Army says 6.8 desired?
- Thread starter Mitch1993
- Start date
Javelin
Newbie
The staff on top is legit interested. Whatever actually comes from that remains to be seen. For what it's worth the 6.8 they are looking into is a new round and not 6.8SPC that is off the shelf.
http://soldiersystems.net/2018/10/15/army-chief-of-staff-discusses-next-generation-squad-weapon/
http://soldiersystems.net/2018/10/15/army-chief-of-staff-discusses-next-generation-squad-weapon/
rudukai13
Pro Internet User
http://soldiersystems.net/2018/10/0...tion-next-generation-squad-weapon-candidates/
Sig recently showcased a prototype belt-fed LMG and new rifle based on a large-frame MCX which are supposedly entrants in the NGSW/NGSAR programs, and both of which were chambered for whatever the new 6.8mm cartridge is;
Based on the fact they're using a large-frame MCX (originally developed as the 7.62x51 MCX-MR for CSASS), one would imagine the new 6.8mm cartridge is looking to be more substantially dimensioned than 5.56 - closer to 7.62x51. It would need to be in order to reach the velocity and energy specs I've seen thrown around for the NGSW/NGSAR wishlists
Sig recently showcased a prototype belt-fed LMG and new rifle based on a large-frame MCX which are supposedly entrants in the NGSW/NGSAR programs, and both of which were chambered for whatever the new 6.8mm cartridge is;
Based on the fact they're using a large-frame MCX (originally developed as the 7.62x51 MCX-MR for CSASS), one would imagine the new 6.8mm cartridge is looking to be more substantially dimensioned than 5.56 - closer to 7.62x51. It would need to be in order to reach the velocity and energy specs I've seen thrown around for the NGSW/NGSAR wishlists
Farmboy20
Regular Member
I’m just a civilian but to me it would seem that 6.8 is the right path to be on for what the army is asking for. 6.8 spc I believe if tweaked or re worked could be the new round and with that I’m sure magpul could make some pmags for the rifles too. Feel free to correct anything I messed up.
shoobe01
Established
I haven't even seen reputable sources say 6.8. Closest I get is 6-point-mumble, mumble, mumble, but they are supposed to be serious this time.
We've passed a couple serious rounds of skipping a caliber switch (at least for the LMGs) in my lifetime, so not sure if that means they'll blow it off yet again, type classify but never field, or now it's finally time.
We've passed a couple serious rounds of skipping a caliber switch (at least for the LMGs) in my lifetime, so not sure if that means they'll blow it off yet again, type classify but never field, or now it's finally time.
Runs-with-scissors
Newbie
When(IF) it happens it will be a LONG time.. even if the US was to spearhead this, i cant see NATO allies who are hesitant to meet the basic obligations following suit and retooling. Without some major event/change/tech development where a round shows a generational leap above 5.56, 5.56 will be here for a while.
Personal opinion - 6.8 was designed to fit through an existing specific 5.56 dimensional architecture (magwell of the M4).. it was a compromise from the start, and while it proved that the amount of round you could fit into those dimensions was greater than the 5.56, it was not enough to overcome the other factors in ammunition selection.
Personal opinion - 6.8 was designed to fit through an existing specific 5.56 dimensional architecture (magwell of the M4).. it was a compromise from the start, and while it proved that the amount of round you could fit into those dimensions was greater than the 5.56, it was not enough to overcome the other factors in ammunition selection.
Erick von lictenstine
Newbie
I'm all for the advancement of new firearms technology, but the armys history of failed programs over the years leads me to question the armys ability to effectively procure new tech that will effectively make a difference.
So what makes this different then the old 6.8 spc, and spew/salvo programs?
So what makes this different then the old 6.8 spc, and spew/salvo programs?
Erick von lictenstine
Newbie
I dont think I stated my question well. I was trying to point out how the army haven't had any small arms research projects that have been fruitful, As of late.
Not that they have made improvements like the m855a1 but when it came to large changes like having to deploy a completely new rifle and cartridge they have fallen short.
Not that they have made improvements like the m855a1 but when it came to large changes like having to deploy a completely new rifle and cartridge they have fallen short.
ArmedNovelist
Amateur
Due to the ammo weight requirements of the Next-Generation Squad Weapons Program (also seen as NGSAW and NGSAR), I don't believe that SIG will stand a chance (at least on the AR side of the program). If they modified their belt-fed for cased-telescopic or caseless ammunition (which has seen high marks in the LSAT Program), then they'll have the Squad Automatic Weapon side. Basically, they can't meet the bulk of the program requirements without going in one of those two directions. Textron / AAI is apart of the NGSW Program with submitted tech demonstrators, which is separate from the LSAT Program. They have the most experience in "non-standard cased ammunition" technologies. They merely have to adapt their platforms (LSAT machine gun and LSAT rifle) to a 6.8mm round.
The LSAT Program has made some huge leaps and bounds, and has been highly successful in both the case-telescopic and caseless ammunition arenas. The bonuses in lightening the load for ammo bearers, cook-off prevention for more sustained strings of fire (a huge complaint in COP fights in Afghanistan for both M249s, M240s and M4s) and several platforms that work. Here's some links on what's transpired. Textron Systems PDF for ARDEC. Kori Phillips interview (2014 when the argument was 6.5mm vs 6.8mm). The NDIA 2016 overview of Cased-Telescopic Ammunition-based Firearms.
If the Army scraps the weight reduction (high-end option) for the PCP Tactical alternative (low-end option, poly-case round design), then they will be able to modify existing stocks of weaponry. The goal there will be to put a 6.8mm round in a casing that can be used in current M4 while only having to switch uppers. Logistically speaking, this is the best option. However, the Army has pounded the weight drum so long and hard, we could possibly see the program canned due to political disagreements. Like all of the rest of the small arms replacement programs since the 1980s. Someone mentioned sticking 6.8mm rounds in a specific modified casing, but I forget what parent cartridge was mentioned at this time. It had nothing to do with 6.8mm Remington SPC II (as 6.8 SPC, in all of it's forms, is dead to the Army because the USMC and USSOCOM weren't impressed in 2007 with the ballistics and SPC II will never get a shot), though. Textron may have some kind of development for an upper and CT or caseless ammo, but that remains to be seen due to the sensitive nature of the NGSW Program.
Going full Chairborne, I believe they should go with Option A (entirely new platform and ammunition types), due to how well the ammunition technology progressed since 2004 (LSAT has roots back to OICW Increment 3 - LGMA Program), with the added focus on marksmanship training. But, that's a lot of money that won't be allocated to the Armed Forces.
So, I foresee Option B being chosen and eventually being shit-canned. Why? Politics. The only benefit of the loss? The Army gets to see a faster evolution of small arms technologies for an advancement coming a decade down the road and they get current working options to field test with USSOCOM. There's a lot of covert potential in modifying the LSAT caseless ammo firearms with the rounds you need for field ops.
As for the most solid of confirmations on 6.8mm rounds being sought: look no further than the NGSW PON and the PDF therein. The ammo is classified as "6.8mm General Purpose, XM1186" within. Information specific to the rounds, which I assume Lake City is providing, has been redacted. Obviously.
The LSAT Program has made some huge leaps and bounds, and has been highly successful in both the case-telescopic and caseless ammunition arenas. The bonuses in lightening the load for ammo bearers, cook-off prevention for more sustained strings of fire (a huge complaint in COP fights in Afghanistan for both M249s, M240s and M4s) and several platforms that work. Here's some links on what's transpired. Textron Systems PDF for ARDEC. Kori Phillips interview (2014 when the argument was 6.5mm vs 6.8mm). The NDIA 2016 overview of Cased-Telescopic Ammunition-based Firearms.
If the Army scraps the weight reduction (high-end option) for the PCP Tactical alternative (low-end option, poly-case round design), then they will be able to modify existing stocks of weaponry. The goal there will be to put a 6.8mm round in a casing that can be used in current M4 while only having to switch uppers. Logistically speaking, this is the best option. However, the Army has pounded the weight drum so long and hard, we could possibly see the program canned due to political disagreements. Like all of the rest of the small arms replacement programs since the 1980s. Someone mentioned sticking 6.8mm rounds in a specific modified casing, but I forget what parent cartridge was mentioned at this time. It had nothing to do with 6.8mm Remington SPC II (as 6.8 SPC, in all of it's forms, is dead to the Army because the USMC and USSOCOM weren't impressed in 2007 with the ballistics and SPC II will never get a shot), though. Textron may have some kind of development for an upper and CT or caseless ammo, but that remains to be seen due to the sensitive nature of the NGSW Program.
Going full Chairborne, I believe they should go with Option A (entirely new platform and ammunition types), due to how well the ammunition technology progressed since 2004 (LSAT has roots back to OICW Increment 3 - LGMA Program), with the added focus on marksmanship training. But, that's a lot of money that won't be allocated to the Armed Forces.
So, I foresee Option B being chosen and eventually being shit-canned. Why? Politics. The only benefit of the loss? The Army gets to see a faster evolution of small arms technologies for an advancement coming a decade down the road and they get current working options to field test with USSOCOM. There's a lot of covert potential in modifying the LSAT caseless ammo firearms with the rounds you need for field ops.
As for the most solid of confirmations on 6.8mm rounds being sought: look no further than the NGSW PON and the PDF therein. The ammo is classified as "6.8mm General Purpose, XM1186" within. Information specific to the rounds, which I assume Lake City is providing, has been redacted. Obviously.
rudukai13
Pro Internet User
Interesting development here, Sig has released more details on their entrants for both the Machine Gun and Carbine as well as their take on the ammunition. Looks like they’ve decided to put the projectile into a three-piece hybrid 7.62 case, resulting in what they’re calling 6.8x51mm;
The 6.8x51 reportedly gets 3,000+FPS out of the MG’s 16” barrel, and is pushing 2,800+FPS from the Carbine’s 13” barrel. The article compares performance of the 6.8x51 cartridge to .270WSM.
Of note; “The Machine Gun weighs in at 11.97 lbs, while the Carbine is 8.1 lbs with no Optic or Suppressor.”
More on the rifles here, but the ammo specs were the more interesting part to me - http://soldiersystems.net/2019/05/23/sofic-19-sig-sauer-exhibits-next-gen-squad-weapons/
The 6.8x51 reportedly gets 3,000+FPS out of the MG’s 16” barrel, and is pushing 2,800+FPS from the Carbine’s 13” barrel. The article compares performance of the 6.8x51 cartridge to .270WSM.
Of note; “The Machine Gun weighs in at 11.97 lbs, while the Carbine is 8.1 lbs with no Optic or Suppressor.”
More on the rifles here, but the ammo specs were the more interesting part to me - http://soldiersystems.net/2019/05/23/sofic-19-sig-sauer-exhibits-next-gen-squad-weapons/
pointblank4445
Established
What is their fascination with a 6.8mm caliber? Why avoid the 6.5mm or 7mm diameter?
@pointblank4445
There are some prior studies by the Joint Service Wound Ballistics–Integrated Product Team in 2006 looking at 6.5, 6.8, and 7mm projectiles. To horribly oversimplify some of the findings: 6.5 tended towards better long range accuracy, 7mm tended towards better terminal ballistics and 6.8 was in-between on both. The military picked the 6.8 as fitting what they wanted the best.
I’ve attached one of the papers talking bout this choice.
There are some prior studies by the Joint Service Wound Ballistics–Integrated Product Team in 2006 looking at 6.5, 6.8, and 7mm projectiles. To horribly oversimplify some of the findings: 6.5 tended towards better long range accuracy, 7mm tended towards better terminal ballistics and 6.8 was in-between on both. The military picked the 6.8 as fitting what they wanted the best.
I’ve attached one of the papers talking bout this choice.
pointblank4445
Established
My best guess was that 6.5mm was too narrow of a cross section and would not play as well with the array of desired array of purpose-built projectiles and the gov wouldn't be as worried about BC as the rest of the 6.5mm consuming world.
And my assumption was that 7mm would probably be too close to 7.62 to justify the slight reduction in bullet weight or justified benefits in the same weight (but higher BC etc) for the logistics.
When one thinks of accuracy/high BC bullets, most tend to skip 270/6.8mm entirely
rudukai13
Pro Internet User
What’s most interesting about this to me is that it appears basically that the Army has developed a 6.8mm projectile and a list of performance characteristics they want, but told potential manufacturers it’s up to them to solve the problem on what the overall cartridge and platform should look like to accomplish that goal. Meaning Sig thought the best way to go about it was to neck down a 7.62x51 case and make it out of hybrid materials to save weight. We know Textron is in the mix, and their solution will almost certainly involve a case-telescoped cartridge - The advantage of which should be lighter rifles due to a shorter action length.
I wonder how much performance difference is inherent between a traditional cartridge style and a CT cartridge, given the same projectile? Will Textron see similar performance figures from their CT 6.8 cartridge as Sig is seeing from their more traditional 6.8x51 solution? And if so, wouldn’t it be a no-brainer to go with the CT design, since it should innately result in a lighter overall package?
We shall see
I wonder how much performance difference is inherent between a traditional cartridge style and a CT cartridge, given the same projectile? Will Textron see similar performance figures from their CT 6.8 cartridge as Sig is seeing from their more traditional 6.8x51 solution? And if so, wouldn’t it be a no-brainer to go with the CT design, since it should innately result in a lighter overall package?
We shall see
rudukai13
Pro Internet User
Relevant to this discussion (at least tangentially) we now have details on both Sig’s and Textron’s final entrants to the NGSW program, two of the three companies that have been down-selected for continued testing (the third being General Dynamics-OTS);
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/sig-sauer-army-ngsw-machine-gun-rifle-contract/
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/09/12/first-photo-of-textrons-ngsw-prototypes/
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/sig-sauer-army-ngsw-machine-gun-rifle-contract/
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/09/12/first-photo-of-textrons-ngsw-prototypes/