| Ordinance has the right idea, but the wrong cartridge. | | | | operation. |
| It looks like they're trying to replace both the 5.56 | | | | As far as replacing the NATO 5.56mm, it's never |
| and the 7.62 with the SOCOR 6.8mm. I think for a | | | | going to happen until everyone in NATO, or |
| light, crew served weapon they should go back to | | | | expecting to be in NATO, will agree to a common |
| the full 30.06 machine gun and get rid of the .308 | | | | new round, and re-chamber all of their weapons |
| entirely. | | | | accordingly, and chances are they can't afford to do |
| In a previous discussion I indicated that the .257 | | | | that. |
| would be a good replacement for the .223. I've been | | | | The original Mendoza design was in 7x57 Mauser, in |
| researching it further, and it looks like a 6mm (.243) | | | | 1943 they produced some in .30-'06, but they were |
| "secant ogive" of 87 grains would give the best | | | | not adopted by the Mexican Government. After the |
| results. With a ballistic coefficient of about .400 its | | | | war he (and his son) tried to develop a "Fusil de |
| superior to the 62 grain 5.56, and still has decent | | | | Asaulto" in 7.62mm NATO, but that too, was not |
| velocity. As you might know, the flatter the | | | | adopted by the Mexicans, they instead chose the |
| trajectory, the easier it is to stay on target. | | | | G-3. |
| This bullet would still be effective to about 500 | | | | Due the Mexican Laws, no company is allowed to |
| meters, which is to say very effective at 100-300 | | | | export military weapons, and very strict anti-gun |
| meters. And long range effective - as in full auto | | | | laws, Products Mendoza switched to producing office |
| suppressive fire - out to maybe 1000 meters. The | | | | products (compasses, staplers and hole punches) and |
| biggest concern with the 5.56mm is that it is not | | | | sporting goods (knives, bicycles and air rifles). |
| lethal out to the ranges that regular troops are able | | | | Although now, they do produce a 9mm submachine |
| to target with proper training (et. al., did any of you | | | | gun and some .22 cal rifles. |
| qualify behind the grenade shed?) | | | | I agree it's unlikely they will replace the 7.62mm any |
| A slightly heavier and larger diameter bullet would | | | | time soon, unless it's with a smaller cartridge. More |
| solve the problem without sacrificing sufficient | | | | importantly, why is SOCOR trying the 6.8mm M468 if |
| velocity and therefore trajectory. If Ordinance | | | | its not needed? Maybe they should shoot for two |
| foregoes politics and really try's to do the right thing, | | | | different .277 cal cartridges. The reason for going |
| I think they should come up with the same | | | | back to 30.06 would be that they're not using the |
| conclusion. The only other thing they need is to get | | | | .308 as much as they used to (i.e. M60 etc. replaced |
| rid of that stupid crimp in the middle of the cartridge. | | | | with SAWs). |
| It was supposed to stop people from shooting | | | | The M-60 WAS NOT replaced by the SAW (M-249.) |
| street cartridges in the full auto M-16, but we all | | | | The M-240 replaced the M-60 and, the 240 is heavier. |
| know how easy it is to modify. | | | | The SAW is, as the acronym spells, a Squad |
| This gives comparable powder volume to the 6.8, | | | | Automatic Weapon. The Squad level, the M-60 or the |
| which doesn't have the crimp either. The reason for | | | | M-240 is GPMG, General Purpose Machine Guns. In an |
| the ball propellant was to save money, but in the | | | | Infantry unit, they are a Platoon asset. |
| context of a new cartridge, it makes sense to spend | | | | I saw the report when it first came out. I work in |
| a little more on powder to save weight (along with | | | | the firearms industry. Nowhere does the report |
| retooling.) | | | | advocate dropping the 7.62 in favor of the 30-06. |
| The ballistics of the 7.62x51(.308) and the 30-06 are | | | | I'll base my decision on four years as a Grunt. |
| nearly identical, in military loads. Why change? Our | | | | An M-240 in 7.62 will be lighter than an M-240 in |
| 7.62 weapons can use ammo from any of our Allies. I | | | | 30-06. The 7.62 ammo is lighter too. The lighter the |
| don't think any military uses 30-06 any longer. If they | | | | ammo, the more the gunner and his team can carry. |
| still have some of the old Browning MGs, they've | | | | That's also one of the arguments for the 5.56 against |
| been converted to 7.62. | | | | the other rounds. |
| I'm not knocking the 30-06. It's a fine cartridge, I | | | | Now, I'll give you an example. My Son was a Grunt |
| own four 30-06 rifles. An advantage of the 7.62 is it | | | | also. He served three years in an Airborne Infantry |
| is shorter than the 30-06(7.62x63), that 1/2 inch | | | | unit. He did tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. His rucksack |
| means the action has 1 inch less to travel during firing. | | | | alone, in Afghanistan, weighed 104 pounds. Now add |
| The shorter action weighs less. | | | | his helmet, weapon, ammo, water, IBA etc. The |
| Any Grunt will tell you, lighter is almost always is | | | | weight difference between a 30-06 weapon and |
| better. | | | | ammo as opposed to a 7.62 weapon can add up real |
| I may be mistaken, but I believe the Mexican Army | | | | quick under those conditions. |
| still uses the "Mendoza" which is chambered in 30-06 | | | | But, nowhere have you stated any justification to |
| (7.63 X 63). It's their own design, and I think used | | | | change from 7.62 to a 30-06. |
| the best ideas from the BREN, and BAR for its | | | | |