Well, as usual, the intellectual arrogance of a certain caliber crowd intrudes into a discussion of a potential new service round for a foreign ally.
The basic intent is to say the Aussies are too stupid to see the 6.5G as the Holy Grail of military calibers.
Facts are, the point of the 6.5G was to shoot long range competition with the AR well beyond EFFECTIVE combat distances. Combat is acknowledged by the military community to be about 500 meters maximum for the average soldier using the issue weapon in the field. They only need 2MOA, and only have to incapacitate the target. It doesn't have to be Dead Right There, just unable to shoot back effectively.
Since military experts in applied ballistics are in question, please once again be reminded publicly that the Special Forces wanted a longer reach and higher lethality caliber for their type of warfare and skilled shooter. They coordinated with the the Army Marksmanship Unit, and the end result was a cartridge that gave 40% more power - not necessarily range - under 500m. With a 16" barrel, the results are satisfactory in self loading actions used in the field.
As opposed to a target round developed as a hobby and then commercialized to market to long distance shooters. It's common knowledge the optimum - meaning best - combination of features in each caliber is different; 6.8SPC being inherently designed for the M4 with issue 14.5" barrel, the 6.8G at 24" or so, largely because of the significant difference in cartridge shape. The 6.8 case applies a lot of power quickly to achieve speed from short barrels, the 6.5G applies lower power over a longer barrel length to push a heavier narrower bullet to less speed. It's ballistic coefficient only comes into play after hundreds of yards, and is especially effective beyond 500m - where most soldiers are documented and known not to shoot.
Military experts in self loading actions and caliber selection simple aren't interested in the 6.5G because it isn't designed or intended for use under 500m. The 6.8SPC certainly is, and intended to be. What part of experts in the field isn't understood?
As for long range use, comparing the 6.5G to .308 is moot, now, the Army is moving to .300 Win Mag. I suspect some fanboys would make a case 6.5G is better there, too.
The fact is that 6.8SPC in tactical loads does travel at 3,000 fps, and speed is another way to express power. At maximum effective ranges soldiers shoot, about 500m, the difference in holdover between the 6.8 and 6.5G amounts to a candy wrapper when sighted in to the same range.
If the 6.5G was all that, I have to ask why all the marketing to portray it the last 18 months as a SBR cartridge for combat use? In reality, it's rare enough for a caliber designed by military experts to be adopted. What's being done by scripted talking points is to impress well heeled American buyers they should get the 6.5G - because it's somehow intellectually superior.
Marketing, pure and simple, using the contrived connection that it should be a military caliber. Good luck with that.
The problem for enthusiasts is they have no understanding that in combat, it's a matter of orchestrating destructive power. It's the game on the field that counts, not a half time dog and pony show of graphs. They challenge others to prove their concepts, but can't show how their's would actually be a benefit.
The 6.5G fanboys are certainly encouraged to point out any potential adoption, rumored or fact, and enjoy their discussion. Here, it's OFF TOPIC, and wasn't intended whatsoever.
Until then, it's about the potential that the Aussies might adopt 6.8SPC. Contribute toward that, not whine about being ignored once again.
