Again, I never said that the 30-06 AP is superior to every AP round out there, including the M993. I did say that the weight of the tungsten penetrator is only one of several variables that determine whether or not it can penetrate level 4 armor. In other words, just because the M993 can penetrate level 4 doesn't mean a smaller 6.8mm AP with high tungsten content will also penetrate level 4.
Firearms advanced technologies successful and failed
- Thread starter TerraN_EmpirE
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
That’s where Aerodynamics, drag coefficient and pressure/ Velocity comes into play.
This where it gets interesting. The 6.8mm was chosen to bridge performance between the long lived 7.62x51mm and the 5.56x45mm rounds. They were said to have investigated a Verity of rounds between 6mm and 7mm including both 6.5mm and 6.8mm
They chose a very low drag 6.8mm and then packed it with pressure for Very high velocity.
6.8Spc usually pushes a 2,500 f/s it normally drops like a rock past 300m-400m
This new round is said to be speeding out the barrel at 3,200f/s at 140grains from a low drag projectile.
So you have a high velocity, high density aerodynamic projectile. Capable in the conventional form of penetration of barrier targets at 1,000 yards. Add a tungsten core and it’s going through armor. Maybe not at 1000 yards but in infantry ranges.
This where it gets interesting. The 6.8mm was chosen to bridge performance between the long lived 7.62x51mm and the 5.56x45mm rounds. They were said to have investigated a Verity of rounds between 6mm and 7mm including both 6.5mm and 6.8mm
They chose a very low drag 6.8mm and then packed it with pressure for Very high velocity.
6.8Spc usually pushes a 2,500 f/s it normally drops like a rock past 300m-400m
This new round is said to be speeding out the barrel at 3,200f/s at 140grains from a low drag projectile.
So you have a high velocity, high density aerodynamic projectile. Capable in the conventional form of penetration of barrier targets at 1,000 yards. Add a tungsten core and it’s going through armor. Maybe not at 1000 yards but in infantry ranges.
This is all well and good, but you still haven't shown the 6.8mm could even theoretically penetrate enough to pierce level 4 armor like the M993; it would of course have to be an apples to apples comparison (i.e. same quality of level 4 armor). To know this you would have to have access to information which you obviously do not have, such as the bullet's ballistic coefficient, the velocity of the AP round (assuming there is even a 6.8mm AP round in the first place), which would certainly not be the same as the ball round, and of course not least of all the penetrator's shape, weight, and composition.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
And you have a point as there is no open source documentation,
YET
We can infer because from day zero the US Army has said in public this is a response to NIJ Level IV armor equivalents issued by potential peer adversaries.
Because they went through prototyping of ammo and test firing.
Had they just wanted lighter weight ammo they could have stuck with and introduced a “M855A2, M80A2”a M855A1/M80A1 head in a polymer casing that would work with existing hardware or just adopted LSAT based weapons with existing calibers.
They prototyped that cased telescopic ammo in both 5.56 and 7.62.
If it was just range against the Taliban they tested 6.5mm that will reach out to about a 1000 yards they could have adopted that.
But they chose this and they said it was because of the proliferation of Level IV.
So what do we have to doubt it? Are they lying?
As all the Evidence I have is based on statements of the US Army what evidence is there to doubt them here? Does Gun biker dot com have a report disproving this has anti armor potential?
YET
We can infer because from day zero the US Army has said in public this is a response to NIJ Level IV armor equivalents issued by potential peer adversaries.
Because they went through prototyping of ammo and test firing.
Had they just wanted lighter weight ammo they could have stuck with and introduced a “M855A2, M80A2”a M855A1/M80A1 head in a polymer casing that would work with existing hardware or just adopted LSAT based weapons with existing calibers.
They prototyped that cased telescopic ammo in both 5.56 and 7.62.
If it was just range against the Taliban they tested 6.5mm that will reach out to about a 1000 yards they could have adopted that.
But they chose this and they said it was because of the proliferation of Level IV.
So what do we have to doubt it? Are they lying?
As all the Evidence I have is based on statements of the US Army what evidence is there to doubt them here? Does Gun biker dot com have a report disproving this has anti armor potential?
I have read they were unsatisfied with the lethality of the 5.56x45 round based on their experiences in the Middle East (and no doubt before), but I have not heard that their dissatisfaction was because of the proliferation of level 4 armor. Maybe you could cite a reputable, linkable source for this claim.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Cute, and there have been some dissatisfaction with it but if that was the reason the US could have adopted 6.5mm or 6.8 SPC. Many of the issues were fixed when M855A1 came out.
If the US was only worried about fighting in the Middle East this wouldn’t be justification to go to such a round. Even in Afghanistan.
If the US was only worried about fighting in the Middle East this wouldn’t be justification to go to such a round. Even in Afghanistan.
So you don't have a source for your claim.
In any case, the M855A1 is not any kind of answer to the US military's lethality concern, nor was it ever even designed to be. In fact it in most cases would achieve the exact opposite effect. The M855 (along with the A1 iteration) is an enhanced penetrator round, though not quite an actual AP round (that would be the M995). It was designed to aid in penetrating certain barriers (e.g. glass) and mild armors (e.g. Soviet helmets). On the other hand its wounding effects against soft targets are DECREASED compared to ball rounds because it transfers less energy to its target due to decreased likelihood of fragmentation inside the body along with increased likelihood of a through-and-through wound. So using M855s or M855A1s against unarmored combatants (in the Middle East or anywhere else) is definitely the wrong tactic in most cases.
Regardless, I don't see how any of this answers the claim that a hypothetical 6.8mm AP round could penetrate level 4 armor.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The claim was never taken seriously. Hence why 5.56x45mm remains in service.
Look up the reasons for the M855A1 and it was to try and stabilize the round more transition to a lead free round and increased barrier penetration.
The lethally claim is more mythical or perception than reality the result of shooting enemy’s loaded up on narcotics or Blood lust much the same as Jura’s question about a knife attacker.
I can produce reports that link armor penetration as the reason for the new NGSW and NGSAR but nothing on perceived effects because that is perception. The fact is that the US has been in combat for 20 years now using 5.56x45mm and if that was as you claim then why didn’t they change back in 2005 for the XM8 program and M4A1 adoption. It would have been the perfect time as 6.8 SPC could be fitted to either of those carbines.
Look up the reasons for the M855A1 and it was to try and stabilize the round more transition to a lead free round and increased barrier penetration.
The lethally claim is more mythical or perception than reality the result of shooting enemy’s loaded up on narcotics or Blood lust much the same as Jura’s question about a knife attacker.
I can produce reports that link armor penetration as the reason for the new NGSW and NGSAR but nothing on perceived effects because that is perception. The fact is that the US has been in combat for 20 years now using 5.56x45mm and if that was as you claim then why didn’t they change back in 2005 for the XM8 program and M4A1 adoption. It would have been the perfect time as 6.8 SPC could be fitted to either of those carbines.
The 5.56 remains in service even to this day due primarily to institutional inertia, logistics, and cost. The failings of the 5.56 have been known for decades and only now is US military finally ready to move on to a larger caliber. The "lethality claim" is about as fact as one can get. Here is a good summary of the history and failings of the 5.56 round as well as the US military's attempts to get as much performance as they could out of an inadequate round:
As for specifically the 6.8SPC, the US military is clearly not satisfied with this specific cartridge, since it would be supremely easy to just slide right in to this well-known and well-used (except in the military) cartridge. This dissatisfaction should be even more underlined by the fact the US military specifically wants a 6.8mm round, just not the SPC version, and it stems from the poor performance of the 6.8SPC at longer ranges, due to its limitations from having been designed to fit inside the magwells of current service rifles like the M4 and SAWs like the M249, i.e. a much larger bullet in a not-much-larger case, comparatively speaking. That is why you see the newer 6.8mm rounds sporting much larger cases than the 6.8SPC ones. The US military essentially wants a more lethal round than the 5.56x45 but with less recoil and less weight/bulk than the 7.62x51.
You say you can link armor penetration as the reason for the new NGSW and NGSAR. Good, let's see them.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Sure lets see you link too things backing your claim.
This one even quotes Lt. Gen. Paul Ostrowski to the Senate Armed Services Committee's Airland subcommittee
Lookie here budget doc.