding capacity of the smaller round versus the through-and-through of the bigger round.

The difference is of course in stopping power but unless your grouping is less than 3 inches, it ain't going to do you squat.

I suggest that you start reading and start asking questions and stop posting your obviously errorenous views

__________________
Chimo

Blademaster

OOE,

I showed your post to a friend of mine and he strongly disagrees with your assertion that 5.56 is better than 7.62. He says that in COIN or urban warfare, it is more important that the enemy stays down and stopping power is very effective in ensuring the enemy stays down when hit.

Officer of Engineers

Ask your friend when he could shoot gold? Don't get me wrong. I can hit with both but for a raw recruit, I want him to hit what he aims and he aims better with the 5.56NATO than the 7.62NATO.

Placement IS FAR more important than stopping power.

Ucar

With all due respect Sir, I also think along the lines that Blademaster presented. I think it is a matter of the infantry tactics you have trained along.

Our basic infantry training in the Turkish Armed Forces focuses on suppression fire and maneuver ending in encirclement. Much of the actual combat training in units deployed in SE Turkey focuses on urban warfare, mountain warfare, fire and maneuver. We do not train our recruits to become marksman, quite contrary to US emphasis on rifleman, we train them to heed orders and maneuver under fire without heavy weapons or artillery support. Thus, our emphasis is not on good shooting, but on the capability to sustain suppression and movement supported by greater firepower provided by 7.62 mm infantry rifle since heavier support is usually unavailable. We usually do not have the chance to fix opposing forces in place, and call in good Sir S-2 and his howitzers

In the case our infantry gets lucky and hits someone, we prefer them dead, rather than out of combat, since our regular opponents have a tendency to reappear in combat with sustained wounds.

You will note that our Commando and SF units prefer 5.56 calibre rifles rather than 7.62 mm. This is where placement becomes more important than stopping power, since such units are used to eliminate encircled enemy forces and focus on marksmanship as a major part of their training regime.

Shortly, I think tactics and infantry training decides the utility of 5.56 over the 7.62.