David E. Petzal out to be downright turgid at the thought right now.
Posted on 04/19/2017 5:08:10 PM PDT by MtnClimber
SOCOM has seen the light, and is finally looking to drop the 7.62 NATO in favor of a lighter and better-performing rifle in a 6.5 short-action caliber. Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action sniper rifle systems.
Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the .260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.
Research shows that both rounds will “stay supersonic longer, have less wind drift and better terminal performance than 7.62 mm ammunition,” SOCOM officials said.......
Is anyone seeing signs of a clear trend here? The Army is already looking to bring back battle rifles and widely distribute them among the troops, at the same time they’re replacing their semi-automatic sniper rifles with a HK descendent of the AR-10 that isn’t really a sniper rifle.
(Excerpt) Read more at bearingarms.com ...
I imagine they would have held up but who knows? The Swiss have a reputation for taking good care of their equipment. I used to have an old Kern binocular made in the 50s which was still nice.
I bet the cost of making those fine rifles was really high. They sure were beautifully made.
The K-31 is on my list of WWII era battle rifles to collect. But first I’m looking for A SMLE. I’d like a mark IV, but if a nice mark III came along i wouldn’t turn it down.
CC
Sometime in November, you & I need to have a conversation on the wonders of the Lapua
David E. Petzal out to be downright turgid at the thought right now.
I think mine was a model 1911. I think they used the same action on the later models. For just regular shooting, it was fine but the case head was not totally supported which meant you did not need to load it hot. Also the rear locking lugs didn’t help.
I believe the barrel was 31 inches and even with that long barrel it really roared when fired.
Like a Timex watch.
“...Research shows that both rounds will “stay supersonic longer, have less wind drift and better terminal performance than 7.62 mm ammunition,” SOCOM officials said....”
What a crock of horse puckey. Maybe with 7.62 NATO ammunition already in the inventory, but any comparison to commercial-only .264 that doesn’t also include commercial 7.62/.308 is comparing apples to rutabagas. Either they’re incapable of thinking outside the box or they’re cherry-picking facts to fit their foregone conclusion.
Ballistic coefficient is the controlling over both maximizing efficiency and minimizing wind drift. The highest BC 7.62 round currently in the inventory is the M118, which uses a 175-gr SMK. The SMK has an ogive of just 7.0 calibers. There are .30-cal bullets on the market with ogive numbers more than twice that high, and with a G1 BC that’s 25% higher than the SMK’s. The comparison they’re making is like measuring the speed of a 3-year-old thoroughbred against a 15-year-old draft horse.
There could be lots of other sound reasons, like lighter ammunition, less recoil and lower per-round costs, but they’re blowing smoke up your skirt with tales of “stay supersonic longer” and “less wind drift.”
It took me second, wondering the significance of waiting till Nov, but now I get it.
My birthday is next month. I’m going to start thinking about what indispensable item my better half needs to know about that you can help me with. :)
300 win mag
I like the 300 Win Mag and the 338 Lapua, but the article points out that an enemy sniper will recognize these rifles and could target our snipers. I don't know if this is a big issue, but I would want a semi auto sniper rifle over a bolt gun if things got to close quarters combat.
I have a vague idea what BC, ogive etc. means but never really studied them.
I do know that the original 30-06 was loaded with 220 grain bullet. Those old parallel sided round nosed fmj bullets would penetrate like crazy.
In modern boat tail, pointed, bullets, a 220 grain bullet would have exceptional range. The trouble with the .308 is the smaller powder space is made even smaller with that weight bullet.
On the other hand, the 6.5x55 plus several other early 6.5s were originally loaded with 160 grain round nose fmj bullets.
Loaded with a 139 grain bullet of high BC or whatever it is, it performs like a very heavy 30 caliber but with less recoil, etc. but it also does not take up case volume.
Same applies to a 6mm with a heavy for caliber low drag bullet.
6.5mm, getting it done since November 1963 (Yes, I know that’s tacky)
Finally - a voice of reason. 7.62mm NATO is an excellent long distance caliber.
Don’t fix what isn’t broken.
plink
Hopefully, they will sell the surplus 7.62 to the public at the CMP site.
Thank you. That’s exactly what I was thinking, but you said it much better than I could have.
As for weight savings why not aluminum cases? CCI already has a line of them.
Creedmoor is an awesome name for a bullet.
“...I do know that the original 30-06 was loaded with 220 grain bullet...
...The trouble with the .308 is the smaller powder space is made even smaller with that weight bullet....”
The .30-03 had the 220-gr bullet. The .30-06 first used in the 1903 Springfield used a 150-gr projectile.
Powder space is relative to shank seating depth. You can seat the bullet to any depth you want, you just need a chamber with a long enough of a throat to accommodate the resulting COAL. All it takes is one phone call to Pacific Tool and Gauge and they’ll make you a custom reamer to cut a chamber with whatever throat length you tell them.
All the .264 cartridges they’re talking about were first developed as sporting rounds, and sporting development on them, especially the Creedmore and the Grendel, is ongoing. It’s simply not logical to compare them to a MilSpec cartridge that’s been essentially static for half a century. If you want a relevant comparison, you’ve got to allow the chamber specs to be updated to something more current than 7.62 NATO.
There’s a 1-mile target range about an hour’s drive from my house. I guarantee you no one is finding the target on that range with anything smaller than a .375 (elev. 1200’ msl). A .338 AI won’t get there, much less a .338 Lapua. And they’re loading Ay-Cho-Tee HOT, burning barrels out in less than a thousand rounds.
I know SOCOM isn’t expecting 1-mile sea level shots with whatever rifle they select, but my point is that long range shooting has one thing in common with drag racing: there is no replacement for displacement. The current world-record sniper shot wasn’t made with a .308 or a .264, it was made with a .50 BMG. The simple fact is, when it comes to bullet mass, less is less and more is more, and you can’t do more with less. Sir Isaac wouldn’t allow it. Anybody tells you different is peddling snake oil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.