Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "SOCOM Tests 6.5 mm Rifle the "One Round to Rule Them All"" video.

@rexmcstiller4675 *6mm Caseless
70
No. That's just an AR-15 made for a compromise cartridge that got dropped by SOCOM precisely because of the long ranges in Afghanistan.
2
It's dead because it's initial rollout was a disaster and SOCOM dropped it because of the longer ranges of Afghanistan where the difference between 6.8 and 5.56 was negligible. Wrong chamber drawings were made SAAMI, wrong mouth angle and throat on the spec meant ammo had to be made with tamer loads to prevent overpressure so performance wasn't as good as originally intended. SPC II chamber is improved but still features a mistake in the drawings regarding the mouth angle, thought it allows the use of "full power" 6.8 SPC. You have other chamber designs out there that allow for pretty crazy loads by further reducing pressure. It's great if you want to use hollow points and hunt in states where 5.56 is not allowed for the purpose. There's ways to get a lot of performance out of it. But it's not really a military caliber.
1
This is bait.
1
@Mr12ob DI isn't a problem. Barrett made the REC 7 with short stroke piston and it wasn't picked up either.
1
SOCOM tested it and found that the 6.5 gave shooters twice the hit probability, increased effective range by 50% and had a third of wind drift. All with lower recoil. Guess all the SOCOM shooters in the test are in that 5%.
1
@AKlover "This has been known for most of a century. U.S. mil is just A late adopter." - Most of the early adopted 6.5 were much less energetic (only 6.5x55 Swedish comes close) than 6.5 Creedmoor and many loaded with round nose bullets so they were not looking for long range performance with those ones. Hindsight is 20/20. Plus, the US made the purposeful decision to use a caliber better suited for indirect machine gun fire with the .30-06 even though Ordnance was aware that calibers between .25 and .27 were better for individual rifles than .30. When 7.62x51 was developed the goal was to try and make the performance as similar as possible to .30-06. We're talking about a different use case because SOCOM's designated marksmen aren't required to use WWI machine gun doctrine.
1
Imma keep it real with ya chief but 280 Brit was ass. The velocity figures you normally see were measured with 24 inch barrels, the later loadings souped up the power at the cost of increased recoil (went from a little under twice the recoil of M855 to over 2.6 times, about 40% more recoil than 7.62x39 which the Russians replaced for 5.45 because they realized less recoil = better hit probability), it's essentially 7.62x39 with a more efficient bullet, ammo weight is over 70% higher than M855 and the final nail in the coffin was the fact that it had poor accuracy with steel core bullets (and this would have meant replacing 280 Brit in the 80s when the steel cone was added to NATO standard ammunition). Meanwhile during SOCOM testing 6.5 Creedmoor actually beats 7.62 NATO in hit probability, effective range, less wind drift and lower recoil.
1
@ste887 It would still be a heavy caliber with too much recoil to really be the "intermediate" loading. It would have probably ended up with something like 5.56x45 being developed again, or the pairing of squad automatic weapons and designated marksmen rifles in 280 British with that 4.85mm caliber made for the early SA80 prototypes for most riflemen.
1
The Arisaka and Carcano used round nose bullets, I think. The .303 British was also seen as a puny cartridge when they were forced to cover the round lead nose with the jacket. When they gave it a spitzer shape and the aluminum/wood pulp nose to shift the weight to the rear it became known as a manstopper.
1
Lower recoil means you get on target faster. That's physics.
1