Purposed New 6.8

[Craig Miller]

The .277/6.8 bullet size, weight, and velocity came out of the requirement for a certain size armor penetrator to impact above a certain velocity at 800M. And it had to do it out of a maximum 16" carbine barrel.

 

[J E Custom]

As stated, I like innovation and Improvements, but sometimes they can be excessive. I just feel that It is a way for company's to fatten there bank account at our expense and without regard for the practical application. I have always been a fan of our military of having the best equipment based on some of the lesson learned in out history.

Almost nothing is impossible, but many things are impractical and are not better just more expensive. Some of the improvements, can be used in other areas that are better suited for the
improvement.

Any weapon capable of handling 80,000 to 90,000 Psi will require a totally new/different material and/or increase the weight for the needed strength. it will also complicate the use and maintenance requirements for the average shooter. Now days many want something different which is fine, but in the real world there are already things that will out perform it and the only advantage is that it is new and different.

Many of the tried and true weapons are still around because they do the job they were intended for and are for the most part extremely dependable Others with poor dependability and performance soon prove themselves a wast of time and money and are soon obsolete.

If they want to advance the weaponry, Spend the money and Build an 7 or 8 pound laser rifle that has no recoil, no noise, no trajectory no sites and unlimited range that will do your enemy in. You wouldn't even need a gunsmith.

Just my opinion

J E CUSTOM

 

[lightshooter]

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

I couldn't agree more. I have an AR-10 in 6.5 cm and it'sa track driver. I do think .260 rem over 6.5 cm would give more reliable feeding with more body taper and less shoulder angle. Although I could see the benefit of a bull pup for clearing houses and such.
Any rifle that requires batteries, IMO should be eliminated right off the bat. I do realize a lot of equipment is battery dependent but the rifle will still go boom and there is buis.

 

[Bob Wright]

A fellow employee at my last job (Boeing) brought in a project he worked on at a legacy company. It was a consumable case design with a 22 cal bullet sticking out of one end; the cartridge case resembled a small domino, about 2/3 the size of a domino. It was electronically fired.
Project went only as far as getting the test article ( looked mostly like an M16) to fire full auto at some crazy cycle rate, maybe 2x the M16.
Since the case was consumed as propellant, no case ejection occurred. The limited motion of cycling the next round was 1/2 the distance of the 55gr projectile, since the other half was in the consumable case.
How they sealed the chamber was the trick. All I saw was photos of the research weapon but got to hold the case and marvel a bit.

 

[dfanonymous]

There is some serious tin hat wearing going on here.

 

[Bob Wright]

There is some serious tin hat wearing going on here.

Crazy idea for sure. I can find US Army patents describing aspects of the consumable case, propellants, ignition in 1974-75. Nothing directly tied to this weird cartridge. But below, in these photos shows something close to what he showed me. The 223 round I examined was a rectangular cross section.

 

[dfanonymous]

Crazy idea for sure. I can find US Army patents describing aspects of the consumable case, propellants, ignition in 1974-75. Nothing directly tied to this weird cartridge. But below, in these photos shows something close to what he showed me. The 223 round I examined was a rectangular cross section.

I wasn't talking about what you wrote. The concept of PCA, caseless cartridges, and CT's have been around since the military started playing with the g11's back in the 80s and the technology has been there since the 50's/60s/70s. It's not a secret that non-brass ammo was attempting to be used but during the time, the technology wasn't there and the weapon design was not correct for it.

 

[Bob Wright]

I wasn't talking about what you wrote. The concept of PCA, caseless cartridges, and CT's have been around since the military started playing with the g11's back in the 80s and the technology has been there since the 50's/60s/70s. It's not a secret that non-brass ammo was attempting to be used but during the time, the technology wasn't there and the weapon design was not correct for it.

Agree, except the program I mentioned was around '74.
Strange enough, these very programs were all research predecessors to this thread discussing the new 6.8 cartridge. Increased lethality and "lighter weight burden" research was the constant improvement going back to the Viet Nam conflict. Many failures and some successes have us here. The caseless designs just haven't made it, to date. One thing is for sure, is change is constant and the military/NATO also wants something that has promising commercial uses/high production. Maybe the military are paying close attention to these sites, championships, good old American ingenuity.
The research program I mentioned never even saw development phases.

 

[ntsqd]

I recall an article in the 80's about a case-less cartridge that was triangular. The idea being a higher magazine density coupled with somehow improved feeding over the square design.

 

[cohunt]

I recall an article in the 80's about a case-less cartridge that was triangular. The idea being a higher magazine density coupled with somehow improved feeding over the square design.

That would be the tround

 

[Mallardhammer]

They're going to have to switch from "no brass no ammo" to just "no ammo" Nobody is going to want that brass at 90k psi