re: Army Chooses Sig 6.8 mm Next Gen to replace the M4 carbine and M249 Squad Auto

quote:

---

They should have stuck with the 308 all along instead of this 5.56 and 6.8 nonsense.

---

quote:

---

308

---

Spoken with authority

quote:

---

They could just do an upper and BCG swap but the idea is to run shorter barrels suppressed. And the direct impingement is not ideal for suppressing, too dirty and too much blow back in your face and overall length limitations with the tube/spring/buffer setup. They want a folding stock.

---

I think they want AK at the muzzle and 1000 yard stopping power. I also think they can achieve (at least close to) that with different ammo decisions.

I'll stick with the Commie gun. Plenty of ammo available for it and its a proven performer worldwide.

Once again, a nation that makes more guns than all others combined gives a massive contract to a foreign company. Gave Sig the pistol contract as well. Kind of sad.

quote:

---

Garbage, been known since Vietnam. It is not. Linked timestamp of Kevin Owens (former Army CIF) talking about 5.56 capabilities This post was edited on 4/21 at 9:35 pm

---

Literally prefaces the conversation with the fact that it *is* garbage compared to 7.62 or 6.5. And he stated you have to do the best with what you have/are issued. Not exactly high praise.

Which was the previous posters general point, it’s a garbage round shouldn’t have been selected in the first place.

Here’s Everything We Now Know About The Army’s New Squad Rifles

quote:

---

Perhaps as important as the rifles themselves is the adoption of the new ammunition, the only requirement for which is that it weigh less per round than 7.62mm cartridges. Burris insisted the choice of 6.8mm is not intended to replace either 7.62 or 5.56 as NATO standard ammunition. Each competitor offered ammunition specific to its weapon, though it had to be 6.8mm and weigh less than 7.62, Madore said. That essentially lessened the possibility that the Army would choose a rifle from one competitor and light machine gun from another, though that was an option, he said. Sig’s hybrid metallic case consists of a traditional brass casing with a steel base and will be marketed to civilians as 277 Fury. A semi-automatic version of the XM5 called the MCX Spear will eventually be available to civilians.

---

quote:

---

There's almost nothing accurate in that paragraph.
- 1-7 twist barrels are common if not the norm for 5.56 these days
- 55gr is hardly the only bullet weight available. 77gr is standard on the heavy side
- .224 is called the Valkyrie, not Wylde
- Wylde is sort of a hybrid between .223 and 5.56, meant to improve accuracy a bit. It's designed to shoot 5.56 (or .223), not an entirely new cartridge

---

I believe the early M4s and their predecessor the M16A2 both had 1-9 twists. (Edit to add that I’ve been looking but haven’t found details of the twist rate of the early M4s. I’m not sure when they converted to the current 1-7 twist rates). My last M16A2, before being issued my first M4, had 1-9. The first M4 I was issued was 1-7, if i recall correctly. Again, I believe earlier M4s were 1-9.

If I recall, early standard issue 5.56 NATO used 55 grain bullets. Most use 62 grain now and have for decades (M855).

I assumed the .224 reference quoted was a mistype and the author meant 223 Wylde.

223 Wylde is a civilian AR15 barrel and chamber optimized to fire either 5.56 or 223 equally as accurately. As everyone knows, you should never fire 5.56 through a 223 weapon. The chamber is not built for the increased psi of the 5.56 NATO round. A standard 5.56 weapon’s chamber is only optimized for the 5.56 round. It will fire 223 with no issue, but a normal 5.56 chamber will not seat the 223 100% properly, which can decrease accuracy. The 223 Wylde was the first, and maybe only, barrel and chamber completely designed to chamber and fire either without sacrificing any accuracy.

Just because there are 1-7 and 1-8 twist AR15’s and civilian shooters regularly fire heavier bullets does not mean that the military always had access to the same options. You fired what you were issued.

I didn’t see anything wrong with the article quoted, except the possible mistype of “224” vs. 223 Wylde.

We needed a more lethal weapon than the 5.56 variants currently used. One shot, one kill was not always possible with an M4, and largely depends on the angle of the bullet when it hit the target (yaw dependency). Hopefully, the 6.8x51 solves for some of the deficiencies of the 5.56.

Will NATO adopt the Sig 6.8, also or will they keep what they currently are using?

Because I cannot contribute anything technical to this discussion

Brandon Herrera - THE MILITARY CHOOSES ITS NEW SERVICE RIFLE (14:04) (NSFW - language)