• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Squad Weapon A Big Hit

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,536
Points
1,090
For a guy who likes ships because I don't have to carry my own stuff around with me, what does that mean?

Is the 6.8 more pew than a 5.56 and less pew than a 7.62? Does it pew farther? Faster? Can you better pew things at a distance than a pew-ier 7.62, with more pew than a 5.56? Can I continue to find new and stupid ways to work pew into a dumb question?

Most importantly, how much of a badass will I feel like not hitting a barn at 100 yards with that on full auto?

In a serious note, is this going to become a more common NATO standard round? It thought part of the reason for standardized rounds was to help with shared logistics, but maybe that's not a big deal when you are they US Army.
New materials, ammo construction have made this weapon lighter. New recoil mitigation designs have made this have the same recoil as a 5.56mm, while increasing effective range and stopping power.

 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,411
Points
1,110
For a guy who likes ships because I don't have to carry my own stuff around with me, what does that mean?

Is the 6.8 more pew than a 5.56 and less pew than a 7.62? Does it pew farther? Faster? Can you better pew things at a distance than a pew-ier 7.62, with more pew than a 5.56? Can I continue to find new and stupid ways to work pew into a dumb question?

Most importantly, how much of a badass will I feel like not hitting a barn at 100 yards with that on full auto?

In a serious note, is this going to become a more common NATO standard round? It thought part of the reason for standardized rounds was to help with shared logistics, but maybe that's not a big deal when you are they US Army.
It’s more pew than a 5.56, less than a 7.62. It pews much farther and flatter than the former, which means you don’t have to pew as high when pewing really far. However it also pews way farther than the average grunt is capable of accurately pewing. What I don’t have a read on, and I’m sure Kev will need out momentarily, is how much of the increased pew is left, kinetically speaking, within the confines of the target’s thoracic cavity. I have to imagine it’ll be a harder hitting round, particularly if kit or armour causes it to tumble and fragment. ‘Stopping power’ mostly is a factor of how capably a round causes blood loss, which in turn is a factor of the size of the physical hole caused, and more importantly the rupture of soft tissue by the hydrostatic shock of the round traversing the body.

I would guess that if US goes to 6.8 as a standard, we may see other NATO nations go that way in time for logistical simplicity, and he ever they come due to replace their small arms fleet. Maybe watch to see if our procurement shifts suddenly, or if Colt Canada starts marketing 6.8.

EDIT TO ADD: Fighting autocorrect on that one was hard. Almost wrote a treatise on standard NATO peeing.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,653
Points
1,140
New materials, ammo construction have made this weapon lighter. New recoil mitigation designs have made this have the same recoil as a 5.56mm, while increasing effective range and stopping power.

You haven’t shot them have you…

Mind blowing stupidity on this, in many many ways.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,907
Points
1,260
It’s more pew than a 5.56, less than a 7.62. It pews much farther and flatter than the former, which means you don’t have to pew as high when pewing really far. However it also pews way farther than the average grunt is capable of accurately pewing. What I don’t have a read on, and I’m sure Kev will need out momentarily, is how much of the increased pew is left, kinetically speaking, within the confines of the target’s thoracic cavity.

That should be in an instructional lecture. Make a Youtube one, with a B&W filter and the presenter looking like Yosemite Sam.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,653
Points
1,140
So few facts first.
M4A1 w/ M855A1 ammo from a fixture 95% hit probability to 630m.

Average US Army Soldier hits <50% of the time on a KD range at 300m.

Average US Army soldier hits <50% of the time in combat inside 100m

Yet we needed to field a 1200m capable weapon???
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,411
Points
1,110
So few facts first.
M4A1 w/ M855A1 ammo from a fixture 95% hit probability to 630m.

Average US Army Soldier hits <50% of the time on a KD range at 300m.

Average US Army soldier hits <50% of the time in combat inside 100m

Yet we needed to field a 1200m capable weapon???
1200 is bigger than any of those numbers. Can’t let the enemy open up an advantage in the ineptitude gap.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,536
Points
1,090
You haven’t shot them have you…

Mind blowing stupidity on this, in many many ways.
6.8? yes, this one? no they are making some bold claims about the capabilities of this new 6.8 round which if true are not like 6.8 rounds currently on the market.
 

medic5

Member
Reaction score
55
Points
380
I watched the video of Cappy from Task and Purpose shooting it. Not quite sure if it actually has the same recoil as 5.56 considering the round is way hotter. Regardless, I don't think they are going to replace every single M4 with this, hell from what I've read online certain National Guard units still have M16s in their armouries.

To me the adoption of this rifle leads to many questions. Why this over the other, more innovative designs? If the US Army goes through the hassle of replacing millions of rifles, why not go with the bullpup or even the fully cased ammo? Are they going to replace the M240 and other 7.62 weapons with this? 12" barrel? What? With such a high chambre pressure, will these rifles function for as long as Sig claims?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,653
Points
1,140
I watched the video of Cappy from Task and Purpose shooting it. Not quite sure if it actually has the same recoil as 5.56 considering the round is way hotter.
Recoil is significantly higher. Sig has just been very adept at greasing the skids and co-opting certain folks to buy the line.

All that has been done with this cartridge (6.8 Big Stupid Army) is effectively necking down a 7.62x51mm NATO round and jacking up the pressures.
I mean what could possibly go wrong with a 100k PSI chamber pressure right?

To me the adoption of this rifle leads to many questions. Why this over the other, more innovative designs? If the US Army goes through the hassle of replacing millions of rifles, why not go with the bullpup or even the fully cased ammo?
CTA or Caseless Ammo was a non starter as the US Army had decided that the JSSAP caliber study and LSAT (Lightweight Small Arms Technology) studies where not as relevant (the Same Army that decided 6.5mm won the caliber study and then as soon as USSOCOM decided on 6.5 Creedmore for new rifles and the Advanced Machine Gun program announced they would adopt a 6.8 bullet)

Are they going to replace the M240 and other 7.62 weapons with this? 12" barrel? What? With such a high chambre pressure, will these rifles function for as long as Sig claims?
Well none of the test guns lasted beyond 1,000 rounds with a useable barrel and nothing lasted more than 3k without a catastrophic failure of the weapon system…

The stupidity of this program is awe inspiring.
Sig was actually the worst performer in terms of reliability etc.
But the concern/reluctance of many to the CTA option was exceptionally high, and the Bullpups didn’t offer a belt fed option. But hey watch certain acquisitions folks get jobs at Sig in the next few years…


Meanwhile USASOC is fielding 14.5” uppers on its M110’s as the M110A2 in 6.5 Creedmore. Color me significantly on the side of that decision.

FN has made both 6.5 CM and 6.8 BSA (Big Stupid Army) 240 barrels.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,653
Points
1,140
6.8? yes, this one? no they are making some bold claims about the capabilities of this new 6.8 round which if true are not like 6.8 rounds currently on the market.
Old 6.8 was 6.8x43mm a small frame (5.56x45mm NATO) type gun. It was a 400m and in cartridge at best round. 6.8x51 Big Stupid Army is a necked down 7.62 NATO round with yet more powder and pressures , and no common sense.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,372
Points
1,040
So if I understand correctly, the new weapon shoots much further than soldiers are capable of using it effectively, has high recoil (making it harder to use effectively?), and sounds like it will eat through barrels? Awesome.

Sounds like a fun sales pitch
"Check this out guys, this NGSW is 10 oz lighter"
"Awesome!"
"Here, try it out, and don't forget your 3 spare barrels"
"What do you mean, 3 spare barrels, they weigh 8 lbs each?"
"yeah, but the gun is 10 oz lighter!"
....
"Holy crap this thing kicks like a mule!"
'Yeah, but it's good to 1200 m!"
"Sure, but I can't keep it on target"
"It has a 23.57% higher kinetic impact then a 5.56"
"Yeah, but I can't keep it on target!"
"But it's got 16.89% better accuracy then a 7.62"
"Yeah, but..."

Still, they procured something, so yeah? 🤷‍♂️

So far for us, for the really big mistakes, we need to wait for the original decision maker and some minions to retire before doing what made sense originally.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,653
Points
1,140
So if I understand correctly, the new weapon shoots much further than soldiers are capable of using it effectively, has high recoil (making it harder to use effectively?), and sounds like it will eat through barrels? Awesome.

Sounds like a fun sales pitch
"Check this out guys, this NGSW is 10 oz lighter"
"Awesome!"
"Here, try it out, and don't forget your 3 spare barrels"
"What do you mean, 3 spare barrels, they weigh 8 lbs each?"
"yeah, but the gun is 10 oz lighter!"
....
"Holy crap this thing kicks like a mule!"
'Yeah, but it's good to 1200 m!"
"Sure, but I can't keep it on target"
"It has a 23.57% higher kinetic impact then a 5.56"
"Yeah, but I can't keep it on target!"
"But it's got 16.89% better accuracy then a 7.62"
"Yeah, but..."

Still, they procured something, so yeah? 🤷‍♂️

So far for us, for the really big mistakes, we need to wait for the original decision maker and some minions to retire before doing what made sense originally.
Nailed it.

The entire debacle was inspired by the theory that we are overmatched at the Squad level, by 7.62x54R from a Russian PKM (yes a Platoon GPMG) then concern over Chinese Plates that there wasn't enough kinetic energy to crack them.

Entirely over looked was the fact that the PKM is a GPMG, and that at the current level of training the Average Infantry Solider will not even hit the Chinese plate...

Also considering I build a 6" .300Blackout that can crack Chinese plates at 150m with a long rod penetrator, I fail to see how it can't be done in 5.56mm or 7.62mm, or worse the Army lie that it can't be done in 6.5mm Creedmore when I have some of that ammo already.

No one wants to tackle the training aspect that just maybe spending more money on making a soldier a semi-useful gunfighter would be a good idea -- and we would gain significantly from just upgrading the M4A1, and adopting some 6.5 systems as DMR's, and maybe a Squad Level LAMG in 6.5 as well.


Anyway the way the contract was done the gun doesn't even have to be quantifiably better than the M4 in terms of reliability, accuracy etc -- so well done Army, you have just speed through the entire reason the Procurement system was setup- so we don't end up getting lemons.


We have trashed a litany of Small Arms programs before because they didn't offer a 30% or greater improvement to the M4.
Now we have taken a step backwards IMHO...
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,372
Points
1,040
Thanks for the insight, I always learn something new. I had no idea what a 'long rod penetrator' was (ps have SafeSearch turned on).

When getting new stuff, the training/application aspect is always overlooked, so seeing things that look great on paper but don't actually work is one of those really interesting engineering problems in figuring out how to test/evaluate things in a way that matches real life. Also probably some relevant project management insights on 'stakeholder management' there so marketing/lobbying doesn't end up with the selection of a sub-standard product (Now, 30% more LEDs!)
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
347
Points
810
The problem is there hasn't been any significant advancement in firearms technology over the last 60 years or so. The AR-15 family might not be the absolute best platform that could exist, but it is hard to beat it in any significant way, hence why it has stuck around for so long.

Optics on the other hand have had significant advancement in the last 20 years. That is the way to go for making any sort of meaningful difference in the individual rifle/lmg at the moment.

The US is doing this program more because of 'we have to seem to have something better' rather than 'we require something better'.

The only other big thing I can see making a huge difference is how effective these rounds are against body armour, as if they aren’t more effective there is no point in adopting. Unarmoured soldiers aren’t the issue, armoured are.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,417
Points
1,160
Nailed it.

The entire debacle was inspired by the theory that we are overmatched at the Squad level, by 7.62x54R from a Russian PKM (yes a Platoon GPMG) then concern over Chinese Plates that there wasn't enough kinetic energy to crack them.

Entirely over looked was the fact that the PKM is a GPMG, and that at the current level of training the Average Infantry Solider will not even hit the Chinese plate...

Also considering I build a 6" .300Blackout that can crack Chinese plates at 150m with a long rod penetrator, I fail to see how it can't be done in 5.56mm or 7.62mm, or worse the Army lie that it can't be done in 6.5mm Creedmore when I have some of that ammo already.

No one wants to tackle the training aspect that just maybe spending more money on making a soldier a semi-useful gunfighter would be a good idea -- and we would gain significantly from just upgrading the M4A1, and adopting some 6.5 systems as DMR's, and maybe a Squad Level LAMG in 6.5 as well.


Anyway the way the contract was done the gun doesn't even have to be quantifiably better than the M4 in terms of reliability, accuracy etc -- so well done Army, you have just speed through the entire reason the Procurement system was setup- so we don't end up getting lemons.


We have trashed a litany of Small Arms programs before because they didn't offer a 30% or greater improvement to the M4.
Now we have taken a step backwards IMHO...

And then there's the reality that no Infantry soldier can be effective on their own, with just a rifle, which is why we have a combined arms approach.

Sadly, this effort seems to be inspired by those who spend too much time playing the wrong kind of video games ;)
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,653
Points
1,140
And then there's the reality that no Infantry soldier can be effective on their own, with just a rifle, which is why we have a combined arms approach.

Sadly, this effort seems to be inspired by those who spend too much time playing the wrong kind of video games ;)
And shocker the people who do killing with rifles have decided to go with an 11.5” barrel 5.56mm carbine and a 14.5” 6.5Creedmore carbine.

I suspect the NGAR will have a very short service life. The NGSW may survive just cause the M249’s in Army inventory are pretty clapped out.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,910
Points
1,360
…until some Senator’s nephew gets their cheek blown off with a ruptured breech…
 
Top