6.8mm Ever in Use?

Tovarish1

Tovarish1

Active member
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.
 
Tovarish1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The round suffers from "It wasn't developed in an Official US Military Lab" problems.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Tovarish1 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last I read, the military was "looking into it", and they said that if it was to be adopted, that they wouldn't immediately replace the 5.56 and rearm with 6.8's. Instead, they would let the 5.56 "die a slow death". I'm guessing that means they won't produce very many more NATO rounds, and simply let the stocks run down while slowly introducing the 6.8.
 
Tovarish1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

because 7.62 (and all variations of it) is a older caliber, and if you look at the amount of AK-47's in the entire world: yep you're right.

@topic:
i'm not sure but is it true that 6.8 fits, not with the same quantity, into a standart 5.56 mag? hm.. a M4 with a 6.8 caliber round? i think you guys out there would love it, cause a cardoor won't stop you to penetrate the target, if the ballistics are right.
 
well tovarish1 you gotta see itl ike this too though..inorder to stabilize that region the US is willling to commit what ever reseources. i mean if they manage to finally reach stabilization in iraq and begin trade with iraq then i believe it would accomplish the goals of big business. i mean thats all we really went into iraq for..BIG BUSINESS
 
All militaries are reluctant to change, and they are more reluctant to change when it comes to equipment and technology. Plus, let's not forgot politics. A defense contractor will do his darnest to make sure that his weapon will work and kill the enemy, but if his company happens to be in a district that has poor representation or his competitor's retired military advisors have more pull in the national legislature, then he is going to have a tough time getting his weapon sold. Granted, some of the best weapons in the world have finally made it to the field, but some--the F-111, the F-14, F-117, the Osprey--had serious delays because of politics. Some like the A-12 and the Sgt York were thankfully killed before they got people from the home team killed. Remember, the stink Admiral Rickover had trying to convince the Navy to go nuclear? Still some haven't made it to the field such as caseless rifles have never seen the light of day.
 
RE: 6.8 SPC.

The reason that the 6.8 SPC. has/will not be used U.S. Army wide it that Washington is wanting a whole "New System" of rifle. Not an upgrade of the M-16/M-4. The SCAR is to be able to use the 5.56x45mm(.223 Rem), 6.8SPEC, 7.62x39mm and the 7.62x51 NATO by changing the bolt, mag and brl. All things to all people. LOL!!!! :pray::pray::pray::pray::pray::pray::pray:
 
c/Commander said:
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.
Click to expand...
From what I remember, aiming for the head is frowned upon in marksmanship training, rather one should aim for the center of mass. I.E the torso, which is a large target and holds the largest amount of vital organs.
 
Tovarish1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I believe it has seen some use since it was developed because the US special forces were disatisfied with the 5.56x45. It hasen't been used in large numbers though.
 
Head shots are more common than you think. If your enemy is smart then the only thing that will be exposed is his head so he can shoot back at you.
 
Last I heard 6,8 ammo are being tested..Feedback has been given.
Not sure on timeframe.
5.56 will be the platform for the forseable future.
SCARs are a no go.
A few have entered service with certain units and I am not sure if they will get handed back in or not.

KJ sends..
 
Last edited:
KJ said:
Last I heard 6,8 ammo are being tested..Feedback has been given.
Not sure on timeframe.
5.56 will be the platform for the forseable future.
SCARs are a no go.
A few have entered service with certain units and I am not sure if they will get handed back in or not.

KJ sends..
Click to expand...

SCARs aren't a no go, I think you're thinking about the HK416 which the ASW and SF had to turn back in, Colt through a temper tantrum. Thankfully, some get to keep them. :-D

As for the SCARs, they are still in limited production initial fielding. SMUs got it first, then on to SF, SEALs, STS and MARSOC even has some floating around. Some SF ODAs have one for each man while others have a handful of the SCAR-H. There is a rumor about the Army not getting anymore due to funding (ARSOF is cutting their budget), but as of right now they're still a go.

My opinion on the SCAR is sort of mixed right now. There are pros and cons and then there are times I wonder why it was fielded with some of the ergonomic issues we've had. I can't really dog it though.

As for 6.8 for US Forces, better learn to love your 5.56, it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Not that 6.8 is a complete no go, but 5.56 works and it's the NATO standard, so there's really no valid or budgetary reason to replace the entire round. There may be some better options for it coming out in the near future, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top