Army Improved Carbine Competition does not specify caliber

Yesterday PEO Solider had a media roundtable discussion. I should have phoned into the event but I only just realized it was on. One of the topics discussed was the Improved Carbine Competition. According to the PEO Solider twitter account, which was live updated during the roundtable event, the Improved Carbine Competition requirements do not specify a caliber.

Some companies are sure to submit 6.8 SPC chambered carbines; whether they get anywhere is another story altogether.



Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • I am a bit of a 6.8mm fanboy! ๐Ÿ˜‰

    But it does seem to me sometimes that we are raging against the machine!

    Infrastructure commitment to 5.56mm (of whatever flavour) and current concerns over recession led cost cutting must mean that there is little enthusiasm to change standard calibre…

    But, moreover, where would this leave NATO?

    As other posters have pointed out, the ‘old’ view of cross-NATO standardization has already been compromised by means of the German Army G36 magazines (as well as the Austrian AUG). And even if there are ‘work arounds’ the differing dimensional quality of STANAG ‘standard’ mags across the world mean that it is debatable whether, in practise, it is a standard at all!

    I know British soldiers who are very keen to see the back of the SA80, but would be more in favour in something like the HK418 in 6.8mm. But even if the United States does adopt the 6.8 [hyperthetically] would the rest of Europe now follow suit…?

    With the demise of a pan-continental war less likely, with the old enemy of the Soviet Union no longer a threat, a lot of European nations seem to think that their commitment to NATO is less an issue than it was.

    Yes, I am pretty sure the UK will follow any US change in ‘standard’ NATO round – but just how many other would I am not too sure…

    But then – would that be such an issue to the US now? I don’t think teh US would care all that much (and why should they for all the support they get from certain ‘allies’) and would be quite ready to ‘go it alone’ if they had to as far as calibre were concerned.

  • Thanks for that link Steve…

    Yes, I was aware that STANAG – which is bandied about as if it were ratified – is really only ‘Draft STANAG’…

    So perhaps a move to 6.8 unilaterally by the USA would actually be a good thing in that it would take others to task on their commitment to any form of NATO standardization…

    Sory the chaff from the wheat so to speak?

  • Flighterdoc

    6.8? Why not something with decent long-range ability like 6.5 Grendel?

  • AntiCitizenOne

    PEOSoldier has twitter?

    now I’ve seen everything…

  • SpudGun

    If standardization and having an intermediate cartridge is the burning issue, then forget all those ‘wonder 6’s’ and chamber the new rifle in 7.62 x 39mm.

    Yeah, I know the fanboys will come out of the woodwork and tell you that it’s a terrible cartridge, but they are wrong. The lack of accuracy compared to 5.56mm or 6.5 / 6.8mm has more to do with the way the rounds are manufactured and the platforms that employ them rather then the inherent design. With the right shaped bullets, clean burning powder and decent barrels, it would make an excellent choice.

    Plus re-supply would be a piece of cake – just kill some bad guys and voila – more bullets.

  • SpudGun, I prefer 7.62×39 over 5.56mm (as a civilian consumer), but its not like the DoD is going to procure corrosive inaccurate 7.62x39mm ammunition from existing manufactures.

    If you are going to adopt something new, and spend all that money on infrastructure, why not adopt something better. 7.62×39 is a great cartridge, but far from optimal.

  • Vitor

    Well, the 6.8mm seems far from optimal to me too. It seems it was too focused in being a “heavy hitter”, what gave it a stubby not very aerodynamical design.

  • Destroyer

    First thing is first:

    1.) There is a common magazine for NATO members. (just not a STANAG rifle), it is Draft Standardization Agreement 4179, though it was never ratified by NATO countries and is in the proposed stage. Basically, it is the GI mags used in the AR-15/M16/M4 though other countries manufacture their own variations as well (such as the HK M4 magazines). STANAG or GI Spec, its semantics. Many NATO countries have adopted weapons that utilize these magazines so, in an essence, it is standardized unofficially.

    1a.) the H&K G36 uses its own proprietary magazines. Though there is a conversion kit, this further complicates things and ruins the purpose of STANAG in the first place.

    2.) The 7.62x39mm round, even when manufactured by high end companies in the US, still only offers marginal accuracy and ballistics compared to the 5.56 and 6’s. The only advantage it has is in close quarters combat. This round had its day, it is now obsolete and the US military will never consider it. Get over it.

    3.) The idea of adopting another 5.56mm rifle is ridiculous to say the least (though it might come to fruition). With the costs associated with research and development, manufacture, factory retooling, etc, it cannot justify the little change in effectiveness when compared to existing weapons systems. I am more of a proponent of the 6.5x39mm grendel, because it has been proven superior in a lot of aspects to the 6.8 SPC, though if either round was adopted by the military that would be awesome.
    http://www.65grendel.com/65g_65and68.htm

    4.) The reason why the two 6mm cartridges are so ground breaking and important is because they have a potential to replace both 5.56mm and 7.62mm cartridges. With one common cartridge, it would significantly reduce the logistical challenges and help troops out in the field experiencing ammunition shortages. With the costs in logistics, training, and time, the 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel should replace the 5.56mm and 7.62mm round immediately.

    • Destroyer, read the link I posted. The draft spec no longer exists, but not being ratified it died. No standard exists. NATO will tell you that if you ask them. I got that info direct from NATO. The newer NATO members are still using soviet-era gear, so its no long an unofficial standard as it once was.

  • SpudGun

    Steve, I would assume that the DoD would manufacture the 7.62x39mm themselves as they do with 5.56mm for US Forces.

    Agree that it is a far from optimal cartridge, but then again it’s meant to act as an intermediate cartridge – more knockdown power and greater range then 5.56mm but not quite as heavy, bulky or expensive as 7.62x51mm.

    It’s greatest advantage is that we know what it does, how it performs, how to make it in vast quantities and it’s been beyond battle proven for over 60 years. Can’t say the same about the ‘Wonder 6’s’.

    From an American manufacturers point of view, having the US licensing their own proprietry cartridge is a cash bonanza plus it doesn’t have the connotations of being ‘foreign’, ‘Commie’ or ‘terrorist-y’.

    So, though I’ve thrown my Devil’s Advocate hat in the ring, I know deep down that 7.62ComBloc will never become standard issue for the US Military.

    • SpudGun, they no longer manufacture ammunition directly. ATK is contracted to run the big Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (which is owned by the army) and they also import ammunition. Taiwan is a supplied of 5.56mm.

  • Lance

    I really dont think the Army will adpot a 6.8 nless the President or other public officals push for it. Its not there and since so much of the military is built on 5.56 I think any M-4A2 will still be 5.56. I think the newist ammo like the .318 Mod 0 roud will improve the 5.56 round leathilty.

    Just because the program didnt state caliber dosnt mean they want a new caiber I thnk they already know what caliber to make it in.

    I wicsh more of a 6.5mm Gredel caliber its far better than 6.8mm.

  • Matt Groom

    Recently, I acquired a Remington 799 in 7.62×39. The whole purpose of the acquisition was to prove that a 7.62×39 platform can be accurate to some of my local naysayers. Lapua brass, Norma Powder, and the excellent 174 grn Sierra Match King .311″ projectiles have given me wonderful accuracy, even out of the relatively skinny barrel (and the less than stellar trigger) of the 799.

    That being said, the 174grn SMK bullets have a G1 BC of around .499. A 90 grn .224″ SMK has a G1 BC of .504, and a 90 grn Berger VLD has a G1 BC of .551! That means that these little .22 pills will out perform a standard 123 grn 7.62×39 as far as energy in under 300 meters, and have excellent lethality, since long, skinny, target style bullets tend to tumble and fragment very well at lower speeds than is required of a 55 or 62 grn projectile. 123 grains is going to have noticeably more recoil, not to mention more weight, than a 90 grain, regardless of caliber. Not to mention, they’ll have less wind drift and less drop in trajectory over all practical ranges.

  • I think the recent USMC move in ammo is what we’re going to see for a while.

  • I finally broke down and started putting together a 6.8mm SPC piston-driven AR. I just couldn’t take it anymore! I’d prefer 6.5mm Grendel, but the whole proprietary issue has pretty much taken it off the table for all but reloaders.

    Making a unilateral change and ramming it down NATO’s throat wouldn’t be a first for us – we did it first with 7.62x51mm to match our .30-’06 ballistic requirements, then with 5.56x45mm for more ammo and lower recoil. 6.8mm SPC would be fine with me, but why not wait for something a bit more revolutionary like telescoped rounds or a resurgence in caseless ammo and just make the 77gr 5.56 standard issue in the interim? Even going to the 6.8mm SPC would just require a barrel change and magazine upgrade and is just a small evolutionary improvement. IMO we ought to make a lot more use of the platform’s flexibility and issue a 9mm SBR M4 to tankers and drivers and regular M4s to everyone else, with something like the 6.5mm to DMs. Everyone gets the same lower that way and we just change uppers based on the mission/caliber combination.

    • Chris, yep, the problem is NATO will probably not be receptive of having another cartridge forced on them.

      US General: “Yes, we are switching to 6.8, if you want US military aid, you had also better switch”
      European General: “Sacrebleu!!! What do you mean? You said 5.56mm was teh bestest cartridges ever?”
      US General: “LULZ! It is, but this is even better”
      Another European General: “Uhhh, it is identical to the .280 British that WE invented and you said it was bullshit”
      US General: “Did not”
      European General: “Did too!”

  • I just realized the 6.8mm SPC is practically a .30 M1 Carbine cartridge necked down slightly and with another 10mm on the case. Granted the M1 Carbine wasn’t a huge manstopper, but it was pretty good at intended ranges (generally 150m or less) – it was far more accurate than .357 magnum and about 150% as powerful, although the relatively low velocity (for a rifle) gave it a rainbow arc at longer ranges, where it wasn’t intended to be used anyway.

    I think the added power of the 6.8mm SPC’s longer case combined with the slightly smaller and much more ballistically efficient bullet are a winning combination. Although I would prefer the 6.5mm Grendel for personal use due to its longer effective range, for general issue I think the 6.8mm SPC is a better choice due to optimal range factors, ammunition size (I don’t mean so soldiers can carry more rounds; logistics are no joke!).

    I doubt either caliber would replace the 7.62x51mm though. More likely, a larger round will replace that caliber – like .338 Lapua. Probably 6.8mm GPMGs would replace both the 5.56mm and 7.62mm MGs, with more .50 MGs being issued as well, since they’re just hands-down the most firepower you can get on a pintle without a battery.

  • Steve, that conversation is exactly right! Our attitude wouldn’t be so bad if we were right more often. For example, the 40x46mm SR grenade launchers were kept in the inventory after the introduction of the RAG-A and RAG-B only due to pressure from the ammunition manufacturers. I mean, who wouldn’t replace their M203 with a 3-shot grenade launcher with a flatter trajectory and a range out to nearly a kilometer? Not that I care what the Frenchies think, but the fact is if our “ex cathedra” demands were based more on practicality and effectiveness and less on the desired of the military-industrial complex, we might get a little more respect in that department.

    And the Brits may have invented the .280, but we had the .276 before World War II and it would have been accepted in the Garand (it won the trials) but for the – guess what? – .30-’06 ammo already in stockpiles, and the pressure of the manufacturers thereof! Man, with the addition of detachable magazines and a nice folding stock we’d still be using it today!

  • Ken

    Im for 6.8 SPC. NATO? Really worry about em? ya right…

  • @ Steve – Your ‘Generals’ skit – LMAO ๐Ÿ™‚

    Yes, I hate to say it – but with .280 we should have literally stuck to our guns! (And had a decent bullpup out of it too boot!)

    I’m sticking to my choice of 6.8 over the Grendell – due to the big hit aspect. But I will admit there isn’t much in it and I would just be happy to see the back of 5.56 so wouldn’t be all that aggrieved if it was 6.5 that replaced it in the end.

    Enjoying this discussion very much – a lot of very informed opinion. It’s great to find a web site where the ‘discussions’ don’t descend into immature flame wars…

    Cheers guys.

  • Destroyer

    “There is a common magazine for NATO members. (just not a STANAG rifle), it is Draft Standardization Agreement 4179, though it was never ratified by NATO countries and is in the proposed stage.”

    I am pretty clear on my point. The magazine is not standardized, only draft, which means the standard was never ratified (as of 2008). Still, many countries predict standardization because of the adoption of weapons that take M16-type magazines (SA80, FAMAS, ARX160, F2000, FNC, HK 416, etc). Exceptions include the G36 and Steyr Aug, which have their own proprietary magazines, though these weapons have retrofit kits available.

    The magazine was never “standard” and still isn’t. It still needs ratified. There, done deal, on with something new.

    I agree with lance on the M4A2. It will take an act of god for the 5.56 to be replaced with one of the “wonder 6’s”. Im just fantasizing about it because of the surplus 5.56 that would be available ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Destroyer, if NATO no longer recognizes that a draft by the name of “4179” exists nobody can therefor ratify a non-existent standard. It is not in a proposed stage, it is dead. Nobody at NATO HQ thinks its in the proposed stage.

  • Isn’t it amazing that in the 21st century (didn’t everyone else think we would be using ray guns by now?) that we are still debating over a cased round type?

    What happened to all that cutting edge caseless round development that was going on? (Apologies if this is too far off the issue now.)

    Is the caseless idea dead and buried?

  • Cutting to the chase…

    So if this part of NATO standardization is dead, is it now a case of ‘every man for himself’?

    Do you think we might see nations returning to simpley buying what rifle they think is best for them…And anyway, did notions of a standard nation round/rifle actually benifit anyone (except teh manufacturers)?

    • Milgeek, there are hordes of NATO standards covering all sorts of thing. 5.56mm and 7.62x51mm are standard NATO rounds. The picatinny rail is a NATO standard (or about to be). There are plenty of good reasons to say with the M16 magazine. Just because it is not a NATO standard does not negate the advantages of sharing a similar magazine with your allies.

  • Carl

    Trying to centrally plan a single caliber for the entire fighting forces of the western world is clearly not good. Let armies and units use what they want instead and the best choices will emerge of their own power.

  • Flighterdoc

    The 6.8SPC is a short-range cartridge. It offers no advantages over the 6.5Grendel, and only a slight advantage over 5.56

    Both will require only an upper change.
    Both will use the same nonSTANAG mags
    the 6.5 can be used in light and medium machine guns, with point accuracy to 1000 meters and beyond. The 6.8? LMG only.
    The 6.5 can serve in the DM role. The 6.8? LOL.

    Time for a new rifle? Maybe. A 6.5 upper, piston driven, in a variety of barrel lengths depending on role for rifles, and a MG version, firing from an open bolt but using the same FCG as the lower…..could be done.

    Holy Crap! Except for the caliber, it’s the Stoner system! Everything old is new again.

  • Destroyer

    “So if this part of NATO standardization is dead, is it now a case of โ€˜every man for himselfโ€™?”

    NATO standardization is not dead. The M16 standardization was never ratified but strangely enough (sarcasm), countries are adopting weapons that utilize such magazines because of the industrial production of them (resorting to an unofficial standardization).

    Everybody can agree that STANAG 4179 no longer exists (hopefully). Is the idea of adopting a common magazine design dead? not by a long shot (obviously not).

    “…nobody can therefor ratify a non-existent standard” who says? they will stamp another name on it and standardize it or save the trouble and unofficially standardize it. Same with the Rheinmetall 120mm gun. It is unofficially standardized yet there is no STANAG for it (there is for the ammunition however).

  • Whatever

    I really doubt the US military will replace the 5.56 cartridge with something else.

    I know people tout the 6.5 Grendel because of its long range performance, but is that really that critical? It seems like with what our forces are dealing with in Afghanistan, it’s either close up work where personal weapons are used or it’s long range work where vehicle mounted weapons like the M2 Browning are used.

    As for caseless ammo, the reason behind its development (from what I heard) was to increase the rate of fire since the ejection part of the cycle wasn’t needed. Since rifles that benefited from caseless ammo never got past the prototype stage, there was no great advantage to caseless ammo for conventional rifles.

  • Martin

    I’m with Milgeek and SpudGun on this issue.

    #1 Where ARE the wonder weapons, caseless ammo, and energy guns?

    #2 If 5.56 isn’t hitting hard enough, then go back to 7.62×51. I always thought .223 was fine, so long as there was a support weapon chambered in .308. With the introduction of the M249, a squad has lost it’s firepower. At least they’re trying to make the M240 more portable. All this farting around with 6.X is simply a wast of time and money. Go back to what works, and teach/re-teach soldiers not to waste ammunition and overheat their weapons to the point of failure.

    Besides the complaints about 5.56, there is the whole issue of doctrine not being up to the task at hand. The lack of support weapons is prime among them. Wanat was a prime example. One .50, and everything else was 5.56. I understand there are weight considerations to make when it comes to machine guns, but the firepower vacuum needs to be filled. Shoulder fired missiles aren’t the same as a dedicated machine gun.

  • Lance

    I dont know why some of you want 6.8SPC so bad. ^.5 is better but this isnt goingto change that military is buying new designed 5.56mm mags and wont drop this for 6.8 mags any time soon. 5.56 is here to stay for better or worse.

  • SpudGun

    Re: Caseless Rifles

    Biggest problem with a caseless system is the propensity for ammunition ‘cook off’. Brass does a great job of taking away heat from the receiver, far more then people realise.

    I’m still holding out for my Magnetic Linear Accelerator rifle that fires around out so quickly, it turns a tungsten slug into pure plasma.

    Or an ACR, whichever is cheaper.

    • ^^^ What spudgun said. Also, brass waterproofs (to an extent) ammunition and helps with extraction (imagine trying to chamber a caseless round after the previous round was only 90% burnt

  • Marsh

    Is the 6.5 Grendel round the best overall round on the market? Yes.

    Are we having nearly constant stopping power and effective range issues with the 5.56 round? Yes.

    Is the 7.62 round too big? Yes.

    Does NATO matter anymore? No.

    Should we have to worry about supplying our NATO allies with ammo because they’re too cheap to properly cover their own logistical needs? No.

    Can we afford to replace the 5.56 M4 with a 6.5 Grendel M4 upper receiver and magazine or a new rifle altogether? Yes.

    Would it be nice to have a rifle more reliable than the current M4? Yes.

    So… the only argument against switching to the 6.5 Grendel round is that it will cost too much to implement and that it will cause logistical problems with our allies?

    The cost factor should be a non-issue. Call me old fashioned or a political extremist, but I believe the founders of our country were right when they decided that national defense should be one of the very few legitimate roles of our central government.

    We’re by far the richest country in the world with an economy usually worth around $15 trillion dollars. In comparison the 2nd richest country in the world is usually worth a mere $3 trillion; just to give you an idea of how filthy rich we are. And with that great wealth comes the capability to spend well over $600 billion every single year on our military. That’s larger than the entire economies of many our European allies…

    So if we can’t afford say $30 milllion on upgrading from the 5.56 to the 6.5 Grendel then something is seriously WRONG with our defense budget. The cost of swapping rounds should be mere drops in a bucket for us economically. And it will certainly save good guy lives and kill bad guy lives so it’s completely worth it.

    And people in important positions of Washington D.C. and the Pentagon must be questioning the continued existence of NATO right now considering their piss poor performance in Afghanistan. They did a horrible job of securing Afghanistan after we handed that responsibility over to them and went and hanged Sadam. And Canada and the Netherlands are both surrending to the Taliban next year. So I wouldn’t exactly be investing in NATO stocks right now…

    What we really need is Defense Secretary Gates to get on top of this issue. He’s been really good at bitch slapping Pentagon bureaucracy by cancelling unnecessary programs and steamrolling obviously important ones such as MRAPs and UAVs which have saved numerous friendly lives and killed heaps of bad guys. He needs to weigh-in on this issue of upgrading and standardizing military rounds and rifles.

  • Carrying on the hypothetical nature of this discussion (as I think we all realize that the infrastructural investment in 5.56mm makes it highly unlikely that there will be a change in caliber any time soon)…

    I have to take to task the idea that 6.8mm isn’t ideal because of it being a ‘short range hard hitter’. Isn’t a short range hard hitter exactly what the average soldier needs?

    We are no longer in the state of ‘one gun does all’ – even the stayed British Army is accepting the principal of specialist tools within the smaller formation paradigm. As this very blog pointed out the British Army has just adopted a 7.62mm DMR, on top of it’s 7.62mm GPMG and it’s various larger caliber specialist sniper calibers.

    We are a long way from the .303 being good enough for everyone (and just stick a telescopic sight on it for snipers).

    The *standard* envelope for the majority of infantry engagements actually had not changed from what we came to understand at the end of the Second World War, when the intermediate cartridge idea blossomed.

    – In the end I am perhaps seeing the issue at hand similar to the old ‘stopping power’ argument. I am afraid I am a bit old fashioned and would rather go with what our Victorian fathers knew…When something is hit it should stay down…

    But then – LOL – I would probably argue that we should still be issuing Webleys in .455 calibre! ๐Ÿ˜‰

  • The more I learn about the process our Army uses to choose weapons the less faith I have that it will get us the most useful and reliable weapon at a fair price.

  • Destroyer

    Id hate to crash many’s hopes and dreams, but if there is a cartridge that can replace both the 5.56 and 7.62, while making up for the advantages and disadvantages of both cartridges. Wouldnt that save time and money?

    note, what is critical about the 6.5 grendel is, not only its longer range (which would improve troop fire capability in afghanistan’s extended ranges [remember why the mujahideen resorted to using enfields]), but its superior ballistic performance to the 5.56 and equivalent energy as the 7.62. What is also critical is the concept that US troops will have one cartridge instead of two, reducing logistics and supply challenges.

    The fact is that 5.56mm FMJ rounds are insufficient for human targets. 7.62mm is sufficient though the recoil and weight of the ammunition present challenges themselves. My opinion is to stop living in the past because the technology is there and available to increase troop lethality. I wouldnt hope much for ray guns though caseless cartridges are an interesting concept. The G11 had debilitating problems with overheating and cookoff, as well as the inherent problem of using small cartridges (4.73x33mm). Ultimately, the problems were ironed out but the G11 was never adopted due to the reunification of Germany.

  • Lance

    No Steve id take my “phased plasma rilfe in the 40 kilowhat range”

    Hate to dash your hopes Marsh but the military probably wont goto another cartridge soon.

  • Martin

    This debate will only end with the invention of the Ray-gun. Only then will there will be one weapon that can do everything, until they discover that directed energy is blocked by smoke and rain, in which case we’re back to square one.

    Multi-caliber is truly the way to go, but armies don’t want to equip that way. They want one bullet (caliber) to supply, and that’s all. Seriously kids, modern logistics can handle it. Problem is, supply kings are lazy (My apologies to anyone from supply), and wonder-weapons are popular among those who make these sort of decisions. It’s a shame, because so many wonderful firearms get shelved for political/personal reasons.

  • I think – reading this thread – that it can be assumed that whatever is teh next choice for a conventional projectile weapon for the infantry will probably be the last (what with the US Army and Navy already making great strides in rail-gun and other energy weapon technology)…

    I have a preference for 6.8mm in the meantime, but I am very persuaded by those who point out that 6.5mm is more of a realistic future calibre because of the ability to retro-fit (at least in the US armoury). And where the US will go the British Army will most likely follow.

    I am still surprised that we haven’t seen much more development along the lines of micro-smart weapon technology or the experimentation with exotic materials for projectiles at the service rifle calibre end of the scale – but then the musket had a long life as well!

  • Ivan

    I agree with chris in that from the historical perspective the whole dance is rather silly. if the garand hadn’t been subject to ridiculous requirements it could have remained the standard up until today (magazine, smaller round, followed later by EBR furniture).

  • Bobby

    I do hold a preference for the 6.8 over the 6.5, for two reasons.

    More stopping power at close range, more available parts, while the ammunition is expensive you can find it anywhere, 6.8 > Light armoured vehicles.

    Though I do like the 6.5. I would not object to either round.

    To those that argue about the long range ability of the 6.8, it can touch out to 500m. What more do you want? We have 7.62×51 NATO.

    I’m all for having two rounds as standard.

    Honestly though in the extreme, which round could serve both roles? 6.5.

  • shadowwolffe

    The problem is carbine vs sniper round. The majority will use carbines.6.8 is the better choice for that. 6.5 is not the best choice for short barreled carbines. 6.8 was designed for short barreled carbines and my 16in barrel holds 3 in at 400 meter iron sights.

    That said untill directed energy weapons or rail guns come out were stick with 5.56

  • noob

    if only that 1986 ban on selling new automatic weapons to civvies were to be repealed.

    when the army goes “pure fleet” on carbines, 600,000 m16s could be for sale. what will happen to the guns if they can’t be sold domestically?

    sold for parts kits?

    sold overseas to some african war?

  • JimB

    It’s interesting to trip across this blog two years later.

    The new carbine was squelched, the new 6.8SPC fell by the way-side, and the Brits are buying guns from LMT, here in the USA.

    – Pistols work fine indoors and at very close range.
    – The 55 gr. 5.56 works great from a 1:12 twist 20″ barrel out to 300 yds.
    – The 147 gr. NATO 7.62 does a fair job from 300 to 600, but
    – The 190 gr. SMK 300 Win Mag works well from 600 out to 1200, or a Sharps .45-70…
    – We now know the .338 Lapua goes out to 2.47 km…

    – Beyond this, you’re probably talking guided artillery or small multi-purp. missile like the Griffon…

    I think we taxpayers got it covered…