6.8mm newest military cartridge?
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=110181
Printed Date: 01 January 2026 at 9:41am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 6.8mm newest military cartridge?
Posted By: TheHoff
Subject: 6.8mm newest military cartridge?
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 9:15pm
|
What do you guys think of the possible next military cartridge[a 6.8mm] replacing the .223[5.56mm]? I like the idea of a bigger bullet but why can't we use a 7mm thats been around for years on a shorter case[7x40]? Seems kinda overcomplicated. ------------- blame it on the irish.... |
Replies:
Posted By: Semper Durus
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 9:29pm
|
I like 12 gauge shotguns... ------------- I don't have a sig anymore 
|
Posted By: boomstick
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 9:31pm
|
joe dirt isn't the funniest movie of all time, Caddyshack is. ------------- YONK~!~ |
Posted By: Solipsism
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 9:36pm
|
I havent heard of or seen the new cartridge. However, 6.8mm is the same size as .270 which is what my first rifle was chambered for and the .270 Winchester round utilizes the same case (althought witha smaller neck) as the 30-06 which is one of the reasons why I like it.
So I assume this new cartridge is the same with just a shorter case. I'll have to read up on it, sounds neat. -------------  http://solipsism.ath.cx - solipsism.ath.cx |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 9:36pm
|
It sounds like the 6.8mm round should have very good balistics. It's a .277" diameter bullet, same as the .270 Winchester. It's supposed to function using bolt faces for 7.62X39mm AR-15 clones which are already being produced, and use slightly modified AR-15 mags holding 25 rounds instead of 30, all slapped onto an AR-15 lower. It's not the only round being considered. Failings of it include the fact that you can't use it to feed light machineguns with the same links used for the M249. The 6.8mm cartridge isn't going to replace the 5.56mm in the near future, but supliment it as a designated marksman's round or for special ops forces who'd like to have it. The average soldier will still be toteing an M-16.
EDIT: It's based off of the .30 remington case, which was a rimless .30-30 for autoloaders. The neat thing about it is how this project has gone from the bottom up. It's what the guys on the ground want, not what the brass wants them to have. Getting the cartridge designed only cost the military a few grand. Remington's taking a big gamble with this. |
Posted By: -The Unknown-
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 9:38pm
------------- |
Semper Durus wrote:Posted By: cadet_sergeant
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 9:40pm
| i subscribe to a lot of gun magazines and havent heard of this at all. i'll search for it on google. |
Posted By: meteora
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 9:42pm
|
trust me joe dirt is ------------- http://imageshack.us"> 
GUN WHORE XTC |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 9:42pm
| Funny that the Chinese have had a similar cartidge for a few years... |
Posted By: TheHoff
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 10:05pm
|
similar but not as good. A .270 sure would seem to be an ideal "midpowered" caliber. I have always been told that a 7mm bullet could not dispose of enough mass to contain various core requirements such as tracer rounds and armor piercing. but that is where a shorten case like a 7mmx40 might be a good place to start and keep the bore we have so much knowledge on. I guess im just skeptical that the .270 isn't as popular [at least where I live] as the the 7mm w/ hunters but that isn't mlitary. But an arab isnt as big as a moose and prolly an easier target. So much hype about those dang WSSM cartridges that arn't really an advantage will throw me off new calibers for a while. but being made for soldiers by soldiers will outweigh any point i can make. its their lives on the line not mine and they are trained for war, not prarie dog hunting. ------------- blame it on the irish.... |
Posted By: 98c - baller
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 10:11pm
|
see y would u need a bigger bullet a small one still dose the job, and if u wana bigger bullet look at 50 cal. machine gun, or a sniper rifle ------------- |
Posted By: TheHoff
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 10:16pm
|
a bigger bullet is more likely to kill a man with one shot than a smaller one because of a larger mass entering the body at a high speed. kinda complicated but it works. ------------- blame it on the irish.... |
Posted By: Semper Durus
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 10:24pm
Joe Dirt has that everlasting funnyness about it. You remember lines from it for a long, long time. Like "See that peanut? Dead giveaway." LOL. Caddyshack was funny for the first one or two times. Joe Dirt > Caddyshack ------------- I don't have a sig anymore
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 10:32pm
|
Posted By: tvthemesamurai
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 10:34pm
|
Joe Dirt > Caddyshack but waynes world 1 or 2 is much > joe dirt ------------- MY gallery: http://goodpicsofmarker.mypicgallery.com - http://goodpicsofmarker.mypicgallery.com 
|
Posted By: Ruff Neck
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 10:36pm
|
they should make a clip that goes into pistols that shoot out like 3 foot bullets wouldn't that be hot? its like a surefire way to get a kill... ------------- Tippmann 98c -Flatline -2xTrigger -12v Revvy -RVA + RCS -Steel Bolts -Trigger Stop |
Posted By: Semper Durus
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 10:38pm
Wayne's World barely breaks my top ten in funny movies... ------------- I don't have a sig anymore
|
Posted By: kwkmrorange
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 10:59pm
|
Hmm, i've always had this question and even my friend in the reserves coulndt answer it for me but what does the 5.56mm refer too? I know it is something to do with the size, but is it the length or the width or circumfrance at the widest point or what? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Solipsism
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 11:02pm
Its the cross sectional width of the bullet or diameter if you will. ------------- http://solipsism.ath.cx - solipsism.ath.cx |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 11:12pm
rednekk you is the man
|
Posted By: :ShockeR_ratm:
Date Posted: 10 August 2004 at 11:15pm
Stop spamming his thread with a useless argument about a freakin' movie...and for the record, joe dirt sucked arse ------------- 
Nobody ever suspects the fun police! 
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 11 August 2004 at 12:57pm
|
The new XM-8 system now in developement uses the 5.56X45NATO, a low powered 20mm explosive secondary system, with add ons of a 40mm Grenade launcher, or a 12ga shotgun.
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0%2C13190%2CGear_051104_X M8%2C00.html The 5.56X45 is a dependable cartridge and does what it needs to do ------------- 
|
Posted By: SandMan
Date Posted: 11 August 2004 at 1:20pm
|
XM-8 = OICW prototype?
If so, I heard they scrapped the OICW after field trials in Iraq. Just grapevine rumors really, but that's what I heard. ------------- Real Men Love Cheeses |
Posted By: TheHoff
Date Posted: 11 August 2004 at 1:34pm
|
5.56mm shoots flat and is accurate but I keep hearing where soldiers have moderate success killing people. Is moderate really enough when you are putting your life on the line? Nothing is flawless and we still have better weapons than anyone else. Just as long as nobody comes up with the idea WE should use AK-47s, that would be the dumbest thing ever. Effective, yes but we can do much better. The Jap's battle rifle was no where as good as the mauser or enfield but it worked. Its just I'd rather be the guy holding the .303 British. BRING BACK THE .30-06!!! Its kinda like the 9mm sidearm debate in that both sides have valid points, better penetration but a lack of stopping power in that case. At least this cartridge is being built bottom up instead of some politician deciding what needs to be done next. Hopefully someday we will find the perfect load with a heavy bullet that shoots flat and can handle a variety of special purpose needs like tracer and armor piercing. ------------- blame it on the irish.... |
Posted By: Solipsism
Date Posted: 11 August 2004 at 2:15pm
a 55g bullet is hardly dependable at least the 6.8mm the military plans to use is 115g, which is still too light in my opinion but at least its a step in the right direction. The only reason why small calibers are used is too keep costs down and be more humane, well you dont win wars by being humane and keeping costs down. ------------- http://solipsism.ath.cx - solipsism.ath.cx |
Posted By: oreomann33
Date Posted: 11 August 2004 at 2:16pm
|
rocket launchers are pretty cool ------------- 
|
Posted By: triggerhappy1
Date Posted: 11 August 2004 at 2:35pm
|
The reason we use the .223 round is its a small bullet with a large shell which means a very high velocity, which means more accuracy, range, and power. it also has very little recoil meaning less muzzle climb and more pricise shots. with a larger bullet you have less control of the gun. for example the ak-47, if you shoot full auto at a target 20 yards away youll find holes 3 to 4 feet apart. the .223 round is similar to the .17 hmr. a bullet very small with a big casing can get over 2,500 fps. a slightly larger bullet .22 magnum has less power and range. makeing a larger .223 bullet would mean the same thing. ------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 11 August 2004 at 2:42pm
huh, I dont remember a single line from Joe Dirt. Vastly over-rated. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 11 August 2004 at 6:08pm
|
Ok let us review, the switch from 7.62X51 as in the M-14 rifle, was done for one reason, studies showed that the average rifleman in combat expended 100's of rounds for a hit. The AR-15 rifle was designed to be light, accurate, and the average infantryman could carry twice the combat load for less weight. Yes the original 5.56X45 .55gr had little knockdown, BTDT, still I would rather have had my 1000rds of 5.56 carried by my boney little 19year old body than the weight of a M-14 and 240rds of 7.62.
The Brits fielded a 4.5mm cartridge to replace the FN-SLR 7.62mm and changed to the 5.56mm for greater hitting power in the current SA-80 rifle. The newer 62gr 5.56mm bullet is heavier and creates a larger "shock cavity" than the .55gr original, the 62gr at velocity, shock cavity is actually larger then the 180gr 7.62NATO. Lethality of the 5.56X45 62gr is one of the highest of the military rounds out there and at 3005fps in the newer rifles the penatration and shock cavity makes it look like you shoved a basketball through the chest of the average man. Even the Soviets designed the 5.45X39 (AK-74 series)and found that was more effective than their 7.62X39. Understand that underfire the 8 steady hold factors and all this steady aimed crap goes out the window BTDT, you keep firing downrange till the screaming stops. And the more bullets you have to do that with the better. -------------
|
Posted By: Trogdor2
Date Posted: 11 August 2004 at 6:09pm
|
It's probably gonna be bullets...
------------- Something unknown is doing we don't know what. That is what our knowledge amounts to. - Sir Arthur Eddington |
Posted By: paintballman_13
Date Posted: 11 August 2004 at 6:12pm
I agree. Grenade launchers look like fun. |
Posted By: rangers101
Date Posted: 11 August 2004 at 6:30pm
|
Ya and it's also a sure way to break your wrist and crack your face or nose. ------------- If you want peace prepare for war. |
Posted By: TheHoff
Date Posted: 11 August 2004 at 8:25pm
|
You can fire as many rounds/sec. as you want but if you can't kill a man with one shot it puts the soldiers in even more danger. Yes we have a 3rd burst but that is a good way to waste 2 perfectly good bullets when we could design a gun that only takes one[as in one hit, war isn't all snipers and I realize that. It took over 200k rounds to kill one vietcong]. Anyway a 115gr bullet isnt that big and should be as accurate if not more than the shooter can appreciate. Weight of ammo, that could be a legit. point. Why did the 62gr. hit harder than the 55gr? Because of the more mass in the bullet. Wouldn't it make sense that an even bigger bullet would deliver more shock to the enemy? Soviet weaponry is effective but hasn't been the best stuff to use so it brings no surprise to me that they could build a better bullet using an American engineered platform. I have to ask you this: what is a .223 generally used for? The answer is not very clear. Varmints? Small whitetails in Texas? Personal defense usually isn't what is said. I just think we could do better with our constantly progressing weapons program and I think the 6.8mm will be the future. Remember that this one is made for soldiers BY soldiers. ------------- blame it on the irish.... |
Posted By: TippmannA5User
Date Posted: 12 August 2004 at 10:33am
|
.50 BMG all the way!!! I think that the brass is doing a nice job handeling this. In 'Nam, they forced the M-16 on the troops and in the begining, it sucked because of corrosion and gunk building up. They eventually fixed that, but I'v never been a fan of the small 5.56mm cartrage, I'd stay with the good ol' M-14 and it's big 7.62mm cartrage if it was up to me. I'd just shorten and modify the gun to be a piece of art, like the Sig Sauer SG-542\/. It has the technology to be a good shot, and it has a big enough bullet to take the enemy down from far away and keep them down. ------------- Just shoot yourself and save me the trouble. click the pic! http://mypaintballpics.mypicgallery.com/mpg/Route.asp"> 
|
Posted By: SandMan
Date Posted: 12 August 2004 at 11:26am
We use to have two terms for that: Flesh Disruption Radius, which we liked partially because its initials were FDR, and Hydroshock. Basically, it's the overall effect of the bullet passing through a body. Since the body is mostly water, a bullet causes destructive ripples of shock similar in nature to the gentle ripples created when you drop a pebble in water. So even a small bullet can do far more damage than just the hole it creates. ------------- Real Men Love Cheeses |
Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 12 August 2004 at 12:44pm
|
Right, all i see here is a debate in which a bunch of little kids who have never been forced to carry 1000 rnds of ammo(not to mention all that delicious combat gear)on real long hikes.
I haven't been in combat like OS....and i haven't been in nearly as long....but i gotta say, i also have carried the full attack loadout of the 7.62(for the C6, also known as an M60 down there i believe) as well as the weapon itself....trust me,"uphessesme-down"ain't that fun with it....give me a good ol C7(belgian modifid M-1`6....what us canadians use) My point is...you add more wight to the ammo....you gonna have some real tired troops....and what'll it gain you? a few more kills per average? Need i remind you it is much more useful to wound or mim an enemy in a war than it is to kill....it' not only devastating on morale but it has a huge effect on their logistics....it takes 10 people to take care of 1 wounded! ------------- A second class drive is always better than a first class walk. |
Posted By: SandMan
Date Posted: 12 August 2004 at 12:50pm
|
It's the difference between war in theory and war in practice. Yeah, the crap gets heavy. I hadn't really thought of that as a deciding factor in ammo choice, but in that respect OS knows what he's talking about. ------------- Real Men Love Cheeses |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 16 August 2004 at 7:42pm
|
OS, the latest writings out of the former Eastern Block, and Chechnya specifically, have shown up close and personal the 7.62x39mm is better than the 5.45x39mm.
The exact opposite for the 5.56mm. Up close and personal is its forte. However it does lack the longer ranged hitting power of the 7.62x51mm. No one has ever argued this. The 5.56mm, even in its origional guise, might have done its job at 15m in the jungles of Vietnam, and it sure as hell does its job in the ranges police might need (what I use it for), but at the longer ranges they are forced to use it in in Afganistan and Iraq (again) they are finding it just lacks the "knockdown" required. At 500m it isn't going 3000fps any more. As for the 7mm, I dunnoe about them. While the bullet may or may not be however many years old, there is nothing stopping you making up a new one. There is nothing to be gained, especially if bullet head design gets brought up to the 21st Centuary. Blended metal heads, hollowpoints, ballistic expanders, more advanced propellants and the myrriad of other factors that could conceivably turn the bullet from something funtional into something devastating. As a police officer I don't have the luxury of carrying 1000 rounds, heck I onl ever get issued 60 rounds for my 5.56mm LM-6, when I get one, and 30 rounds of 9x19mm for my Z-88. I also don't have the luxury of firing hundreds of rounds to take down a single target. Fortunately I don't have thousands of rounds heading my way as compensation. I also don't have the luxury of being able to acomodate shoot through's that close range 7.62Nato's would give. I've never had to fire my weapon in the line of duty, and I pray I never will. Been shot at a couple of times, and involved in a gunfight before, but the shooter surendered before I got to shoot back, but I've managed to keep most of the shooting basics in play while I've had my weapons drawn. I, and the million other police on the planet, need a round that shoots like a laser, hits like the hammer of Thor, penetrates bodyarmour, stops inside the target, and has no recoil. If the 6.8mm can give this, I'd love one. The 5.56mm comes pretty close for police work though. Do I believe it will be majorly superior to the 5.56mm as a military application round? I have no idea. Do I believe it will justify the expense to switch and entire military, and maybe all of NATO over to a new round? I have no idea. Lets see what the future holds. KBK |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 16 August 2004 at 7:57pm
IIRC they scrapped the OICW/SABR project due to funding and performance problems. They then split the OICW into two projects, the future assault rifle project, the XM-8 and the future grenade launcher project, the XM-29. Thw XM-29 was conceived and delivered still born to more or less kill off the project, while the XM-8 was meant to salvage something from the G36 derived 5.56mm "kinetic energy" portion of the OICW. If I understood the garb corectly. KBK |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 16 August 2004 at 8:30pm
|
The wound potential of the 5.45X39 is the nasty part, the tailheavy round does a damn-damn to whatever or whoever it hits, would rather get hit with a 7.62X39 than a 5.45.
The 5.56X45 does not have the range or knockdown of the 7.62X51, but at under 250m the 5.56 does what is needed and tests prove that Joe Average rifleman under fire can not hit consistant out past 250m while underfire anyway. Have used both the M-14 and M16 in combat conditions, I do prefere the M-14's range and penatration, but the added weight is a bit of a pain, wherein I can carry 2-3 times the ammo load and hit consistant at 250m (visual aquisition range). Again remmember when there is incoming zipping past your head those 8 steady hold factors go to .......well BTDT and prefere to keep their heads down with a whole bunch o'bullets till the arty arrives anyway. Weight on the modern battlefield is the killer, today we carry almost 1.5times the weight I carried in Vietnam as a norm, and all the protective gear, and high speed low drag gizmos, just add that much more. So picture a basic load of 500 7.62 in mags and a basic load of 5.56 and ask what would you rather be humpin around. -------------
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 16 August 2004 at 8:50pm
| The question here isn't 5.56 VS. 7.62 NATO, it's 6.8 vs 5.56mm. The effective range of the 5.56mm is supposedly cut down to about 120 meters when fired from a 14.5" carbine barrel, so the new round makes up for this by packing more wallop. It's origional purpose was to give special ops troops a bit more punch from their carbines without reducing magazine capacity much. The added bonus is that it could deliver a bit more punch from the designated marksman version of the XM-8. I doubt it'll replace the 5.56mm unless it shines. And added bonus of the round is that the bullets are either hollow point match bullets designed for target shooting and therefore exempt from rules of war standards, or are hollow nosed over an enclosed jacket, doing what the 5.45mm does, but even better. |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 16 August 2004 at 9:26pm
|
I know this wasn't a 5.56vs7.62vs6.8, but it had been mentioned before.
The older 7.62 tips, in just about any caliber you can think of, they are liable to overpenetrate at close ranges. Ranges where the 5.56mm excells. If they want a medium-short ranged round, they may as well develop a new round than try convert one of the 7.62's as they will probably require new tips. So why not develop the 6.8mm? Most police shootings, my interest in this case, are at under 30m. The 5.56mm works excellently at these ranges. It more or less turns targets into mush. Even from short barreled weapons like the Vektor LM6, the M4 Commando, XM8, G36K and other super shorty 5.56's. If the 6.8 works better I'd like one of those. But I don't suffer from any of the drawbacks of the 5.56'er. I'm at short ranges, it can penetrate body armour, it is easy to controll, and it is not very likely to over penetrate. It is almost custom made for policework. I personally swear by it. Especially when my only other choices are a 9x19mm FMJ, or 00 12 guage. I hate shotguns. I want to know exactly where each round from my gun will hit, especially if I am liable for the rounds. Military personell who are, on todays battlefields, requiring longer ranged shots may need another round. The 7.62 have all the drawbacks mentioned previously, heavy weapons, cumbersome ammunition, and overpenetration at close range. Yet the US Military is reviving the M14 DMR's. So something with longer legs than the 5.56mm is needed. The 6.8 is meant to be half way between. Who knows. Thats what they pay experts for. And there isn't anything in any international treaty that says a bullet isn't allowed to have a hollow tip. They aren't allowed to have any exposed lead (which rules out most JHP's) and that they aren't allowed to cause unecesary damage to the person. (I can't remember the exact wording, its like 4:45am here after my nightshift). Which causes more damage, 5 penetrating hits that don't drop the target and get your men killed, or on hit that kills the target dead? KBK |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 16 August 2004 at 9:58pm
| Wow. Go to http://www.remington.com/ammo/ballistics/ballistics.htm - remington ballistics calculator and plug in 6.8 SPC, 62 grain .223, and .308 win rounds and look at the differences. The 6.8mm far surpasses the 5.56mm at range in bullet drop, velocity, and energy. Even at 100 yards the velocity is higher than the .223. The round supposedly performs better on bodt armor at range than the 7.62mm NATO also. Sounds like a good round. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 17 August 2004 at 1:13pm
|
First off we must understand something...no matter what rifle, no matter what cartridge used, 98% of the rounds expended are misses. Since the advent of the semi auto rifle, the skill of the rifleman has decreased. Disipline and aimed rifle fire were a trademark of the Infantry, then came the point, spray, hope method.
Wars are usually won by logistics, not body counts, he who supplies his troops longer with the most wins. SO to wound is actually more advantageous than to kill an enemy in warfare, for it accomplished three objectives. One ties up a portion of the logistics chain in the care for the wounded, takes 3+ men and whatever transportation to evac the casualty, again a drain on the logistics chain, and the physcological effect of the wounded on the healthy troops, watching a man in agony, hearing the screams, the blood, the gore, takes a toll on those around the casualty. Military cartridges are now a matter of weight and bulk within the logistics chain. The more bullets foward and going down range demoralize the enemy and giving freindly troops a morale boost in that they can vent and waste ammo as a morale incentive. The 5.56 will for better or worse be the US cartidge of choice for awhile, due again to the logistics, too many serviceable weapons already in service, new designs utilizing the cartridge, and its combat effectiveness. It is effective for what it was designed for, and the applications now, modern war is a short ranged furball anymore, the day of the 500m shot are long gone. -------------
|
Posted By: TheHoff
Date Posted: 17 August 2004 at 3:49pm
|
If the 6.8mm ever gets a chance it will be in the special forces. Word is that it is very controllable at a high rof but it will be a long time[if it ever does] before the 5.56mm is replaced. To be honest I'd bet our troops could still be using the M-14 [which served its purpose] and still win battles. At a higher cost? Yes, but still win. After all, we still are America. ------------- blame it on the irish.... |