6.5 Creedmoor

File: 1492660211178-k.png (273KB, 950x950px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 950x950px

Yes.

6.5CM is better than 7.62x51.

>>34056274
In Afghanistan, sure. If the egg heads are right though and urban conflicts will dominate the future, then no.

>>34056274
6.5 Grendel would be a better choice.

>>34056274
Whats the other two types of rounds not mentioned?

>>34056729
Out of a semi-auto, yes. Not out of a belt fed weapon though. Too much barrel wear.

>>34056755
I cannot think of a worse 6.5 cartridge then 6.5 Grendel.

>>34056742
Bingo.

Do you think every fight will be 300-800 meters out for the next 50 years? Then you're set.

Do you think infantry will be worrying more so about the 50-400 meter range? Then 5.56 is your huckleberry.

>>34056799
I thought the military was going to .338 Lapua belt fed mg

>>34057044
Jesus, that's what they want to replace the 240 with?

As for whatever replaces the 249, it has to be compatible with whatever everybody else is shooting. You can try 6.5CM if it's polymer or something, but then you also have to issue everyone an optic to make use of it, and muzzle rise is going to suck when Mexico City goes full Tom Clancy.

>>34057087

.338 norma magnum, and I believe the replacement is actually a few pounds lighter than the m240b.

>>34057142
I was about to remark how we live in age of wonders, but how much more does the ammo weigh per 100 rounds?

As I recently learned from Ian, 6.5 Grendel was designed to fit through the mag well of an AR. 6.5 Creedmore does not, so you'd be taking about replacing the entire weapon platform.

>>34057225
That's the price, though.

Grendel isn't going to happen because a 123 FMJ bullet going <2400fps out of a 16" barrel is going to drill tiny little 6.5mm holes in people, and we've heard enough bitching about M855 doing that already.

>>34056274

The 6.5 CM is close to the final recommendation for the replacement of the 7.62 NATO before the Secretary of Defence Mcnamara ordered the M16 and the 5.56 to be adopted immediately and unchanged.

Accuracy is king and hands down it is better than both the 5.56 and 7.62.

The problem is weight and cartridge size. Grendel sucks because it tries to fit in an AR15's max chamber length.

Polymer case, telescoping case, caseless or some other new tech is the way to go for increasing capacity and reducing bulk, but whatever is the future the performance should be based on the ballistics of a 6.5mm projectile.

>>34056274
There's no reason to replace 5.56 with Creedmore

It's not an intermediate cartridge

>>34057483
>The 6.5 CM is close to the final recommendation for the replacement of the 7.62 NATO before the Secretary of Defence Mcnamara ordered the M16 and the 5.56 to be adopted immediately and unchanged.

Can you point me to a source for this? I am familiar with the second compromise round used in Venezuelan FALs, which resembles 6.5 creedmoore in 7mm.

>>34056742
>If the egg heads are right though and urban conflicts will dominate the future, then no.

"If" they're right? Of course they're right!

Most people live in urban areas! It's obvious to anyone that urban conflicts will dominate the future.

>>34057623

https://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/02/okay-so-why-did-we-choose-556.html

>>34056274
It's 6.5 grendel not 6.5 creedmoor. The other options are .264 Remington and 6.5 USA.

>>34057087
>you have to issue an optic to use a cartridge just because it had the capability of long range

>durrr

>>34057259
>what is OTM
>what is not everything is M855

Stop

You are all pathetic. Everyone knows that 6.5 Carcano is the the best 6.5 cartridge.

>>34058425

Shh... they need to think it's American and not a fascist commie idea.

>>34056274

Time to get that .30-06 back to work sonny!

Never should have replaced it to begin with.

>replacing your light intermediate cartridge with something that's essentially just a rifle cartridge
>doing this because of your forever war in Afghanistan
>not realizing that most future warfare is probably going to end up being street to street, house to house urban warfare and that adopting this cartridge will cuck you for that
5.56 is a fantastic cartridge for jungle and city combat. We'll have to switch back to it or another lighter cartridge the moment another real war breaks out that isn't just sandniggers taking potshots from a mountain 1000m away.

>>34058393
Yes, anon. We're going to issue nothing but OTM. No more FMJ for the military.

Grendel is never, ever, happening.

>>34058666
Devil's trips

If the USA chose a different cartridge that fit into ar15s, wouldn't that be ideal?
An easy switch back to 5.56 if it was necessary

File: latest4.jpg (29KB, 400x338px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x338px

>>34056803
Why not 6.8 spcII for 50-400?

>>34058666
5.56 is shit for jungle combat. if it hits a leaf it veers off course

>>34056274
The round you are thinking of, .264 USA, is not available to the public.

>>34059867
Canadians are worthless anyways

>>34059907
ha true that

File: 52345234.jpg (206KB, 1200x854px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1200x854px

>>34058338
Nobody wants cuckrendel.

>>34058393
>OTM
>all US soldiers get executed for using hollow point ammo.
Stop.

File: 645645.png (20KB, 1091x399px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 1091x399px

>>34059861
because it sucks.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/04/04/not-so-special-a-critical-view-of-the-6-8mm-spc/

>>34059867
Dude 5.56 was made for Veitnam.

>>34058666
5.56 IS fantastic for > 300M combat and it's AP capabilities will be needed for P2P combat.

>>34056274
You heard wrong, dipshit.

>>34056274
cheapest > best performing

>>34060005
creedmoor would require swapping to a platform that could basically take 7.62x51 anyway
grendel can be fired out of an m16 or more appropriately a m27

it'd be interesting if the military went with both creedmoor and grendel out of a rifle that just required a different lower depending on the requirement

>>34061207
Bolt face and chambers are going to be completely different between those two bullets.

>>34056274
>Is 6.5 Creedmoor a meme, or is there real worth in accepting the round as the new standard?
5.56, 7.62 & 6.5 cm suck. But the 6.5 sucks less. The fact is there should been two or even three standard rifles used by infantry but fucking dickheads think an saving an extra 3 billion per year is worth the decreased effectiveness of infantry. Everyone likes to talk tough about logistics but we got hot chocolate and skyn rubbers available at every fucking fob in the world so ssgt lardass can take spc butterface out on a nice date behind the ammo dump. So why not use that spare freight capacity to get proper and effective equipment so WE CAN STOP FUCKING AROUND & WIN THE FUCKING WAR.

>>34062300
...........task force Chesapeake mean anything to you?

5.56 NATO is a fantastic round and switching would be really dumb. 7.62 is okay for a gpmg I guess, but I think a .338 lapis would be a better gpmg/marksman cartridge.

I guess I like .338 Norma, but only because it fits in standard actions. I would think the .338 lapis shoulder would be better for barrel throats wear. I think there's a reason that short mag fad died so quickly, and I think .338NM might suffer a similar fate. Time will tell.

>>34062377
Lapua.

Damn autocorrect. I don't even know what lapis means.

>>34057225
you needed Ian to figure that out ?

>>34062420
Not that guy but you'd be amazed how many people just don't understand 6.5 Grendel.

>>34062428
yeah
fucking normies and basic understanding of magazine dimensions

same thing with 9mm 1911s and people not getting the whole feeding problem thing

File: cartoons used to be good.jpg (17KB, 409x344px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 409x344px

>>34056274
If I hear the military adopts it as their go to round, I'll buy a Creedmoor rifle immediately.

Otherwise, I'm content shooting 9mm. It's absolutely fine in defensive ranges, especially out of a 16" barrel AND it's vewy vewy quiet.

>>34060029
I was led to understand 6.8 was strictly to upgrade lethality and barrier penetration within 5.56's existing effective range, i.e. under 500 yards.

>>34056274
what you heard about was the experiment to find a new intermediate cartridge for a light machinegun, the caliber of which the brass would like to start with "6.5".

creedmoor (and others) are for the time being the only feasible parent cases, or design starting points, from which to make an appropriate 6.5 for the LMG and for a future IAR -- which is a secondary consideration that might lead to a "single-caliber system." but 6.5 creedmoor itself is incapable of doing the job.

>>34056755
>>34058338
grendel is even worse. not only will it not do the job, it will never serve as a parent. go back to your grendel forum hidey hole.

>>34062651
>cartridge for a light machinegun,
No. It is about DMR/sniper rifle.

>>34062808
/k/ repeatedly tells me the 249 gets the most kills of any if the rifle team. Why wouldn't you upgrade them first?

>>34062818
LSAT?

>>34062956
I thought OP was referring to a search for an existing brass cased replacement. If he meant LSAT, then my mistake.

>>34058498
>Fascist commie

>>34056274
When will the US military realize they just need multiple sets of gear for different theaters?

AR-10s for afghanistan, AR-15s for jungles and cities

>>34062818
They're already on the leader boards, anon. You upgrade the scrubs that need the help first.

>>34062300
How do any of them suck?

>>34062485
>I do whatever anyone in a position of authority tells me, the post

You should get a creedmoor rifle because it's a good round and fun to shoot. If you're just buying anything and everything because it's what the military is doing, you miss the point of private ownership

>>34064046
Not exactly, it's smart. Just like the 5.56mm, 9mm and 7.62x51mm if the military adopts it Lake city and the other ammo producers will make tons of ammo. It won't be a niche round anymore. You can buy in bulk.

why not just make 77grain 5.56 more standard?

>>34063319
> LSAT is for closers. These are wasted on you.
> The rounds are weak.
> The rounds are weak? Fuck you, you're weak.

>>34062384
Lapis is Stone in Latin

When the memes are real
>5.56 weak
>AR15 unreliable
>dogchasingtail.gif

File: beach_summer_fun_buddies_by_mortdres-d8j6vts.png (206KB, 907x871px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 907x871px

>>34062384
>I don't even know what lapis means.
Cute! CUTE!

>>34064141
I totally see your point and it's valid, but in my opinion one of the benefits of private ownership is I can use whatever I see fit regardless of what the logistics would cost a military. Of course it's subjective, and what one guy will think is acceptable over another will be different. But this is especially obvious in the guys with sbr's or pistols in 5.56 when there are cartridges far more optimized for short barrels than 5.56 in wide use. You aren't supplying an army, so just get what works the best within reason

File: 1495723613807.png (463KB, 934x521px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 934x521px

>imagine all the 5.56 and 7.62nato sur+
I support this solely for this reason.

But as other anon said, 5.56 is ok at everything and thats perfectly adequate.

>>34056799
belt fed weapons have field detachable barrels and will require a barrel change with prolonged use in any caliber

>>34065817
Sure, but why pay for all that throat erosion just so you can shoot a precision competition bullet out of a lmg? You could drop the powder capacity to something akin to .265USA, and you'd end up with comparable barrel life to 7.62x51 while launching 123gr bullets just under 2700fps out of a 16" barrel.

File: 1452435429639.jpg (116KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 400x600px

>>34057044
>$5 a round going down range at 800 rpm

The military industrial complex is not that gluttonous.

>>34066690
Pray for polymer. My tax rate cannot handle the alternatives.

>>34056274
The next golden child will be the amu developed 264 USA

File: 1459695828213.gif (1MB, 198x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 198x200px

>>34057142
Holy shit. They actually are looking at a light machine gun using telescoped caseless ammo in .338 NM. Incredible. In fact, SOCOM and the USMC are ordering 5,000 of these.
>2000 meter effective range is being asked by SOCOM and the USMC

Wow. Not to mention that the constant improvements in body armor is going to require weapons to evolve and adapt.

>>34060009
The Hague Convention is the dumbest and most illogical international agreement in history. It was obsolete the moment it was thought up.

>>34056274
bump

They want something that can defeat level IV body armor. They could adopt an ar10/15 hybrid rifle(like the POF Revolution or the DPMS G2) in 7.62 NATO and then later re-chamber it to an enhanced intermediate caliber.

Not every soldier will be equipped with a battle rifle, they will keep all the M4s. What a soldier is equipped with will depend on their environment and their mission(high end warfare, urban counter insurgency, etc)

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/05/25/army-chief-calls-for-762mm-round-for-m4-rifle.html

File: Revolution-1.gif (117KB, 1500x422px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1500x422px

>>34068045
>pic related
It's not an AR10, it's a .308 AR15.

File: P1230597-900x601.jpg (261KB, 900x601px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 900x601px

>>34068045
The Colt CM901 also would meet the requirements.

>>34060009
We never signed that treaty.

>>34068045
No hand held rifle is gonna defeat level IV rifle plate.
Any rifle defeats kevlar.

>>34061080
no u

>>34062565
Too bad it failed miserably at that while having 150m less effective range due to a .45-70-esque trajectory with anything heavier than 90gr bullets and shit lethality with 90gr or less bullets.

Also it has substantially more recoil than 5.56, is less accurate and has worse lethality than 6.5gren, and worse effective range than either.

>>34068157
50 BMG will but nobody is going to lug that around all day
just my autism showing

>>34062300
>so WE CAN STOP FUCKING AROUND & WIN THE FUCKING WAR.

A trivial change in rifle and MG effectiveness isn't a war winner. More organic firepower and light tracked vehicles that can fit in a CH-47 or CH-53 (INSIDE, not sling loaded which is next to useless) to carry it to the fight would make far more difference.

Watch thish documentary on Marjah:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9Pq5JZ2Fd8

The Marines became pedestrians when they arrived and could not easily destroy or effectively pursue their opponents because they believe in lightfighter infantry and nothing else.

Why don't we have helicopter-mobile fighting vehicles? Russia does. They also air drop AFVs, sometimes with the crews in them.

>>34068045
>>34068157
They want something that can defeat Russian level 5 GOST armor*

http://www.sentineltailors.com/GOST-R-EN.pdf

File: 200w.gif (262KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 200x200px

>>34068157
You are so wrong it hurts. Have you not heard of:
>M993
>M995
?

Plus the various high end ap ammo produced for other small arm calibers.

>>34068157
Virtually any big-big game hunting rifle will blow through level IV / ESAPI in one hit. The real question is if you really want that or if you can be content with 2 to 3 hits to break the plate and penetrate, in which case a larger intermediate round than 5.56 may be better able to offer that as a guarantee.

Going for the latter method allows for more flexibility, as not everyone will have armor and suppressive fire is kind of hard to maintain when you're firing .300 WM. Obviously it will be more desirable to go for single-hit penetration if 1st world militaries start deploying full plate armor once again because no round nor rifle can also guarantee that successive hits will be on same spot on the same plate.

>>34068575
Level 3, not level 4. So as long as the plate hasn't lost integrity (modern pottery can apparently take a surprising amount of abuse) all forms of 5.56 do diddly squat against it. The problem is that current plates cover a minuscule amount of the body so bypassing it just by hitting the target at a side angle is way too common.

File: 1469204868009.gif (2MB, 390x205px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 390x205px

>>34068630
Dude, you are wrong. Simple as that. Tungsten core bullets such as the M993 and M995 were developed with level 4 in mind. Only the newer Level 4+ armor has a chance of stopping rounds such as those as well as rounds like the Russian 7n24, etc. And only the latest level "5" equivalent armor is guaranteed to stop at least 2 hits from these rounds until the armor is rendered useless.

>>34068758
>invented in 1992
>"were developed with level 4 in mind"
Well considering "level 4" didn't exist for almost a decade after the invention of them....no. They were brought about to enable riflemen and LMG/GPMG gunners to engage and destroy/disable IFV's.

They will penetrate rifle plates, but that was not their intended use when they were invented.

>>34068575
>>M993
>>M995
They barely penetrate at 100-200 meters with square hit. And this ammo not gonna be wide issue.

>>34068586
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZjBK5J6mNg

>>34066755
Wut. It's been followed for more than 100 years. Its not obsolete.

>>34068156
The US obeys the Hague Conventions on Chemical weapons. So other parts of the treaty don't apply? That's not how treaties work anon.

>>34056799
Way things are looking, MMG's might be going to 338 NM

>>34065817
Have you ever shot 6.5CM? At all? It's pretty much the maximum performance for that bullet diameter, the round is hot enough to shorten the life on barrels considerably more than more conventional rounds. Plus the performance you're getting isn't incredible for what you're using it for, (which is suppressive fire) and at the price compared to 7.62x51mm I have to ask why. Why are you expecting the American taxpayer pay out the ass for the same shit it already has?

There is no reason to not keep it 7-9mm, the only reason why anyone would go for a smaller caliber is if it was being pushed by an intermediary cartridge. Incredible kinetic performance is better handled on something larger that won't destroy barrels and beat the shit out of the guns that fire them.

>>34069845
Obviously the best solution is to make future rifles fire saboted finned flechettes to minimize the wear on barrels while achieving high velocities with relatively heavy darts. They could be only marginally smaller than the sabot diameter; just enough for the fins to work.

Hm, sounds familiar...

>>34056274
>Is 6.5 Creedmoor a meme

When Grendel exists and it is not exclusively sourced from Hornady, yes.

Who ever sad 6.5 creedmoor is not any good is a real fuckin dumb ass and don't know what they are talking about

>>34060029
Okay, so it's still a very good round within 400 yards or less...

>>34056274
6.5 CTSAS (which I understand to be an even longer and heavier bullet, almost as heavy as 7.62x51) is more likely.

The sad thing is, what we really need is 6.5 CTSAS for SAW/MMG/DMR, a 4-6mm CT PDW round for the rest of the squad, and small/cheap guided HE (both organic and from support fires--the latter already exists as PGMM), not a 1-caliber-fits-all that exceeds the practical accuracy of the average rifleman in a real firefight.

That old "Future Force Warrior" mock-up actually had a decent idea--a small PDW a launcher for 4 micro-missiles underneath.

>>34068157
I know that IV are rated for 30-06, but if you got a mag dumped in you by this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMvvTIKZsZ4

you wouldnt be happy

>>34069845
>Plus the performance you're getting isn't incredible for what you're using it for, (which is suppressive fire)
I get what youre saying, that field rifles shoudnt be used for close quarter combat. But all you have to do is look at how combat in Syria and Ukraine and you see that wars last longer now, its no longer just sending soldiers to rush in. The people who are winning wars now are using more precision rifles. I dont think the US soldiers have really showed themselves capable fighters in Afghanistan with 5.56 vs the 30cal, suppressive fire has done little but keep our soldiers in fox holes.

No way the US Armed Forces are going to replace 5,56 or 7,62 with another caliber unless it is something truly revolutionary, like caseless ammo. The cost involved will be just staggering.

>>34057486
>intermediate cartridge

There's your problem though.

>>34071372
>The cost involved will be just staggering.
If you replacing then yes. If you are supplementing existent weapons with 6.5mm DMR than not really. You need like 1-2 per squad and infantry squads are minuscule part of military personnel. Around 20k rifles would be enough for US and several hundred for average EU country land forces. This is thing that may be and should be done 20 years ago.

>>34065786
>imagine all the 5.56 and 7.62nato sur+

Anon why you do this I'm trying a nofap here

>>34070980
> 5.56 vs .30 cal

Why is a squad operating in isolation from it's platoon? Where are the platoons 240s? Where is the mounted Mk 19?

>>34069412
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907
(IV,3): Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Bullets which can Easily Expand or Change their Form inside the Human Body such as Bullets with a Hard Covering which does not Completely Cover the Core, or containing Indentations
This declaration states that, in any war between signatory powers, the parties will abstain from using "bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body." This directly banned soft-point bullets (which had a partial metal jacket and an exposed tip) and "cross-tipped" bullets (which had a cross-shaped incision in their tip to aid in expansion, nicknamed "Dum Dums" from the Dum Dum Arsenal in India). It was ratified by all major powers, except the United States


>It was ratified by all major powers, except the United States

We've been using expanding ammo for years now you fucking idiot, it's just not general issue..

>>34068157
That completely depends on the bullet, angle, range and gun you're shooting it out of senpai

The US Army would never change its small arms calibers unless the entire US armed forces changed their small arms calibers, and unless all NATO members agreed to a new STANAG

And the NATO members would never agree to that because it would involve spending money

>>34072237
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/29/czech-sf-buy-desert-tech-long-guns/

>>34057044
That was SOF that wanted 5000 of them. Not really replacing anything. A belt fed that can cover a 1000m are is desirable.

>>34069845
You realize the cost won't be the same if they picked it up right? The US army isn't driving down to Cabela's to scoop up all of their Hornady match ammo. Whatever caliber they decide to go with will be as cheap as 7.62 NATO after production gets rolling. And the barrel life issue is greatly exaggerated anyway. At an average of 2700 fps it's right around the middle ground for .308 velocity but with a +20gr lighter bullet and a much larger engagement surface. A comparably heavy barrel in 6.5 is going to have a life close to a .308 barrel. Ballistics aren't a 2 dimensional game anymore, where your trading velocity for bullet mass or vice versa. Efficiency is the name of the game, and 6.5mm bullets are twice as efficient

>>34059867

Everything deflects when it hits brush. This is a meme.

>>34072955
Of course it does to some degree. But it's a matter of how much.

>>34057087
>they want to replace the 240 with?

Breda 30

>>34056799
'then' - your opinion is irrelevant

>>34072359
But a 240 can already do that....

If you said 1800 i might have believed you

>>34073492
Not accurately or effectively. .308 goes transonic around 950m so its alot less predictable and has alot less energy by 1k

>>34056274

>meme

>in that context

protip: words have meanings

>>34057142
But the ammo is heavier, and the gun is going to have a shitload of recoil if it's lighter

>>34057225
you're a dipshit.

>>34057483
I like 6mm creedmoor better.
smaller, faster projectile with less drop.

>>34071882
>mk19
Not useful because pogs can't guess distance and humvees cant go everywhere

>>34074449
Did they leave the 240s back with the trucks as well? Regardless, sounds like even more reason to get that Pike and M320/ELGM combo ironed out.