That's some more of that 6.5 excellent bullet coefficient crap from those that think the Grendel is a 1,000 yard round.
-
Hey Guest, it looks like you haven't made your first post yet. Until you make an introduction thread, the rest of the site is locked to posting. Why not take a few minutes to say hi!
Battle Rifle relook
seems the Army is looking again at a new rifle,, but in 2020. saw this on FB via 2nd Amendment. On the FB page 2nd Amendment kept saying the 6.8 is a round that's only good for less than 500yds (any time someone mentioned the 6.8). Obviously a Grendel guy, he kept referring to the move to '6.5'. which is now a move to 6MM.
https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/04/05/army-considers-bringing-battle-rifles-back-war/
https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/04/05/army-considers-bringing-battle-rifles-back-war/
1 - 20 of 105 Posts
The 6.5G or the 6.8SPC would neither be suitable for a main battle rifle. Both would lack the punch they are seeking at the longer distances. The 6.8 would be a perfect replacement for the M16 if they choose to stay with an assault rifle as the main weapon but that is not what they are talking about. A battle rifle is not the same as an assault rifle. When they went to the M16 and dropped the M14 they also went from battle rifle to assault rifle. They are discussing going back the other way though I doubt it will ever happen. What is needed in my opinion is to go to 6.8 for the main troop weapon then give the designated marksman the heavier caliber such as 7.62x51 but then things have changed a lot since I got out and wars are being fought in a lot different terrain. The only thing I would want to go up against at 500 yards or more with a 6.8 or a 6.5g is paper targets or steel gongs. I wouldn't be happy if it was all I had to go up against someone with a 7.62x54R at those type ranges.seems the Army is looking again at a new rifle,, but in 2020. saw this on FB via 2nd Amendment. On the FB page 2nd Amendment kept saying the 6.8 is a round that's only good for less than 500yds (any time someone mentioned the 6.8). Obviously a Grendel guy, he kept referring to the move to '6.5'. which is now a move to 6MM.
https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/04/05/army-considers-bringing-battle-rifles-back-war/
I've been playing with or thinking about THE perfect military cartridge for years. There is a forum pretty much dedicated to it. Anyway from my tests a cartridge of 44-45gr will produce apx the same velocity as a cartridge the size of a 308 at the barrel lengths commonly used in the military 16-20" of course the sniper rifles with long barrels would be different.
Cris Murray's 7mmUIAC is as close to perfect as there is but everyone has their own idea about the caliber. A 6.5 Carcano case is smaller dia than the 308 so the weight is less and more will stack in a common length mag. The ammo goal for most military is a 20% weight reduction from the 308. They have also said all copper bullets(non lead). A bullet of apx 115-120gr is in the correct range. That means 6.5, 6.8 or 7mm bullets. In order to get the long range goal/high BC the choice leans toward the 6.5 IMO. A Carcano case of apx 44gr H2O will produce apx 2800fps with that weight bullet. 2800 required to get the long range and terminal performance goals set by most countries. One other requirement was that the rifle be more controllable when full auto(MG) than the 308 and that is another big reason they want to reduce the case size.
In order to get the performance required it will take a rifle able to accept a 308 sized cartridge...maybe a mag length of 2.6" would work and if the rifle is designed from the ground up why not make the mags a fuzz smaller.
Now the easy way...Chamber the SCAR17 for the 6.5x47 and call it a day. The SCAR has already been through all of the tests. Mags exist, vests with 308 pockets exist ...done deal.
Cris Murray's 7mmUIAC is as close to perfect as there is but everyone has their own idea about the caliber. A 6.5 Carcano case is smaller dia than the 308 so the weight is less and more will stack in a common length mag. The ammo goal for most military is a 20% weight reduction from the 308. They have also said all copper bullets(non lead). A bullet of apx 115-120gr is in the correct range. That means 6.5, 6.8 or 7mm bullets. In order to get the long range goal/high BC the choice leans toward the 6.5 IMO. A Carcano case of apx 44gr H2O will produce apx 2800fps with that weight bullet. 2800 required to get the long range and terminal performance goals set by most countries. One other requirement was that the rifle be more controllable when full auto(MG) than the 308 and that is another big reason they want to reduce the case size.
In order to get the performance required it will take a rifle able to accept a 308 sized cartridge...maybe a mag length of 2.6" would work and if the rifle is designed from the ground up why not make the mags a fuzz smaller.
Now the easy way...Chamber the SCAR17 for the 6.5x47 and call it a day. The SCAR has already been through all of the tests. Mags exist, vests with 308 pockets exist ...done deal.
~they should just switch all troop weapons to the new and improved .300 Blackout and be done with it! no contest!~
Wouldn't a 7mm cartridge in the same configuration generally have a better BC than the 6.5? I know it does when comparing a Hornady Amax. The 7mm beats it by a good bit. What about the .300 Savage/30TC based Creedmoor in 7mm? Or the Carcano case opened up to 7mm. Just random thoughts. I don't have near the knowledge of the subject as you do obviously.I've been playing with or thinking about THE perfect military cartridge for years. There is a forum pretty much dedicated to it. Anyway from my tests a cartridge of 44-45gr will produce apx the same velocity as a cartridge the size of a 308 at the barrel lengths commonly used in the military 16-20" of course the sniper rifles with long barrels would be different.
Cris Murray's 7mmUIAC is as close to perfect as there is but everyone has their own idea about the caliber. A 6.5 Carcano case is smaller dia than the 308 so the weight is less and more will stack in a common length mag. The goal for most military is a 20% weight reduction from the 308. They have also said all copper bullets(non lead). A bullet of apx 115-120gr is in the correct range. That means 6.5, 6.8 or 7mm bullets. In order to get the long range goal/high BC the choice leans toward the 6.5 IMO. A Carcano case of apx 44gr H2O will produce apx 2800fps with that weight bullet. 2800 required to get the long range and terminal performance goals set by most countries. One other requirement was that the rifle be more controllable when full auto(MG) than the 308 and that is another big reason they want to reduce the case size.
In order to get the performance required it will take a rifle able to accept a 308 sized cartridge...maybe a mag length of 2.6" would work and if the rifle is designed from the ground up why not make the mags a fuzz smaller.
Now the easy way...Chamber the SCAR17 for the 6.5x47 and call it a day. The SCAR has already been through all of the tests. Mags exist, vests with 308 pockets exist ...done deal.
Are you comparing 123gr 6.5 bullets to 160gr 7mm bullets? A 115-120gr 7mm bullet will have a terrible BC.Wouldn't a 7mm cartridge in the same configuration generally have a better BC than the 6.5? I know it does when comparing a Hornady Amax. The 7mm beats it by a good bit. What about the .300 Savage/30TC based Creedmoor in 7mm? Or the Carcano case opened up to 7mm. Just random thoughts. I don't have near the knowledge of the subject as you do obviously.
a 120 grain lead free bullet in 6.5 would be .45-.49 BC, 6.8 would be .38-.41BC, and a 7.0 would be only around .37BC or soAre you comparing 123gr 6.5 bullets to 160gr 7mm bullets? A 115-120gr 7mm bullet will have a terrible BC.
Yes, I see your point. I was looking at the 162gr 6.8 Amax at .625bc as compared to the 140gr 6.5 Amax at .586.Are you comparing 123gr 6.5 bullets to 160gr 7mm bullets? A 115-120gr 7mm bullet will have a terrible BC.
500 yards call in arty or air, take out more than you can with rifle fire. i don't know if recruits even train for 500 yard shooting anymore. we did, and it taught us to be fair shooters, but 500 yard combat just doesn't exist right now to my knowledge, with large bodies of troops, if there is a high value target that needs done in, call in an expert, most snuffies are not experts.
i'm not an expert tactician, but i do know the distinct sound an AK round makes when it passes too close to your brain housing group. ambush and house to house fighting does not require a 500 yard round, all the upper rank staff NCO's i knew with experience in both WW2 and korea carried shotguns and a pistol. what we called our "battle sights" was the same dope we used on the 200 yard line
i'm not an expert tactician, but i do know the distinct sound an AK round makes when it passes too close to your brain housing group. ambush and house to house fighting does not require a 500 yard round, all the upper rank staff NCO's i knew with experience in both WW2 and korea carried shotguns and a pistol. what we called our "battle sights" was the same dope we used on the 200 yard line
I think that was the whole point. Our troops in Afghanistan are being ambushed from long distances with the 7.62x54R machine gun and all they have to shoot back with quite often is a 5.56 that even if they could hit their targets at that range it would lack the knockdown power to do much damage at that distance. That is the whole point of the discussion about going back to a battle rifle as compared to an assault rifle. Artillery or close air support is not always readily available. 300 yards was the maximum we trained with the M16 when I was in. I assume that was about the maximum effective range. It could hit targets at longer distances but not going to do much damage. Especially if behind any sort of cover.500 yards call in arty or air, take out more than you can with rifle fire. i don't know if recruits even train for 500 yard shooting anymore. we did, and it taught us to be fair shooters, but 500 yard combat just doesn't exist right now to my knowledge, with large bodies of troops, if there is a high value target that needs done in, call in an expert, most snuffies are not experts.
i'm not an expert tactician, but i do know the distinct sound an AK round makes when it passes too close to your brain housing group. ambush and house to house fighting does not require a 500 yard round, all the upper rank staff NCO's i knew with experience in both WW2 and korea carried shotguns and a pistol. what we called our "battle sights" was the same dope we used on the 200 yard line
Ah the never ending search for the perfect cartridge. Is the Army really wanting a full battle rifle cartridge.. ie, a potential 1,000yd cartridge?
I know 6.8 can reach 600 with a good setup.
However, for better BC, maybe necking down the 6.8spc case to 6.5mm, and increase the COAL to 2.37" might get close to those ranges?
I know 6.8 can reach 600 with a good setup.
However, for better BC, maybe necking down the 6.8spc case to 6.5mm, and increase the COAL to 2.37" might get close to those ranges?
i always had an M14. and we always had crew served weapons for reach out and touch. but i have no idea what distance afghan ambushes are triggered. i'm just suggesting 500 yard rifle fire is sketchy at best, and a 22 - regardless how effective it is close in (or isn't effective) is just out of place in a gun fight. a solid lethal rifle with an effective range of 300 would be my choice. each squad usually patrolled with an M60, and an M79 if available, platoon patrols would add more crew served weapons sometimes a 60MM mortar. marine companies back then had a weapons platoon in addition to the rifle platoons, they usually got parceled out to the line platoons. ambushes usually happened from the muzzle to maybe 40 yards in the bush, i.e. there really wasn't any long distance shooting, which i will correct by saying there was some really long distance shooting by guys with scoped rifles, and there wasn't really a whole bunch of them to deploy, 6 sniper teams is the largest congregation of them i ever saw. attacks, rather than ambushes, going up steep slopes usually required much heavier firepower and the attacking group was nearly always ambushed by well prepared NVA who patiently waited until the attack had entered their kill zone, they had interlocking fire lanes and heavy mortars pre registered, not many HMG cause the 12.7 was nearly always mounted on wheelsI think that was the whole point. Our troops in Afghanistan are being ambushed from long distances with the 7.62x54R machine gun and all they have to shoot back with quite often is a 5.56 that even if they could hit their targets at that range it would lack the knockdown power to do much damage at that distance. That is the whole point of the discussion about going back to a battle rifle as compared to an assault rifle. Artillery or close air support is not always readily available. 300 yards was the maximum we trained with the M16 when I was in. I assume that was about the maximum effective range. It could hit targets at longer distances but not going to do much damage. Especially if behind any sort of cover.
the army wanting to turn the M16 into a 500 yard weapon is what screwed it up from stoner's version. settle for 300 but be certain it hits like a deuce and a half at impact at that distance. and all rifles would have to be equipped with magnification, we shot 500 yard line during qualification with iron sights and the bull looks about the size of a pinhead at that distance, and it's a 60" bullseye LOL
Yep, I was in just barely a year post Vietnam so we trained for the same type warfare that you were used to but now most of our battles seem to be either in the desert or CQB moving house to house. For the latter 5.56x45 is certainly adequate, 6.8 would be better any way you look at it. Loved the M60 but they were a tad on the heavy side. I was never impressed with what I have seen of the M14 but I never carried one. I think for DMR a semi auto would be fine, Maybe even the M40 bolt gun. No need for selective fire weapon. Just my opinion, though. Not having been in those situations I can't really give anything else.i always had an M14. and we always had crew served weapons for reach out and touch. but i have no idea what distance afghan ambushes are triggered. i'm just suggesting 500 yard rifle fire is sketchy at best, and a 22 - regardless how effective it is close in (or isn't effective) is just out of place in a gun fight. a solid lethal rifle with an effective range of 300 would be my choice. each squad usually patrolled with an M60, and an M79 if available, platoon patrols would add more crew served weapons sometimes a 60MM mortar. marine companies back then had a weapons platoon in addition to the rifle platoons, they usually got parceled out to the line platoons. ambushes usually happened from the muzzle to maybe 40 yards in the bush, i.e. there really wasn't any long distance shooting, which i will correct by saying there was some really long distance shooting by guys with scoped rifles, and there wasn't really a whole bunch of them to deploy, 6 sniper teams is the largest congregation of them i ever saw. attacks, rather than ambushes, going up steep slopes usually required much heavier firepower and the attacking group was nearly always ambushed by well prepared NVA who patiently waited until the attack had entered their kill zone, they had interlocking fire lanes and heavy mortars pre registered, not many HMG cause the 12.7 was nearly always mounted on wheels
the army wanting to turn the M16 into a 500 yard weapon is what screwed it up from stoner's version. settle for 300 but be certain it hits like a deuce and a half at impact at that distance. and all rifles would have to be equipped with magnification, we shot 500 yard line during qualification with iron sights and the bull looks about the size of a pinhead at that distance, and it's a 60" bullseye LOL
troops told me that most engagements in Afghanistan began at 500M,, they fire at convoys as they roll through choke points with RPGs from 900 m away. and spray with MG fire. The RPG's don't have to connect,, because they self destruct in the 900M range if they don't hit something first. Return fire is with belt fed weapons 7.62 hopefully,, or .50 cal. so i don't see why the army want's a full size battle rifle,, first thing that will happen is a 'carbine' version for SF and Airborne. and most likely infantry. no one wants to carry an anvil regardless of how effective it is. it will be carried more than it's shot over it's lifetime and getting in and out of aircraft and vehicles etc. will be an issue. i would think an intermediate round like the 6.8 would suffice,,
My response to the FB thread was that the 7mm Valkyrie or something very like it, would be ideal for what they say they want. Its capable of kills out to 500+ yds, has excellent accuracy and energy at all ranges. I could see something like that set up in H's '12' receiver set to allow for better heavy bullet seating length, but still light enough to be viable. In an AR format rifle, they could retain the full auto capability and have better controllability than the M14 because of the straight line stock/bore.Wouldn't a 7mm cartridge in the same configuration generally have a better BC than the 6.5? I know it does when comparing a Hornady Amax. The 7mm beats it by a good bit. What about the .300 Savage/30TC based Creedmoor in 7mm? Or the Carcano case opened up to 7mm. Just random thoughts. I don't have near the knowledge of the subject as you do obviously.
Because a lot of times troops are on patrol on foot and not in convoys and generally the biggest thing they have is the M249 SAW in 5.56 and a grenade launcher or two and not a 7.62 or a .50.troops told me that most engagements in Afghanistan began at 500M,, they fire at convoys as they roll through choke points with RPGs from 900 m away. and spray with MG fire. The RPG's don't have to connect,, because they self destruct in the 900M range if they don't hit something first. Return fire is with belt fed weapons 7.62 hopefully,, or .50 cal. so i don't see why the army want's a full size battle rifle,, first thing that will happen is a 'carbine' version for SF and Airborne. and most likely infantry. no one wants to carry an anvil regardless of how effective it is. it will be carried more than it's shot over it's lifetime and getting in and out of aircraft and vehicles etc. will be an issue. i would think an intermediate round like the 6.8 would suffice,,
i'm aware and i agree,, my point being that the army wants a 'battle rifle round' but with that comes limitations on just how much ammo can be carried by grunts. and 90% of the time it's suppressive fire that's put out,, not aiming at point targets, just hosing an area the fire is coming from. which,, burns up ammo that has to be carried. i guess what i'm trying to say is the army want's a battle rifle that hits targets at 800+,, but they also want the soldier to carry a lot of ammo. and if the 249's 5.56 is good enough to suppress fire, (some carry 240 MGs) and the soldier is going to be limited on rounds carried if it's a full sized round. and NO 'common' grunt is going to be whacking ******** at 800. many struggle at hitting targets at 300.. it will take many hours and rounds of training to accomplish hits at 800, which i'm o.k with but it won't happen. the military could use a better rifle round, but i'm for an intermediate round that fills more rolls doesn't have to be the 6.8,, but something akin to it.Because a lot of times troops are on patrol on foot and not in convoys and generally the biggest thing they have is the M249 SAW in 5.56 and a grenade launcher or two and not a 7.62 or a .50.
Jmho
1. Get rid of the 5.56 platform.
2. Replace 5.56 platform with compatible AR15/M16 round capapble of more energy with marginal weight difference. Range out to 600m.
3. Issue AR10/SR25 platform with optics as squad marksman weapon. Issue standard barrel and short barrel.
1. Get rid of the 5.56 platform.
2. Replace 5.56 platform with compatible AR15/M16 round capapble of more energy with marginal weight difference. Range out to 600m.
3. Issue AR10/SR25 platform with optics as squad marksman weapon. Issue standard barrel and short barrel.
I suppose that is why the article states that it is under consideration and not a done deal. I understand what you are saying but the problem as I see it is that the Army has two problems they need to solve. They need to get out of the mindset that they need to be able to rely on one main rifle to do everything and they need to increase basic training to 13 weeks and teach soldiers to shoot for accuracy the way the Marine Corp does. Any of us who served knows that the Army spends way too little time on marksmanship. The requirements for expert rifle in the Army are even much less than Marine Corp or Coast Guard for that matter, who odd as it may seem to some shoot the same course as Marine Corp. Trust me, I was in both. There is a big difference in knocking down a man sized silhouette and hitting the 10 ring on a target.i'm aware and i agree,, my point being that the army wants a 'battle rifle round' but with that comes limitations on just how much ammo can be carried by grunts. and 90% of the time it's suppressive fire that's put out,, not aiming at point targets, just hosing an area the fire is coming from. which,, burns up ammo that has to be carried. i guess what i'm trying to say is the army want's a battle rifle that hits targets at 800+,, but they also want the soldier to carry a lot of ammo. and if the 249's 5.56 is good enough to suppress fire, (some carry 240 MGs) and the soldier is going to be limited on rounds carried if it's a full sized round. and NO 'common' grunt is going to be whacking ******** at 800. many struggle at hitting targets at 300.. it will take many hours and rounds of training to accomplish hits at 800, which i'm o.k with but it won't happen. the military could use a better rifle round, but i'm for an intermediate round that fills more rolls doesn't have to be the 6.8,, but something akin to it.
Also, a soldier in an engineer unit in a convoy (with mounted M2s) really doesn't necessarily need the same weapon as the grunt on the ground.
Agreed.1. Get rid of the 5.56 platform.
2. Replace 5.56 platform with compatible AR15/M16 round capapble of more energy with marginal weight difference. Range out to 600m.
3. Issue AR10/SR25 platform with optics as squad marksman weapon. Issue standard barrel and short barrel.
1 - 20 of 105 Posts
6.8 SPC Forums
A forum community dedicated to 6.8 SPC firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
