speaking of creedmoor vs x51 in the military

[stagpanther]

Today's armchair quarterback comment: looks like special operations forces may be looking to adopt the creedmoor.
https://specialoperations.com/33045/...er-ammunition/ , http://soldiersystems.net/2018/03/23...adopts-6-5-cm/
As much as I love the creedmoor design--it has tight tolerances for reliable operation IMO; which I would have guessed would be problematic for battlefield reliability--at least in anything more than hand-cycled bolt action. An improved feed ramp may help--but still going to have those long pointy things seated way out there banging around in the magazines. Might have been more prudent to stick with the 260 and instead optimize bullet selection/development.

[Mobuck]

You sort of hit the nail on the head.
No way can the 6.5 C be compared to the 308/7.62x51 as a real combat round. Building guns and ammo in 6.5C to "mil-spec"would reduce it's advantages significantly, leaving only a marginally reduced recoil as it's ONLY redeeming feature.

[stagpanther]

You sort of hit the nail on the head.
No way can the 6.5 C be compared to the 308/7.62x51 as a real combat round. Building guns and ammo in 6.5C to "mil-spec"would reduce it's advantages significantly, leaving only a marginally reduced recoil as it's ONLY redeeming feature.

I didn't say it doesn't have ballistic advantages--I think it does. Personally I thought FN had the optimal answer with the 7mm way back in the 50's when all this sturm und drang started.

[Mobuck]

OK, I'll concede a slight "ballistic advantage" BUT that doesn't come into play until well beyond the average confrontation range for personal weapons.
I always considered the 7.62x51 was a compromise made to fit a "full caliber" cartridge into a more compact package than the 1919 Browning and Garand.

[labnoti]

I don't see how the 6.5C competes with the 7.62x51 at all. Snipers already use the .300 Win Mag for longer ranges. Less recoil? With 13 pounds of optics? I suspect this is not so much a ballistics issue as business. The capitalists in the gun industry see this as an opportunity to sell a bunch of new chit, and they're pumping it for all it's worth. They're just playing SOCOM for an endorsement.

[T. O'Heir]

There is no 6.5 Creedmoor VS 7.62NATO in the military or anywhere else. Especially Special Forces. Those guys use whatever they feel like using.
Snipers use .50 BMG for serious distances.
specialoperations.com is an online magazine style web site. Kind of like Soldier of Fortune magazine. Not well done either. Go there and click on Weapons.

[jmr40]

that doesn't come into play until well beyond the average confrontation range for personal weapons.

You have to consider the purpose of the new rifles. They are not intended as personal weapons for all soldiers, but as a special purpose rifle for both snipers and designated marksman roles. Rifles built on the AR platform in 5.56 will still be the primary weapon for the average soldier.

For that purpose either the 260 or 6.5 CM easily beats 308. The 260 will do anything the 6.5 CM will do, but not with rifles or ammo that is within normal specs. The military could have purpose built custom 260 rifles and specified special ammo, but I think they made the right decision to use the Creedmoor. Custom ammo that wouldn't work in standard commercial 260 rifles is essentially reinventing the 6.5 CM anyway.

The Creedmoor loaded with 140-147 gr bullets easily beats 308 loaded with standard 150 gr bullets in every category. If you move up to 175-180 gr loads in a 308 then performance is about the same out to 500 yards or so. Then the Creedmoor starts pull away.

The military wanted to give their long range shooters something that could really stretch things out and the 308 is realistically an 800 yard cartridge, 1000 at most. The 6.5 CM has shown it will hang with 300 WM out to almost 2000 yards. While the 300 hits harder, the military concluded that a 140 gr 6.5mm bullet still had enough to kill a human at that range. And in a much more compact package than a 300 WM.

[COSteve]

My take as a former US Army small arms instructor for a short while is that the 'need' for a Creedmore simply isn't there. It's advantage over the .308 in a combat situation is that it's got superior long range (over 600 meter) performance than the 147grn M80 ball, however, the military doesn't have a requirement for the average GI to shoot that far so what's the point? Add to it the significant logistics costs of fielding a second battle rifle caliber and the economics get stupid in a big hurry. Long range sniper? Possibly but then they already have the M21, etc.

[stagpanther]

When jmr40 talks--I listen. Most of what he says I agree with--but I've shot many thousands of creedmoor cartridges--both 6.5 and 6 mm flavors--through my builds in semi-automatic AR type platform and I find that it favors the "custom tuner." I love it for it that reason because I like tuning both weapon and cartridge to find "the holy grail" load. My only concern is that it's not optimal for "battle stress." Yes, I have no idea or qualifications to comment on that--but just my basic feelings having worked with it since it came out.

I haven't got my hands on one yet--but take a look at Nemo's newest Omen 300 win mag carbine. I have shot the 300 win mag in a bolt gun for years and it's a great cartridge--but it has a certain "ergonomic challenge" being a belted magnum design. I'd love to get one in my hands--but I could care less that it's an AR carbine platform that fires the 300 win mag--what REALLY interests me is the "secondary" recoil absorber that is integral to the bolt carrier. If this thing really does what Nemo says it can--that would be far more of a tactical advantage development IMO than simply yet another chambering.

I could be full of it too.

[MTT TL]

My take as a former US Army small arms instructor for a short while is that the 'need' for a Creedmore simply isn't there. It's advantage over the .308 in a combat situation is that it's got superior long range (over 600 meter) performance than the 147grn M80 ball, however, the military doesn't have a requirement for the average GI to shoot that far so what's the point? Add to it the significant logistics costs of fielding a second battle rifle caliber and the economics get stupid in a big hurry. Long range sniper? Possibly but then they already have the M21, etc.

It's for machine guns of which there is a need to shoot long range. It will increase the effective range by about 300 meters using lighter ammo. Sounds win/win to me.

[RC20]

Any gun built for the military can have its own chamber tolerance.

They can make them as loose as a British Military 303.

All a 30-06 or 308 is a reverse data SAMMI dimension.

[Mobuck]

"It will increase the effective range by about 300 meters using lighter ammo."

In reality, just how much "lighter" is that ammo going to be? Basically a difference of 10 grains or less in bullet weight? You're going to need a 140 grain 6.5 mm bullet to get the gains you're expecting.

[Kirosha]

Originally Posted by Mobuck

"It will increase the effective range by about 300 meters using lighter ammo."

In reality, just how much "lighter" is that ammo going to be? Basically a difference of 10 grains or less in bullet weight? You're going to need a 140 grain 6.5 mm bullet to get the gains you're expecting.

Ignore the "lighter" and just say it weights the same, but extends the effective range by 300m.. Worth it.

[Model12Win]

I hate it when people use the metric case length measurement of cartridges when talking about specific rounds.

I know what you're talking about, but it's unprofessional and frankly silly to do that. It's even worse when people use "x39" which makes it fun to differentiate between 5.45mm and 7.62mm.

[stagpanther]

I hate it when people use the metric case length measurement of cartridges when talking about specific rounds.

I know what you're talking about, but it's unprofessional and frankly silly to do that. It's even worse when people use "x39" which makes it fun to differentiate between 5.45mm and 7.62mm.

That's 2 posts in a row from you which have contained personal attacks. I suggest you ignore my posts altogether if your applecart gets tipped over every time you read something from me.

[Mobuck]

When discussing full auto high volume use, a big factor is barrel heat and bore wear. Both are generally of more concern as the bore diameter is reduced. Modern metal treatments may reduce the effect but it's still there.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I hate it when people use the metric case length measurement of cartridges when talking about specific rounds

Well, off the top of my head, there is 7.62x25, 7.62x35, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 7.62x54, and 7.62x63. All of those are common cartridges I can find in the local Walmart. Why would using case length to distinguish them be unprofessional since they all have the same diameter?

[MTT TL]

As it turns out I have not been keeping up since I retired. The M80A1 enhanced projectile weighs less at only 130 grains. They would have to come up with something similar to get it to weigh in less in Creedmoor.

The weight savings for 150 vs 130 is about 100 lbs per pallet.

[stagpanther]

In my creedmoor builds the 130 gr seems to be the be the sweet spot for performance.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I believe the reduction in weight is from the larger steel nose cone on the M80A1. Assuming similar bullet construction, a 6.5 Creedmoor version would be even lighter still.

[MTT TL]

The military is trying to go as lead free as possible. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

[Skans]

I hate it when people use the metric case length measurement of cartridges when talking about specific rounds. I know what you're talking about, but it's unprofessional and frankly silly to do that. It's even worse when people use "x39" which makes it fun to differentiate between 5.45mm and 7.62mm.

Why? That is the nomenclature used by the military. And, this topic is about a cartridge for military use. When talking about "7.62", I find it helpful to include the case length so that I know which 30 caliber cartridge the speaker is referring to.