Section Infantry Weapons

[mrclark303]

The simple fact is Uncle Sam is the NATO piper and we all follow the piper....

6.8 X 51mm has been adopted and we all will eventually follow suit....

And how many of those NATO countries will remember the US 762 / M14 bs and think "nah, lets wait a while and see it get dumped to a DMR role"?

As an aside... The M5 got rebranded the M7, for anyone that missed it

Time will tell I guess, but the US is going full steam ahead with M5/7 .. probably M8 before it reaches service, it's still being tweaked....

[Lord Jim]

Once the M7 is firmly established in the US Army's fighting units, other Small Arms manufacturers will design and bring out their own weapons in that calibre. Companies like FN and H&K should be quick off the mark assuming they are not already developing weapons that use the new US rounds. Colt Canada will be in a bit of a tough place as their output is basically improved AR-15s, and I d not know if that weapon can be rechambered to fire the new round without basically producing a totally new weapon.

As for European production, well the French and Germans are just introducing new 5.56mm rifles' it will be some time before their domestic users will be looking for another new rifle. I have a strong feeling we are going to be the first European users of the 6.8, and for simplicities sake we might as well adopt the M7 as by then it will have been in US service for at least a decade and most of the bugs should have been fixed. I can see Sig setting up a European production centre for the M7, and if we are lucky and choose the M7 we might having it established in the UK.

As for the performance of the 6.8 verses the 7.62, one of the prime requirements for the US Army was the ability of the round to penetrate the latest Russian Body Armour as a set range, something standard 7.62 rounds could not do. From what I have read the 6.8 had superior performance to the 7.62 in the majority of tests which is why that calibre was selected for the new weapon system. For once I think the US Army got its procurement system right, evaluating an intermediate calibre that would be superior t 7.62 as well as lighter and then developing the ammunition and related rifle to use it.

The next decider will be whether the .338 Norma Magnum LMG will begin to replace the M240 in certain roles as well as the Browning M2. One advantage will be that an RWS could replace its 12.7mm M2 with and .338 LMG and 40mm AGL giving the user a better option when laying down suppressive fire or engaging light AFVs. IT would probably generate interest from the British Army as we already use that round, be it in small quantities with our snipers. The M250 would be an ideal replacement for the Minimi as it is lighter than the L7 but has a bigger bang plus a suppressor to help the Soldiers hearing. I wonder if our SF will get their hands on both the M7 and M250 to play with? That should give the Army a good hands on verdict on the weapon systems, though we have has Army personnel embedded in the US Army programme that resulted in the M7 and M250 for a number of years, so we should already have a fair amount of data on the two weapons.

[Little J]

Once the M7 is firmly established in the US Army's fighting units, other Small Arms manufacturers will design and bring out their own weapons in that calibre. Companies like FN and H&K should be quick off the mark assuming they are not already developing weapons that use the new US rounds. Colt Canada will be in a bit of a tough place as their output is basically improved AR-15s, and I d not know if that weapon can be rechambered to fire the new round without basically producing a totally new weapon.

Agreed other Companies will be looking to produce (they'd be mad not to), but they will also be very weary of this being another flash-in-the-pan adoption by the Yanks. The 6.8 is 762 sized, so Colt Canada adapting the C7/8 is not an option, luckily they do have their new C20 DMR

As for European production, well the French and Germans are just introducing new 5.56mm rifles' it will be some time before their domestic users will be looking for another new rifle. I have a strong feeling we are going to be the first European users of the 6.8, and for simplicities sake we might as well adopt the M7 as by then it will have been in US service for at least a decade and most of the bugs should have been fixed. I can see Sig setting up a European production centre for the M7, and if we are lucky and choose the M7 we might having it established in the UK.

Sig still has their Swiss operation don't they? Curious why they would want to come here for one (lets be realistic) small contract. Also curious about the copyright of the 6.8, would RG have to pay Sig for every bit of ammo produced?

As for the performance of the 6.8 verses the 7.62, one of the prime requirements for the US Army was the ability of the round to penetrate the latest Russian Body Armour as a set range, something standard 7.62 rounds could not do. From what I have read the 6.8 had superior performance to the 7.62 in the majority of tests which is why that calibre was selected for the new weapon system. For once I think the US Army got its procurement system right, evaluating an intermediate calibre that would be superior t 7.62 as well as lighter and then developing the ammunition and related rifle to use it.

Ignoring the Russian body armour ( coz the Russians have ignored giving it to their troops ), I'm still in favour of a proper test with 6.8, 6.5 Creedmoor and anything else that's kicking about before NATO blindly follows the Yanks again.

The next decider will be whether the .338 Norma Magnum LMG will begin to replace the M240 in certain roles as well as the Browning M2. One advantage will be that an RWS could replace its 12.7mm M2 with and .338 LMG and 40mm AGL giving the user a better option when laying down suppressive fire or engaging light AFVs. IT would probably generate interest from the British Army as we already use that round, be it in small quantities with our snipers. The M250 would be an ideal replacement for the Minimi as it is lighter than the L7 but has a bigger bang plus a suppressor to help the Soldiers hearing. I wonder if our SF will get their hands on both the M7 and M250 to play with? That should give the Army a good hands on verdict on the weapon systems, though we have has Army personnel embedded in the US Army programme that resulted in the M7 and M250 for a number of years, so we should already have a fair amount of data on the two weapons.

The 338 MG I do like, but again like the 762 replacement, it needs a proper NATO competition of whatever is out there first.

[Poiuytrewq]

As for European production…

I am not convinced that Euro nations are going to be willing to trash entire capabilities and calibres at a US request especially when the new calibre is so controversial.

As for the performance of the 6.8 verses the 7.62, one of the prime requirements for the US Army was the ability of the round to penetrate the latest Russian Body Armour as a set range, something standard 7.62 rounds could not do. From what I have read the 6.8 had superior performance to the 7.62 in the majority of tests which is why that calibre was selected for the new weapon system.

Its replacing 5.56 not necessarily 7.62.

The 6.8X51 round is unsuited to belt fed weapons due to high chamber pressures.

If piecing body armour is the ultimate concern then surely projectile design is more important than driving bullets faster. What happens when the next-gen body armour defeats 6.8x51?

Ballistically a 6mm or 6.5mm projectile in the X51 case will piece body armour better than the 6.8mm with identical chamber pressures. Penetration and kinetic energy on target are not the same thing. Long for calibre VLD bullets with high sectional density driven as fast as possible are what is needed to penetrate body armour. Ensuring the projectile does not deform is crucial which is why projectile design is so important.

It is entirely possible that a 6mm or 6.5mm calibre could outperform the 6.8X51 with less recoil and lower chamber pressures IF penetration is the primary concern.

[Poiuytrewq]

I'm still in favour of a proper test with 6.8, 6.5 Creedmoor and anything else that's kicking about before NATO blindly follows the Yanks again.

IMO the creedmoor is still too large. It’s very similar to the x51 case in terms of recoil.

The sweet spot is above Grendel and below Creedmore. The 6X47 lapua or 6.5X47 lapua is pretty optimal for a controllable long range intermediate cartridge that will feed reliably.

The 338 MG I do like, but again like the 762 replacement, it needs a proper NATO competition of whatever is out there first.

The .338 GM (.338 Norma Magnum) is absolutely the right choice to replace the 7.62X51. A massive performance enhancement with no drawbacks apart from weight of ammo.

It would also be very useful in the marksman role as the performance when compared to the .338 Lapua is very similar.