Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,587 Posts
Does this mean they are going to stop call our AR-15's assault rifles?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RSL

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,766 Posts
I was hearing stories from a colleague that the military contractors were using the 6.8 SPC around 2007 and it will replace the 5.56 round. The 6.8 definitely is a better choice. I know some gun magazines tried to make it sound like it was using a .270 Winchester in an AR platform.
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
6,600 Posts
The 6.8mm is a step, in the right direction and, in my mind, long overdue. When I was in the Army (late '60s~early '70s), we were in the process of changing, from the M-14, to the M-16. With the M-14, we didn't have trouble consistently hitting/eliminating targets, out to 1,000 yards. With the early version M-16s, it was hard to be accurate, out to 200 yards and, when the target was hit, with the centerfire .22 round of the M-16 (a/k/a "the mouse gun" or the "Matty Mattel special"), the target didn't receive the hydrostatic shock/stopping power of the 7.62mmx51 (.30 caliber) round of the M-14. Were we able to carry fewer rounds, for the 14, because of weight and bulk? Yes but we didn't need as many rounds, as with the 16, to stop anything. With the 14: 1 round, 1 hit, 1 down and out. 6.8mmx51 = good FIRST move. It's not just because the AK always works, under adverse conditions and can be operated by a monkey, that it's still so popular. That 7.62mmx39 (.30 cal) round has real stopping power.

I feel the same, about the 9mm vs the .45 ACP.

My 2 cents. I know some will disagree.
Gary
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
87 Posts
I was hearing stories from a colleague that the military contractors were using the 6.8 SPC around 2007 and it will replace the 5.56 round. The 6.8 definitely is a better choice. I know some gun magazines tried to make it sound like it was using a .270 Winchester in an AR platform.
You’re correct. They were looking to replace the 556 with the 6.8spc. In fact it was being used by special forces. Actually it’s my favorite round as I’ve put together a few rifles in that caliber. However this is the 6.8 Fury. It is based off of a .308 case and is necked down for a .277 projectile. Since it is based off of the .308, I think that it will only be a matter of time before a barrel manufacturer makes a 6.8 Fury barrel for the AR10.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,766 Posts
The 6.8mm is a step, in the right direction and, in my mind, long overdue. When I was in the Army (late '60s~early '70s), we were in the process of changing, from the M-14, to the M-16. With the M-14, we didn't have trouble consistently hitting/eliminating targets, out to 1,000 yards. With the early version M-16s, it was hard to be accurate, out to 200 yards and, when the target was hit, with the centerfire .22 round of the M-16 (a/k/a "the mouse gun" or the "Matty Mattel special"), the target didn't receive the hydrostatic shock/stopping power of the 7.62mmx51 (.30 caliber) round of the M-14. Were we able to carry fewer rounds, for the 14, because of weight and bulk? Yes but we didn't need as many rounds, as with the 16, to stop anything. With the 14: 1 round, 1 hit, 1 down and out. 6.8mmx51 = good FIRST move. It's not just because the AK always works, under adverse conditions and can be operated by a monkey, that it's still so popular. That 7.62mmx39 (.30 cal) round has real stopping power.

I feel the same, about the 9mm vs the .45 ACP.

My 2 cents. I know some will disagree.
Gary
My friend who was in Vietnam went there with his M-14. He was issued the M-16. He hated the rifle. He called it the Mattel rifle. He said the M-16 killed many soldiers because they didn’t provide the necessary cleaning kits or training. It was lighter and carried more ammunition compared to the M-14. He did have experience in combat. He loved the 12 gauge the best followed by the 1911 .45 pistol. Most encounters were CQC. He never owned an AR-15 rifle from his experience with the M-16.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I think it’s wishful thinking that the army is expecting every soldier to make hits to 800 yards with this new cartridge and optic system. It was only about a decade ago that 800 yards was the effective range of a trained sniper. I know technology has improved, but it still requires advanced skills.

since this cartridge is very similar to a 270 Winchester, the added recoil will not help in training. With plate armor advancing everyday. This cartridge will probably be outdated by the time its fully implemented. Instead we are are weighing our troops down with a already heavy load out. In an age we’re mobility is becoming even more important

while the 5.56 had a hard beginning in Vietnam. It eventually proved to be extremely effective, causing the Soviets to switch from ak-47’s to ak-74’s. Not to mention the troops overall satisfaction in surveys done during the war on terror

I could be wrong and it will be interesting to see how this all plays out
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top