6.5 and 6.8 mm

[WannabeA_Tadpole]

What do our experienced shooters here think about the potential of the 6.5 and 6.8 mm rounds, in terms of combat use?

[amber]

WannabeA_Tadpole, both rounds have as far as I know not been field tested, so that would be the first problem that needs to be overcome. To change rounds and thus weapons wouldn’t be all that wise, as one saw in units as e.g. the KSK (German), KCT (Dutch), GIGN (French), etc., where they found out that the 5.7x28 caliber wasn’t all that great as they thought it would be. Second, with both rounds there would be a logistic/supply problem as most NATO countries use 5.56x45 and 7.62x51, and thus one can’t use their rounds if one runs out of ammo. Third, both calibers need their own weapons, and I do not think that DOD has, or want to spent the money to issue new rifles, carbines, etc. Just my 2 cents, but hey what do I know.

[oldswabbie]

IMHO...
They are spending millions on new rifles, weapons....which we do need. Considering both cost of production, logistics and introduction to the services - a very viable solution IS readily available. The M14. It is not a perfect Battle rifle, but it is a great Battle Rifle. It has the ballistics which enables it to be an excellent sniper weapon AND a heavy round which can punch through obstructions if needed (urban setting). You put fire down range into a concrete wall and I guarantee you - I will go through (unless its steel reinforced). The only problem is firing fully automatic you need to have it on a bipod (or have REALLY big arms) or you are shooting airplanes by the 5th round.

The 5.56 is a great round for what it was intended and for alot of situations. But for many areas our troops are finding themselves - Afghanistan, the M14 is a superior weapon with superior range. Yes, you reduce the amount of ammunition you can carry because of the size..this is a drawback. It was my favorite. You could dunk that weapon, get it dusty, dirty and grimey and it would still fire. Took apart very quickly, simply and cleaned easily. With the fiberglass or composite stock you could reduce the weight considerably over the wood. Although, nothing was prettier than that stock rubbed with linseed oil! :)

On the Military Channel they had a countdown on the 10 best Battle Rifles of all time. The M14 came in at #10... I think it should have rated much better on the list, i'm glad it at least made it considering the competition.

OldSwabbie

[amber]

oldswabbie, the M14 is a great rifle, but the problem with the 5.56x45 round IMHO is that most of them are M855, whereas there are superior 5.56x45 rounds in the inventory, like e.g. the M193 and the new 77 Grain. Furthermore IMHO the problem with the M855 is not as much its lethality, but far more placement. Therefore, I do not completely understand why the M16 is being replaced more and more by the M4. The M16 has a longer sight radius then the M4 and therefore generally a better shot placement. Again just my two cents.

[WannabeA_Tadpole]

What I would like to see, is instead of replacing any of the rounds, create a weapon that tames the 7.62; the 7.62 gets the range our guys need, usually has enough velocity, and kicks the SH*t outta anything it touches. Russia came out with great technology with the AN-94. I think if we made a 7.62 model, that fires from a HK417 or M14EBR frame, using the sliding barrel technology, and using the technology to recycle the round per minute down after the first few rounds leave the weapon, this would make it easier to handle a 7.62 in auto mode. Also adding a way to direct the gases using a mixture of barret and ak 108 technology would be nice.

Here is a video on the AN-94 for those who do not know:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tWOoUsE3-Q0
You have to watch into the video for a bit before they discuss the AN-94. Barret did the same thing with the M82 50 cal sniper rifle.

[WannabeA_Tadpole]

IMHO...
They are spending millions on new rifles, weapons....which we do need. Considering both cost of production, logistics and introduction to the services - a very viable solution IS readily available. The M14. It is not a perfect Battle rifle, but it is a great Battle Rifle. It has the ballistics which enables it to be an excellent sniper weapon AND a heavy round which can punch through obstructions if needed (urban setting). You put fire down range into a concrete wall and I guarantee you - I will go through (unless its steel reinforced). The only problem is firing fully automatic you need to have it on a bipod (or have REALLY big arms) or you are shooting airplanes by the 5th round.

The 5.56 is a great round for what it was intended and for alot of situations. But for many areas our troops are finding themselves - Afghanistan, the M14 is a superior weapon with superior range. Yes, you reduce the amount of ammunition you can carry because of the size..this is a drawback. It was my favorite. You could dunk that weapon, get it dusty, dirty and grimey and it would still fire. Took apart very quickly, simply and cleaned easily. With the fiberglass or composite stock you could reduce the weight considerably over the wood. Although, nothing was prettier than that stock rubbed with linseed oil! :)

On the Military Channel they had a countdown on the 10 best Battle Rifles of all time. The M14 came in at #10... I think it should have rated much better on the list, i'm glad it at least made it considering the competition.

OldSwabbie


I love the M14 as well Swabbie. Here is a video for you sir.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-NiRzvtZ2Q

[bigv123]

Something along the lines of the HK417?? I believe it comes in 12", 14", 16" and 20" barrel variants and fires the ever-popular 7.62x51mm NATO round. Mag capacity is only 20 rounds and the cyclic rate is about 600 rounds/sec.

V

[beardch]

[QUOTE=WannabeA_Tadpole;196843]What I would like to see, is instead of replacing any of the rounds, create a weapon that tames the 7.62; the 7.62 gets the range our guys need, usually has enough velocity, and kicks the SH*t outta anything it touches. QUOTE]

Personally in my opinion the 5.56 does get the job done, if it didn't why would so many combat units still use it? But we do not know what weapons SEALs, Rangers, SF, USAF special operators, or those two special units we don't talk about, use on a daily basis. It could be the M4, it could be the HK16/HK17, some could have weapons customized, or custom built, they could build their own, we really don't know, it's most likely personal preference, and we don't need to know because that could give our enemies an advantage in knowing what our Special Operations Forces use.

However I will say the SEALs are using the United States Navy Mark 14 Mod 0 Enhanced Battle Rifle, mostly known as the BER, the only reason we know this is because this picture....
http://www.blackfive.net/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/07/monsoor021.jpg
shows SEALs using this, oh and this rifle is a "variant" version of the M14.

[sirmonty]

I think both rounds show a lot of promise. I'm really impressed with the 6.5, as it has started winning a lot of competitions lately from the sounds of it. Too bad no one makes an gas piston AR in it.....

I'm thinking as it stands now, if either is adopted, it will probably be the 6.8, which is a great round, but as has been mentioned, needs to be field tested. I think our boys could benefit greatly with the extra knockdown power of either of these two rounds. Plus, you can carry more than the 7.62 NATO (which I still think is one of the best rounds out there, hands down).

[thepho]

im not very familiar with the 6.8, other than hearing of it from the series "Future Weapons". the host was mentioning about how the 5.56 wasnt strong enough to drop a "terrorist", when the 7.62, used primarily by kalashnikovs, are plenty strong but very inaccurate. I personally think that the 6.8 isnt going to replace the 5.56 and/or the 7.62. the 5.56, i heard, has a special property in which it "yaws" through its target, making it very painful to move at all, and plus its known for accuracy. So what else could be better? Id say the 6.8 wont make much considerable difference, at least enough to invest on it rather than the 5.56 ammunition.

EDIT: i just remembered the M14. and yes, youre right. as an all-around, multipurpose rifle, it kicks ***, hands down. can you believe it? the #1 rifle in the same show was the AK47! i was hoping the m14 was at least in the top 3 too.

[StoicSean]

Nice to see people talking about something else I enjoy...GUNS!! For those of you interested in the 6.8 and want some info go to this link:
http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=74601&page=4
Scroll down to a post by DocGKR and read it. In fact, go to the first page and read the whole thread, you will be a lot more informed, at least about the basic theoretics behind these rounds.
I remember reading this late last year over and over again, till I understood it all. I'm probably gonna read again tomorrow to brush up. Definitely recommend it to those of you who are interested in this kind of stuff.

[amber]

Well USSOCOM has just adopted the SCAR, which comes in 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 (SCAR-L/Mk.16 and SCAR-H/Mk.17 respectively). So I don’t think the 6.5 or 6.8 will see service anytime soon. BTW WannabeA_Tadpole I’m not all that fond of Russian weapons, and the link about the AN-94 it is a good promotion film for Izhmash, nothing more nothing less. As far as I can see, all the pictures are made at Izhmash. As one can see, e.g., at the banner at the end where it says “Izhevsk or…”.

[WannabeA_Tadpole]

http://www.magpul.com/pdfs/masada_technote.pdf

That link is the answer to everything the military needs for Special Operations. That weapon will fire the 5.56 nato, 6.8 rem, or 7.62 AK. It can also change out barrels, and will hardly ever jam. I have talked to people in the know, who have used it. They said you can carry around one barrel for close quarters combat, and the long barrel could actually be used as a scout snipe config with the 7.62. You can change the barrels out in the field if need be. The shells do not flip back like the M4 and M16. It is operated on a gas piston, and the gases can be regulated. The way the gun is configured, the kick is almost none existent. Perfect gun in every aspect for what our forces need. And the 7.62 AK useage allows them to not leave a signature. It is almost to good :) .

Here is a future weapons clip about it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZJhPMIVgF6c

And here is another clip: http://youtube.com/watch?v=MTnlNyhuO_U&feature=related

[amber]

WannabeA_Tadpole I have never shot the Magpul Masada and thus can't comment if it is good or not. But I noticed that the first link comes from Magpul, and the second is out of Future Weapons, the same program where Mack e.g. told that Dragon Skin body armor is a good product.

[WannabeA_Tadpole]

The guy who told me about it, knows what he is talking about. And the people he works with agree, and know what they are talking about. And magpul is a reliable company as well. The future weapons clip was just to show you what it is all about, incase people do not like to read the website. This weapon is the best thing we have thus far, hands down. I would love someone to find another good weapon that gives our guys all the capabilities listed in that PDF file. I am pretty sure this company is well beyond being on the right track, because I think they are the only company on this track, and that track is looking pretty darn good right now :).

[StoicSean]

It does offer the nice option of having different weps configurations but is it really necessary? There are so many companies out there with so many people saying that their new Uber GUN is the best thing since birth control. Sometimes you gotta step back and not get caught up in the hype; not bashing you or your source. So now we are gonna start stockpiling 7.62x39 for SF missions so they can leave less of a 'footprint'? It's just a bit much. Then again I am a chairborne commando and barely know my elbow from my @$$hole.
For what it's worth, the 6.8 seems to fulfill a lot of expectations. I'd like that in my HK416 or SCAR-L or MAGPUL or whatever.

[thepho]

yeah, personally i dont like the reliability of Future Weapons. and the M16 and M4 Carbine Rifles have served the military well. Further credible testing and comparison would be nice

[WannabeA_Tadpole]

yeah, personally i dont like the reliability of Future Weapons. and the M16 and M4 Carbine Rifles have served the military well. Further credible testing and comparison would be nice

Find a gun to compare the Masada to and we can. There is no comparison because it is a beast in its own level of kicking *** :). The Magpul PDF did comparisons to SCAR and other weapons, but they do not have anything close to the amount of versatility the Masada has. In terms of reliability, it has been tested by a number of people, including a few contractors, I do not remember if the guys I know said whether the government looked at it or not already, but I think they did. The weapon does not jam, it fires almost every type of ammunition you need, and it can practically change into other weapons within 2 minutes. And people please stop talking about future weapons; alls I used that for was to show lazy people that do not like reading what the gun is, read the PDF for info. I got the information for the gun from a Military Contractor, contracted with the United States Navy, he and his co-workers are all former operators. It is a cool weapon. The only thing it does not do is shoot the 7.62 Nato, but that’s what the M14 is for, if one would really even need it. If you used the extended version of the Masada with 6.8 rems(it can chamber 6.8), it can easily achieve ranges for target acquisition in terms of counter sniping. I would love to compare it to another weapon. However, there is no other weapon like it.

[beardch]

However, there is no other weapon like it.

That could be the problem....I highly doubt this was the first company to think of something like this, they may be the first to follow through and produce the gun. But honestly in my opinion the M4 is serving soldiers just fine, why would soldiers still be using it overseas, if it wasn't a good gun, I mean if the M4 had severe problems that led to soldiers dying then something would be done about it!! However time will tell what the government decides is worth the money, and what the troops are supplied with..

[WannabeA_Tadpole]

That could be the problem....I highly doubt this was the first company to think of something like this, they may be the first to follow through and produce the gun. But honestly in my opinion the M4 is serving soldiers just fine, why would soldiers still be using it overseas, if it wasn't a good gun, I mean if the M4 had severe problems that led to soldiers dying then something would be done about it!! However time will tell what the government decides is worth the money, and what the troops are supplied with..

The M4 is a good weapon, however the guys with spec ops background that I have heard from said it does not offer the varients they would like to see. Another company did try to make this weapon, however they were not smart enough to finish. The 5.56 is good for what it is, however a weapon that can chamber more is needed, no ifs, ands, or buts. The 5.56 is good for certain things, the 7.62 ak is good for others, and the 6.8 is good for another, this weapons uses all three. The M4 will not jam easily if cleaned on a regular basis. However, one should not have to clean the weapon regularly, because if your stuck in the field, you may not have that option. The M4 is good for basic needs, but spec ops are not basic, and they can get very dirty weapons where they go. The M4 also can get very hot, weapons like the scar, HK417/416, and Masada, do not get very hot at all, and they require very little attention in terms of cleaning. If you look at how the Masada operates you will notice it would probably require the least attention. Just because the government has not changed it, does not mean anything. The government is full of politicians, politicians do politics, and politics(specifically demacrats) ruin the efficiency of war.

[amber]

WannabeA_Tadpole, even rifles, such as the HK416, where gasses are not used to cycle, need to be cleaned. You are telling the same BS soldiers were told when the M16 came in to use, with all consequences. You make it sound like one doesn't have the time to clean his/her weapon, but has time to change the weapon back and forth between all different types of calibers. And what about the extra weight of all the spare parts one has to haul along? Or did you think that changing out barrels would be sufficient? And, what is with the ammunition? If one has the option to change his/her weapon in the field one needs to take ammunition for all different types too. So, besides all the spare parts, a soldier has to have extra ammo as well. Not really something one would look forward to. Again, what do I know, just my two cents.

[WannabeA_Tadpole]

WannabeA_Tadpole, even rifles, such as the HK416, where gasses are not used to cycle, need to be cleaned. You are telling the same BS soldiers were told when the M16 came in to use, with all consequences. You make it sound like one doesn't have the time to clean his/her weapon, but has time to change the weapon back and forth between all different types of calibers. And what about the extra weight of all the spare parts one has to haul along? Or did you think that changing out barrels would be sufficient? And, what is with the ammunition? If one has the option to change his/her weapon in the field one needs to take ammunition for all different types too. So, besides all the spare parts, a soldier has to have extra ammo as well. Not really something one would look forward to. Again, what do I know, just my two cents.

Are you even reading the info? :) All rifles need to be cleaned, the difference is, how they react when they become dirty. The m16 and M4 have proven to suck when they are not cleaned very well and frequently. These newer weapons have been tested by former SPECIAL OPERATIONS personnel already. I am not asking if it works that way, I am sharing/telling you it works that way :). The capability to change the weapon to chamber a different type of ammunition is good for the purpose of only needing one company and one weapon to perform many duties, very effectively and efficiently. One would probably not change the configuration for ammunition change in the field; however the ability to change to a longer barrel and adjust gases, only takes a few seconds with the Masada. These aspects, whether you believe it or not, could prove to be very useful. If a special operator complained about carrying an extra barrel, they probably are not special operators. The 5.56 can be used for fairly distant target acquisition or close combat, it is the barrel length and other easily configured aspects that will make the difference, due to velocity and so on, and a well trained individual pulling the trigger makes a big difference as well. Within probably 1 minute or less, these configurations can be made with the Masada. No one could argue that the capabilities of this weapon are not extremely useful, if they are, then perhaps they are misunderstanding a specific aspect of the absolute power this could offer. I am by no means an operator, but it does not take a rocket scientist to realize this weapon is the start of a whole new type of AR. Once again, it has already been very well tested; however this information is very new to the public, due to them very recently signing with bushmaster. This weapon will soon be ready to be purchased by the public, the law enforcement, and the military. It was to be released in 2008, but I believe it becomes available in 2009 due to military interest and focus on military projects. I can almost guarantee that Magpul and TDI will be heard from again. FN SCAR and HK offer much of what is already in a way been done. TDI, Magpul, and Barret are companies that have changed the way an entire weapon system functions. TDI worked very close with Magpul on parts for one of their weapons, and the Army is testing it very well, very frequently, right now. Masada is being tested EVEN MORE, right now, because it is an amazing weapon. If anything is wrong with the weapon, changes will be made, because they have set the bar, and the only path from the level they are at right now is up. Once again, find me a weapon that achieves the level of reliability, functionality, and accuracy Magpul has achieved. You cannot do this though, because that does not exist. You know why you cannot do this? Because Magpul has taken components from the FN SCAR, Armalite AR-18, HK G36/XM8, HK G3, M16, and improved them, and then added certain parts created only by Magpul. No one else has done that yet except Magpul. This weapon takes the best components from all of our favorite weapons, and puts it into a single improved and easier functioning system. Amazing, is all one should even speak of when questioning the capabilities this may present, and development continues to be tested to new levels as we speak. Until an entirely new type of weapons system, such as electronically initiated weapons or something entirely new becomes a reliable, efficient, and functioning source, this is the next best thing to a future of powerful and reliable small arms, hands down.

[beardch]

Dude don't keep saying the same thing about how the M4 needs to be changed to the Masada because everyone doesn't agree that this weapon is the best thing ever invented on planet earth, I will agree it looks great and probably performs great--but the U.S. Government and DoD can't just replace all M4's with this weapon because it has the capability to shoot various bullets, it can't and most likely won't be done soon.

[amber]

WannabeA_Tadpole besides the US military the M16 and/or the M4 (or the Canadian Diemaco C7 and/or C8) are in use with numerous countries on each continent (Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North and South America) and within a large majority of NATO countries (Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, Turkey, and the United Kingdom), either for all branches, or for their Special Operation Forces. Not bad for a weapon system that has proven to suck.

For your information, I can well remember the hype about the FN P90 and the 5.7x28 cartridge a few years ago. A weapon system which was very well tested and oh so good, till SOF units start using it, and had to find out that it wasn’t all that. Funny thing is that these units went back to the M4 or the HK 416 (which generally is an improved M4), so much for being a weapon system that sucks. Furthermore it was my understanding that one should have the possibility to agree to disagree on a forum.