Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > Special Forces Weapons > Weapons Discussion Area

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-03-2018, 18:08   #16
G2squared
Auxiliary
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Portland, Oregon area
Posts: 63
When you figure it out please share. Mamma wants matching shoes with baby!
G2squared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2018, 12:24   #17
exsquid
Quiet Professional
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lower Alabama
Posts: 575
miclo18d:

By "performance" I am referring to external ballistics only. As I understand it. If you compare the external ballistics of the 6.5CM vs. the 7.62X51 in a 20" inch barrel, the 6.5CM will shoot flatter, more stable, and stay supersonic to a greater distance due to the higher BC. However, if you are shooting the shorter 16" barrel the decrease in velocity causes less negative effect on the 7.62X51 (when using a high twist rate like 1:10") vs. the 6.5CM. I don't have the numbers, but if I remember correctly, the 6.5CM will actually go transonic sooner. Now, I am no Brian Litz and I could be wrong, but that is how I understand it. As for terminal ballistics, I have no idea. If I don't have to hump it around, like riding around in an RG or sitting in a VSP, I would absolutely take a 20" 6.5CM due to the increased accuracy and range. If I am patrolling on foot, I would take the "handier" 16" 7.62X51 and accept that my range is 800mtrs maximum.

x/S
__________________
If not us, than who?
exsquid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2018, 15:55   #18
miclo18d
Quiet Professional
 
miclo18d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by exsquid View Post
miclo18d:

By "performance" I am referring to external ballistics only. As I understand it. If you compare the external ballistics of the 6.5CM vs. the 7.62X51 in a 20" inch barrel, the 6.5CM will shoot flatter, more stable, and stay supersonic to a greater distance due to the higher BC. However, if you are shooting the shorter 16" barrel the decrease in velocity causes less negative effect on the 7.62X51 (when using a high twist rate like 1:10") vs. the 6.5CM. I don't have the numbers, but if I remember correctly, the 6.5CM will actually go transonic sooner. Now, I am no Brian Litz and I could be wrong, but that is how I understand it. As for terminal ballistics, I have no idea. If I don't have to hump it around, like riding around in an RG or sitting in a VSP, I would absolutely take a 20" 6.5CM due to the increased accuracy and range. If I am patrolling on foot, I would take the "handier" 16" 7.62X51 and accept that my range is 800mtrs maximum.

x/S
No worries, I wasn’t trying to create drama. Everything I have researched shows the 6.5CM matches more to 300WM and is superior to .308. The only downside I’ve ever heard was barrel wear. Which, IMHO, is a BS argument. Uncle Sugar can afford barrels (and so can I). Another cartridge I’ve been wondering about is the 300 Norma Magnum which is performing more like ultra mag. What I seem to read about, it’s all about the ability to seat longer bullets (not that big army is hand loading), which allows you to dial in the accuracy.
__________________
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." — Jeff Cooper
miclo18d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2018, 00:53   #19
Uman
Quiet Professional
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 83
An older 18B's call

Basic military small arms design considerations point to the .260 Remington as the better military cartridge. The reason is it is just a necked down version of the .308 WIN. This cartridge has more of a body taper from the head to the shoulder to facilitate extraction in a dirty chamber. A straight walled case will have more friction on it until the shoulder clears the rear of the chamber. Plus this taper facilitates the feeding from a box magazine better. Think of a triangle vs a rectangle, picture both of them being puled out of a matching slot, the triangle becomes loose after a small movement, not so with the rectangle. Just basic military small arms design that all 18"Bs should know.
Uman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2018, 12:10   #20
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
 
Team Sergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20,927
7.62x51 to 5.56 to 6.5 very amusing indeed................

7.62x51 to 5.56 to 6.5 very amusing indeed. The army in it's infinite wisdom is now climbing back up the bullet tree it climbed down from in the 50's and 60's.

Actually very surprising as females wish to join the "combat" ranks. The combat load is once again becoming "heavier", again.

Personally I'd have every other soldier assigned to the infantry carrying 7.62x51 for long range and 5.56 for the close in stuff. But that's not "uniform". Wouldn't look good in a parade, generals would hate that.....................
__________________
"The Spartans do not ask how many are the enemy, but where they are."
Team Sergeant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2018, 12:20   #21
JJ_BPK
Quiet Professional
 
JJ_BPK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NOVA
Posts: 10,152
After WW II, the Army ALMOST selected the FN FAL. The initial tests were with the British 280 cal. But Mother Army had to have a .30 inch, so the 7.62x51 was born :]

Quote:
Originally Posted by .280 British - wikipedia
The .280 British was an experimental rimless bottlenecked intermediate rifle cartridge. It was later designated 7 mm MK1Z, and has also been known as 7 mm NATO, .280/30, .280 Enfield, .280 NATO, 7 mm FN Short, and 7×43mm.

Like most armed forces in the immediate post-World War II era, the British Army began experimenting with lighter rounds after meeting the German StG 44 in combat. The Army began development in the late 1940s, with subsequent help from Fabrique Nationale in Belgium and the Canadian Army. The .280 British was tested in a variety of rifles and machine guns including the EM-2, Lee–Enfield, FN FAL, Bren, M1 Garand and Taden gun.

Despite its success as an intermediate cartridge, the .280 British was not considered powerful enough by the U.S. Army and several variants of the .280 British were created in an attempt to appease the U.S. Army. However, the U.S. Army continued to reject these variants, ultimately adopting the 7.62×51mm NATO.


__________________
Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh

"May you be a half hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead"
JJ_BPK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2018, 10:48   #22
Box
Quiet Professional
 
Box's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 3,958
Once they weaponize the iPAD we can do away with all of this silly gun stuff anyway.
__________________
Opinions stated in this post are solely those of the author, and in no way reflect the opinions or policies of The Department of Defense, The United States Army, or The 1st Special Forces Regiment. These opinions are provided purely as social commentary and are not meant to be used for mission planning or navigation.

...Hillary Klint0n is NOT my president


"Make sure your own mask is secure before assisting others"
-Airplane Safety Briefing
Box is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2018, 15:12   #23
7624U
Quiet Professional
 
7624U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jasper Tennessee
Posts: 927
338 Norma Magnum. With 16in barrel and 10rd box magazine, It will be California compliant ! Man up and take the recoil you wont need a follow on shot, Even comes in belt fed Machinegun form.
__________________
"Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it.”

"Robert A. Heinlein"
7624U is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:17.



Copyright 2004-2019 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies