I've had a few conversations with Randall and you can pretty much take his info as fact. He really is the man with anything running in an AR platform plus more.

Here is a website you can use to look for government contracts. I now own a 6.8SPC upper that has a receiver made by them. I bought a 6.8SPC since I wanted something "different" then all of my friends. As you can see the government buys a lot of their stuff

http://www.governmentcontractswon.co...3362.asp?yr=03

You're missing my point.

I asked Randall to back up his claim. I'm not arguing in favor of which round is superior. I'm not arguing about the shortfalls of the current platform. I really don't see what an expert in terminal ballistics has to do with military procurement.

As some back ground information, I was supply in the Marines. I don't like to get in to my personal life on the internet very much at all. But I procured the beans, bandages, and bullets and managed battalion assets. Does that make me an expert? No, and I can admit it, but I do understand how military logistics work so please stop telling me that I don't.

I've also read many a post on many sites and discussion forums where everybody seems to have it all figured out. Every other person on the web can tell you exactly how things are going to turn out. Where do they get this info? Common sense? We are talking about the government...there is no common sense.

I currently work in a the UC system for a very prestigious lab. When we make a claim we have to prove it. I didn't make a single claim in this entire thread, all I did was post an article FWIW. I asked him to back up his very bold claim. He refused to do so, therefore I challenge what he said. In my line of work his claim amounts to an unsubstantiated opinion until otherwise proven.

If you still can't understand what I'm trying to express here, then I might as well stop kicking this dead horse and wish you all a good day.

As a physics major, I can tell right away that you want a textbook answer following the scientific method.

But why? This is something that can be substantiated with common knowledge. Furthermore, you even said so yourself that you have experience in the field so you can make your own conclusions about the 6.8. So having established you are perfectly capable of understanding the probability of the 6.8 being procured on your own, it now seems that all you care about is goading Randall into answering the question you want in a specific way based on principle.

off topic: I'm transferring to UC Berkeley soon. Are you working there by any chance? Maybe I'll see you there.

In this forum, Randall isn't like "every other person on the web." His reputation for knowing whereof he speaks precedes him. If Randall knows something to be true, he will say so. Most folks on this forum will take him at his word because of his reputaton. You are free not to do so, but also realize that this forum is not a UC lab, and no one has to prove anything they post here. "Proof" of anything, anywhere, anytime, is ellusive. Relax. :)

Then I suppose the issue is settled. Thank you all for enlightening me to forum politics.

Wow. You clearly still have your panties in a wad over this.

Recap:

OP: I hear NATO is going to 6.8 SPC

You: Post .mil article with interview of .mil person who says .mil is looking at all options for a new carbine including 6.8 SPC

Randall: No way .mil is going to go to 6.8 SPC

You: Source?

Randall: Dr. X with whom I am friends and who authored non-public report on the subject for .mil

You: Prove it.

Randall: No.

You: I work in UC lab and we have to prove everything we say.

Me: This forum is not a UC lab and Randall has a long standing rep here for being in the know, so relax with the "prove it or its BS" posts.

You: Offense taken, snide post follows.


This really isn't about forum "politics." It's about what this forum is and is not. No offense was intended in my earlier post, nor by this one, so please take a deep breath and don't let this thread darken your day. Relax~ :)

Dang, dude. Let it drop, that's what I'm trying to do. If you want the last word then just type "last word" and let's me done with it. No one needs an abbreviated recap with missing context and slanted intent. I'm sorry that at this point anything I say will be taken as sarcasm and "snide". Please accept my apology and let's be done with it. We've all got better BRD topics to discuss anyway.

...
 

2 facts....

#1 I am waiting on a 6.8 upper from White Oak Armament as we speak... I did not get sold by the hype but by the people who really believe in the cartridge and are doing everything they can to get the proper specs and info on the market.....becuase.... I deserve superiority

#2 some 6.8 ammo is on sale for 14.99 thru december at silver state armory which is about how much I would pay for 5.56/.223/7.62x39 in the stores...
here... thats .75 cents a round = less than a box of .45 acp

...
 

and the 6.8 is not going to meet a "dead end"

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

Doc Roberts views

I believe that the 6.8 round is a better round but knowing the military it's not going to be changed anytime soon. It must be some guy behind a gun store counter that told you that. If you know anything about the military it will take forever to make any changes, and yes with or without the round we can still kick any terrorist behinds.

Imagine the cost of rearming the entire US Military with a new round like the 6.8......no way it will happen- not in this economy.

Very true. Not to mention getting the other NATO countries to go along with it.

"Amateurs talk about strategy, dilettantes talk about tactics, and professionals talk about logistics." -- Omar Bradley (apocryphal)

NATO has already determined that 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 are the rounds of choice. There are very large amounts of money and processes involved in producing these rounds and delivering them to troops.

After Iraq and Afghanistan have settled back and there are no new projected conflicts on the horizon, you may see a serious push for a more effective caliber (or alternatively framed: a single cartridge for use from medium machine gun down to carbine), and 6.8mm may just hold the day in that contest. But there is no way on this green earth that anyone is going to mess with 7.62x51 or 5.56x45 while two campaigns are active.

Getting back to the basic question though ... from an individual perspective ... setting aside for a second the cost of ammo.... is the 6.8 the better, smarter, system? ....No tazing bros just want to be educated as to the better "delivery system." I realize that the 5.56 will always hold a place in the hearts of "sick" men like me (black rifle disease) but would the 6.8 complete the picture of total defense.

It throws a bullet that's about twice the weight of typical 5.56 at a slightly lower velocity, but from the same AR-15 package.
So, it hits with a LOT more energy and makes a slightly larger entry hole.
It's a short to mid-range cartridge.
There are no real good options if you want to shoot much past 400yds.
Due to the nature of the squatty bullets, they don't have very good BC's compared to the long target VLD's that are used in the heavier bullet 223 loads.

You forgot to mention that all the cool kids have one.... :)

That's one of the reasons why we're seeing so much interest in 6.5 and 6.8 cal rifles now. Most military stuff is short to mid-range. I know a guy in 82nd who complained about how "when you put three rounds in someone's chest across the room, they should stay dead, damn it! It ain't right when they're getting back up." Let's face it, 5.56 isn't doing the job for close-up stuff anymore. Bigger might just be better, though I do feel that the bullet design we use now leaves much to be desired...

IMO, the solution is going to be something like this. Now's a bad time to go with a new caliber, since we're so close to having caseless or plastic telescoped cased ammunition. It's maybe a decade away. Unfortunately, someone's not talking in the development process and I'm only seeing them developing 5.56mm. What we need to do is develop 6.5 or 6.8mm, heck - I'd be happy with 6mm - in the new tech. Issuing one larger-caliber - or even 5.56 with VLD bullets - rifle for longer shots per squad (like the Russians do with the squad marksman and his SVD-S) takes care of the 400 meter issue nicely.

Frankly, I just want to see the hell a squad auto in 6.5+mm would unleash. :43:

6.8 is an upgrade in terminal performance in short to mid range - but it doesn't really do much better than 5.56 that you'd notice. (or want to give up the ability to share ammo with your buddies.)

As mentioned, 77GR OTM in 5.56 has great ballistics at longer ranges.

Sometimes 3 .308s to the chest won't do it. Sometimes multiple hits with .308, .30-06, and .50BMG won't do it. (read Carlos Hathcock's book.)

Human beings are tough, and firearms are not directed-energy weapons.

OK just so we are clear, any reference from me relative to putting down "humans" has to do only when SHTF and we become the initial first responders till the troops come marching in. To that end, can a 77g in 5.56 put one down in one shot? And what would be the maximum range and would barrel length and twist play into the accuracy factor even if you had a quality scope? Just asking sorry if this appears to look like a hi-jack ..its not intended to be so.

Some people die easier than others.

Go shoot deer for a while and you will observe it there too.