Increasing Small Arms Lethality

[DaveTN]

The 6.8 is less powerful powerful than the 7.62 (lot less recoil too), but you can legally shoot a deer with it .

I’m not a hunter; you can’t shoot a deer with a .308 Winchester?

[nightrunner]

I’m not a hunter; you can’t shoot a deer with a .308 Winchester?

you can shoot a deer with .308, 6.8SPC or .223, its all legal, dont know the point he was trying to make there.

the paper said that 7.62NATO would be the perfect combat round IF and a big IF they only needed semi-auto fire. 7.62nato has too much recoil to have a controllable full-auto even in the heavy M14, much less an AR-10 or similar. and the 6.8spc is the perfect compromise between knockdown power and controllability. same trajectory as 7.62nato.

the paper said that the ideal combat round is between 6.5 and 7mm. 6.5grendel on bottom end has better accuracy than a heavier round but less mass and therefore less knockdown power. 6.8 is a great compromise if you are staying with the AR platform. they mentioned a 7mm wildcat but it required a different weapon system.

[mikegideon]

I’m not a hunter; you can’t shoot a deer with a .308 Winchester?

Duh. I thought a .223 was illegal for deer. I've always been told that a .243 was the minimum (it is in some places). A .243 is a necked down .308. I'm not a deer hunter, but I know people that use a .308.

So... yes

EDIT: Just did a little digging. Used to be illegal.

Edited March 21, 2010 by mikegideon

[Guest rystine]

the paper said that the ideal combat round is between 6.5 and 7mm. 6.5grendel on bottom end has better accuracy than a heavier round but less mass and therefore less knockdown power. 6.8 is a great compromise if you are staying with the AR platform. they mentioned a 7mm wildcat but it required a different weapon system.

The 6.8 actually shoots a lighter bullet than the 6.5. The 6.5 has a short case, but a very long bullet (usually 123-140 grains). While the 6.8's case is so long that it works best with lighter bullets (110-115 grains) if you stick with an AR platform.

The 6.5 actually has more ft/lbs of energy than the 6.8 at all ranges.

The more I research the 6.5, the more I'm convinced it is THE best AR cartridge out there YMMV.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The 6.8 isn't superior to either the 7.62 or the 6.5 until you consider the weight of the package. It is a great round as a compromise for killing short to medium range. It was

not designed for long range kills. Nor was the 5.56. It fulfills the purpose. 3000fps with

an 85grain Barnes TSX is an impressive round out of a 16 inch barrel. There is a role for it in spec ops from what I understand and almost every GI I meet wishes they had one. More knock down power for the range it was intended and works well in auto.

I don't know anything about the Grendel and am not knocking it.

The politics and budget considerations killed them both for replacement of the 5.56

as far as I know.

[mikegideon]

I've been waiting for you to chime in AR. From Chuck Hawks...

The inadequacies of the 5.56mm NATO as a service rifle cartridge are well documented and have inspired many suggestions regarding possible replacements (some on this web site). Soldiers in the U.S. Special Operations Command also realized the need for a more potent round and initiated (on their own recognizance) development of a new cartridge designed to work in the M16 action.

[DaveTN]

the paper said that 7.62NATO would be the perfect combat round IF and a big IF they only needed semi-auto fire. 7.62nato has too much recoil to have a controllable full-auto even in the heavy M14, much less an AR-10 or similar. and the 6.8spc is the perfect compromise between knockdown power and controllability. same trajectory as 7.62nato.

I would think most combat soldiers would be firing semi-auto. But if you want to spray and pray why reinvent the wheel? What’s wrong with 7.62x39? It’s a combat proven performer, is available all over the world and is better than the .223.

[mikegideon]

I would think most combat soldiers would be firing semi-auto. But if you want to spray and pray why reinvent the wheel? What’s wrong with 7.62x39? It’s a combat proven performer, is available all over the world and is better than the .223.

The retooling costs would be huge. Can't even convince them to replace the uppers and mags. Too bad they destroyed all those M14's. They could use a few right now.

[Guest rystine]

If you go to the 7.62x39 then don't you run into the same problems as the 5.56 in regards to long range performance?

[nightrunner]

Too bad they destroyed all those M14's. They could use a few right now.

I heard of a few reports that they are reissuing the ones that they have to select units.

(note that heard of a few reports is third-hand, and on the internet no less, that means its worth exactly what you paid for it)

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I've been waiting for you to chime in AR. From Chuck Hawks...

The inadequacies of the 5.56mm NATO as a service rifle cartridge are well documented and have inspired many suggestions regarding possible replacements (some on this web site). Soldiers in the U.S. Special Operations Command also realized the need for a more potent round and initiated (on their own recognizance) development of a new cartridge designed to work in the M16 action.

I wasn't sure I wanted to. I hate seeing 6.8 vs Grendel wars. Seen enough of them to barf.

[nightrunner]

If you go to the 7.62x39 then don't you run into the same problems as the 5.56 in regards to long range performance?

I havent heard of anybody(I know its done) shooting 7.62x39mm in an accurate rifle, but 7.62x39 starts dropping pretty fast after 200-250 yards IIRC.

[Guest rystine]

The retooling costs would be huge. Can't even convince them to replace the uppers and mags. Too bad they destroyed all those M14's. They could use a few right now.

You try talking a Marine or soldier, whose already carrying a patrol load in excess of 100 lbs, into carry a heavier weapon and ammo. My guess is most would say no thanks. I know I would pass.

Thats why the answer isn't merely as simple as just going back to the 7.62 NATO. You just can't discount the fact that nowdays guys are going into combat carrying more weight than any other combat soldiers in modern history.

[mikegideon]

If you go to the 7.62x39 then don't you run into the same problems as the 5.56 in regards to long range performance?

Yep.

[DaveTN]

If you go to the 7.62x39 then don't you run into the same problems as the 5.56 in regards to long range performance?

I guess it boils down to the question of “Can you have one all around combat round?†I think that round would be the 7.62 NATO for a rifleman. But if you need something more controllable for full auto the 7.62X39 might be an option. As far as its long range performance I don’t know what it would be. I have never heard of it being fired from a quality platform; have you?

[mikegideon]

You try talking a Marine or soldier, whose already carrying a patrol load in excess of 100 lbs, into carry a heavier weapon and ammo. My guess is most would say no thanks. I know I would pass.

Thats why the answer isn't merely as simple as just going back to the 7.62 NATO. You just can't discount the fact that nowdays guys are going into combat carrying more weight than any other combat soldiers in modern history.

I know it's a problem, but how do you kill guys that are dug in at 600 yards? I wasn't suggesting that everybody go back to the 7.62. I'm suggesting that it may help, in this specific case, to have a few of them scattered around.

[DaveTN]

You just can't discount the fact that nowdays guys are going into combat carrying more weight than any other combat soldiers in modern history.

Why is that? From what I see there are more vehicles available than any war in history. I mean let’s face it; you aren’t in the jungles of Vietnam; you are operating in a country with freeways…. Right?

What is the weight difference? And how many rounds would you need to carry if you had the more powerful 7.62 NATO?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Just because a russian made a dependable, lethal, inexpensive weapon, doesn't make it the best for us. But it does have merit and is credible. Stoner didn't do too bad, either.

The 6.8 is a refinement that is doable in the existing platform:barrel, bolt, magazine. All readily available and very successful hardware. I have several of them along with

a couple 5.56's but I will gladly use any of those 6.8's first. They shoot with similar

characteristics to the 5.56 but with more lead hitting the target. It came from essentially some sharp GI's wanting to make the M16/M4 platform more lethal. Very little cost considering our current procurement process. When a better bullet(Barnes is now making a 100gn copper round) coefficient enters the marketplace for this round,

it could win most of the needs of the military. It may even make the 6.8 vs grendel battles end. They are both doable from what I hear.

[Guest rystine]

I guess it boils down to the question of “Can you have one all around combat round?†I think that round would be the 7.62 NATO for a rifleman. But if you need something more controllable for full auto the 7.62X39 might be an option. As far as its long range performance I don’t know what it would be. I have never heard of it being fired from a quality platform; have you?

I think that the AK is underrated accuracy-wise, especially some higher quality ones. For example from what I've seen on the web I would think that an Arsenal AK could probably shoot just as well as an average AR with similar quality ammo.

That said, the limitation of the 7.62x39 isn't the platform firing it, it is the round itself. Short, fat bullets, that aren't going all that fast to begin with, lose energy too fast. It's got a pretty extreme drop past 300 meters or so.

One of the points of the report in the OP was, more or less, that the 5.56 lacked long range power (out to 500+ meters). Going to the 7.62x39 wouldn't solve that problem, it would simply be going from one short range caliber to another.

[DaveTN]

but how do you kill guys that are dug in at 600 yards?

Call the Navy. I don’t know if that’s how they do it nowadays, but that’s how it use to be done.

Edited March 21, 2010 by DaveTN

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Just on the sideline without any military experience. Weight has got to be the most important of the issues. Perfection with distance and accuracy would be a second.

Battle fatigue has got to be the soldier's worst enemy. He has to be able to fight when the need arises. Utility in the platforms available has got to win out over accuracy.

All I'm saying is there are several calibers that should be in use: .50, 7.62x51 and 5.56 or 6.8(just me talking, ok?) and used in the proper role. Doctrine determines which,

doesn't it? Using an M14 as a main battle rifle would limit that soldier's capacity,

elsewhere. Close quarter battle is where the M4 comes in. Ma Deuce is limited in use,

but no less important.

I can't see weighing down a soldier with an M14 and all that heavy ammo when there are other great platforms that are probably just as effective. I'm glad those GI's came up with the 6.8, if not to spark debate.

[Guest rystine]

Why is that? From what I see there are more vehicles available than any war in history. I mean let’s face it; you aren’t in the jungles of Vietnam; you are operating in a country with freeways…. Right?

What is the weight difference? And how many rounds would you need to carry if you had the more powerful 7.62 NATO?

I'm guessing you haven't done any time in Iraq or A-stan. Am I right?

Yea, there's alot of vehicles out there, but the VAST MAJORITY of the operations are still foot patrols (my second tour in Iraq I did just over 300 patrols, about 250 were on foot). My old unit got back from Afghanistan a few months ago, the didn't do ANY mounted patrols.

As far as the number of rounds carried, most shooting in combat is suppressive fire. Basically 99% of the time it honestly doesn't matter how powerful the round is because you're merely shooting in the general direction of the bad guys in hopes of getting them to hole up someplace that will allow you to maneuver to a position where you can take them out. So if I can carry 300 rounds of 5.56 for the same weight as 100 rounds of 7.62, I can last 3x longer in a fire fight.

ETA: I'm not postive on the exact weight difference between 7.62 and 5.56, but its in the neighborhood of of 2.5-3 times heavier per round.

Volume of rounds fired, not the power of the rounds being fired, wins a firefight.

Edited March 21, 2010 by rystine

[nightrunner]

with the current technology and weapons systems available, most should be armed with a 6.8 with one guy per unit having a 7.62nato ar10 with a scope on it for far away sniping.

[mikegideon]

Call the Navy. I don’t know if that’s how they do it nowadays, but that’s how it use to be done.

What I'm thinking... battle rifles went out of style, but maybe they weren't totally obsolete. A .308 works at long range.

[DaveTN]

I'm guessing you haven't done any time in Iraq or A-stan. Am I right?

You are absolutely right, that is why I was asking.

I served in the Navy during Vietnam. I was not in combat. I served on an amphibious assault ship (300 Navy crew and 1000 Marines). I put the Marines on the beach and went back and ate breakfast and took a nap.

I have been in combat in this country though if that counts. I had a car to carry all my stuff in though.