Professional Soldiers ® - Can of Worms time guys!

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- Ammo Talk (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=51)

- - Can of Worms time guys! (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197)

Can of Worms time guys!

I have listened to the 6.8 vs 6.5 vs 6mm vs 5.56mm for awhile. I have had my wee wee smacked for some of my comments on the subject.

SO! What do yo guys feel about he rounds and do you think that these new rounds are really needed?

My .02 is that there are better ammo solutions to be had in 5.56 that have not been explored yet.

The 6.8 will be a great LEO round and will be fine on small deer, but it has a couple of serious negatives.

One, no one else in the world, or even in the US military will be using the round. The days of bopping over to the German compound, or to the 3rd ID to pick up some ammo would be over. For a unit like SF, which may have to take months of supplies in when they infil, this is a critical deficiency.

Second, anyone using it is going to be leaving an absolutely unique signature behind on the battlefield. For an HVT like SOF, which is seriously hunted by the Bad Guys, this is more than a minor concern. The unit scattering these expended cases behind them will soon have a new group of motivated fans following them with hostile intent.

Third, the round has not been field tested for numerous parameters, and is even now still being tweaked.

Fourth, we have sold NATO on the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45 NATO cartridges in the past as standards against their will. I do not see them, in a time of declining defense budgets, adopting a new round while they have billions of 7.62 and 5.56 ammo and hundreds of thousands of weapons in the old calibers.

For the above reasons, if I were going in harm's way in another country, I would prefer the 5.56 or 7.62x39. In fact, IMHO almost any solution would be preferable to the 6.8 for the next 5-10 years, at the soonest.

Just my .02, and worth what you paid for it.

TR

I was hoping for a rabid supporter so we could have a discussion of this oddity or flavor of the month round. No takers or has Reaper instilled too much common sense into the game?

Come on, bring it on! :D

I posted a piece on the issue of 5.56 combat failures on ANOTHER board and got beat up a bit.

TR has considerably more knowledge and information than I.

I understand that weapons in 7.62 NATO are in great demand in the field these days.

I think some people (not on this site) don't understand the difference between a carbine and a rifle and what their intended uses and limitations are.

Quote:

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I think some people (not on this site) don't understand the difference between a carbine and a rifle and what their intended uses and limitations are.

Here, here!

M-16 Rifle (20" barrel) w/M193 ammo:

Longer barrel and faster, lighter bullet has higher MV

Will fragment and wound effectively out to 200m.

Will outpenetrate the M-4/M855 out to 100m. or more

Has longer sight radius which is generally conducive to better accuracy

M-4 Carbine (14.5" barrel) w/M855 ammo:

Slower round, shorter barrel = significantly reduced MV

Will not fragment and wound effectively beyond 75m. or so

Will not penetrate effectively as the M-16/M193

Has shorter sight radius and is almost always less accurate

Is now being fielded to units with inadequate marksmanship training and maintenance programs

Then add 7.62 into the mix. I recently supported a man who I consider to be knowledgeable when he said "Hey guys, its a carbine, not a precision rifle." Right tool for the job.

Re: Got Smacked Too

Quote:

Originally posted by Cazador 01
I posted a piece on the issue of 5.56 combat failures on ANOTHER board and got beat up a bit.

There are documented combat failures by the .50 BMG, the .30-06, the 7.62mm NATO, the 8mm Mauser, the 7.62x39mm, the .30 Carbine, the .45 ACP and the 9mm Parabellum and on and on and on. Documented combat failures do not in themselves prove much.

Actually we have two types of combat failures. One is th eround not downing a bad guy. The other is the shooter not hitting what he is shooting at. While the first is actaully a relatively rare event, the second occurs all too often.

From this comes multiplex rounds, flechette rounds, and everyother type of round to mechanically fix a stress/training problem.

How much of the second do you think is driving the current "need" for the new round? We already have an increase in effectiveness with the 77gr and the "old" non-penetrator round.

Just some thoughts.

I just purchased a case of 77gr. Will let you know what I think as soon as I get to the range.

Use them for my 200 and 300 yard events, use the 80 gr for my 600 yard event. There are some that use the 77gr for 600 as well. Had a Navy female officer clean my clock at 600 using 77gr.

She was on the Navy rifle team though so did not feel too bad. Also had a 20 point brain fart that really lowered my score. :o

The 77gr will fit in the mag while the 80 gr will not. There are others and an AMU armeror out shot the rest fo the team at 1000 using the 90 gr.

Room for thought. Add the newer bi and multi metal desintigrating rounds and you have a lethal mix.

Rick not to burst your bubble on M193 but...

I recently did pen tests with M193, M855, Mk262 and LeMas Ltd.'s Urban Warfare BMT round.

Shooting at 1/2" 12x12 AR500 Plate
None of the round penetrated (I did not really expect them too)

The deepest Penetration was the UW round (46gr going at Mach Chicken or something like it).

Then in the 'conventional' rounds the Mk262 (mod0) penetrated the next greatest depth - then followed by the M855 - (which may have out penetrated the Mk262 in some instances - for the penetrators "porcupined" in the plate and until the plate is cut up we wont know total penetration.

The M193 scuffed the plate the least.

I will sign off on the Reapers reasons for the 6.8 fading from view. MikeH did a very good rationale before he went to Remington...

-Kevin

Kevin:

At what range?

If you have a copy of Mike's write up and don't think he would mind, put it up.

TR

Quote:

Originally posted by KevinB
Rick not to burst your bubble on M193 but...

I recently did pen tests with M193, M855, Mk262 and LeMas Ltd.'s Urban Warfare BMT round.

Shooting at 1/2" 12x12 AR500 Plate
None of the round penetrated (I did not really expect them too)

The deepest Penetration was the UW round (46gr going at Mach Chicken or something like it).

Then in the 'conventional' rounds the Mk262 (mod0) penetrated the next greatest depth - then followed by the M855 - (which may have out penetrated the Mk262 in some instances - for the penetrators "porcupined" in the plate and until the plate is cut up we wont know total penetration.

The M193 scuffed the plate the least.

I will sign off on the Reapers reasons for the 6.8 fading from view. MikeH did a very good rationale before he went to Remington...

-Kevin

Not sure how you are bursting my bubble when you only confirmed what I have stated. There is a lethal mix of 5.56 out there and going to a new 6.8 round is an utter waste of time.

As far as penetration, one of hte problems right now is over penetration and no energy dump on the target.

I seldom shoot at 1/2 thick steel with a 5.56 and use larger rounds for that activity. :D

Quote:

Originally posted by longrange1947
Not sure how you are bursting my bubble when you only confirmed what I have stated. There is a lethal mix of 5.56 out there and going to a new 6.8 round is an utter waste of time.

As far as penetration, one of hte problems right now is over penetration and no energy dump on the target.

I seldom shoot at 1/2 thick steel with a 5.56 and use larger rounds for that activity. :D

Rick:

I believe that we can all agree that in order to inflict an injury, first, you must hit the target.

I think we are all also in agreement that the M855 is abysmally inaccurate. The M193 is better yet, and the Mk 262 is the best of all of the issued rounds. I will try the LeMas for accuracy as soon as I can figure out which rifle/twist it likes best and get out to the range with it. Incidentally, as I understand it, the new "Green" ammo is a horrible accuracy load, basically, it will be a real challenge even to qualify with it.

To hit the target, you must also get through whatever cover is between the shooter and the target. The M193 is inadequate and M855 only marginally better, except for the specific tests it was designed for. I have not conducted penetration tests with the Mk 262, but I would expect it to exceed the M193 and possibly the M855. The LeMas outpenetrates any conventional rounfd I have tested it against out to 100m. I suspect that at extended ranges, the retained energy and greater mass of the projos would make the Mk 262 the superior performer, at some range.

As far as the lethality or wound potential of the rounds once the target is hit in a significant area, the M193 and M855 will both do roughly the same damage if the threshold velocity of 2500 to 2700 fps for the fragmentation effect to occur. Becuase of the M193's greater initial MV, it will do that to a longer range. The Mk 262, especially in the most recent version, the Mod 2(?) with the cannelured bullet, will do somewhat greater damage as it goes through its first yaw cycle and breaks apart because it will do so at a lower velocity than the M193/M855 due to its longer bullet length and greater payload of material. The LeMas will "catastrophically" frag at a full range of velocities and will disperse minute particles over a large area of the target internally, shredding tissue thoroughly. I have seen several tissue impacts from the LeMas rifle ammo and I have yet to see one exit a target.

Hope this helps, soapbox off.

TR

TR - Mike said it was okay to share...

Quote:

SUBJECT: 6.8x43mm Special Purpose Cartridge Position Paper

1. GENERAL. This document if for informational purposes only and is not intended to be all-inclusive. This document has been developed in an attempt to present the crux of this issue in one-format verses the fragmented array of briefings and supporting documentation that it is exists in. This issue is in reality multi-faceted and I will attempt to address them all with as much fact as possible, however I will also offer my opinion and in some cases cite what I understand to be the case.

2. OVERVIEW. The continued search and development of better weapons systems, accessories and ammunition is essential to the growth and capability of Special Operations Forces (SOF) in order to meet the constantly evolving and diverse nature of enemies that it faces. The very nature of SOF as it exists in the US military brings with it a large degree of attitude and emotions that serve to focus on issues or problems and actively seek remedies. While this is generally healthy for the overall force, it frequently results in a form â€œtarget fixationâ€ in which a certain piece of equipment or issue becomes vastly more important than is the reality.

3. ORIGIN OF REQUIREMENT. It has been reported and rumored that during recent combat operations USSF personnel have engaged enemy personnel with multiple (up to 9) rounds of M855 5.56mm ammunition without incapacitation. These reports and rumors have fueled a quest for the developed of a more lethal round capable of stopping enemy combatants in 1 or 2 rounds. This quest began with a heavier bullet (development of the 77 grain 5.56mm) and rapidly progressed into a completely different caliber now known as the 6.8x43mm. There are a variety of interconnected issues such as range, penetration, ideal weight, etc. This document will address several main issues;

A. Lethality. By far the largest battle cry for this caliber is that it is X amount more lethal than 5.56mm in general, but several times more effective than the current issued M855 (AKA green tip) specifically.

1) Cause of issue: The overall problem of lethality seemingly stems from various conflicts of the past 20 years, more specifically it has been reported and passed around that troops deployed to Somalia and for Operation Anaconda repeatedly complained about lethality of M855 specifically and 5.56 mm in general. The most common compliant seems to be that the round â€œmerely passes throughâ€ the enemy without significant damage.

2) Reality: Like statistics, tests can be configured to produce the desired outcome especially when the subject focus is narrowed to one item and the proposed solution can be configured in any way.

â€¢ It is true that the selected 6.8mm round is vastly more lethal than M855; in fact various peace activists and humanitarians have praised the M855 for its lack of lethality. However, it is this acceptance by the same groups that provides American politicians and authorities with defendable positions as a â€œpeace lovingâ€ nation.
â€¢ There are other 5.56mm projectiles that could and would provide increased lethality (M193 and the new 77 Grain are both in the inventory)
â€¢ Credible evidence has not been presented to indicate that US soldierâ€™s lives have been placed into jeopardy due to a lack of lethality of either the caliber or of M855.
â€¢ Interviews with veterans of Grenada, Haiti, Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, and Enduring Freedom whose marksmanship skills are known have unanimously agreed that neither 5.56 or M855 pose any lethality problems, the issue is shot placement.
â€¢ The 6.8mm in question has been specifically designed for lethality against a human target at the expense of range and penetration. M855 provides excellent penetration against lightly skinned vehicles and against level III body armor.
â€¢ Regardless of all of the ballistics experts and gelatin tests, a human being hit in a vital organ with M855 (or any 5.56mm round) will go down.
â€¢ No small arms round will guarantee 1st round incapacitation, furthermore as the caliber increases things like basic load and range decrease. In order to combat a reduction in basic load the over all soldier load (weight) will increase bringing all of the associated problems with it.

B. Accuracy. It is generally believed throughout the SOF community that the M4 and 5.56 are not overly accurate at ranges past 300 meters. This â€œbeliefâ€ has been supported by routine training at ranges below 300 meters, more commonly less than 50 meters.

1) Cause of issue: The cause of this particular issue stems from the same place, as does lethality, however examples of poor accuracy are even harder to obtain. The most common heard/red comment is generally how inaccurate 5.56mm generally is or more specifically how inaccurate M855 specifically is.

2) Reality. Perception can be turned to reality if untested and repeated.

â€¢ M855 has an acceptance standard of 4 minutes of angle (4 inches @ 100 yards, 8 inches @ 200 yards, etc.).
â€¢ M855 is a three-part bullet comprised of a steel penetrator, lead sleeve and a copper jacket. This design is inherently inaccurate due to the positioning of the penetrator.
â€¢ Over 80% of SF marksmanship training is conducted at ranges less than 50 meters. On some teams this may not be the norm, however on most due to range availability and an increased emphasis on close quarters / urban combat training, long-range marksmanship training is not a priority.
â€¢ Human sized targets out to and including 600 meters can be easily engaged with M855 if the soldier is trained.

C. Unreliability. The issue deals more with the weapons platform, but is typically lumped into conversations around the failings of the 5.56mm/M4 combination.

1) Cause of issue: As with the above issues, several supposed cases occurred where the M4/5.56mm failed in combat conditions at a horrendous rate, in some instances forcing the soldier involved to procure an enemy weapon to survive.

2) Reality:

â€¢ The M4 originally suffered from a variety of problems to include poor accuracy (see ammunition), failure to feed, failure to extract, failure to eject, etc. It was for some of these reasons that SOF procured an upgrade kit (heavy barrel), however the problems did not seem to abate, rather in some cases they grew. Due to this situation Colt Manufacturing went to Ft Bragg and examined a variety of M4s and talked to armors and operators. Upon inspection it was discovered that in many cases the barrels were not tight; ranging from slightly out of spec to merely finger tight. Additionally it was discovered that Colt had not performed sufficient quality control on the guns, instead relaying on the military to conduct pre-operational inspections, which it did not.
â€¢ Since the corrective actions (inspection of all M4s) the weapons failure rate has drastically dropped. While some failures do occur, they can in almost every case be traced to operator error. As a mechanical device the M4 is prone to wear and malfunction if not properly cared for; this is true of any device.
â€¢ Range 37 (SFARTAETC) fires an estimated 30,000 rounds of M855 a year through M4 carbines without a fraction of the supposed problems reported.

4. IMPACTING ISSUES. As stated above, when specific issues like lethality are viewed alone the 6.8mm shines, however when all of the supporting issues are factored into the equation it is much less desirable. Here are some of the issues that never seem to come out in the briefings.

Quote:

A. Force Protection (FORCPRO).

1) Passive: SOF operates across the globe and in the vast majority of instances with other conventional US forces/elements. SOF specific ammunition and/or weapons systems single out SOF as someone special and instantly raises them on the â€œwatch or hitâ€ list. It will be said that this is true regardless of the weapon or ammunition and that SOF typically dress differently and uses a variety of unique equipment. While this is true in some cases, a special weapon is always of higher interest to the enemy. Should the same platform be retained and converted to 6.8mm the immediate visual detection will be eliminated, however ammunition storage and handling will yield interest at some point and within a period of time identify SOF and/or a unique (desirable) system.

2) Active: During combat operations SOF employing a unique caliber/cartridge will be followed across the battlefield due to spent casings. Anytime a SOF operator fires a round he will be leaving a tell tale sign. Depending on the scale of the conflict, this could easily result in an increased effort to track and eliminate those elements, something no SOF element needs above and beyond the normal hazards. Another aspect of different ammunition is sound signature, again marking the location of the SOF element in the firefight bringing added attention from the enemy.

B. Interoperability.

1) US Forces: Due to world events and political concerns SOF operates less unilaterally and more with conventional US forces or at a minimum SOF uses conventional US areas to stage from. SOF must be able to share both weapons PLL and ammunition types in order to conduct sustained operations. A SOF specific weapon or ammunition will require SOF specific logistics, which may or may not be able to meet the demands of the force across the world.

2) Allied Forces: There is a reason that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed; to develop a union that could come together and operate as one. A portion of this issue was (and is) the ability to use one anotherâ€™s stores and be able to share war-fighting supplies (i.e. ammunition). On even a larger scale US SOF conducts Foreign Internal Defense (FID) is which they conduct training with and for allied nations. Since a vast majority of our allies use a M16 variant and an even large number use weapons chambered in 5.56mm, US SOF would have to be issued two separate systems to meet the FID requirements.

C. Availability. In conjunction with interoperability is availability through STRAC. 5.56mm is commonly (and currently) a CALS item, meaning that very little if any is available for training or to units not forward deployed. Adding a specialty caliber will only exacerbate this issue thus further reducing the ability of the operators to train.

5. CONCLUSIONS. Is should be apparent by now that this document is not in favor of adopting the 6.8mm cartridge. It has no â€œvalue addedâ€ over the existing system, with the exception of lethality (as compared against M855) it provides more problems than it solves. Until the entire US Army and all of NATO adopt this caliber, it is not feasible to suggest that SOF be hindered with a unique unsupportable caliber/ammunition. As initially stated, continued investigation into new systems should continue but not at the expense of existing systems.

6. POC this document; CW3 Michael Haugen, 1st SFG(A),

Rick - Well maybe not bust your bubble - I am just not the biggest M193 fan -but our M855 (C77) will do MOA or better so I have no issues with its accuracy.
My own expericne has the M855 fragmenting to slightly lower velocites than M193 - due to its longer OAL and dissimilar construction.

Our Doc (who also is accidentally a NAvy LCdr too - but not a reservist :D ) is trying to set up some Xray stuff with the BMT and coresponding ammuntion.

SO much for bumming 5.56 off SF guys :(

We really need to get Yahoo! up to speed. Yahoo! News published this nearly two hours ago. Some would say four years, three months and two hours too late. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/...g_over_bullets

The report is on 5.56 rounds in contrast to 7.62 rounds. Any new experiences/test data I need to sponge up? Or has the horse been obliterated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by systaltic (Post 211250)

Don't feel bad that same story was front page on the Fayetteville Observer this morning.

Wow. As I read more and more of the old threads, it seems as though I am actually staring at a crystal ball that predicts future events/thought rationales.

SF != lethargy.

Just to add to what TR said about a high enough velocity to induce fragmentation. I just finished reading House to House. About one Infantry Platoons fight in Faluja. They had just gotten the M4 issued to most of their members right before that fight.
They knew nothing about it. One thing they did notice very quickly was that they were having trouble putting the enemy down. Something that wasn't a problem before. They didn't understand why but it was very obvious to them the M4 was the problem.

Penetration is a problem? I believe every thing we use penetrates. It's what happens next that may persuade some opinions. The difference in stabbing with an ice pick or a Bowie. While the 6.8's write up and stats are good , Reaper's right on. Signatures etc. I on the other hand would be very comfortable with 7.62 x 39 with about a 18 to 20 inch barrel. American style. I won't say where but A team I was on planned to carry 12 Gauge shotguns on point so there would be no real signature. Just for chance encounters. then I digress . Blitz

Quote:

Originally Posted by systaltic (Post 211250)

The report is on 5.56 rounds in contrast to 7.62 rounds. Any new experiences/test data I need to sponge up? Or has the horse been obliterated?

Systaltic:

You can learn every side of the coin on this forum. From the LeMas ammunition through service ammo -- interior, exterior, and terminal theories and views. Huge debates took place with the Le Mas stuff and one can learn an immense amount about all aspects of ballistics and bullet design from that 'unemotional' debate. He, he, he.

I read that article and my first impression was based on the reporter stating that 1/5 of the guys interviewed wanted a bigger bullet. So what did the other 4/5 th's of the guys say? 1/5 is only 2 out of 10 guys. That isn't a real strong statistic. Also, who ever interviewed these guys didn't state what his sample consisted of - which is pretty important when you consider the billions of dollars needed to re-tool an ammunition system and the billions more in terms of logistical requirements.

I am not a strong proponent of the issued M-855. Not because of its terminal effects because for every one shot who didn't go down immediately with M-855. I bet you would find the exact same with the 7.62 NATO, M-2 30-06, etc. Maybe even the coveted .45 ACP. It's (M-855) accuracy is pretty poor due to its composite design and manufacture plus the design and manufacture of the barrels for the M-16's and M-4's. They are service grade blasters which would be OK with 2 MOA ammo. Combine the service grade blaster with 3 MOA ammo (not 4 as the article stated) and you get into issues with hit and kill probabilities. Sum the squares of error probable simply based on firing positions (supported or unsupported) and you get something around 20 minutes extreme spread unsupported and about ten minutes supported.

The issue is this. What do you want the bullet to do for you? If you want it to penetrate things harder than air -- designers will make one that will do so very well. They will remain stable when penetrating things harder than air. Define for us what your standards for such substances are and we can design a bullet to penetrate them to about 500 yards. Just don't piss and moan if they punch a little hole through someone and otherwise don't do much. Or you can have a bullet that will have an entry hole of what ever the caliber is plus and exit hole (through an average male of which you must state his stature) that is three or four times the entry hole diameter (providing you can state the average range). We can figure out the speed needed.

So there you have it. State your requirements but if you want a rifle bullet to penetrate the frontal glascias of an M-1 Tank and then kill the dirver without further penetration -- we need to give you a piss test to see what narcotics you are addicted to.

Gene the Tired

Gene

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gene Econ (Post 213154)

Sum the squares of error probable simply based on firing positions (supported or unsupported) and you get something around 20 minutes extreme spread unsupported and about ten minutes supported.

Is the extreme spread figured by:
es = 2 x square root(sum of squares of all error)

Just curious.
I understand the math side of things, but haven't had any in-depth shooting training.

Guess I need to be Smacked too.

Sometimes it's hard not to comment on a subject, particularly with so many references that at times are antagonistic. There is nothing wrong with the AR platform and with minor changes we can have a very good 7.62 x 51mm combat rifle.and keep the 5.56 for the "carbine" M-4. Carrying the weight never bothered me because I rather respected the devastation of the 7.62. It always seemed to provide positive results out to 6,7,8,9 hundred meters. Alright...Smack Me. Blitz

"I have listened to the 6.8 vs 6.5 vs 6mm vs 5.56mm for awhile. SO! What do yo guys feel about he rounds and do you think that these new rounds are really needed?"

Things come to mind when I hear this come up - rifle vs carbine, urban vs open country side, small and fast vs big and slow, general purpose vs specific, the list goes on... and you can't have it all.

I grew up hearing only "Only accuracy is interesting" and if a 45acp, 12ga. and a 30 cal saved the world twice don't you think it could do it a third time".

I think we would be well served to get back that way of thinking "bang, thud" and focus more on accuracy, making riflemen and being proud of it. That being said

5.56 is what we have, but man it seems pretty weak when stacked up against current Russian and Chinese rounds or any other possiblity. I know any self respecting hunter wouldn't use it on anything past a ground hog. The Military has made it work and it seems to do the job, if the rifleman does his or if not, I would hope they would get rid of it, same with the 9mm.

I have some experience with the 6mm, BR, PPC rounds and they are amazingly efficient and accurate rounds, the 6.5 Grendel follows in their foot steps. This would be a great general purpose round, which is what some are looking for.

The 6.8 is a 30-30 in my mind. It is a good round but always wanting more in the end.

"I have had my wee wee smacked for some of my comments on the subject."

I am sure I will as well. :D

Slainte,

M

This has pretty well been flogged to death here.

It ain't the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog.

Or in this case, the abyssmal performance of the 5.56 ammo we are using.

This is an easy fix, if someone would just throw away the M855 and go back to the drawing board.

TR

Quote:

Originally Posted by trailrunner (Post 218447)

Thank you for your very amature opinion of the 5.56 round vs. 6.8.

I am not only a professional soldier but a self respecting hunter as well, and given the opportunity I would hunt every animal in the North American, from mule deer on down with a 5.56. The only reason I don't is a clean, %100 kill that the .300 WM assures me and the fact I don't have to carry 300-400 rounds of .300WM when hunting humans.

As for you comments concerning the AK round, I'm not aware of a firefight where American soldiers, Marines etc were engaged that the mere use of the powerful AK round turned the tide of the battle. Reading your comments I'm sure you must know or are aware of an engagement where this occurred?

You really should make an attempt to either stay off the tin-foil hat wearing moronic websites boasting the power of the AK or 6.8 rounds, 99% of them are filled with children or civilians driven by a profit motive.

Team Sergeant