6.8mm Ever in Use?




 
--
 
August 5th, 2009  
Tovarish1
 
 

Topic: 6.8mm Ever in Use?


When will the 6.8mm round ever been in use? If they plan on issuing it in the first place at all that is... Because equipping a military with a WHOLE NEW ammo is extremely expensive and requires effort. I've watched some episodes of Future Weapons (I know, I know sort of poser) and it seemed like 6.8mm was a little more effective than 5.56mm when it came to penetration of vests.
August 5th, 2009  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tovarish1
When will the 6.8mm round ever been in use? If they plan on issuing it in the first place at all that is... Because equipping a military with a WHOLE NEW ammo is extremely expensive and requires effort. I've watched some episodes of Future Weapons (I know, I know sort of poser) and it seemed like 6.8mm was a little more effective than 5.56mm when it came to penetration of vests.
The round suffers from "It wasn't developed in an Official US Military Lab" problems.
August 5th, 2009  
Tovarish1
 
 
Wow seriously? What about the M249 SAW, or the Beretta M9, those weren't even developed in the US but the US still uses them.
--
August 6th, 2009  
chunkyluv22
 
 
i mean the US Military focuses on cost effective equipment. so hey Blame the Recession
August 6th, 2009  
c/Commander
 
 
It's more cost-effective to train decent marksmen, like the Marine Corps, than to retool hundreds of assembly lines, weapons, logistics/support structures, etc. If you shoot someone in the head, the caliber generally doesn't matter.
August 6th, 2009  
Tovarish1
 
 
Shooting someone in the head you're right. But you're not gonna aim for the head every time you hold that rifle. Head is one of the hardest spots to hit. Snipers will, grunts won't probably. Yeah grunts get some headshots.
August 6th, 2009  
Tovarish1
 
 
Yeah. Rearmament is one of the toughest things in military. I still think 6.8mm is a clever invention though. At least it might be a little cheaper than 7.62mm right?
August 6th, 2009  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tovarish1
Yeah. Rearmament is one of the toughest things in military. I still think 6.8mm is a clever invention though. At least it might be a little cheaper than 7.62mm right?
The 6.8 was developed by some soldiers working as a group of guys, with help from Remington, not as an official program. The 6.8 is the best performing round that would fit/function in a modified M-16 frame. 7.62 would be going backward, something that is usually avoided. There'd have to be new production of something like the AR-10, or a new design. Parts are short for the M-14s in use. There's probably mothballed ammo plants equiped to turn out 7.62, so ammo should be cheaper than 6.8.
August 6th, 2009  
Tovarish1
 
 
Well there's no bullet in the world that's killed more people than the 7.62mm but yeah 6.8 is good which is why I asked.
August 6th, 2009  
Tovarish1
 
 
Chunkluv you're right about the recession but last year (I think it was last year) the US managed to rearm the ENTIRE Iraqi army with M16A2s and that costs a TON.