tomahawk6 said:Per the linked article and caliber. But I agree that the US might press NATO to adapt the 6.8 mm round.
Yes but those are also standardized calibers, what if the US goes ahead with the Sig bid and replaces the 240B with a .338 as well?, if the largest army in NATO dropped 5.56mm and 7.62mm there would be implications for the alliance over the following decades.Ostrozac said:Even if this new 6.8 round is adopted as a NATO standard, that doesn’t mean that every NATO member will switch at once, or even at all. Germany didn’t switch from 7.62 to 5.56 until the late 90’s, and Greece and Turkey are still using 7.62 in their standard issue rifles.
Ostrozac said:Even if this new 6.8 round is adopted as a NATO standard, that doesn’t mean that every NATO member will switch at once, or even at all. Germany didn’t switch from 7.62 to 5.56 until the late 90’s, and Greece and Turkey are still using 7.62 in their standard issue rifles.
MilEME09 said:Yes but those are also standardized calibers, what if the US goes ahead with the Sig bid and replaces the 240B with a .338 as well?, if the largest army in NATO dropped 5.56mm and 7.62mm there would be implications for the alliance over the following decades.
MilEME09 said:Yes but those are also standardized calibers, what if the US goes ahead with the Sig bid and replaces the 240B with a .338 as well?, if the largest army in NATO dropped 5.56mm and 7.62mm there would be implications for the alliance over the following decades.
With any luck it will go away with little fan fare.WIth everything going on in Europe, do you all think the NGSW program will get shelved or accelerated?
Agreed. 6.8 is not good enough to be worth replacing all the 5.56.With any luck it will go away with little fan fare.
Colossally stupid program from the get go.
All they did for two candidates is neck down a 7.62 NATO to 6.8 and jack up the chamber pressure.Agreed. 6.8 is not good enough to be worth replacing all the 5.56.
On the plus side, with that much chamber pressure, the US doesn’t need to re-stock with tac nukes….just lob a few NGSW in there with some hot loads and KABOOM!All they did for two candidates is neck down a 7.62 NATO to 6.8 and jack up the chamber pressure.
Right now in the US Army we have a 100m ish capable soldier - and they want to issue a 1,200m capable weapon.
SOCOM already issues 6.5 Creedmore - and the Army is being big and stupid because a bunch of half wit fucks convinced equally dumb folks we needed a "better" round and weapon.
For a guy who likes ships because I don't have to carry my own stuff around with me, what does that mean?
Is the 6.8 more pew than a 5.56 and less pew than a 7.62? Does it pew farther? Faster? Can you better pew things at a distance than a pew-ier 7.62, with more pew than a 5.56? Can I continue to find new and stupid ways to work pew into a dumb question?
Most importantly, how much of a badass will I feel like not hitting a barn at 100 yards with that on full auto?
In a serious note, is this going to become a more common NATO standard round? It thought part of the reason for standardized rounds was to help with shared logistics, but maybe that's not a big deal when you are they US Army.