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.
Ad Hominem logical fallacy, you're just trying to stifle legitimate discussion.
The basic intent is to say the Aussies are too stupid to see the 6.5G as the Holy Grail of military calibers.
Strawmen logical fallacy. All people are doing is suggesting whether or not a better option may be available. No different than someone saying they want to get "X" gun for "Y" purpose and someone asking if "Z" gun would not be a better choice instead.
Facts are, the point of the 6.5G was to shoot long range competition with the AR well beyond EFFECTIVE combat distances.
The point of the AR was to shoot gophers, so it's obviously an inferior combat rifle.
Just because most combat occurs at under 400 yards does not mean that ALL combat occurs under 400 yards. Slapping together a cartridge that is good out to 400 yards was fine 60 years ago, now we have the tech and experience to make a cartridge that is the same size and weight as those of yesteryear but are of much higher performance and effective for several hundred more yards with no additional cost.
Also remember that the "most combat under 400 yards" was from back in the day before modern optics. A basic 4x scope increases the range at which shots can be made significantly so more shots are able to be made at 400 yards in the first place.
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.
You blatantly contradict yourself here. Special forces wanted longer reach and more power......but went along with a cartridge design that had inferior trajectory and wind drift to the 77 grain 5.56, thus SHORTER reach?
The 6.8 is NOT a long range cartridge. That is a basic fact backed up with any ballistic calculator. It's trajectory trends closely to the 7.62x39.
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.
tirod, this is the internet. In 30 seconds I can go to threads past and copy/paste the refutations of your statements. Why do seem to think we aren't going to call you out on this?
Longdayjake: Really? Combat happens in close range all the time? Did you go to Afganistan? Did you ask them what range their battles are? If we wanted incerased lethality at short range why didn't we just go the 7.62x39 route? Since we know the 6.8 doesn't fly or kill any better and the 7.62x39 is much cheaper that would make the most sense. Oh and did you forget to mention that the military nixed the 6.8 because of its crappy performance? The only reason 6.8 spc is so much more popular today is because at one point there were units using it in Iraq. Civilians and gunrags flocked to it thinking it was the next m16 bullet. It failed and was kicked out of the military role.
But it already had a civilan following that ressurected it from the dead with a new chambering and barrel twist. Now it has a huge following of people that constantly quote velocities that you can only get from dangerously over charging handloads and is about 200 fps faster than any factory ammunition. Yes it kills deer and hogs but not any better than the 6.5. Lets compare some factory loads shall we?
Okay silver state armory lists their 115 grain ssa otm at 2500 fps from a 16" barrel it has a BC of.317. This bullet is a hollow point match bullet.
Range Velocity Impact Drop ToF Energy Drift
0 2500 NaN 0 0 1596 0
25 2426 NaN 0.24 0.03 1503 0
50 2360 NaN 0.85 0.06 1422 0
75 2294 NaN 1.85 0.1 1344 0
100 2230 NaN 3.26 0.13 1270 0
125 2166 NaN 5.12 0.16 1198 0
150 2103 NaN 7.43 0.2 1129 0
175 2041 NaN 10.24 0.24 1064 0
200 1981 NaN 13.58 0.27 1002 0
225 1921 NaN 17.47 0.31 942 0
250 1863 NaN 21.95 0.35 886 0
275 1806 NaN 27.05 0.39 833 0
300 1751 NaN 32.83 0.43 783 0
325 1696 NaN 39.31 0.48 735 0
350 1643 NaN 46.55 0.52 689 0
375 1592 NaN 54.6 0.57 647 0
400 1542 NaN 63.51 0.62 607 0
425 1493 NaN 73.33 0.67 569 0
450 1446 NaN 84.12 0.72 534 0
475 1402 NaN 95.95 0.77 502 0
500 1359 NaN 108.89 0.82 472 0
525 1318 NaN 123 0.88 444 0
550 1280 NaN 138.36 0.94 418 0
575 1243 NaN 155.05 1 395 0
600 1209 NaN 173.14 1.06 373 0
625 1177 NaN 192.7 1.12 354 0
650 1148 NaN 213.83 1.19 337 0
675 1122 NaN 236.6 1.25 321 0
700 1098 NaN 261.08 1.32 308 0
725 1076 NaN 287.35 1.39 296 0
750 1055 NaN 315.48 1.46 284 0
775 1036 NaN 345.55 1.53 274 0
800 1019 NaN 377.61 1.6 265 0
Now lets post the 6.5 grendel load FROM A 16" BARREL
Alexander loads a 123 grain Lapua scenar with a bc of .55 and lists 2480 fps as velocity from a 16" barrel.
0 2480 NaN 0 0 1680 0
25 2438 NaN 0.24 0.03 1623 0
50 2399 NaN 0.85 0.06 1572 0
75 2361 NaN 1.83 0.1 1523 0
100 2324 NaN 3.21 0.13 1475 0
125 2286 NaN 4.99 0.16 1427 0
150 2249 NaN 7.19 0.19 1381 0
175 2213 NaN 9.82 0.23 1338 0
200 2176 NaN 12.9 0.26 1293 0
225 2140 NaN 16.43 0.3 1251 0
250 2104 NaN 20.44 0.33 1209 0
275 2069 NaN 24.95 0.37 1169 0
300 2034 NaN 29.96 0.4 1130 0
325 1999 NaN 35.5 0.44 1091 0
350 1965 NaN 41.59 0.48 1055 0
375 1931 NaN 48.24 0.52 1018 0
400 1897 NaN 55.47 0.56 983 0
425 1864 NaN 63.31 0.6 949 0
450 1831 NaN 71.77 0.64 916 0
475 1799 NaN 80.88 0.68 884 0
500 1767 NaN 90.67 0.72 853 0
525 1736 NaN 101.15 0.76 823 0
550 1705 NaN 112.35 0.81 794 0
575 1674 NaN 124.3 0.85 765 0
600 1644 NaN 137.02 0.9 738 0
625 1615 NaN 150.54 0.94 712 0
650 1586 NaN 164.9 0.99 687 0
675 1557 NaN 180.12 1.04 662 0
700 1529 NaN 196.23 1.09 639 0
725 1501 NaN 213.27 1.13 615 0
750 1474 NaN 231.26 1.19 593 0
775 1448 NaN 250.26 1.24 573 0
800 1422 NaN 270.28 1.29 552 0
hmm looks like the 6.8 doesn't even beat the grendel in energy from a 16" barrel since it shoots a smaller bullet and it doesn't even shoot it that much faster. In this case, factory ammo advantage goes to the grendel.
Knowing how you 6.8 fanboys will look at this and it will make you angry that I didn't add the extra 100 fps that you 6.8 fans give to all your data I will do that for you and we will see how much better your 6.8 does than the 6.5 grendel.
so, the same SSA load at 2600 fps which is still faster than their "tactical load"
Range Velocity Impact Drop ToF Energy Drift
0 2600 NaN 0 0 1726 0
25 2524 NaN 0.23 0.03 1627 0
50 2456 NaN 0.79 0.06 1540 0
75 2388 NaN 1.71 0.09 1456 0
100 2322 NaN 3.02 0.12 1377 0
125 2257 NaN 4.73 0.16 1301 0
150 2194 NaN 6.87 0.19 1229 0
175 2130 NaN 9.47 0.23 1159 0
200 2068 NaN 12.54 0.26 1092 0
225 2007 NaN 16.13 0.3 1029 0
250 1947 NaN 20.25 0.34 968 0
275 1888 NaN 24.95 0.38 910 0
300 1831 NaN 30.26 0.42 856 0
325 1775 NaN 36.22 0.46 805 0
350 1720 NaN 42.87 0.5 755 0
375 1666 NaN 50.25 0.54 709 0
400 1614 NaN 58.42 0.59 665 0
425 1563 NaN 67.43 0.64 624 0
450 1514 NaN 77.32 0.69 585 0
475 1467 NaN 88.17 0.74 550 0
500 1421 NaN 100.02 0.79 516 0
525 1377 NaN 112.95 0.84 484 0
550 1336 NaN 127.02 0.9 456 0
575 1296 NaN 142.3 0.95 429 0
600 1259 NaN 158.88 1.01 405 0
625 1224 NaN 176.83 1.07 383 0
650 1191 NaN 196.22 1.14 362 0
675 1161 NaN 217.13 1.2 344 0
700 1133 NaN 239.65 1.27 328 0
725 1108 NaN 263.86 1.33 314 0
750 1085 NaN 289.81 1.4 301 0
775 1064 NaN 317.6 1.47 289 0
800 1044 NaN 347.29 1.54 278 0
Oops, looks like the grendel passes the 6.8 in energy at 50 yards and then at 100 yards it passes it in velocity. From there the 6.8 performance is just sad when compared to the grendel.
Okay so lets pretend that the grendel doesn't quite get that velocity from a 16" barrel. Though we have no reason to believe it, lets pretend that the grendel gets 80 fps less than what alexander arms lists for the load.
Range Velocity Impact Drop ToF Energy Drift
0 2400 NaN 0 0 1573 0
25 2359 NaN 0.26 0.03 1520 0
50 2321 NaN 0.9 0.07 1471 0
75 2284 NaN 1.95 0.1 1425 0
100 2247 NaN 3.42 0.13 1379 0
125 2210 NaN 5.32 0.17 1334 0
150 2174 NaN 7.67 0.2 1291 0
175 2138 NaN 10.48 0.23 1248 0
200 2102 NaN 13.77 0.27 1207 0
225 2067 NaN 17.55 0.31 1167 0
250 2032 NaN 21.84 0.34 1128 0
275 1997 NaN 26.66 0.38 1089 0
300 1963 NaN 32.02 0.42 1052 0
325 1929 NaN 37.95 0.46 1016 0
350 1895 NaN 44.47 0.5 981 0
375 1862 NaN 51.59 0.54 947 0
400 1829 NaN 59.34 0.58 914 0
425 1797 NaN 67.74 0.62 882 0
450 1765 NaN 76.82 0.66 851 0
475 1734 NaN 86.59 0.7 821 0
500 1703 NaN 97.08 0.75 792 0
525 1673 NaN 108.33 0.79 764 0
550 1642 NaN 120.34 0.84 736 0
575 1613 NaN 133.17 0.88 711 0
600 1584 NaN 146.83 0.93 685 0
625 1555 NaN 161.35 0.98 660 0
650 1527 NaN 176.77 1.03 637 0
675 1500 NaN 193.12 1.07 615 0
700 1473 NaN 210.43 1.13 593 0
725 1446 NaN 228.73 1.18 571 0
750 1421 NaN 248.08 1.23 552 0
775 1396 NaN 268.49 1.28 532 0
800 1371 NaN 290.01 1.34 513 0
Looks like the neutered grendel passes the pumped up 6.8 in energy at 100 yards!!!! Then at 175 yards it passes the 6.8 in velocity. At 25 yards the neutered grendel beats the original 6.8 load in energy.
Is there anything more I can do to show you that your beloved 6.8 is NOT a better choice from a 16" barrel? You guys are the ones stuck on barrel lengths not us. We admit that your bullets go faster to start with, but your lighter bullets don't fly as flat or as long as the heavier higher bc bullets. VELOCITY DOES NOT EQUAL PERFORMANCE!!!
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?
The AR was not designed to be a combat weapon either, what's your point? The M1 carbine was not designed to be issued to front-line infantry either. The fact is that the attributes that make the 6.5 good at long range also make it very good for short rage work as well.
The 6.5 long range loadings are quite effective at short range, but indeed can be made even more effective at short range with a lighter bullet with the thin jacket, but there is nothing that can be done to the 6.8 to make it a more effective long range cartridge. It has the same problem as the 7.62x39, relatively low BC bullets and no way to push the heavies fast enough at safe pressure.
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.
Moving the goalposts logical fallacy. The discussion is about assault rifle cartridges. Nobody is going to be issuing assault rifles in 300 Win mag. The purpose of comparing to the .308 is as a benchmark with which to gauge performance and to show that as range increases the 6.5 still.
When someone says their car is "fast" you have to ask "Fast compared to what?" Relative comparison is impossible if you don't have a bench mark with which to use.
The fact is that 6.8SPC in tactical loads does travel at 3,000 fps, and speed is another way to express power.
Wrong again. "Power", another way to say "Energy", is a function of velocity AND mass. By itself velocity cannot tell you the power of a cartridge. Is a cartridge that firers a bullet at 1,500 fps powerful? Depends on what the mass of the bullet is. If it's a 30 grain 22 Long Rifle than not really, if it's a 1.25 ounce 12 gauge slug, then yes.
You are of course referring to the SSA load that uses the 85 grain Barnes TSX bullet, a bullet with a BC of only .246, inferior even to most 7.62x39 bullets. Yea you can shoot that bullet fast, but it's going to drop like a brick because it can't hold onto that velocity.
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.
Whoops, now we are suddenly talking about a completely different loading because that certainly isn't true about the 85 grain loadings you were discussing a sentence ago.
So, going by the realistic figures in the quote above, a difference in 18" of drop at 500 yards is "a candy wrapper"? Afterwords it gets even worse for the 6.8, at 600 yards the difference has opened up to a 36" difference in drop. In mountainous terrain 600 yards is not that far. Add to the fact that the lower BC of the 6.8 translates into significantly higher wind drift making it all the more difficult to hit ones target.
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.
So your saying that only inferior and hyped products get advertising? That a good product will be so good thatit will telepathicly notify all consumers of it's existence and awesomeness?
That statement of yours applies far better to the 6.8 SPC than the Grendel. A hyped up caliber with fraudulent MV figures and which was quickly abandnoned by the military as inferior to improved 77 grain 5.56 loads.
Just because someone is an "Expert" does not mean that what they come up with is a good idea. I'm an expert at building computers and I've come up with some really stupid ideas that I though would work great. They started out with a 30 Remington case as the base, which in hindsight was a poor choice as it precludes loading high BC bullets that can fit in the AR magazine. had the short OAL not been an issue and bullets loaded out further than that may not have been an issue.
The increase in marketing in the 6.5, as far as I can see, has been the introduction of the interchangeable 6.5 LBC to break Alexander Arms monopoly on the chamber design, allowing more companies to get into the market.
Marketing, pure and simple, using the contrived connection that it should be a military caliber. Good luck with that.
Are you talking about the 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel with that statement because it applies far more to the 6.8 than the 6.5.
The problem for enthusiasts is they have no understanding that in combat, it's a matter of orchestrating destructive power.
It is you who has no understanding. What does "orchestrating destructive power" involve? Putting maximum amount of destructive power where it needs to go. For a rifleman that means a weapon and cartridge that is flat shooting, retains energy well, has minimal wind drift, and good terminal ballistics. Something like the 6.5 or even the modern 77 grain 5.56 loads.
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.
It is quite easily demonstrable that the 6.5 outclasses the 6.8 in every category that matters on the battlefield, retained energy, drop, wind drift, etc. Those graphs are not some abstract idea, they translate into real world performance. It is you who who is completely unable to prove your concept, having to resort to incoherent romanticized rambling.
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.
The topic is about a country adopting a caliber other than 5.56. it most certainly is on topic. Lord knows the 6.8 people would be complaining if it was the 6.5 that was being considered.
Until then, it's about the potential that the Aussies might adopt 6.8SPC. Contribute toward that, not whine about being ignored once again.
Sorry, not gonna be bullied by someone who is all talk and no walk when it comes to backing up their claims about the supposed superiority of the 6.8. The only thing you seem to be able to say "military experts designed it so it must be good".
The stubby case form itself is part of the problem.
As has been said before:
Seems like we can built autoloaders in 45 ACP just fine with cyclic rates far higher than any assault rifle, cartridges don't get much stubbier than that the 45 ACP.
