J E Custom
Well-Known Member
This is some information on the purposed new Army replacement for the 5.56 for those that are interested.
J E CUSTOM
J E CUSTOM
Purposed New 6.8
- Thread starter J E Custom
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
It will be interesting over time to see if the "average Infantryman" can be a better marksman or a better shooter with the new 6.8mm round rifles/MG the Army is expecting to spend $MMM's on for the future. I'd had to see the projections on what it will cost to convert Lake City Ammo Plant to production and leave behind the 5.56mm. Lots of 5.56mm rifles for FMS sales to other countries in the future I guess.
cohunt
Well-Known Member
lots of info on SIG's bid rifle/ammo out on the net as it utilizes the 277 fury ammo-- SIG has announced the minimum performance claims of a 140gr bullet at over 3000 fps with over 80000 psi chamber pressure as it has a "civilian" version available in the bolt action CROSS rifle.
SIG is suing a proprietary powder to hit those speeds (so maybe new powder for re-loaders in the future that would dwarf the industry standards?) --the round use a std "308w" bolt face and feeds from AICS mags, they already submitted for SAAMI early last year and it is supposed to be approved soon this year. They are using "proprietary barrel coatings" to reach "unheard of" barrel life numbers (supposedly to be released soon also) -- for commercial market they have 2 initial offerings that will be available from SIG ammo-- a 135gr match, and a 140 gr BT hunting bullet
they other 2 offerings may never make it to the civilian market (anytime soon) due to the polymer case ammo or telescopic ammo designs and that 1 is electronic ignition design and ATF doesn't like electronic triggers
SIG is suing a proprietary powder to hit those speeds (so maybe new powder for re-loaders in the future that would dwarf the industry standards?) --the round use a std "308w" bolt face and feeds from AICS mags, they already submitted for SAAMI early last year and it is supposed to be approved soon this year. They are using "proprietary barrel coatings" to reach "unheard of" barrel life numbers (supposedly to be released soon also) -- for commercial market they have 2 initial offerings that will be available from SIG ammo-- a 135gr match, and a 140 gr BT hunting bullet
they other 2 offerings may never make it to the civilian market (anytime soon) due to the polymer case ammo or telescopic ammo designs and that 1 is electronic ignition design and ATF doesn't like electronic triggers
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
Once again, the question why comes up when we already have many comparable cartridges, why re invent the wheel. We have many 6.5,s that would meet the requirements (3000 ft/sec) and we already have the AR 10 that Only weighs on average 1.5 pounds more that an equally dressed AR 15.
For me the choice would be a 260 Remington with more than double the energy and distance. Based on the 308 It would be a simple process to convert the AR 10 to comply with the basic requirements. In fact I am considering changing the barrel on my 308 AR 10 to a 6.5 something.
Just My opinion.
J E CUSTOM
For me the choice would be a 260 Remington with more than double the energy and distance. Based on the 308 It would be a simple process to convert the AR 10 to comply with the basic requirements. In fact I am considering changing the barrel on my 308 AR 10 to a 6.5 something.
Just My opinion.
J E CUSTOM
6.5-300 BEE
Well-Known Member
Not Invented Here is always the problem.
cohunt
Well-Known Member
Mil has very specific requirements including the diameter of the bullet and weight of the loaded ammo, penetration requirements etc. -- that's where the 260 falls short, it's not .277, loaded ammo weighs too much, and cant hit 3000fps plus in a 16" barrel so it cant meet the mil spec requirements-- A 260 rem with 140 grain bullets barely hits 2800 from a 24" barrel with saami spec ammo.
Now the "why" of their requirements comes from tons of $$ spent on "scientifical" testing and experiments and probably someone patting someone else's back along the way.
The 6.8 spc could actually meet their requirements for "ar size" rifles years ago with the right chamber design and special powders around 58-62000psi chamber pressure , but remington screwed up the chamber specs/designs and created a high pressure issue that caused problems in mil testing , after it was figured out it was too late for the failed mil contract.
Now the "why" of their requirements comes from tons of $$ spent on "scientifical" testing and experiments and probably someone patting someone else's back along the way.
The 6.8 spc could actually meet their requirements for "ar size" rifles years ago with the right chamber design and special powders around 58-62000psi chamber pressure , but remington screwed up the chamber specs/designs and created a high pressure issue that caused problems in mil testing , after it was figured out it was too late for the failed mil contract.
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
I hear what you are saying but the 260 can reach 3000 ft/sec with a 120 grain bullet and with reasonable pressures. (60,000 psi) and we all feel comfortable with 62,000 or 63,000 psi,s. 308 based cartridges often run 60,000 + and we already have a developed cartridge for the use. they are also over twice the power and performance, and distance of the 223.
I enjoy all the research and conceptual engineering. but as an ex serviceman and veteran. when the crap hits the fan, I would want something that was not complicated and easy to service and maintain and was not hard on components and the weapon. as stated this rifle would be for the foot soldier and simple is always better.
I have fired belt fed rifles/machine guns, and other that continuous fire, In my opinion they offered nothing but barrel troubles. The magazine has proven it's self to be almost trouble free and dependable. During Vietnam the full auto proved to be very ineffective per round fired and the decision to go with a 3 round burst helped this problem.
I personally wouldn't own or depend on a rifle that shot ammo with a chamber pressure of 90,000 PSI. I can think of many reasons not to build something like this, but not one good reason to build it.
Just my opinion
J E CUSTOM
cohunt
Well-Known Member
I hear ya, but they arent requiring ar 120 at 3000 plus, they want a 140 at 3000 plus and it must be .277 /6.8
Why? Who knows, but facts are facts so the 260 just wont work for them. You say you wont own something that operates at 80-90000 psi, yet people said the same thing about "plastic" pistols before glock. Technology advances-- we are along for the ride. Maybe the high pressure cartridges will bring barrel coatings that would increase a standard barrel life by 2-3 fold? Wouldn't that be cool? (Unfortunately the barrel coating that sig designed/is using is proprietary right now)
The high pressure could improve existing cartridges-- imagine a 7 sherman max at 80000 psi?
You'll see stronger, lighter, faster more accurate developments in the future and some branch off of technology designed for the mil-- imagine if the military never wanted an m16 or 223 because it was too small of a bullet ?
More options are always better in the long run.
Why? Who knows, but facts are facts so the 260 just wont work for them. You say you wont own something that operates at 80-90000 psi, yet people said the same thing about "plastic" pistols before glock. Technology advances-- we are along for the ride. Maybe the high pressure cartridges will bring barrel coatings that would increase a standard barrel life by 2-3 fold? Wouldn't that be cool? (Unfortunately the barrel coating that sig designed/is using is proprietary right now)
The high pressure could improve existing cartridges-- imagine a 7 sherman max at 80000 psi?
You'll see stronger, lighter, faster more accurate developments in the future and some branch off of technology designed for the mil-- imagine if the military never wanted an m16 or 223 because it was too small of a bullet ?
More options are always better in the long run.
I would hope the engineers at the Army's Picatinny Arsenal in NJ which is the Army's premier arsenal for ammunition development would have figured out what they need in specs before they launched this new requirement. I know from previous experience in the Army that they have some pretty smart ammunition engineers on their staff. A lot of what we see in commercial shooting had a start in the past in Picatinny Arsenal - one example is the Picatinny rail which they developed for NATO years ago.
ntsqd
Well-Known Member
I can see a DLC coated bore possibly standing up to the thermal requirements, don't know about the mechanical. Maybe not any current DLC product, but a new one of the type. At those pressures the barrel metal may move enough to fracture a purely ceramic coating and maybe some/all DLC's too.
A slight hijack, something that I've long wondered about, did the MIL-STD-1913 pictinny rail pre or post-date the Weaver base/ring design? Never mind, I answered it myself. The first date in the spec that I can find is 1995, radically post-dating the Weaver design. This link *might* get you the spec in pdf form: https://quicksearch.dla.mil/ImageRedirector.aspx?token=196345.115317
A slight hijack, something that I've long wondered about, did the MIL-STD-1913 pictinny rail pre or post-date the Weaver base/ring design? Never mind, I answered it myself. The first date in the spec that I can find is 1995, radically post-dating the Weaver design. This link *might* get you the spec in pdf form: https://quicksearch.dla.mil/ImageRedirector.aspx?token=196345.115317
bdyal1972
Well-Known Member
Picatinny rail WAS NOT DEVELOPED AT PICATINNY!!!
I was in the US Army AMC in 1990 and met mr. Armand? Swan inventor of the true PICATINNY rail and his SWAN sleeve in 1986? Maybe 87?
They cut off the top of the handle in front of the rear sight for me, cut off the delta washer and apparatus for the hand guard, mounted a swan sleeve with 4 rails, tigged the sleeve to the top of the upper receiver and created a free floating barrel, a dewalt drill handle was threaded into the sleeeve.... and rigged.
The second m16A2 they built me the rear sight was cut off, front sight cut off and mounted me a leupold m8 6x in low rings.
Both trigger packs were replaced with m16a1 tuned triggers at about 4.2# weight very consistent and true full auto...
Carried the scoped one with a companion mossberg m590 for multiple deploynents...
62grn green tip was accurate on b27 to 800m with bottom of duplex to sight with and rifle zeroes at 300m...
Mr Swan was a genius...
The peep sight rifle later received an aim point cowitnessed with sights.
148 out of 150 hits on unknown range course was not unusual with 2moa dot in conjunction with m16a2 sights...
I really felt I had improved lethality to grandpas m1 Garand and uncles m16a from ww2 and vietnam
Just the bullets zipped through so double taps were a NECESSITY...
8 PELLET 000 BUCK INSIDE 25 YARDS NO DOUBLETAPS REQUIRED!!!
JE, you are correct. There is NO NEED to reinvent the wheel. I heard about 15 yrs ago that the 260 REM was going to be the next gen. military round an the same AR10 platform.
However, these contractors have connections within the US govt. And it's not always about making things better but, more often about lining someones pocket, at the tax payers expense.= more govt. waste.......our tax dollars hard at work.
Sure seems like a lot of money for a relatively easy fix.
SC.......my .02 cents
Another myth exploded I guess. I'll defer to your knowledge.
But - here is Wikapedia history which matches many other sources and clearly what I heard personally at PICA in the early 2000's. Guess there are many opinions.
History[edit]
The rail itself dates from work by the A.R.M.S. company in the early 1980s and Otto Repa in standardizing the Weaver design.[citation needed] Specifications for the M16A2E4 rifle and the M4E1 carbine received type classification generic in December 1994.[citation needed] These were the M16A2[3] and the M4[4] modified with new upper receivers where rails replaced hand guards.[verification needed]
The rail is named after the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, which was tasked in 1992 to develop a standardized mounting system after the U.S. Army was dissatisfied with the contemporary products on the market. The Picatinny team was headed by mechanical designer Gary Houtsma (who was awarded the Order of Saint Maurice Award in 2014 for this contribution[5]), who took the measurements from 20 or so different Weaver rail products from weapons bunkers at Picatinny (and even sporting goodsstores) and came up with an average set of numbers set on a 45-degree angled surface. Houtsma then took the specifications over to the production facility and requested they design a dimensioning style so the rail could be easily produced and inspected. The factory recognized the similarity of the purposed optics rail to the existing rail design on 105 mm howitzers, so they chose to scale down the howitzer rail design and co-opted the production and inspection procedures. The team then sent the finished product over to Rock Island Arsenal for review and trial, and then to the technical data section to determine if it should be a standard or a specification. After it was determined that the new rail should be a standard, not a specification, it was adopted and fielded in 1995[6] with the designation Mil-STD-1913, dated February 3, 1995.[7]
A metric upgraded version of the Picatinny rail, the STANAG 4694 NATO Accessory Rail, was designed in conjunction with weapon manufacturers like Aimpoint, Beretta, Colt, FN Herstal and Heckler & Koch, and was approved by the NATO Army Armaments Group (NAAG), Land Capability Group 1 Dismounted Soldier (LCG1-DS) on May 8, 2009.
History[edit]
The rail itself dates from work by the A.R.M.S. company in the early 1980s and Otto Repa in standardizing the Weaver design.[citation needed] Specifications for the M16A2E4 rifle and the M4E1 carbine received type classification generic in December 1994.[citation needed] These were the M16A2[3] and the M4[4] modified with new upper receivers where rails replaced hand guards.[verification needed]
The rail is named after the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, which was tasked in 1992 to develop a standardized mounting system after the U.S. Army was dissatisfied with the contemporary products on the market. The Picatinny team was headed by mechanical designer Gary Houtsma (who was awarded the Order of Saint Maurice Award in 2014 for this contribution[5]), who took the measurements from 20 or so different Weaver rail products from weapons bunkers at Picatinny (and even sporting goodsstores) and came up with an average set of numbers set on a 45-degree angled surface. Houtsma then took the specifications over to the production facility and requested they design a dimensioning style so the rail could be easily produced and inspected. The factory recognized the similarity of the purposed optics rail to the existing rail design on 105 mm howitzers, so they chose to scale down the howitzer rail design and co-opted the production and inspection procedures. The team then sent the finished product over to Rock Island Arsenal for review and trial, and then to the technical data section to determine if it should be a standard or a specification. After it was determined that the new rail should be a standard, not a specification, it was adopted and fielded in 1995[6] with the designation Mil-STD-1913, dated February 3, 1995.[7]
A metric upgraded version of the Picatinny rail, the STANAG 4694 NATO Accessory Rail, was designed in conjunction with weapon manufacturers like Aimpoint, Beretta, Colt, FN Herstal and Heckler & Koch, and was approved by the NATO Army Armaments Group (NAAG), Land Capability Group 1 Dismounted Soldier (LCG1-DS) on May 8, 2009.
