Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 641
Reading comprehension isn't your thing, is it?
Obfuscation - is obviously yours.
Again, What does it kill better?
Reading comprehension isn't your thing, is it?
A toy the military is using to shoot people with.And that's why it's a toy.
The only innovation may just be in powders first, bullets secondly. But the brass bottle launcher? Naww.A lot of the new cailbers are so close to something that has been on the market for years, I look at them as marketing scams. Just change the velocity by 200 fps subtract 20 grains and give it a marketing name like 247 zipper, 45 buzz saw or 6.5 hot rod. Hey 6.5 hot rod surely we need another 6.5 option. Lots of new cailbers over the years but no real innovation.
A toy the military is using to shoot people with.
The goal is not deader. Never was. The goal is flatter trajectory and less wind drift.
Only a Fudd thinks that makes it a toy.
As I said, try reading the thread.It's still a toy, born and bred.
How does it kill better than the 6.5x55mm?
As I said, try reading the thread.
This thread?
New and old cartridges doing (nearly) the same
The 6.5 CM is a toy, born and bred, to poke holes in paper for fun and prizes.
It shoots the same bullets, at the same velocities, as the 6.5x55mm, a military cartridge developed in 1893.
It just may be infinitesimally more precise.
Again, how does it kill better?
Question, can you put 6.5x55 Swiss into the existing M40 or M110? The answer is no, but with a simple barrel change either of those platforms will run 6.5 Creedmoor, using the same 308 bolt, and magazine. Sometimes it's not about the down range performance but bring a particular performance envelope to a proven platform. So yes it does not kill better than 6.5x55 but from a logistical point of view 6.5 Creedmoor is considerable more palatable to the US military than 6.5x55mm. Logistics trumps almost anything else on the battlefield.
On paper the Tiger Tank was far superior to the M4 Sherman is almost everyway that mattered, even on the real world battlefield it was superior in may ways, except for the most important spec logistics. Logistically we were able to put 50,000+ M4 on the battlefield and only 1347 Tigers ever existed.
Mission drift... of a toy.
It brings nothing new.
How does it kill better?
Has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. It as to do with the nature of the argument. I don't use terms like that lightly but when you're completely oblivious to the facts of the issue, I don't know how else to characterize it. And nothing I have to say on the subject hasn't already been posted in this thread and many others. I detest having to do so but I'm about to repeat myself......one more time. Hence the comment about reading comprehension. It's all been written before, right here, one needs only to READ IT.Hey this is fun. I presume it's just fine to have an opinion here...... as long as its just one guy that has it, and everyone else has to agree....or your a fudd...... As I remember from some time ago, fudd, boomer, insults regarding comprehension wouldn't be tolerated here. I probably have engaged in that too, taken up in the argument, that certainly doesn't make it right and i tire of having to use the ignore button. This thread is moderated,....... right?
I will repeat. It is a rifle cartridge designed for a specific purpose. Making things deader was not among the laundry list of jobs it needed to accomplish. This is from post #35:Mission drift... of a toy.
It brings nothing new.
How does it kill better?
Has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. It as to do with the nature of the argument. I don't use terms like that lightly but when you're completely oblivious to the facts of the issue, I don't know how else to characterize it. And nothing I have to say on the subject hasn't already been posted in this thread and many others. I detest having to do so but I'm about to repeat myself......one more time. Hence the comment about reading comprehension. It's all been written before, right here, one needs only to READ IT.
I will repeat. It is a rifle cartridge designed for a specific purpose. Making things deader was not among the laundry list of jobs it needed to accomplish. This is from post #35:
"There aren't going to be any revolutionary changes with metallic cartridges, only incremental improvements. Not every improvement is intended to make deer deader, which always seems to be the question people ask. The 6.5CM was not designed for hunting. It was designed to do what the 6.5x55 and .260 cartridges did in a short action that fits the AR10 magazine, operates at higher pressure than the Swede and uses a faster standard twist than the dead .260. Other minor improvements were made but the cartridge was designed for long range target shooting. So folks could buy an off the shelf, affordable rifle and be relatively competitive in PRS."
It kills the same things just as dead as a whole slew of other cartridges. No one ever said it did anything different in that regard but that was also never its intent. If that is your measuring stick, you're using it where it doesn't apply.
You can say you have no interest in the things it does better than its predecessors. You can say they have no bearing on whatever shooting you do. You cannot, however, say they do not exist. Because they do. You are entitled to your opinion but so far, your opinion is not congruent with reality. The parameters included fitting the AR10 platform, which the Swede does not. Having more precise standard dimensions and operating at higher pressure than the Swede. It also included a faster standard twist than the .260 and a better case configuration for heavier bullets. Part of the goal was off the shelf rifles and off the shelf ammo that could compete in 1000yd competitions. It does all of those things and more. Those are facts. Not opinion and not hype. You can call it a toy all you want, for whatever absurd and arbitrary reasons but those are the facts and your opinion does not change that.
If 6.5 CM is a toy then does that mean 6.5x55 is a toy? Their external and terminal ballistics are nearly identical?It's a toy, for punching holes in paper.
That it does or doesn't fit into this or that platform - is irrelevant, just drift.
Read the OP.
How does it kill better than the 129 year old 6.5x55mm?
It's a rifle cartridge for long range shooting competition. It's now a DMR cartridge used by the military. In other words, for killing the enemy.It's a toy, for punching holes in paper.
That it does or doesn't fit into this or that platform - is irrelevant, just drift.
Read the OP.
How does it kill better than the 129 year old 6.5x55mm?
The US military agrees to a fair degree with some special units running AR-10s, SR-25s, and Mk 48 machineguns in 6.5 CM.
Special forces have had discretion to step outside of standard supplies lines when missions called for it for as long as there have been special forces. It's very much part of what they do.Wow, adventures in logistics, keeping these Special units supplied with their Special ammo because they are Special. And I am sure that even Specialer units will get the 6.8mm More Specialer Than Ever guns to feed. While Ordinary units still need Ordinary ammo, both kinds, 7.62 and 5.56.
But it doesn't shoot as flat as the .300WM. Maybe almost as flat, depending on your definition of almost. Just a quick comparison using Barnes Vor-TX ammo published data, both with TTSX bullets:No, it's a rifle cartridge. One that shoots as flat as the .300WinMag but without the recoil, noise and blast. Which is exactly what it was designed to do and probably why the military is now using it over the .308.
If you are going to compare 300 WM to 6.5 CM in a military setting then at least use the ammunition the military is using in your comparison.But it doesn't shoot as flat as the .300WM. Maybe almost as flat, depending on your definition of almost. Just a quick comparison using Barnes Vor-TX ammo published data, both with TTSX bullets:
6.5CM: 120 gr TTSX, SD = 0.246, BC = 0.412, MV = 2910, Drop at 500 yards (w/ 200 yd zero) = -43.8"
.300WM: 165 gr TTSX, SD = 0.248, BC = 0.442, MV = 3120, Drop at 500 yards (w/ 200 yd zero) = -36.3"
So, shooting the same bullet design with nearly identical SD, the 6.5CM drops 21% more at 500 yards and the difference will only get bigger as the range increases since the .300WM is pushing a higher BC bullet with a higher MV.
The 6.5CM will have substantially less recoil and the ballistics are very good, but it is no way, no how as flat shooting as the .300WM.