# AND IN THIS CORNER: The Barrett M468......



## lesofprimus (Oct 23, 2005)

I heard about this conversion pack from a Teammate of mine.... 

The race to replace the M-16/M-4 family of rifles is on -- and Barrett has its own worthy contender in the M468 rifle, which features an improved, more powerful 6.8mm cartridge.

Killer Features: 
Firepower: Rifle uses 6.8mm cartridge which has 50% more stopping power than the M-16's 5.56mm cartridge 
Ease of adaptability: Selective Integration Rail (S.I.R.) hand guard allows all existing military night vision devices, combat optics, and weapon accessories to be mounted on rifle, without need for adjustments

For 40 years, the M-16/M-4 rifle family has reigned as the U.S. military's standard-issue battle rifle. Any gun manufacturer that wants to tackle that stranglehold must also take on the legacy issues that have plagued the M-16/M-4 series over the years: maintenance and reliability issues, overheating (especially in the M-4s), and the less than stellar stopping power and penetrating capabilities of the Remington .223 (5.56mm NATO) cartridge these rifles shoot. 

In a previous SoldierTech article we had a sneak preview of one challenger to the M-16/M-4's throne, the Heckler and Koch XM-8. It did away with many of the problems noted above, although it still uses the same Remington .223 cartridge that the current M-16/M-4 rifle uses. That left an opening for the Murfreesboro, Tennessee arms manufacturer, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc. Barrett has joined the fray with the introduction of the 6.8mm M468 rifle, a sturdy challenger to the XM-8.

Barrett's aim is to eliminate the M-16/M-4's weaknesses while retaining its strengths -- in short, improve the rifle's combat characteristics, but also simplify operator transition to the new weapon, and reduce maintenance and acquisition costs.

A rifle such as the M-16 can be divided into two major components: the upper and lower receivers. The upper receiver houses all of the firing components of the rifle: the bolt assembly, the barrel, chamber, and the gas operating tube, as well as any iron sights or attached optics. The lower receiver forms the "user interface" portion of the rifle, incorporating the butt stock, magazine well, trigger assembly and handgrip. In the M-16's case, all of its operational problems are associated with the upper receiver. Consequentially, the Barrett M468 is essentially a new and improved upper receiver mated to an existing M-16/M-4 series lower receiver (there is no need to buy a complete weapon).

The core component of the Barrett M468 is Remington's new 6.8mm SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge). Indeed, the rifle's name comes from the combination of M4 and 6.8mm. Introduced by Remington Arms in 2004, the 6.8mm (.270 caliber) SPC is more lethal than the 5.56mm cartridge, without a significant increase in overall bullet dimensions. Though slightly larger than the standard M-16 cartridge (6.8x43mm as opposed to 5.56x45mm), current issue M-16 magazines can easily be reconfigured to accept the new cartridge. In addition, while the SPC has a slightly lower muzzle velocity than the 5.56mm cartridge, its larger mass makes it ballistically similar to the lighter 5.56mm round (in terms of accuracy and bullet drop), and it delivers half again as much kinetic energy. In real terms, this means that the 6.8mm SPC has the same relative trajectory as the 5.56mm (which allows for the M468 to be fired and treated essentially like a 5.56mm M-16), but with 50% more stopping power, and a bullet speed of 2650 feet per second from a sixteen and one-half inch barrel, delivering 1715 foot-pounds of energy, with a six hundred meter effective range.

Flexibility is also the watchword with the M468, as it employs the ARMS Inc. S.I.R. (Selective Integration Rail) hand guard, which allows all existing military night vision devices, combat optics, and weapon accessories (such as bipods) to be mounted on it. The SIR system not only reduces the integration costs of the weapon (there is no need to purchase new optics specifically tailored to the weapon), but also gives the military the ability to selectively field the weapon and its systems. For example, every Heckler Koch XM-8 requires an integrated electro-optical combat sight, whereas the Barrett M468 can be issued as a stand-alone weapon (the SIR system comes with integrated "flip up" style iron sights), with optional items such as the M68 CCO, PAC-4 and PEQ-2 issued to units based on their MTOE (Modified Table of Organization and Equipment) and operational readiness level (Active Component forces have a higher OR level than National Guard formations, for example).

The SIR system allows for the rapid integration of the core system (the M468) into all levels of the military, while distribution of auxiliary systems (such as optics and night vision devices) could be based on unit need and budgetary considerations. In addition, the M468 should be completely adaptable (through the use of modified hand guards) for use with existing secondary weapons, such as the M203 40mm grenade launcher (which has been a standard issue, squad level weapon for the last 20 years) and the 12 gauge LSS under-barrel shotgun. The ability to mount these pre-existing weapons means that new weapons (such as the 40mm launcher that would be used with the XM-8) wouldn't need to be purchased as additional items.

Simply put, the greatest advantage the Barrett M468 has over contenders such as the H&K XM-8 is improved lethality. By going to the more powerful Remington 6.8mm SPC, Barrett has produced a rifle that is more lethal than any other battle rifle chambered for 5.56mm NATO, yet does not suffer from a significant loss in magazine capacity (as would have been the case if the rifle had been chambered for the much larger 7.62mm NATO cartridge). By going to a heavier bolt carrier group and stiffer recoil spring, Barrett has also addressed the one unresolved legacy issue regarding the M-16s reliability under combat conditions. These two factors, coupled with its compatibility with existing M-16 accessories and attachments, would seem to make it the hands-down favorite to replace the M-16.

Barrett M468 Specifications 

Caliber: 
Remington 6.8mm SPC 
Overall Length: 
35.4 inches (stock extended)
32 inches (stock retracted) 
Barrel Length: 
16 inches (chrome-lined)
Rate of Twist: 
6 groove, one-in-10 inch RHT 
Sighting System: 
Folding Front Sight and Gas Block 
Price: 
Retail Price: $2,535
Upper Conversion Kit Price: $1,494
Weight: 
7.3 lbs 
Muzzle Velocity: 
2600 feet per second 
Magazine Capacity: 
5, 10 and 28 Round Magazine Configurations 
Operation: 
Semi-Automatic, Gas Operated,
Dual Spring Extractor System, Muzzle Brake, Two-Stage Trigger


----------



## evangilder (Oct 24, 2005)

Look pretty cool from what is there.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 24, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Look pretty cool from what is there.


Sure does.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2005)

Agreed...It doesnt look as modern as the XM8 though...


----------



## trackend (Oct 24, 2005)

I like the compactness of the weapon how it performs is for guys to find out unfortunatley usually the hard way.
I dont like all the furniture on the XM8 
Apparently the G36 or the FN2000 is being put forward as a possible replacments for the grossly under funded SA80
I think the FN2000 is the same as the XM8 far too much furniture
and again both use a 5.56 round, which as Les has pointed out is not ideal for the job


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2005)

All three of those weapons are waaayyyy too bulky and large.... Thats why I love the MP5 so much...

This pic below is the version of the M468 that I would see being the preferred rig....


----------



## trackend (Oct 24, 2005)

Knowing the British army Les It will be price that will dominate the choice I think thats the main reason the SA80 was so poor.
Built to be within a set price constraint


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2005)

> It will be price that will dominate the choice I think thats the main reason the SA80 was so poor.
> Built to be within a set price constraint


God forbid they would purchase a weapon that can actually kill the enemy effectivly... I thought the SA80 to be a large, steaming pile of shit....


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 24, 2005)

I thought the Military would be using G-36 assault rifles would be replacing the M4 and M16. The Army, Marines, etc. should be using in two or more years but i like the M4-68 the best.


----------



## trackend (Oct 24, 2005)

Think your self lucky Les at least you wer'nt the poor sods who got issued with it. The guy I work with said the terratorials had the older models and had to use assist which made them only slightly faster to use than a SMLE. He got issued with the up graded model in the Gulf but it still didnt instill much confidence, so I guess he would go along whole heartedly with your view.


----------



## Blackwatch (Oct 24, 2005)

anyone have the ballistics for this round??? it appears this round is signifantly heavier...anyone know the grans (wt) per round and wt of the bullit? how much and what kind of powder?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2005)

Ummmm....


----------



## trackend (Oct 24, 2005)

hehehe


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 24, 2005)

I would like to know the weight of each bullet also. But finally at last, America has a weapon that truly represents how we in our history have used big bullets!


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2005)

> But finally at last, America has a weapon that truly represents how we in our history have used big bullets!


WTF is a "big bullet"???


----------



## Medvedya (Oct 24, 2005)

I'm tempted to use that as a signature - what on Earth have you been smoking P38?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2005)

Sometimes it amazes me the things that come from the mouth of babes...


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 24, 2005)

I mean large caliber weapons!! Like the 30-06!


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2005)

LMFAO........ The 30.06 isnt a large calibre round u freakin redneck..... Try killing a Water Buffalo with a .06.........


----------



## evangilder (Oct 24, 2005)

I have a scar on my elbow from a 30.06 that grazed me. If it had been bigger, it would have removed a chunk of my arm, maybe even the arm below the elbow. Hurt? Yep, like a som'bitch, but it was just a superficial wound. Butterfly taped in the field and right back to the shooting. Can you believe they wanted to give me a PH for that?!

Here is a shot of the scar, now 20 years old and blending in nicely. Not bad for a self butterfly tape in less than ideal conditions!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

A guy in our unit was at a Land Combat Expo and got to shoot it and said he really liked it!


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 29, 2005)

I bet he did Adler.... Nice pic evan....


----------



## evangilder (Oct 29, 2005)

Thanks, Les. I get to show off the enemy's marksmanship with tha scar! Now that I think about it, maybe it was a lack of marksmanship, he didn't take me out of the fight, or even down.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 29, 2005)

If you were in the military during the 80's, did you take part in the conflict with Panama?


----------



## evangilder (Oct 29, 2005)

Not me, that was after I did my time. I was in 84-88. I got into smaller skirmishes with the exception of April 15-16, 1986. I will let you look that one up. I will give you one hint, it was called operation El Dorado Canyon. Because of that, I am one of the few USAF vets that actually were awarded the Navy Meritorious Unit Citation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

I remember when that happened.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 29, 2005)

I was in Panama P-38... Lots of fun down there....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

One of our pilots jumped into Panama with 2nd Ranger Bat.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 29, 2005)

Yeah, you guys got into some fun in Panama, Les.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 29, 2005)

The M468 rifle is just an M-16 with a wider barrel, Stoner had already developed a 7.62mm M-16 a while back, its gonna be a ripoff I hope the U.S army is smart and goes with the XM-8.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 29, 2005)

> Yeah, you guys got into some fun in Panama, Les.


Lost 2 good buddies and my best freind Carlos was paralyzed... Heres a pic of him and I waaayyy back in the day...... Proof positive that if u dont have *qualified* men in ur intelligence loop, excellent operatives lose their lives...


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 29, 2005)

> The M468 rifle is just an M-16 with a wider barrel


No, it is a new reciever assembly that is still able to use all the M-16/M4 accessories, something your precious little XM-8 cant lay title to.... Its more cost effective to upgrade an existing weapon than replace it....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 29, 2005)

I should have figured you were involved in Operation El Dorado Canyon, Eric. It was quite stupid of me as I knew that F-111s from RAF Lakenheath took part in the operation and you were there at the time!  

Sorry to hear about your friends, les. I hope you more than made up for the loss.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 30, 2005)

Yep, I was on the Comm Support team for that. I got the full debrief after the op too. Nothing like pave-tack footage.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2005)

It was a real show of force! I've seen a few after-action pictures here and there. I think the U.S used more naval vessels and aircraft in that short space of time than Britain did in the whole Falklands war!


----------



## evangilder (Oct 30, 2005)

I remember the pattern being very busy that day. I was up in the tower during launch, and recovery. After launch, some came back. They sent up more than needed just in case. I do remember 4 111's would go out, then a tanker would pass over, 4 more, tanker, etc. It was pretty amazing to watch. Very well timed and orchestrated with radio silence until "feet wet". Then the channels went berserk.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2005)

I think there were four FB-111s that went up as reserve, if I remember correctly. As you were there, you'd know better naturally. The French wouldn't let the USAF fly over France, would they? 

It was A-6s and F-111s mainly, wasn't it? I know they had a fair few tankers because of the long trip.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 30, 2005)

I wasn't aware of any FB-111s as I am pretty sure there weren't any in England stationed there permanently. There were F-111Es and EF-111 Ravens out of RAF Upper Heyford with the F-111Fs from RAF Lakenheath. Tankers came from RAF Mildenhall. The Navy Had A-6s for attack, while F-14s flew CAP for the raid. Several from Lakenheath and Heyford went up as extras in reserve. Those guys were not happy to return.

You are correct, no overflying France. As a matter of fact, no emergency landings either. A couple of guys made an emergency landing in Spain as the French wouldn't allow it. The F-111 that did not make it back, with Paul Lawrence and Fernando Ribas-Dominici were NOT shot down as some have reported. I personally knew the guy who led the raid, I flew with him for a check ride once and he saw what happened. As far as I know, he still wants his name confidential and I will honor that. He saw them turn to avoid a SAM and their wingtip hit a wavetop in the Gulf of Sitre. He saw them cartwheel across the top of the water as the plane broke up and exploded. 

I don't know how much of the op has been declassified, so that is about all I can safely say at the moment.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2005)

I was under the impression that FB-111s were involved, even more to the point I was under the impression the aircraft that was lost was a FB-111. As always though, I will take the word of someone who was actually involved over my scarce reading on the subject. 

The tankers were from Mildenhall and Fairford, weren't they? I remember they converted a tanker for a operational command unit to control the USAF forces while the carrier USS America (?) was the operational command for the naval forces. 

I suppose I should just look it up on the internet. But, as always it's interesting to hear from someone who was involved. And of course, don't want to step on the secrets - and, as you know, I'd never expect you to. I might not be in the military ...but I certainly have knowledge and respect enough to understand what did and "didn't" happen.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 30, 2005)

Well, I can definitely say that the one that was lost was an F-111F. There are some other facts about the crew that are quite interesting. Major Ribas almost always had some sort of problem on his aircraft, hot brakes, compressor stall, bird strike, etc. I personally watched him roll out on the runway and used the light gun to signal him out on the SOFs command. That was the first time that any of us could remember that he had a smooth takeoff and departure.

Sometimes, the F-111 in general was called an FB, but there are FB- models and just F- models. They often are mixed because the F-111 is not much of a fighter really. The FB is easily distinguished by a plexiglas panel on the bottom of the nose section, just behind the radome. Also FBs would often carry external fuel tanks that could be carried on the regular Fs, but most often were not.

You are correct about Fairford. I had forgotten about them as they were used for Heyford's birds mostly. As for what Navy ships were involved and their units, I am not sure. I think we got that in debrief, but that was almost 20 years ago and we weren't allowed to write anything down during the debrief. I am surprised I remember as much as I did!

Here is a picture of an FB with the panel that I mentioned above.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 30, 2005)

> You are correct, no overflying France. As a matter of fact, no emergency landings either. A couple of guys made an emergency landing in Spain as the French wouldn't allow it. The F-111 that did not make it back, with Paul Lawrence and Fernando Ribas-Dominici were NOT shot down as some have reported. I personally knew the guy who led the raid, I flew with him for a check ride once and he saw what happened. As far as I know, he still wants his name confidential and I will honor that. He saw them turn to avoid a SAM and their wingtip hit a wavetop in the Gulf of Sitre. He saw them cartwheel across the top of the water as the plane broke up and exploded.


I remember my dad telling me about that Operartion! He said,
"The damn French wouldn't even let our Air Force fly over. We had to go around the whole damn country!


----------



## evangilder (Oct 30, 2005)

That we did. Somehow the French embassy got some damage from a missile that struck nearby. I wonder how that happened...


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2005)

Thanks for the clarification, Eric. It seems I better watch my sources when I read more about the operation. If I have a lot of questions I'll start a new thread.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 30, 2005)

Sounds good to me. I will contribute as much as I can remember, if it doesn't get into anything classified.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

Interesting info. I knew about the operation but never talked to anyone who had anything to do with it.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 5, 2005)

French. Even after we liberated them twice from Germany in WWI and WWII, they still dont give us respect or gratitude.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 5, 2005)

Well first off the French were never fully invaded in WW1 and they fought to theyre dying breath in that one, during WW2 Im not sure it could be doctored with advanced digital technology, but Im pretty sure that the film footage showed All of Paris shaving theyre armpits for us,

anyway after all the years of stereotypes and being branded a bunch of cowards, they made Dioxine look like a nice treat.


----------



## Blackwatch (Nov 5, 2005)

The French didn't surrender, their government did to prevent the destruction of towns and villages like what happened at the start of the First World War....there was massive killings and rapes by the German Army against French civilians....


----------



## plan_D (Nov 6, 2005)

Yeah ...the French didn't surrender, they just signed an armistice on June 22nd 1940 ...that's all. 

They fought, they lost, game over.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> French. Even after we liberated them twice from Germany in WWI and WWII, they still dont give us respect or gratitude.



As was stated The French did not surrendure in WW1 infact they were fighting on for 3 years before the US even entered the war and the US did not really save France in WW1.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 8, 2005)

Yeah, well i still think they treat us unfair. They could be a little bit more thankful instead of a bunch of cocky asses who like sticky their noses up in the air walking around saying, "Screw zie Americans! Viva le France!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 9, 2005)

In the words of an accomplished comedian

"what you dont like me cuz I french? fuck you American's, Oh you dont like me because I smoke a cigarette like a woman?fuck you American's, what you dont it when I give a baby a puff of my cigarette? Fuck You Americans, Fuck You all, just a second, Whats this? The Germans are coming!!!!!!!! Oh Heeeellllllloooooo Americans!!!!!! welcome to France, here have some wine"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> Yeah, well i still think they treat us unfair. They could be a little bit more thankful instead of a bunch of cocky asses who like sticky their noses up in the air walking around saying, "Screw zie Americans! Viva le France!



Life is not fair, get used to it!


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 10, 2005)

> "what you dont like me cuz I french? fu*k you American's, Oh you dont like me because I smoke a cigarette like a woman?fu*k you American's, what you dont it when I give a baby a puff of my cigarette? fu*k You Americans, fu*k You all, just a second, Whats this? The Germans are coming!!!!!!!! Oh Heeeellllllloooooo Americans!!!!!! welcome to France, here have some wine"


That sounds just like a damn Frenchy! My grandpa had a freind who fought in North Africa to Italy to D-Day and beyond. When they arrived in N.Africa, they attacked a fortifcation that they thought the Germans were guarding. Turns out it was the Vichy French! Just as they started moving in, they shot one of their guys. They opened fire and in 5 seconds, the French raised up their arms and said, "Viva le France!" Bastards....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

The Vichy French were on the side of the Germans, that is why they fought against your grandfathers friend. They did so until they were turned by the Free French.


----------



## marconi (Nov 11, 2005)

I've read somewhere, that XM-8 might be fitted to that 6.8mm cartridge in future.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2005)

Would not surprise me since the gun is already so adaptable. It also would not surprise me if the XM-8 gets canceled for this project.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 12, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Would not surprise me since the *gun* is already so adaptable.


What's this? An Army member calling a rifle a gun? 
Drop and give me 100!



I wouldn't be too surprised either if the M468 did in fact beat out the XM-8, since it's based directly on an existing rifle that's much simpler. 
Hmmm, I guess we'll see, eh?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2005)

Excuse me I made a mistake.  

This is my rifle and this is my gun. This one is for shooting and this one is for fun!  

I agree with you NS.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 12, 2005)

Good catch NS. Geez, give the guy a promotion and he gets sloppy!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

LOL no I was always sloppy!


----------

