Feral Jundi

   In this post, I wanted to present two types of rounds being thrown around out there as possible replacements for the 5.56 mm round currently in use by today’s warfighters.  Wikipedia is the source for both of these reviews, and is certainly a good foundation for us to start from.  And like Col. John Boyd would ask, is this the bullet that we want, and is this the rifle that we want to shoot it with?

     Are we on the right track, by trying to fit a new round into an old rifle system like the M-4?  Should we be designing a weapon around the bullet, or the bullet around the weapon?  I like the ergonomics of the M-4, but is this a good idea to limit ourselves on the bullet, just because we want to save money on weapon design?  Or perhaps we should just start from scratch, and go with the best rifle that is designed around the best bullet for the job.  My personal opinion is to throw out doctrine and build that ‘snowmobile’, to get that round and rifle that we want.

    And if you talk with others out there about what guys want, they want a hard hitting and accurate round.  They want something that is going to put that bad guy down with one shot or rip a limb off when it hits them.  They want something that will be hard hitting beyond the 300 meter point, as well as accurate at all the pertinent ranges.  They also want a rifle that is ergonomic, lightweight, requires little maintenance, is easy to clean and fix, is tough, and will last awhile.  They want a rifle that can operate in all conditions and will work when they need it most.  A tall order, but not impossible to come up with.

    But if I had to choose between the rounds being evaluated right now, my personal opinion is that I like the 6.5 Grendel.  I want an accurate round that can hit hard at all ranges, and not just up to the 300 meter ranges.  Where as both rounds are sufficient, the 6.5 sounds like a better designed bullet for this.

    The other thing to remember is that both rounds were ham-stringed by the fact that they both had to be the same length as the 5.56mm.  The reason is cost.  Both of these rounds could be fed into an M-4 type platform with moderate modification to the original weapon.  But like I said, what would Boyd say?  Are we putting a ‘pretty bow’ on a shitty round, or are you getting the bullet that we want?  And are we getting the rifle that we want, that can shoot this round?  Things to ponder, as the war continues.  –Head Jundi

6.8 mm Remington SPC (Left) as compared to the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge (Right)

6.8 mm Remington SPC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Type Rifle

Place of origin Flag of the United States United States

Production history

Designer Remington, SOCOM

Designed 2002-2004

Specifications

Parent case .30 Remington

Case type Rimless, bottlenecked

Bullet diameter 0.277 in (7.0 mm)

Neck diameter 0.298 in (7.6 mm)

Shoulder diameter 0.402 in (10.2 mm)

Base diameter 0.421 in (10.7 mm)

Rim diameter 0.422 in (10.7 mm)

Rim thickness 0.049 in (1.2 mm)

Case length 1.676 in (42.6 mm)

Overall length 2.315 in (58.8 mm)

Ballistic performance

Bullet weight/type Velocity Energy

115 gr (7.5 g) (7.45g) 2,625 ft/s (800 m/s) 1,759 ft·lbf (2,385 J)

Test barrel length: 24 in (609.6 mm)

(more…)