The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

If it doesn't fit the topic in any of the other forums, and is firearm-related, put it here!
User avatar
428cj
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 297
Joined: May 19th, 2018, 6:52 am
Reputation: 3
Location: West Side

The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

#1

Post by 428cj »

The Army has selected 6.8mm as the new common round for both its Squad Automatic Weapon and M4 replacement
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-arm ... dly-round/


User avatar
YNOTAZ
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 1554
Joined: June 3rd, 2018, 10:01 am
Reputation: 8
Location: NW Valley

Re: The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

#2

Post by YNOTAZ »

Let's hear it for a ton of MilSurp!
User avatar
Steve_In_29
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 921
Joined: June 7th, 2018, 10:52 am
Reputation: 2
Location: St John's, AZ

Re: The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

#3

Post by Steve_In_29 »

The article is almost a year old and I seem to recall the Army backtracking on this.
QuietM4
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 2127
Joined: May 15th, 2018, 8:36 pm
Reputation: 12
Location: Tempe

Re: The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

#4

Post by QuietM4 »

Steve_In_29 wrote: August 18th, 2019, 8:41 pm The article is almost a year old and I seem to recall the Army backtracking on this.
It’s part of the never-ending “search” for the next generation of infantry weapon. Lots of submissions, no winner yet.
User avatar
Steve_In_29
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 921
Joined: June 7th, 2018, 10:52 am
Reputation: 2
Location: St John's, AZ

Re: The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

#5

Post by Steve_In_29 »

As a short range heavy hitter the 6.8 makes sense in the M4 but for a distance weapon like the SAW the 6.5G would be more appropriate as it over takes the 6.8 after 100yds.
User avatar
delta6
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 945
Joined: May 21st, 2018, 8:44 am
Reputation: 12
Location: phoenix

Re: The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

#6

Post by delta6 »

Steve_In_29 wrote: August 18th, 2019, 9:57 pm As a short range heavy hitter the 6.8 makes sense in the M4 but for a distance weapon like the SAW the 6.5G would be more appropriate as it over takes the 6.8 after 100yds.
The attraction to the 6.8 is logistics. Scopes, sights and other "stuff" ballistically mirrors the 7.62 NATO round.
User avatar
Steve_In_29
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 921
Joined: June 7th, 2018, 10:52 am
Reputation: 2
Location: St John's, AZ

Re: The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

#7

Post by Steve_In_29 »

delta6 wrote: August 19th, 2019, 4:10 pm The attraction to the 6.8 is logistics. Scopes, sights and other "stuff" ballistically mirrors the 7.62 NATO round.
That's not a good enough reason to field a ballistically inferior round though.
User avatar
storage_man
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 409
Joined: May 19th, 2018, 5:53 am
Reputation: 4
Location: Phoenix

Re: The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

#8

Post by storage_man »

Steve_In_29 wrote: August 19th, 2019, 7:43 pm
delta6 wrote: August 19th, 2019, 4:10 pm The attraction to the 6.8 is logistics. Scopes, sights and other "stuff" ballistically mirrors the 7.62 NATO round.
That's not a good enough reason to field a ballistically inferior round though.
Agree - All of these alternative rounds, maybe equal to their respective projected replacements, but nowhere are they more superior (I haven't found that proof anywhere).
User avatar
Steve_In_29
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 921
Joined: June 7th, 2018, 10:52 am
Reputation: 2
Location: St John's, AZ

Re: The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

#9

Post by Steve_In_29 »

storage_man wrote: August 21st, 2019, 1:59 pm
Steve_In_29 wrote: August 19th, 2019, 7:43 pm That's not a good enough reason to field a ballistically inferior round though.
Agree - All of these alternative rounds, maybe equal to their respective projected replacements, but nowhere are they more superior (I haven't found that proof anywhere).
Sorry but not sure what you mean.

Both the 6.8 and 6.5G are superior to the 5.56 in every way except weight. Though the new poly cased ammo will alleviate some of that.

The point of my quoted comment was that the 6.5 was a better all around cartridge then the 6.8. The 6.5 retains more energy at longer distances then the 6.8 and gives near .308 performance out of a smaller lighter (as compared to .308) rifle/ammo combo.
User avatar
338lapua
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: May 18th, 2018, 8:57 am
Reputation: 6

Re: The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

#10

Post by 338lapua »

If this was about anything other than some dod a**hole setting himself up for a retirement job they would change the 55 grain bullet out for a 75-77 grain bullet which makes it longer range or dump the 5.56 and just use the 7.62x51 in new M-16's or whatever they want to call the new rifle as well as in the saw's. Very simple solution. The 55 grain bullet has never been a good choice for the M-16 The AR-10 should have been chosen over the AR-15 based design but someone needed a good job after retirement or a payoff.

Personally I would dump all but the MK262 ammo and order new 1-7 twist barrels and matched optics for the round and call it good. Also stop issuing rifles with shot out barrels. This is all that is really needed as the MK-262 is proven to 600 yards and beyond. It has always been a poor bullet problem with the M-16, not the round just the lousy bullet selection. There is data out there about the MK-262 ammo. There is also a well documented fire fight where there were so many head shots to 600 yards that the FBI was called in to investigate a couple guys that did the shooting. With the right bullet the 5.56 is a lethal round, this is about I want to be the guy who got the military a new round and now I can get me a million dollar a year job in the defense industry.

Plastic cased ammo kills the reloading market for reasonably priced once fired brass where tens of millions of pieces have been sold to shooters, probably one of the reasons they want this to f*** the citizen shooting market with non reloadable crap.


``````
User avatar
Steve_In_29
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 921
Joined: June 7th, 2018, 10:52 am
Reputation: 2
Location: St John's, AZ

Re: The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

#11

Post by Steve_In_29 »

338lapua wrote: August 21st, 2019, 8:45 pm If this was about anything other than some dod a**hole setting himself up for a retirement job they would change the 55 grain bullet out for a 75-77 grain bullet which makes it longer range or dump the 5.56 and just use the 7.62x51 in new M-16's or whatever they want to call the new rifle as well as in the saw's. Very simple solution. The 55 grain bullet has never been a good choice for the M-16 The AR-10 should have been chosen over the AR-15 based design but someone needed a good job after retirement or a payoff.

Personally I would dump all but the MK262 ammo and order new 1-7 twist barrels and matched optics for the round and call it good. Also stop issuing rifles with shot out barrels. This is all that is really needed as the MK-262 is proven to 600 yards and beyond. It has always been a poor bullet problem with the M-16, not the round just the lousy bullet selection. There is data out there about the MK-262 ammo. There is also a well documented fire fight where there were so many head shots to 600 yards that the FBI was called in to investigate a couple guys that did the shooting. With the right bullet the 5.56 is a lethal round, this is about I want to be the guy who got the military a new round and now I can get me a million dollar a year job in the defense industry.

Plastic cased ammo kills the reloading market for reasonably priced once fired brass where tens of millions of pieces have been sold to shooters, probably one of the reasons they want this to f*** the citizen shooting market with non reloadable crap.


``````
I would venture it has a LOT more to do with reducing the load our guys have to carry into combat. The military doesn't exist to provide cheap brass for reloaders and if it f*** over the reloaders to provide our military with better equipment then that's just tuff.

Even with the SOST rounds the 5.56 is still marginal at distance and packs less punch then the 6.5 would.

Simply going to 7.62x51 across the board would involve replacing every M16 with a bigger/heavier rifle and negating the size/weight savings the SAW offers the squad over the 240G. Thus seriously increasing the load carried into combat.
User avatar
338lapua
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: May 18th, 2018, 8:57 am
Reputation: 6

Re: The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

#12

Post by 338lapua »

So the 6.8 rounds are lighter then? Or is that only with them made of plastic that they are lighter?
User avatar
Steve_In_29
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 921
Joined: June 7th, 2018, 10:52 am
Reputation: 2
Location: St John's, AZ

Re: The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

#13

Post by Steve_In_29 »

338lapua wrote: August 22nd, 2019, 7:08 pm So the 6.8 rounds are lighter then? Or is that only with them made of plastic that they are lighter?
The plastic rounds are lighter and fit in a 5.56 size weapon.

Even if the military sticks with 5.56 it is likely they will switch to plastic cased rounds.
User avatar
338lapua
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: May 18th, 2018, 8:57 am
Reputation: 6

Re: The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

#14

Post by 338lapua »

Can't wait to see photos of chambers with melted rounds in them. Plastic made by lowest bidder, what can go wrong. Funny how they have been carrying the weight for years now it needs to be reduced. Looks like it is time to start buying brass auctions again if they are ditching brass as once fired will go up.

Looked into the plastic cased ammo, found no real positive articles but did find reports of a few blown up guns and one that blew up a FAL magazine. Found some test data where it said velocities were lower than brass cased ammo and accuracy was not the same.

Found Mac Ammunition who is now owned by Nammo with some 50 cal ammo that looks interesting but nothing on their 5.56 or 7.62 lines of ammo. Did find info on Mac also looking into ceramic technology for ammunition which makes more sense than plastic as ceramics will soon dominate turbine engine production in place of inconel

True velocity looks interesting and they are firing non stop through mini guns with their ammo.

If this goes beyond military markets it will endanger the reloaders especially if they eliminate brass cases or for a guy like me make a lot of money for me making conventional ammunition components. I really don't want the government able to control ammunition supplies as this is a one firing and done.
User avatar
17-21-23
Banned
Banned
Posts: 300
Joined: July 2nd, 2018, 12:03 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: APACHE JUNCTION

Re: The Army’s SAW and M4 replacements;

#15

Post by 17-21-23 »

338lapua wrote: August 21st, 2019, 8:45 pm If this was about anything other than some dod a**hole setting himself up for a retirement job they would change the 55 grain bullet out for a 75-77 grain bullet which makes it longer range or dump the 5.56 and just use the 7.62x51 in new M-16's or whatever they want to call the new rifle as well as in the saw's. Very simple solution. The 55 grain bullet has never been a good choice for the M-16 The AR-10 should have been chosen over the AR-15 based design but someone needed a good job after retirement or a payoff.

Personally I would dump all but the MK262 ammo and order new 1-7 twist barrels and matched optics for the round and call it good. Also stop issuing rifles with shot out barrels. This is all that is really needed as the MK-262 is proven to 600 yards and beyond. It has always been a poor bullet problem with the M-16, not the round just the lousy bullet selection. There is data out there about the MK-262 ammo. There is also a well documented fire fight where there were so many head shots to 600 yards that the FBI was called in to investigate a couple guys that did the shooting. With the right bullet the 5.56 is a lethal round, this is about I want to be the guy who got the military a new round and now I can get me a million dollar a year job in the defense industry.

Plastic cased ammo kills the reloading market for reasonably priced once fired brass where tens of millions of pieces have been sold to shooters, probably one of the reasons they want this to f*** the citizen shooting market with non reloadable crap.


``````
When I was in we never had 55 FMJ. We had 62 and I believe 72 gr bullets. 55 FMJ I believe is just for the public. Never had them.
Post Reply