the eternal debate

>>63915012 (OP)
Everyone says 6.5 Creedmoor outdoes .308 in every way, and from I've seen the number don't lie. But honestly, I just like .308

>>63915012 (OP)
6.5 sneedmore is objectively a better caliber and if you’re buying a new rifle and caliber you might as well start out with 6.5
>>63915044
Liking it is a valid reason to stick with 308

>>63915053
This might be splitting hairs with high power cartriges but arent 6.5 rounds expensive as hell?

>>63915012 (OP)
What debate? Get both.

>>63915085
Sneedmore is not that expensive anymore

>>63915012 (OP)
6.5creed is a paper punching round. .308 is as good or better inside 500 yards. Is cheaper and more available. Past 500 yards for anything but punching paper and you’ll want a bigger payload.

Fast twist 308 (1:8) gets you the best of both worlds.

>>63915012 (OP)
On paper, 6.5 does perform better than .308 but at longer rangers (800 yards +) you'll be better off with something more efficient. So if you're just getting into larger calibers and don't have either, get the 6.5. If you already have a .308, skip the 6.5 and get something better for longer range like 300 win mag or even .338.

>>63915202
within 500 yards
>shoots flatter
>faster time to target
>less recoil
>less wind drift
>comparable energy on target
only thing .308 had over 6.5 was ubiquity and price. that is no longer the case

>>63915296
Im pretty sure .308 has a (almost negligible) longer point blank

https://youtu.be/Un5zKOm3wbU

.308 has ~4 times the barrel life. 8-10k instead of 2-3k rounds

>>63915356
>>63915332

>>63915364
more to do with 6.5 users being self-selected spergs about reloading the absolute hottest rounds, keeping track of round count along with accuracy. the 3k round reference is debunked even by one belonging to this group in that youtube video.

>>63915356
Yeah, but it'll be years (or even decades) before the average person even shoots 3,000 rounds. The average /k/ poster doesn't even have guns so they never shoot. If they have the money to shoot out the barrel, then they probably have the money to get a replacement (depending on the rifle, around $400-$800).

>>63915012 (OP)
6.5 isn't nearly as good as people think when compared to .308. It only has a major advantage for precision competition shooting and ELR.

>>63915368
>6.5 shooter
>hits 3,000 rounds on barrel
>notices groups opened up from .4 moa to .8
>"unacceptable, time to get a new barrel"
>
>.308 shooter
>just finished his yearly trip to the range shooting 100 rounds of the absolute cheapest ethiopian milsurp he could find online
>cherry picks his 1 (1) moa group out of 20 attempts
>"hurr! and ive still got all this extra ammo! will never have to replace barrel!"

>>63915085
It's the same price for the same quality, but you can get lower quality .308 than 6.5 if you want. Or you could just get a .22 for plinking.

>>63915012 (OP)
If i dont give a shit about 1000 yard accuracy which would be better for me?

>>63915440
Then it doesn't matter since they're practically the same in all other respects.

>>63915012 (OP)
No debate. 6.5 has shoots like a 300 win mag, has less recoil than a .308. Terminal ballistics are fine for people and putting holes in paper out to 1000 yards. .308 is only better for hunting within 300 yards and for barriers.

>>63915012 (OP)
What are you trying to do?
If you're trying to hit something way far away and the target is soft, go with 6.5 in a bolt gun
If you're trying to penetrate/ignite/shred something hardened/flammable/suppressible, go with .308 reloaded with WW2/Cold-War era military projos in your favorite autoloading long arm
It's that simple

>>63915440
.308 is cheaper and the barrel lasts much longer

>>63915904
See
>>63915392

is it true that 6.5 is less lethal than 308?

>>63915125
Neither. Get 6.5 prc.

>>63916017
Thats why riot police use it on protestors, its like 9mm or .22lr, doesnt even penetrate flesh half the time and bounces right off of skulls

>>63916017
Do you think you'd be able to tell the difference if you were shot by either one?

>>63915012 (OP)
There's no debate. 6.5 performs better by every metric that matters. .308 is cheaper and has a longer barrel life, making it even cheaper. Go 6.5 if you want better results/compete and can afford to bun through barrels more often. Go .308 if you're plinking for fun, hunting or are poor.

Depends what you need it for. Every metric of a cartridge represents some compromise. The 6.5 is undeniably better in extreme long range external ballistics than the 308. So if that’s what you’re doing, then the 6.5 wins.

Tbh they could’ve just cut the 308 case down by like a quarter inch and loaded it with super long VLDs (i7ff<0.85) and had the best of all worlds. The internal efficiency/high energy of 308 with most of the BC and velocity of 6.5CM. Especially now that you can use pressures higher than 65k. Point is, proper ogive length and geometry is a criminally underutilized component of long range shooting/energy retention. I see 6.5 sneed loadings that do not make full use of the allowed ogive space, and that still use tangent ogives and wide meplats (we need our own English word for this)

>>63916017
Yes. You can dust yourself off and continue on your merry way after taking a 6.5 to the abdomen, but 308 will kill you dead. The threshold is at 7mm, where magic happens.

>>63916228
Hey you need to stop post conspiracy theories, ok? there are many impressionable guys on this board who don’t know enough to be able to differentiate fact from fiction. Anyone who knows firearms know that 22lr penetrates deep and bounces around erratically inside the body in ad infinitum in a series of perfectly elastic collisions, turning all of one’s organs into Swiss cheese. Hydrostatic shock. Stopping power. 2 world wars.

>>63916228
>>63916231
>>63916286
your sarcasm doesn't do anything to answer the question
should I be concerned that 6.5 won't get the job done compared to 308?

>>63916294
Not at all. 6.5’s characteristics make it easier to make shots at long ranges. That’s all. But energy/terminal effect wise, It’s not gonna make a (noticeable) difference.

Btw, my sarcasm does the answer the question. It’s an obvious “no, they are both fine, lethal cartridges”

>get the job done
What job? Maybe there is one super niche use case where there is a difference in the 2 cartridges, but I can’t think of what it might be.

>>63915379
This is valid for your average durr hunter, sure, but for LARPers this will be a real problem.

>>63916294
It is not a concern.

>>63915044
>>63915053
>>63916280
>>63916215
>the eternal debate


7mm-08
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0cr1PubV6o

>>63915913
It's cheaper on average, even if you don't scrounge for the shittiest surplus imaginable like in your strawman.

>>63916294
They should be roughly comparable for hunting and combat purposes, anything you'd kill stone dead with one, you'd also kill stone dead with the other.

>>63915296
>only thing .308 had over 6.5 was ubiquity and price.
Also barrel life.
Creed will have a noticable degredation in ultimate accuracy after ~3-4k rounds, where 308 will hang in there til 10k

>>63915012 (OP)
hows about 7-08 remingtons ?

>>63916464
>>63916691
6.8x51mm is the 7mm-08, but moggier.

6.8mm(.277) vs 7mm(.284). So, pretty much identical cartridges at equal pressures, but the 6.8 can go a lot higher.

>>63916215
isn't a barrel swap away from working in .308 platforms like the ar10

>>63916702
.277 Fury is homosexual

>>63917516
Be real though. If what you need is in the weight class of a short action cartridge, 6.8x51 is actually great, especially if you’re considering 7mm-08.

>>63915012 (OP)
308 for high volume and 6.5 for low volume. 308 won't heat as fast prolonging barrel life and might make a difference in a firefight. It can make sense even in a precision oriented ar10 if you're shooting a lot though if I'm going to war with a precision ar10 and have the choice I'm going 6.5 creed. Battle rifle 308.
>>63916017
Well yes but any full sized rifle cartridge is going to be devastating on a person. Even 243 is going to 1 shot stop better than 5.56 despite being a short action rifle caliber.

>>63915012 (OP)
don't need more than 30-30 to bag yourself a deer, son

>>63916464
>7mm-08
Rare, but I don't see it ever catching the popularity it used to have. It's user base is aging out. Old rifles that used to caliber for it don't anymore.

>>63917076
True! I forgot about the AR 10 crowd

>>63915194
Without looking, the low end is still under a dollar/rd for 308 and 1.50/rd for 6.5cm

>>63916531
when was the last time you actually burnt out a barrel?

>>63918512
https://ammoseek.com/ammo/6.5mm-creedmoor
68.7 vs 59.2

>>63915012 (OP)

>>63916464
funny how Americans say it's rare, for some reason it's one of the most popular rounds here in NZ.
I'm still going creed though, working with guns to a budget the 6.5creeds shoot more accurately than anything else

>>63916280
being cheaper is a metric that matters tho

>>63916294
6.5 penetrates deeper. It overtakes 308 at medium range and at closer ranges both are more than powerful enough.

I was talking to a guy at the gunshop yesterday and he said it's quite surprising what a 6.5 will do way out at range even if it has low energy on paper

>>63915012 (OP)
i prefer 30-06

>>63915012 (OP)
There is no debate.
Target rifle? 6.5 Creedmoor
Military? 308. Let me know when they make a 6.5 Creedmoor machine gun that’s good enough to justify the expense of replacing the FN MAG (M240), otherwise it’s a nonstarter because you need a whole new logistics chain to supply ammo just for DMRs.

>>63918527
Barrel's don't turn to cinders when you hit a certain number- they just lose accuracy and consistency, or become consistently inaccurate in a certain way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJgdd2pBrHE

>>63921162
Honestly it beats out everything, even the 6.5 PRC. Turns out we had the recipe for success from the very beginning.

>>63921205
>Let me know when they make a 6.5 Creedmoor machine gun that’s good enough to justify the expense of replacing the FN MAG (M240)
You should be able to just rebarrel an M240B, M240L, or M240LWS to 6.5mm Sneedmoor and it'd work, maybe with some tweaking to the gas. Would probably work pretty well, but I feel that for military support weapon purposes this would be a sidegrade, no point to go through all the financial and logistic trouble to make that switch when it wouldn't handle differently enough.

I would see a bigger point in a new DMR which uses 6.5mm Sneedmoor, that's the type of weapon which could see a better benefit of the caliber, but it's not exactly like 7.62mm DMRs come up really lacking or anything.

>>63915012 (OP)
i only use 30'06

>>63915296
Within 400 yards the .308 has higher muzzle energy. Flatter shooting is a point but that necessitates higher velocities and with it generally more barrel wear. If barrel wear isn't a problem why even use the 6.5 creedmoor instead of higher energy, similar or faster rounds?

>>63921205
> Let me know when they make a 6.5 Creedmoor machine gun that’s good enough to justify the expense of replacing the FN MAG (M240)
True Velocity demoed a M240 which fires a 6.5 creed bullet in their hybrid polymer neckless case. Same gun, only a different barrel.

>>63921708
FNH also did a SCAR-17 in 6.5mm Creedmoor as a proposed alternative to the circus that is the NGSW concept.
I wish I saved the picture, because it had a fucking forward assist added to it and everything, it looked ridiculous.

>>63916464
>7mm-08
If we're doing loopy bullshit, then give me some 6mm-06 Ackley Improved.

>>63921888
>'loopy' hurr durr
7mm-08 is a commonly available cartridge that is widely used.

Any rifle chambered for .308 can easily adapt/be converted to shoot it

>>63916464
Why not just .270 Win

>>63922039
If you’re gonna move up to the 3.34” COAL, 7mm backcountry eats every other cartridge’s lunch.

>>63921682
>If barrel wear isn't a problem
it isn't
>why even use the 6.5 creedmoor instead of higher energy, similar or faster rounds?
what other non-wildcat cartridge that I can buy off-the-shelf ammo for that functions in the ar308 platform with a mere barrel swap performs better than 6.5 creedmoor?

why the fuck are there any bolt guns shorter than 24in in this day and age?

>>63924243
A shorter gun is handier going through brush or inside a stand/blind. Majority of hunters are shooting less than 300 yards anyways so it’s not really needed.

>>63924713
More points for bullpups

>>63915044
>outdoes 308 in every way

Other than load variety and permanent cavity size, both of which matter to some folks.
>>63915296
168gr 308 vs 143gr 6.5 is damn near the same trajectory-wise out to 200m, and it’s still pretty close (like within 10-15%) at 400 yards. The differences get more drastic past 400 yards

>>63922039
Long action

>>63915012 (OP)
WHICH uses less powder and less lead? If you plan on handloading thousands, even tens of thousands of rounds this could make a difference

Why does it seem like every 6mm full power cartridge is a barrel burner?
>>63921774
The MRGG? Honestly I like the look, about time the fuckers at FN update the SCAR, just needs the side chargers gone.

>>63924805
More than anything else, this photograph proves that the US procurement process is profoundly retarded.

>>63924811
Yes, literally anything could've worked fine, even a goddamn PA-10 from Palmetto.

is there any benefit in learning trajectory calculations over using online calculators or is that just unnecessary autism?

The most boring bastard I've ever met shoots 6.5 Creedmoor and won't shut the fuck up about it so I'm biased against it
>>63915085
Oh don't worry, 6.5 Creedmoor shooters reload, and they'll tell you all about it
>>63915296
That you Bob? Shut the fuck up about your meme cartridge, you boomer fuck

>>63924811
Think they’ll backpedal on the M7?

>>63925511
They kind of have to, because according to soldiers testing it in the field, it both sucks really hard in execution (Sig lmao), and soldiers trying it out don't see any purpose in trading more recoil and +50% reduction in ammo for more range and more penetration.
The supposed sci-fi optic isn't really doing it any favors either, because soldiers are complaining that the rifles are coming with crooked rails/barrels/both (a problem known to the MCX as well), and that they usually shoot about 6MOA anyway, and then the machinegun doesn't feel like extracting fired cases very often, so it's not doing so hot either. Burst cases are also common with both guns.

The only reason this program didn't just fall apart years ago is that Sig, in spite of being the absolute worst entrant (by a wide margin) to the already dubiously conceptualized NGSW program, bribed themselves towards victory.
The only hypothetical chance the NGSW concept has is for the army to kick Sig Saar out, scrap their fleet of weapons, and then make sure to deliberately exclude them in a new trial for a Next Generation Designated Marksman's Rifle.

>>63924849
you could just talk about your cartridge of choice

>>63924716
It'll be awkward to manipulate the bolt on a bolt-action bullpup if you need to make a quick follow-up shot, though.

>>63921228
just not efficient or acurate

>>63925565
>oldiers trying it out don't see any purpose in trading more recoil and +50% reduction in ammo for more range and more penetration

kek soldiers are dumbasses, don't they realize the round was hurriedly made when it was found that every single Chinese soldier would have plate armor that 5.56 can't touch?

>>63929287
6.8 can't touch it either, though. Not that it matters, since all of the Chinese-issue plates are fake.

>>63929301
I think 6.8 does a slightly better job although I was surprised that it wasn't that much better, what was the point of it. At least a boosted 22 cal would be a bit sharper. It wouldn't surprise me if intel came out that they weren't fake and it caused a bit of a panic

>>63929287
Just shoot them more and other places besides center mass lmao.

>>63929456
6.8 from a 13" barrel performs identically to 7.62 from a 20" barrel. 7.62 from a 20" barrel cannot penetrate level 4 plates without tungsten, therefore 6.8 can't, either.

>>63929642

If 13” 6.8x51 and 20” 7.62x51 are equal *in penetration ability*, this means the 6.8x51 has only about 2100ft*lbs (same sectional energy as 2600ft*lb 7.62x51). It does not, it has much more energy than that. Besides, it only gains velocity with more barrel length so if armor pen is a serious concern, they can ditch the can and slap longer barrels on the M7s. The sectional energy from a 20” barrel (IIRC >3000ft*lbs over a 277 bore) is quite high. Like 20-30% higher than 30-06 actually. And if I’m not mistaken, a certain loading of 30-06 CAN defeat level 4 armor. And if 30-06 can, they so can 6.8, and it can do so at longer ranges.

For the record, I hate the M7.

>>63916294
follow basic dangerous game rules fag
its max effectiveness is anywhere with velocity above 2000 FPS
velocity below that turns into pinholes

>>63925565
>bribed themselves towards victory
why do people keep saying this?
where are the bribes?
show reciepts or stop talking out of your ass
bribery is an insult to the reality of how retarded the US Army is
couch camo wasnt the result of any yellow cash filled envelope

>>63928124
But then I'd still be talking to a dull fat retard

>>63929642
How does 6.8 from a 20" barrel do?

>>63915012 (OP)
It's not much of a debate. It's a flat upgrade, but not so big a difference that if you already have good 308 rifles you need to go replace them immediately.

If you're buying a rifle in that class today, and don't already have a stack of ammo, reloading dies, other rifles etc, go 6.5

>>63929823
>show reciepts
>bribes
Could you sound any more stupid?

>>63929809
Well, after having done all of that math I'm sure you can post one image or video or any other form of empirical evidence that a 6.8x51 bullet has ever penetrated anything that a 7.62x51 bullet of comparable construction was unable to. (You can't.)

>And if I’m not mistaken, a certain loading of 30-06 CAN defeat level 4 armor.
If there is, it's some obscure tungsten core loading. If M2 AP steel core .30-06 can penetrate a plate, then it's not level 4 by definition.

>>63930096
Why does it matter if the military won't be fielding it?

>>63930139
>after having done that math..
>…you could provide empirical evidence

No it doesn’t follow that I’d have empirical evidence. I can calculate the escape velocity of earth but can give you no video proof of it. Maybe a video exists, idk, because I don’t really care because like I said, I hate the M7 (though I like gigapressure ammo). Sectional energy + high velocity + hard bullet construction of an appropriate shape = armor pen. All I’m saying is that you can not conclude that 6.8 won’t penetrate armor just because 7.62 wont. 6.8 has higher values in all the metrics that matter for armor pen.


>tungsten core 30-06
Yeah it would had to have been tungsten core. Is level 4 simply defined as “resistant to all loadings of 30-06” though?

>>63930139
Oh you have autism, my bad

>>63930096
NTA. It’s very impressive actaully. Like 3000-3200ft*lbs. a 13” barrel really nerfs the 6.8. It’s a very impressive short action cartridge, but needs a long barrel - 20” or more for full performance. Bitching about a 13” 6.8 is like sticking a 5.56 in a 10 inch barrel and then complaining about its barely-even-mediocre performance.

A good rule of thumb is that sectional energy informs the appropriate barrel length for a cartridge (technically it’s not actually sectional energy, more like overbore ratio x pressure, but it’s way easier to calculate and compare sectional energy)

>>63924776
>load variety
That's pretty much my reason for preferring .308, but give it a few years and with military adoption 6.5 Creed will catch up pretty fast. Wound cavity helps too

>>63915012 (OP)
3300fps 180 grain creedmoor from a 20 inch barrel beats regular .308 every day.

>>63930293
It's not impressive you shit for brains. They're going to issue another primary weapon to replace it within 2 decades.

>>63929823
>why do people keep saying this?
Because look at how comically fucking shitty the M17, XM7, and XM250 are? For the XM17 trials, Sig performed THE absolute worst on all entrants, more failures than everyone else, yet they still won the contract, and now the thing is maiming grunts in addition to cops.

>>63930568
That's assuming the XM7 and XM250 are lasting two decades. It's not looking promising to me.

>>63930556
Hey 6.5BMG guy. Got any new ideas? Perhaps ones that violate physical laws you haven’t violated yet? Maybe a gun who’s internals have a larger volume than their exterior?

>>63930568
I said it’s impressive (compared to other short actions), not that it’s a good idea or a viable service rifle cartridge. It won’t even last 2 decades.

Don’t think it’s impressive? Its external ballistics are more or less equal to 6.5 creedmoor, with the energy of a 338 federal, and higher sectional energy than any short action .470-based cartridge I’m aware of. It’s a comprehensive improvement over 308 in every regard. But not a 5.56 replacement.

>>63930254
>I can calculate the escape velocity of earth but can give you no video proof of it
I can give you pictures of a rocket reaching escape velocity, but no one can give you pictures of 6.8 penetrating something 7.62 can't because they don't exist. There's lots of images of both having practically identical effects on target, though.
>Yeah it would had to have been tungsten core. Is level 4 simply defined as “resistant to all loadings of 30-06” though?
No, it's defined as being resistant to M2AP (which is a tool steel core) at a specific velocity which is actually slightly higher than the specification for M2AP.

>>63930259
I think you misunderstand me. My point is that "it can penetrate chink body armor" is not the Army's *actual* reasoning for why they should adopt a new caliber, since it can't. Maybe steel core 6.8 can penetrate level 4 armor out of a 20" or 30" or 40" barrel, I don't know. But why would that matter? It wouldn't make a difference to the Army because that's clearly not the criteria they're basing the success of their new cartridge on. It doesn't matter for you, because you could much easier DIY a tungsten core saboted penetrator in a .308 rifle than get your hands on meaningful amounts of XM1186 (that probably still wouldn't penetrate high end glownigger plates even if it could penetrate chink knockoffs).

>>63930605
The Sig MHS was less than 1/4 of the cost of its competitors, and no one thinks handguns are worth spending more than the absolute minimum on. The Sig NGSW won because General Dynamics and Textron both fucked off after they were told that the Army wouldn't sign away their right to maintain and repair their own rifles. True Velocity bought out GD's share of their partnership and had the Army perform the rest of the contest, but it was such a piece of shit that it was actually *worse* than sigshit.

>>63930611
I want to compare it to other troubled weapons in U.S Military history.

The M60E1 and M60E2 had long term durability problems, but when it was new, and/or if it was taken well care of, it generally worked pretty well (and was FAR superior to an old Browning M1919 model with a stock and pistolgrip added to it). The M60E3 fixed some old problems, but then also ended up with some new ones, which is why it would eventually be replaced.

The AR15 performed VERY well in Project AGILE, the soldiers absolutely loved the rifle, but it's when they started up larger production of guns,and ammunition, and changed the gunpowder without doing sufficient testing, that it really fucked up the M16.
There were other necessary upgrades with the M16A1 (it would have needed the chromed bore and chambers regardless), but one of the very biggest problems could have easily been avoided by not rushing and being slightly more careful.

The M9 had problems early on with locking blocks and slides cracking (supposedly because of the 9mm NATO load), and for a while the Army had contracted to buy Check-Mate magazines, which turned out to be very poor.
These were easy fixes.

>>63930719
>and no one thinks handguns are worth spending more than the absolute minimum on
Hence the Hi-Point C9 would have been the superior choice to the P320.

All seem to be focusing on the negligible performance and ignoring the REAL difference.
It was created to challenge an existing toolset and replace it at a new cost where those pushing can PROFIT from its legitimization and wide spread acceptance.

Its just another Cartridge by people who wanna make $$$

>>63930754
An M17 literally costs less than a Hipoint. Maybe Hipoint could have gone even cheaper with a massive contract like that, but they didn't enter the competition.

Is 6.5 creed always gonna burn barrels or is it dependent on if I make absolutely smoking hot loads. I figure I dont need a laser beam to knock a buck from a stand 100 yards away. Like most hunters seem to do. Would even a "mild" 6.5 handload burn out barrels?

>>63930795
It depends on how many rounds you expect your barrel to last for and how much accuracy you expect to lose before buying a new barrel.

The simple answer is that it never has been a barrel burner, sneedmore shooters are just more exacting than .308 shooters.

>>63930795
These high velocity full powered cartridges generally have shorter barrel lives. One of the multiple reasons which 6mm Lee Navy was moved away from a long time ago was that it had a very short barrel life, the Navy liked the performance of it, but it still had a pretty short lifespan after downloading it some.

Now, 6mm Lee Navy was an infantry rifle and machinegun cartridge, so by necessity it was going to see magnitudes larger volumes of fire, and with early 1900s logistics and metallurgy that actually becomes a problem.
Meanwhile, a cartridge like 6.5mm Creedmoor is used for long range target shooting and hunting, thus necessitating a FAR lower volume of fire, so the shorter barrel life is much less of an issue, and a generally acceptable tradeoff. You know what you're getting into and it's still gonna take a while.

You'd see similar things with .243 Winchester and .270 Remington, which are the same kind of high powered and high velocity small bore cartridges. I imagine that extreme examples like .277 Fury, which is supposed to be an infantry rifle and machinegun cartridge, only with balls to the walls chamber pressures to ensure goal velocities from short barrels, is going to see pretty ghastly erosion and have a very short lifespan.

Just looking at the rounds you can see .308 is more robust for transport and use in a machinegun.

Way too much of a long narrow bullet sticks out unsupported on the 6.5.
Lots of leverage against a smaller weaker shoulder.
This may result in great BC for precision shooting with coddled ammo, but seems less ideal in rugged scenarios.
The bullet to case shoulder taper on the .308 looks like it self corrects during feeding in full auto better. Leading to less jams. The 6.5 is like feeding a spike. And any misalignment likely to cause issues.

Barrel life is another huge consideration. Four times the barrel life is huge in a rifle or machinegun.
The improvements in trajectory do not warrant that. Especialy in a machinegun.
Rifles and machineguns sharing calibers can be very helpful. I would want a .308 marksman rifle if the gpmg I was traveling with used .308.
And a gpmg using 6.5cm makes no sense with such short barrel life. So it seems they cannot match calibers if using 6.5 in rifles.

>>63930691
You must either be a jew or a dumbass if you support the xm7 and the 6.8. Every time they issue a battle rifle as a primary they replace it within two decade. It isn't impressive or astounding or unique or great, it's a stupid waste of money. The only reason they can do issue it is because 70% of the generals in the united states military are self proclaimed Jewish and sig sauer is headed by jews. They all agree to milk the xm7 and the 6.8 cartridge for money until it gets so bad that they are practically forced to switch back to the ar15.

A 3300 fps 6.5 creedmoor ammo type is better than any .308 and 6.8 fury bullshit.

>>63930811
>>63930874
Thank you anons, i am interested in buying a bolt action rifle chambered in 6.5, no particular reason honestly, just wanna play long range lead golf 2 or 3 times a month. I guess the worry about excessive wear is overblown since id only be putting 100-150 rounds down the barrel a month.

>>63930934
What the fuck are you going on about? First of all, if you could read English (we still haven’t confirmed that you aren’t Indian, you ignored that question in your last thread), you’d comprehend what “I hate the m7” means. Second, you are criticizing the adoption of a battle rifle and full power cartridge and then proposing… a 6.5BMG!! Are you high?

>>63930946
You stupid fuck, the xm7 won't last 10 years with the infantry, we'll be going back to ar15's with twenty years, i guarantee it.

>>63930960
Yeah alright, so you in fact cannot comprehend English.

>>63930974
The xm7 won't last, end of thread.

>>63930874
I believe with the first load of 6mm Lee Navy, lifespan was as low as 3000 rounds per barrel, which was probably gonna be even worse for the 1895 Colt-Browning machinegun.

>>63931757
Man I love old turn of the century machine guns.

>>63931757
They were experimenting with bullet jackets and barrel steel at the time.
Nickle-steel was used for the barrels and jackets were changed from steel to increase barrel life. Propellant was also changed to decrease flame erosion but ended up with temperature issues.

>>63931930
Cupro-Nickle bullets still look the best imho

>>63915287
You should see what Gersh Kuntzman is up to these days. He, on his own initiative, for no pay, removes obstructions and those curved opaque coverings from people’s license plates (tags) so that red light cameras will be able to read the plate number and send a ticket to the driver’s house. Never has there been anyone more deserving of the gallows than Gersh.

>>63931942
Translucent*, not opaque. I’m losing my mind, why the fuck did I say opaque? I mean picrel.

>>63915287
He’s become a rabid anti-car crusader

https://x.com/gershkuntzman/status/1933574330622812514?s=61

>>63930107
Yep. I bought one yesterday actually, first bolt action centerfire ever. I'm not listening to boomers who want me to get a 308 so I don't have a better gun than them kek

>>63931898
Right? The Potatodigger is kind of underrated, and the funny thing is that Browning's first approach to a machinegun really was:
>"What if I made a lever-action rifle cycle and fire itself continuously using the energy from the muzzle blast?"
It's such an esoteric take compared to what we know today, let alone as much as 80 years ago, but it actually fucking worked, and really well.

I almost want to compare it to the various gas trap rifles, if nothing else because Browning's very first proof of concept for a self-loading rifle was one of his Winchester designs, but with a gas lever grafted onto its muzzle, which linked to the action lever.

ended up getting the 6.5 creedmoor
thanks for all the info!

>>63933623
Enjoy:)

>>63915044
This, I wanted to learn about wind calls and the more artful side of long range shooting so I got a 308 instead of a 6.5
Both are good calibers though

>>63915012 (OP)
I thought it was:
>under 500 yards - .308
>over 500 yards - 6.5CM

>>63935136
No. 6.5 outperforms 308 at all ranges.

It's
>I already have a fat stack of 308 ammo, tooling, and rifles - .308
>I'm buying a new rifle and want to make the right choice - 6.5

Using .308 / 7.62x51 makes more sense when you need to arm a lot of people in bulk. It is functional for long range shooting as well as high capacity machine guns and AP variants are easier to secure.

The AR-10 platform can be used to build a precision rifle yet can also be made into a formidible high capacity machine gun using a box magazine and a switch. Such a weapon can even engage low flying aircraft.

It is ideal for arming guerrillas that are trained to engage threats that mostly use .223 / 5.56 at 500 yards max.

>>63935385
>box mag fed 308 machine gun
Nonstarter as a 308 shoulder fired rifle will never be a formidable machinegun, especially fed from box mags. Nathaniel Fitch explains why in this article: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/11/05/full-auto-controllability-continued-define-useful-fully-automatic-fire/

(Read it, it took me like 10 minutes to find.)

>switch
Only blacks call an auto sear a “switch”

>engage low flying aircraft [with a full auto AR10]
lol

Your other points are fine, except compatibility with rifle and MGs is not a quality inherent to the 308. You could just as easily give everyone an ar10 in 6.5, and a GPMG in 6.5.

I really don’t like how 308 is considered a long range cartridge. About the only thing it has over 5.56 lending itself to better external ballistics is the provision to accept a longer, higher SD bullet. But it comes at the cost of velocity, because 308 and 5.56 have nearly equal sectional energy. If you were designing something for use at longer ranges than 5.56, it would look a lot like 6.5Creedmoor, not 308. 308 is almost identical to 5.56 except for it has twice as much energy at all ranges. But drop and drift are very similar. Especially with the m80a1.

CAPTCHA; 8DSRY
>8=D, sorry for the truth bombs

>>63935385
What a goofy idea.
>muh rack rifle
Get over it dude.

>>63935385
>It is ideal for arming guerrillas that are trained to engage threats that mostly use .223 / 5.56 at 500 yards max.
In that case you'll want bolt actions since they can be cheap and accurate at the same time, and magdumping at 700 yards is a useless waste of ammo.

>>63935385
You do realize 99% of people buying guns just want to punch paper or shoot milk jugs right? Holy fuck you’re retarded.

>>63935662
a significant proportion use them to larp

>>63933623
I should have done this, I decided to neck up my creedmoor to 30cal and regret the effort involved

>>63915012 (OP)
>6.5 centimeters vs 308 winches

Um but shouldn't the bottom round be 47x as wide as the top? After converting from metric to western inches?

>>63915012 (OP)
Whichever is cheaper
/thread

>>63921205
honestly having the same caliber for dmr and mg is stupid, you want match ammo anyway, with generic mg ammo you aren't hitting a person above 500m, 338 is not used in any other application other than snipers, why 6.5 creedmore shouldn't be the same?

>>63937448
22lr wins again

>>63937493
because someone decided to take out his soft shooting 6.5 creed and shoot deer and found it worked really well with a low cost and recoil

>>63937493
There are 338 MGs honey.
6.5 would make an excellent DMR+MG round. DoD should have just adopted a 6.5cm AR10 instead of the XM7.

>>63935358
6.5 is hella expensive though even if the rifles always aren't

>>63938939
It's really not, and neither round is really for trash blasting. Your round counts aren't going to be anywhere near what they would with a 5.56/9mm/etc.

>>63938922
it's sigs gun so it probably is shit. 6.5 creedmore burns through barrels, which is fine for percision, but may be worse for mg? maybe?

>>63938981
A lot less bullet choice for reloading though

>>63939399
Sometimes that means the available bullets are so good there isn't demand for niche stuff

>>63915012 (OP)
7mm rem mag shits on both

>>63939881
Yes but if you buy a 7mmRM you don't have an excuse to buy another rifle, unless you want to reduce recoil and that would be humiliating

>>63939890
Which is the real crux of the issue. This debate only exists because a bunch of faggots bruise too easily.

>>63939911
Yeah it's dumb, recoil is actually nice, it's like the gun is telling you you're doing a good job. I can't afford to shoot enough ammo in one sitting to get a bruise but if I did I'd love that mark

>>63939872
A small selection of perfect bullets is better than a wide variety of mediocrity. You can't overcome the flawed dimensions of the 30 cap with bullet design.

>>63939956
I agree on both points although it's from theoretical knowledge only, not a handloader just an aspiring one

>>63939890
>>63939881
>Long action belted magnum.
In that case 20x128 is ballistically superior in all regards.

>>63940167
Literally for 120lb woman ship captains

>>63939399
Imagine complaining that there isn't enough bullet selection in 6.5mm. What the fuck kind of bullet are you looking for?

When that ever elusive Sako TRG 22 A1 6.5creemoor finally arrives

Can someone explain why the Army totally ignored 6.5 Creedmoor?

>>63915012 (OP)
I wish somenigga went the other way.
Make the weakest round you feasibly can. Like, a modernized 6.5 Arisaka in a proper full rimless cartridge, with a modern spitzer-boattail round, and modern powder.

>>63942111
because they wouldn't know what to do with 100million 7.62 rounds and all the rifles

>>63942111
It would be a huge effort and expense to make what's a sidegrade for machineguns.

>>63944431
>huge effort and expense
Didn't stop them adopting 277 Furry

>>63944548
They're only going to buy enough that people can't keep making fun of them for never adopting any of their decadely M16/M4 replacement programs, then go back to M4s.

>>63942076
lucky bastard

>>63944548
Perhaps the worst one, and how is it working out?

>>63915287
300winmag has a shit neck

eternity bump

>>63947242
Isn't that why .300 PRC exists?

>>63942076
Fucking nice, anon. Nice. I have a TRG-22 classic in .308 and it's the rifle I love the most by a long way. That action and trigger is intoxicatingly smooth.

>>63919686
Gods perfect cartridge, 134 years of service, served in every war under the sun.