More on Army/Marines moving from 5.56mm to 6.8mm NGSW

[Constitutionalist]

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2020/02/12/only-one-in-four-soldiers-likely-to-see-armys-newest-rifle-in-coming-years/

I just don't get it.... Why is the military stuck on 6.8mm? Is it just because some Special Forces guys developed it?

I mean when people talk about how good 6.5 Grendel would be as a new military round they talk about 6.5mm sectional density, 6.5mm ballistic coefficients, and supersonic flight to 1200 yards.

When people talk about supporting 6.8mm SPC they say "Its as good as a Grendel out to 500 yards"....

Also, I once saw an Army Times article saying replacing the 5.56mm uppers, bolts and mags to convert our military to 6.5mm Grendel would cost $500M. Seems high, but whatever. If we dropped 5 (FIVE!) F35s from the defense budget we'd have money to spare. I know- it sucks to be infantry.

Anyways, I'm confused....

John

[A5BLASTER]

It's not 6.8 spc.

More like a 270 Winchester super short ultra over pressure mag.

[FLshooter]

The owner of Counterstrike Tactical was Special Forces military for 20 years. Retired in 2014.We had this type of conversation a while back. The seals use a 5.56 as their main assault weapon.And some Seals carry an M14 in 30 caliber.

[Fess]

The whole point is to punch through body armor at 600m and allow an average soldier to make long range precision shots. High velocity and a sufficiently large projectile is what has driven the 6.8mm super-duper magnum cartridge designs. The cartridge is only part of the plan. The proposed optics will measure the distance (and in some proposals, estimate wind drift and lead a moving target), then show the proper aiming point with a "disturbed reticule" aiming device. There are some proposals in which the fire control system will not fire the shot until everything lines up properly and yet others which use something like the Aim-Lock system that will actually track the target and automatically slew the barrel onto the target at the last moment before firing.

It remains to be seen how many of these technologies will work in the near future.

[grayfox]

Plus, how well they can shoot when the batteries run out or disconnect or corrode, or dust storm kicks up or Mother Nature in general doesn't go by the playbook, and the recruits were only trained to use the super-whammo-dyne setup...

[1Shot]

I just remember when the M-16 was rushed into Vietnam in a money saving configuration, non chrome lined chamber and bore using a dirty burning powder in the ammo and troops being told, "It don't need to be cleaned" so they were not issued cleaning equipment. Lot's of guys were found dead with their rifles in some sort of tear down trying to get it to fire before the powers that be allowed those that knew what they were doing to fix it. I had friends and a family member involved in this SNAFU. One friend was a Marine helicopter maintenance chief that told me I think it was in 1968 they marched his unit by one truck and they took their M14s and ammo away and at the next truck they handed them a M16 and ammo and sent them on their way to learn how the thing was supposed to work on their own. With all the problems he experienced and saw others have he took an M2 carbine from an Arvin to use as his personal weapon. By the time that he went back to Vietnam for his 3rd tour in 1972 they had the bugs worked out pretty much with the M-16. He still scrounged up a M-2 Carbine and cut the stock off making it a pistol grip and then cut the barrel off back as far as he could. He stashed it with a number of mags of ammo in a tool bag he kept close to him while on the chopper in case they were shot down. His choppers received enemy fire three times that caused them to have to put down but never crashed and each time was where they could be supported and picked up quickly. He was one lucky man.

[A5BLASTER]

Plus, how well they can shoot when the batteries run out or disconnect or corrode, or dust storm kicks up or Mother Nature in general doesn't go by the playbook, and the recruits were only trained to use the super-whammo-dyne setup...

That is my thinking as well. What are they going to do when marphys law kicks in and all that fancy gear craps out.

Anouther thing that crossed my mind after watching the vid of the guy shooting it on 3 round burst and full auto. What are our troops going to do when the fighting is house to house and that thing turns into a antiaircraft gun on full auto.

The guy in the vid got his head rocked trying to control that thing. I don't care what Sig are the army says. That thing is going to be uncontrollable when in the hands of a 140 to 160 pound 18 to 20 year old enlisted man or woman.

[LRRPF52]

Nobody of relevance is talking about a future for the 6.8 SPC for a service rifle cartridge.

We already have several threads on this if you read through this sub forum.

6.8 NGSW is a current competition that I will be surprised to see get awarded due to weapon weight, recoil, and magazine profile/bulk on the soldier's load.

As to the comment about "just exchanging 5 F-35s", I'd take 5 F-35s any day over giving Infantry a new rifle without thinking twice about it.

We already have a great carbine with the M4 that does what is required of soldiers who pick through the rubble after echelons of fire in conventional war, or police neighborhoods and provinces in COIN under cover of their buddy's SAWs, M240s, M110s, M2010s, 60mm and 81mm mortars, with Reaper Drones overhead if needed.

The capabilities that the F-35 brings to the modern and future battlefields far outweigh anything we will ever do with small arms. Small arms are almost negligible in an open conflict, and are already well-suited for COIN in the mix.

Our legacy aircraft are aging and have been worn out by constant deployments, and have degrading survivability compared to current and emerging IADS networks.

[Kswhitetails]

Nobody of relevance is talking about a future for the 6.8 SPC for a service rifle cartridge.

We already have several threads on this if you read through this sub forum.

6.8 NGSW is a current competition that I will be surprised to see get awarded due to weapon weight, recoil, and magazine profile/bulk on the soldier's load.

As to the comment about "just exchanging 5 F-35s", I'd take 5 F-35s any day over giving Infantry a new rifle without thinking twice about it.

We already have a great carbine with the M4 that does what is required of soldiers who pick through the rubble after echelons of fire in conventional war, or police neighborhoods and provinces in COIN under cover of their buddy's SAWs, M240s, M110s, M2010s, 60mm and 81mm mortars, with Reaper Drones overhead if needed.

The capabilities that the F-35 brings to the modern and future battlefields far outweigh anything we will ever do with small arms. Small arms are almost negligible in an open conflict, and are already well-suited for COIN in the mix.

Our legacy aircraft are aging and have been worn out by constant deployments, and have degrading survivability compared to current and emerging IADS networks.

Your comments here are music to my ears. Having not been military, but a military info buff, my mind has been screaming this since I started listening to the JPATS chatter over a decade ago.

And it's high time we start making our small arms from carbon fiber and give up on metalic cartridges all together. Everything we can do with brass we can now do with plastic; and with less weight and more speed.

It seems to me that if real solutions to the problems our military boys faced on the actual battle field were ever really pursued, we'd have long ago put Johnny 5 on the desert sands and given the grunts joy sticks from the comfort of the basement of the farm...

The future belongs to the digital masters.

[grayfox]

I like the idea of having some bots or digital helpers/drones available in the field for the troops, but there is (sadly) no replacement for boots on the ground... which is one reason why battle must only be joined when absolutely -- and I mean Absolutely -- necessary.

[Constitutionalist]

"We already have a great carbine with the M4 that does what is required of soldiers who pick through the rubble after echelons of fire in conventional war, or police neighborhoods and provinces in COIN under cover of their buddy's SAWs, M240s, M110s, M2010s, 60mm and 81mm mortars, with Reaper Drones overhead if needed."

You must be fighting different wars than the ones the US is fight now. There are no echelons of fire. There's ROEs that say you can't fire unless fired upon. Average engagement range in Afghanistan was what 350-500m? Yep- a .223 is what I want for that....

[LRRPF52]

"We already have a great carbine with the M4 that does what is required of soldiers who pick through the rubble after echelons of fire in conventional war, or police neighborhoods and provinces in COIN under cover of their buddy's SAWs, M240s, M110s, M2010s, 60mm and 81mm mortars, with Reaper Drones overhead if needed."

You must be fighting different wars than the ones the US is fight now. There are no echelons of fire. There's ROEs that say you can't fire unless fired upon. Average engagement range in Afghanistan was what 350-500m? Yep- a .223 is what I want for that....

Echelons of fire for conventional war as I mentioned, or small arms with different layers of support for COIN. Small arms are very marginal in Air/Mech-dominant wars. They are very important in COIN.

For both OEF and OIF, nobody goes outside the wire without some type of 7.62 NATO weapons and radios, usually from vehicles with M2 .50 BMGs or Mk.19s on top. The most firepower any Light Infantry Battalion Commander had was his Delta Company and HHC Mortars section. Within the Rifle Companies, the most firepower is in the Weapons Squads and Company Mortar sections. Within the Rifle Squad, the most firepower is had with the SAWs. The last, least powerful weapons across all of the mix are the M4s, and they account for far less of what everyone is carrying than most people realize.

In the Infantry or SOF units conducting mounted and dismounted patrols, there is always a mix of weapons to cover the engagement distances.

For terrain found in Afghanistan, it's one thing to have MG teams, Snipers, or Mk.48 gunners with 7.62 NATO, along with .300 Win Mag or .338 LM sniper systems covering your movement.

It's another to enter and clear a mud hut in a compound looking for HVTs or insurgents. The longer range weapons provide overmatch and cover, while the carbines are used to clear shorter spaces and inside of alleys, rooms, etc.

People talking about the limitations of 5.56 in that context have rarely been in an actual unit that deploys and patrols with all of the weapons mix that is common to an Infantry Platoon, SF ODA, SEAL Platoon, or Ranger Platoon, so these conversations revert back to having to educate people that are unfamiliar with the MTOE of a unit, and the unit flexibility in weapons selection for different mission profiles (more of a SOF thing).

On the conventional side, you aren't doing anything without gun teams and usually have vehicles with turret-mounted weapons supporting you if you're dismounted, even in Light/Airborne land.

The argument about ".223 effectiveness" blows out the window for anyone who has been in the line for less than an initial enlistment.

Now for some people that were soft skills or civilians, they will argue about which cartridge is going to save the day and finally make the M4 or some new rifle the single solution to all of our problems, but anyone with deployment experience and time in that job just chuckles, especially the guys in Weapons Squad or Sniper Sections.

As to ROE: Within the same Presidential Administration, we went from, "Let the bodies hit the floor!!!", to more restrictive ROEs once the numbers of civilian KIAs mounted. Insurgents using civilians as cover to get around our ROEs didn't work when the gloves were off, but then we learned why they did that and the leash got really tight. Follow-on units who rolled through the aftermath of one particular Battalion in OIF were horrified by what they saw, and commented on it upon linking up in the North. It was primarily a combination of indirect fire assets being a bit off in their first sheaf, as well as suicidal Fedayeen hiding amongst the homes of local Iraqi civilians who didn't ask for any of this mess.

With that said, the Grendel or something with its size and ballistics would make an excellent replacement for the 7.62 NATO weapons for a number of reasons:

1. I can have M4-sized weapons that do both extended range/high hit probability where I currently employ SR25s, SCAR-Hs, Mk.48s, but still have a compact, lightweight weapon that can maneuver in the house and tight spaces like the M4.

2. I can carry more magazines and ammunition than I can with 7.62 NATO and sustain the dismounted fight longer, somewhere between what is possible with 5.56 and 7.62x39. In short, I can actually fight well and light with a 6.5 Grendel M4 profile weapon, whereas the SR25 and SCAR-H introduce issues with bulk and weight, especially once you configure them for combat with PEQs, lights, and optics.

3. My pallet weights for ammunition are significantly lighter, or have more rounds per pallet at the same weight as my pallets of 7.62 NATO.

4. My DM/Sniper Training courses can help students get valuable feedback faster on-target because they aren't losing sight picture during the shot like you do with a lightweight or even heavy 7.62 NATO Sniper System. I can also get through a multi-week shoot-heavy DM/Sniper course without loss of velocity from high round-count guns since Grendel has such a low working pressure.

5. Barrier penetration is not much different than 7.62 NATO, offering some advantages due to sectional density, especially with EPR 6.5 Grendel cartridges.

If you notice above, none of this really applies to the basic Rifleman in the Infantry Squad, or the SOF Direct Action shooter who just wants a nice little 10.3" Mk.18 blaster that he can maneuver with while meandering through tight spaces.

If you replace the 7.62 NATO weapons with 6.5 Grendel, we then run into the problem of magazines that can be inserted into the 5.56 M4s with a cartridge that won't chamber, so there is something to be said for that as well. But I like the idea of a 6.5 Grendel-like Assault Machine-gun LMG with better range than 7.62, less ammo weight, 6.5mm Semi-Auto DM/Sniper Rifles, and enhanced 5.56 carbines.

They could apply the technology from the NGSW ammunition to making a more optimized line of compact ammo and keep the guns light, rather than spiral out with these large-framed beasts shooting .270 Weatherby Magnum +P pressures with limited 20rd mags.

None of the submissions are anything I would want Rifleman and Assaulters carrying on dismounted or mounted patrols. The exception for mounted patrols would be turret-mounting the .338 Norma Magnum MMG, but they are burning barrels with those faster than the SEALs burn .300 Win Mag pipes.

By the way, my handle pic is of me with my Squad in OIF1, 2003. I know a ton of things have changed since then, but I'm not talking about this subject from theory.

[n9nwo]

It appears that this is the new round which will lead to a new infantry rifle and SAW

BTW if we do go this route could we turn the existing M4s into PDW by making them SBRs in either 6.5 Grendel or .300 Blackout?

Status of the new Army weapons

Https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/fws-cs-2/