There will be cases or instances where this round might be found wanting in terms of penetrating power ,for eg. the Afghan incident but then look at the 'range' these folks are talking about 600mtr+
And, what exactly, do you suggest they should do if someone does shoot them at ranges of 600m? The front page of this thread contains document combat reports of veterans who, at ranges of 100 meters, could not put down starving Somalians, even after 4 shots of 5.56 mm. Ever watch Black Hawk Down?http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/ ... am_ki.html
Here's more from American soldiers on the issue. Every US soldier thinks 5.56 mm is great until they get into real combat. Even the US military has given in and now says, "Use two bullets, even at ranges of 100 meters!"
Unless cash rich countries like US and EU consortium convince their partners and overnight trash all their existing 5.56 as well as the 7.62mm rounds I don't see 6.x series having many takers despite being a decent compromise between the 5.56 and 7.62mm.For at the end of the day I am pretty sure there would be scenarios where 6.x series would be found wanting and some ballistics company out there would come out with a round with x.xmm caliber which would allegedly outperform the existing round.
The US special forces did develop a 6.8 mm round. It was in the first page of this thread. However, there is no way in hell that the US Army can adopt this caliber. That would be the same as admitting they were wrong for over 40 years. The US prizes face far more than the Chinese. What should embarrass them even more is that their 6.8 mm round is pretty much the same thing as the Soviet 7.62 x 39 mm. It's only what the Soviet Union has been using since the 1940's!
The DRDO, also on the first page, is developing a multi caliber rifle that fires 5.56, 6.8 and7.62. Better off with *just* the intermediate round. The 6.8 developers wanted to use 6mm, but because the M16's dimensions were wrong, they couldn't pull it off.
Does it make more sense to waste money on 3 different factories and 3 different calibers, or just standard on one Universal Military Cartridge, just like the Chinese have done with 5.8 mm.
It is not possible to make a bullet that surpasses 6 or 6.5 mm at ranges of a 1000 meters. Both 5.56 and 7.62 used to be used in competitions for under 500 meters, and up to a 1 000 meters accuracy. But now both calibers have been beaten, comprehensively, by 6 and 6.5 at all ranges. That is impressive, and cannot be matched by any other caliber. To be better than both calibers above and below you has not happened before, and this has been true for around 20 years.
If you can make a caliber and please don't suggest 6.102 or any number between 6 and 6.5, that can outperform either one, you can win substantial sums of money. There has not been one for over 20 years, so bullet technology has nothing in the way of calibers that can improve on 6 or 6.5mm. Every single study that has ever been done have all agreed on calibers in the 6 -6.5 range.
Nothing can do better in terms of weight to power ratio.
As an aside:
Original 5.56 -> 55 grains -> Current NATO bullet -> 62 grains -> newest special forces 5.56 round -> 77 grains. Does it make sense to stick with a bullet that just keeps getting heavier, and heavier, and heavier? All in a vain attempt to reach performance levels it can never meet. Originally, NATO 5.56 was *half* the weight of 7.62, but it just keeps going up in weight.