Is 6.5mm the future? If so, will 7.62 be phased out as well?

>>34228147
Sure, if it's caseless so it weighs the same as current 5.56 and either the gun design or the powder load offers comparable recoil.

Possibly. Thats the idea, but watch this space.
>If so, will 7.62 be phased out as well?
No. The LSAT program has created CT versions of both 6.5 and 7.62, so it would appear that at least in military terms, 7.62 will long outlive 5.56. I suspect 7.62 CT will be used to grandfather in 6.5 to roles already filled by 7.62, whereas 5.56 will be dropped wholesale for 6.5 CT.

>>34228218
This.

>>34228147
No, and no.

>>34228159
>caseless
HAHAHAHA

>>34228147
>CMMG
lol

Grendel is the future, if only Bill Alexander wasn't so protective about it

ideally 5.56 would be replaced with 6.5, and in that case yes 7.62 would be phased out too. the problem is that the round isn't better enough than 5.56 to justify replacing it.

>>34228467
What's wrong with caseless? Modern caseless that is, none of that G11 crap.

>>34228147
If it can fulfill both roles admirably then we should switch. Design the new cartridge and rifle together as a system.

>>34228861
>the problem is that the round isn't better enough than 5.56 to justify replacing it.
Two words: Weight Savings

>>34228877
How has modern caseless ammo progressed past the G11 style?

>>34228929
Take a look for yourself.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2016/armament/18325_Phillips.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008/Intl/Spiegel.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014/armaments/Wed16533_Shipley.pdf

>>34228924
yeah, it's worse in every way in terms of logistics.

>>34228550
>Grendel is the future
Too slow. Makes zero sense unless you are dead set on keeping the AR platform. Even then, it needs new magazines, new barrels, new bolt. Might as well change to a brand new rifle at that point with dimensions that allow a significant upgrade.

>>34228861
>in that case yes 7.62 would be phased out too

With what, .300 Win Mag?

>>34229360
Not that guy. but .338 if the LWMMG goes anywhere.

>>34229340
Probably talking about 6.5CM.

6.5 would only replace 7.62 NATO, as 5.56 is supreme under 200M and can pen armor better.

File: 338_Lapua_Magnum_vs_.338_Norma_Magnum.jpg (201KB, 1196x1571px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1196x1571px

>>34229381
Norma is in it's own league though.

>>34229464
Source on 5.56 being better than 6.5 CT at killing and penetrating armor.

>>34228877
Brass acts as a heat sink. When you shoot and eject brass, a good chunk of heat is ejected with it.

Caseless doesn't do that.

>>34229565
>smaller cross section.
>higher velocity
>=AP.
See APFSDS ammo.

>>34228147
6.8 or fuck off.

>>34228147
>6.5mm the future?
do you really think that NATO will drop the billions of 556 rounds costing fuck knows how much? Take up new weapons and drop everything else?

>>34231376

>Brass acts as a heat sink
Technically true. But the amount of heat transferred to it before it gets ejected is negligible. The vast majority gets pumped right out the barrel or vented out in the gas leaving the chamber (in ARs). Claiming that it's a design choice or that it negatively impacts the efficacy of a caseless cartridge is dumb. Claiming that any perceived disadvantage outweighs the obvious advantages of caseless ammo falls squarely into 'retarded' territory.

>>34233027
Yes.

>>34228147
It won't be 6.5 grendel. They made that round specifically to fit in a standard AR and thus it's not all it could have been. Ideally you'd design a new round, then a weapon to fire it. I'd like to see the concept revisited, only this time they shouldn't cuck it up by forcing it to fit in the AR15 (that platform should be ditched altogether imo).

6.5 creedmore is basically .308. They're too close in size and performance to justify switching. It would be slightly beneficial though. This was a round designed like how I described above, for maximum performance rather than to fit a certain gun. The problem was they realized .308 was actually a great round and nearly ended up mimicking it.

It's certainly superior. Chance of the military actually switching of 7.62x51 is slim though

>>34228147

5.56 does its job very well. So does 7.62. I don't see any compelling need to introduce a third rifle caliber.

>>34233574
Its not a third caliber when 5.56 which has aged badly is getting replaced.

>>34233730

In what way has the 5.56 aged badly? I know what people are saying, that it is not a good round for Afghanistan because the average distance of firefighters are longer. But why switch rounds because of a problem occurring in 1 specific environment? And it really doesn't seem like a big problem, either. Enemy guns like AK's are not going to be performing any better in a long-range environment.

>>34233027
They did it with 7.62x51 so yeah

Does 6.8 Remington have a better chance?

>>34233039
My dude brass is a great heat sink. Even the difference between brass and steel is far from negligible on full retard.
I agree that caseless (or at least partial case) is the future but under the current doctrine of SUPPRESSING FIIIIIIIIIRE it's a ways out unless someone comes up with a convenient rifle radiator.

>>34233730
>aged badly
No, it's greatly improved since adoption.
>getting replaced
zero chance in hell until caseless comes along

>>34228147
>all these tards thinking 7.62nato or 5.56 will be replaced
>thinking a new cartridge will be adopted
Lol

>>34233757
Its a nice cartridge against unprotected people, which at the time it was adopted was everyone from insurgents to superpower armies. Sadly a gap between them has formed. Whilst its still adequate to take care of hadjis its not good enough against modern armies anymore.

>>34228147
It's extremely tough to say what's gonna be the future. Maybe we figure out He3 blaster rifles before we do 6.5, maybe we get 2mm automatic railgun slugs.

It's especially hard to predict what a government will get, because they have budgets and budgets have to be spent. If the US govt has a lot of money in the military departmant and they don't have anything to waste it at, they'll recalculate and figure the 6.5 is the hot new shit they need to introduce and make the entire NATO use (though there would have to be an amazing, almost unbelivable quantity of budget there).

An other way would be imminent danger and risk, say if the ruskies and chinese make their own 6.5 (and AK/QZ platforms) that outperforms 5.56 extremely well. This will light a fire under USA's ass. Though, it's still not very likely the vodkas or the chinks are going to have their own +budget to throw at such projects.

6.5mm Grendel is in use by the Serbian Special Forces, in weird Dragunov-like guns for DMR roles. This isn't a smart move IMO because 7.62 or 7.92 (mauser) already did that job. These new rifles and cartridge is most likely a money-laundering scheme (or perhaps, a surplus of defense budget or a political move) like Egypt and other third-world shitholes used to have. 6.5 might not be USA's forseeable future, but shithole countries might be 6.5's future.

>>34233786
5.56 is actually BETTER against dudes with armor than without, see M855.

>>34233786

Against "modern armies" tanks & artillery matter a fuck-load more than what rifle round you're using. I'm also not convinced that a slightly larger round like 6.8 SPC would produce better results in terms of defeating body armor.

>>34228147
>6.5mm the future

6.5 Grendel yes.

>>34233822

6.5 doesn't like short barrels and the military seems to really like 14.5-inch barrels right now.

>>34228147
Yes. I wanna a 6,5 mm bullpup

>>34233828
6.5G does absolutely fine in short barrels, the fuck you taking about? Go check velocity and energy graphs, it's only a hair under 6.8spc at all barrel lengths and exceeds 6.8 after 100-200 yards

>>34233828
>6.5 doesn't like short barrels and the military seems to really like 14.5-inch barrels right now.

Nothing likes short barrels, not even 5.56. If the DOD likes to be stuck 60 or more years their senior in infantry weapons then let them.

>>34233884
>not even 5.56
You say that like 5.56 NATO is a versatile cartridge. Look at 5.45x39 out of a 16.3" versus an 8.1". That's a cartridge designed specifically for short barrels.
.223 was designed by Remington for a 22" barrel, the 5.56x45 modifications made by FN were for a 20" barrel. Alexander Arms designed 6.5 grendel for a 24" barrel. If the US military insists on baby barrels they're probably going to have something like 5.45 designed rather than adopting 6.5.

File: LSAT light machine gun.jpg (1013KB, 2261x1248px) Image search: [Google]

1013KB, 2261x1248px

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2016/armament/18325_Phillips.pdf

>>34234441
.300 Memeboi is a thing tho, I figure that is what will be adopted, or a similar proprietary cartridge made for trials, for short barrels.

>>34228147
7.62 is the past, the present and the future, there's no common cartridge better than .308 now.

>>34231376
Brass heats up mostly because of friction due to expansion in a loose chamber--you know, most autoloaders. Machine guns to an even greater extent (casings come out burning hot).

To wit, go shoot a bolt action with a tight fitting chamber, and eject the casing as quickly as possible. .223, .308, ultramegamagnum, whatever. Doesn't matter. The brass barely comes out warm.

>>34234441
Small diameter bullets hate short barrel, it's just physics there is no magic involved.

>>34233861
So your answer to the main criticism against m855, late yawing due to poor velocity compared to m193, is to shoot a 123gr bullet at ~2300fps out of 14.5" barrels? Hope we can just ditch FMJ for super thin jacketed OTM across the board then.

>>34234613
...what? That's literally the dumbest thing I've heard on this board all week.

>>34228147
No, 99mm is the future

>>34229360
I was thinking the 6.5x47 or the 6x47 lap might take it's place. Performance wise they are comparable from an 18" barrel to a 24" barrel 7.62 (175) drop and windage wise, Not sure on terminal effect though.

Then again I'm likely talking out my ass as I have little real world first hand experience on how the military chooses their toys.

File: FernandoG.jpg (49KB, 459x646px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 459x646px

L O N G B U L L E T S in plastic cases are the future

>>34231376
>le heatsink meme

The 80's are over. Stop regurgitating outdated info.

>>34233009
What is .270