US and CHINA 6,8mm ammo trials


#1

I wouldt like to know if somebody couldt share some informations about the US trials with new 6,8mm ammo. Nobody seems to be really lucky with the .223 and 5,8mm and 5,45 ammo.
The chinese also trialed this bigger caliber ammo and I get a pic that shouldt show the new trial rounds and a plastic belt .

Any idea ??

.


#2

From what I have read from various discussion forums on the internet and anectdotal reports, the 6.8 has been well received by US forces using it and it offers greater range and lethality than the current issue 5.56 loads, even the heavier bullets. The trade-off of course is heavier ammunition to carry and greater recoil in the rifle shooting it, but not so much as to be disagreeable.

The “deal killer” as it were, is that the cost of changing over the entire armed forces’ inventory of 5.56 caliber weapons to 6.8 would be too expensive and keeping two front line calibers and different weapons/parts for them in inventory would be unacceptable. Only time will tell how this will end up.

AKMS


#3

If that view had always held sway we’d still be using muzzle-loading muskets ;-)

Seriously, I agree that there’s very little chance of NATO changing to a new conventional rifle cartridge, despite the grumbles about the 5.56mm which are still coming from US forces in Iraq. The next opportunity to change calibre IMO will come if the current LSAT programme, which involves plastic-cased and caseless telescoped cartridges, bears fruit. But don’t hold your breath…


#4

Changing the primary infantry cartridge has been an ongoing project in the US since 1865 and there’s no reason to think tomorrow will be any different. Now that everything is global it may be a little more complicated (political) but isn’t everything more complicated nowadays?

Ray


#5

Ray, if the US Army wants a new cartridge I can’t see them taking any notice of NATO. After all, they adopted the 5.56mm round at least 15 years before the rest of NATO.

The problem I think is for them to be able to justify the cost of changeover in terms of quantifiable benefits. Since the Army brass have been determinedly defending the 5.56mm as entirely adequate for its purpose (“all you have to do is shoot them twice rather than once…”) it’s going to be hard for them now to argue that it’s not good enough.

OTOH, the saving in weight of up to 50% achieved with the LSAT ammo does indeed make a quantifiable difference (especially for machine gunners) so IMO stands a better chance of adoption.