What's new

Goody bye M16! Military Adopts the M5 rifle and 6.8x51. Are they crazy?

Foinikas

BANNED
Aug 2, 2021
4,763
0
4,285
Country
Greece
Location
Greece
Hi,

That is the american way.

If they didnt design it. It is no good.
Same thing with the Leopard 2.

They had a competition with Germany to make NATO's next main battle tank,the Germans made the Leopard 2,it proved superior to the American prototype,but the Americans decided to continue with the Abrams.
 

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Dec 26, 2005
20,165
162
55,893
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
5.56x45 is for like 250 to 500 meter engagement.

7.62x54 is 500 to 1000 meter engagement.

6.8 is like probably be 500 to 900 meter engagement envelope.

lower end is basically little to no bullet drop and higher end when it is considerable.

Cities nowadays have buildings a dozen floors high so like over 30 meters and then you have sky scrappers that are 75 meters and over.

Primary reason for 6.8 is to defeat personal body armor that is more common as years go by that 5.56 would need a burst that is not viable after 100 meters.
Hi,

Combat between pak and indian armies on the planes of punjab and sindh was on the average about 350-400 yds----.

I am sure there are a few pak / indian vets here who can correct me.
 

A1Kaid

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Oct 20, 2008
9,675
8
8,836
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
The main issue is with the 5.56 caliber, some in the military want improved ballistics for (med/long range combat) and the 6.8x51 offers that. They've been testing the 6.8 for years now.
 

CodeforFood

FULL MEMBER
Mar 4, 2019
569
0
461
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States

It happened when many said it wouldn't. The US military adopted not only a new service rifle but a whole new cartridge, the 6.8x51 also known as the .277 Fury. The gun is solid, but the 6.8x51 seems like a huge step backwards and the US military has abandon the assault rifle in favor of a Cold War era type battle rifle.

Good discussion to listen to all those who suggest Pakistan should follow the same path with this cartridges.
how is that a Cold War era type battle rifle. I don't understand your logic.

6.5 Grendel could have been a contender. But now with a new round, aligning the entire Nato to follow is going to be a tough task. Also, m5 is an Ar10 receiver, the modularity incentive of the AR15 platform was wasted.
and how would 6.5 Grendel would make it any different?
 

Thorough Pro

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 23, 2008
13,230
-21
12,993
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Military-Industrial Complex needs to make money and they offer very lucrative jobs to top military personnel after retirement. All bullet calibers kill.
 

CodeforFood

FULL MEMBER
Mar 4, 2019
569
0
461
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
So is it even more powerful than the 7.62*51?
The bullet used in G3?
better ballistic performance, flatter trajectory, slimmer profile(less effect of wind etc etc. I can keep going)

I own AR15 that is the semi auto version of M16
It is ok for Paramilitary but won’t recommend for Army. The rifle is not suitable for very harsh conditions and the troops will be calling rather excessively for air support. There is a reason for switching it. G3 is heavy but otherwise it is more reliable and formidable. Some other rifles can be considered.
stop cleaning your ar15 excessively just keep lubing and you will see how it handles harsh conditions. Don't make judgement based on what you just read and see in videos.
 

The Terminator

FULL MEMBER
May 2, 2015
1,250
1
1,479
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Less recoil than 7.62 NATO. Much more punch and range than 5.56 and better armor penetration than both of them. Performs well in short barrels with higher chamber pressure. It's an all round a step ahead than the baby M4.
 

The Terminator

FULL MEMBER
May 2, 2015
1,250
1
1,479
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Have you seen the recoil of it and even former US soldiers find it hard to handle it.
Still far better than the mule kicking G3. And those troops are spoiled through their entire lives by practically recoilless M4 rifles. Have to make compromise for better range, muzzle velocity, punch and penetration.

There are prototypes of soft body armor capable of stopping 50 cal. But still .50 BMG's blunt force would be enough to almost kill that guy. Just imagine 5.56 M4 puking rounds at that kind of armor in the future! 😁
 

The Terminator

FULL MEMBER
May 2, 2015
1,250
1
1,479
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
It would be more convenient and easy for PAK Army's PBI grunts to switch from 7.62 NATO (large round) G3 to the latest 6.68. It would greatly increase the effectiveness of every solider.

But it has some obvious penalties for always complaining finicky western soldiers to switch from the 5.56 M4 (that a kid can also fire) to a bigger 6.68. They would need to retrain their current infantry on it to get used to it. But they would surely resist to step out of their comfort zone.

And everything isn't that much bad in this package. It would be a great weapon in the hands of a real professional and would be an overkill for some random dude trying to look cool 😎. As explained in this review here :

 

Thorough Pro

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 23, 2008
13,230
-21
12,993
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada

It happened when many said it wouldn't. The US military adopted not only a new service rifle but a whole new cartridge, the 6.8x51 also known as the .277 Fury. The gun is solid, but the 6.8x51 seems like a huge step backwards and the US military has abandon the assault rifle in favor of a Cold War era type battle rifle.

Good discussion to listen to all those who suggest Pakistan should follow the same path with this cartridges.
M16 had been out for decades, they were using M4's
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom