>Good thing you can swap a barrel on an AR-15 with nothing more than a mallet and a wrench
Ah, no. You need a vice, an AR tool, a torque wrench, and all the tools needed to remove your free floated handguard and gas block, which might include allen wrenches and punches. Then you have to re-zero all your aiming systems.
this is just .224 Valkyrie with a new name and slightly different cartridge dimensions isn't it to avoid the stigma associated with the botched rollout of .224 valk
>new miracle round
It's a rehashed .22 PPC, which is almost 50 years old at this point. The concept of stuffing a .224 bullet in a 7.62x39 case is nothing new.
>isn't the cartridge dimensionally similar to 7.62x39?
No not really. You're focusing on the x39 portion of the title. Case capacity is very different, base is much smaller, etc. >did they fuck it up on purpose?
They made 5.56 better. Took the SCHV concept to its logical conclusion. 5.56 NATO would've been weaker too. .223 Remington only got made because Stoners original concept wouldn't penetrate helmets reliably which ended up getting added to the requirements for the program.
5.45 is much closer to the original prototype round in energy and recoil.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Stoners original concept wouldn't penetrate helmets reliably which ended up getting added to the requirements for the program.
Note this happened way before the Belgians with the M855. I'm talking about the original M193 development.
>isn't the cartridge dimensionally similar to 7.62x39?
Nope >did they fuck it up on purpose
Improved it. By designing the cartridge and chamber for an extremely long bullet from the start, they can shoot 55gr bullets that are as long as a 77gr match bullet, with even better BC than 5.56 match bullets because they don't have to seat the bullet deep enough to look like a 55gr. So they get a flatter shooting cartridge, with higher retained velocity at range, without additional recoil. It really is a superior cartridge design to the 5.56, but that is expected since it was designed long after the 5.56.
>full auto mag dumps like the original SCHV concept.
the 1930 aberdeen white paper was about single shot rifles and that .30 caliber cartridges under 600 yards have mostly wasted energy
>1930 aberdeen white paper was about single shot rifles and that .30 caliber cartridges under 600 yards have mostly wasted energy
Wasn't the intention of the. 30-06 as an anti cavalry capable round from the start, not anti personnel?
Well it's closer to 2030 than 1930 and I think a cartridge that has enough punch to knock a guy's organs around uncomfortably and cause weakening, bruising damage to his core abdominals at 600yds when he's wearing armor is a better choice, "wasted energy" or not.
I'm not saying hot modern rounds could or will or are meant to pen 3+/4 plates at any considerable distance, but the concept of reducing the effectiveness of an advancing unit at distance is probably better than not having it.
I'm sure a significant lung bruising is still accepetable damage to your opfor than plinking at them with .223s and maybe causing minor skin depth contusion at distance.
The Russian 5.45x39 isn't based on the 7.62x39 case, it uses a unique case that is closer in diameter to the NATO 5 56. The two rounds get similar MV when shot from the same length barrel, the common conception that the 5.45 is weaker comes from the standard ak-74 barrel length of 16.3" vs the standard m-16 barrel length of 20"; out of a 16" barrel the 5.56 is almost the same mv as military 5.45. Commercial 5.45 is often slower, but the same is true for commercial 5.56.
>isn't the cartridge dimensionally similar to 7.62x39?
No not really. You're focusing on the x39 portion of the title. Case capacity is very different, base is much smaller, etc. >did they fuck it up on purpose?
They made 5.56 better. Took the SCHV concept to its logical conclusion. 5.56 NATO would've been weaker too. .223 Remington only got made because Stoners original concept wouldn't penetrate helmets reliably which ended up getting added to the requirements for the program.
5.45 is much closer to the original prototype round in energy and recoil.
oh okay sorry for assuming that the Russians were lazy assholes I guess, interesting
The only gain 5.45 has is doing better out of shorter barrels because it tumbles instead of fragments so it’s not as velocity dependent.
Then again I have no idea how true it is but I’ve always heard people say it.
I mean, yeah it's true. The usual 7n6 or 7n11 with the hardened steel is a purposefully rear-balanced bullet which is consistent at yawing.
The 5.56 fragmentation becomes less and less dependable as you shorten the barrel, and you have the M855 situation where it is very yaw dependent. It can icepick through someone without yawing depending on angle of entry. M855A1 addressed that by introducing a yaw-independent bullet design, which is consistent at early yawing.
https://i.imgur.com/DjASYCj.jpg
so let's assume that military makes a little brother cartridge to the 6.8x51, a genuine 5.56 replacement. What kind of small caliber high velocity cartridge would you choose?
>What kind of small caliber high velocity cartridge would you choose?
One of these 6mm meme calibers but instead of being limited to the AR 5.56 magwell we start with the .223 Magnum case length.
>.223 Magnum case length
.222 magnum, and yeah something like this.
People think that receiver size is best reduced by packing more performance into shorter cartridges, but receiver width is far more important because they will always be very rectangular in vertical cross-section, even with the shortest fattest magnums. And since they're rectangular, width reductions are more beneficial than length reductions.
A key limiting factor of receiver "slimness" is bolt face diameter, not case width. Bolt face diameter dictates bolt lug diameter, which in turn limits the minimum internal diameter of the carrier track, which limits the minimum external diameter, and so on.
So the best replacement would be a rebated .378-rim 6mm cartridge with a touch longer magazine, loaded with probably a 100-108gr projectile. Powder capacity would be about the same as 6mmBR. The only part of the AR-15 which would grow is the magazine well length, you could probably just reduce the ribs in the magazines and maintain ideal hexagonal stacking. If not, a barely-wider magwell isn't the worst thing in the world.
1 month ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/DjASYCj.jpg
so let's assume that military makes a little brother cartridge to the 6.8x51, a genuine 5.56 replacement. What kind of small caliber high velocity cartridge would you choose?
Also what I describe here is way more combat effective than the army's obsession with fudd 6.8 bullshit, and should also replace that.
Ukraine footage has proven that once you're hit that's it, if you're not killed you're "mission" killed. Battle rifle doctrine is retarded because people 1200yds away can't tell the difference between a 105gr projectile and a 135 projectile zipping over their head at the same speed (and the 105 will be going faster anyway).
1 month ago
Anonymous
>people 1200yds away can't tell the difference between a 105gr projectile and a 135 projectile zipping over their head at the same speed
Why is that supposed to matter?
1 month ago
Anonymous
One argument I've run into for years defending battle rifles is that suppression is more effective if the enemy "respects" the bullets overflying their position.
Don't ask me to explain what leads people to believe this, I'm not a neurologist.
1 month ago
Anonymous
death whistle rounds when
1 month ago
Anonymous
I doubt they mean literally respecting the rounds, I believe its a flowery way to say if the enemy thinks the rounds are coming closer than they are.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I didn't mean literally respecting them, I meant that the enemy perceives being under fire by 5.56 as preferable to 7.62 enough to alter their behavior.
They might do this by implication based on how armies actually equip soldiers (ie. "if I'm under fire from 7.62 that means I'm under precision fire"), but if the enemy's doctrine is to put a battle rifle in every soldier's hands (Falklands war) then this implication no longer makes sense because it could all be from a 19yo who's never seen a drop chart.
My argument tl;dr >soldiers believe bullets flying over them will kill them, even small ones >hitting people is what counts >low-recoiling, flat-shooting, wind-bucking, light-carrying 6mm cartridges will enable soldiers to inflict enemy casualties better than anything else
6.8x51 is born of the same thinking which doomed the 280british, thinking which undoubtedly killed Americans in Korea and Vietnam, and is going to kill more Americans in the next war.
1 month ago
Anonymous
It's an observation that came out of Afghanistan as well. Accurate fire was inconsistently suppressive against insurgents if they knew it was from an M4. I spoke to the USMC LTC who wrote the paper (as a Major at staff college I think) I first came across it in and he said that they'd literally gotten the reason out of multiple talibs in tactical questioning. They knew that their odds of dying from an M4 wound before they could receive life saving care were very low. If they allowed themselves to be suppressed then they'd die to HE from supporting fires or grenades, but if they manouevred under M4 fire then they had the option to win the firefight, retreat etc.
The underlying reason that you were grasping for before is really simple. If your enemy doesn't think he will be almost certainly be killed if he leaves cover by the fire that you are applying, then it's his choice whether he's suppressed or not. Fear of the pain of being shot is weakly suppressive, as is some small risk of death. To be reliable suppression needs to make the enemy believe that taking action is pointless because it will inevitably lead to their prompt death.
1 month ago
Anonymous
5.56 dishonorabru
1 month ago
Anonymous
one of the touchstones of what led us to 6.8GP was a peculiarly designed paper studying suppression that (improperly, imo) emphasized sound level
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Ukraine footage has proven that once you're hit that's it
What the fuck? It hasn't done that at all, because it's a selectively captured and then released record of events. Nearly all of the GSW footage comes from the Ukrainian side against extremely low morale adversaries whose will to fight is so low that they literally instantly suicide if they get shrapnel wounds. We know from actually reliable sources like honor and awards citations that people do continue fighting after being shot, but mobiks aren't people.
Did you miss the "barely different from those already existing" part? Innovation implies a new round is doing something new and different.
Anyway, there's nothing new about any of this, even in the 1800's there were constantly new cartridges being introduced by one company or another, barely different from what was already on the market, and now are long forgotten to time.
>even in the 1800's there were constantly new cartridges being introduced by one company or another, barely different from what was already on the market,
GOD BLESS AMERICA! In your face, commies!
Good thing you can swap a barrel on an AR-15 with nothing more than a mallet and a wrench
AR-15? Who would want to shoot these through an AR? The 6ARC is bad enough with it's tuning balancing act, the 22ARC will be worse with it's higher velocities.
Luckily people are beginning to neck the 350 legend case, a vastly better-designed case which actually fits in an AR, 6mm Max being the first.
>Luckily people are beginning to neck the 350 legend case, a vastly better-designed case which actually fits in an AR, 6mm Max being the first.
Please explain how one 6mm cartridge on rouhgly the same cartridge base with roughly the same muzzle velocity will be less of a tuning problem than another. Also >.350 Legend >Well-designed case
Pick one.
This is how many longer-range cartridges for the AR magwell now? Like five?
I want to see someone do a huge test with all the factory ammo and handloads for all these new rounds so one starts getting traction from the e-celeb dicksuckers. Until that happens it's five dangerously unpopular niche cartridges and theres an 80% chance you'll pick one that's going to be dead in a year.
Don't get me wrong, I want one to succeed, I even want it to be the one that's actually the best cartridge design. I have no desire to shell out for five builds and five reloading die sets and spend a year of Sundays figuring out which four cartridges are fucking retarded, only to end up being wrong because one or two barrels were made by israelites.
As far as wildcatting goes you basically have three families (.223 Remington, .30 Remington, 7.62x39) with any permutation of caliber: .17, .224, .25, 6mm, 6.5, 7mm. This has been the case ever since said cartridges (or the AR) have been developed, it's just that there's a recent push to get some of these cartridges SAAMI or CIP approved. 6mm ARC is just 6mm PPC, after all, and has been around for ages.
[...] >Just because it can lob 105-108gr bullets at 2500-2600fps, that doesn't make it ideal.
I agree, I'm also the guy advocating for a lengthening of the magazine box [...]
A 6mm max-like cartridge lengthened to something approximating an OAL of 2.30 when loaded with 108's would virtually replicate 6BR/6Dasher.
>A 6mm max-like cartridge lengthened to something approximating an OAL of 2.30 when loaded with 108's would virtually replicate 6BR/6Dasher.
I was gonna akshually you - and then I ran the numbers in GRT.
6mm Dasher with a 108 Berger and 32 grains of Varget gets you around 2700FPS from a 20 inch barrel. Reduce case capacity to the 35 grains H2O that the 6mm Max is supposed to have, and reduce COAL to 2.26 (maximum for most AR mags), you can use 27.5 grains of Varget to get 2600FPS. Damn. That really is close.
Still, I have particular hate for Winchester marketing, the ''Legend'' name and rebated rims (unless they're in big bore thumpers), so I'd much rather have something in 6mm PPC. With all of these niche cartridges, you're basically stuck with reloading your own and while .223 or x39 brass will always be plentiful, the same cannot be said for the rebated .350 stuff.
>>.350 Legend >>Well-designed case >Pick one.
Up to the part relevant to 6max it is very well designed. The fact it's straight-walled is just because of "primitive weapons only" hunting seasons which IMO aren't restrictive enough.
>Please explain how one 6mm cartridge on rouhgly the same cartridge base with roughly the same muzzle velocity will be less of a tuning problem than another.
Because the Q-angle which the round needs to take after leaving the mag feed lips, and then revert straight to align with the chamber, is larger as the cartridge body widens (given an identical stroke length). The narrower that angle, the less friction you have, the less time is needed for alignment, the more tolerant the cartridge is of speed and inertia differences in the BCG when feeding. 6max will be less tolerant than .223, but only slightly.
I think rebated .378 cartridges deserve a place in the market to partially bridge the performance gap to the .473-class without appreciably increasing weapon size. IMO rebating is a far smarter way of achieving that goal rather than going with an intermediate rim diameter.
And yeah, the "legend" and "buckhammer" marketing fuckery is annoying and I wish it would stop.
(deep advertiser voice, think "The Last Stand" coyote hunting AD reads) >Listen up /k/ommandos, because we got somethin' for you >All new .400 BUCKFUCKER From HornyRee. >Drops a buck quicker than you can drop your drawers. >Coming to your local store soon - almost as fast as you'll cum using our products >HornyRee. On this board, we cum to deer.
Yeah I think it really started to make me question their naming scheme recently. Legend is fine, it's not super serious but not too out there I don't think; maybe I've just heard it so many times I don't think about it anymore though. But "buckmaster" is weird and "buckhammer"...you're just making words up now. Just really scraping the barrel there for some kind of interesting name by smashing two words together instead of trying to find a good name that would actually roll off the tongue and not sound like some shit you'd see in an arcadey hunting game. "Buckhammer" sounds like some legendary weapon you'd find in Skyrim or some shit. And "buckmaster" sounds like someone read the name of one of the many guns with a deer-themed name and thought "I can make it work".
1 month ago
Anonymous
The entire lever action industry is a farce anyway. Winchester discovered what perfected ergonomics for lever actions is in 1935 with the Model 71...and then they discontinued it...and everyone went back to selling straight-stocked wannabe cowboy guns...now with rails on top...which breaks the illusion they sacrificed the ergonomics for.
360fucknsuck never even needed to exist, the 375 winchester does the same fucking thing but better. Winchester solved all these problems decades ago without being massive fags in the process.
"buckhammer, it kills deer, it's right in the name" yeah, nice job Remington, you know what other names tell you it kills deer? Winchester, Marlin, REMINGTON.
Silly thing is that the ammo industry already has more options to produce already developed, out of patent shit that shooters nowdays will lap up even at ridiculous prices. They should fire their 'development teams' and just vomit out 556 and the 308 family and all the other stuff people actually want.
okay that's a nice looking cartridge but does it work good in short action length?
I have no clue
for a while I kept finding piles of dies for it at every gun show, never once seen a rifle or brass
Winchester chambered it in a long, Remington chambered it in a short. It's sized for a Mauser action, just doesn't fit the normal lengths.
[...] >3k barrel life >is fine
Lmao, you BR heros are fucking dorks. This thing will be around for 8 months until someone else comes up with something that theoretically performs .01% better and then that will be the new hotness. You fags gear chase harder than anyone I know.
BR guys are heroes, they compete in the most boring discipline to give everyone else the node knowledge to achieve better in PRS and Quantified Performance.
why are people obsessed with making a 22 go lightspeed when the ballistic performance would be better just going to a heavier boolit? muh fagmentation?
the VAST majority of gun owners shoot a max of 20 rounds at a paper target once every few years, so they'll consoom any new disney caliber if they think they'll close their groups from 9 inches to 8.9 inches
>when the ballistic performance would be better just going to a heavier boolit?
Because physics works the exact opposite of how your retarded ass thinks.
so let's assume that military makes a little brother cartridge to the 6.8x51, a genuine 5.56 replacement. What kind of small caliber high velocity cartridge would you choose?
This is how many longer-range cartridges for the AR magwell now? Like five?
I want to see someone do a huge test with all the factory ammo and handloads for all these new rounds so one starts getting traction from the e-celeb dicksuckers. Until that happens it's five dangerously unpopular niche cartridges and theres an 80% chance you'll pick one that's going to be dead in a year.
Don't get me wrong, I want one to succeed, I even want it to be the one that's actually the best cartridge design. I have no desire to shell out for five builds and five reloading die sets and spend a year of Sundays figuring out which four cartridges are fucking retarded, only to end up being wrong because one or two barrels were made by israelites.
It'll never be a 5.56 replacement that does this. You need to step up to full-size rifle rounds for that velocity in that barrel length. There's no level of necking down that will accomplish 3k in 10" with an AR round. Yes, that includes .50 Beowulf necked down to .14 cal or any other dumb shit you can think of.
You're likely going to need a .277 Fury loaded with a stubby pistol-like bullet weighing around 75gr. That's definitely doable with the retarded high pressure that gun puts out.
The main problem with your proposal is that it will likely physically hurt to be near a gun that shoots a round like that. If you want it to be an HD gun, you better hope cochlear implant tech advances quickly because there's a very real chance in perforates your eardrums if fired indoors without earpro.
>https://techlinkcenter.org/news/us-army-researchers-are-turning-it-up-to-11-to-make-hypervelocity-firearms/ > the U.S. Army’s new 24-inch prototype barrel produced muzzle velocities of 4,600 to 5,750 feet per second.
Over 6000 fps. Tanks are typically 1.8-2km/s velocities for sabot rounds. But the typical diminishing returns point for oldschool barrel wear is about 3500-4000fps.
>Just because it can lob 105-108gr bullets at 2500-2600fps, that doesn't make it ideal.
I agree, I'm also the guy advocating for a lengthening of the magazine box
>.223 Magnum case length
.222 magnum, and yeah something like this.
People think that receiver size is best reduced by packing more performance into shorter cartridges, but receiver width is far more important because they will always be very rectangular in vertical cross-section, even with the shortest fattest magnums. And since they're rectangular, width reductions are more beneficial than length reductions.
A key limiting factor of receiver "slimness" is bolt face diameter, not case width. Bolt face diameter dictates bolt lug diameter, which in turn limits the minimum internal diameter of the carrier track, which limits the minimum external diameter, and so on.
So the best replacement would be a rebated .378-rim 6mm cartridge with a touch longer magazine, loaded with probably a 100-108gr projectile. Powder capacity would be about the same as 6mmBR. The only part of the AR-15 which would grow is the magazine well length, you could probably just reduce the ribs in the magazines and maintain ideal hexagonal stacking. If not, a barely-wider magwell isn't the worst thing in the world.
A 6mm max-like cartridge lengthened to something approximating an OAL of 2.30 when loaded with 108's would virtually replicate 6BR/6Dasher.
>I'm also the guy advocating for a lengthening of the magazine box
I don't disagree with you. All of these rounds are trying to min-max around the AR mag length and the 5.56 bolt head.
The bolt head diameter is far more impactful to weapon size than the mag length, so lengthening is the lesser of two evils. The AR receiver set isn't even that length-optimized in terms of the fire control group, so that length could be made up for.
But min-maxing within the AR I'd still pick 6max at 103gr/2750fps, 22max would be approaching overbore from a logistics perspective.
Can't let things get out of perspective, even at 2750 within 500yds (90% of what we're seeing in Ukraine) you point it at the guy and pull the trigger, out to 1200 you drill a simple calibrated reticle.
>overpriced flavor of the month ammo that will be forgotten in a couple of months
Is there any practical advantage of using the meme rounds that's not long-range competitions?
>3k barrel life >is fine
Lmao, you BR heros are fucking dorks. This thing will be around for 8 months until someone else comes up with something that theoretically performs .01% better and then that will be the new hotness. You fags gear chase harder than anyone I know.
>I'm poor and don't actually buy ammo or burn barrels out.
3k is a conservative (low) estimate for a stainless barrel. Do you have any concept of just how fast many calibers wear barrels out? >BR heros are fucking dorks.
Benchrest shooters replace barrels before they hit 1k rounds, retard.
>2700 fps out of an 8" barrel
With that steep of a neck? No fucking way. You pulled those numbers out of your ass. You do not lose the same amount of velocity going from 12" to 8" as you do going from 20" to 16" ESPECIALLY in bottlenecked rounds.
>What mag are they going to use?
6 ARC mag, which is the same, or real close to a 6.5 Grendel mag.
Barrel burner. No one wants a service rifle that needs a barrel replacement every 2000 rounds.
>Barrel burner. No one wants a service rifle
FFS, It's not intended to be a service rifle round.
Barrel burner. No one wants a service rifle that needs a barrel replacement every 2000 rounds.
>Barrel burner
>Good thing you can swap a barrel on an AR-15 with nothing more than a mallet and a wrench
Ah, no. You need a vice, an AR tool, a torque wrench, and all the tools needed to remove your free floated handguard and gas block, which might include allen wrenches and punches. Then you have to re-zero all your aiming systems.
>Ah, no. You need a vice, an AR tool, a torque wrench, >ITT retards can't into varmint rounds, and basic tools.
Since it's .22 caliber and uses 1:7 twist, shouldn't it be relatively cheap and easy for barrel makers to stick a new extension on regular 5.56 barrels and call it a day?
>6.5 Grendel is still GOAT for the 15 platform
6.5 Grendel is TRASH.
you'll have a new favorite next year. settle down
>you'll have a new favorite next year. settle down
NTA, but 6.5 Creedmoor has been out for 15 years, retard. 260 Rem existed before that, and so did 6.5x47.
>fits
This word is doing a lot of work. Does a round which doesn't even stack properly "fit"?
The .220russian derived cartridges only really fit double-stacked through an AK magwell. To get them through an AR you leave as much air volume in the magazine as you have cartridges.
It would be really cool to have something like the CMMG mutant or PSA KS-47 in 6.5 grendel, with 10/20/30rd mags which actually fit the cartridge both in width and taper.
>6.5 Grendel is still GOAT for the 15 platform
6.5 Grendel is TRASH.
[...] >you'll have a new favorite next year. settle down
NTA, but 6.5 Creedmoor has been out for 15 years, retard. 260 Rem existed before that, and so did 6.5x47.
Ive got 10, 17, and 24 round magazines that function just fine. So yes, it properly fits the milspec lower. If you're griping about air volume in a magazine, then there's nothing anyone can tell you that will convince you. You clearly aren't a grendel shooter and never will be, which is fine. More for the rest of us.
>If you're griping about air volume in a magazine
Yes I am griping about ammunition not stacking efficiently in ammunition feeding devices, I'm also recommending a solution which was already implemented for 7.62x39. As an engineer I like when things are designed properly and life gets better as a result, guilty as charged.
>there's nothing anyone can tell you that will convince you
Except the things I said would convince me, yes. Other than convincing things, I can't be convinced.
1 month ago
Anonymous
So despite the round feeding through ar15 lowers successfully for about 20 years, launching high BC, heavy for caliber bullets with excellent projectile selection at effective ranges several hundred yards beyond 5.56, your "engineering" autism won't allow you to shoot grendel. Got it.
>6.5 grendel is unironically the best round you can fit in a milspec lower.
Nah. All it does is carry a couple hundred extra foot lbs of energy with a low MV and less flat trajectory compared to 223. The bullets that 6.5G can actually push, don't have a real BC advantage over .224.
>several hundred foot pounds
i mean if you've never shot past 300 and you've never hunted you can just say that. .223 is a fine shooting flat round but even 77s drift like hell. Shots on paper can be made at 500 yards and beyond, but doing so with .223 is a lot harder than doing it with 6.5G.
So you're trading diameter for a slight bump to trajectory after 400 yds bit it's not significant until 600 yds,but really if that's your goal you shouldn't choose either.
>Diameter is more important than drop, wind drift, and energy
Just go use 350 legend then
1 month ago
Anonymous
The energy difference won't matter. The trajectory is too slight. I think I'd still pick the Grendel. If you wanted better everything by a significant margin it's be better to drop the AR-15 and pick up a bolt in any of the big boy calibers.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Sure, but Grendel is worse everything by a slight margin. I was exaggerating with 350 legend, but if you really weigh diameter that highly, you might as well use supersonic 300 blackout.
1 month ago
Anonymous
120gr family of .300blk vs 120gr family of 6.5G are two very different animals. The 6.5 still has greater case capacity and more efficient bullets going faster. .300blk is great at a lot of things, but it's just not reaching out to Grendel ranges or dealing with wind.
1 month ago
Anonymous
The Grendel is the best balance. The 350 and 300 BLK are semi-thumpers, the Grendel is a standard distance cartridge because it comfortably reaches the 400 meter line without major holds or adjustment. The diameter is just preferable for the exit wound size where that half millimeter gets magnified a slight amount.
I feel like you're just trying to take the argument that you don't need a 6mm ARC and swing it in the other direction by just name dropping other cartridges without a real reason for doing so. The Grendel is like the perfect balance of features, including barrel life. The ARC has a b. life of about 5k rounds, Grendel about 8-10k.
Yeah, looking at the numbers even .300 blackout isn't really a good comparison here. 6.8 SPC is closer, but then you lose some case capacity. >I feel like you're just trying to take the argument that you don't need a 6mm ARC Quite the opposite, I was trying to make the argument that 6 ARC is better than Grendel because I don't think bullet diameter isn't very important and if you do consider it important than there are better cartridges for that. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
1 month ago
Anonymous
And my dumb phone messed up the formatting. Quote is supposed to stop after >I feel like you're just trying to take the argument that you don't need a 6mm ARC
1 month ago
Anonymous
If the 6mm ARC speaks to you then get it, but I think I'm developing a knee jerk reaction to new cartridges as meme cartridges because Hornady and Nosler just keep spamming them out. We had 6.5 Creedmoor come out, do we really need to see a 6mm Creedmoor even if it does do everything you want it to do but better? I don't think so. I really don't. The larger rifle calibers are a little different because the energy and trajectories have a wider spread but for mini/short actions the differences are much more minute. After .224 Valkyrie and 6.5 Grendel I just don't feel like we needed 6mm ARCs or 22 Noslers or- fucking hell- a 22 ARC.
1 month ago
Anonymous
The part annoying me is the low psi. They're deliberately keeping pressures low to maximize barrel life with old guns. I want performance dammit. 120kpsi micro-cartridges with 556 power.
1 month ago
Anonymous
They're not keeping pressures at 52k to preserve barrel life, it's a limitation of tubbing out the bolt face to accommodate a larger case head. That SAAMI max nerfs these rounds, but only CMMG "mid-size" ARs with their Powerbolts address the issue. Unfortunately, the midsize is all proprietary shit and that defeats the purpose of the Grendel/ARC: increasing the range and power available to milspec lower users with minimal changes to the upper.
1 month ago
Anonymous
The Grendel is the best balance. The 350 and 300 BLK are semi-thumpers, the Grendel is a standard distance cartridge because it comfortably reaches the 400 meter line without major holds or adjustment. The diameter is just preferable for the exit wound size where that half millimeter gets magnified a slight amount.
I feel like you're just trying to take the argument that you don't need a 6mm ARC and swing it in the other direction by just name dropping other cartridges without a real reason for doing so. The Grendel is like the perfect balance of features, including barrel life. The ARC has a b. life of about 5k rounds, Grendel about 8-10k.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>The ARC has a b. life of about 5k rounds, Grendel about 8-10k.
Actually, that number is for the 6mm. The 22 ARCs is less than half that.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>diameter
anon, no.
9mm vs .45 on those grounds was always retarded, but at least """reasonable""" if the topic turns to bizarre worlds where modern JHPs don't exist and everyone is wearing leather jackets lined with 6 layers of denim behind automobile-glass inserts.
6mm vs 6.5mm? AR-15 magwell constrained with the same parent cartridge?
Just stop.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Exit wounds from a .45 are larger than a 10mm. Diameter necessarily correlates to exit wounds, although entry wounds are marginal and internal cavities are up to bullet shape, materials, and distance.
I just realized, I don't think any of us are engineers. Are we autistic to care this much?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Exit wounds from a .45 are larger than a 10mm. Diameter necessarily correlates to exit wounds.
With low-velocity ball ammunition, sure. Trivially and consistently so.
Rifle cartridges? Hell no. That shit is all over the place with fragmentation and pitch/yaw/tumble. To say nothing of round (and any core beyond basic lead) + jacket construction + component separation that occurs at those velocities. Assuming non-monometalics are used, which we generally can. >I just realized, I don't think any of us are engineers. Are we autistic to care this much?
Check the hostname.
>6.5 grendel is unironically the best round you can fit in a milspec lower.
Nah. All it does is carry a couple hundred extra foot lbs of energy with a low MV and less flat trajectory compared to 223. The bullets that 6.5G can actually push, don't have a real BC advantage over .224.
>22 inch AR barrel 6arc
it would be cool and better than a short barrel but you can’t load 6arc all the way to spec safely for a gas gun (according to hornady anyway, i don’t load for gas guns so i have no personal experience)
Optimized for Hornady's new long range coyote bullet, operates at about 51,000psi to get those high velocities, so won't burn barrels as much as others for an equivalent muzzle velocity, fits an AR
kek but yeah jokes aside if you listen to their podcast that was one of the major usage cases they're planning on. Apparently it's using about half the windage of .224 Valk out to 400 or so
basically you have to understand what is going on
people want a cartridge that is exactly correct for whatever their specific scenario is. “people” here are the ultra enthusiasts who buy most of this stuff
so a new cartridge is usually an ammo company identifying “okay there’s no 1 in W twist X caliber cartridge which when loaded near capacity (for best consistency) fires Y bullet weight at Z velocity, and it does this in A gun type with B barrel length and C barrel life ” and then they make it
so for example 6.8 western fires different bullets (every rifle can be chambered in every twist rate for a given caliber so this isn’t totally true, but you can get what i mean) at the same velocity as 270 winchester, which fires the same bullets at a slower velocity compared to 270wsm or what have you, or compare to 277 fury which fires the same bullet (I think) at the same velocity in different guns with less barrel length and barrel life
22arc (idk i didn’t look into it) may shoot the same bullet at the same velocity as 22-250, but do it in a different gun, or at a different barrel length, or with better barrel life. These minor changes are worth it to the whales who buy most of the ammo.
So another round that youtubers are gonna shill and pretend is gonna change the entire industry for like a month before everyone just goes back to 5.56?
> 6.5 grendel > .22 nosler > .22 valkyrie > 6mm ARC > 6mm MAX > .22 arc
God damn, just pick one, so I can ignore it and only it, because I can only afford to shoot 5.56.
[...] >6ARC lacks velocity
out of a 16” gas gun maybe but it’s the PERFECT round for a short (or howa mini) action bolt gun with a 24” barrel
>but it’s the PERFECT round for a short (or howa mini) action bolt gun with a 24” barrel
The perfect barrel length for a mini action is as short as you can legally get it, unless you're using iron sights or something.
What's the point of a 24" mini action other than varminting with something like .204 Ruger? It's longer than a 22" short action, and short action 6mms will out-shoot it even if they're 16".
And speaking of 204 Ruger, it shits on 22arc for varminting. Hornaday losing to itself from 20 years ago lmao.
204 ruger is also a great round and I have a 24” contender barrel chambered in it, but for me what makes 6 arc perfect in the described configuration is it’s a fantastic target shooter at the ranges I want to shoot with minimal recoil for the task and excellent bullet selection for it as well.
.204 ruger is what I’m going to pull out (personally) to shoot at coyotes or other predators, but for target shooting I want those better BC bullets.
For various hunting tasks, and I hunt every season I can, I have a large variety: 17 hmr, 17 hornet, .204 ruger, .22lr, .243 winchester (with a 1:8 twist), .270 winchester (with a 1:9 twist), .300 blackout in a contender pistol, 12 gauge, and I even have a 500 magnum carbine barrel for great fun - but none of those are what I pull out on the flat range for good positional shooting target fun, that for me is 6 ARC
Launching massive thumpers down range is rewarding as well and it’s why I have the 500 magnum barrel, but generally speaking yes I want to accomplish whatever my task is with the minimum amount of excess.
Why don’t you post the .300 win mag you use for white tail if you feel so strongly about recoil?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Why don’t you post the .300 win mag you use for white tail if you feel so strongly about recoil?
It comes out of a Howa 1500.
Rate me boys.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Alright 300 PRC is fairly based, carry on. I’m still not gonna target shoot with my magnums though !
>17 hmr, 17 hornet, .204 ruger, .22lr, .243 winchester (with a 1:8 twist), .270 winchester (with a 1:9 twist), .300 blackout in a contender pisto >making every wrong choice he could have
>>17 hmr
What's wrong with that? My Ruger precision rimfire is one of my favorite guns. I've popped dozens and dozens of squirrel and rabbit heads out to 100+yds with ease. Plus none of my other rifles are economically feasible to shoot all day with, especially at golf balls and tiny pumpkins 200yds away. I love my .22 but it's a close-range barn rat popper cartridge for me
Goodbye barrel life
Goodbye my barrel
Goodbye my friend
You have been the one
You have been the one for me
Good thing you can swap a barrel on an AR-15 with nothing more than a mallet and a wrench
>Good thing you can swap a barrel on an AR-15 with nothing more than a mallet and a wrench
Ah, no. You need a vice, an AR tool, a torque wrench, and all the tools needed to remove your free floated handguard and gas block, which might include allen wrenches and punches. Then you have to re-zero all your aiming systems.
>he never barreled an AR between his thighs
embarrassing
>not having a quick swap barrel system.
Pathetic. Its 2023. Do you fear your computer, phone, or power steering system?
Nickel ion plated/diffused barrels when?
I worked on some testing samples in an engineering lab, thr wear and abrasion resistance was like 10-15× chrome plating
X2dev used that for their barrels
fuck ya barrel
this is just .224 Valkyrie with a new name and slightly different cartridge dimensions isn't it to avoid the stigma associated with the botched rollout of .224 valk
>new miracle round
It's a rehashed .22 PPC, which is almost 50 years old at this point. The concept of stuffing a .224 bullet in a 7.62x39 case is nothing new.
Do the Russians get similar performance out of their 5.45 cartridge? I've never actually looked into it
No it's a powder puff round meant for full auto mag dumps like the original SCHV concept. It's ~20-30% weaker than 5.56 depending on the load.
isn't the cartridge dimensionally similar to 7.62x39?
did they fuck it up on purpose?
>isn't the cartridge dimensionally similar to 7.62x39?
No not really. You're focusing on the x39 portion of the title. Case capacity is very different, base is much smaller, etc.
>did they fuck it up on purpose?
They made 5.56 better. Took the SCHV concept to its logical conclusion. 5.56 NATO would've been weaker too. .223 Remington only got made because Stoners original concept wouldn't penetrate helmets reliably which ended up getting added to the requirements for the program.
5.45 is much closer to the original prototype round in energy and recoil.
>Stoners original concept wouldn't penetrate helmets reliably which ended up getting added to the requirements for the program.
Note this happened way before the Belgians with the M855. I'm talking about the original M193 development.
>isn't the cartridge dimensionally similar to 7.62x39?
Nope
>did they fuck it up on purpose
Improved it. By designing the cartridge and chamber for an extremely long bullet from the start, they can shoot 55gr bullets that are as long as a 77gr match bullet, with even better BC than 5.56 match bullets because they don't have to seat the bullet deep enough to look like a 55gr. So they get a flatter shooting cartridge, with higher retained velocity at range, without additional recoil. It really is a superior cartridge design to the 5.56, but that is expected since it was designed long after the 5.56.
>dimensionally similar
nope. middle cartridge is 5.45x39.
>full auto mag dumps like the original SCHV concept.
the 1930 aberdeen white paper was about single shot rifles and that .30 caliber cartridges under 600 yards have mostly wasted energy
>1930 aberdeen white paper was about single shot rifles and that .30 caliber cartridges under 600 yards have mostly wasted energy
Wasn't the intention of the. 30-06 as an anti cavalry capable round from the start, not anti personnel?
Well it's closer to 2030 than 1930 and I think a cartridge that has enough punch to knock a guy's organs around uncomfortably and cause weakening, bruising damage to his core abdominals at 600yds when he's wearing armor is a better choice, "wasted energy" or not.
I'm not saying hot modern rounds could or will or are meant to pen 3+/4 plates at any considerable distance, but the concept of reducing the effectiveness of an advancing unit at distance is probably better than not having it.
I'm sure a significant lung bruising is still accepetable damage to your opfor than plinking at them with .223s and maybe causing minor skin depth contusion at distance.
The Russian 5.45x39 isn't based on the 7.62x39 case, it uses a unique case that is closer in diameter to the NATO 5 56. The two rounds get similar MV when shot from the same length barrel, the common conception that the 5.45 is weaker comes from the standard ak-74 barrel length of 16.3" vs the standard m-16 barrel length of 20"; out of a 16" barrel the 5.56 is almost the same mv as military 5.45. Commercial 5.45 is often slower, but the same is true for commercial 5.56.
>The Russian 5.45x39 isn't based on the 7.62x39 case
Huh. I'd always assumed it was. Thanks for the infodump anon.
220 russian is based on the 7.62x39 case
5.45 has a base diameter similar to 9x19's, slightly larger than 5.56
oh okay sorry for assuming that the Russians were lazy assholes I guess, interesting
cool data point, anon ty.
The only gain 5.45 has is doing better out of shorter barrels because it tumbles instead of fragments so it’s not as velocity dependent.
Then again I have no idea how true it is but I’ve always heard people say it.
I mean, yeah it's true. The usual 7n6 or 7n11 with the hardened steel is a purposefully rear-balanced bullet which is consistent at yawing.
The 5.56 fragmentation becomes less and less dependable as you shorten the barrel, and you have the M855 situation where it is very yaw dependent. It can icepick through someone without yawing depending on angle of entry. M855A1 addressed that by introducing a yaw-independent bullet design, which is consistent at early yawing.
>What kind of small caliber high velocity cartridge would you choose?
One of these 6mm meme calibers but instead of being limited to the AR 5.56 magwell we start with the .223 Magnum case length.
>.223 Magnum case length
.222 magnum, and yeah something like this.
People think that receiver size is best reduced by packing more performance into shorter cartridges, but receiver width is far more important because they will always be very rectangular in vertical cross-section, even with the shortest fattest magnums. And since they're rectangular, width reductions are more beneficial than length reductions.
A key limiting factor of receiver "slimness" is bolt face diameter, not case width. Bolt face diameter dictates bolt lug diameter, which in turn limits the minimum internal diameter of the carrier track, which limits the minimum external diameter, and so on.
So the best replacement would be a rebated .378-rim 6mm cartridge with a touch longer magazine, loaded with probably a 100-108gr projectile. Powder capacity would be about the same as 6mmBR. The only part of the AR-15 which would grow is the magazine well length, you could probably just reduce the ribs in the magazines and maintain ideal hexagonal stacking. If not, a barely-wider magwell isn't the worst thing in the world.
Also what I describe here is way more combat effective than the army's obsession with fudd 6.8 bullshit, and should also replace that.
Ukraine footage has proven that once you're hit that's it, if you're not killed you're "mission" killed. Battle rifle doctrine is retarded because people 1200yds away can't tell the difference between a 105gr projectile and a 135 projectile zipping over their head at the same speed (and the 105 will be going faster anyway).
>people 1200yds away can't tell the difference between a 105gr projectile and a 135 projectile zipping over their head at the same speed
Why is that supposed to matter?
One argument I've run into for years defending battle rifles is that suppression is more effective if the enemy "respects" the bullets overflying their position.
Don't ask me to explain what leads people to believe this, I'm not a neurologist.
death whistle rounds when
I doubt they mean literally respecting the rounds, I believe its a flowery way to say if the enemy thinks the rounds are coming closer than they are.
I didn't mean literally respecting them, I meant that the enemy perceives being under fire by 5.56 as preferable to 7.62 enough to alter their behavior.
They might do this by implication based on how armies actually equip soldiers (ie. "if I'm under fire from 7.62 that means I'm under precision fire"), but if the enemy's doctrine is to put a battle rifle in every soldier's hands (Falklands war) then this implication no longer makes sense because it could all be from a 19yo who's never seen a drop chart.
My argument tl;dr
>soldiers believe bullets flying over them will kill them, even small ones
>hitting people is what counts
>low-recoiling, flat-shooting, wind-bucking, light-carrying 6mm cartridges will enable soldiers to inflict enemy casualties better than anything else
6.8x51 is born of the same thinking which doomed the 280british, thinking which undoubtedly killed Americans in Korea and Vietnam, and is going to kill more Americans in the next war.
It's an observation that came out of Afghanistan as well. Accurate fire was inconsistently suppressive against insurgents if they knew it was from an M4. I spoke to the USMC LTC who wrote the paper (as a Major at staff college I think) I first came across it in and he said that they'd literally gotten the reason out of multiple talibs in tactical questioning. They knew that their odds of dying from an M4 wound before they could receive life saving care were very low. If they allowed themselves to be suppressed then they'd die to HE from supporting fires or grenades, but if they manouevred under M4 fire then they had the option to win the firefight, retreat etc.
The underlying reason that you were grasping for before is really simple. If your enemy doesn't think he will be almost certainly be killed if he leaves cover by the fire that you are applying, then it's his choice whether he's suppressed or not. Fear of the pain of being shot is weakly suppressive, as is some small risk of death. To be reliable suppression needs to make the enemy believe that taking action is pointless because it will inevitably lead to their prompt death.
5.56 dishonorabru
one of the touchstones of what led us to 6.8GP was a peculiarly designed paper studying suppression that (improperly, imo) emphasized sound level
>Ukraine footage has proven that once you're hit that's it
What the fuck? It hasn't done that at all, because it's a selectively captured and then released record of events. Nearly all of the GSW footage comes from the Ukrainian side against extremely low morale adversaries whose will to fight is so low that they literally instantly suicide if they get shrapnel wounds. We know from actually reliable sources like honor and awards citations that people do continue fighting after being shot, but mobiks aren't people.
thanks for boiling it down like that pretty much the awful intersection of LMAOBOLTLIFE and LMAOBORELIFE
>new miracle round
>three other cartridges like it exist already
hmm
other cartridges like it
.22 Nosler
.224 Valkyrie
And...?
I've grown tired of the yearly introduction of new cartridges which are barely different from those already existing.
But there are way more where that came from.
>development and innovation should be restricted to suit my sensibilities
You're no fun.
Did you miss the "barely different from those already existing" part? Innovation implies a new round is doing something new and different.
Anyway, there's nothing new about any of this, even in the 1800's there were constantly new cartridges being introduced by one company or another, barely different from what was already on the market, and now are long forgotten to time.
>even in the 1800's there were constantly new cartridges being introduced by one company or another, barely different from what was already on the market,
GOD BLESS AMERICA! In your face, commies!
I'm totally down with a cartridge that brings something new to the table. yet another hot .22 for the AR-15 isn't it.
Yes. 6mmARC is all we need.
>shears bolt lug
AR-15? Who would want to shoot these through an AR? The 6ARC is bad enough with it's tuning balancing act, the 22ARC will be worse with it's higher velocities.
Luckily people are beginning to neck the 350 legend case, a vastly better-designed case which actually fits in an AR, 6mm Max being the first.
>Luckily people are beginning to neck the 350 legend case, a vastly better-designed case which actually fits in an AR, 6mm Max being the first.
Please explain how one 6mm cartridge on rouhgly the same cartridge base with roughly the same muzzle velocity will be less of a tuning problem than another. Also
>.350 Legend
>Well-designed case
Pick one.
As far as wildcatting goes you basically have three families (.223 Remington, .30 Remington, 7.62x39) with any permutation of caliber: .17, .224, .25, 6mm, 6.5, 7mm. This has been the case ever since said cartridges (or the AR) have been developed, it's just that there's a recent push to get some of these cartridges SAAMI or CIP approved. 6mm ARC is just 6mm PPC, after all, and has been around for ages.
>A 6mm max-like cartridge lengthened to something approximating an OAL of 2.30 when loaded with 108's would virtually replicate 6BR/6Dasher.
I was gonna akshually you - and then I ran the numbers in GRT.
6mm Dasher with a 108 Berger and 32 grains of Varget gets you around 2700FPS from a 20 inch barrel. Reduce case capacity to the 35 grains H2O that the 6mm Max is supposed to have, and reduce COAL to 2.26 (maximum for most AR mags), you can use 27.5 grains of Varget to get 2600FPS. Damn. That really is close.
Still, I have particular hate for Winchester marketing, the ''Legend'' name and rebated rims (unless they're in big bore thumpers), so I'd much rather have something in 6mm PPC. With all of these niche cartridges, you're basically stuck with reloading your own and while .223 or x39 brass will always be plentiful, the same cannot be said for the rebated .350 stuff.
>>.350 Legend
>>Well-designed case
>Pick one.
Up to the part relevant to 6max it is very well designed. The fact it's straight-walled is just because of "primitive weapons only" hunting seasons which IMO aren't restrictive enough.
>Please explain how one 6mm cartridge on rouhgly the same cartridge base with roughly the same muzzle velocity will be less of a tuning problem than another.
Because the Q-angle which the round needs to take after leaving the mag feed lips, and then revert straight to align with the chamber, is larger as the cartridge body widens (given an identical stroke length). The narrower that angle, the less friction you have, the less time is needed for alignment, the more tolerant the cartridge is of speed and inertia differences in the BCG when feeding. 6max will be less tolerant than .223, but only slightly.
I think rebated .378 cartridges deserve a place in the market to partially bridge the performance gap to the .473-class without appreciably increasing weapon size. IMO rebating is a far smarter way of achieving that goal rather than going with an intermediate rim diameter.
And yeah, the "legend" and "buckhammer" marketing fuckery is annoying and I wish it would stop.
(deep advertiser voice, think "The Last Stand" coyote hunting AD reads)
>Listen up /k/ommandos, because we got somethin' for you
>All new .400 BUCKFUCKER From HornyRee.
>Drops a buck quicker than you can drop your drawers.
>Coming to your local store soon - almost as fast as you'll cum using our products
>HornyRee. On this board, we cum to deer.
Yeah I think it really started to make me question their naming scheme recently. Legend is fine, it's not super serious but not too out there I don't think; maybe I've just heard it so many times I don't think about it anymore though. But "buckmaster" is weird and "buckhammer"...you're just making words up now. Just really scraping the barrel there for some kind of interesting name by smashing two words together instead of trying to find a good name that would actually roll off the tongue and not sound like some shit you'd see in an arcadey hunting game. "Buckhammer" sounds like some legendary weapon you'd find in Skyrim or some shit. And "buckmaster" sounds like someone read the name of one of the many guns with a deer-themed name and thought "I can make it work".
The entire lever action industry is a farce anyway. Winchester discovered what perfected ergonomics for lever actions is in 1935 with the Model 71...and then they discontinued it...and everyone went back to selling straight-stocked wannabe cowboy guns...now with rails on top...which breaks the illusion they sacrificed the ergonomics for.
360fucknsuck never even needed to exist, the 375 winchester does the same fucking thing but better. Winchester solved all these problems decades ago without being massive fags in the process.
"buckhammer, it kills deer, it's right in the name" yeah, nice job Remington, you know what other names tell you it kills deer? Winchester, Marlin, REMINGTON.
Silly thing is that the ammo industry already has more options to produce already developed, out of patent shit that shooters nowdays will lap up even at ridiculous prices. They should fire their 'development teams' and just vomit out 556 and the 308 family and all the other stuff people actually want.
I'm sorry my 6.5 Creedmoor is a better competition, hunting, and SOCOM pick than your .308
that's not 7mm-08
257 roberts is all you need, sonny
okay that's a nice looking cartridge but does it work good in short action length?
I have no clue
for a while I kept finding piles of dies for it at every gun show, never once seen a rifle or brass
>257 roberts
The quarter bores, really do rule the roost.
Winchester chambered it in a long, Remington chambered it in a short. It's sized for a Mauser action, just doesn't fit the normal lengths.
BR guys are heroes, they compete in the most boring discipline to give everyone else the node knowledge to achieve better in PRS and Quantified Performance.
/k/ hates anything practical and popular. Same as the rest of PrepHole, really
you'll have a new favorite next year. settle down
why are people obsessed with making a 22 go lightspeed when the ballistic performance would be better just going to a heavier boolit? muh fagmentation?
less drop at not too far ranges and making varmin explode.
Faster boolets are flatter if they stay supersonic. Less recoil and can use finer powder that burns more completely in a shorter barrel.
Unburned powder is wasted mass and cartridge volume. Slower burning powder is a thing only to reduce maximum chamber pressure.
the VAST majority of gun owners shoot a max of 20 rounds at a paper target once every few years, so they'll consoom any new disney caliber if they think they'll close their groups from 9 inches to 8.9 inches
You're just a bitter, jaded, cynical old man. Why are you dead inside and who did she monkey swing to?
>can't disprove anything i said
>gets mad
I don't need to disprove anything or be mad to see an asshole with a shitty attitude.
post guns
Yeah.
hes right though
Not an argument.
Citation required.
>when the ballistic performance would be better just going to a heavier boolit?
Because physics works the exact opposite of how your retarded ass thinks.
coping redditors unable to admit beeger boolet better
so let's assume that military makes a little brother cartridge to the 6.8x51, a genuine 5.56 replacement. What kind of small caliber high velocity cartridge would you choose?
5.56x30 MARS cased-telescoped in a better world
>stick it in a P90-style magazine
6mm telescoped, 60-90 grains @3500fps to subs
6mm, ultra low drag profile, 3000 fps, two-part steel core, reverse-drawn copper jacket with air pocket in the tip.
S E X T H E T I C
what does it do that 6mm ARC doesnt?
I like it
Stupid gizmo rounds. The 30-06 and 45acp is forever.
>i like 30-06 exclusively because of how you get tovsay it
meh would rather just use .22-250
Hell yeah brother
>22-250
Pretty sure there are .22-250 AR uppers. Problem becomes mags and rim.
That looks so fat
Fat girls need love, too.
This is how many longer-range cartridges for the AR magwell now? Like five?
I want to see someone do a huge test with all the factory ammo and handloads for all these new rounds so one starts getting traction from the e-celeb dicksuckers. Until that happens it's five dangerously unpopular niche cartridges and theres an 80% chance you'll pick one that's going to be dead in a year.
Don't get me wrong, I want one to succeed, I even want it to be the one that's actually the best cartridge design. I have no desire to shell out for five builds and five reloading die sets and spend a year of Sundays figuring out which four cartridges are fucking retarded, only to end up being wrong because one or two barrels were made by israelites.
>let's remake .243 WSSM in .22
Okay. I dig those velocities though
what is the 223 wssm, bob
Isn't there already 6mm dasher?
Dasher is on the .472 headstamp.
.473 whoops.
5.56 replacements will always fail until we get a round that can exceed 3000 velocity out of a sub 10 inch barrel
Muzzle velocity is completely meaningless on it's own.
I don't care. Muzzle velocity is how I masturbate at night.
t. idiot
> barrel life = 50 shots, maybe 75 with chrome
Going to have to replace it anyways because of armor, may as well get a head start developing a new round now.
It'll never be a 5.56 replacement that does this. You need to step up to full-size rifle rounds for that velocity in that barrel length. There's no level of necking down that will accomplish 3k in 10" with an AR round. Yes, that includes .50 Beowulf necked down to .14 cal or any other dumb shit you can think of.
You're likely going to need a .277 Fury loaded with a stubby pistol-like bullet weighing around 75gr. That's definitely doable with the retarded high pressure that gun puts out.
The main problem with your proposal is that it will likely physically hurt to be near a gun that shoots a round like that. If you want it to be an HD gun, you better hope cochlear implant tech advances quickly because there's a very real chance in perforates your eardrums if fired indoors without earpro.
Are those for a chain gun?
.22 EARGENSPLITTEN
.17 moon orbital
What's the fastest bullet physically possible with conventional propellants?
>https://techlinkcenter.org/news/us-army-researchers-are-turning-it-up-to-11-to-make-hypervelocity-firearms/
> the U.S. Army’s new 24-inch prototype barrel produced muzzle velocities of 4,600 to 5,750 feet per second.
Over 6000 fps. Tanks are typically 1.8-2km/s velocities for sabot rounds. But the typical diminishing returns point for oldschool barrel wear is about 3500-4000fps.
Every year we get closer to the earsplitten loudenboomer meta
I want: a 5.5x18 100kpsi pistol cartridge with a M855A1 style fragmenting bullet.
So a .22TCM. Get one.
.22 TCM doesn't produce fragmenting velocities from a G26.
Neckdown is retarded, sabots are the future.
yeah, if you want dogshit accuracy
>6000m/s comet dust shot
No vision
6.5mm Grendel when?
>Just because it can lob 105-108gr bullets at 2500-2600fps, that doesn't make it ideal.
I agree, I'm also the guy advocating for a lengthening of the magazine box
A 6mm max-like cartridge lengthened to something approximating an OAL of 2.30 when loaded with 108's would virtually replicate 6BR/6Dasher.
>I'm also the guy advocating for a lengthening of the magazine box
I don't disagree with you. All of these rounds are trying to min-max around the AR mag length and the 5.56 bolt head.
The bolt head diameter is far more impactful to weapon size than the mag length, so lengthening is the lesser of two evils. The AR receiver set isn't even that length-optimized in terms of the fire control group, so that length could be made up for.
But min-maxing within the AR I'd still pick 6max at 103gr/2750fps, 22max would be approaching overbore from a logistics perspective.
Can't let things get out of perspective, even at 2750 within 500yds (90% of what we're seeing in Ukraine) you point it at the guy and pull the trigger, out to 1200 you drill a simple calibrated reticle.
Yeah man, if we could lengthen the AR mag .04" it would be a real game changer...
IF those bc figures are remotely close to accurate, which I doubt, and IF those velocities are accurate, which I doubt,
This cartridge remains supersonic at 1.5kilometer.
>overpriced flavor of the month ammo that will be forgotten in a couple of months
Is there any practical advantage of using the meme rounds that's not long-range competitions?
I can tell just from looking at the shoulder angle that it's gonna feed like shit
>I can tell just from looking
What can you tell us about Weatherby cartridges just from looking?
That if you tried to shoehorn one into an AR and STANAG magazines, it too would feed like shit.
Not if you used the .22 Weatherby Super Short Magnum.
>.22 TCM doesn't produce fragmenting velocities from a G26
You're just being picky, just put on a 16" barrel.
>3k barrel life
>is fine
Lmao, you BR heros are fucking dorks. This thing will be around for 8 months until someone else comes up with something that theoretically performs .01% better and then that will be the new hotness. You fags gear chase harder than anyone I know.
>I'm poor and don't actually buy ammo or burn barrels out.
3k is a conservative (low) estimate for a stainless barrel. Do you have any concept of just how fast many calibers wear barrels out?
>BR heros are fucking dorks.
Benchrest shooters replace barrels before they hit 1k rounds, retard.
>8"
makes my eyeballs hurt thinking about it.
>holy shit guys hornady just dropped a new caliber, oh my yes, .30 super carry for life btw haha
>2700 fps out of an 8" barrel
With that steep of a neck? No fucking way. You pulled those numbers out of your ass. You do not lose the same amount of velocity going from 12" to 8" as you do going from 20" to 16" ESPECIALLY in bottlenecked rounds.
>You pulled those numbers out of your ass
OP is a homosexual. 24" test barrel velocity for 62gr. is like 3300fps.
Jesus titty fucking Christ.
What mag are they going to use?
>What mag are they going to use?
6 ARC mag, which is the same, or real close to a 6.5 Grendel mag.
>Barrel burner. No one wants a service rifle
FFS, It's not intended to be a service rifle round.
>Barrel burner
>Ah, no. You need a vice, an AR tool, a torque wrench,
>ITT retards can't into varmint rounds, and basic tools.
Rad
Barrel burner. No one wants a service rifle that needs a barrel replacement every 2000 rounds.
>No one
Wdhmbt?
are they finally waking up to the magic of bernoulli's principle?
Lmk when it’s 40 CPR
Since it's .22 caliber and uses 1:7 twist, shouldn't it be relatively cheap and easy for barrel makers to stick a new extension on regular 5.56 barrels and call it a day?
6.5 Grendel is still GOAT for the 15 platform
Please sell me on it
Patent expired so now inventor can't be a pacifist fuck and say it'll never be a war cartridge
fact
>6.5 Grendel is still GOAT for the 15 platform
6.5 Grendel is TRASH.
>you'll have a new favorite next year. settle down
NTA, but 6.5 Creedmoor has been out for 15 years, retard. 260 Rem existed before that, and so did 6.5x47.
6.5 grendel is unironically the best round you can fit in a milspec lower.
>fits
This word is doing a lot of work. Does a round which doesn't even stack properly "fit"?
The .220russian derived cartridges only really fit double-stacked through an AK magwell. To get them through an AR you leave as much air volume in the magazine as you have cartridges.
It would be really cool to have something like the CMMG mutant or PSA KS-47 in 6.5 grendel, with 10/20/30rd mags which actually fit the cartridge both in width and taper.
>6.5x47
Best 6.5 so far.
Ive got 10, 17, and 24 round magazines that function just fine. So yes, it properly fits the milspec lower. If you're griping about air volume in a magazine, then there's nothing anyone can tell you that will convince you. You clearly aren't a grendel shooter and never will be, which is fine. More for the rest of us.
>If you're griping about air volume in a magazine
Yes I am griping about ammunition not stacking efficiently in ammunition feeding devices, I'm also recommending a solution which was already implemented for 7.62x39. As an engineer I like when things are designed properly and life gets better as a result, guilty as charged.
>there's nothing anyone can tell you that will convince you
Except the things I said would convince me, yes. Other than convincing things, I can't be convinced.
So despite the round feeding through ar15 lowers successfully for about 20 years, launching high BC, heavy for caliber bullets with excellent projectile selection at effective ranges several hundred yards beyond 5.56, your "engineering" autism won't allow you to shoot grendel. Got it.
>several hundred foot pounds
i mean if you've never shot past 300 and you've never hunted you can just say that. .223 is a fine shooting flat round but even 77s drift like hell. Shots on paper can be made at 500 yards and beyond, but doing so with .223 is a lot harder than doing it with 6.5G.
Idk, the 22 ARC is a bit short on energy at close range, but the 6 ARC beats 6.5 Grendel in basically every metric.
So you're trading diameter for a slight bump to trajectory after 400 yds bit it's not significant until 600 yds,but really if that's your goal you shouldn't choose either.
>Diameter is more important than drop, wind drift, and energy
Just go use 350 legend then
The energy difference won't matter. The trajectory is too slight. I think I'd still pick the Grendel. If you wanted better everything by a significant margin it's be better to drop the AR-15 and pick up a bolt in any of the big boy calibers.
Sure, but Grendel is worse everything by a slight margin. I was exaggerating with 350 legend, but if you really weigh diameter that highly, you might as well use supersonic 300 blackout.
120gr family of .300blk vs 120gr family of 6.5G are two very different animals. The 6.5 still has greater case capacity and more efficient bullets going faster. .300blk is great at a lot of things, but it's just not reaching out to Grendel ranges or dealing with wind.
Yeah, looking at the numbers even .300 blackout isn't really a good comparison here. 6.8 SPC is closer, but then you lose some case capacity.
>I feel like you're just trying to take the argument that you don't need a 6mm ARC Quite the opposite, I was trying to make the argument that 6 ARC is better than Grendel because I don't think bullet diameter isn't very important and if you do consider it important than there are better cartridges for that. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
And my dumb phone messed up the formatting. Quote is supposed to stop after
>I feel like you're just trying to take the argument that you don't need a 6mm ARC
If the 6mm ARC speaks to you then get it, but I think I'm developing a knee jerk reaction to new cartridges as meme cartridges because Hornady and Nosler just keep spamming them out. We had 6.5 Creedmoor come out, do we really need to see a 6mm Creedmoor even if it does do everything you want it to do but better? I don't think so. I really don't. The larger rifle calibers are a little different because the energy and trajectories have a wider spread but for mini/short actions the differences are much more minute. After .224 Valkyrie and 6.5 Grendel I just don't feel like we needed 6mm ARCs or 22 Noslers or- fucking hell- a 22 ARC.
The part annoying me is the low psi. They're deliberately keeping pressures low to maximize barrel life with old guns. I want performance dammit. 120kpsi micro-cartridges with 556 power.
They're not keeping pressures at 52k to preserve barrel life, it's a limitation of tubbing out the bolt face to accommodate a larger case head. That SAAMI max nerfs these rounds, but only CMMG "mid-size" ARs with their Powerbolts address the issue. Unfortunately, the midsize is all proprietary shit and that defeats the purpose of the Grendel/ARC: increasing the range and power available to milspec lower users with minimal changes to the upper.
The Grendel is the best balance. The 350 and 300 BLK are semi-thumpers, the Grendel is a standard distance cartridge because it comfortably reaches the 400 meter line without major holds or adjustment. The diameter is just preferable for the exit wound size where that half millimeter gets magnified a slight amount.
I feel like you're just trying to take the argument that you don't need a 6mm ARC and swing it in the other direction by just name dropping other cartridges without a real reason for doing so. The Grendel is like the perfect balance of features, including barrel life. The ARC has a b. life of about 5k rounds, Grendel about 8-10k.
>The ARC has a b. life of about 5k rounds, Grendel about 8-10k.
Actually, that number is for the 6mm. The 22 ARCs is less than half that.
>diameter
anon, no.
9mm vs .45 on those grounds was always retarded, but at least """reasonable""" if the topic turns to bizarre worlds where modern JHPs don't exist and everyone is wearing leather jackets lined with 6 layers of denim behind automobile-glass inserts.
6mm vs 6.5mm? AR-15 magwell constrained with the same parent cartridge?
Just stop.
Exit wounds from a .45 are larger than a 10mm. Diameter necessarily correlates to exit wounds, although entry wounds are marginal and internal cavities are up to bullet shape, materials, and distance.
I just realized, I don't think any of us are engineers. Are we autistic to care this much?
>Exit wounds from a .45 are larger than a 10mm. Diameter necessarily correlates to exit wounds.
With low-velocity ball ammunition, sure. Trivially and consistently so.
Rifle cartridges? Hell no. That shit is all over the place with fragmentation and pitch/yaw/tumble. To say nothing of round (and any core beyond basic lead) + jacket construction + component separation that occurs at those velocities. Assuming non-monometalics are used, which we generally can.
>I just realized, I don't think any of us are engineers. Are we autistic to care this much?
Check the hostname.
>6.5 grendel is unironically the best round you can fit in a milspec lower.
Nah. All it does is carry a couple hundred extra foot lbs of energy with a low MV and less flat trajectory compared to 223. The bullets that 6.5G can actually push, don't have a real BC advantage over .224.
>6ARC lacks velocity
out of a 16” gas gun maybe but it’s the PERFECT round for a short (or howa mini) action bolt gun with a 24” barrel
Based take
thanks king
I'm thinking about having a 22" lightweight profile barrel made for my AR-15 in 6mm ARC
those velocities are pathetic, 2000 fps is not enough unless you're only punching holes in paper
>22 inch AR barrel 6arc
it would be cool and better than a short barrel but you can’t load 6arc all the way to spec safely for a gas gun (according to hornady anyway, i don’t load for gas guns so i have no personal experience)
yeah, I'd be losing like 150 fps or something but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make
So what is the point of short action?
it’s shorter than a long action
But the gun is 24 inches
So's your mom's cock but you don't see me complaining
>So's your mom's cock but you don't see me complaining
>bolt gun with a 24” barrel
It becomes useable once you got to a 24" bolt gun and can exceed 50k psi.
>>6 ARC lacks velocity
Yes.
>>can't read balistics chart
Can read just fine moron.
>6 ARC lacks velocity
>can't read balistics chart
what is the advantage of 6arc over 6br or 6 dasher or 6ppc or any of these other meme rounds that I already don't know the difference between?
Optimized for Hornady's new long range coyote bullet, operates at about 51,000psi to get those high velocities, so won't burn barrels as much as others for an equivalent muzzle velocity, fits an AR
>long range
>Coyote
I'm calling PETA.
kek but yeah jokes aside if you listen to their podcast that was one of the major usage cases they're planning on. Apparently it's using about half the windage of .224 Valk out to 400 or so
basically you have to understand what is going on
people want a cartridge that is exactly correct for whatever their specific scenario is. “people” here are the ultra enthusiasts who buy most of this stuff
so a new cartridge is usually an ammo company identifying “okay there’s no 1 in W twist X caliber cartridge which when loaded near capacity (for best consistency) fires Y bullet weight at Z velocity, and it does this in A gun type with B barrel length and C barrel life ” and then they make it
so for example 6.8 western fires different bullets (every rifle can be chambered in every twist rate for a given caliber so this isn’t totally true, but you can get what i mean) at the same velocity as 270 winchester, which fires the same bullets at a slower velocity compared to 270wsm or what have you, or compare to 277 fury which fires the same bullet (I think) at the same velocity in different guns with less barrel length and barrel life
22arc (idk i didn’t look into it) may shoot the same bullet at the same velocity as 22-250, but do it in a different gun, or at a different barrel length, or with better barrel life. These minor changes are worth it to the whales who buy most of the ammo.
>22arc (idk i didn’t look into it) may
it doesn't
So another round that youtubers are gonna shill and pretend is gonna change the entire industry for like a month before everyone just goes back to 5.56?
> 6.5 grendel
> .22 nosler
> .22 valkyrie
> 6mm ARC
> 6mm MAX
> .22 arc
God damn, just pick one, so I can ignore it and only it, because I can only afford to shoot 5.56.
It's not a Bill of NEEDS anon
If you want retard velocity just get an AR10 and chamber it in .243 AI.
Magazines gonna look like single stack 12ga, lmao
now I want a conversion in it for my plr-16
maximum obnoxious
No Geneva convention, no needa new invention
>3800fps
have graphics cards gone too far?
You may not like it but this is what peak performance looks like.
if you didn't have to worry about feeding could you have a cartridge shaped like a traffic cone?
Bolt thrust would be wild.
>but it’s the PERFECT round for a short (or howa mini) action bolt gun with a 24” barrel
The perfect barrel length for a mini action is as short as you can legally get it, unless you're using iron sights or something.
What's the point of a 24" mini action other than varminting with something like .204 Ruger? It's longer than a 22" short action, and short action 6mms will out-shoot it even if they're 16".
And speaking of 204 Ruger, it shits on 22arc for varminting. Hornaday losing to itself from 20 years ago lmao.
204 ruger is also a great round and I have a 24” contender barrel chambered in it, but for me what makes 6 arc perfect in the described configuration is it’s a fantastic target shooter at the ranges I want to shoot with minimal recoil for the task and excellent bullet selection for it as well.
.204 ruger is what I’m going to pull out (personally) to shoot at coyotes or other predators, but for target shooting I want those better BC bullets.
For various hunting tasks, and I hunt every season I can, I have a large variety: 17 hmr, 17 hornet, .204 ruger, .22lr, .243 winchester (with a 1:8 twist), .270 winchester (with a 1:9 twist), .300 blackout in a contender pistol, 12 gauge, and I even have a 500 magnum carbine barrel for great fun - but none of those are what I pull out on the flat range for good positional shooting target fun, that for me is 6 ARC
>I want to shoot with minimal recoil
Launching massive thumpers down range is rewarding as well and it’s why I have the 500 magnum barrel, but generally speaking yes I want to accomplish whatever my task is with the minimum amount of excess.
Why don’t you post the .300 win mag you use for white tail if you feel so strongly about recoil?
>Why don’t you post the .300 win mag you use for white tail if you feel so strongly about recoil?
It comes out of a Howa 1500.
Rate me boys.
Alright 300 PRC is fairly based, carry on. I’m still not gonna target shoot with my magnums though !
Thanks fren, fair enough 🙂
.17 Tuba
>a cartridge shaped like a traffic cone?
we tried that, but in reverse. Turned out to be very meme-y with best use-case being ya maddah
>17 hmr, 17 hornet, .204 ruger, .22lr, .243 winchester (with a 1:8 twist), .270 winchester (with a 1:9 twist), .300 blackout in a contender pisto
>making every wrong choice he could have
That's enough out of you, lad.
>>17 hmr
What's wrong with that? My Ruger precision rimfire is one of my favorite guns. I've popped dozens and dozens of squirrel and rabbit heads out to 100+yds with ease. Plus none of my other rifles are economically feasible to shoot all day with, especially at golf balls and tiny pumpkins 200yds away. I love my .22 but it's a close-range barn rat popper cartridge for me
based 17hmr appreciator
it’s so CUTE
ruger american rimfire is bae
>new ammo makes it so I have to replace my barrel more often
oh boy another opportunity to consoom! which new barrel should I get, bros!?
get a custom one, it's about the same price