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