Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   Ammo and Reloading (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=89)
-   -   6.8 new NATO Round. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=123140)

PGKFFL 09-27-2008 12:07 PM

6.8 new NATO Round.
 
I am hearing that 6.8 will be the new round NATO Forces will be going to. I understand the US Army has started to convert. Anyone hear anything on this. Im building one and am really down on the ammo prices out there.:mad:

xxG3xx 09-27-2008 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PGKFFL (Post 1565126)
I am hearing that 6.8 will be the new round NATO Forces will be going to. I understand the US Army has started to convert. Anyone hear anything on this. Im building one and am really down on the ammo prices out there.:mad:

just means that 556 will be coming back on the market....and when it does im gonna stock up

haodoken 09-27-2008 12:18 PM

Yes! 5.56 will go down in price!:eek: hopefully! I can then stock up. Yeah baby!

hybridatsun350 09-27-2008 12:25 PM

Where are you getting your information? Sources?

I don't see NATO adopting 6.8 SPC anytime soon, but I could be wrong.

PGKFFL 09-27-2008 12:46 PM

I am hearing it form both military and non that the change over is happening but slowly because of the surplus .223 and contracts with companies. Once those run out from what they tell me will be the big push for the 6.8. However I am just wondering about the 6.8 going down in price. Right now the round is so new I cant get it for reasonably cheap. $.80 to $1.10 per round depending on the seller.

ar15barrels 09-27-2008 1:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PGKFFL (Post 1565126)
I am hearing that 6.8 will be the new round NATO Forces will be going to.
I understand the US Army has started to convert.

Totally wrong.
A few special forces teams are using a little bit of it, on an individual unit basis, nothing more.

And I happen to OWN www.68spc.com, not that we put many updates up anymore as everyone knows about the cartridge now.

PGKFFL 09-27-2008 1:06 PM

Ok thanks.

510dat 09-27-2008 2:33 PM

If you can reload that would help quite a bit, once you got some brass stocked up.

As far as I can tell, it's a superior round to .223/5.56 anyway, so it would be good for all of us.

brando 09-27-2008 4:34 PM

It's going nowhere in .mil land. Don't believe the BS. It is a good round and components are widely available compared to five years ago, however there is no conversion or adoption going on in the military. Even in the SOF community where it was developed (5th Group to be specific) it didn't get beyond some trials and field tests. I haven't heard anything specific from the Tier One community, but even if they were using it they constitute such a tiny group of shooters compared to the rest of the SOF community, let alone the Army as a whole.

Splinter 09-28-2008 12:41 AM

.243 is an amazing round as well. Why dont they just use that?

technique 09-28-2008 12:49 AM

I don't see NATO adopting 6.8 anytime soon if at all. There are constant rumors.
But thats all they are....Rumors!


Also, a lot of people find the .243 "picky". Thats in reference to Bolt action precision shooting. I almost went that route.

Secondly, .243 IIRC requires the larger .308 receiver when going the AR platform. The military is cheap. Thats too much to replace and the ammo is more $$$$$ too.

My 2 cents.

StraightShooter 09-28-2008 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by technique (Post 1566810)

Secondly, .243 IIRC requires the larger .308 receiver when going the AR platform. The military is cheap. Thats too much to replace and the ammo is more $$$$$ too.

My 2 cents.

Correct, .243 uses the .308 boltface. I cant remember the exact boltface size off the top of my head though. Also, .243 would be superior ballistically to .308 in a sniper rifle however in an ar platform it would be highly impractical. .243 AR'S are typically varmint guns with long heavy barrels needed to get sufficient velocity to stabilize the heaver bullets. Without the heavier bullets the .243 looses its edge over the .308. Not to mention the .243 burns barrels 4 times faster than a .308.

ST5MF 09-28-2008 3:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PGKFFL (Post 1565126)
I am hearing that 6.8 will be the new round NATO Forces will be going to. I understand the US Army has started to convert. Anyone hear anything on this. Im building one and am really down on the ammo prices out there.:mad:

Uh, no. 5.56 isn't going anywhere any time soon.

GM4spd 09-28-2008 7:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST5MF (Post 1566972)
Uh, no. 5.56 isn't going anywhere any time soon.


That's absolutely correct. Pete

Linus 09-28-2008 4:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PGKFFL (Post 1565126)
I am hearing that 6.8 will be the new round NATO Forces will be going to. I understand the US Army has started to convert. Anyone hear anything on this. Im building one and am really down on the ammo prices out there.:mad:

:TFH:
I heard they were going to convert to Rimfire two days before the day after tomorrow due to the high cost of ammo.:rolleyes:

Crusader 09-28-2008 6:36 PM

Yeah, the idea of 6.8 being adopted has been kicked around for a while, but I doubt it will happen. It'd be great though... imagine 5.56 surplus sold as cheap as 5.45x39 or 7.62 Tokarev. I'd cry tears of joy. And blow several successive paychecks on my new stockpile.

rayra 09-28-2008 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PGKFFL (Post 1565126)
I am hearing that 6.8 will be the new round NATO Forces will be going to. I understand the US Army has started to convert.

What nonsense.

rayra 09-28-2008 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PGKFFL (Post 1565197)
I am hearing it form both military and non that the change over is happening but slowly because of the surplus .223 and contracts with companies. Once those run out from what they tell me will be the big push for the 6.8. However I am just wondering about the 6.8 going down in price. Right now the round is so new I cant get it for reasonably cheap. $.80 to $1.10 per round depending on the seller.

The persons telling you this wouldn't happen to be involved in selling you a 6.8, now would they?

HUGELY nonsense. A change like this is the work of DECADES. Even longer, considering how thoroughly entrenched the 5.56 and the platforms that shoot it are, how thoroughly NATO is saturated with it. 6.8? Laughable.

muntz 09-29-2008 9:27 AM

FWIW

http://www.military.com/news/article...placement.html

Quote:

September 17, 2008
Military.com|by Christian Lowe
In a move that could reverse years of Army small arms policy, the service is asking industry to send in ideas for a new combat rifle that could replace the M4 carbine.

In late August, the Army issued a solicitation to the arms industry asking companies to submit proposals that would demonstrate "improvements in individual weapon performance in the areas of accuracy and dispersion ... reliability and durability in all environments, modularity and terminal performance."

And in a dramatic gesture that could throw the door wide open to a totally new carbine, the service did not constrain ideas to the current 5.56mm round used in the M4.

"We're at the point now where we're going to go out and compete," said Richard Audette, project manager for Soldier weapons at the Army's Picatinny Arsenal.

"We're looking for anyone that has a world-class carbine," Audette told Military.com in a Sept 15 interview. "We're interested in any new technologies out there."

Audette couldn't remember an Army weapons program that opened up the competition to ideas so diverse; he cited the M240 request in the 1990s and M9 solicitation in the 1980s as examples of broad requests, but they stuck with specific caliber ammunition.

The Army's abrupt change in direction -- after long stating it would stick with the M4 until there was a "leap" in technology that would far surpass current carbine performance -- comes after nearly two years of pressure on the service to re-examine the M4 and entertain a nearer-term replacement.

Some in Congress have called for the Army to hold a "shoot-off" with several other carbine designs alongside the Colt-built M4 to demonstrate the state of the art in today's military arms market. Sen. Tom Coburn (R - Okla.) briefly held up the nomination of Army Secretary Pete Geren in mid-2007 to force the service into side-by-side comparisons of M4 competitors in extreme dust conditions.

Many argue the M4 is more susceptible to fouling due to its gas-operated design, and say other systems are less maintenance intensive.

The move to broaden the competition is also calendar-driven: the so-called "technical data package" of the M4 -- essentially the blueprints for the design -- are up for release in June of next year. That means the Army can rebid the M4 to any company that can make it, potentially driving down costs and boosting production capacity.

And as if that wasn't enough, the Army is also in the midst of re-writing its carbine requirements document, which will spell out specifically what the service needs for its primary weapon. Audette said the ideas sent in as a result of his solicitation will help inform officials at Training and Doctrine Command as they update the Army's carbine plan.

"If there's some new technology out there, they want to be able to write a requirement that will not limit the Army to something they could possibly have," Audette said.

The Army is leaving itself open to carbine ideas that could stray from the nearly 40-year policy of using 5.56mm ammunition for its rifles. Recent developments in ammunition calibers have bolstered critics who contend the 5.56 round has too little "stopping power" and passes through its target without incapacitating him.

Army officials have repeatedly stated that knockdown has as much to do with marksmanship as ballistics, arguing that if you shoot more accurately, you'll drop your target on the first shot.

But several "boutique" rounds have been making inroads with weapons developers both in and outside the government. The 6.8mm and 6.5mm round are increasingly popular, as is the old-school 7.62mm round -- which Special Operations Command plans to incorporate into its new carbine program.

"We want to know about everything that's out there, regardless of caliber," Audette said. "If you've got a 6.8, we're interested in that and seeing what that brings to the table."

The solicitation also asks for ideas on a "subcompact" weapon that Audette says should basically be a smaller version of the carbine; this one would be more suitable for vehicle crewmen and aviators, who have to maneuver the weapon in confined spaces but don't need the same range capability that a foot Soldier would.

The Army wants to know about production quantity, asking industry in the late-August solicitation to submit information on "minimum and maximum monthly production rates" for their carbine and subcompact guns. Currently, Colt can churn out as many as 10,000 M4s per month.

"We don't want to spend 20 years producing 1,000 carbines per month," Audette said. "If we choose a new carbine we want to have a production capacity in place so that we can ramp up and get a lot of these out the door."

Industry sources say the Army solicitation isn't just smoke and mirrors to satisfy critics of the M4. They say a competition will likely occur next summer between different weapons and the best gun will win.

If that does happen, Soldiers -- and potentially their counterparts in the other services -- won't likely see their new carbines until 2012, after all the testing and evaluation is done. The Army currently has a requirement for 450,000 M4s, though that number could climb if the service decides to replace all M-16s with the smaller M4, Audette said.


Copyright 2008 Military.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

ar15barrels 09-29-2008 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muntz (Post 1569852)

It's worth very little.
While the "idea" people are certainly interested in it, the Logistics people, and therefore the leadership, ARE NOT. ;)

muntz 09-29-2008 4:27 PM

Quote:

It's worth very little.
While the "idea" people are certainly interested in it, the Logistics people, and therefore the leadership, ARE NOT.
Just to play devil's advocate...your connection to the Pentagon is what by chance?

ar15barrels 09-29-2008 4:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muntz (Post 1570975)
Just to play devil's advocate...your connection to the Pentagon is what by chance?

Dr. Gary K. Roberts.

brando 09-29-2008 4:48 PM

Zing!

ar15barrels 09-29-2008 4:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brando (Post 1571047)
Zing!

Sometimes it's good to be the king... :)

muntz 09-29-2008 4:57 PM

Quote:

What difference does that make? You don't have to have a "connection" to learn what's going on with the 6.8.
Every other person on the web is claiming one thing or another. I like to see claims backed up with some real material if you've got it. When someone tells me that they know what's going on in military logistics I just want to know how they can make that claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muntz
Just to play devil's advocate...your connection to the Pentagon is what by chance?

Dr. Gary K. Roberts.
After a google search I can't find any comments from Dr. Roberts on the subject. I've heard as much gossip over the years as any body else, could you go in to more detail?

ar15barrels 09-29-2008 4:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muntz (Post 1571070)
After a google search I can't find any comments from Dr. Roberts on the subject. I've heard as much gossip over the years as any body else, could you go in to more detail?

No.

muntz 09-29-2008 5:04 PM

Quote:

No.
Then I will cry BS. I can go online and look up big names, too. Pete Garen told me that we're issuing sharks with frikin laser beams starting next month.

Army GI 09-29-2008 5:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muntz (Post 1571070)
Every Tom, Dick, and Harry is claiming one thing or another. I like to see claims backed up with some real material if you've got it. When someone tells me that they know what's going on in military logistics I just want to know how they can make that claim.

Please.

I wouldn't call prior service members "Tom, Dick, and Harry". Especially if one of them is former special forces. Furthermore, there is nothing secret about how military logistics works. For that matter, there's no secret to how civilian logistics works, either and there isn't much difference between the two. The Army is like a big business. Ever wonder why the M1 Garand was chambered for the 30-06 instead of the .276 Pederson like it was supposed to? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out it would be a monumentally daunting task to replace millions of 5.56mm calibered weapons and hundreds of millions of 5.56mm ammunition in the middle of a war, just for a slightly bigger bullet, all based on the whole debatable premise that 5.56 is inadequate. You don't see too many people walking around who took a 5.56 to the chest or the head.

chris 09-29-2008 5:09 PM

the chances of this kind of change is nill. the regular forces are not going to change even though this round is better. there is too much money to be had in contracts.

i think it is time for an ammo change. the change over would not cost that much. i read this years ago in SOF at the time it was a little over a 1,000 bucks per M16 and i think the 6.8 is less than a 30 rd. mag. i may be wrong on this.

ar15barrels 09-29-2008 5:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muntz (Post 1571089)
Then I will cry BS. I can go online and look up big names, too.

That's all fine until you find out that Dr Robert's number is on my phone as is my number on his phone.
It's not name dropping when it's real. ;)

Did you read his report?
It was limited distribution.
And no, you won't find it published online.

muntz 09-29-2008 5:33 PM

Everyone seems to have it all figured out I guess. Opinions are like what?...I forget sometimes.

If you've got real information then post it, otherwise you don't know anything more than the next guy.

Quote:

I wouldn't call prior service members "Tom, Dick, and Harry". Especially if one of them is former special forces.
It's not meant as an insult, being prior service I've got nothing but love for people who served. Since it bothered you, I'll go in and edit it.

Paratus et Vigilans 09-29-2008 5:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Army GI (Post 1571106)
You don't see too many people walking around who took a 5.56 to the chest or the head.

What about . . . . ZOMBIES???? :eek: :D

bwiese 09-29-2008 5:43 PM

ar15barrels is a real deep 6.8 dude and knows DocGKR. Some of the folks DocGKR is working with are likely runnning some of Randall's barrels :)

You have experienced total & complete Randall ownage.

The fact that 6.8 won't be a new .mil cartridge, however, doesn't take that deep of a background: just ask, "Where's da money?" Imagine how a huge organization handles procurement - training, issuance, spares, certification, etc. Imagine how that same organization handles rapid change without extra large sums of money. Now there's your answer.

brando 09-29-2008 5:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muntz (Post 1571089)
Then I will cry BS. I can go online and look up big names, too. Pete Garen told me that we're issuing sharks with frikin laser beams starting next month.

I'll vouch for Doc Roberts. He does terminal ballistics testing, is a smart and learned mofo, and is probably the subject matter expert for the west coast.

muntz 09-29-2008 5:48 PM

That's all fine. But because random anonymity of the internet an internet reputation means nothing to me without something to back it up. I really don't care if or what the military changes to. I just want to see our men and women have the tools they need. I'm not arguing that there's a possibility that the military will make any change. I'm arguing about opinionated responses with lack of back up material.

Army GI 09-29-2008 5:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muntz (Post 1571220)
Everyone seems to have it all figured out I guess. Opinions are like what?...I forget sometimes.

If you've got real information then post it, otherwise you don't know anything more than the next guy.



It's not meant as an insult, being prior service I've got nothing but love for people who served. Since it bothered you, I'll go in and edit it.

Look, nobody got upset. I'm just saying you don't need some special declassified DA memo to figure this out. That's all.

muntz 09-29-2008 5:57 PM

Quote:

Look, nobody got upset. I'm just saying you don't need some special declassified DA memo to figure this out. That's all.
I know that facts sometimes get in the way of things. But until someone posts some facts we're all just going on opinions.

brando 09-29-2008 7:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muntz (Post 1571268)
That's all fine. But because random anonymity of the internet an internet reputation means nothing to me without something to back it up.

No offense intended, but this was the problem with the initial post. Unsubstantiated rumors fly across the range as often as lead.

rayra 09-29-2008 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muntz (Post 1571297)
I know that facts sometimes get in the way of things. But until someone posts some facts we're all just going on opinions.

You (and folks like the OP suckered in by the 6.8 sales pitch) plainly don't understand the difference between possibility and probability. And one doesn't have to be a current industry or pentagon insider to have a reasonable grasp on the procurement process, the history or the scope of the overall issue re NATO ammo standardization and procurement and warehoused supplies, and thus KNOW that the prospects of a widescale adoption of 6.8 by the militaries that comprise NATO forces are vanishingly small.
5.56 worked just fine until the bulk of our forces went to short barrels, as our focus shifted to primarily urban combats. Then we fiddled with heavier bullets to offset to resulting weakened performance at longer ranges.
And the only repeated significant failure have been with longer-range engagements. The oft-repeated saw about shooting Taliban in the Afghan hills and seeing them get back up.

As to the rest of the reported poor performance - against hopped up opponents, same as it ever was. Same as it was in the Phillipines with the Army under Pershing, when the cry went out for a pistol round with more stopping power, as stoned Moro muslims soaked up .38 hits and kept on coming.
And the overall result of this 6.8 fad is going to be the same experienced when John Garand build his awesome rifle in .276 Petersen and the Ordnance board looked at their stocks of material, equipments, entrenched bias etc and told him to come back with a version using .30-06.

6.8 is a dead end. You want a harder hitting compact rifle in an AR type, you're far better off in terms of ammo availability and affordability if you go with a .308 / AR-10.

rayra 09-29-2008 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ar15barrels (Post 1570029)
It's worth very little.
While the "idea" people are certainly interested in it, the Logistics people, and therefore the leadership, ARE NOT. ;)


Exactly. They have to invite everything, even when there's no intention of adopting it. It's how the procurement process always works.

/I just see this whole 6.8 nonsense going the same exact way as that tripe about Dragonskin. 'the very best for our troops' is a fig leaf for all sorts of things, mostly involving businessmen's wallets.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.