LVSteve
Member
6.5 Creedmoor has a maximum pressure of 62k PSI, and 7.62x51 is ~60k PSI. I don't think that's a big enough pressure difference to increase bore erosion significantly.
AR replacement
- Thread starter speedyjerry
- Start date
I’ve reached the point that I’m not “upgrading” anymore. I learned to shoot with an M16A1 and I thought the M4 was a good idea (well after I ETS’ed). When the FN SCAR was released I looked at one at a LGS and it was like picking up a 2x6. I like firearms but I haven’t seen any substantial improvements over the AR15 design. A properly equipped AR is almost as handy as a lever action rifle... and more handy when you add optics, a light, and a sling.
LVSteve
Member
The US armed forces have been fighting the laws of physics with their rifles because of two things they won't change, the M4 manual of arms and the 14.5" barrel length. Throw in the recent advances in the body armor of peer nations and the desire to "take back the half-kilometer" and you end up with this bonkers 6.8 round because of the parameters that are fixed. I have little doubt that we are looking at another M-14 debacle in the short/medium term.
The taking back of the half-kilometer is an unrealistic pipe dream. and the new rifle has a 13" barrel, which is not helping, the only good thing is the wide spread issue and use of suppressors. Hear loss is a thing, but yeah, in the end, it's the M14 all over again.
AJ
US Veteran
I just laugh at all of this new rifle and new round concept. The 6.5 Grendel is trying to do the job that the 6.5 Swede has been doing for years. Just design a battle rifle in semiauto around the 6.5 Swede that works. what is so hard about that. The gun companies just come up with all these new calibers to sell their wares. When the new stuff can place rounds in the target like the attached with open sight at 100 yards then maybe it is good enough.
Yendor357
Member
A Grendel will put a hole in a deer; not thru it. Then you get to drag it 400 yards when you finally find it. After the second time that happened, I’ll not shoot anything bigger than a coyote with a Grendel.
In my experience, and yours maybe different, the 6.5 Creed isn’t much better. The 308 knocks stuff down where they stand.
All those wiz bang metric rounds have existed for over 100 years, they were just named something different. Same ballistics.
There’s a reason the US military stayed with the 30 caliber. The 308 may not have the paper ballistics. But in the real world, where it counts, the 30 works.
In my experience, and yours maybe different, the 6.5 Creed isn’t much better. The 308 knocks stuff down where they stand.
All those wiz bang metric rounds have existed for over 100 years, they were just named something different. Same ballistics.
There’s a reason the US military stayed with the 30 caliber. The 308 may not have the paper ballistics. But in the real world, where it counts, the 30 works.
Same opinion here. The .mil contracts might jump start this ammunition a bit, but it’s way too heavy to carry enough of it to a firefight and functionally seems to be trying to fill all roles with none really filled. IMO, it’s an expensive silly solution to a nonexistent problem. 5.56 is perfectly capable at realistic engagement ranges; this nifty new scope the m7 comes with could just as easily be used to generate improved hit potentials at those longer ranges for existing rifles. Taking a 1500 ft/lb rifle round COM after a 400 meter flight on a plate is still going to ruin a Chinese stormtrooper’s day even if the first hit ain’t 100% lethal; the two behind that will probably put him out of the fight entirely. On the other side, .308 and granddaddy legacy .30 caliber cartridges were literally built to drop large animals at a kilometer or so…even “failures” like .30/40 Army were pretty potent out to like 800 meters from the perspective of energy delivery, muzzle velocity and terminal affect. Seems like this .277 is merely competent at those ranges…I don’t see it replacing 7.62mm NATO as a readily-accepted long-range cartridge in functional terms.
If we’re concerned about the half-kilometer, we know from brutal experience that the answer ain’t lower capacity and heavier rounds from a heavy rifle; that’s the story of the Garand in Korea all over again (that prompted the eventual development of the light rifle).
Bottom line, this is a silly rifle.
If we’re concerned about the half-kilometer, we know from brutal experience that the answer ain’t lower capacity and heavier rounds from a heavy rifle; that’s the story of the Garand in Korea all over again (that prompted the eventual development of the light rifle).
Bottom line, this is a silly rifle.
IIRC (and after a quick look at service rifle load data), the original mil-spec for .30-06 with the 150 gr spitzer bullet was 2700 f/s. The 7.62 x 51 design was intended for improved function in full auto weapon systems and had a greatly improved extractor groove, shorter case length and a couple of minor other changes. Intent was to provide the same 2700 f/s with improved powders.
Per an article in American Rifleman, the Light Rifle Project (cal .22) was launched around Korea as a result of data developed after WWII (possibly including Korea) that showed the vast majority of casualties were caused by crew served weapons. Fire by individual riflemen was generally ineffective over 300 yards. (I kinda suspect that the success of the StG 44 had a great influence.) Adoption of the 7.62 as the NATO round killed it. Then, the practical demonstration of the results of that study (and M14 issues) rejuvenated the Light Rifle concept.
A lot of new cartridge development is based upon the idea that high BC bullets and high velocity reduces wind drift and bullet drop and makes hitting things way out yonder easier. OK, that's a valid project for long range shooting if you ignore the barrel life and resupply/maintenance issues. SFAIK, the original/alleged thrust of the 6.8 x 51 project was the ability to defeat newer body armor. If true, some bullet development in current calibers would seem to be a more logical path. However, that's not as beneficial to either careers or the defense industry. As is increased & improved marksmanship training that would improve hit potential way out there.
IIRC, the new wunder gewehr isn't intended as the general service weapon. At least initially.
Per an article in American Rifleman, the Light Rifle Project (cal .22) was launched around Korea as a result of data developed after WWII (possibly including Korea) that showed the vast majority of casualties were caused by crew served weapons. Fire by individual riflemen was generally ineffective over 300 yards. (I kinda suspect that the success of the StG 44 had a great influence.) Adoption of the 7.62 as the NATO round killed it. Then, the practical demonstration of the results of that study (and M14 issues) rejuvenated the Light Rifle concept.
A lot of new cartridge development is based upon the idea that high BC bullets and high velocity reduces wind drift and bullet drop and makes hitting things way out yonder easier. OK, that's a valid project for long range shooting if you ignore the barrel life and resupply/maintenance issues. SFAIK, the original/alleged thrust of the 6.8 x 51 project was the ability to defeat newer body armor. If true, some bullet development in current calibers would seem to be a more logical path. However, that's not as beneficial to either careers or the defense industry. As is increased & improved marksmanship training that would improve hit potential way out there.
IIRC, the new wunder gewehr isn't intended as the general service weapon. At least initially.
It's not just the pressure, it's also the bore diameter and powder capacity. In short, with the 6.5 CM its not just higher pressure, but a significantly smaller bore volume and not much less powder capacity.
LVSteve
Member
LVSteve
Member
I agree. The half kilometer thing comes out of Afghanistan and Irag where hits with M855 on skinny, drugged-up insurgents at over 300 yards barely fazed them unless you got a CNS hit. Of course, this assumes that the claimed hits were actually hits.
I would caution all that the effectiveness of body armor has taken a steep upturn over the last 5-10 years. There was a video on Twitter a while back of some Wagner guys trying to shoot through some weird Ukrainian armor at close range. They were not having much luck, which was a surprise to me given the Russian love of steel cored ammo.
Wasting money is what our government does best . 6.5 grendell is a far better upgrade than changing to a lard but siggly wonder gun , that might include money spent on siggly handgun and siggly optics . I not a glock fan at all but a glock would have been a better choice in the field over the p320/m17- 18 .
A 277 fury fires a 135gr bullet at 3000 fps . I manage better than that what I tested it with my 18" rem 788 with 150gr superformance ammo at 2996fps . Just money spent for a second class weapon.
A 277 fury fires a 135gr bullet at 3000 fps . I manage better than that what I tested it with my 18" rem 788 with 150gr superformance ammo at 2996fps . Just money spent for a second class weapon.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2025
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 3
Another shining example of the fact that there is very little that is truly new under the sun...
The patented new magic bullet keeps up with tactics changes on the ground and in locations where distance is a key factor. It takes massive power, such as a 300 Win mag to make it work at 600 yards. The 5.56 is simply worthless on body armor beyond about 300 meters. The steel cased 76,000 psi case with the magic bullet zips through body armor at 600 meters. The optics make what they call "first round hits" due to built in range finders. It is a game changer never before seen.
The new magic bullet is said to penetrate up to 2 feet of concrete, other than a 50, that has never been done on a battlefield before.
I personally know the rocket scientist who invented the magic bullet and have read the patent. Expensive but entirely practical. The 308 simple does not have enough power.
The change in tactics and this final decision has been thru many presidents and their close to a dozen defense secretaries. As a former infantry officer, they got it right. Hard to explain to people who have never carried an M16, M14, or M60 running up hills. The average Marine in the field is 5 foot 9 and weighs 175 pounds, distance between elbows when moving is about 22 inches, shoulder with is about 17 inches, and sleeve length is 34 inches. If you do not understand why this matters, ten you do not understand what length and weight means to a troop in the field.
As to kicking doors and rounds fired indoors, write down every person you know who has done that in 2 decades......does not happen. 99% of shots fired are outdoors. The close combat indoors issue is for SAWT teams, it seldom happens in the military the last 2 decades. Think about it, they booby trap those places, only a fool sends troops inside. Only a rare mission such as the search for bin laden sees that action.
Just saying, comments about the troops hating it are just naysayers. A couple UTubes went out from rookies. Both served only one deployment and sighed up for one tour. One captain was a National Guard Troop who deployed on time and immediately got out, the other was a SPC 4, not even a squad leader. Ask any 20 year Infantryman about the new tactics and options give by this new weapons system. We love it, the rookies have no clue. If you ask the naysayers about their combat experience, none have ever kicked a door. They are just like us on a forum, just given opinions. Kind of like my opinion on the new space program, I have one, but it is worthless, because I am not a rocket scientist.
I have killed a lot of deer with the 308, so what? I have not killed a person hiding behind a concrete wall. Different weapon for different task.
That is the training round or civilian hunting round. So, what? The load with the magic bullet shoot through steel plates, you 6.5 goes ding and makes a grey splat.
Follow the money.
Older designs …(whaa??…the M16/AR10/M4 are “older…??) … have to be found “out of date” for mfr’s to persuade the brass and pols that something “new and improved” is necessary …and a new Defense-budget must be developed.
Why is it that the .50 BMG still has relevance? Wonder of wonders….
Older designs …(whaa??…the M16/AR10/M4 are “older…??) … have to be found “out of date” for mfr’s to persuade the brass and pols that something “new and improved” is necessary …and a new Defense-budget must be developed.
Why is it that the .50 BMG still has relevance? Wonder of wonders….
I wonder how well the new 6.8 will work on body armor? Here is a very non-scientific test that's pretty interesting with 50 BMG. Also, Black Hills has a 110 TSX at 3000 from a 16" .308 barrel. FWIW, DVC
**stares in GWOT**
I’m…fairly certain I was inside buildings a lot, and in these weird clumps of buildings all close together with a lot of people a lot more…
Maybe it was all the banned chemicals in the water bottles or the hot hot sun, but I am pretty certain buildings and towns and houses were common surroundings for me on my GWOT adventure.
bigggbbruce
Member
When it's Zombie hunting time. I want calibers with ammunition that is readily available.
7.62 NATO
5.56.NATO....
7.62 NATO
5.56.NATO....
