I would pick 6.5 Creedmore.
How about a Swiss K-31? They already come in 6.5mm, and you can get ‘em cheap.
CC
ARMA 3, which came out several years ago but is set in the 2030s, predicted NATO would move to the 6.5.
6mm-6.5mm does seem to be really popular with long range shooters. The Swedish Mauser round would be great but it’s case is probably a little large.
The one thing the old Swede has on most others is the ability to handle long heavy for caliber bullets.
Even the 6.5 Grendel has better ballistics than the 7.62x51, in the lighter AR-15 type package. Stays supersonic further out.
Active Duty ping.
Personally, I like the Winchester .270. It shoots incredibly flat and still has the punch to take down an elk.
6.5 mm is a sweet spot in the small calibers as far as I’m concerned. The Swedes knew what they were doing with the 6.5 x 55 many years ago (1891?). Newer shorter cartridges with less taper and sharper shoulders just make that even better.
I think we could do with a shortie 6.5 mm for general purpose, then move on up to a .338 Lapua for the heavy lifting. We already have 50 cal covered, though there are some intermediate rounds that are excellent as far as accuracy.
“...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.”
300 win mag
6.5mm, getting it done since November 1963 (Yes, I know that’s tacky)
plink
Hopefully, they will sell the surplus 7.62 to the public at the CMP site.
As for weight savings why not aluminum cases? CCI already has a line of them.
Creedmoor is an awesome name for a bullet.
Why not the 6.5 Grendel?
Oops...a bolt. A larger 6.5 would be a better choice after all then.
I am truly enjoying sitting back, absorbing and sifting thru all the great data offered -- with no inclination (or ability) to join in...
FR is truly an enriching place to be!
WTH
Creedmore is 10 percent better BCE than the NATO 7.62 with similar grain
Ok
Remington 6mm flatter trajectory but one third less bulletin weight and ten percent less muzzle velocity
Remington 7mm and winchester .300 mag
Great kill and long range but heavy heavy
My favorite .300 weatherby mag even better....the best all around North American gun arguably but heavy ammo at .510 bce 200 grains
.270 130 grain...a contender at .487 bce
.25-06 can reach .460 bce in 115 grain
.280 Remington at 140 grain .490 bce
.30-06 has some 180-190 grain bullets kat over .500 bce....he’ll yes
Remington 30ll0 ultra short actionmag 190 grain .540 bce....I mean why stop now for flat mankillers
Remington 300 ultra mag 200 grain .550 bce
Winchester .300 mag 200 grains 500 plus bce
Lapua 338 mag 300 grains .768 bce....dayum
Win 338 mag 225 grain .648 bce.....lighter
Weight versus ballistics
Why not just load hot .308 hunting loads and change nothing