A good article in some respects. Personally I like the rifle for a designated marksman weapon. Neat weapons systems in total. Me I think the XM250 will pale in comparison to the 249. Way more rounds easily available for the old 249. This weapon also will not adequately fill the shoes of the old M240. What it is compares more with the M14 which interestingly weighed about the same. Weight being why we ditched the M14, that and the weight of the 7.62x51 ammo.
The cartridge is expensive to manufacture, Is more complicated than the average steel or brass cased ammo. Pressures are high, I think I read more than 80K psi. Both versions have suppressors. How many rounds will they take before they need maintenance? That much heat and muzzle pressure would take a toll on your average suppressor. How loud is it to fire without the suppressor? If it is tuned to function using the suppressor will it function reliably without it installed?
Saving grace could be that it can have differently chambered uppers for it just like an AR15. I note the immediate possibilities are the 6.5 Creedmoor and the old 7.62x51.
Are suppressors even that expensive to manufacture, if you make them for Uncle Sugar and remove all of the bullschìt that drives costs up for the civilian market? 🤔
For a lucrative enough defense contract, I am guessing that a big company could churn out suppressors for a lot less than they cost the rest of us to buy. But I may be wrong, who knows.
Are suppressors even that expensive to manufacture, if you make them for Uncle Sugar and remove all of the bullschìt that drives costs up for the civilian market? 🤔
For a lucrative enough defense contract, I am guessing that a big company could churn out suppressors for a lot less than they cost the rest of us to buy. But I may be wrong, who knows.
Suppressors are not hard to build. Suppressors that can take high muzzle pressures and full auto fire are very expensive due to the necessary metals needed to produce them. Without a suppressor I bet that thing is super loud. However will the rifle function well without a suppressor installed? The price means nothing to Uncle because it is our money.
Just a dumb hillbilly, but I'm not seeing any barrel life. Not at those pressures, and full auto. They gotta be smoking by the time one mag is gone. The suppressors really gotta heat up.
Parents who say they have good kids..Usually don't!
Yep. IMO it's a race car being used in a hostile environment. What could go wrong?
Pretty much my thoughts also.
I don't think every infantryman's rifle needs a suppressor. I'm guessing that is added/needed due to crazy muzzle blast.
My thoughts are not even relevant, but I would prefer further development of 5.56 ammo, with maybe 75-80gr projectile with improved BC, and the terminal ballistics needed for combat ammo.
Then just tweak the regular M16 rifle with an 18" or so barrel, adjustable buttstock, battle optic, and maybe a barrel that is just a little heavier under the handguards than the standard govt profile. In other words, take some hints from the SPR, but don't go crazy with added weight.
This is revolutionary, and we arrived at this point in record time because we leveraged [the] middle-tier of acquisition rapid fielding authorities to enable speed and flexibility in defining requirements," he said.
Guess my biggest issue with this weapon concept is the far fewer rounds carried both in combat load and in the magazines. We moved away from the 7.62 as our main combat rifle cartridge for good reason. The M249 being very dear to my heart anyway.
Guess my biggest issue with this weapon concept is the far fewer rounds carried both in combat load and in the magazines. We moved away from the 7.62 as our main combat rifle cartridge for good reason. The M249 being very dear to my heart anyway.
Europe wanted a light, small caliber gun. America threw a pout and we got the 308 and heavy guns.
Very few years later, America changed HER mind. We all got the 5.56 and M16.
It took 60 years, but SHE went Bat Shìt Crazy. Now, it's a small caliber, heavy gun, heavy ammo, very high pressure!
And we wonder why they might look sideways at U.S. Without our money and influence, we would be too big a PITA to put up with.
Parents who say they have good kids..Usually don't!
IIRC the point of it is to defeat body armor. More weight, more recoil, less rounds carried by troops who are already overburdened. That's my take, which of course is worth what you just paid for it.
'Four legs good, two legs baaaad." ---------------------------------------------- "Jimmy, some of it's magic, Some of it's tragic, But I had a good life all the way." (Jimmy Buffett)
IIRC the point of it is to defeat body armor. More weight, more recoil, less rounds carried by troops who are already overburdened. That's my take, which of course is worth what you just paid for it.
Well the "more weight, more recoil,less rounds" will certainly make all the difference with the body armor issue. In fact body armor heavy enough to defeat what the 5.56 offers is getting pretty heavy itself.
IIRC the point of it is to defeat body armor. More weight, more recoil, less rounds carried by troops who are already overburdened. That's my take, which of course is worth what you just paid for it.
You can always pick up more ammo when you go to the chow hall for dinner. /sarc
Silly crapola. The Russians figured this out long ago, you just give everyone stuff, that they can not break, that also works in the real crud of field service, and you go off to war.
I know a head of R&D for a national military outfit. Gave him 15 scientists and told him to go invent something. Total waste and a squirrel city.
The fixation with hitting something a 2 miles is astounding.
“To expect defeat is nine-tenths of defeat itself. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is best to plan for all eventualities then believe in success, and only cross the failure bridge if you come to it." Francis Marion - The Swamp Fox
the 6.8x51 is a pipe dream. it kicks to hard, it only shoots 20 cartridges, going 80,000psi it's rifling will be a smoothbore, we don't have technology to make the rifling withstand 80,000psi. yes, the barrel will withstand 80,000psi, but the rifling won't. then we are going hope that NATO will come in, Nato just got done with 5.56 (Poland, Balatic States, Eastern Europe) rifle, i doubt that they are going to 6.8x51. the weight of 5.56 ammo and 6.8x51 ammo is massive.
the only thing good about it, is the new scope. battery operated and when it dies, it will still have crosshairs.
"Russia sucks." ---- Me, US Army (retired) 12B & 51B
Russian Admiral said, after the Moskva sank, "we have the world's worst navy but we aren't as bad as our army".
the 6.8x51 is a pipe dream. it kicks to hard, it only shoots 20 cartridges, going 80,000psi it's rifling will be a smoothbore, we don't have technology to make the rifling withstand 80,000psi. yes, the barrel will withstand 80,000psi, but the rifling won't. then we are going hope that NATO will come in, Nato just got done with 5.56 (Poland, Balatic States, Eastern Europe) rifle, i doubt that they are going to 6.8x51. the weight of 5.56 ammo and 6.8x51 ammo is massive.
the only thing good about it, is the new scope. battery operated and when it dies, it will still have crosshairs.
Just carry quick change barrels...lol
For those without thumbs, it's s Garden fookin Island, not Hawaii
Are suppressors even that expensive to manufacture, if you make them for Uncle Sugar and remove all of the bullschìt that drives costs up for the civilian market? 🤔
For a lucrative enough defense contract, I am guessing that a big company could churn out suppressors for a lot less than they cost the rest of us to buy. But I may be wrong, who knows.
Well, for starters, you still have to have a firearms manufacturing license. So, uncle sugar still gets his cut of the tax there.
And you better still carry alot of insurance in case of anything bad happens. So, again, you're still hemorrhaging money.
You're still spending money on rent/lease. Wages. Tools and Machining. R&D. Bookkeeper/accountant. And that's all before you sell the first thing.
Selling your wares to either gov or aftermarket requires you to provide samples and plane tickets and room/board for whoever takes it to Yuma proving grounds.
I'm sure there are still things I'm forgetting.
But, when you buy something in the US, you're paying for a lot more than just the physical product in hand.
Not saying I agree with it all, as I’m retiring and our teams don’t have them…though one team I was attached to had one of the sig development guys and two of their academy trainers in it. They spoke highly of it, but they DO work for Sig….even if I’d trust their judgement, regardless.
There’s a lot that’s still unknown/classified about how they got there. They have access to much harder/better barrel steels and mfg processes for barrels these days than just about any barrel maker could use. I know they use some ‘super steels’ on cannon and artillery barrels and under very high pressures. The optics/ranging package eliminates nearly all variables but wind, for shooting out past 1k. There’s a lot to be said for that range extension capability for not much cost in weight. We shall see.
If the military wants more punch out of an AR and are all concerned about ammo weight to be carried?
I've been playing with the 6 x 45 quite a bit in the last 6 months and doing a lot of testing of it and its capabilities within a bolt action rifle...which the same could be done with an AR...
My time in uniform was from the end of Vietnam until the end of 1982. We were always given 5.56 ammo loaded with 55 grain and 62 grain bullets in it...at like 3150 fps MV. We didn't use the later short barrel stuff...
It would require lengthening the mag well some, but that could easily be done... My Savage Barrel is 20 inches and made by Douglas in West Virginia with a one in 7 twist.
With 24.5 grains of Benchmark, or 25.5 grains of AR Comp, it is shooting the 6mm, 105 gr BTHP at 2750 fps. Just short of double the weight of the old 55 grain round, at 400 fps less MV.
However the aerodynamics of that bullet vs the 55 grainer in 22 caliber, it is much flatter shooting and delivers a substantial amount of energy, compared to the 22 cal 55 grainer.
Makes me wonder why they issued a 22 caliber bullet to troops in Vietnam, vs a 100 to 105 grain bullet in 6mm? More desk jockey intelligence level results.....
Don't see what a 6.8 SPC delivers that a 6 x 45 won't. reinventing the wheel, isn't a solution, when just jumping up to 6mm would achieve the solution with a lot less problems.
Being a fairly extensively trained corpsman, ya learn alot about bullet wounds... how to take care of the patient that has been shot, and learn a lot of how to wound to kill an enemy combatant.
but hey, I don't work at the Pentagon or run the military....as a soldier, we just use what we were given... even it is put there based on a bunch of dumbasses and accountants, who never have to spend a minute in the field.
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
A reminder that this is NOT the 6.8 SPC. This is a larger cased, 473 based case head, 277 running at up to 80k on pressure, vs 62k.
I do think a 6mm variant on the 6.8 (or even 223 case) case could have had merits as an issue round. 20” (even 14.5”) barrels suck when moving around in confined spaces. If you’re only going to work outdoors and on foot, it’s probably okay. It’s probably more desirous from a sniping perspective. I’m not getting into that subject.
If you’re using vehicles, in buildings or dug in positions, or run suppressors….longer barrels suck. I actually think we likely still need two rounds. I don’t get a say.
Not saying I agree with it all, as I’m retiring and our teams don’t have them…though one team I was attached to had one of the sig development guys and two of their academy trainers in it. They spoke highly of it, but they DO work for Sig….even if I’d trust their judgement, regardless.
There’s a lot that’s still unknown/classified about how they got there. They have access to much harder/better barrel steels and mfg processes for barrels these days than just about any barrel maker could use. I know they use some ‘super steels’ on cannon and artillery barrels and under very high pressures. The optics/ranging package eliminates nearly all variables but wind, for shooting out past 1k. There’s a lot to be said for that range extension capability for not much cost in weight. We shall see.
They may have barrel steels or coatings that slow erosion but the suppressor in my opinion is not going to fare well when shot full auto for the full ammo load of 400 rounds, which is 200 less than the old 249 gunner carried. I would figure 400 rounds of ammo loaded with enough powder to give a case the size of a 7-08 the speed of a 270 would have a lot of residue built up inside and would need at least cleaning. I also have never seen or handled a suppressor that anyone thought could take that kind of a beating. With the suppressor removed it will be very loud and might not function properly. The rifle ammo load has been kicked back to 140 rounds just like the M14. The new system to me is more like an improved AR10 variant.
As for the "range extension capability" wind is and always has been the real problem and shooting past 600 yards isn't going to be necessary unless you are in some high ground like Afghanistan. In fact the old saying we always build weapons for the last war seem applicable here.
Wouldn't it have been better to just stick with the proven 7.62x51mm NATO and design more modern individual/crew weapon systems with lightweight materials rather than start from scratch with what appears to be a cartridge rife with teething problems?
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -Isaac Asimov
Yep. IMO it's a race car being used in a hostile environment. What could go wrong?
Pretty much my thoughts also.
I don't think every infantryman's rifle needs a suppressor. I'm guessing that is added/needed due to crazy muzzle blast.
My thoughts are not even relevant, but I would prefer further development of 5.56 ammo, with maybe 75-80gr projectile with improved BC, and the terminal ballistics needed for combat ammo.
Then just tweak the regular M16 rifle with an 18" or so barrel, adjustable buttstock, battle optic, and maybe a barrel that is just a little heavier under the handguards than the standard govt profile. In other words, take some hints from the SPR, but don't go crazy with added weight.
This right here.
Will Munny: It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.
The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.
Wouldn't it have been better to just stick with the proven 7.62x51mm NATO and design more modern individual/crew weapon systems with lightweight materials rather than start from scratch with what appears to be a cartridge rife with teething problems?
The problem is the 7.62x51 is a suck cartridge. Sorry.
And the Sig *is* the " more modern individual/crew weapon systems with lightweight materials".
Wouldn't it have been better to just stick with the proven 7.62x51mm NATO and design more modern individual/crew weapon systems with lightweight materials rather than start from scratch with what appears to be a cartridge rife with teething problems?
The problem is the 7.62x51 is a suck cartridge. Sorry.
And the Sig *is* the " more modern individual/crew weapon systems with lightweight materials".
The 7.62 may be a suck cartridge but5 it has served with distinction. The Sig is nothing more than a prettied up and strengthened version of the AR10. I see no improvement in either rifle or SAW version and there will be problems with ammo supply. Just like the M60 and the 240 the new Fury will take more than one person to crew if only for ammo carry.
Yep. IMO it's a race car being used in a hostile environment. What could go wrong?
Pretty much my thoughts also.
I don't think every infantryman's rifle needs a suppressor. I'm guessing that is added/needed due to crazy muzzle blast.
My thoughts are not even relevant, but I would prefer further development of 5.56 ammo, with maybe 75-80gr projectile with improved BC, and the terminal ballistics needed for combat ammo.
Then just tweak the regular M16 rifle with an 18" or so barrel, adjustable buttstock, battle optic, and maybe a barrel that is just a little heavier under the handguards than the standard govt profile. In other words, take some hints from the SPR, but don't go crazy with added weight.
Missed this post prior, MM, but this is along the lines I was thinking. Why trash the 5.56? Kind of reminds me of the Warthog.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
it is true that the 5.56 is coming to the end of service life. its big problem is body armor and ballistic plates. the 5.56 doesn't penetrate well on class 3 body armor. on class 4 body armor, a 5.56 just doesn't penetrate at all. the military is deciding on the 6.8x51 because it is able to penetrate class 4 body armor and plates. i think its chamber pressure is 80,000psi, but that due to 3 piece case. a steel case head and a brass body connected by an aluminum washer. the US could likely have the 6.8x51, but NATO would not approve. why? they just done re-arming the 5.56 from the 5.45x39 and 7.62x39 (Poland, Estonia and the like).
the big problem i have will be the recoil, only 20 round magazine and the A-10 weapon. you won't need fully auto anymore, unless you are shooting at the sky. 2 round burst is needed. a basic combat load in the 5.56 is 210 rounds (7 30 round mags). since the 6.8 is only a 20 round mag, the basic loading is either 200 (10 mags) or 220 rounds (11 mags). that is an awful amount of weight. if you go on a combat run, you will have to double or triple it. then you have to go with a different weapon platform, an A-10. its heavier than an A-15 (5.56) and the greater recoil will be an issue. the ammo production will be expensive because of the case.
"Russia sucks." ---- Me, US Army (retired) 12B & 51B
Russian Admiral said, after the Moskva sank, "we have the world's worst navy but we aren't as bad as our army".
This is revolutionary, and we arrived at this point in record time because we leveraged [the] middle-tier of acquisition rapid fielding authorities to enable speed and flexibility in defining requirements," he said.
From one of the op's links. Typical gov-speak!
They forgot to invoke the Goddesses ISO and Quality…., or are those Racissst now?
Every first person account I've read from Vietnam was that people hated the 5.56 because it lacked penetration in the brush and they held on to their m14's as long as possible despite the weight and ammo reduction issues. With the right metallurgy and treatments, I could see these new barrels holding up pretty damned well. I'll reserve judgement until results are in.
I can't understand why they keep wanting something in 6.8. Think they should go 6.5 or 7 but some of the old military brass probably read too much JOC.
I also don't understand why the bc on 6.8s are never as good as those on 6.5s or 7s. If you take the same profile bullet proportionally the same it seems like 6.8s just don't compete. Even the new heavier stuff fir faster twist guns like the 6.8 western don't seem to compete with its closest rivals.
I think something like the 6.5x47 lapua or that same case necked up to 7mm would be a decent all around round. I really like the Creedmoor case but the 6.5x47L is a nice little case that's a bit shorter and very efficient. A 7x47 lapua on a 7.5 twist barrel shooting high bc 180s at 2500 or so would offer great barrel life and still be able to reach out and touch things or defeat a lot of body armor.
I'm running a reduced load in my kids 6.5 grendel mini howa with a 129g ablr at a sedate 2350 or so and it still does pretty well out there a ways.
Every first person account I've read from Vietnam was that people hated the 5.56 because it lacked penetration in the brush and they held on to their m14's as long as possible despite the weight and ammo reduction issues. With the right metallurgy and treatments, I could see these new barrels holding up pretty damned well. I'll reserve judgement until results are in.
I've read and spoke to few GIs that wanted their M14s back, most of that was due to the government's decision to not listen to Stoner and use up the old powder they had, then they didn't supply cleaning kits and lube... maybe wrong barrels as well. Pretty auspicious intro of the M16.
Also, the US as of late has not been involved with jungle conflicts and the current bad guys know the effective range of the 5.56.
I was hoping they would adopt the 6 ARC, seems like it has a lot to offer.
For those without thumbs, it's s Garden fookin Island, not Hawaii
I was reading a chart the other day, I think it was published by the War College, rounds expended per enemy casualty, damn boys, war is getting expensive. Each conflict, the number of rounds expended went up dramatically until Afghanistan where they estimate 300,000 rounds per casualty, I'll let you do the math. WW2 it was 45,000 rounds. I fully understand, looser formations, the importance of suppressive fire nowadays. But still, it seems there is plenty of room to adopt tactics to even up the casualty/ammo ratio. The emphasis on volume vs precision doesn't seem to be working if you want to break the enemy's will to fight. Precision shooters with powerful weapons? More accurate aerial intel and targeting and precision guided HE munitions? The Russians have shown in Uke that good artillery is NOT obsolete yet. I don't know but it seems like worrying about individual infantryman loadout as a big factor isn't producing results.
Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
Every first person account I've read from Vietnam was that people hated the 5.56 because it lacked penetration in the brush and they held on to their m14's as long as possible despite the weight and ammo reduction issues. With the right metallurgy and treatments, I could see these new barrels holding up pretty damned well. I'll reserve judgement until results are in.
Well we have the much more recent 20 year long GWOT that proved the M-4 shooting 5.56mm was a really solid carbinie for infantry.
Some units tried the M-14 in the early days but it was a disaster.
Every US SOF unit and all of JSOC use the 5.56mm weapons as the standard because of how well the cartridge works.
Nobody but Gen Milley want this silly gun and he is on the way out the door. It's done.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
I'm a big 270 Win fan but don't think this new Army cartridge is a good idea. The reason they went from the 30-06 to the 308 to the 223 was less recoil, ammo weighed less, flatter shooting. Though I'm a big fan of the 45 ACP vs the 9mm for pistols. If I want to get some angry I'll just insult them.
Regards,
Chuck
"There's a saying in prize fighting, everyone's got a plan until they get hit"
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/yYDjsxrQ/IMG-0124.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/cHJHXhyX/Screenshot-2023-08-24-at-14-25-34-Sig-Sauer-SLX762-C-QD.png)
