XCR Forum banner

1 - 20 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

Anyone seen that article" The Great Sniper Shoot Off" ?
The retired cop(Darryl Bolke) uses a 6.8AR to place 2nd in a sniper comp against all bolt action 308s :eek:
Do ya think the rest of those Swat snipers were pissed????
I love it, that made my month.
 
G

·
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

what!! no 6.5 grizzle? There is just no way in hell that a 6.8 could do well at those ranges!! Everyone knows the 6.5 is superior to the 6.8 AND the 308!!


IMPOSSIBLE!!!! :mad:


::) :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,200 Posts
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

Now THAT is interesting. ??? Reloads? What bullet, etc, etc?? Got a copy of the article? ???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,835 Posts
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

Haven't seen it, sounds like an interesting topic. Post the article if you can.

6.5 this 6.5 that, blah blah blah. Sure, it looks great on paper and the old one way range, how is it doing over here. Oh wait, it isn't over here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

I'd also like to see that article if you can post it, or a link if it's online.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

what!! no 6.5 grizzle? There is just no way in hell that a 6.8 could do well at those ranges!! Everyone knows the 6.5 is superior to the 6.8 AND the 308!!


IMPOSSIBLE!!!! :mad:


::) :p
The ave. distance for police sniping is 75yds. But I believe the article said they ranged to 300.
There were alot of timed drills and shooting from odd positions.
I have had 3 Grendels and I don't plan on shooting either past 300, I have a 6.5-08AI, 6.5 ARSM and a .243 for that. The 6.8 shoots the same weight bullets from the same length barrel apx 150fps faster than the Grendel and is more reliable.
Take a Grendel to a 3 gun shoot that has a round count of 200-400 and count how many misfeeds you have during the day, 1 is too many.
Can't find it online, It is the fall 2008 issue, black with a XD 40 on the cover.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

Haven't seen it, sounds like an interesting topic. Post the article if you can.

6.5 this 6.5 that, blah blah blah. Sure, it looks great on paper and the old one way range, how is it doing over here. Oh wait, it isn't over here.
This may be a fair statement (I wouldn't know), but as a civie, looking outside in, I can't help but be astounded by how political the selection and procurement process of the US military is.

This may wind up being flame bate (it's not intended to be), but all that I have seen to date leaves me with the impression that the 6.8 SPC makes more compromises than the 6.5 Grendel. Most of its defenders seem to focus on the argument that it would be cheaper to adopt than the Grendel, and perhapse are reluctant to support anything else for fear that anything else would be too much of a reach for the Military's disfunctional selection and procurement process. Given the willingness of the US Military to pay billions for a single aircraft, the cost of adopting a new standard for small arms, even if it meant replacing every single rifle,round of ammunition and related nick-nack currenly issued or in inventory, seems insignificant, especially given the American lives it might save.

If you could wipe the slate clean, and transition the US Military to an entirely new and better small arms system/platform/family (combat rifles, assault rifles, PDWs, SAWs, DMRs, etc, including the belt links, Jack-O!), would the 6.8 SPC be your ammunition of choice? If so, why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,835 Posts
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

I am not sure that the 6.8 is the be all end all but for what the military was looking for (intermediate round, 300 Meter effective) it does quite nicely. Sure, the 6.5 has a little better reach but again, that isn't what the Army is looking for. They are looking for something to replace the 5.56 that will provide more stopping power, more punch through power and still be effective at the ranges that we are fighting at today. The 6.8 could be belt fed, don't think the 6.5G could.

There are pros and cons to both. In the end the military will settle for the one that does what they want and probably nothing more. I use the word settle for a reason. They will be happy with fighting the last war, something we are really good at.

I would be happier seeing the military going to better ammo, stuff designed to create massive trauma and kill, not just punch little holes in a guy (though I have seen the exit hole from a 5.56 and it was pretty bad).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

I am not sure that the 6.8 is the be all end all but for what the military was looking for (intermediate round, 300 Meter effective) it does quite nicely. Sure, the 6.5 has a little better reach but again, that isn't what the Army is looking for. They are looking for something to replace the 5.56 that will provide more stopping power, more punch through power and still be effective at the ranges that we are fighting at today.
I have read all kinds of things on this subject. There is a lot of talk, for example, about the feasibility of adopting a cartridge that would serve the purposes of both the 5.56 and the 7.62. Doesn't the Grendel's performance lend credence this idea?

The 6.8 could be belt fed, don't think the 6.5G could.
I've seen this stated before, but I can't figure out where this idea is coming from. When I searched, all I could find was an article which indicated that 5.56 calibre belt fed weapons currently in use cannot be as easily modified to shoot the 6.5G as they can to shoot the 6.8 SPC. I could find no compelling arguments that led me to believe that the 6.5G is inherently unsuited to being belt fed. I believe that AA has asserted that the 6.5G is suitable for belt fed weapons.

My understanding is that the 6.5G is a derivative of the Russian 7.62x39, which is employed in belt fed weapons. Can anyone explain what is different about the Grendel that makes it not able to be belt fed?

There are pros and cons to both. In the end the military will settle for the one that does what they want and probably nothing more. I use the word settle for a reason. They will be happy with fighting the last war, something we are really good at.

I would be happier seeing the military going to better ammo, stuff designed to create massive trauma and kill, not just punch little holes in a guy (though I have seen the exit hole from a 5.56 and it was pretty bad).
That's an interesting point. If we stopped trying to conform to irrational and out-dated treaties, could a bullet be designed for the 5.56 cartridge that would end concerns about "stopping power"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,835 Posts
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

There is lots of talk about adopting a do it all cartridge. Unfortunately, unless it is .308 I doubt it will ever happen. Back when the front lines were clear and the only people doing the fighting were infantry/combat arms types you could get away with that. Now, you have all sorts of people that can't/don't need to carry something the size of a .308 but they are still at the front lines, since there are no lines on the modern battlefield. Those people need to be armed in the event of hostilities and will probably never engage a target past 300m. The bean counters want something that is cheaper to feed and maintain, thus the M4 lower with a new upper. The .308 would be great for some units but don't need that range/stopping power. I would rather have all the stopping power I can get out to 300m than a cartridge that is effective out to 600m. Remember, the average Joe walking around out there still has Iron sights. Most units are upgrading to optics but 90% of the ones I see every day are non-magnified (Aimpoints and Eotechs). Even if you give every soldier out there something that can range out to 600m most wont have the optics or skills to engage a target that far. Thus, why do we need one?

As far as belt fed, I would have to go dig around. I think it is mostly as you stated, it would be hard to modify existing platforms to 6.5G. New stuff would be easy, just design it around the cartridge.

Ammo, yes, there are way better performers out there. just about any round that police use in duty weapons would probably do just fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

There is lots of talk about adopting a do it all cartridge. Unfortunately, unless it is .308 I doubt it will ever happen.
So, you're skeptical about the reports that indicate that the Grendel carries the same, if not more, energy to 1000m than the .308? I mean, if that were true, then the Grendel would constitute a cartridge with a overall size and recoil compatible with full-auto and select-fire assault rifles, but with a range on par with what we're currently using in sniper rifles. Hard to see the downside there.

... The bean counters want something that is cheaper to feed and maintain, thus the M4 lower with a new upper ...
Not sure I see the distinction between 5.56, 6.5G, 6.8SPC or 7.62 with respect to maintenance or cost. Unless the better-terminal-ballistics solution is pursued, the would-be next gen bullet is going to have to be heavier and/or propelled by a more energetic charge of propellant to deliver more destructive energy into the bad guy, right? Both of those things probably equate to more pennies per trigger pull. That having been said, I think most of the arguments I've seen on this forum, regarding the comparative cost of 6.5G and 6.8SPC, are based on the current price of ammunition available to civilians, which is utterly irrelevant to the question of what it would cost the US armed forces if they were to begin using either of those in large quantities.

I think the bean counters would also be thrilled at the idea of eliminating a whole calibre of weapon from the inventory, making no presumptions about whether that could be accomplished. For that matter, why wouldn't the average infantryman approve of that? Wouldn't DMs currently shooting accurized M16s benefit from an identical weapon that shoots 6.5G?

I mean, think about it. If one cartridge could provide 6.8SPC-like lethality sub 300m, and provide .308-like lethality out to 1000m, wouldn't that make every infantryman's job safer and easier, including DM's, and, possibly, be suitable for snipers, as well? Soldiers are happy, because the bad guys are dying faster, and the bean counters are happy, because all of those soldiers are shooting with the same cartridge and some variation of the same weapon.

... I would rather have all the stopping power I can get out to 300m than a cartridge that is effective out to 600m....
The grendel is supposed to provide stopping power equal to the 6.8SPC under 300m. Check.

... Remember, the average Joe walking around out there still has Iron sights. Most units are upgrading to optics but 90% of the ones I see every day are non-magnified (Aimpoints and Eotechs). Even if you give every soldier out there something that can range out to 600m most wont have the optics or skills to engage a target that far. Thus, why do we need one?
Why did we need to bring the M-14 back out of mothballs? Different versions of the same question, right? Someone that uses that rifle in harm's way could probably answer those questions, which isn't me, but I do know we have who-knows-how-old M-14s, along with the .308 ammunition they shoot, getting humped around in the deserts of Iraq and Afganistan this very day, right?
 
G

·
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

the 6.8 was a comprimise solution to fit in the AR platform. in that role it suceeds well. As to it being the IDEAL combat cart. during it's development the ideal cart was developed concurrently without the restrictions of OAL or Magazine. Here is What Dr Gary Roberts has to say about it and it development....


While the 6.8 mm has repeatedly demonstrated outstanding terminal performance in JSWB-IPT testing, FBI BRF testing, USMC testing, and the recent CTTSO/TSWG MURG Congressional demonstration, keep in mind that the 6.8 mm design is a compromise that does not maximize assault rifle terminal performance, as it is constrained by the requirement to fit and function in the 5.56 mm M4/M16 magazine. The 6.5 mm Grendel is inhibited by this same limitation.



-

Primary focus during SPC cartridge design was to offer improved terminal performance, accuracy and flight characteristics from CQB range out to 500 meters from the M4 type platform compared to all existing 5.56 mm loads. The SPC was required to be easily retrofitting to current SOF 5.56 mm rifles (HK416, Mk18, M4, Mk12, M16) and be adaptable to proposed future systems (SCAR-L/Mk16, XM-8). The 6.8 mm SPC easily meets these criteria and has proven extremely reliable and durable in extensive functional testing.

Below is a 6.8 mm Horn 115 gr OTM shot fired from a 12” barrel into a bare gel block at 100m. MV = 2466 f/s, Impact Vel = 2263 f/s. Pen = 13.5”, NL = 1”, Max TC = 4.5” diam at 4.5” depth, extending from 1 to 9”. RW = 85.6 gr.


-

---------------------------------

If freed from the M4/M16 platform imposed design compromises that limit both the 6.5 mm Grendel and 6.8 mm SPC, an “idealized” advanced rifle cartridge (ARC) for combat, can be explored. As noted, virtually every wound ballistic test in the last 100 years points to a 6.5-7mm cartridge as offering the ideal combat performance--be it the 1920’s era .276 Pederson, the post WWII .270 & .280 British cartridges, or the newer SPC program.

While at USAMU, Cris Murray, one of the co-designers of the 6.8 mm SPC simultaneously developed an “ideal” combat rifle cartridge, with none of the M4/M16 platform imposed design compromises that limit both the 6.5 mm Grendel and 6.8 mm SPC. Murray’s 7 x 46 mm, offers better range and terminal performance than 6.5 mm Grendel, 6.8 mm SPC, or any other common assault rifle cartridges, including 5.45 x 39 mm, 5.56 x 45 mm and 7.62 x 39 mm. Since the 7 x 46 mm is based on the proven Czech military 7.62 x 45 mm cartridge, it has an established record feeding and functioning in both magazine and belt-fed full-auto fire. Likewise, recoil appears manageable and weapons remain controllable in FA fire, just as with the Czech cartridge. Like the 6.8 mm, the 7 x 46 mm is optimized for shorter barrels and larger magazines than the heavier, bulkier, and harsher recoiling 7.62 x 51 mm/.308 cartridge. In addition to Murray’s 7 x 46 mm, the older FN 7 mm's (7 x 44 mm, 7 x 47 mm, and 7 x 49 mm), as well as the newer 6.5 mm Creedmore are worthy of consideration. For that matter, revisiting the British .270/.280 wouldn’t be a bad idea. Keep in mind that the OAL of these cartridges is a bit too long to fit into the M4/M16 or other 5.56 mm size weapons/magazines



As a result, these cartridges should ideally be used in all new rifle designs optimized for their characteristics.

Below is a 7 x 46 mm shot from a 16” barrel, using the 120 gr Hornady OTM fired into a bare gel block at 100 meters. MV = 2801 f/s, Impact Vel = 2529 f/s. Pen = 15.5”, NL = 1.5”, Max TC = 6” diam at 5” depth, extending from 1.5 to 9”. RW = 84.2 gr.



Hard armor of NIJ Level III/SAPI protective levels will stop ALL standard military OTM and FMJ, including mild steel core ammo, such as 5.45x39 mm M74 FMJ, 5.56 mm M193 and M855 FMJ along with Mk262 OTM, 7.62x39mm M43 FMJ, 7.62 x 51 mm M80 FMJ and M118LR OTM, 7.62 x 54 mm Type L FMJ, and .30-06 M2 FMJ. This same Level III armor can be easily be penetrated by any of the same calibers listed above when using common military AP ammo.

Mr. Murray has stated that his goal with 7 x 46 mm is to run a 130 gr projectile fired out of a 16.5” barrel at 2650 fps with the pressure below 50K.

If you want to stop most rifle AP ammo such as the .30-06 M2 AP "black-tip, all you need to do is use NIJ Level IV/eSAPI type hard armor. Yet even that can be penetrated using the right ammunition... Penetrating armor is not about caliber--it is about bullet construction.



7.62x33mm, 5.56x45mm, 6.8x43mm, 7.62x39mm, 7.62x45mm, 7x46mm, 6.5x47mm, 7.62x51mm, 7.62x63mm

As I have publicly stated previously, we have three choices:
-- Adopt improved barrier blind 5.56 mm ammunition for our current weapons.
-- Adopt an improved intermediate assault rifle caliber, like 6.5G or 6.8 SPC, that can be retrofitted to our current and near term weapons.
-- Adopt a larger case capacity combat caliber, like 7 x 46 mm or an enhanced 7.62 x 51 mm load, along with a new modern rifle system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

Wow, that's alot to absorb, but the general sentiment seems to make sense. Is that last bit about a better 7.62x51 load referring to one with less recoil?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,200 Posts
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

Jack, Nice post. I think that 7mm looks interesting. We need to DROP the AR series rifles and chose a rifle/machine gun that will handle the 7mm (or maybe a 6.5 in the same case?). :duh: :2cents: >:D >:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

Haven't seen it, sounds like an interesting topic. Post the article if you can.

6.5 this 6.5 that, blah blah blah. Sure, it looks great on paper and the old one way range, how is it doing over here. Oh wait, it isn't over here.
This may be a fair statement (I wouldn't know), but as a civie, looking outside in, I can't help but be astounded by how political the selection and procurement process of the US military is.

This may wind up being flame bate (it's not intended to be), but all that I have seen to date leaves me with the impression that the 6.8 SPC makes more compromises than the 6.5 Grendel. Most of its defenders seem to focus on the argument that it would be cheaper to adopt than the Grendel, and perhapse are reluctant to support anything else for fear that anything else would be too much of a reach for the Military's disfunctional selection and procurement process. Given the willingness of the US Military to pay billions for a single aircraft, the cost of adopting a new standard for small arms, even if it meant replacing every single rifle,round of ammunition and related nick-nack currenly issued or in inventory, seems insignificant, especially given the American lives it might save.

If you could wipe the slate clean, and transition the US Military to an entirely new and better small arms system/platform/family (combat rifles, assault rifles, PDWs, SAWs, DMRs, etc, including the belt links, Jack-O!), would the 6.8 SPC be your ammunition of choice? If so, why?
Have you ever shot a 6.5 Grendel?
So before you say the grendel would be better because it holds elevation better at 1000(which no one will ever snipe at 1000 with a Grendel) You need to go buy one and which ever mags you think work with the Grendel in a AR and shoot a 3 gun match of 300-400 rounds. If you have 1 misfeed you are a dead man in combat. The rifle will not jamb at the range when you are shooting slow fire for accuracy, it will jamb when you are trying to spit rounds out as fast as you can because 3 or 4 ******** are shooting at you. After you spend a year or 2 trying to get through a 3 gun course with 0 misfeeds and spend thousands of dollars on ammo and different mags and tools to tweek those mags then decide if you want your son standing in a battle with a rifle that jambs. I can tell you If I had to pick a caliber other than the 5.56 the 6.8 IS the most reliable cartridge in a AR.
 
G

·
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

so to recap...
things the 6.8 has that the 6.5 doesnt:

-reliability
-better mags and more manufacturers
-lower pressures
-excellent terminal performance
-affordable ammo
-available ammo
-was developed by professionals to military specifications
-being offered in a wide variety of weapons
-being made in a wide variety of loadings my many manufacturers
-is popular
-lack of whiney babies ;D :p ::)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

I see it this way. I would want the 6.8 for the rifleman and LMG or (SAW). Bring back the General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG). I would use the 6.5 Grendel for that. The 6.5 would be perfect in that role just because of it's range, power, and less weight compared to a 7.62NATO.

I would like to see the M60 back. I know it was not good in it's original version. But it was cool looking.

Rifle = XCR ---- 6.8mm
SAW = Ultimax 100 --- 6.8mm
GPMG = M60 --- 6.5mm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

The 6.8 could be belt fed, don't think the 6.5G could.
I've seen this stated before, but I can't figure out where this idea is coming from. When I searched, all I could find was an article which indicated that 5.56 calibre belt fed weapons currently in use cannot be as easily modified to shoot the 6.5G as they can to shoot the 6.8 SPC. I could find no compelling arguments that led me to believe that the 6.5G is inherently unsuited to being belt fed. I believe that AA has asserted that the 6.5G is suitable for belt fed weapons.

My understanding is that the 6.5G is a derivative of the Russian 7.62x39, which is employed in belt fed weapons. Can anyone explain what is different about the Grendel that makes it not able to be belt fed?
I don't know if 6.5 Grendel is, or is not, able to be belt fed. It's possible that the idea it can't be belt-fed came from a misreading of my 6.8 SPC vs 6.5 Grendel article in Special Weapons for Military & Police (issue #36, mid-2005).

The Russian RPD and Czech vz52/57 probably could be converted to 6.5 Grendel, but since their belts have non-disintegrating links, it is not applicable to the M249 LMG, which uses M27 disintegrating links. M27-type links don't fit the 6.5 Grendel case correctly, as shown in the photo in the following post: http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3677&postcount=83

Whether or not a viable link design can be created for 6.5 Grendel has yet to be proven. Bill Alexander says it's only a function of time and $$$. I don't know if he's right or wrong about that, but it is clear that the 6.8 SPC case is compatible with the M27 link configuration.

Stan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

I see it this way. I would want the 6.8 for the rifleman and LMG or (SAW). Bring back the General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG). I would use the 6.5 Grendel for that. The 6.5 would be perfect in that role just because of it's range, power, and less weight compared to a 7.62NATO.

I would like to see the M60 back. I know it was not good in it's original version. But it was cool looking.

Rifle = XCR ---- 6.8mm
SAW = Ultimax 100 --- 6.8mmInteresting, wait about 6 months ;)
GPMG = M60 --- 6.5mm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,835 Posts
Re: 6.8 sniper in G&A Combat Tactics feb issue

The 7.62 wont be replaced any time soon. It doesn't need to be. It works fine in the job it does. Look at the M134 minigun. Shoots 7.62, enemy is terrified of it.

I am still not sure what the obsession is with shooting 1000m. Military snipers that are shooting those distances are doing it with Barretts.

My point about the Iron sights is that most people can't accurately engage an enemy target past 300m with irons, maybe a little farther with red dot. Again, what does the 6.5G give the average joe with Iron sights or a red dot. It gives them the same thing a 6.8 does.

Isn't the M240 considered a GPMG?

I personally have never shot a 6.5G so the only judgment I can pass is from reading ballistics and terminal effects. The 6.8 was designed from the ground up to be adaptable to just about everything in the inventory that shoots 5.56 while the 6.5G was not (What was the 6.5G designed for? Long range Benchrest or something like that? I can't remember.)

I really think that the 7.62 is here to stay so the argument of a do it all round is a mute point. We don't need a do it all round. We just need a reliable round that has more stopping power in the 5.56 area of responsibility. Just as there is no do it all ship, plane or helicopter, neither should there be for rifles.
 
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
Top