Any opinions on the Army’s choice of moving from 5.56 to 6.68?

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2022 10:48:34 -0400

The Army has found its replacements for the M4 rifle and M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, handing out a contract to put new guns in the hands of tens of thousands of soldiers.

The force is awarding a 10-year, $20.4 million contract to Sig Sauer for the XM5 Rifle, which will become the new standard rifle for soldiers, and the XM250 Automatic Rifle, which will replace the SAW.

The service will also switch from 5.56mm ammo to 6.8mm, after a search for rounds better built to penetrate body armor.

"Both weapons fire common 6.8 millimeter ammunition utilizing government provided projectiles and vendor-designed cartridges," an Army spokesperson said in a press release. "The new ammunition includes multiple types of tactical and training rounds that increase accuracy and are more lethal against emerging threats than both the 5.56mm and 7.62mm ammunition."

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2022 3:28 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2022 15:28:05 -0400

Well, since I'll be looooooooong retired before that rifle even sees the hands of Reservists.....I've no opinion other than I hope it is accurate and effective when put to practical usage.

Response by SSG William Jones made Apr 20 at 2022 3:59 PM

SSG William Jones — Wed, 20 Apr 2022 15:59:19 -0400

I believe the 6.8 round will be a pretty good compromise ballistically between 5.56 and 7.62. It will pack more wallop than the 5.56 and be a bit faster than the 7.62.

Response by 1LT Voyle Smith made Apr 20 at 2022 4:24 PM

1LT Voyle Smith — Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:24:04 -0400

Interesting information Brother Curtis. Thanks for posting it.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2022 5:21 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2022 17:21:45 -0400

I think it's a good move, bigger and heaver round, geared to reach out further. Optics moves point of aim to accommodate the round.
It shoots slower RPM, but reaching out and contacting your target, is right on. Even at 500 RPM, no shooter can engage that many in one minute, you'll run out of targets. Lol

Yes, we're going to hear all the, Bla, Bla, Bla, Bla, and If, and If, and If.

It all comes down to, the user, on how efficient they are with what they're using.

Give a Marine a stick, and he'll stick it in the enemy's eye, give a sailor a new ship, and he'll stroll around the world twice with it, give the airforce a new plane, and they will drop a 1000# bomb to kill one guy, or bring back a boat or car with them. (Hey, I heard the stories, from the load masters, guys, they're king with any load)

And, if you know Line Doggies, they'll complain about everything and anything, even when the army changed to a non white T-shirt. (DUH?) How about some better, or more Ass Wipe in the field???

In the Army, I always heard everytime we had C-Rats to eat, they complained about the food, but they ate it, and the next day, and next day.
In the 82nd, in flight for a jump, they always complained about the C-130 or C-141 rocking and a rolling, but when the doors opened, they jumped out, without never saying good-by. Never!

All in all, it comes down to, Humans are never satisfied, and "That's a fact, Jack".
Some, when they go to heaven, they'll complain about it's to white, and the angels are singing to loud. HELLO???

Really, to me, if it shoots, I'll adapt and bring it to what is needed to do the mission, as well as others out there, who'll decide what they'll need to survive.

Thanks for the post subject, it was fun. Amen!

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2022 5:25 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2022 17:25:42 -0400

I wonder what the civilian model costs. Gonna have to look it up

Response by CPL Douglas Chrysler made Apr 20 at 2022 5:30 PM

CPL Douglas Chrysler — Wed, 20 Apr 2022 17:30:52 -0400

So much for surplus ammo.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Apr 20 at 2022 7:12 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:12:39 -0400

Have seen the 5.56 bounce of tree branches poke a nice neat hole on close contacts if it doesn't hit something solid. 6.68 is a variant of the 6.8 Creekmore- a very robust round. 6.68 is suppose to have better range and punch and a flatter trajectory than current 5.56

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2022 7:20 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:20:31 -0400

https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/next-gen-68mm-ammunition-delivered-to-us-army-by-true-velocity/383011

'Next Gen' 6.8mm Ammunition Delivered to US Army by True Velocity - Firearms News

The US Army continues to move ahead with its modernization program and recently took delivery of 170,000 rounds of lightweight 6.8mm TVCM ammunition from Texas-based True Velocity.

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made Apr 21 at 2022 7:54 AM

LtCol Robert Quinter — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 07:54:00 -0400

Some of the more "seasoned" folks on this forum can reflect back to some of the reasons given when we shifted from the 7.62 to the 5.56 round. Conditions in Viet Nam minimized the opportunity for aimed fire and resulted in a "spray and pray" use of small arms. Additionally, resupply was complicated by conditions and there was a need for the rifleman to carry more rounds; the 5.56 r9und was lighter and allowed that. The one shot, one kill folks either used specially bought weapons, or drew the M-14s out of storage.
The 6.8 is compatible with envisioned battlefields and lighter to carry than the 7.62. Problem solved.

Response by SSgt Christophe Murphy made Apr 21 at 2022 8:28 AM

SSgt Christophe Murphy — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:28:28 -0400

The 5.56 isn't a horrible round but it has been known to lack the stopping power associated with larger rounds. If there is a middle ground between 556 and 762 I think it should at least be checked out. The rifle looks decent but I don't have any personal experience with it.

Response by SSgt Mathew Cummings made Apr 21 at 2022 8:47 AM

SSgt Mathew Cummings — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:47:36 -0400

I am going to do some research here... but is the Army going to lower it's training range with the new weapons and ammo? Still going to max out at 300? I prefer the Sig weapons myself, but if the Army isn't going to train to fulslingshot? Or at least 90%, why not just issue slingshots or swords? Not trying to start an argument, this is something I have never been able to understand.

Response by SSgt Mathew Cummings made Apr 21 at 2022 8:56 AM

SSgt Mathew Cummings — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:56:57 -0400

I did more research on this matter. The Army just revisited the qualifications in 2020. It will still only be out to 300.

Response by SSgt Mathew Cummings made Apr 21 at 2022 9:16 AM

SSgt Mathew Cummings — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:16:14 -0400

I don't mean to keep posting, looking into this much farther... only 10k rounds per barrel? That's one training exercise. I encourage this weapon but it appears that the Army does not get logistics in keeping the M4 around as well as adding the XM5 for SOF and toss in combat units. If they train at its full potential I will applaud the decision. This whole development has made me the combat capability at being minimum 25% reduction after implementation begins. For how long that would hold norm, I have no idea.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Apr 21 at 2022 9:21 AM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:21:27 -0400

I'm not very knowledgeable with this round. I'm thinking it could be similar to the 6.5 Creedmore but I could be way off target (sorry couldn't resist the pun, lol). I don't have much experience with the Creedmore either so....

The 5.56 is popular but has it's limitations. It doesn't have the "stopping power" needed in some applications but does tend to be a bit more accurate over distance than some other rounds. The way I see it, it all boils down to knowing your weapon platform and being proficient in the effective application thereof.

Response by TSgt George Rodriguez made Apr 21 at 2022 12:09 PM

TSgt George Rodriguez — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:09:49 -0400

Owning he AK47 with 7.62 round although not as accurate as the 55.6 round over a greater distance it still gives me plenty of knock down power.

Response by SSG Bill McCoy made Apr 21 at 2022 4:10 PM

SSG Bill McCoy — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:10:29 -0400

Sounds like a good move. The M-16 wasn't bad; and the M4 would've been well received in Vietnam where the majority of firefights were at close range. In Iraq, and especially Afghanistan in the mountain terrain, the M4 was viewed rather badly due to it's limit range and punch. I know in Nam, we all pretty much wished we'd still had the M-14 rifles both for range and knock-down power even though it would have been a bit unweildy in jungle areas.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2022 8:20 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:20:17 -0400

Having read numerous After Action Reports from Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, I get the impression that this change is needed pretty badly. Yes. The 5.56 has the ability to kill, but it has no "knock down power". The 7.62 is an old, heavy bullet with poor ballistics, (according to what I've been told), so it has limited range, but all kinds of "knock down power". So, like others have said, the 6.8 strikes me as a happy medium. I also know that one of the reasons why the USA, and NATO switched to the 5.56 was because so many of them can be carried....as opposed to the [physically heavy and bulky] 7.62, (just a reminder of a favorite adage from Navy SEALS in reference to carrying heavy loads of gear on the march: "Ounces equal pounds, and pounds equal pain"). The 5.56 also helped fight against U.S. and NATO troops from running out of ammo in combat, (no, not fool proof, just helps). But the reverse has been, (in Iraq and Afghanistan), that so many enemy troops were hopped up on mind altering drugs, that often times, a whole, entire magazine had to be expended on a single combatant to ensure he didn't get back up and start shooting again, (same lesson as when the Marines used the .38 cal. pistol against guerillas and sometimes the guerillas didn't even know they'd been shot, and kept coming...hence the USMC transition to the .45 auto). The same problem [sometimes] happens with the 9mm which is why special forces are trained to use the "double tap" to compensate. But the 9mm was adopted for the same reasons as the 5.56. But against a "NORMAL" person who is NOT hopped up on drugs, NOT wearing body armor, and NOT hiding behind effective cover, yes, the 5.56 is effective, and the same goes for the 9mm. Hell, a .22 LR can kill under those circumstances. So I support the transition to the 6.68.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2022 2:35 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Jul 2022 14:35:16 -0400

I am a 37 Year veteran and a Ballistic Engineer to boot, the move from the 5.56mm is good however moving it to the 6.8 Sig caliber and the XM5 is another very bad error very similar to the useless piece of junk called the M16, M4. We had a EXCELLENT rifle and still do min our arsenal storage it is called the M14, this rifle was and still is the better firearm than the M16,M4, and the XM5 using the 6.8mm. The M14 762x51mm can without any issue meet or exceed the ballistics of the 6.8 Sig, Then again we have our national security placed at risk when FOREIGN businesses manufacture our military firearms, ammunition or any of their components. The 6.8mm just by Sig Sauer's statements has to be reinforced at the base of the cartridge to handle their so called pressures. The M14 does not require that extras design and costs. Those that may disagree only are following the sop called hype not actual ballistics, design and functionality of a weapon Oh ps I have designed three weapons systems for the military as well as two drastically improved cartridges that cannot be discussed in this type of forum

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2022 3:03 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Jul 2022 15:03:28 -0400

Darpa and all the military people do not want to do what you state "5.56mm ammo to 6.8mm, after a search for rounds better built to penetrate body armor." I developed a light weight cartridge that would penetrate any known body armor of today. It was applied to the Beretta 92, the Colt 1911a1, the Browning High Power, the MP5 submachine gun, about the same time that FN was playing with the inferior 5.7x28mm cartridge. NO police agency, Federal Agency, DARPA etc etc etc would enter in any form of conversation regarding it. The CEO of FN and myself had a long conversation in comparing ours with the 5.7x28. The only agency that was interested was MI5 and MI6 and were present during our show and tell in Great Britain. The entire show is called nepotism and who you know and who you blow nothing based on facts, or reality or performance ergo the interest in a inferior 6.8x51mm cartridge or the useless 5.56mm and the related inferiors firearms that use them like the M16 etc. Our government is not interested in what works, what is best for our troops and what will get the task done. hen they find people that know nothing that climb on a band wagon of theirs and without actual hands on knowledge start to agree and support their boondoggle of a plan or idea, what results is waste of resources, time,nothing learned and lives lost as long as it is not theirs. Try to recall the crap ideas of the M16, the Digital TV project, the CFL's, the useless leaking propane valve of some senators nephew came up with and now the LED bulbs that last so long and are the cats meow, My experience with the later is I have returned over 35 such bulbs back to the manufacture for failing in less that a year of operation. When you have something that works keep it, do not try to improve it or fix it already is a great firearm and ammunition

Response by Billy Ford made Feb 28 at 2023 9:46 PM

Billy Ford — Tue, 28 Feb 2023 21:46:38 -0500

6.68 knock down of a 7.62 and accuracy of .223