Time to take a stand!

[USSA-1]

Well, seems it's time for me to offer up my thoughts (since I started this!)

My vote is for the 6.8 SPC.  At this point, the 6.8 seems to have the edge on terminal ballistics and intermediate barrier penetration (I say seems, because I'm not sure the terminal aspects of the 6.5 Grendel have been fully explored), and this is the main reason for it's development in the first place.  The 6.8 was chosen over all other bullet calibers after a battery of tests concluded that it was the best "show stopper."  This included a 6.5 caliber version which already enjoys an outstanding reputation as a deep penetrating, hunting round.  Additionally, military conversion to the 6.8 is much more easily accomplished than with the 6.5 Grendel.  With a barrel and bolt swap, the 6.8 will work in the linking system for the M249 SAW's, the 6.5 will not.  An entire new link and feed tray system is required which effectively kills any "conversion."  The M249 would have to be redesigned from the ground up.  We've already seen how difficult it is to get one weapons system replaced.  Switching calibers to one that requires a conversion and one that requires a complete redesign just does not seem feasible.

While I agree that the 6.5 Grendel does have better ballistics and most likely better long range accuracy, respectfully, that was never the issue.  The issue wasn't with our troops not having the accuracy to hit a threat, they were hitting them quite successfully.  The issue was that it was taking multiple hits to anchor the bad guys to mother earth.  I think the ballistic advantage held by the 6.5 is dubious at best.  Modern Warfare is currently undergoing a revolution.  With the possible exception of China, there is no military in the world that can stand against the US and go toe-to-toe.  The last two gulf wars have clearly demonstrated that reality.  This current war also demonstrates how to effectively fight the US and that means conducting a guerilla style war in an urban environment.  In this type of combat environment, battles are measured in feet not yards, and the vast majority of fights are under 300 meters (funny how the Russians figured this out in 1945.)  At these distances, there is no practical ballistic advantage between the two calibers, but there is a terminal advantage and it belongs to the 6.8 SPC.

At this point you may ask, "Then why not just convert back to the 7.62?"  This is most certainly a valid question and I would submit that there are two reasons for not making a 7.62 the standard issue round.  First is a warfare doctrine issue.  The first object of manuever warfare requires that fire superiority be established.  Fire superiority is established through volume supressive firepower.  This also means large quantities of ammunition are expended.  That ammunition must be carried by the troops.  Assuming the same loadout for a 5.56, 6.8, and 7.62, there would only be a slight increase in weight going from a 5.56 to a 6.8.  Stepping all the way up to a 7.62 would be quite a substantial increase in weight, not only in the weight of the ammunition, but also the weight of the extra magazines to carry the additional ammunition as 20 round magazines are pretty much standard when it comes to the 7.62 caliber.  I don't think the additional weight and performance is enough of an advantage compared to the 6.8 when considering the fighting doctrine of modern manuever warfare to justify standard issue.  Second is the training and ability aspect.  The 7.62 is a more difficult round to shoot rapidly and accurately due to it's increased recoil when compared to the 5.56 or the 6.8.  Most line troops do not get near enough skills based firearms training.  The marksmanship our troops are displaying in combat is the best it's ever been.  Good combat optics are no doubt playing a strong part, but I also think our troops are getting better overall training.  I would surmise that a switch over to the 7.62, without the additional training required to maintain the current level of proficiency would result in degraded individual marksmanship skills and I don't see any training trends that would indicate a willingness to increase training.  Quite the opposite, most training is being streamlined to get the new troops into the pipeline quicker.

Based on terminal performance, ease of conversion, manuver warfare doctrine, and training requirements, I would vote for the 6.8 SPC to be the next general issue combat round.

Erik

[HAWKFISH]

As of now I am a 6.5 fan. Most of the info I"ve seen and researched keeps pointing that it is the better choice as of now. Down the road I might be swayed. But, for now I would take the accuracy of the 6.5. That's just me though.

[Bidah]

Erik, with your training, insight, and expertise, I would have to agree with your assessment.  Since I look at it from my point of view, and that means open space living out in the sticks, I believe the 6.5 looks better.. 

Now to get me some dough to build up a 6.8 to try it out.

-Bidah

[Hazcat]

Why not just go to the 25 WSSM at 85 grain?  Bullet is already around and COL is close (maybe just a barrel head space adjustment) and twice the muzzle energy as the 223.

[warhawke]

Why not just go to the 25 WSSM at 85 grain?  Bullet is already around and COL is close (maybe just a barrel head space adjustment) and twice the muzzle energy as the 223.

The WSSM's have a huge case diameter (.555 inches vs. .376 for the 5.56) which makes them a big problem with large capacity magazines to say nothing of chambering something like the M-16 in it. The high pressure is going to burn up the throat in a ten thousand rounds or so, which is fine for a hunter, but military weapons need maximum service life.

A big problem with these kinds of discussions is the fact that most people don't realize the kind of issues you have with a military weapons. You are not talking about buying a few dozen weapon and a few thousand rounds of ammo, but MILLIONS of weapons and BILLIONS of rounds, to say nothing about spare parts, cleaning kits, tools, magazines etc. Also, lives depend on these things, you and me we might get along fine with a certain weapon or ammo, but the military has to find the best combination of weapon, ammo, ect. at a price that allows us to also buy the tanks and carriers and a million other pieces of equipment the military needs.

In reality, the military needs to start examining everything it does and develop a comprehensive plan for our total military. Today we have 5 services and many sub-services (Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Air Force, SOCOM, SEAL's, Airborne, etc.) all trying to do their own thing, fighting for resources and getting in each others way. Instead we need to figure out what our military is for , develop a comprehensive plan to do it and allocate resources based on it. Our current lack of any kind of comprehensive plan is why we have more supercarriers than we need and way too few transport ships, cutting edge fighter planes and 50 year old transport planes, super tanks and unarmored HUMMER's (and the HMMWV was a POS to begin with, I could tell you stories, but that is another post).

Of course, the problem is that we have TRILLIONS of dollars invested in the military today and we cannot just throw it all out and start over. The military also has a huge 40+ year multi-billion investment in the M-16, which is why we will not just throw it out and start over without some really compelling reason. Even changing the round to something like the 6.8, which needs minimal alteration to work, is a huge decision, and one likely to be dismissed as fiscally inefficient. I think we are stuck with the M-16/5.56mm combo until somebody comes out with something truly revolutionary which can replace it, like directed energy weapons or railguns or something. Not that this should keep us from discussion and debate on the matter.   

[Sponsor]

[Hazcat]

Thanks for the answer, Warhawke.  I really did not know that it would "burn" out barrels so quickly.  Now I know why the need for a new cartridge instead of some of the allready in production types.

Again, Thanks!

[USSA-1]

Bidah,
       I'm with you.  If I were in Montana, I would go with the 6.5 or a 260 rem (DPMS).  There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of "urban" concerns for you based on the pictures you've posted.

One day, I hope to join you in some of that wide open country.


Warhawke,
              Outstanding observations and quite correct....unfortunately.

Erik

[Bidah]

Erik, you are welcome.  Just be prepared for snow and cold temps.  We do have "urban" areas, I just try to not go there..   Our closest neighbor is 1/2 mile away, and growing up the closest was 5 miles and not road between us..

Warhawke, that is a pretty good assessment of the current state of things, and cartridges such as the WSSM's.

I am still on the fence on the whole 6.8/6.5 thing, but leaning towards the 6.8 at this time.  If nothing else it is fun to research..

-Bidah

[warhawke]

If I had to choose between a 5.56 and a 6,8 it would be the 6.8 hands down. The advantage of the 6.5 Grendel is you can load it to optimize performance for the range you expect to use it at. A 6.5 flat-based bullet between 90 and 110 grains in the 2700 to 2900 fps range should be every bit the equal of the 6.8 Rem in terminal performance in the 0 to 500 meter envelope, with better hard-target penetration. The problem with the 6.8 is that the limited case capacity means that you cannot load the heavier bullets required for long range use. Also, the 6.8mm round requires bullets of 160 grains or so to achieve ballistic coefficients above .5, while the 6.5 only needs 140 grains for that. The reason I like the 7mm-08 is that you could load a 168 grains VLD bullet to 2600fps and get much better performance at long ranges that you can with a 7.62 NATO, which needs close to a 190 grain bullet to get the BC over .5.

[Bidah]

Once again Warhawke, I believe that you are spot on with what you are saying.  The 6.8 and 6.5 were designed with different needs in mind.  I personally like the looks of the 6.5 from the BC's that you mentioned, but then the 6.8 has it's place too, and I already have my other needs met.  Although I like the 6.5, I am not so sure I would see it replacing my .308 stuff anytime soon, even though I believe, at least on paper, that it is as good or better in that 600 meter range.

-Bidah