Actually, the 6.8SPC was not developed by the AMU, rather it was developed by some members of the Special Forces. I�ll have to look over my notes, but specifically it there were a couple of NCO�s that lead the project (I have their names somewhere). They may have been associated with the AMU, but they were most certainly Spec-Ops soldiers and remarkably adept at wildcat cartridge development. The round was tested extensively in Afghanistan and the performance was pretty good. It�s not a bad round at all, but the prevailing thought is that it�s not a performance increase enough to justify a change.
Remington�s participation has been a reluctant one from the beginning. They were never convinced it would see mass military service, but the Spec Ops guys talked them into it. Now Remington is aggressively marketing the round so as not to loose all of their backside on this project.
I disagree with your assessment; I think it�s a good round. However; I also agree that it�s not �better� enough to warrant a transition. I agree with you that if you�re going to go large, might as well just use the 7.62 NATO.
The M16 gas system has been the Achilles Heel of the M16 since inception. Couple the fact it dumps gas and un-burnt powder directly into the receiver, with the tight tolerances inside that receiver and that spells problems. Those problems are further enhanced by having two radically different metals bearing against each other (aluminum receiver & steel bolt carrier). For the most part, the system works, but I believe there is room for improvement.
You�re right about the increased recoil. Increase the bolt mass and the recoil most certainly increases. Regardless, reliability remains an issue with the M16 and I think it�s an issue that can be addressed without too much trouble.
