>>47330
If only there was a place in the world that needed them right now...
A lot of it will probably end up being sold as surplus on the US civilian market as well though.

But this brings up an interesting point. Part of the rational behind the new round was that it could defeat body armour. I'm unsure about that. You can see tests on Youtube with people testing Level IV AR 500 steel plate armour and they are rated to stop anything up to 7.62 NATO but not 7.62 NATO AP. So maybe, maybe a 6.8mm AP round would penetrate that(I have not seen it tested) but then actual military grade armour can go much higher than that and include protection from 7.62 NATO AP and even 30-06 AP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_body_armor_performance_standards

And that does not incorporate for range and angle of impact, neither do tests on Youtube most of the time.
Even using 6.8mm AP rounds the Russians and Chinese probably have something that can stop it already.

But anyway, that is not really what is the main point of interest here, this bigger point centres on Ukraine. Ukraine is the first war where both sides field body armour in substantial numbers and both sides are still using intermediate calibres that could not even penetrate AR 500 plates with AP rounds. So I wonder how this affects combat, I wonder if it does actually make infantry more resilient in combat, I have not heard it mentioned anywhere so far and certainly nothing indicates that it's proving to be an issue. It could be that as the area it protects is so small it's still easy for a round to hit somewhere that while it may not kill them instantly it may incapacitate them, plus there are casualties due to explosions that might not care much for what body armour has to offer. But this kind of analysis might have to wait for post war.