Posted on 06/26/2008 6:52:28 PM PDT by LSUfan
Fix that first, then decide on the rifle / carbine to fit the load.
I would love some 5.56 surplus for my mini 14. It is getting to the point where it is over $1.00 per round.
Two words-
Sectional Density
The 6.5 “stacks” very well in that department.
Very cool
No doubt! My Model 38 Swede with the 140 kills way better than the charts say. Especially with partitions, but it don't matter. If you can do that with an AR type, good deal.
Is that a package that would be small enough to fit inside of an MRAP?
Today's war in Iraq requres a short barreled weapon for quick exit from an MRAP and for close quarter battle.
The standard M14 is fine in Afghanistan in the hills, but not for Sadr City.
We’re finishing a reloading job now... but bought the components a couple of weeks ago. It’s costing us .25 (twenty five cents) per round. Component prices haven’t quite caught up with commercial, or mil surplus ammo, and NOW is the time to reload if you can.
Yep.
My 6.5X50R in a 14” bbl. Contender is a very nice dual purpose round. 120’s at 24-2500 FPS with a 223 diameter case.
The 140 and 160 gr. bullets look about 3-4 feet long too. (grin)
Have fun with that Swede.
Regards
Here is a question for you folks ... what ever happened to the development of caseless ammo? This would lighten the load or allow for more ammo to be carried.
Something like used in the ficticious M41A.
I would figure that the problems of storage conditions and time would have been figured out by now.
Since that light bullet loses energy and penetration at long range, they went to the heavy long bullets which in fact do shoot well at long range and do in fact penetrate.
The problem with the .223 is it can't do both. If loaded with heavy stable bullets in a short barreled carbine, they simply drill a small hole right through, creating what some call an ice-pick wound. It does not have enough diameter to make up for the lack of tumbling which the original bullet did.
The 6.5 is just large enough to have a lot of shock even tho it too just drills right through at short or long range. It also has the power to penetrate armor and shoot flat and most importantly without a lot of wind drift.
Mattes is probably a great guy, but having the Air Force in charge of testing and picking out equipment for the Army seems strange, will the Army be choosing aircraft for the Air Force?
the Army has already adopted it; it's called the FN SCAR.
Not sure what you're buying but I sell Federal XM193 in my shop for well under $10 a box. You better shop around some!
The 6.5 x 55 is an absolute delight to shoot!
“Bring back the M14!”
They are back....they’ve all been brought out of Army storage and issued to combat units....since the ATF considers them machine guns they were never sold to civilians....the Army has held them all this time....a small number were given to law enforcement and the Army has requested that those be returned at once...the strong demand for the M-14 is said to be driven by two factors:
1.The knockdown power of the .308 Winchester round.
2.They don’t require near the maintenence/lubrication of an M-4 to keep them running in desert conditions.
There were no doubt times over the last 40 years when the wisdom of holding on to these rifles was questioned....the Army was wise to keep them given what we know now.
Maneuverable in tight spaces (like the M4 carbine); good knockdown to 500 - 600 yds (and one can make that shot); penetrates heavier cover that deflects .223...
Plus it looks cool...
What tends to happen in some of these discussions in which people get passionate about something like guns (can’t blame ‘em there) is that, pretty soon, here we are at caliber war time, again. I don’t recall anything in the posted article either for or against the 5.56X45 NATO round. It was about Colt, Colt’s monopoly status as an M4 supplier, and the threat it faces from other weapon designs and other manufacturers.
Colt, as many well know, was once a presence in the civilian and police gun market...but they let their prices increase, let their quality control drop, and stopped being anything other than a military rifle contractor...and contrary to what Colt’s CEO (Gen. William Keys, ret.) says, a military rifle supplier is all Colt is probably ever going to be at this point. Therein lies their problem: having abandoned all other markets, they are at the complete mercy of Uncle Sugar.
As for the whole caliber war thing,though, anyone who wants to can post on the Internet that, “All the soldiers I talk to hate 5.56 and want to go back to the M14 and its 7.62x51 cartridge...right now!” Who’s going to dispute it?
...except for all the M14s the BentOne sent to Lithuania, to keep them (as semi-auto) out of the CMP intentory, or had de-milled...
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.