Capital Idea
Before Marines in Afghanistan received enhanced 5.56mm rounds last month, an influential four-star general advocated behind the scenes for an option that packs even more punch: 6.8mm ammunition.
Three sources with knowledge of the Marine Corps’ acquisitions process confirmed Gen. James Mattis’ interest in the 6.8mm round, saying the head of Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., lobbied for it as recently as December while pushing broadly for better service-rifle ammo.
Pretty easy to change existing inventory. New barrels, bolts, and magazine followers would do the trick. And I know a good 6.8 barrel supplier.
March 12th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Even better, I bet they could recoup some price selling the 5.56 parts on the open market.
March 12th, 2010 at 11:56 am
If i pay attention to the media coverage of the problem, the M4’s would have to receive water cooled bull barrels and belt feed systems in order to keep up with the machinegun rate of fire they are supposedly subjected to in Afghanistan.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Back in the late 1800’s, when the European powers were fighting colonial wars, in Afghanistan among other places, they realized that if they wanted to outshoot the enemy they needed a cartridge with a relatively flat trajectory and decent terminal balistics and decided on a minimum of 6.5 mm.
We have the same kind of war right now — not against blackpowder muskets but against mid-range AKs. The general has a very good idea.
March 12th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
LOL Uncle, you whore.
March 12th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
“Pretty easy to change existing inventory”
Heh, and just chuck the untold millions of rounds of 5.56 and replace them tomorrow?
March 12th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
if only there was a market that could buy up that excess ammo. or another weapon, like maybe a SAW, that could use it. 🙂
March 12th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
General Mattis is a badass. Look up his wikiquotes if you doubt it. If he’s on the 6.8 bandwagon, then that’s a pretty kick ass bandwagon. 🙂
guy: The guys that really need the punch, the grunts out on the line, they’ll get it first, trust me. There’s plenty of support guys that’d love a hand-me-down M4, and will keep the 5.56 on the FOBs or stateside for training. Got 2 tours in Iraq, about to leave on the 3rd, and, since I keep helocopters running so they can go shoot the bad guys, I haven’t fired a round in anger over there yet. I wish I could get more M4s for my guys.
March 12th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
In all seriousness, they could just use the 20″ uppers on the telestock lowers and things would improve.
March 12th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Most Marines in A-Stan are issued M-16s not M-4s. The Corps has always placed a high value on long range marksmanship and never bought off on the M-4 whole hog like the Army did.
Having said that, when you compare the ballistic performance of 6.8 SPC to 5.56 to 6.5 Grendel, I don’t understand why the general would be so up on 6.8 SPC.
One of the recurring problems in A-Stan is Taliban cowards mortaring, RPGing and spraying fire at our troops from 600-1000 meters away. The 6.8 SPC runs out of oomph at just about 600 meters, which also happens to be about where 5.56 NATO rounds fired from a M-4 drop to sub-sonic velocity. 6.5 Grendel is supersonic all the way out past 1000 meters.
Hey Uncle, when is Bison Armory going to produce a 6.5 Grendel upper assembly so I can buy one?
March 12th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
we been talking about it but 6.5 grendel has all sorts licensing, trademark stuff that make it spendy to sell. We could make 6.5 barrels but we’d have to call them the ‘6.5 definitely not a grendel’
March 12th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Uncle:
I’m sorry to hear that sir.
I heard that AA has relaxed their process in order to attract more vendors.
It sure would be great if you guys would start making Grendel barrels.
March 12th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Isn’t there supposed to be an FTC disclaimer on this post…? (VEG)
March 12th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Well, it seems then they’ll need to start fielding sniper-grade uppers in sniper-grade calibers on the AR-15 platform and upgrading the DM training program.
If we’re going up against mortar fire in the 600-1K yard range, that’s the only viable solution IMHO.
March 12th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
SayUncle,
The requirements and the cost for licensing the Grendel are certainly not heinous, though many would have you believe so.
With Hornady coming online with Grendel ammo, the only bottleneck that has been present will be addressed, and the cartridge will see huge leaps.
Email me and I can give you the right guy to talk with about the issue, if you are serious about considering it.
March 12th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Don’t know why they don’t just consider going to the 6X45 or a 6.5X45. Only major part that has to be changed is the barrel.
March 12th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
It’ll take more than new followers for the mags. It’s been proven time and again that you can’t fit more than 15 or so 6.8 SPC rounds in a standard M16/M4 magazine. That’s why PRI and Barrett came up with their own mags. those are the only two brands I’d trust too…
March 13th, 2010 at 1:55 am
15 6.8 rounds in a mag? What is a standard M16/M4 mag, then, 20 rounds of 5.56?
I thought that the standard issue mags were 30 rounders.
The Grendel gets 25 rounds into a 30 round length mag, and the 6.8 case is smaller in diameter.
March 13th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Standard cap mags for 6.8 from PRI, Magpul, and C-products are 5, 10, 15, and 25 rounds, with C-products making a 17 round mag as well.
As to the caliber, sure there’s a 1000yd load for the 6.5, but I don’t care. How many Army or Marine soldiers are going to use a 1000yd round effectively with un-magnified sights? How much fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan is done beyond 400 yards? The US armed forces are also concerned about recoil, how does 6.5 G compare to the 6.8 SPC in terms of recoil. I know the recoil of the 6.8 is very mild, but I’ve never shot a 6.5 G.
Lastly, I’m not interested in paying $0.02 more per barrel/upper to be able to stick a name on it. AA can have the Grendel name, as I’m perfectly happy with the 6.8 and if I do sell 6.5, I don’t care what you call it. If we do sell it, we’ll probably name it “6.5 Hrothgar” or after some other character from Beowulf.
March 14th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
ben,
I wondered about capacity because of the comment that “It’s been proven time and again that you can’t fit more than 15 or so 6.8 SPC rounds in a standard M16/M4 magazine.” by Jason. I knew there were 25 round mags for the 6.8, just wondered what he was using as “the standard M16/M4 magazine”!
As for encounters beyond 400 yards; in Iraq, not many. In Afghanistan, though, perhaps a majority. There is a LOT of information on this, but here is one good source, from a “been there, done that” guy:
http://www.pro-patria.us/designated_marksman
I’ll certainly agree that without better optics, engaging at longer distances is a problem. Afghanistan is a new ball game for us when it comes to distance. We’re even fast tracking a new mortar because of the problem.
I have no problem with you making whatever business decision you want, it’s America, and you can do that here! That said, the Grendel has huge name recognition, and you get to piggyback off of Hornady’s, AA’s, Sabre’s et al’s advertising! Seems like a pretty cheap cost for that advantage!
March 14th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
PS…
By all accounts there is minimal, if any discernible difference in recoil between the 6.8 an the 6.5, which is to be expected from two cartridges with almost identical case capacities and bullet weights.