6.5 Creedmoor as Service Cartridge?

LeeEnfieldNo.4_mk1

LeeEnfieldNo.4_mk1

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Location
Alberta
Just curious to what people opinions are to the 6.5 Creedmoor as a service cartridge could be. In this context it would be a single, standard service cartridge used in rifles around the 16 inch barrel length, MGs and medium range Precision/DMR with 20-24 inch barrels, with specialty rounds like the .338L and .50BMG being retained for long range precision and heavy MGs.

I am generally a bit of a 6.5 Fanboy, I think the Swedes/Finns had it right in 1894 when they adopted the 6.5x55. So I have been paying a bit of attention to the 6.5 Creedmoor. It, to my eyes, seems to have potential to be a great service cartridge. It seems to be being used by US SOCOM, and seems to address a lot of the issues with the 5.56 regards to energy and range, without the heavier recoil of the 7.62x51, without the compromises of the rounds like the 6.8SPC and Grendel. Its a proven cartridge with lots of good data as well. Yes, the rifle will be heavier, and apperently 6.5CM is a bit of a barrel burner (not sure if that by precion round context though).

Thoughts?
 
It's basically what the Americans have done for the new cartridge for the NGSW and M7, etc. 6.8x51mm (.277 Fury). It's a hybrid case so runs higher pressures and basically gets better performance/speed out of a 135 or 140gr bullet (using a 16" barrel) than what you get with a 24"+ 6.5 Creed barrel.

Whether or not it makes sense for every infantryman to have a "large frame" rifle or not is not my call to make...
 
the one thing that kills barrels is heat, full auto fire with a HOT cartridge will kill barrels quicker than what's being used now. all fine if the end user is willing to have a quicker parts replacement program, but not so good if they aren't.

Boltgun
 
greentips said:
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...te-caliber-cartridge-6-5x43mm-system.2345549/

Not sure where this has gone probably another dead in the water project
Click to expand...
I remember when you posted that and it does look interesting. I wonder if it burns out barrels as fast as the 6.5CM?

I wonder if there is any movement from FN on the above though.

I have to think about how there must be something wrong with the 6.5CM since so many companies are developing new rounds instead of looking at the CM.
 
I've heard the exact opposite regarding the 6.5 Creedmoor, its not a barrel burner. The general thoughts are that you need to be over 3000 fps to start getting hard on 6.5 barrels of any calibre, and the Creedmoor does not do that, specially with factory ammo. An easy way to sell more guns is to come up with new calibres. The 6.5 Creedmoor is incredibly popular currently, and ammo has become available almost everywhere its sold.
 
There's nothing "wrong" with 6.5 CM, there's just no free lunch. Programs like the NGSW and related ammo were done to get 6.5 CM performance out of shorter barrel lengths (than are typical for a 6.5 bolt gun). The 6.8x51 ammo does that by using a hybrid case (in a novel cartridge). There are other solutions that realistically are a better fit for non-specialist infantry than a large frame rifle using 6.5 CM. A few companies have started using Shell Shock Technologies NAS3 (nickel alloy) case to load ammo in existing cartridges (you can currently buy 77gr .223 Black Arc ammo stateside) that runs higher pressure and gets way higher velocities, like 2900+ with 77s out of an 18" barrel. I have some buddies that run it at matches and have been testing their .308 and 6.5 CM ammo. It's pretty game changing in terms of way increasing the performance of existing rifles chambered for typical ammo.
 
i think the guns for ww III have to be able to:
- shoot long distances in a european ground war
- fight a modern enemy with armour
- be better at barrier penetration

barrier penetration requires a big bullet.
armour penetration requires a fast bullet.
and the european ground war bit requires that the big bullet is still moving fast out to distance.

all with a short barrel. dunno if 6.5 CM can do that, but the us army thinks the fury can.
 
6.8 is chosen (vs 6.5) in the NGSW is based on some calculation of mass/velocity/hardness/energy stuff(through finite element analysis like how they design sabot penetrator for tank guns ) so that a yet to be announced tungsten core can smash through ceramic plate. The surrogate bullets and the velocity were ""provided" to vendors by the DoD and the vendors created the "cartridge".

Hence the bullpup with 20" bbl in plastic case vs super high pressure short barrel with hybrid, or caseless stuff that won't get to the velocity- two ways to get to the objective. That bullet of that mass must go at the velocity in that hardness to achieve the AP property. 6.5 will not do. that 7 to 10% of mass combining with velocity difference just jig together for the difference between 6.8 and 6.5

DoD did the science, the vendor did the engineering and manufacturing. DoD even invented a new tungsten sintering process and giving it out for free to manufacturer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom