Firearm Forums - Arms Locker banner
21 - 27 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,199 Posts
I'd love to have one, but I'm not looking for yet another caliber...
I’m at a point where I don’t shoot any true ‘rifle’ calibers beyond .223 and .300BK anymore; or more “thumpy” calibers than .45 Long Colt. I still own one .308 bolt action, but largely because one of my sons took his first deer with it and loves it. If I were fighting or hunting in big open spaces like Afghanistan or wherever, the 6.5 might have definite advantages, but in my area and at my stage of life, those things are non-issues anymore.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,319 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
Well it's going to be an interesting next few years in the firearms and ammo industry. That's for darn sure.

If there's no firearms structural issues with regards to chamber pressures. IIRC, the cartridge itself is supposed to solve that issue. I'd like a upper receiver build for my AR-10 possibly.
Still don't see 5.56 fading away any time soon. They still crank out military grade .30-'06.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,199 Posts
Still don't see 5.56 fading away any time soon. They still crank out military grade .30-'06.
Good point. I don't expect the .223 to go away or anything, just curious what effect the army's adoption of a new caliber will have on it. Probably (hopefully) not a huge one...

I hadn't heard about the 6.5/.277's chamber pressure until watching garand thumb's video on it. He said something about 80k psi, which is a lot of chamber pressure even by rifle standards. I wasn't familiar with any rifle calibers that exceed 65k psi.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,319 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
Well I know one thing to do with that chamber pressure.
The steel case head is supposed to help contain the higher pressure.
Now here's some reasons why I'm interested in the cartridge but not in a burning hurry to get a rifle yet:
1. I've no clue about what needs to be done to safely run it in a AR-10 type rifle.
2. I generally reload as it helps with my budget plus the often accuracy gains. But I've zero desire to become a Beta Tester for reloading data.
3. Tied up in with #2 I've no interest in it if reloading data just gives it "average" velocities similar to a .270.
Meaning if I can't get the same performance as the stated "GI" ammo then I have zero interest in it.
And realistically besides by the time the military gets first dibs on firearms and ammo I wonder if it'd be worth my while.
Maybe in SIG's bolt action. But I don't have any delusions about playing Geriatric Guerilla against Russian or Chinese infantry.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,536 Posts
for me, I have 5.56, 7.62 x 51, and 7.62 x 35 for semi-auto rifles - in some cases more than one. While I'm interested in the rifle / round, it doesn't bring much to the table for me. There isn't a niche I feel I need to fill. I think if I was just now looking for something with more punch than a 5.56, this would be high on the list. But I already have two choices that I feel are better than the 5.56 for a variety of uses: the 7.62 x 35 (300 blackout) and the 7.62 x 51 (.308)

does this round have advantages over my current choices? yes, yes it does. But not by enough to make me change my current gear.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,536 Posts
Well it's going to be an interesting next few years in the firearms and ammo industry. That's for darn sure.

If there's no firearms structural issues with regards to chamber pressures. IIRC, the cartridge itself is supposed to solve that issue. I'd like a upper receiver build for my AR-10 possibly.
Still don't see 5.56 fading away any time soon. They still crank out military grade .30-'06.

but it does make the "GI round" argument a bit silly...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,319 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Yep, it sure does doesn't it?
I've not noticed boati around here much since that decision was firmed up by Uncle Sam
In fact I'm surprised because I thought the next stage was field testing by actual.U.S. Army units unless that's already been done. Because this is sounding more like a done deal. Unless the Army PR people jumped the shark on this one.
I'm wondering if they aren't recognizing the Chinese and Russian threat way more than has been in the media?

Back to us little guys.
I've always figured if I lived to the point of expending most of my combat ammo. There probably would be both enough firearms & ammo around of the type that'd be of the "in common use" type for me not to worry too much.
 
21 - 27 of 27 Posts
Top