Given what’s happening in Ukraine vs Russia, I’d be surprised if anyone on the continent felt like a new caliber was a pressing issue, especially compared to other military upgrades.

I suspect 6.8 will appeal to those primarily concerned with China such as US and Australia.

stancrist said:

Yup.  That is indeed what I wrote.

And I found not a single mention in several kilograms of documents that anyone at this time considered that to be an argument.

What is repeatedly stated is that the SS-109 was the only SCHV round able to defeat NATO "10 gauge" / 3.5 mm steel plate, at the same range than the 7.62 mm ball (>550 m).

stancrist said:

I'd be extremely surprised if they had said "the SS109 is standard US caliber" because "SS109" is not a caliber. Whether 55gr M193 Ball or 62gr SS109/M855 Ball -- or even 77gr Mk262 Special Ball -- the caliber is 5.56mm!

And so are the .222 Remington, the .223 Remington, the .222 Remington Magnum... all are "5.56 mm" calibers.

Icing on the cake, you can fire all those cartridges in a M16 "with just a barrel change"!

Notice that this statement works also for the .300 AAC (which "just need a barrel change" to be fired from a M16), but I will have the utmost difficulty to demonstrate that the .300 AAC "is just another loading" of the .223 Remington.

EmericD said:

       stancrist said: Yup.  That is indeed what I wrote.

And I found not a single mention in several kilograms of documents that anyone at this time considered that to be an argument.

 That 5.56x45 was adopted by NATO because it was a US standard caliber is not an argument.  It's more a statement of fact.

The only reason that the Belgians developed the SS109 loading was to get improved performance over US 5.56x45 loadings.

If 5.56x45 had not been a US standard caliber, there is no reason to think that Belgium would ever have created the SS109.

EmericD said:

       stancrist said:  I'd be extremely surprised if they had said "the SS109 is standard US caliber" because "SS109" is not a caliber.  Whether 55gr M193 Ball or 62gr SS109/M855 Ball -- or even 77gr Mk262 Special Ball -- the caliber is 5.56mm!

And so are the .222 Remington, the .223 Remington, the .222 Remington Magnum... all are "5.56 mm" calibers.

That's cute, but you're evading the point:  "SS109" is not a caliber.

JPeelen said:

Stan, you way of arguing is sometimes, well,  hard to follow?

Sorry about that.  I'll try to do better.

JPeelen said:

For example, you wrote to the effect that a simple barrel change was about all needed to turn the M16A1 into an M16A2. To  which Emeric  responded that there was more to the adoption of the M16A2 than just a barrel change.  

In message 2653 you explain at length the many differences between M16A1 and M16A2 to show the readers how wrong Emeric was in his opinion. As I understand it, message 2653 represents a 180 degree turn from what you wrote before and explains in detail the correctnes of what Emeric wrote.

It's not a 180-degree turn.  It's two different subjects:  The necessity to use SS109; and the desirability of a new rifle.

In Msg #2636, Emeric said:  "since the M16A1 designed to fire the M193...you need another weapon [to use SS109].*

In Msg #2640, I responded:  "you do not need another weapon [to use SS109].  You only need another barrel."

In Msg #2644, Emeric said:  "The US didn't adopt a 'M16A1 with a new barrel', they adopted the M16A2..."

My agreement (in Msg #2653) with that statement in Msg #2644 does not contradict what I said in Msg #2640.

The US did not need to adopt another rifle in order to use SS109 ammo.  They could have rebarreled the M16A1.

Instead, they chose to adopt the M16A2 because that route offered advantages that simple rebarreling did not.

If they had just replaced the M16A1 barrels, they would've had a lot of old rifles that could use the new ammo.

By procuring M16A2, they got brand new rifles -- with many improved features -- that could use the new ammo.

*In Msg 2657, Emeric contradicted himself, saying that some M16 rifles were rebarreled to use SS109 ammo.

JPeelen said:

Or the usefulness of firing SS109 type ammunition from M16A1, which Emeric denied. You actually use graphics from the M16A2 Field Manual, which prove exactly what Emeric wrote. But you create the impression that Emeric had said, the SS109 could not be fired at all from the M16A1, which he of course did not.

Actually, he did.  In Msg #2644, Emeric said:  "It's plain and simple, the M16A1 can't fire the SS-109 ammo..."

njb3737 said:

Getting back on the subject of NGSW , what’s the chances of another NATO nation taking on the 6.8 x51 round ?

Assuming that the US follows through and fully fields the M5 and M250, I think the chances are good that -- as happened with 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 -- the 6.8x51 will be adopted by NATO.  Especially if conversion of 7.62x51 machine guns to 6.8x51 is feasible.

njb3737 said:

what l’m seeing is largely a no , Germany , Sweden and Canada all have current IW ( rifle ) replacement programs in process and all sticking with either 5.56 or in the case of Sweden possibly 7.62n.

Actually, since Sweden not only is reportedly planning to replace their assault rifles with battle rifles, but has shown some interest in NGSW, I would rate Sweden (and perhaps Finland, which expects to replace its assault rifles fairly soon, and has partnered with Sweden on military rifle development and procurement) as being a "definite maybe" for adoption of 6.8x51.  Aiming for a Joint Target – Corporal Frisk

I think Sweden is looking to start fielding a battle rifle some time in 2023 so maybe too soon for NGSW.

The build for the US army and the availability of ammunition will be a factor I believe against them taking it on at this stage.

It’s looking like a 7.62n rifle AR from Sako is the front runner on this ( others on this forum may know better ). In theory nothing stopping them from re barrelling to 6.8 in the future depending on the rifles design and any changes to the round.

gatnerd said:

I suspect 6.8 will appeal to those primarily concerned with China such as US and Australia.

one can wonder what kind of scenario this would be?

China invading mainland US? Seriously? Red Dawn, anyone?

China invading Australia?

Or both AU and US invading mainland China?

What else could be there that would need a new small arms system?

njb3737

"Getting back on the subject of NGSW , what’s the chances of another NATO nation taking on the 6.8 x51 round ?

We could have a situation where the biggest NATO member the US is operating a different calibre to the rest not a good situation if a major war occurs ."

I could see other nations using the 6.8 as a sniper / designated marksman rifle. Maybe in a machine gun. 

Regardless of if the U.S. Army adopts 6.8 they will still have many 5.56 and 7.62 weapons in service. More U.S. troops MAY carry 5.56 than 6.8 if current deployment plans are carried out. 

stancrist said:

Assuming that the US follows through and fully fields the M5 and M250, I think the chances are good that -- as happened with 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 -- the 6.8x51 will be adopted by NATO. Especially if conversion of 7.62x51 machine guns to 6.8x51 is feasible.

The thing is a cartidge being adopted by NATO is not really a thing. It can get standardised by NATO. Which is simply a procedure. This is completly unrelated to a NATO member actually adopting it.
So even if the US military adopts the 6,8 and have it standardized by the NSO and get a STANAG it doesn't mean anybody else will adopt it. Especially not quickly. Far mor likely is that everyone will wait and see if the change is actually worth it and might concider a change in the next replacement program. Which might take decades. Its basically the same as it has been with 5,56. It took decades for all NATO countries to actually adopt the cartidge and weapons that use it.

stancrist said:

Actually, since Sweden not only is reportedly planning to replace their assault rifles with battle rifles, but has shown some interest in NGSW, I would rate Sweden (and perhaps Finland, which expects to replace its assault rifles fairly soon, and has partnered with Sweden on military rifle development and procurement) as being a "definite maybe" for adoption of 6.8x51

Very unlikely. The time frame is to short. Such programs move at a slow pace and future devlopments at the time of program start are not included. If the Swedes are allready in the process of evaluating and testing chances are zero that 6,8 will be included. They will finish their program and adopt a new 7,62.
For anybody to seriously concider 6,8 it would need to have a STANAG and be adopted and fielded by the US first. Befor the start of a program.

The German military also still technically is searching for a G36 replacement. Which as by requirement should be a platform solution for 5,56 and 7,62. 6,8 is not even talked about currently. So if Germany would finish this program and adopt a new rifle/rifles these would definetly not be in 6,8 and would last for at least a decade.

With the current situation in Europe small arms have moved to the end of the wish list again. IMHO its unlikely that any major NATO member would quickly change to 6,8.

njb3737 said:

I think Sweden is looking to start fielding a battle rifle some time in 2023 so maybe too soon for NGSW.

The build for the US army and the availability of ammunition will be a factor I believe against them taking it on at this stage.

It’s looking like a 7.62n rifle AR from Sako is the front runner on this ( others on this forum may know better ). In theory nothing stopping them from re barrelling to 6.8 in the future depending on the rifles design and any changes to the round.

I have not seen a planned timeframe for fielding.  If the Swedes want to begin fielding next year, then I agree that's maybe too soon for NGSW.

However, as per your final remark above, there is the possibility of switching to 6.8x51 at some point in the future.  From the article I linked to:

"...one thing that is being looked into is the possibility of having the new rifle being modular enough to allow for potentially changing calibre later – or even mid-production as the expected production run for any new assault rifle is expected to be measured in years – in case the 6.8 mm turn out to be a game changer."