During my visit to Canada last week, I spoke with multiple people across the Army and industry and one topic dominated discussions, the 6.5 x 43 cartridge.
You probably know it by the designation of 264 USA, named when it was developed by the US Army Marksmanship Unit as an intermediate cartridge. Turns out, it’s a ballistic Goldilocks between 5.56 and 7.62 NATO and that term came up over and over in conversation. It offers additional range and lethality over both 5.56 and 7.62 NATO with a compromise in ammunition weight between the two. Additionally, it can also be used for both rifle and belt-fed applications.
Those of you familiar with the FN America Lightweight Intermediate Caliber Cartridge (LICC) Individual Weapon System (IWS) developed for the Irregular Warfare Technology Support Directorate (IWTSD), will know the caliber which at one point has also been referred to as “264 International” as a nod to the program’s co-sponsor CANSOFCOM. They are so impressed with what they’ve observed during the LICC program that they have decided to press forward.
With an eye to the future, CANSOFCOM is pursuing a NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) for 6.5 x 43 mm in partnership with at least one additional NATO member. At this point, the other party has not been disclosed. However, I know it is not the US, which has been working on the 6.8 x 51mm common case cartridge as their path forward.
STANAG 4884. Technical Performance Specifications Providing For The Interchangeability of 6.5mm x 43 Ammunition.
With this new development, it seems that the caliber wars aren’t yet over. Hopefully, with NATO standardization, likely with brass and composite case designs, we will see more manufacturers of ammunition as well as additional weapon designs.
We will update this story as we learn more.
– By Eric Graves
Specs on cartridge and performance would be more interesting…
That’s what the STANAG will establish.
ah, yes… what specs are the maple syrup-ians submitting?
We’ll just have to wait to find out.
I really hope this gets legs and makes its way here. It seems like a much better path forward…
Not sure where you are, Kit, but this is also a USA program for IWTSD.
That really doesn’t mean much, could disappear with a pen stroke. Thing there is some level of use in the market as a whole- availability and price, then we can talk about things like performance, weapon optimization. You’re not going to have a built in 100million potential users like you have with any of the 15 sized calibers, any kind of stress on the supply side will kill it dead for everyone.
Zero experience with NGSW/M7 or LICC. I would agree, at face value, the LICC makes more sense for general issue over the M7. There’s still value to the larger 6.8mm round and the M7 in specific roles however.
Same here DSM.
6.8×51 always seemed like it kind of came out of left field and was out of step with developments over the past 40-50 years.
Having been a student of info about the .280 British, the 6mm SAW, 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.8 NGSW, and .264 LICC, the LICC seemed a more logical direction than the 6.8 NGSW…
My long term suspicion…
– 6.5×43 (.264 LICC) replaces 5.56 NATO for the US Close Combat Force
– The FN Rifles/Carbines replace the M4 in the US CCF
– A 6.5×43 M250 replaces M249’s in infantry squads
– 6.8×51 (6.8 NGSW/Common) replace 7.62 NATO for the US CCF
– The 6.8 M250 replaces M240’s in weapons squads
– 6.8 converted M240’s are retained for vehicular/mounted/aviation roles
Sig has said they can make “intermediate” caliber M250’s, so that’s no issue. Im also sure that the Army could have a 6.5×43 round made using a 6.5 enhanced performance projectile, so no issues there either.
I’ll take that bet. NGSW fielding is going to speed up.
NTX-
I’d disagree in that keeping the NSGW/M250 & 6.8mm as-is would be more ideal. Reason being is that Eric is very much correct in that you’re gaining firepower (it out performs 7.62) at the fire team level for what amounts to a 1:1 trade in weight over the M249. The ability of the M250 to provide sustained fire (haven’t seen those tests; sure they exist if I looked) means that replacing M240s entirely is now on the table as you stated because 6.8mm is better. M240s will march on in some configuration for decades to come but maneuver forces will phase them out quickly.
As a rifleman’s weapon the LICC, on paper, hits that sweet spot between the M4 and the battle rifle that NGSW/M7 is. It increases downrange effects and stretches the legs of the rifleman in terms of range. How are we expecting to fight? Where are we expecting to fight? What does the data on combat engagements show for the past 50yrs?
I look at the M7 and see a Designated Marksman’s Rifle and it would fill that roll swimmingly. It already outperforms the currently fielded DMR so we’re upside down in capabilities within the squad.
Purely academic…
Riflemen = LICC
Automatic Riflemen = M250/6.8mm
Squad DM = M7
It’s easy to sideline quarterback and everyone has an opinion they freely offer (I’m sure someone pines for the return of US Rifle, M1, .30 cal…) but NGSW has momentum and won’t be going anywhere anytime soon. It does do more than an M4, was built to provide the capabilities the Army asked for, and has the power of being a system already being adopted and fielded in numbers. To change course now means people would have to swallow pride and ego on their “baby” and that will never be the case.
Eric’s comment that LICC only looks good because of what the M7 is points out an interesting notion however. Yes, it is very much true. It illustrates a feeling that the M7 may have taken the capability discussion a bridge too far where “better” vs. “good enough” vie for supremacy.
(We could also ask why can’t we take the NGSW ammunition developments and apply them to 5.56 and swap to an M4 upper capable of taking that abuse? The rifleman still gains capability, sheds weight, retains corporate knowledge in how they fight, and keeps NGSW upgrades with the M250.)
@DSM – Once again I think you’re making a lot of sense:
“Riflemen = LICC
Automatic Riflemen = M250/6.8mm
Squad DM = M7”
From what Eric says, and given the recent type classification, the NGSW program appears to be steaming ahead – and the 6.8×51 clearly seems significantly superior to 7.62×51 (which was always a compromse round to begin with anyway, when you look at the history of it).
The M7 rifle system just seems like overkill to be issued to every single rifleman in the CCF (and what about the USMC and SOCOM?). And Grenadiers… humping the M7 as well as the M320?
So, I think your idea of LICC for Riflemen (and Grenadiers?), M250 for SAW gunners, and M7 for DMR sounds good. But we’ll see…
The Army is attempting to avoid two calibers in the Squad. However, having said that, they’ve also got 9mm and 40mm and if Precision Grenadier System goes forward, they’ll have another round between 2mm and 30mm. Still unsure what happens to the M320s in this scenario.
Now, SOCOM and Marine Corps? They might be interested in 6.5 x 43 is the stars align.
Sarcasm and humor follows…
The M7 will be the Army getting back at the Marines for the M16A2.
Real talk though, SOCOM will do whatever it does but the Marines looking at LICC over NGSW will be a tough, tough sale with the budget gods no doubt. Outside of interest in a heavier machinegun their small arms people have been relatively quiet, solely based on your coverage of events. It would be interesting to understand their opinions.
Publicly, the Marines are sticking to their guns (the M27). Want to talk about a heavy gun for what it does? Of course, they’ve made it even worse with their enabler choices.
They’ve claimed in the past that the bullpup was the only path forward for them. They’d do anything to avoid adopting NGSW. If SOCOM gives them an out, they’d consider it and likely make the switch.
Don’t forget, the FN IWS is paired with the AMG.
Because that would take introspection, ingenuity, innovation, and independence of thought. All characteristics that the DOD has retarded levels of.
Where is here? This is also a USA program under IWTSD.
@ Some Guy Look up “Kit Badger” on YouTube
That’s a safe bet.
NGSW’s program office just had a heart attack.
Once the Canadians get NSN’s for the weapons, mags, and ammo it’s done.
The M7 specifically I mean.
There would still be a need for an actual medium cartridge, and 6.8 Common is an ideal successor to 7.62 NATO, so those would stay around. But the idea of a 6.8 Common General issue rifle and the M7 specifically are on life support.
This had a great showing in the UK last week and there is a lot of discussion globally.
What NGSW should’ve been
Naw, if NSGW had been this, Soldiers would complain that the gun and ammo are too heavy, the basic load is too small, and the recoil is too much. It only looks good because 6.8 exists.
They hated Jesus for he spoke the truth
Read the old SS articles on the IWS. There is no recoil, and it is a very light system.
I wrote that article and I stand by assertion that our troops would make those complaints.
Probably 🙂
SSD, genuine question, based off of that statement…
Do you believe that the same number of troops who complain about NGSW would complain about .264 USA and the FN IWS?
Oh yeah…
Ok, I’ve got a follow up question.
Do you completely discount these complains, discount some of them, discount parts of them?
Do you think there is any validity to any of the complaints that have arisen so far?
Yes, the gun is heavier than an M4, but it’s not an M4. Same with the ammo. It offers effects unseen on the battlefield. Soldiers are complaining because they haven’t been exposed to what it offers them or how to use it. They are running around using it like an M4, just throwing rounds down range with no concern of whether or not they hit anything. It also outperforms 7.62. Neither 5.56 nor 7.62 will reduce a concrete block wall. I’ve witnessed 6.8 do it. It is devastating to tissue.
5.56 and 7.62 are at the end of their development cycle. We need a fresh sheet to work from. The Army selected 6.8. A lot of guys want to kill the program. That will get you nothing. You’ll be stuck with 5.56 and 7.62 for the foreseeable future. For once, you’ve got a weapon for the future and not the last war, and collectively you snivel about it.
As for as any complaints regarding reliability, it will be improved. No new weapon system works 100% when it is first fielded. The M16 was upgraded to the M16A1 within just a few years of the adoption of the M16 based upon combat use. The M4A1 has seen nearly 100 changes since it was first fielded in 1994 and continues to be refined.
Guys are going to complain. I grew up with Vietnam vets telling me how much the M16 and 5.56 sucked and how much better the AK and 7.62 COMBLOC were. People complained at first when they got the M4 because they were losing barrel length and range and people still complain about how heavy the M4 is. It’s noise at this point.
To be blunt, if 6.8×51 can’t penetrate level IV plate without using tungsten (or some other exotic material), then its tradeoffs (especially in the rifle) are not worth it. There are far better ways to match the ballistics of 7.62 NATO.
Frankly the whole NGSW endeavor smacks of being a gross overreaction to Afghanistan.
They aren’t matching the ballistics of 7.62. It’s much more in line with 270 WSM.
That’s kinda my point. There are numerous tradeoffs (which I’m sure you’re aware of) with fielding a 270 WSM functional equivalent in the standard issue rifle (tradeoffs which IMO aren’t worth it). There’s a reason why SCHV cartridges are the world standard for rifles, and why full-power “battle rifle” calibers have been mostly relegated to machineguns & DMRs.
6.8 is an excellent replacement for 7.62, but cannot replace 5.56 (or the SCHV concept in general). As much as the Army doesn’t want to admit it, both SCHV & full-power cartridges complement each other. They should’ve focused instead on creating the best examples of each instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We have 6.8 as an example of the latter, but what would the optimum SCHV cartridge look like? Ironically enough the PRC has imo come the closest in creating the optimum SCHV round with the 5.8mm. A “western” analogue could use a modified SPC case (preferably made from stainless steel or polymer) necked down to 6mm with a 2.4” COAL and a 70,000psi MAP. This should allow an 85-90 grain EPR style VLD projectile to be launched at ~3000fps from a 14” barrel. 7.62mm ballistics with far less recoil.
You don’t seem to get it. We have developed 5.56 and 7.62 as far as they are going to go. It’s time for a clean slate. For the US Army, this isn’t a replacement for 5.56. It is simply the path forward. The 5.56 class of cartridge didn’t exist before it was adopted. In NATO they will move on to something heavier as well.
The US isn’t going to create new calibers. The Army isn’t sold on 338 NM for a MMG. To the contrary, expect 6.5 CM to be withdrawn from service first with 7.62 next, and then much later 5.56. They’ll hang on to 7.62 for too long for the same bad reasons we kept .30-06 so long, there’s a bunch of it in storage and they’ve got a severe shortage of training ranges templated for 6.8 and up.
SOCOM may get a new caliber if they can get themselves straightened out (I’m not expecting them to) and the Marines may follow suit. That is the only place in the US military that see 6.5 x 43 having a shot. Now, US LE? 6.5 x 43 (once there are some AR12 options and availability of ammo) looks like a good option.
While all that is true, the nature of warfare has changed dramatically since the NGSW program was first ideated.
Now, any threat further away than even 5.56 can effect will get killed by an FPV drone. Drone jammers are very soon going to be borderline obsolete due to the latest drones being wire-guided. In the near future, they will likely be AI-guided without a wire or any vulnerability to jamming.
With all due respect, and I’m certainly no subject matter expert, but it seems like 6.8×51 is going to be obsolete before it ever sees combat.
“That’s a safe bet.”
It’s a safe bet that if the M7 is cancelled there will be nothing to reppace it for decades. Not to mention they just type-classified the weapon last month. If they werw going to do something it would have been then.
“NGSW’s program office just had a heart attack.”
Pretty sure they’ve seen this already… and aren’t scared.
The Army looked at this caliber when they did the Small Arms Ammunition Configuration study… And didn’t accept it. To think they will change course 8 years later is wishful thinking at best. They’ve invested in infrastructure at this point to manufacture 6.8x51mm ammo in Army Plants. To go back to co gress at this point and say “we want 6.5×43 now” would guarantee Soldiers get NOTHING.
“Once the Canadians get NSN’s for the weapons, mags, and ammo it’s done.
The M7 specifically I mean.”
Not sure if they have a clause that they are manufactured in Canada (That’s where Colt Canada came from). If so; do you believe the Canadians are going to build overhead into their contracts to allow us to buy weapons from them? Not likely due to all the tarriff troubles with the current administration.
.
“There would still be a need for an actual medium cartridge, and 6.8 Common is an ideal successor to 7.62 NATO, so those would stay around. But the idea of a 6.8 Common General issue rifle and the M7 specifically are on life support.”
Nothing I’m seeing here suggests that the M7 is in any danger. But you’re allowed your opinion.
NSN’s are released for the weapons.
Maybe they have not heard about 6.5 grendel. Some of us have been using it successfully for years.
Oh, they’ve heard of it. It and 6.8 SPC were disregarded long ago.
What is that on the end of the barrel? One heck of a laser?