Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military The next US Service Rifle???

Despite its reliability problems and occasional issues with stopping power, the M16 remains a very hard act to follow. The M16 is an excellent general issue service rifle and has served us very well. Even before it was adopted, it has been slated for replacement, and I can count at least 4 projects that were intended to obsolete the M16, that have been canceled because they weren�t able to top the M16.

The SPIW and AICW were both half baked ideas that anyone with any sense could have predicted what would come of those. The ACR was a program that showed real promise in the sense that their goals were fairly achievable. I was very impressed when the military cancelled the project because the felt that none of the weapons were a significant improvement over the M16�US Government and common sense, now there�s a new one.

The XM8 has many merits to the design, but it has a lot of bugs to work out. At one time it was slated to begin replacing M16�s in service in the summer of 2005. I knew it wouldn�t be ready then and I sincerely doubted it would be ready by 2007. I�m thankful the military didn�t do another mid-war rifle change. Although actual combat is the best place to de-bug a weapon, it�s a bit hard on the troops.

So, what will be our next service rifle? Well, it could be the XM8, but my money�s on the FN SCAR. I think the concept behind the SCAR was generally sound. I like the caliber changing idea because I don�t feel that one cartridge is going to work everywhere in the world. The 5.56 was just right or the jungles of Vietnam, but it�s had a hard time in the sandbox. If we ever found ourselves pitted against a first class army, I think the 5.56 would come up wanting even more.

The FN SCAR will need to be de-bugged just like any other military rifle, but thus far, it looks promising.

I like the 6.8SPC cartridge and I think there�s a place for it in our military.

So, what say you??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPIW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Combat_Rifle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Individual_Combat_Weapon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR

I don't see a place for the 6.8 SPC in the arsenal. It's been over-hyped, the velocities are not as published, and there have been problems with accuracy, according to Remington as published in Rifle magazine.

There's always a problem with trying to fit a larger bullet into the same size magazine, supply-wise. I doubt the 6.8 would chamber in a 5.56, but I'm not so sure a 5.56 wouldn't chamber in a 6.8 and cause problems. I suppose this problem could be over come, broomhandle Mausers switched over to 9mm had a large, red number "9" engraved on the grips. But a magazine that's not instantly recognizable could cause problems, both in supply and in the field.

I agree the M 16 is hard to follow. I don't see anything out there now that's significantly better than it is. Some a shorter, some are more compact, but I think there will have to be a major paradigm shift before the rifle as a weapon is vastly improved.

Without a new super-special round, or a new super-efficient loading system, I just don't see a change in store. Could be wrong, though.

I also think the problems that exist now with the M 16 are the same as always...the round. That "penetrator" round is reportedly inaccurate and it doesn't yaw or tumble because the core is steel. For me, I'd go back to a 55 gr. bullet that does some damage when it hits and forget relying on the doubtful penetration power of so light a round. At least until the enemy starts wearing body armor.

I don't see the 6.8 replacing the 5.56. If anything I could see the Army going back to the 7.62, both are proven. Re-tooling for a new calibre, nope ain't gonna happen.

Where I envision the 6.8SPC is exactly as the name implies�The Special Purpose Cartridge. For longer range where people are wearing heavier clothing, the 6.8 might (key word there), be a good alternative. I also see nothing wrong with the 7.62x39mm, but anything it can do, the 6.8 should be able to do better.

I think the 7.62 NATO will always have a place in our military (as far as I can see). As soon as it�s issued for general service, marksmanship scores plumit, but in the hands of a soldier who knows how to use one, there�s nothing better.

I�m with you Gene�I just don�t see a replacement for the M16 on the horizon. I wouldn�t mind seeing some sort of gas piston conversion. There was one in the �80�s that came and went fast that really showed promise. It was called the Rhino conversion and it made the AR gas system about 50% AR18 and 50% AK. What�s more, you could �dial in� your full auto cyclic rate�Pretty slick.

There are a few such conversions floating around now that would be worth investigating. We could also take a look at the modular lowers that allow you to switch magazine housings to accommodate different calibers and magazines (7.62x39mm with AK magazine). This lower is a slick idea, but any ammunition fired in an AR rifle needs to be made for the AR or it will quickly foul up the rifle.

I think they could simply develop the M16 further and perhaps end up with the perfect service rifle. What�s more, it could all be done with existing, off the shelf solutions.

To me, this holds much more promise than things like the XM8

A smaller-diameter bullet should penetrate heavy clothing more easily than a larger, although I don't think the small difference in diameter would be that affecting. At any rate, the current penetrator round, which needs work, will penetrate a Kevlar helmet at 500 yards or so, so penetration doesn't seem to be a problem.

The "SPC" was supposedly designed for "special operators." It was the idea, maybe, of someone who had done spec ops, but the AMU developed the round, along with Remington. I guess Remington had invested in the developement, and tried desperately to sell the concept through a bevy of magazine articles. None of them I read reported how the weapon did on full auto, which was a concern of mine.

And the Lt. Col. head of the AMU said compared to all the people using the M 16, the "Spec Ops" guys may number in a few hundred or a few thousand at most, and to introduce a round for them with all the ammo companies now operating a full capacity, 24-7, to make current ammo requirements, just not the time to introduce a new round. Anyway, the 7.62 NATO is a better round for penetration, and on an AR platform performs well with available stores.

Personally, I feel the 6.8 was a snow job which Remington tried to market, but for the most part, failed.

I fired one of the piston-type gas systems, I believe a FN type adapted to an AR. It had a considerable amount more recoil than I expected. Not that it had a LOT, just quite a bit more than I expected.

I don't have as much issue with the current system for the M 16, which does blow gas out, but blows most of it where it can be removed easily. It's a far less ammo-sensitive mode than a piston system is, although the piston system certainly works well, apparently.

Pistons don't eliminate grime, they just confine it. An M-14 dirty piston would freeze the gun up, and if the Inspecting Officer couldn't hear that piston move when he turned the rifle upside down, you got gigged for it. Blanks were the worst offenders.

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.

5th SF Group!

Not according the the head of the AMU. It may have been conceptualized by some operator, but the round was developed by the AMU...and this is from the Source.

The other tales about its developement are rumor.

The head of the AMU didn't know who, why, or what prompted the development of the round. He knew they developed it, tested it, and so far as they're concerned, it's history.

I've told this tale before. I heard it at a Ga. firearms trainers conference from the Lt. Col. who was then head of the AMU. He's a Korean-American, a former Spec Ops himself, and a shooter in service rifle military competition. Some of you no doubt know his name, but I have a terrible memory for names.

He also said at the same time, two years ago, the services were going back to the .45 caliber, and that the green-tip ammo was inaccurate.

Regardless of who developed it, (I've heard the story a different way) I think it's a good round. The real question is: is it good enough to warrant changing? As it sets, I'd have to say no, but as we have seen with the 5.56, cartridges can be developed quite a bit.

The H&K 416 showed some hope for the future but Colt has tied them up in court. Also, Colt apparently submitted their own version of the 416 for the SCAR program and it was the number two finisher. I'm sure Colt will contest the award to FN (they contest the sun rising, so why not this).

I'm not opposed to the idea of modifying the M16 to a gas system that makes more sense. The direct gas system solved some problems that were high on our list of priorities 40+ years ago, but it created a whole new set of problems.

In today's world, there's no reason you can't have accuracy and reliability. You shouldn't have to choose between the two.

(again, I'm not saying the M16 is unreliable, just that it has much room for improvement in that department).

I'm encouraged that in the US programs, that a premium is placed on reliability. Anything considered should clearly out-perform the M16 or we're just wasting our money...Again, I think the M16 is an awfully hard act to follow.

Gene,

According to my notes, we�re both right on the 6.8SPC. (please understand that for me to remember conversations that are two years old, is a big stretch, mentally challenged as I am.)

The 6.8SPC came out of the SCAR project when it was realized that the 7.62x39 offered better penetration through barriers and better stopping power in close quarters battle*. At the direction of the 5th Special Forces Group, �they� were to investigate a cartridge that would out perform both the 7.62x39 and the 5.56 (ERC � Enhanced Rifle Cartridge), which is how we ended up with the 6.8SPC.

The people in charge of the development were:

M/Sgt Steve Holland (5th SFG)
Cris Murray (R&D Gunsmith AMU)
Troy Lawton (Chief Ballistics Technician � AMU)

Accuracy, excessive port pressures, and pre-mature wear were problems encountered with the 6.8SPC, but those problems have been dealt with. One must understand that this is a cartridge in its absolute infancy and, for the most part, it does improve upon the performance of the 7.62x39 and 5.56. But I keep coming back to the same question; is it enough better?

I like the cartridge because I think it�s a step in the right direction. We should have been using a true assault rifle cartridge years ago. I think the cartridge has merit and could use further development. Unfortunately, I�m quite certain that it is dead as a door nail at this point.

*not to imply the 6.8SPC is a CQB cartridge only. It was developed to provide enhanced rifle performance out to 600 yards.

My problem is with the rifle in full-auto, which is the role for an assault rifle.

I don't think it's controllable, but I haven't heard any reports on it in full auto. And that's how troops use their rifles, for the most part, when in contact.

I would also point out that those major powers using "true assault rifle rounds" quit using them almost three decades ago. Probably for the same reasons...hard to control on automatic fire, and weight.

There's no substitute for aimed fire, if you have time and opportunity for aimed fire. But given that most people won't expose themselves long enough to get a good sight picture under stress, the next best thing is putting lead in the air. THat tends to spoil the aim of the guy shooting at you.

As I have often pointed out, Custer's last stand is the classic example of accurate, heavy bullets vs. short-range high-volume, less-accurate bullets. The lead in the air wins every time.

If war was a battle between marksmen, we could all do better than the 6.8 or the 5.56, but war as I know it isn't that way. That's only one component of war, and not a main component.

How ' bout we save all the money in development and adopt the 7.62x39 and Valmet assualt rifle and save gazillions of dollars in development of something that just does'nt quite cut it. Good effective round, reliable and high quality rifle... both proven effective over history.

Put a designated marksman on a squad level patrol with an M14 and we're covered...

Just like WWII...we'll have two .30 cal. weapons (gotta save money on cleaning patches and such) except the smaller round and rifle will have the broader application instead the other way around as in WWII.

The question is, is the Valmet/AK design adaptable to all of the electronic and optical devices that are used by our troops now days? Does the average trooper need them or should these specialized devices be saved for the marksman?

Gene,

You have a point on the Full Auto thing. As much as I hate to admit it, FA is a mode that�s used quite often, unfortunately, rarely is it really effective. On the bright side, the difference shouldn�t be too big. We�re currently using bullets in the 75 grain range and the 6.8 is 115 grain. I haven�t shot one so I really don�t know. The heavier the cartridge and the lighter the weapon (M4 vs. M16), the more you need burst control devices.

Dan,

I�d have a warm fuzzy about using the Valmet in combat, but I don�t think all that many agree with me; certainly not here in the US.

Well, I'm not sure that I should admit to this, but on more than one occasion the only cover I had was to lie on my back behind a rice paddy dike that was only about one foot high.

In those instances, the preferred method of returning fire was to prop your rifle on the dike above your chest and head and to spray whatever was in front of you. There were even crazier things than that done in an ambush and friendly fire was a constant threat.

Discipline is reinforced through good training and I can't say that we always had that. One of the worst things about Vietnam was the 12 month rotation. There was no cohesive structure to the unit I was in. By the time someone was there long enough to learn the ropes and really be effective, he was gone and replaced by some new dingleberry.

That's not an unusual way of returning fire. We did it when I was in Viet Nam. The chances of seeing an enemy, getting a sight picture, and squeezing off a shot is pretty slim in a fire-fight. Good chance in an ambush, though...if it's you who's initiatiing the ambush. Close ambush, you need that first aimed round, but after that, it's pretty well spray and pray, unless you've got someone in front of you who doesn't shoot back and doesn't take cover.

Full auto is the what defines an assualt rifle. Is it used too much? Can't say, as I never thought I used it too much.

All of this discussion is irrelevant if you're ensconced in a bullet-proof position with great vision and plenty of time to aim and fire without drawing opposing fire.

The .30 caliber in an assault round is as dead as Pontious Pilate. ARMOR piercing...body armor. We all know that's the wave of the future, and the 7.62 x 39, a.k.a. the 30-30 minus, ain't the way to do it.

Vietnam was a bit unique because of the density of the jungle. You could have someone inside of 10 yards in front of you and never see them. In those situations, spray and pray is a legitimate tactic for suppressing your attacker. Fire volume was a legitimate tactic in Vietnam, in fact, it was one of the hard learned lessons to come out of Vietnam, and we�re re-learning it in The Sandbox�

When ambushed, 9 times out of 10, if you try to escape the ambush, everyone will die. But if you press the attack with a high volume of fire (preferably effective fire), then you have a chance. In those instances, the ability to control your weapon is very important, and it�s one area where the M16 has a clear edge on the AK47. Although there�s much press about ambushes in The Sandbox, most engagements are at longer ranges and our forces have prevailed using deliberate aimed fire, while the enemy was using the spray and pray technique.

Good points Gene.

You are the experts...I am merely an "armchair warrior" and a study of history and bow to your REAL experience...Although I am married to a B.A.M. (Broad Assed Marine)

The only way to escape an ambush is, as they taught us in Ranger School, to get out of the kill zone, immediately.

Whether that's forward, backward, or through the ambush, that's the only way. Near or far ambush, the answer is still the same. The kill zone is prepared and all weapons are zeroed in on it. So, get out. Return fire if you can, run away if you can't.

That simplifies the subject as well as I've ever seen. We initiated ambushes when I led the Recon platoon, at distances typically of six, ten, twelve feet. Overpowering firpower with the initiation means fewer people are going to get away.

I was never ambushed, by God's will. Except in a LCM riverboat, and they missed with the RPGs. All shot high.

I see no need to replace the current rifle, or caliber.

Caliber is a subject that could be debated. As for the rifle, there have been plans to replace it from day one, but like I said, it's a hard act to follow.

The military has never been happy with the reliability of the M16. Not that its unreliable, just that there are many rifles out there that are more reliable. With todays CNC manufacturing, I see no reason why we can't have our cake and eat it to. We should be able to come up with a rifle that's nearly as accurate as the M16 and nearly as reliable as the AK. I believe the FN SCAR has accomplished this, but again, only time will tell.

I'll be happy when they come out with something that's about as accurate at 300m as an M-16, has a 30rd capacity but a larger caliber, and doesn't have a @#$%*&^ star chamber!!

I don't know why they simply don't switch to either the .243, the 260Rem or the 7-08....The 260Rm would be my gut feeling.

As for the replacement rifle...It needs to be short, perhaps a bull pup, but must be capable of firing from either shoulder. It should have a 20" oe 22" barrel and be capable of taking a bayonet.
I would like to see extensive use of SS (blacked of course) to help limit corrosion. All those things would be pretty easy to achieve...

Lastly I would like to see some sort of effective muzzle break or other device to control it on full auto...Its this last item which would be difficult to develop as it tends to defy physics....

Why not just put a larger caliber boolit in place of the 5.56?

Then you obviously never had need to use either...

The 16 is a good rifle, but picky as hell about being dirty.

The 5.56 with the Hague mandated FMJs simply sucks azz as a combat round.

Wait... the fella who deems all sub-.30 caliber rounds as inadequate for deer or game other than small varmints sees no need for a larger than .223 round for warfighting... WTF am I missing, 'cause I am right damned confused... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

While the 16 has some design problems, the major problem is that soldiers are not being trained adequately to use their personal weapons regardless of what they might be...the cartridges keep getting smaller and smaller due to the unaimed fire of our soldiers....57k rounds per enemy casuality in Nam...Not a good thing...go back to semi auto and a real military sized round....308...teach them to really shoot and it should be ok...

none of my comrades complained about their 5.56 weapons systems in iraq, or afghanistan. Training and experience mean you'll have the good shot placement under stress.

My wants as a current soldier for the next rifle....something without a star chamber!! Something less finicky about dirt. A larger caliber...not neccesarily .308, but maybe a .243 or .270 or something...a good flat shooter, but bigger than the 5.56.....and something about the size of the current M4, that's a great size. Having used them and M16's, the M16 feels too long for the sort of stuff that is currently being done. And of course something with a bayonet lug...I don't know why most soldiers don't carry one right now, but if my time to go to the sandbox ever comes, you can bet I'll be carrying one.

3 combat deployments, 2 to afghanistan, 1 to iraq.

never had any issues with any of my issued weapons systems, from my pistol to heavy machine guns.

All operated as designed, functioned properly when required, and if someone actually pays attention to their weapons system, they'll do fine regardless of the caliber. Shot placement is paramount to a round doing what you want.

Cleaning a star chamber is easy, especially if you have a star chamber cleaner. We had 1 per squad in the squad cleaning kit. Earplug in the muzzle and close YOUR DUST COVER.

Oh yeah, all those deployments were during my 6 year stint in 3rd Ranger BN.

Bayonets are great, but if you have a LMG, or a M203 you're out of luck.. and we had 1 M249 and 2 M203's per fire team.

I try to keep up on the latest stuff but never heard the term "star chamber".

Know what a chamber is and have cleaned an M-16 or two in my day <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />, but could someone please provide a short definition of "star chamber"?

TIA

The front of the chamber, adjacent to the base of the barrel. You know that funky star shaped component that you have to stick your pinky in and twist it around to get all the gunk and crud out? It interlocks with the extractor end of the bolt, which is shaped roughly like a star.

PITA to clean. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Okey-dokey - just the regular bolt lug recesses. Wasn't sure if maybe they'd recently changed the actual chamber to be fluted or something like an HK.

Nah, it's something that's been a feature of the weapon all the way from the M16A1 to the latest M4 model.

I wonder if what this country needs isn't so much a new rifle as a new rifleman. If eighty or ninety percent of those putting on the uniform came from a background where they were shooting from the time they were kids and were familiar and comfortable with firearms right from the get-go we'd be further ahead. I suspect that many of today's recruits never handle a rifle until they get to boot camp. My son qualified expert pistol and expert rifle on his first attempts. When I questioned him about it he said it was easy, "I could hear your voice over my shoulder Dad." He recently returned safely from Afghanistan, his third, and final, middle east deployment.

I think when they tried to fix that which wasn't broken (replacing the M1A/M14) they screwed up.

US riflemen are more effective with the M16 than any other small arm ever fielded. The M14 may not have been broken, but there was room for improvement. Hits with a 5.56 are much more effective than misses with the 7.62

Misses to hits interesting comparison. How about hits from the 5.56 compared to hits by the 7.62? How about stopping power for both out to lets say 500 yds.? Maybe shooting thru a piece of .25 in. of steel? I have fired both and if I were carring an M16 in a combat zone and, found an M14 and all the ammo I could carry I would sling the M16 kick the dirt of the M14 load it and carry as my primary weapon.

That�s you, and that may work for you. But the US Military isn�t really made up of riflemen. It�s made up of snot-nosed kids that often times haven�t fired a weapon before entering the military. Even in experienced hands, people score higher scores with the M16 vs the M14 because of its superior accuracy and nearly non-existent recoil.

Inside of 200 yards, the 5.56 has superior wounding over the 7.62 (not my opinion, backed up by military science). Past 200 yards, the 7.62 is much more effective than the 5.56.

The vast majority of military engagements are at 35 yards or less. It makes sense to arm your troops with the right tool for the job. With the M16, you are more likely to hit, can carry more ammunition and will create a more severe wound for the vast majority of military encounters. For all the rest, while the M14 may be superior at longer ranges, the M16 is capable.

The M16 is just simply a better solution for GENERAL military issuance.

Now ask yourself: How many special ops teams are using M14�s? Not very many. If given the choice between an M14 or an M16 with MK262 ammunition for long range engagements, which do you think they will choose?

So what you are saying is it is time to stop teaching these kids to spray & hope, and to start teaching them to shoot. The close engagements would not be necessary if these "snot-nosed kids" had the fire power and knew how to use it. Recoil is no issue, in the field when someone is shooting at you or when the big buck stops in front of you the last thing on your mind is recoil. Hell my wife shot a .308, 30-06, and she is 4,10" tall and weighs 135lbs. When these guys are up against the AK-47's, Droganov's and bad guys hiding behind doors or corners of building that the 5.56 can't hope to shoot thru they need the 7.62 to punch a hole in that bad guy thru the door.

21st Century Developments: The first decade: Shorter barrels, bigger bullets, more energy

Example of alternate cartridge rifle (GCS)A renaissance of 7.62 mm weapons has begun to occur recently. To some degree in Iraq, but particularly in Afghanistan, soldiers are beginning to use modernized M14s, M21s, M24 SWSs, and AR10s (the 7.62x51 mm predecessor of the AR15). With a longer effective range, the 7.62x51 mm is proving useful at fighting at long ranges. The 7.62x51 NATO round has also shown its usefulness against enemies who have been seen to take several hits from 5.56 mm bullets and not be incapacitated, killed, or on occasion, even deterred.[1] That unpleasant surprise is attributed to long-range ballistic deficiencies of the 5.56 bullet. Similar stopping-power problems against unusually-tenacious opponents were noticed in Somalia in 1993 against militia fighters high on khat.[1]

In the United States there have been developments of new cartridges. Two have developed some notability as possible replacements for the venerable 5.56, the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8mm SPC. Remington has developed the 6.8 mm Remington SPC cartridge, which has the same cartridge overall length (COAL) as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO cartridge but fires the larger .270 caliber bullets. Likewise, Alexander Arms at Radford Arsenal developed the 6.5 Grendel cartridge, which combines long range accuracy with close range stopping power similar to the 6.8 SPC. With both bullets, by matching the 5.56's COAL, conversion of existing AR-15, M4 and M16 rifles requires only replacement of uppers and magazines. Other cartridges have been developed for the AR-15 platform such as the .50 Beowulf and the .458 Socom - but these cartridges are much heavier and relegated to a specialty role rather than as a pure assault rifle cartridge.

I'm not sure I want to see them go back to the 7.62....but I'm kinda intrigued by the 6.8. I think a happy medium is needed between 7.62 and 5.56...something heavier, but that still meets the Army's requirements.


http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ammunition/rem117_071305

A Serviceable Alternative
Remington's 6.8mm SPC was designed with the M16 in mind. And it could be our next military cartridge.
By Dan Johnson

Remington recently began loading a new rifle cartridge, the 6.8x43mm SPC. It was designed for military use, but Remington will also offer a variety of commercial loads under the headstamp "6.8mm Remington SPC." A 6.8mm cartridge may seem an oddball caliber, but it translates to .277 in good old American decimals, the same bullet diameter as the venerable .270 Winchester.

The cartridge is based on a modified .30 Remington case, a rimless version of the .30-30 introduced by Remington in 1906 for use in its Model 8 autoloader. The use of this case for the 6.8mm SPC was not nepotism on Remington's part. The original designers of the cartridge simply found the dimensions ideal for their purposes and purchased cases from Remington some time before the company was brought onboard with the project. Remington has since strengthened the case head and increased the neck thickness to enhance performance.

Perhaps the most important story here is not the technical aspects of the cartridge but rather therealities that prompted a few soldiers to develop what they feel is a better cartridge for the changing face of warfare.

Their motives are unquestionable: Friends and fellow soldiers were dying, and they still are. Most of these guys will tell you the 5.56mm NATO cartridge is a competent round for open warfare. You can pack a lot of ammo for long trips afield and deliver a sweltering barrage of firepower to keep the enemy's head down while big guns are called in. But as we have all seen, open warfare doesn't take long when the full might of the U.S. military is brought to bear. Once the bombing stops and the dust settles, the dirty work begins. Then the action is up-close and personal. Whether it's door-to-door searches or a roadblock in hostile territory, every second a bad guy stays on his feet is a second in which American soldiers may die.

The 6.8mm SPC was developed by members of the 5th Special Forces Group and the Army Marksmanship Unit for use in the M4 and Mk12 combat rifles. It's important to understand that this cartridge is not in existence due to a directive from military brass or some high-ranking government official. It did not come from the top down as do most military cartridges. Rather, its development came from the bottom up.

It was conceived, designed and tested by the men in the field, men who have been there, done that and likely will have to go do it again. To illustrate what I mean, the man who spearheaded the development of the cartridge--who walked into a local gun shop and bought the first 100-count bag of .30 Remington brass with his own cash to begin the initial loading and testing--holds the rank of Master Sergeant.

Remington was contacted in October 2001 with a request to formalize the cartridge and help in final development. It was a risky venture, considering the multiheaded beast the military is and the fact that none of the top brass had yet signed off on the project. There was no guarantee the cartridge would ever see use, and, even if it did, there was certainly no guarantee Remington would get a government contract to supply the ammo. But some of the grunts involved took a trip to the 2002 SHOT Show and had a sit-down with the guys in green, and the deal was made. Remington decided to invest considerable funds to see this grassroots cartridge become a reality.

The SPC designation stands for "Special Purpose Cartridge." The round is not intended to replace the 5.56mm as standard-issue, nor was it conceived as a long-range sniper round. It was designed to make the bad guys fall down in the firefight scenarios often engaged in by Special Forces and other soldiers conducting dangerous clean-up operations. Look at it this way: The 9mm is the standard-issue military handgun round, but Special Forces often uses the .45 ACP for enhanced stopping power. The 6.8mm was developed for the same purpose, to provide increased stopping power during hazardous operations.

A primary goal in developing this new medium-bore cartridge was that it operate in the M16 family of rifles and carbines by simply switching uppers and magazines. Magazine capacity is reduced only slightly. Magazines with the same external dimensions of the 30-round 5.56mm will hold 26 rounds of 6.8mm SPC. Otherwise, operation and handling characteristics of the converted rifles remain the same. Except, of course, for recoil. The heavier 6.8mm bullet naturally generates more kick than the 5.56mm but not a lot more, and, reportedly, it's still very controllable in full-auto burst with a good muzzlebrake.

Hands-On Evaluation
Precision Reflex Inc. (www.pri-mounts.com) has been closely involved with the development of 6.8mm SPC and was kind enough to loan me three different upper assemblies and magazines for test purposes. The uppers included a 16.5-inch-barreled lightweight model with carbon-fiber forearm, a 16.5-inch with a much beefier and heavier skeletonized forearm and an 18.5-inch-barrel model with carbon-fiber forearm and full-length Picatinny rail that allows optics to be mounted anywhere from the cocking handle to the end of the forearm.

All units were equipped with OPS muzzlebrakes. I mated the uppers to a Wilson Tactical Custom lower. This unit has a superb match trigger, and with the addition of a Leupold 4.5-14X Tactical scope, I knew there would be no excuses for poor accuracy.

Remington will initially offer three loadings in 6.8mm SPC: a 115-grain Metal Case, a 115-grain Open Tip Match and a premium load with Sierra's 115-grain MatchKing BTHP bullet. It might surprise some shooters that the FMJ is not the bullet the military is interested in. Testing and development have shown the 115-grain Open Tip Match manufactured by Hornady offers the best terminal performance in a bullet sanctioned for combat use.

Dispatching terrorists and thugs does not require our guys to limit themselves to FMJ bullets. Special Forces have used various hollowpoint match bullets in certain situations since the mid-'80s, and the Judge Advocate General has specifically approved the 115-grain Hornady OTM bullet for use in the 6.8mm SPC.

Remington sent me some of these 115-grain OTM loads so I could get a feel for this cartridge. Factory loads were not in production at the time, so these were prototype loads produced prior to some final and very minor tweaking of the case-neck thickness. I was informed in advance these loads were a bit mild. They clocked right at 100 fps slower than the final specs call for, which is 2,650 fps out of a 16-inch barrel and 2,800 fps in a sporter-length, 24-inch tube

Accuracy was up to spec, with all three uppers clustering five-shot, 100-yard groups right at an inch and a respectable percentage of them measuring significantly less. Recoil was milder than I expected given the power level of this cartridge. The OPS muzzlebrake was effective in keeping the muzzle down, even when I cut loose with extended rapid-fire bursts. There were zero malfunctions to report.

Beyond The Battlefield
The future of the 6.8mm as a military cartridge is still open to speculation; rumor mills already list the cartridge as missing in action.

But that's not the case. Remington is committed, and some military brass is coming onboard. Of course, the military is vast and complex, and there are those who, for one reason or another, do not want to see the cartridge approved. Some genuinely believe there are better options, and many factions that traditionally feed at the government trough are against it simply because they don't have a piece of the action.

There are not billions of dollars involved here or even millions. Remington has the cartridge in production, and the cost of retrofitting a quantity of M4 lowers so Special Forces could field this cartridge amounts to pocket change compared to most military expenditures. It's difficult to say exactly how this will play out. The cartridge has certainly been tested thoroughly in both the military and private sectors as well as by law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. The 6.8 SPC has come through with flying colors. But firearm historians are well aware of a number of worthy military rounds that almost made it but didn't for one reason or another. Often that reason was pure politics.

As to the civilian market, several companies are planning to offer uppers and magazines to switch over the many AR-15 variants in citizen's hands, and the cartridge may find favor with hunters as well. The 6.8mm SPC is a unique cartridge among commercial rounds and may offer an optimum balance between mild recoil and sufficient terminal performance on medium game.

There are no true "game bullets" offered in Remington's initial loadings, but the company has an excellent option waiting in the wings. A newly developed 115-grain .277 bullet for use in Remington's new Managed Recoil .270 loading is specifically designed to expand at lower velocities. The .270 Managed Recoil factory load will have a muzzle velocity of 2,710 fps--right where the 6.8mm SPC should clock in a 20- to 22-inch sporter barrel.

I have not yet heard of any definite plans to offer a new rifle in this chambering, but the Remington Model Seven would be a dandy platform. Another interesting civilian application would be in the Thompson/Center Contender handgun. J.D. Jones at SSK Industries is already gearing up to produce aftermarket barrels in this caliber for both Contenders and Encores. Since the cartridge was designed for short barrels, a 14-inch handgun should give up little performance-wise.

We are only in the first chapter of the 6.8mm SPC story, and it's a cliffhanger. Will the military--or perhaps even Congress--step in and see that troops on the ground get what they need and want to finish the job, or will the cartridge die in its infancy? Regardless, the story is unique. I can't recall another military cartridge in history that was conceived and developed by guys on the front line, a cartridge where the men in the field said, "This is what we need" rather than the brass saying, "This is what you get." Whatever fate awaits the 6.8x43mm, there is something to be said for letting soldiers in the field develop military armament. When a new military cartridge comes from the top down, the costs can run into the millions. Initial costs to the government in developing the 6.8mm SPC was about the price of a good used car.

The 7.62 vs. 5.56 argument is getting a bit old, and I�m not going to get into a knock down drag out on such a tired issue. The US has decided the 5.56 is the best cartridge for the general issue needs of our forces. Nearly every modernized nation in the world has followed suit. The Russians followed our lead in 1974 when they realized that the High Velocity Small Bore was the better way to go.

Literally every major military force in the world has switched to the SBHV concept�Surely you can�t mean that they�re all wrong and you�re right?

I will agree that the 7.62 is FAR from dead. There are many roles where it�s THE cartridge of choice, but it�s not the cartridge of choice for general military issue to every solider. It has become a specialty cartridge, and it excels in that role.

So what is different about what you SAID in your first post and what you are saying now? You asked the question and now don't like the answers. I am not arguing with you except in one area and that is what caliber should be the new one and you asked our opinion and now are saying I am not entitled to it. The 7.62 didn't care if it was in the jungle, desert or anywhere in between, as you stated the 5.56 still has issues after all the years it has been around. This is also my last responce to this post.

I stand by my comments on both posts.

I apologize if it seemed as if I wasn�t allowing your opinion, just entering into some friendly debate. I�ll quietly exit the debate now so things stay friendly.

Things are friendly, if I had realized you wanted to debate these subjects my post might have been different.

What would have been wrong with trying the 6x47? Wouldn't that work in the AR15/M16 without much alterations at all? Isn't the 6x47 just the .223/5.56mm case necked up to 6mm? It seems like that the 6x47 loaded with something like the 87-90 grain bullets would have been an excellent mid point rifle, filling in the blanks between the 5.56 and the 7.62. A larger diameter heavier bullet that would carry further, have more oomph at short ranges, but still not have much greater recoil, cartridge weight, expense, etc, than the 5.56.

How about the SSK Industires 6.5 MPC...

The 6.5 MPC (Multi Purpose Cartridge) is a SSK development urged by Brian Hormberg (USMC) based on the 5.56 cartridge shortened and opened to 6.5 MM and the same OAL as the 5.56. In the M-16-AR-15 rifles it utilizes the 5.56 bolt and magazines as well as all other parts except the barrel itself. Its design adapts it to a short Close Quarter Battle rifle with a 12� barrel moving a 107 6.5 SMK at 2400 FPS with superior full auto controllability and excellent accuracy. The 12� barrel model easily puts it into the realistic 300+ yard combat category and longer barrels stretch that realistic combat range considerably further.

Factory ammunition is not yet available for the 6.5 MPC; however we are working on that. Ready to load brass and dies are in stock.

The 120 grain BT is near maximum bullet weight for good performance. 85 grain is about the least weight for good performance. Some 140 grain bullets may be used but ballistically are counterproductive.


95 SSK Solid
- - - - - - -
12"
2600 FPS

20"
2800 FPS 110 Sierra HP
- - - - - - - - - - -
12"
2480 FPS

20"
2731 FPS 120 SMK
- - - - - - - - -
12"
2220 FPS

20"
2400 FPS

What about the HK 416? From what I hear, it's been considered but not accepted because it's not enough of a technological step forward.

Squirrel,

I'd say the H&K 416 and the FN SCAR would be at the top of the list. But then again, the M16 is a hard act to follow.

I think so too...there was a recent article on the H&K 416 and it sounds like a great weapon. I like the M4...don't get me wrong, but they can be pretty darn unreliable. We were out at a range recently and were having all sorts of double-feeds and jams. Of course I doubt how well our NAVAL personnel were cleaning and caring for their weapons, but it still raises concerns in my mind. Still a good rifle, all things considered.

Looks like we should have gone with the EM-2 in the 1950's, but we foolish followed you Yanks into the 7.62Nato which then a few short years later, you ditched in favour of the 5.56 Nato..

The trouble with arms precurment, especially in the States, is that its too wrapped up in Politic's and not nearly driven enough by Soldiers actual needs...

Pete-

It was a good move to abandon the EM-2 because it probably wouldn�t have worked as designed. The locking system was unnecessarily complex and making it striker fired was a half baked idea. This isn�t to say that they couldn�t have eventually abandoned these ideas to something more reasonable, but who knows.

The FN FAL that the Brits ended up with was a first rate rifle in every way. I�ll agree that the EM�s .280 cartridge was a much better idea as was the .276 Pederson in the 1920�s, but us Yank�s have always been stuck on .30 bullets.

The current SA80 rifle has been a nightmare and has only recently become passable as a real combat weapon. Seems to me, the Brits should have followed us Yanks again and adopted the M16.

It breaks my heat to see my brethren across the pond suffering with such a horrible weapon.

Kevin,

I agree the SLR was a good weapon and I prefered it over the SA80 especially the early versions I had a chance to play with. But the SLR was far from perfect..for instance who on earth came up with the idea of mounting optics on the sliding top cover???

The SA80 was basically a bullpuped version of the AR18 and *should* have been a decent weapon...quite how Enfield managed to ruin such a promising idea so convincingly, I don't know.

The first generation of SA-80 really were horrible...there only saving grace was that they are generally very accurate..in fact its a sad state of affairs when they two major successes of your weapons system are its sling and its optic sight!

I have handled an EM-2 but never fired one...having spoken to some people who are well up on these things, they considered it to be a better design than the SA80...unusual yes, but apparently it actually performed very well in the field trials .Its a bit like saying the rear locking lugs on an SMLE were a poor design if you get my drift..

The current SA80 apparently still hasn't passed any offical sand trials but is probably as good as this particular design is going to get although it still needs to be babied somewhat in the field.

Regards,

Pete

Not disagreeing, just funny how things turn out. When the M16 first came out and well into the 80's or even 90's, you couldn't hardly open a gun rag without some article telling what a POS the rifle was and how ineffective that puny round was.

If my math is right it has been the standard service rifle for longer than anything else the military has ever used, surpassing even the 1903 Springfield. (Maybe some musket was in use longer but my knowledge of late 18th and early 19th Century military arms is rather scant.)

Jim -

Our observations mirror mine. Although I never believed the M16 was half as bad as the armchair commandos said it was back in the '80's.

Yep.

Which is why we ended up with the M16 to begin with, IMO.

There is nothing wrong per say with the M-16 other that it was not fully worked out with the Johnson Administration said you will have it and closed down Springfield Armory. They have worked out pretty much all the problems. Its a good rifle. What the next one is going to be, I haven't a clue. Maybe we should not have to fight wars anymore! Nope on that since human nature being human nature. I am wondering if the M-16 frame could house a 6.5 x 55 or something of that nature, and say a 120 to 140 gr bullet? The ordanance guys really have a tough job, when you think about it. The current M-16/ 5.56 is a hard act to follow, because what ever you end up with is going to cost a lot in both time and R+D money and we will end up with something that is not much better. My guess is shorter guns for this house to house business that we find ourselves in.

Dpms panther arms Is making a 260 rem ar-15 also a 243,204,308. check them out.

Politics is why we went to the trapdoor Springfiled. Politics = money, and Springfield Armory had the politics, and wanted the money.

Politics is why we ended up with the M 14. And probably the 03 Springfield, which is a not-so-good 98 copy. Lots of home cooking involved, a reluctance to look outside for other and possibly better ideas. All the 03 Springfields used in WW I were "low number" rifles, which were later pulled because of the low quality heat treatment used in the reciever. Springfield Armory wasn't held responsible, so far as I know, as they continued to build rifles.

There are politics involved in any decision where a lot of money is spent.

And with the exception of around 1500 rifles, the Springfield served with distinction. Of the 1500, there were a few that went ka-BOOM, but well over 90% of those went kB because someone and used the wrong ammunition. (8mm vs. .30-06) Hatcher did find a number of rifles that were deemed unsafe, but the rest were considered safe with military ammunition. Everyone these days seems to think that low number Springfield�s are unsafe, which is completely false.

You�re right that there will always be politics in arms procurement. For the most part, our soldiers have always been given world class weapons. The M16 was a world class weapon that was implemented in the most horrific way imaginable. Our troops and the reputation of the M16 suffered because of the stubbornness and stupidity of the US Army.

May be the Brown Bess, 1744-179?.
Anyhow the M-16a2 is pretty accurate, just IMAO not a 7.62mm. Oh ya wood stock, I'm a Fudd and proud!

another alternative may be the magpul masada, magpul.com.

a modular design, gas piston, many innovative features. comes 3 ways, s.b.r. for c.q.b., precision long barreled and regular length rifle 14.5". a.r. 15 style trigger group. most else is different. light weight.

it also has it's own a.r. 15 compatible magazines with increased reliability. should give the 416 and the s.c.a.r. a run for the money, if given the chance.

hmmmmmmm

Pure Baloney.

When the 16 had a 14" twist that was the factor, since the
gravel belly target shooters had say so over Stoner's combat rifle it became good for punching paper.

The whole M4/16 5.56 are 40 year old dogs and need to be replaced.

Switching service rifles is a huge deal, both for logistics and for the troops...and especially while in the middle of a conflict.

I joined the Marine Corps in 1963, the year after the M14 replaced the M1...and was in Vietnam in 1967 when the M16 replaced the M14. In both instances it took quite awhile for the transition to be fully implemented and there were lots of problems both with training and with all the little kinks that needed to be discovered and fixed. I can recall numerous incidents when the wrong ammo was sent out to units in the field because the guys back in the rear had no idea what units had what rifles, and in some cases companies in the field had a mixture of both clear into 1968.

It�s a very slow process, and it is not like the rifle gets adopted on Monday and all the troops have them in their hands, and are fully trained with them on Tuesday.

It is my opinion that replacement of the M16 will take place only when a completely new type of ammunition is developed that requires a new type of rifle to use it. To replace the M16 with another rifle firing the same ammunition is utterly ridiculous.

Unfortunately, the best rifle and the most effective ammunition in the world is not of much value if the powers that be don�t allow the troops to actually aim and fire them at bad guys. Personally, I would much rather see all the time and effort that is being spent on new rifles to be spent on new �Rules of Engagement� that allow our young warriors to do their job of killing our enemies. If that happened you could arm them with just about anything and they would get the job done.

rick;

a lot of sense there. it does not matter what kind or how good the service rifle is, if the r.o.e. does not allow the troops to kill the bad guys with it.

the r.o.e. and the will to fight this war need a complete overhaul or we are destined to lose the fight in a politically correct way.

Before disuccing what the combat rifle should be, it's good to know the realities of combat. A start is reading "Operational requirements for an infantry hand weapon" by Norman Hitchman. To date, it is the only detail study of the effectiveness of rifle fire in actual combat, and was based on data collected from over a million casualties in WWII and Korea. Analysis of data procured in Vietnam, and the various Arab-Israeli conflicts also supported Hitchmans finding. Another good read is "an effectiveness study of the infantry rifle" by Donald Hall. You can get a great overview of these and other studies by reading Ezell's "The Great rifle controversy".

Basically, everything you know is wrong.

The average rifleman cannot engage targets beyound 500 meters. This is
primarily due to the fact that he cannot see the target because of
intervening terrain, camouflage, etc. Even if the soldier is capable of
shooting at longer ranges in formal marksmanship training. But it gets
even worse.

The majority of rifle fire is at 300 meters or less. 70% is at 100
meters or less, irrespective of terrain. This has been borne out in
Iraq, where most infantry rifle fire is in urban environments.

Firther, targets typically expose themselves for very short times. This
is the very reason the German army first adopted high cyclic rate MGs
and later the assault rifle.

The analysis in the Hitchman report ("Operational Requirements for an
Infantry Hand Weapon") contains some even more interesting material.
Contrary to legent, aimed fire has almost no effect on the production of
casualties. It is worth remenbering that Hitchman's data was from
actual combat, not armchair commandos.

"...rifle fire and its effects were deficient in some military
respects...in combat, hits from bullets are incurred by the body at
random:..the same as for fragment misileswhic..are not 'aimed.
..Exposure was the chief factor...aimed or directed fire does not
influence the manner in which hts are sustained...[Despite] evidence of
prodigious rifle fire ammunition expenditure per hit,..the comparison of
hits from bullets with those of fragments shows that the rifle bullet is
not actually better directed towards vulnerable parts of the body."

Since time and degree of exposure are the critical components in
producing a casualty, a lighter rifle capable of controllable
full-automatic fire was determined to be more effective thana
semi-automatic rifle. The M-14 is certainly not 'controlable under
fully automatic fire' by anyone's definition.

This is the reason that current research is focusing on weapons like the OICW/SABR/M-25. These weapons rely on 'smart' bursting munitions to increase hit probability.

Further, since infantry weapons only accopunt for a small percentage of casualties, most money goes to improved bomb, artillery, etc. Additional resources devoted to improve smallarms are likely to produce little or no additional benefits.

There are a couple of trends that are worth noting, however. Unban combat and counter-insurgency operations are increasing. This is likely to tilt requirements back in the direction of the individual soldier since big ticket items like smart bombs and tanks have little application in these operations. Unfortunately, expensive sexy projects like tanks and planes tend get more attention from procurement and development officers as these are better 'career' builders. No one care much about the infantry rifle (except infantryman).

The other nascent technology that may effect future combat is body armor. Current body armor is capable of defeating almost all existing small arms fire (excluding heavy machineguns, of course). Should body armor proliferate among our potential enemies, both the 5.56 abnd 7.62 class of small arms will become rapidly obsolete. A new generation of small arm will be required.

I expect the current generation of small arms to see only evolutionary improvement, with low cost improvements likely to be the only ones carried out. We are poised at a radical change in small arms and no one wants to finance an imporved 'longbow' when the next big thing is right around the corner. The Brown Bess served as the general issue rifle for over 100 years. It is quite possible the M16, with minor changes, will have the same kind of service record - and will eventually be replaces with a who new class of small arms.

Tod- Good observations but we have to keep in mind what we do with that information. Everything I know is not necessarily wrong

Artillery has been the biggest killer of soldiers since Napoleon, so nothing�s new there. A soldiers inability to kill the enemy has a whole lot more to do with psychology than the rifle he carries. And Hall�s information, especially in the context in which you quote, is of limited value. In the grand scheme of warfare, the infantry rifle plays a small, but significant role. It�s role is often more psychological than as a tool of war, but that�s a whole different debate.

The reality though, is that a war is the culmination of many different types of engagements, and some of those are classic infantry fighting. In those instances, the rifle reigns supreme, and we cannot forget that.

The US Military opted to give the M16 capabilities out to 800 yards was back in the �80�s. At the time, I thought they killed off most of the best features of the M16A1 when they developed the M16A2, primarily the light weight. In retrospect, they were quite prophetic in going against the grain of modern military thinking (for the past 40 years) in giving the M16 a long range capability.

In Afghanistan specifically, and to a much lesser degree in Iraq, long range engagements are not uncommon at all. We can debate the effectiveness of engaging in a long range affair all day long, but if it�s you in that foxhole, you�re going to want a rifle that will allow you to shoot back.

These days, there�s no reason why you have to have a complete compromise, and I think the M4 carbine does a decent job�Not great, but decent. It�s nearly ideal in the CQB role and it�s at least competent past 300 yards.

A newer rifle could potentially do a better job, but as I said in my opening post (and you reiterated), the M16 is a tough act to follow.

Saying that more casualties are produced with artillery as opposed to small arms fire is sort of like saying you can wet more blades of grass with a sprinkler than you can with an eye dropper. Also, comparing the huge battles of Army versus Army in previous wars is not real appropriate to what we are facing now.

Area weapons will always have a better chance at killing and maiming than will point weapons...but it�s pretty tough to call in a fire mission on the bedroom of a house you are clearing out.

It would appear that for the foreseeable future our troops are going to be facing an enemy dressed in civilian clothes and carrying AK47 rifles, RPG�s, light machine guns and intermixed with a civilian population that is going to preclude the use of the big-stuff.

In this type of engagement the M4�s (with the newer ammunition) are going to be pretty hard to beat until something very new and radical is invented.

Rick - Spot on