Sig 6.8 ngsw

[stanc]

[BluntForceTrauma]

6.5 Creedmoor AP

Took this photo at SHOT Show 2022.

Tell me, again, why we need a fancy new cartridge with super high chamber pressures?

Half-inch steel penetration from a boring 6.5 Creedmoor with a 140gr Armor Piercing (AP) round isn't Gucci enough?

That not gonna meet the new requirement to defeat body armor at 600 meters?

[LR1955]

Took this photo at SHOT Show 2022.

Tell me, again, why we need a fancy new cartridge with super high chamber pressures?

Half-inch steel penetration from a boring 6.5 Creedmoor with a 140gr Armor Piercing (AP) round isn't Gucci enough?

That not gonna meet the new requirement to defeat body armor at 600 meters?

BFT:

If it could, they would have a piece of the body armor hanging there with holes through it.

LR-55

[Fess]

The concern is level IV body armor. By definition, it can withstand 30-06 steel-cored AP. To give an idea, one source stated that basic level IV is about 16mm (about 5/8") of RHA (Rolled Homogeneous Armor) plate. The numbers that I have seen indicate that RHA is just a little bit weaker than AR500. Both 6.5 CM and 260 Rem have been tested (the latter by the French Special forces) and they could not penetrate to a great enough distance. My guess is that the goal of defeating level IV at 600m is just too ambitious and will be reduced.

It is important to note that all of the NGSW rifles have some type of recoil mitigation other than suppressors. This of course, makes them more complicated and expensive. The video above mentions that the SIG has roughly the same recoil as a FAL and in another video he mentions that the RM277 that shoots the polymer round has low recoil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoBOuv6qJNU

So far, the US has not had the problem of opponents wearing modern body armor. That will not last long, and the shit will hit the fan the first time we encounter someone else wearing armor close to our own. 5.56 tungsten cored AP from M4's usually can't get through Level IV, although sometimes rifles with 20" barrels can (at least according to some youtube videos that I have seen). Modern body armor is becoming less expensive. For example, level IV is being worn by both sides on the Syrian conflict, and Syria is not a wealthy country.

edited to add: Level IV spec: 30-06 M2 AP bullet (166 grains) at 2880fps

[BluntForceTrauma]

Good info. Thanks!

[LR1955]

The concern is level IV body armor. By definition, it can withstand 30-06 steel-cored AP. To give an idea, one source stated that basic level IV is about 16mm (about 5/8") of RHA (Rolled Homogeneous Armor) plate. The numbers that I have seen indicate that RHA is just a little bit weaker than AR500. Both 6.5 CM and 260 Rem have been tested (the latter by the French Special forces) and they could not penetrate to a great enough distance. My guess is that the goal of defeating level IV at 600m is just too ambitious and will be reduced.

It is important to note that all of the NGSW rifles have some type of recoil mitigation other than suppressors. This of course, makes them more complicated and expensive. The video above mentions that the SIG has roughly the same recoil as a FAL and in another video he mentions that the RM277 that shoots the polymer round has low recoil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoBOuv6qJNU

So far, the US has not had the problem of opponents wearing modern body armor. That will not last long, and the shit will hit the fan the first time we encounter someone else wearing armor close to our own. 5.56 tungsten cored AP from M4's usually can't get through Level IV, although sometimes rifles with 20" barrels can (at least according to some youtube videos that I have seen). Modern body armor is becoming less expensive. For example, level IV is being worn by both sides on the Syrian conflict, and Syria is not a wealthy country.

edited to add: Level IV spec: 30-06 M2 AP bullet (166 grains) at 2880fps

Fess:

There are some pretty big differences between ceramic and laminated body armor and RHA. And the DoD has standards for RHA. Yes, I understand that it is convenient for people to use RHA for testing and being able to penetrate X amount of RHA is a common first step before testing it against the target material in the requirements document. Cheaper to buy RHA than laminated or ceramic body armor I guess. Only caveat is you better have the RHA certified by DoD.

Another issue is that flexible armor absorbs shock a lot better than rigid armor so you will find differences in outcomes if you test your ammo against more flexible body armor. And when you test against armor you have to be careful about the degree of obliquity the round impacts the armor. I can't recall the figures involved but if that round hits armor on an angle, it is like penetrating armor much thicker.

Ever shot 30-06 at AR-500 plates? Not as good as you may think. Downright anemic I thought. A nice dimple and some marking on the back of the plate but ball ammo did damn near as well. Could have been the fact that the 30-06 AP was probably sixty years old and the powder had decayed.

Have shot the issued SAPI plate with M-855 green tip, M-80, M-118 SB and issued 9mm. All at 25 meters. The closest to penetrating was the Green tip. None did but it came the closest. Then M-118 SB, then M-80.

All I am saying is this. If you want to market an AP round you tout will defeat some sort of armor, you will get no arguments from anyone if you use the actual armor in your testing.

As for the 6.5 Creedmoor for a, issued round of ammo. Taking a step backwards in the Soldiers Burden I believe. Basic load has to weigh the same as 7.62. Rifle needs to be longer and heavier too. And with all the crap a guy is wearing these days, it may be better to pump the money into exoskeletons so Joe can carry the stuff more than a hundred meters.

LR-55

[BluntForceTrauma]

[LR1955]

BFT:

Yes, could be they were and just as likely they weren't. The 6.5 CM is a great and efficient cartridge and a 6.5mm projectile, being thinner than a 7.62, can be made longer and more streamlined. And sectional density plus velocity give a AP round great potential to penetrate stuff. That said, I think the 6.8 is for issue to all combat arms personnel -- at least initially so high speed 6.5 mm bullets shot from a CM are probably not going to happen. I bet those guys were showing the potential of their ammo in terms of specialized units with the need and skills to use it effectively.

One thing about this whole 6.8 business is that the requirements are forcing industry to find technologies that meet the requirements. Not leap ahead in my opinion but better than just inventing a new cartridge that doesn't do much more than what we have right now, that didn't do much more than what we had 115 years ago during WWI.

Personally -- I don't have any real bone to pick with the 6.8 as a bullet diameter other than no one has explained to me how using a bullet of that diameter would somehow be a leap ahead of any other diameter. I think that is really what bothers me about the whole thing.

LR-55

[grayfox]

Yeah I personally think the use of a 6.8 diameter is to satisfy some whim of a DoD manager... no bone either with it only that, as 55 points out, an increase in SD for the narrower caliber is an advantage -- ergo a 6.5 would be even better. 2 other things leap out to me and they are
1) correct in stating that angle of attack, bullet path to plate, makes for an apparent "thicker" plate when the bullet is not perpendicular in flight to the plate. So even if it penetrates head-on in your test, in a fire fight wouldn't be as effective since you can't guarantee what angle of strike your bullet will have when it hits... and if there's more yaw at the end of 600m, well that's another factor hindering performance.
2) your experiences for penetrating effectiveness were at 25 m, and even there they basically failed, yet somehow a bullet after 600 m of flight, will succeed. Guess I could crunch some numbers (at 2 AM who's kidding who??) but doubt if that pill at 600 m would always exceed current ammo ke and momentum at 25.

Agree the one benefit of this is stirring up some tech innovation, but I would bet that you'd get more positive penetration (and at virtually any distance where the bullet had some ke left) in inventing a bullet with an explosive tip that wouldn't go off until it hits (here's the tech, inert until something like 0.1 sec after muzzle exit). Being a personal-efp style projectile would take some tech for sure, and could be a clip of same you could insert when needed but keep mostly normal ammo in your pack. It's not every day you face someone at 600 m, and wearing armor at that. I would think that most armor you would see, would be bad guys that were more up close and personal... just my 2 cents.
I'd rather call in some 155 "penetrators" for that 600m bunch of guys anyway . Or invent a squad level man-pad rocket you could carry and pull out when needed that could work off your laser-guide helmet head's up-seeing-thingy. Maybe even invent a small robot-mule that goes with the squad and carries that stuff (an armed "r2d2" companion) - off loadable if it breaks down.

...We need some DOD guys to pay us money to work on these ideas!!!

[LR1955]

Yeah I personally think the use of a 6.8 diameter is to satisfy some whim of a DoD manager... no bone either with it only that, as 55 points out, an increase in SD for the narrower caliber is an advantage -- ergo a 6.5 would be even better. 2 other things leap out to me and they are
1) correct in stating that angle of attack, bullet path to plate, makes for an apparent "thicker" plate when the bullet is not perpendicular in flight to the plate. So even if it penetrates head-on in your test, in a fire fight wouldn't be as effective since you can't guarantee what angle of strike your bullet will have when it hits... and if there's more yaw at the end of 600m, well that's another factor hindering performance.
2) your experiences for penetrating effectiveness were at 25 m, and even there they basically failed, yet somehow a bullet after 600 m of flight, will succeed. Guess I could crunch some numbers (at 2 AM who's kidding who??) but doubt if that pill at 600 m would always exceed current ammo ke and momentum at 25.

Agree the one benefit of this is stirring up some tech innovation, but I would bet that you'd get more positive penetration (and at virtually any distance where the bullet had some ke left) in inventing a bullet with an explosive tip that wouldn't go off until it hits (here's the tech, inert until something like 0.1 sec after muzzle exit). Being a personal-efp style projectile would take some tech for sure, and could be a clip of same you could insert when needed but keep mostly normal ammo in your pack. It's not every day you face someone at 600 m, and wearing armor at that. I would think that most armor you would see, would be bad guys that were more up close and personal... just my 2 cents.
I'd rather call in some 155 "penetrators" for that 600m bunch of guys anyway . Or invent a squad level man-pad rocket you could carry and pull out when needed that could work off your laser-guide helmet head's up-seeing-thingy. Maybe even invent a small robot-mule that goes with the squad and carries that stuff (an armed "r2d2" companion) - off loadable if it breaks down.

...We need some DOD guys to pay us money to work on these ideas!!!

There is great merit to the statement that a slower moving projectile has an easier time penetrating things. Ship builders understand this and so do guys who design bullets or projectiles to penetrate armor.

I worked with EFPs on a program and getting one into anything under about 105mm won't happen. They are a plate that inverts like a shape charge -- hence the name 'explosively formed penetrator'. Have been around since WWII.

And yes, you can take a 6.5 diameter bullet and make it long but you can do the same with any bullet if you want to pay the price in terms of weapons design, burden to the soldier, cost, logistics, etc.

The 'Green Tip' did what it was designed to do. It would defeat Soviet body armor of the 80's and into the 90's. So, it worked but like any other armor / anti armor technology -- the armor got better. That has been the cycle going on for probably 4K years.

Will be interested to see if DoD decides to go with a new weapon when all it said and done. Sure, I think one is in order because the one we are using now is obsolete in terms of what we think future warfare brings. Just funny that the cycle of armor / anti armor going back several thousands of years is still going strong.

LR-55