[KevinB]

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

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 “target fixation� 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 “merely passes through� 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.

• 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 “peace loving� nation.
• There are other 5.56mm projectiles that could and would provide increased lethality (M193 and the new 77 Grain are both in the inventory)
• Credible evidence has not been presented to indicate that US soldier’s lives have been placed into jeopardy due to a lack of lethality of either the caliber or of M855.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 “belief� 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.

• M855 has an acceptance standard of 4 minutes of angle (4 inches @ 100 yards, 8 inches @ 200 yards, etc.).
• 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.
• 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.
• 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:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.