Maverick223
Member
True, I wasn't trying to suggest that the military would adopt 6.5G (or 6.8SPC), as I don't believe they will...just that the parent case isn't the issue.
6.2mm OCC
- Thread starter deadduck357
- Start date
- Status
I got you.
As for my response, there's a whole list of problems this thing address. I know - I've been hearing about the OCC for weeks now. I could probably recite most of the sales pitch in my sleep with a...reasonable degree of accuracy.
Plus, as long as I keep working with Deadduck he keeps buying me Mexican dinners.
As for my response, there's a whole list of problems this thing address. I know - I've been hearing about the OCC for weeks now. I could probably recite most of the sales pitch in my sleep with a...reasonable degree of accuracy.
Plus, as long as I keep working with Deadduck he keeps buying me Mexican dinners.
I think a 6mm bullet is the way to go when retrofitting current equipment. If starting from scratch I'm not so sure, but if we are trying to fit in a standard m16 type rifle I have always thought a 6mm would be the best option overall. For the relative maximum velocity you can get out of the m16 sized cases, the 6mm, to me, has always seemed like the best weight/diameter for the energy delivered. Good luck. I certainly have been looking at 6mm options for a while.
deadduck357
Member
The 6mm is the optimal solution while working with the existing platform. If there were to be a new platform the caliber selection would be broader. My ideal caliber would be 6.5mm but this would require a longer case which we do not have the fortune. 6mm is ideal giving the restrictions, it gives you good weight + length = good BC.
Maverick223
Member
How do you figure that?
deadduck357
Member
The military is finding that the 77gr is more effective than the 62gr. While my cartridge does have good BC its not the greatest, I do agree with you, I was not looking for the greatest BC, just good. Better BC would require a heavier 6mm projectile, say 100gr+, but this cartridge was not designed to be a benchrest round, so I tried to work in the medium. 100gr+ projectiles would diminish the performance, this is why I went with 75--90gr projectiles.
OKLA Shooter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 2
Just an observation .. but all of this seems to be more simply necking down an existing cartridge case and slamming a 6mm bullet in it. A no-brainer. BTW and JFYI ( since you like acronyms ) Also, it is somewhat " naive " if not and/or " arrogant" to call an unfired, untested " round " .. the " optimum combat cartridge " when it has never even been fired from a test barrel .. or worse, never been tested by the military or used in combat! I'm sure military experts and/or real veterans would enjoy that unjustified optimism. However, there seems to be quite a bit of " plagarism " in the accummulated information, and, lacking in theory from true ballistics testing. Where is the accurate information on interior and exterior ballistics that pertains to; chamber pressures, headspace, throat erosion on test barrels, if any... velocity, energy, trajectory, penetration,expansion, comparative ballistic coefficients, sectional density, wind vector-wind drift at varying distances, effects of barometric pressure, altitude, temperature .. on and on ... that would justify even remotely calling this " unknown " cartridge the " optimum combat cartridge" ? Doesn't come across with much merit to call a cartridge " optimal " that has not been tried and tested.
Maverick is right on one thing. Numerically and mathematically a 6.2mm is a 6mm ! Maybe the developer doesn't know, but, anything between 6.0 and 6.999999999 is a 6mm. We don't say we have ten and half cents do we ? We say we have 10 cents .. same concept numerically. So, no need to quibble over a cartridge that is significantly 6.2mm or 6.258mm .. right ? I mean, there is this thing called " infinity " in numbers. Pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter= 3.14159265358979323846. ... and it repeats itself .. as do most measurements, if you want to be scientifically exact and precise.
1. It is expensive to correctly manufacture a mold, even in small quantities ( or machine from metal ) even something as simple as a key chain !
2. Does the developer have any combat experience or combat training in a military unit in his background ? Does he shoot .. or .. just like to " talk about shooting " .
3. Is he a mechanical engineer or a trained ballistics technician ?
4. Is he a distinguished shooter ( one who through " experience " has achieved success, reward or award ) ?
5. Has he discussed with combat and military veterans the effects of past and present military rounds in combat ?
6 Seems like the developer has never reloaded or target level reloaded for benchrest shooting. You can't seat a bullet in the case neck anywhere you want to just to reach a " convenient " overall cartridge length. There are parameters for bullet seating depth. ( if you seat it too deep, it can just fall into the case, as an extreme example ! )
Remember .... there is a world of difference between an " authority " and a " self-proclaimed " authority. The self proclaimed authority only has himself/herself to justify that authority . Most authorities have true experience and training , or , PROVEN ability that justifies them being called an " authority " ... by others . There are no shortcuts.
) Also, it is somewhat " naive " if not and/or " arrogant" to call an unfired, untested " round " .. the " optimum combat cartridge " when it has never even been fired from a test barrel .. or worse, never been tested by the military or used in combat! I'm sure military experts and/or real veterans would enjoy that unjustified optimism. However, there seems to be quite a bit of " plagarism " in the accummulated information, and, lacking in theory from true ballistics testing. Where is the accurate information on interior and exterior ballistics that pertains to; chamber pressures, headspace, throat erosion on test barrels, if any... velocity, energy, trajectory, penetration,expansion, comparative ballistic coefficients, sectional density, wind vector-wind drift at varying distances, effects of barometric pressure, altitude, temperature .. on and on ... that would justify even remotely calling this " unknown " cartridge the " optimum combat cartridge" ? Doesn't come across with much merit to call a cartridge " optimal " that has not been tried and tested.Maverick is right on one thing. Numerically and mathematically a 6.2mm is a 6mm ! Maybe the developer doesn't know, but, anything between 6.0 and 6.999999999 is a 6mm. We don't say we have ten and half cents do we ? We say we have 10 cents .. same concept numerically. So, no need to quibble over a cartridge that is significantly 6.2mm or 6.258mm .. right ? I mean, there is this thing called " infinity " in numbers. Pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter= 3.14159265358979323846. ... and it repeats itself .. as do most measurements, if you want to be scientifically exact and precise.
1. It is expensive to correctly manufacture a mold, even in small quantities ( or machine from metal ) even something as simple as a key chain !
2. Does the developer have any combat experience or combat training in a military unit in his background ? Does he shoot .. or .. just like to " talk about shooting " .
3. Is he a mechanical engineer or a trained ballistics technician ?
4. Is he a distinguished shooter ( one who through " experience " has achieved success, reward or award ) ?
5. Has he discussed with combat and military veterans the effects of past and present military rounds in combat ?
6 Seems like the developer has never reloaded or target level reloaded for benchrest shooting. You can't seat a bullet in the case neck anywhere you want to just to reach a " convenient " overall cartridge length. There are parameters for bullet seating depth. ( if you seat it too deep, it can just fall into the case, as an extreme example ! )
Remember .... there is a world of difference between an " authority " and a " self-proclaimed " authority. The self proclaimed authority only has himself/herself to justify that authority . Most authorities have true experience and training , or , PROVEN ability that justifies them being called an " authority " ... by others . There are no shortcuts.
Does the developer have any combat experience or combat training in a military unit in his background ? Does he shoot .. or .. just like to " talk about shooting " .
Did Bell have alot of experience using telephones before he invented one? Did the Wright brothers have a lot of flight time when they drew up the first airplane?
Did Bell have alot of experience using telephones before he invented one? Did the Wright brothers have a lot of flight time when they drew up the first airplane?
"Numerically and mathematically a 6.2mm is a 6mm ! Maybe the developer doesn't know, but, anything between 6.0 and 6.999999999 is a 6mm. We don't say we have ten and half cents do we ? We say we have 10 cents .. same concept numerically. So, no need to quibble over a cartridge that is significantly 6.2mm or 6.258mm .. right ?"
So then what do you call a 6.5mm bullet? Do you call them 6mm. What about 6.8mm bullets? Call them 6mm as well? What about 7mm, 7.62, and 7.7? While I do see your point that a 6.2 is accepted as a 6mm, the part about everything from 6.0 to 6.9999... isn't correct and isn't accepted by the shooting community. While we may not have 10 and a half cents we certainly have ten and a half dollars.
So then what do you call a 6.5mm bullet? Do you call them 6mm. What about 6.8mm bullets? Call them 6mm as well? What about 7mm, 7.62, and 7.7? While I do see your point that a 6.2 is accepted as a 6mm, the part about everything from 6.0 to 6.9999... isn't correct and isn't accepted by the shooting community. While we may not have 10 and a half cents we certainly have ten and a half dollars.
Maverick223
Member
Not really what I meant, what I was referring to is that the "6.2mm" is pretty much globally recognized as a 6mm (or alternatively .243cal). OTOH 6.99∞mm ≠ 6mm.OKLA Shooter said:
Also, I think you were a bit harsh to the OP, that has a pretty decent idea IMO; especially considering it is your initial post here at THR.
OKLA Shooter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 2
Benzy .... abstract, I was talking about the " categories " of rounds .. 5mm,6mm,7mm,8mm,9mm. Uh, .. 6.9999 is a 6mm back when I was in college.
MNoShoot .... Alexander Graham Bell didn't take his untried, untested phone to a Verizon center with tried and tested modern technology and say " this is the optimum civilian telephone". The Wright Brothers would be considered morons if they took the Kitty Hawk to an air show today and said " this is the optimum combat fighter " . This is 2010 .. not 1905. You see, in their time .. it was the " only " phone and " only " airplane !
It amazes me that many on these forums don't understand how the military operates. And, I can tell from the comments on this forum that many don't .
This suggestion of " optimum " combat cartridge, ( after many weapons have served in past and present wars. e.g. M1Garand, M1 Carbine, M14, M-16 ) ..untested .. without specs .. never having been fired from a test rifle, without specs .., is like you building a car in your backyard without wheels on it yet and saying " this is the fastest car in the world " .
Good luck ...
MNoShoot .... Alexander Graham Bell didn't take his untried, untested phone to a Verizon center with tried and tested modern technology and say " this is the optimum civilian telephone". The Wright Brothers would be considered morons if they took the Kitty Hawk to an air show today and said " this is the optimum combat fighter " . This is 2010 .. not 1905. You see, in their time .. it was the " only " phone and " only " airplane !
It amazes me that many on these forums don't understand how the military operates. And, I can tell from the comments on this forum that many don't .
This suggestion of " optimum " combat cartridge, ( after many weapons have served in past and present wars. e.g. M1Garand, M1 Carbine, M14, M-16 ) ..untested .. without specs .. never having been fired from a test rifle, without specs .., is like you building a car in your backyard without wheels on it yet and saying " this is the fastest car in the world " .
Good luck ...
Maverick223
Member
Not a math major were you?...[strike]accounting[/strike] miscounting perhaps?
deadduck357
Member
WOW, haven't been here in a while,WOW.
Looks like someone targeted my thread, joined THR and replied to this thread 2 times all in the same day. Hrmmm. Makes ya wonder.
Thanks to mshootnit, benzy2 & Maverick223
I never once stated I was an "authority". Be more thorough.
As for your problem with 'Optimum', again you should be more thorough.
Merriam-Webster - Optimum: Greatest degree attained or attainable under
implied or specified conditions.
If OCC offends, just call it 6.2 OCC (Optimum Chupacabra Cartridge).
Looks like someone targeted my thread, joined THR and replied to this thread 2 times all in the same day. Hrmmm. Makes ya wonder.
Thanks to mshootnit, benzy2 & Maverick223
I never once stated I was an "authority". Be more thorough.
As for your problem with 'Optimum', again you should be more thorough.
Merriam-Webster - Optimum: Greatest degree attained or attainable under
implied or specified conditions.
If OCC offends, just call it 6.2 OCC (Optimum Chupacabra Cartridge).
Last edited by a moderator:
Maverick223
Member
NP deadduck, good luck on the project.
praharin
Member
At least it has a cool name. I'll be following this, as I am looking for an AR15 in a harder hitting caliber for 300-400 yards max. 6.8 has been the winner so far, but if the 6.2 performs as you say it will, i'll try to keep an eye on it.
If it works out, I may have to build one in a CZ 527 platform also.
If it works out, I may have to build one in a CZ 527 platform also.
longdayjake
Member
I personally find this idea to be a FAIL.
Why?
1. The BC numbers presented don't beat that of the 6.8 bullet.
2. Requiring light bullets to go at high velocity is basically what we are doing right now with the 5.56.
3. The ability to use much heavier bullets in the 6.8 and 6.5 increases the amount of energy deposited on target.
4. The higher weight and bc bullets of the 6.5 help it to maintain killing power out to a much longer range even at lower velocities.
5. The 6.8 spcII has been achieving the higher velocities that the military dropped the spcI for not obtaining.
6. Velocity is not the only factor behind terminal performance.
7. I doubt that with less powder capacity you are going to get a 75 grain bullet to go much faster than an 85 grain bullet from the 6.8 with more powder capacity.
8. Because the 6mm bullet is longer it would require a faster twist rate to stabalize it. The faster twist rate of the spcI was known to dramatically reduce initial velocity.
9. Because the 6mm bullet is longer it will suffer from the same limitations of the 6.5 grendel. It will have more surface area on the body requiring more pressure to push them out at the same velocity of the 6.8 bullets. You will reach your pressure limit before you can reach your velocity goal.
I think its time to admit that the real following behind any ar intermediate cartridge is all based on the bullet itself.
Those that love the .270 will go with the 6.8
Those that love the .264 will go with the 6.5
Those that love their 6mms will like your idea.
Seriously though, all of you guys that said you liked this idea probably have a .243 in their safe right?
Why?
1. The BC numbers presented don't beat that of the 6.8 bullet.
2. Requiring light bullets to go at high velocity is basically what we are doing right now with the 5.56.
3. The ability to use much heavier bullets in the 6.8 and 6.5 increases the amount of energy deposited on target.
4. The higher weight and bc bullets of the 6.5 help it to maintain killing power out to a much longer range even at lower velocities.
5. The 6.8 spcII has been achieving the higher velocities that the military dropped the spcI for not obtaining.
6. Velocity is not the only factor behind terminal performance.
7. I doubt that with less powder capacity you are going to get a 75 grain bullet to go much faster than an 85 grain bullet from the 6.8 with more powder capacity.
8. Because the 6mm bullet is longer it would require a faster twist rate to stabalize it. The faster twist rate of the spcI was known to dramatically reduce initial velocity.
9. Because the 6mm bullet is longer it will suffer from the same limitations of the 6.5 grendel. It will have more surface area on the body requiring more pressure to push them out at the same velocity of the 6.8 bullets. You will reach your pressure limit before you can reach your velocity goal.
I think its time to admit that the real following behind any ar intermediate cartridge is all based on the bullet itself.
Those that love the .270 will go with the 6.8
Those that love the .264 will go with the 6.5
Those that love their 6mms will like your idea.
Seriously though, all of you guys that said you liked this idea probably have a .243 in their safe right?
Last edited:
praharin
Member
a 243 Win won't fit in a standard AR15 action though
Maverick223
Member
No, not a big fan of the .243Win, or most other 6mm due to overbore/short bbl life. I generally prefer a 6.5/7mm, but do not care for the .270/6.8mm that much. That said, I feel that the caliber should be matched to the case capacity. .22s work well in a .223Rem./5.56NATO case size, 6.5mm is good for a .308 case size (.260Rem.), 7mm is good in a .30-06 case size (.280Rem.), and .30cal is well suited to a magnum case (.300WM), anything over .338cal needs to be underbore to be controllable, but that is acceptable for the applications that it is suited for. Personally I believe that the "6.2mmOCC" has a good caliber/capacity relationship so I rather like the idea (though I prefer the 6.5Grendel for civilian use).
deadduck357
Member
No, not a big fan of the .243Win, or most other 6mm due to overbore/short bbl life. I generally prefer a 6.5/7mm, but do not care for the .270/6.8mm that much. That said, I feel that the caliber should be matched to the case capacity. .22s work well in a .223Rem./5.56NATO case size, 6.5mm is good for a .308 case size (.260Rem.), 7mm is good in a .30-06 case size (.280Rem.), and .30cal is well suited to a magnum case (.300WM), anything over .338cal needs to be underbore to be controllable, but that is acceptable for the applications that it is suited for. Personally I believe that the "6.2mmOCC" has a good caliber/capacity relationship so I rather like the idea (though I prefer the 6.5Grendel for civilian use).
How are you doing that, reading my mind, thats just not right.
Maverick223
Member
I didn't read your mind I hacked into your computer.
deadduck357
Member
Much of what you say is true, BUT at a LOSS of magazine capacity and mediocre velocities.
2) Military rounds have increased in weight. 55gr to 62gr and now 75 - 77gr.
7) I wouldn't compare the .277 85gr to a 75gr 6mm, the 75gr 6mm smokes the .277 85gr in BC. Heck, .224 55gr has the same BC as the .277 85gr. Might as well stick with the same old thing then. For the 6.8 to achieve velocities needed it requires such light projectiles that its BC has gone down the toilet.
8) I have no idea what your trying to get at with that ?
9) Same as #8 ?
Never have owned a .243win. in my life.
Last edited:
deadduck357
Member
deadduck357
Member
I understand that most would use 6mm to designate a .243" bullet, But a 5.56mm is not really 5.56mm it's 5.6896, so it's closer to 5.7mm. .223rem is .224". This could go on and on and on. So 6.17mm = 6.2mm
- Status
