So is 6.8 really a good round? Also why doesn't the army make the switch already instead of stockpiling m4s

>armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/03/11/army-wants-its-next-generation-rifle-asap-but-it-still-has-to-buy-a-bunch-of-m4s-to-keep-soldiers-shooting/
So is 6.8 really a good round? Also why doesn't the army make the switch already instead of stockpiling m4s.

Attached: 6.8_SPC_+_223.jpg (200x285, 11K)

6.5 Grendel is better.

the round they want isnt 6.8 spc, just 6.8 diameter

Here's a dumb question: if 5.56 has such poor terminal performance even after switching to the M855A1, why has NATO be using it for nearly 50 years?

> designed to miss
you know it is true

Butthurt. Sheer butthurt at being told they fucked up.

I believe their biggest reason for wanting the switch is because of modern body armor. They don't have enough tungsten to widely issue it, not to mention M995 is like $3 a pop. About a year and a half ago they were looking at adopting a .308 service rifle but quickly dropped it when they realized it wouldn't do much better than 5.56 against armor which was their main concern. That's why this next gen rifle has to have some 6.8 cased telescoped round at 75,000-100,000 psi.

.224 valkyrie is better

Logistics and cost.

Because the US needs millions of rifles for their soldiers, and millions of rifles don't appear out of thin air and neither do they grow on trees.

slowly start, will be useful in 20 years

>he doesn't have a rifle tree with bullet bushes in his backyard
Poorfag pleb

>when the British basically had it right in 1945 with the .280 round and we've been wasting our time ever since with .308 and .223

Attached: 280british.jpg (304x297, 72K)

Yes but if they know a certain round is not effective for future conflicts then they need to pull the trigger and lessen their acquisition of m4s.

>Finally get around to joining the 5.56x45 AR-15 tacticool masterrace
>The cartridge and platform will likely be declared obsolete in the next fifteen years

It's not just another brass cased round. It's a relatively drastic change in design and it's not quite ready yet.

Attached: ngsar.jpg (1199x900, 263K)

The cartridge they develop will probably stick around but I suspect whatever rifle they develop for it won't.

>stop replacing existing stock of M4s that are broken because you are gonna change your service rifle
You need to sustain your current equipment until the new rifle comes in.

>you never make your mind up on what gun you want to replace the M4 in the years to come because requirements, costs, bureacratic bullshit, etc
>M4s continues to break from wear and tear, etc etc, total stock of M4 drops
>Oh wait, some of our dudes don't have M4s because their M4 broke and there is no more spares, what do? Lets buy M4s to tide them over

Same reason Finland still uses 7.62x39. Logistics and cost.

>cost

Doesn't Finland issue high-dollar Lapua ammunition as standard rather than cheap steel case?

The project as described in that article will almost certainly fail. New cartridge, new rifle, computerized targeting system; by cramming too much new stuff into one gun they're increasing the likelihood that something won't work out. This is how you build a lemon.

They just requested a 6.8 at 120-130 grain near 3000 fps. That's basically the 270-08.

Finland does use Lapua-made ammunition. Still cheaper than retooling and switching over to 5.56.

Not to mention being able to poach Russian ammunition to augment their supplies in the case of a conflict.