Discussion in 'Main Message Board' started by PatMiles, May 22, 2019.
6.5x47 was here 2 years before 6.5 creedmoor.
Maybe so, but Lapua is still the only company worldwide that manufactures either brass or ammunition. Government / military procurement agencies mostly buy from private sector suppliers these days and in this case of [maybe] adopting a mid-power 6.5mm, it would be a choice of a single foreign source for the Finnish design v half a dozen (more?) domestic Creedmoor producer/suppliers, these moreover offering a cheaper product off the shelf as well as multi-company entry in a competitive tendering process.
Two or three European army special forces have adopted 6.5X47L in the past - Accuracy International has fulfilled a small number of orders / actual sniper rifles in the calibre, but AFAIK entirely some years ago pre-Creedmoor and none at all in the last few years. As they are switch barrel models they may not even be 6.5mm now.
Or the Thermos! Keeps hot things hot. Keeps cold things cold. How do it know?
Have any of us looked at the bullet used in the 6.5 machine gun?
Compare the impact energy it has at 600-1200 meters and chances are we’ll see one of the reasons for the .mil interest even if in a specialty role.
Exactly! When you consider the much lower performance Grendel offers comparable or even better retained long-range energy than standard M180 7.62mm ball.
Nothing new here though. The British War Office's 'Ideal Cartridge Panel' came up with this finding as long ago as 1946/7 with either 0.277 or 0.284" bulleted small cartridges as optimum ballistically and in military field use, even given the considerably lower MVs available back then with far cruder propellants than we have now. (The chosen British cartridge and its candidate for standard NATO cartridge, the 7X43mm AKA .280/30 British is similar to the 7mm BR with more taper and a shallower shoulder.)
Propellant improvements in the 70 years since its trials have given equivalent 6.5s a bit of an edge in ballistics terms though and unlike then very low drag 0.264" bullets are now commonplace.
This is a moot point considering it’s intended role. This gun will almost never see a tripod or be employed in the defense where it could potentially see cyclic rates of fire performing a final protective fires task. It will be fired almost exclusively off bipod, see lower recoil and smaller cone of fire, to facilitate troops in maneuver during short duration direct action raids. Very frequently carried by one man, maybe a buddy with additional ammo, see lighter ammunition weight. Additionally, all of SOCOM’s short action sniper rifles are transitioning to 6.5cm as I write this. SOCOM has some fairly smart folks in it that don’t spout knowledge of machine gun employment that they acquired from watching movies.
Ammunition weight is a big deal all along the supply chain, from production to transporting, down to the poor sob carrying it in the field. Any reduction helps from bottom to top.
My understanding is there's an outfit in Texas making polymer cases ammo that weighs half of conventional cartridges.
That has always been a big argument in favour of 5.56mm or other sub-calibres. Of course, if you shoot a lot more rounds for lower overall returns as many claim applies to the 5.56mm, any theoretical advantage fails to live up to the promise, may even turn out to be a trap. Hopefully, a mid-size 6.5 (of whatever design) will be a win-win.
Good to know! I seem to remember that when 260 Rem had a spell in the sun many years ago as the civilian / off-duty military man's sniper/tactical competition cartridge of choice that people then were extolling 6.5mm use for military use, in particular specialised applications. The arguments for that have only got stronger in the time since.
My solution,FnFal 7.62x51. Update some,your good.
Surely Dan you mean the sooooper-new 7.6 Creedmoor, not that antediluvian inefficient unfashionable 7.62X51mm?
(Sorry, I couldn't resist disinterring the Forum Boss's scoop of the year and maybe starting a few hares off again! )
you don't have to re-chamber it all fits DARN.
Disinterring? Can you take penicillin for that?
Have you ever been in combat? Clearly not. I gave a movie example because most have seen it.
If once fired brass shows up. Iam all for it.
I think someone also are adapting a 338norma mag machine gun
Currently on my 11th deployment as an infantryman. We can compare perstempo and knowledge on employment of supporting fires in private messages if you’d like.
Your example was poor for a multitude of reasons and delivering such a presumption makes one assume you’re prepped with a “well I have” retort. Which is fine, though I am certain I have skivvy shirts with more time in combat than you have seen.
Take your criticism and move along.
@pirate ammo it arrived a little too late. My Dasher finished second to a 6.5 Creedmoor today.
The Creedmore is not a very good design when looking at 5.56 and 7.62 NATO and what would be ideal looking ahead. It is at best a day late and a dollar short and a cartridge of convenience. Just like the 300WM with hot 190gr+ loads is not the ideal today for Sniper systems it was a great idea a couple of decades ago like pre-1988 and the 7,62 NATO never should have been the chambering in the M24.
It was smart to design the M24 on a Long Action but the thinking that lead to it being chambered in 7,62 NATO was foolish at best. I was a Freshman in High School in 1988 and I am 45 years old now and have 3 kids. Talk about being a day late and a dollar short!
The M24 should have been upgraded to something like the .338 Edge, .338 RUM or the like not a return to the idea's and thinking pre-1988. That sort of thinking would be like going back to the last generation Jeep or the M113 etc...This would have made the use of the 50BMG almost unneeded except for the most extreme anti-material missions. Our European allies have already proven the idea of a cartridge bridging the gap between the under-powered outdated 7,62 NATO and the insanely heavy over powered for most situations 50BMG.
In fact even a new cartridge not based on current offerings would have been fine.
In terms of Special Forces they have deep pockets and can use almost anything they want it is the rank and file soldier I am more concerned about. My oldest son in the Army as well.
Since all of the old M24's are long action M700's a short action compromised round makes no sense. In a belt feed semi-auto 7.62 NATO chambered SAW the 6.5CM does not substantial increase in load out ammo numbers by weight and it does not penetrate humans, vehicles, sand bags etc...any better either. It is not a magical game changer allowing you to hit targets that are much further away with a machine gun either.
Send your resume into their small arms development section. I’m sure they’d love to hear what you’d pitch because I’m certain who they have don’t know their ass from elbow and the constraints/restraints they’re operating within aren’t limiting them in any way. They’re probably all just sitting around reading Field and Stream and stumbled on an article extolling the 6.5cm’s virtues and made their decision purely off of that.
Separate names with a comma.