WidenersRotoMetals2Lee PrecisionTitan Reloading
RepackboxLoad DataMidSouth Shooters SupplyInline Fabrication
Reloading Everything
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Musing About Cartridge Designs

  1. #1
    Boolit Master
    Daekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    614

    Musing About Cartridge Designs

    I have been reading a lot over the past year, and recently started listening to the Vortex Nation Podcast, and one of the things that seems to always be cropping up in discussions is the 6.5 Creedmore. Now, I know a lot of you just experienced an involuntary eye twitch, but stay with me. I don't have a dog in that fight, but it does seem to me that the main reason for its success is the fact that the factory guns come with fast twist barrels. The fact that this makes it somehow a standout performer is absolutely mystifying to me, because I don't understand why fast twist barrels aren't more common across the board.

    Come with me on a thought experiment that could have played out at in a boring conference room or at the coffee machine:

    "Man, the boss says sales are dropping off, time to release a new cartridge."
    "Yeah? Well, I suppose. Any ideas?"
    "Eh, not really. Let's just see if we can make something better than what's already out there. You know, bullets have gotten better, what can we do with that?"
    "Huh. Better bullets... so... if our new small caliber bullets expand the way Marketing says they do, then l guess that means caliber is less important for hunting Bambi than the old days."
    "Yeah, that's a good point. So how do you make the most of that?"
    "Well, let's see... uh...."
    "Hey, what about this? Let's just pick a caliber and as fast a twist as we think we can get away with and see how heavy a bullet it can handle?
    "Uh... why?"
    "Cause then we can stick a long skinny bullet in there. We already established it doesn't really matter how skinny it is, so as long as the weight's there, who cares?"
    "So, what, we just arbitrarily pick a twist?"
    "Yeah, why not?"
    "OK... well... darn, let's just go for it. How about 1:6?
    "OK, sure. And the caliber?"
    "Well, I guess it doesn't really matter that much, one of those little zippy ones. How about 6.5mm?
    "Oh man, really, 6.5? Those have never sold well here."
    "Yeah, but I like Vikings and those places use 6.5s."
    "Stupidest reason ever. Whatever, fine, 6.5."
    "So how does that turn out?"
    "Well... pretty good, actually. With a 1:6 twist you could shoot something crazy heavy like 160gr and it would stay stable down to below the speed of sound."
    "Hmm. And I guess it would maintain energy pretty well too."
    "Are you kidding? It would be as slippery as a shaved pig covered in mineral oil."
    "Wow. That's an image."
    "You're welcome."
    "You know the bullet guys are never going to build a 160gr 6.5mm. That's just crazy."
    "OK, fine, drop it to 140 or 150. It'll still be amazing. You can drop the twist a smidgen too, if we do that."
    "So... what case do we put this bullet in?"
    "Hell, with that kind of BC, what does it matter? Slap it in a few different ones and have marketing put some different labels on them depending how fast they go."
    "No, seriously."
    "OK, ok. Let's have fun with this, pick something obscure. How about a failed cartridge just for kicks? 30 T/C?"
    "Never heard of it."
    "Exactly. We're the ones that came up with it and you still haven't heard of it. It's perfect."
    "You're nuts."
    "You're just jealous of my brilliant plan."
    "OK, Mister Brilliant Plan. Are we going to do this to all of our cartridges, then? I mean, you can make long heavy bullets in every caliber."
    "Nah, that's too much trouble. Just have Marketing tell everybody that 6.5mm is special. They'll come up with something good."

    I wasn't there when Hornady designed the 6.5CM, but I swear it could've been like that.

    So... I guess I have been wondering why we aren't beset by a veritable ocean of wildcats or even refreshed gun lineups which are designed around VLD bullets and super fast-twist barrels. Neck a 30-30 down to 6mm and cut barrels with a 1:5 or 1:6 twist and shove as heavy a bullet as will stabilize in there. BAM, you've picked up 100 yards of effective range with the same or less recoil. Or pick any other cartridge, it doesn't really matter which. Sure, there will be mag length issues with some, but wildcatters deal with that kind of thing all the time, and it doesn't matter a hill of beans in a single-shot.

    Is this happening and I just haven't seen it yet?
    I'm a big fan of data-driven decisions. You want to make me smile, show me a spreadsheet! Extra points for graphs and best-fit predictive equations.

  2. #2
    Moderator


    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Way up in the Cascades
    Posts
    8,073
    Interesting take on things, and also entertaining. I have also wondered about the seemingly endless plethora of cartridges (new and old) that one can find listed and described in such books as "Cartridges of the World". Development and commercial promotion seems endless, with each claiming to fill a previously unfilled notch in either ballistics or need.

    However, it's only fair to point out that if wildcatters did not pursue their mysterious pursuits some very popular and truly useful cartridges would never have been developed. The ubiquitous .223 Rem. and 5.56 mm owe their development in part to the .222 Rem. which was revolutionary at it's inception. Most wildcats bear the name of their developer, and most fade into obscurity. Some succeed and find glory.

    Myself, being a bit of a dinosaur, am happy with the more mundane, older cartridges such as the .22 L.R., .30-30, .30-40, and if on a real power trip, the .30-06. They have done everything that I desired for many years, and their value isn't negated by the latest ballistic wonder. For those that desire something different, more power to them -- and to some just having something "different" is a pleasure. One thing is for sure, tinkering and cartridge development will continue.



    DG

  3. #3
    Boolit Master Jedman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Lenawee County , MI
    Posts
    1,324
    The Creedmore is just what you think it is. For a average hunter who never shoots super long range the high BC bullets don’t help them do anything a similar sized cartridge will do.

    Jedman

  4. #4
    Boolit Master
    Daekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Der Gebirgsjager View Post
    Interesting take on things, and also entertaining. I have also wondered about the seemingly endless plethora of cartridges (new and old) that one can find listed and described in such books as "Cartridges of the World". Development and commercial promotion seems endless, with each claiming to fill a previously unfilled notch in either ballistics or need.

    However, it's only fair to point out that if wildcatters did not pursue their mysterious pursuits some very popular and truly useful cartridges would never have been developed. The ubiquitous .223 Rem. and 5.56 mm owe their development in part to the .222 Rem. which was revolutionary at it's inception. Most wildcats bear the name of their developer, and most fade into obscurity. Some succeed and find glory.

    Myself, being a bit of a dinosaur, am happy with the more mundane, older cartridges such as the .22 L.R., .30-30, .30-40, and if on a real power trip, the .30-06. They have done everything that I desired for many years, and their value isn't negated by the latest ballistic wonder. For those that desire something different, more power to them -- and to some just having something "different" is a pleasure. One thing is for sure, tinkering and cartridge development will continue.

    DG
    Yeah, I'm glad the the wildcatters have continued to tinker, I really love arcane and unusual cartridges. Actually dream cartridge (which seems not to exist) is a long straight-walled rimmed case (carbide dies) that takes .308 diameter bullets and can handle 60kpsi+.

    I am just as much of a dinosaur as you are. God's honest truth, there is nothing that I need to do that can't be done with a 357 magnum, and nothing that I want to do that can't be done with a 30-30. I have some old war horses like the 7.97x57 which are good for pretty much anything on Earth, but I don't shoot them very often. More is just more, to me, once you get past 30-30 energy.

    Maybe it's my east coast perspective, but hunting past 200 yards seems pretty uninteresting, and even 200 yards seems excessive. Far better to stalk within 50 yards or closer, that's real hunting to me.
    I'm a big fan of data-driven decisions. You want to make me smile, show me a spreadsheet! Extra points for graphs and best-fit predictive equations.

  5. #5
    Boolit Buddy 414gates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    357
    It takes a lot of time and money to create a new cartridge. Very few people or companies can afford that, so we see very few to none of them in any given year.

  6. #6
    Boolit Buddy Rapidrob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Thunder Mountain,NM
    Posts
    323
    You cannot come up with a "new cartridge" that has a brass or steel case. Our forefathers played with anything you could come up with. Make it larger,smaller,shorter,longer, fatter,skinny, faster,slower, etc. The only difference are today's much better powders.
    Look at the "brand new" .30 Super Carry. Can you say 7.5 French? Or the newly adopted .277 Fury. Stronger case but playing with the neck/shoulder size of the .308 Winchester has been done so many times it would fill a book alone.
    Follow the money trail,its always about money.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Location
    windber, pa
    Posts
    346
    i used to three 6.5 Creedmoor barrels, they were 14, 16 1/4 and 23" MGM TC Encore barrels. the 6.5CM were a 1:8" twist. i used the 120gr Nosler BT, 140gr Hornady SST and i think it was 120gr Hornady i don't remember but it was target bullet, now discontinued. in 2009 or 2010, it was dang near impossible to get brass, so i made them from a 22-250 necked up to 6.5. it was a little short, but it didn't matter. i would go 1/2 to 3/4" groups at 100 yards(5 and 10 shots/bench) and occasionally the gods would smile upon me and give a 1/4" group. through trial and error, the 6.5CM decided that it would prefer Superformance powder. i have to check on the velocity but i think it was 2700fps+/- for a 23" barrel and 140gr SST and 2800fps+/- for the 120gr bullet?

    i used them to hunt deer and a groundhog or three. i never got into long range shooting anymore. i think i was average at it, but never good, let alone great. i used a 22-250AI in 1 in 7 or 8" in my TC Encore in 27" MGM barrel and a 75gr Hornady BTHP and a 80gr Sierria BTHP, but it was at 600 yards or so(field behind my shop). i got bored with exact measurements(bullet weight, powder weight, cartridge length, neck reaming.........) so i got a 500 Linebaugh in 23" MGM barrel.

    i guess i was them guys that drank the kool-aide, but the 6.5CM came on the scene, i didn't have one and nobody, at the did, so i bought her. i had fun and killed quite a few deer with the 6.5CM, but now "everybody" has one and their all "long range shooers" (notice the lack of T) and quite honestly, i was bored with it. i have a 6.5 Carcano(and 7.35 Carcano) but i don't load for them ........yet.

    the 9.3/30-40 krag looks interesting, as well as 400 Petrov-Whelen.

  8. #8
    Boolit Grand Master Nobade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SE WV
    Posts
    6,215
    It's not the fast twist. All 6.5mm rifles have a fast twist or they don't work. The idea was to fit a standard bolt face, fit a 140 grain bullet not shoved down into the powder room, fit in a 2.8 inch magazine, hold as much gunpowder as is practical, and have a decent amount of parallel sided bullet sticking out of the case to engage the throat, which is supposed to be cut to agree with current accuracy theory of what a chamber is supposed to look like. It is a 6.5mm because that was deemed to be the best balance between velocity, recoil, BC, and knockdown power on steel targets. There is nothing magical about it, just intelligent design. And the biggest draw is a person who is not a reloader can (or could...) go into the shop, buy a box of ammo, and have himself a legitimate 1/4 MOA shooter if his rifle was built right.

  9. #9
    Boolit Grand Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Northern Michigan
    Posts
    8,897
    The most modern rifle caliber I have is the .223. I “make do” with what I have.
    Don Verna


  10. #10
    Boolit Grand Master



    M-Tecs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,452
    Dennis Demille was the original designer of the 6.5 Creedmoor. It was developed for the specific purpose of NRA Highpower Competition. Same for the 260 Remington. That was designed by Jim Carmichel and called the 260 Panther. The issues with the 260 Rem was it was too long for the 308 length magazine when loaded with the long high VLD bullets.

    The various 22/250 based cartridges like the 6mm XC, 240NMC, and the 6mm & 6.5 Creedmoor all have their origins in NRA Highpower.. The 30T/C parent cartridge is the 22/250 but the 22/250 sounds less impressive than the 30T/C from a marketing standpoint.

    https://www.outdoorlife.com/evolution-65-creedmoor/

    The 6.5 Creedmoor was different, however. Neither of these scenarios applied. Instead, it was born out of a gripe session between one frustrated shooter and his friend. The shooter was Dennis DeMille, a legend in the world of High Power Rifle competition. The friend was Dave Emary, senior ballistician at Hornady Manufacturing. The date was August 2005, and the location was the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio.


    “It was during service rifle week. Dennis and I were sharing a condo. At the end of one day we were sitting and talking, and he told me he was getting frustrated with the 6XC,” Emary says. The 6XC, though it had been winning matches, was still a wildcat, without any published reloading data. Reloaders hadn’t worked out the kinks yet, and their ammo was frequently blowing primers and breaking extractors.

    Those shooters turned to DeMille to complain and ask for help—sometimes in between strings of fire while he was competing—since the company he worked for was the exclusive distributor of the rifles chambered in 6XC.

    “I went back to the condo that evening and told Dave I was ready to pack up and go home,” DeMille says. Instead, Emary persuaded him to stay, asking DeMille to think about everything he wanted in the ultimate cartridge for across-the-course shooting, as High Power is also known. The next morning, DeMille gave Emary his list. (DeMille went on to win one of his two champion crowns in High Power that year, by the way.)


    DeMille came up with seven requirements. The hypothetical cartridge had to:
    1. Be magazine length for the rapid-fire strings in competition.
    2. Have light recoil, much less than a .308, for rapid fire and general shooter comfort.
    3. Shoot flat, with an accurate, high B.C. bullet.
    4. Promote good barrel life.
    5. Use readily available components, including powder, so that it could be easily replicated.
    6. Have the reloading recipe listed on the box.
    7. Be produced in quantities sufficient to meet demand.

    With those guidelines in hand, Emary went back to Hornady and got to work. He collaborated with Joe Thielen on the project, and at SHOT Show in 2006, he gave DeMille an unmarked piece of brass. The yet-to-be-named round was based on the forgettable .30 T/C, whose only legacy will be the cartridges it has spawned.

    “The .30 T/C was still pretty new then, and going to a 6.5 was just logical,” Emary says. “You absolutely cannot beat the aero ballistic performance of 6.5 bullets if they are done right.”


    DeMille did some testing with the cartridge and gave feedback on how to improve it. Hornady figured they would call the round the 6.5 DeMille, but DeMille quickly rejected that idea.

    “I don’t want to overstate my role in the development of this cartridge,” he says. “It was really Dave and Joe who did all the real work.”

    DeMille suggested instead the name Creedmoor, not only based on the company where he was general manager—Creedmoor Sports—but on the history of the location on Long Island, New York, where the first national rifle matches were held.
    2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    "Before you argue with someone, ask yourself, is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of different perspectives? Because if not, there’s absolutely no point."
    – Amber Veal

    "The Highest form of ignorance is when your reject something you don't know anything about".
    - Wayne Dyer

  11. #11
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lewiston, Idaho
    Posts
    2,732
    I see the 6MM 30-30 mentioned, I have the chamber reamer. Something to think about, faster twist uses up some of the energy that could be used for velocity. The old 50-110 had a 1 in 56" twist with a 300 grain bullet and was called an express rifle. Same cartridge with a 450 grain bullet only allowed space for 100 grains of powder and they had to increase the spin to stabilize the bullet. When I was shooting long range with a 300 Win mag the barrel had a 1 in 14" twist. Barrel was 31" long and I was getting close to 3400 FPS with a 180 grain bullet. Even with that velocity it took 40 clicks on the scope to go from 200 yards to 600, that's about 5' at 600 yards.

  12. #12
    Boolit Buddy 414gates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    357
    Quote Originally Posted by John Taylor View Post
    ... I was shooting long range with a 300 Win mag the barrel had a 1 in 14" twist. .
    Could you please share more info with me on that. I've got a 308 Norma with a 14 twist, and I stopped at 168 grainers because the twist calculator said stability was marginal at that point.

    How was your accuracy with the 180's ? Which ones were they ?

  13. #13
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Outside Rolla, Missouri
    Posts
    2,170
    No 6.5 160 gr. bullets? Uhhh....care to see the couple boxes of Hornady, 160 gr. round nose on my shelf? I shoot two 6.5's, the legendary Swede and almost equally legendary Mannlicher/Schoenauer and all they get fed is 156 gr or 160 gr. RN.
    "In general, the art of government is to take as much money as possible from one class of citizens and give it to another class of citizens" Voltaire'

    The common virtue of capitalism is the sharing of equal opportunity. The common vice of socialism is the equal sharing of misery

    NRA Benefactor 2008

  14. #14
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lewiston, Idaho
    Posts
    2,732
    Quote Originally Posted by 414gates View Post
    Could you please share more info with me on that. I've got a 308 Norma with a 14 twist, and I stopped at 168 grainers because the twist calculator said stability was marginal at that point.

    How was your accuracy with the 180's ? Which ones were they ?
    That was 40 years ago. The bullets was the Game King if I remember correctly. I think the load was 64 grains of 4064, it would flatten primers and if I went any higher it would make the primer pockets oversize. The extra barrel length helped with velocity which increased bullet spin also. Never put it on paper but I could hit a pop can at 600 yards. This was for the dynamite shoot at Superior Montana. They would put a 1/4 stick in a can and pack dirt around it. Range was 400 to 700 yards and if you hit one everyone knew. The rifle was sold when I was out of work but I did put together another one, it weighs 17 pounds so not legal for hunting in Idaho. Played around with it at 200 yards but never really got down to working with it.
    At the time I had the first rifle I was doing machine work for a gunsmith that was building 50 BMG bolt action rifles. We could not find bullets for the 50 except for the barns round nose so setting up an old automatic screw machine to make solid brass spire point boat tail ones that weighed 615 grains got us going. Barrel length was 48" and velocity was 3400 FPS. Bullets were sprayed with teflon and the bore was wiped out with teflon because we had gotten brass fouling the last 8" of the bore. The teflon increased velocity 100 FPS.
    Last edited by John Taylor; 05-18-2022 at 09:20 AM.

  15. #15
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Eastern WY
    Posts
    1,957
    Like all cartridges, old and new, you have compromises. The 6.5 Creedmoorwas created to meet recoil, barrel life, action length and other criteria. The 6mm XC(David Tubb) and 6mm Creedmoor shoot flatter, drift less in the wind(with the right bullets and twist) but burns barrels faster than the 6.5 CM. The .308 Win has more recoil than 6.5 CM when long, heavy bullets are used. The 6.5 CM is is surprisingly accurate, my first handloads went well under MOA, but it is a heavy barreled Savage with a High powered Burris scope. On paper, it is better than the .270, .308, and .243 at very long ranges, but I am not replacing my .243 or .308 for hunting. The .270 has a long and successful record on elk, but I still like my Savage 99 .358 better. Recoil, barrel life, action length and/or type all come into play. I found my 6.5 Creedmoor kind of boring, shooting tiny groups from the bench is OK, but until you go past 400 yards, it is not real FUN and chasing targets at 500 plus yards means a lot of time going back and forth, with less shooting.

  16. #16
    Moderator

    W.R.Buchanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ojai CA
    Posts
    9,872
    I read an article by Jack O'Connor around 1963 ( I was already a gun person at 13 years old and actually was by age 8 when I got my first BB gun.) The article was entitled "New Cartridges are like New Jokes!"

    I had already figured out at that tender age that just about everything that should have been invented (cartridge wise) had already been invented. And the article pretty much put the idea of new wonder cartridges in the trash heap.

    I can safely say that with very few exceptions everything that was ever needed or will ever be needed had already been invented by 1970 and maybe even before that.

    Example, the 6.5 Creedmoor won't do anything that the 6.5x55 Swede hasn't been doing for over 100 years+. Fast twist barrels? The 1896 Swedish Mausers had 1:8 twist barrels 120 years ago. My gun was made in 1899! And still shoots <2MOA with Iron Sights and better if I work at it a little.

    Many new cartridges have come and gone in the time from 1970 til now and the latest is the New 6.8/.277 cal. cartridge that Sig has built rifles for. The cases are essentially .308 cases with steel case heads because the cartridge runs at 80,000 psi. The supposed reason for this cartridge is so that a gun with a 13" barrel can still develop the same velocity as a regular .270 with a 20"+ barrel. I would have loved to been in the room when the decision was made for the Govt to spend $120 million on new guns for this cartridge. So far the only redeeming part of this is that the gun comes with an interchangeable .308 barrel so you can shoot M80 ball if you can't find any of the 6.8 rounds. I don't see the 6.8 barrels lasting very long at 80K psi anyway so Sig will probably make bank on replacement barrels! And I don't see this gun being in service very long either because if you can invent a 6.8 cartridge that runs at 80K psi,,, You can certainly make one that will churn out 4000 fps from a 13" bbl in .22 cal and make sure you include 5.56 barrels with the gun!

    This is all contrary to the Govts normal Modus Operundai of picking the cheapest bid out there. Like they did when they went with 9mm handguns in the 1980's. I don't see this ammo being cheap,, Ever! Especially when Sig owns it outright!

    So I will continue to shoot my .223 Carbines,,, .30-06, .308, .303 6.5x55 Bolt Guns,,,.45-70 & .44 Magnum Lever Guns ,,, 12 ga. and .410 shotguns and .40 &.45 caliber Glocks because they will do everything I will ever want to do.

    I see no reason for new calibers. Everything that needed to be done with cartridge fired weaponry, was done long ago. If for some reason these new cartridges offer some significant advantage to me I might change my mind, however that is doubtful!

    Now the next evolution of hand held weaponry will be some kind of energy beam type of weapon. However just like the fact that Muzzle Loading Guns are just as effective now as they were 300 years ago, the cartridge guns of today will be effective for as long as they can exist. So even if someone is shooting a "Laser Blaster" at you doesn't mean you are under gunned with your Mini 14, and in most cases you may have a serious advantage when their battery packs run dry. Where will they recharge when there is no fossil fuels left?

    My .02
    Randy
    "It's not how well you do what you know how to do,,,It's how well you do what you DON'T know how to do!"
    www.buchananprecisionmachine.com

  17. #17
    Boolit Grand Master



    M-Tecs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by W.R.Buchanan View Post

    I can safely say that with very few exceptions everything that was ever needed or will ever be needed had already been invented by 1970 and maybe even before that.

    Example, the 6.5 Creedmoor won't do anything that the 6.5x55 Swede hasn't been doing for over 100 years+. Fast twist barrels? The 1896 Swedish Mausers had 1:8 twist barrels 120 years ago.
    It will do one thing that the 6.5x55 Swede can not do and that requirement is the sole reason it was designed. See post #10 It will fit in a 308 length magazine with the long VLD bullets that the long range competitors use in the action length they use. For the average hunter or blaster the 6.5 Creedmoor doesn't have any advantages over the 6.5x55 Swede or 260 Rem. The thing is some people do have requirements that go beyond the needs of the average hunter or blaster.

    Quote Originally Posted by W.R.Buchanan View Post

    Many new cartridges have come and gone in the time from 1970 til now and the latest is the New 6.8/.277 cal. cartridge that Sig has built rifles for. The cases are essentially .308 cases with steel case heads because the cartridge runs at 80,000 psi. The supposed reason for this cartridge is so that a gun with a 13" barrel can still develop the same velocity as a regular .270 with a 20"+ barrel. I would have loved to been in the room when the decision was made for the Govt to spend $120 million on new guns for this cartridge. So far the only redeeming part of this is that the gun comes with an interchangeable .308 barrel so you can shoot M80 ball if you can't find any of the 6.8 rounds. I don't see the 6.8 barrels lasting very long at 80K psi anyway so Sig will probably make bank on replacement barrels! And I don't see this gun being in service very long either because if you can invent a 6.8 cartridge that runs at 80K psi,,, You can certainly make one that will churn out 4000 fps from a 13" bbl in .22 cal and make sure you include 5.56 barrels with the gun!
    This is a ten year contract for a total of 4.5 Billion. The $20.4 million contract is just the first year. If Sig does not meet the milestone requirements they will lose the contract and it will be awarded to others. The claim is due to new processes the barrel life will be more than double that of the current M4. Time will tell? I do know that if this platform lives up to the claims it would be the rifle system I would want to go into combat with. While I have been into 4 different combat zones on three continents I have always been inside the wire. Lot of my friends have been in actual combat and they were not overly impressed with the performance of M855 green tip particularly when compared to MK 262. https://www.shootingtimes.com/editor...1-review/99098

    The Army requirement are what drove Sigs development. The Army did not want a 22 Caliber.

    Some interesting discussion on the two links below.

    https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...light=277+fury

    https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...light=277+fury

    Personally I like having choices that allows me select what best fulfills the requirements of my specific application.
    Last edited by M-Tecs; 05-21-2022 at 06:28 PM.
    2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    "Before you argue with someone, ask yourself, is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of different perspectives? Because if not, there’s absolutely no point."
    – Amber Veal

    "The Highest form of ignorance is when your reject something you don't know anything about".
    - Wayne Dyer

  18. #18
    Boolit Master Bad Ass Wallace's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,957
    Never been a shooter that has to have the latest and greatest thing on the market. My custom rifle is simply a Remington 700 with a custom thumbhole stock and quality McMillian 1:10" twist barrel. It was assembled in the 1980 and has performed always as expected whether target shooting or hunting. The only upgrade in over 40 years has been to mount a Leupold VX6 2-12 scope.

    When I look at the 6.5CM there seems little difference to my 250AI which can launch boolits up to 115gns. It is also good with RCBS 100gn cast boolits.



    Last edited by Bad Ass Wallace; 05-22-2022 at 12:12 AM.
    Hold Still Varmint; while I plugs Yer!

  19. #19
    Boolit Master
    nekshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    swmissouri
    Posts
    3,116
    I like your laminated stock. I guess the old school in me gets excited when I see wood stocks. I am completely stuck in the early 60,s era of cartridges available and the stories in the PA Hunting News. I will admit for some dumb reason the 6.5 Creedmore waters me off. I think a lot of my hostility towards it was the way gun writers and advertisers used alot of condescending attitude towards good established cartridges and the seemingly orchestrated flood of advertising info jammed down “our” throats. Gosh, I sound like an old fa-t from the past!
    Look twice, shoot once.

  20. #20
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fl.
    Posts
    1,565
    The difference between the standard cartridges of years ago and the special purpose rounds we’ve been seeing the past 60 years is minor. All these newer designs offer some benefits over the traditional cartridges but for the average hunter that may use a box of ammo a year the improvements are not so critical.
    Take the 5.56. It wasn’t a stellar military cartridge straight out of the gate. The primary plus it offered, reduced weight, made sense for a military weapon in combat conditions of the day. The slight reduction in lethality of a 55 grain 22 caliber bullet vs a 160 gr 30 caliber round was acceptable in that a wounded enemy was as good as a dead one. The trade off in effective range fit prevalent doctrine and training too.
    But to the majority of shooters not intent on killing another human being, the weight of 5 rounds and the action length was a non issue, while practical range and DIT doesmatter.
    The 5.56 went through a lot of tweaks to become an acceptable military cartridge as will Sig’s new offering. Unless it’s an outright flop, which is something the US won’t readily admit, it will drive a major rearmament for NATO generating massive sales and profits. Success will cause it to trickle down to civilian popularity ala the current 5.56 craze we have now. It certainly can be a better hunting round than the 5.56.
    But just as the 308 is a little more convenient than the ‘06, and the 6.5 CM’s accuracy vs wear / recoil nudges out the .243 / .270, the benefits are marginal for the average shooter in most applications.
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I’m happy to be able to see the front sight.
    Military innovation has always driven the firearms industry. I’m sure one hundred sixty years ago gentlemen debated the merits of the Spencer and Henry vs the 1861 Springfield.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check