View Full Version : SOCOM adopts the 6.5mm CM
USSOCOM Adopts 6.5 CM
Last Spring, USSOCOM undertook a study of 6.5 family cartridges to determine a path forward for Precision Intermediate Caliber Ammunition. Over the last year, USASOC, the primary driver of this initiative, narrowed it down to 260 Remington and 6.5 Creemoor. Testing indicated that the two calibers performed very closely.
Last month, the command conducted a reliability test, using two incumbent weapons, currently in US service; the FN SCAR Heavy and KAC M110. Two weapons of each type were used, one was in 260 Remington and the other in 6.5 CM. What they found is that both weapons performed just as well and were just as reliable in either caliber.
As both cartridges were similarly accurate and reliable, the determining factor for selection of 6.5 CM would end up being trade space. The prevailing attitude is that there was more room with the 6.5 CM to further develop projectiles and loads.
I don’t expect a major announcement, or any fanfare with this decision. Instead, you’ll begin to see small movements toward configuring weapons to utilize this round.
At the USASOC Sniper Competition, there were several weapons in 6.5 CM. Yesterday, we gave a little tease on Instagram of a Knight’s Armament Co M110 in 6.5 CM.
link to article (http://soldiersystems.net/2018/03/23/ussocom-adopts-6-5-cm/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook)
The Reaper
03-23-2018, 20:37
I saw both .260 and 6.5 CM weapons at the Sniper Comp.
Either one would be great. The .260 can be made relatively easily from .308/7.62 NATO brass and is slightly faster.
TR
This will be for all....replacing all of the 5.56 platforms?
Combat Diver
03-23-2018, 22:31
This will be for all....replacing all of the 5.56 platforms?
No, replacing 7.62mm NATO guns. .260 Rem is just a necked down .308 Winchester. 6.5 Creedmore is a modified .30 TC which again is a modified .308 Winchester case. So, bigger gun required.
CD
No, replacing 7.62mm NATO guns
To bad.
HELP,,
Couple days ago the 5-sided outhouse picks the 6.5 CM as the Squad Designated Marksman Rifle round
NOW, they want to spent bazillions on 6,000 Heckler & Koch G28E(7.62 NATO) for the Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System (CSASS) and/or Squad Designated Marksman Rifle rifle.
https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/03/23/army-begin-fielding-thousands-squad-marksman-rifles-oct-1.html?ESRC=eb_180326.nl
Who's in charge??
confused VFOG :eek::mad::confused::rolleyes:
Nothing makes sense to me anymore.
For years - the M16A2 just wasn't getting it done - we needed.........
........shorter barrels
we NEED shorter barrels
So everyone got shorter barrels - then they realized that things were a little...
....off. Things were still just a little off and we needed to fix it - bad guys weren't dying quite the way we wanted them to die - 5.56 rounds from an M4 just weren't killing bad guys the right way.
we needed something a little extra....
....so SOF went out and bought some SPR's
....because we needed something with a little bit more barrel
....and then turned around and spent 12 jillion dollars buying 10 inch uppers
Then complained that something was still a bit off
...so we looked for something better - we needed a new gun
So we bought SCARS
...some of which were in 5.56
...but they had long AND short barrels
...but we didn't keep them because they sucked
We also bought 7.62 SCARS because it came with different barrels so we could shoot it at longer ranges
....but we still needed to spend a lot of money on a new 7.62 semi-auto sniper gun
...so we bought a bunch of older M14s and hot rodded them
...and we bought a bunch of guns that were nothing more than Gucci style M16A2 rifles chambered to fire 7.62
...but we still aren't quite there yet
Then we needed piston driven M4s because 10' inch gas guns and piston driven SCARS in 5.56 weren't quite the answer we wanted - it had to be an M4 platform with a piston.
.....and that horrible caliber choice we have been cursed with - oh Jesus - 5.56 wont kill any body unless it is in the hands of a child. An M4 is useless in a CQB situation - no adult sized target killing capability
Soooo...... as soon as we can field a new caliber, in a slightly different gun, we can start finding reasons why that one doesn't work either.
Ret10Echo
03-26-2018, 11:32
HELP,,
Couple days ago the 5-sided outhouse picks the 6.5 CM as the Squad Designated Marksman Rifle round
NOW, they want to spent bazillions on 6,000 Heckler & Koch G28E(7.62 NATO) for the Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System (CSASS) and/or Squad Designated Marksman Rifle rifle.
https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/03/23/army-begin-fielding-thousands-squad-marksman-rifles-oct-1.html?ESRC=eb_180326.nl
Who's in charge??
confused VFOG :eek::mad::confused::rolleyes:
And Remington declares bankruptcy.....
Mustang Man
03-26-2018, 11:53
Until we get laser blasters, it's safe to say our ballistics/platform technology have practically peaked. It's like the automobile industry, every year a new model is released.
I found some contract details.
44,500,000 / 3643 = 12,215 USD each, to include education & parts, yada yada yada...
PS: I wonder if the dolled up M14's will go to CMP :lifter
Solicitation Number:
W15QKN-14-R-0065
Notice Type:
Award Notice
Contract Award Date:
March 31, 2016
Contract Award Number:
W15QKN-16-D-0051
Contract Award Dollar Amount:
Max Potential Contract Value: $44,500,000.00
Contract Line Item Number:
CLIN 0001-0029
Contractor Awarded Name:
Heckler & Koch Defense Inc.
Contractor Awarded DUNS:
134466999
Contractor Awarded Address:
19980 Highland Vista Dr Ste 190
Ashburn, Virginia 20147
United States
Synopsis:
Added: Apr 01, 2016 9:40 am
The U.S. Army Contracting Command, New Jersey, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ on behalf of the Project Manager Soldier Weapons awarded a single award Indefinite Delivery-Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Delivery and Task Orders with two (2) options for a maximum total of 3,643 Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System (CSASS) units.
The period of performance for the base ordering period will be Twenty-Four (24) months, during which time Production Qualification Testing/Operational Testing (PQT/OT) of 30 CSASS units will be conducted.
The minimum ordering obligation for this contract is 30 CSASS units to be used for PQT/OT.
Option one (1) will enable additional ordering periods and will include production, spare parts, depot support, First Article testing, and Instructor and Key Personnel Training (I&KPT).
Option two (II) is for the purchase of a technical data package and Government Purpose Rights.
.
tom kelly
03-26-2018, 17:46
I found some contract details.
44,500,000 / 3643 = 12,215 USD each, to include education & parts, yada yada yada...
PS: I wonder if the dolled up M14's will go to CMP :lifter
ARE YOU KIDDING ME; After "THE GIANT STUDENT RALLY" on Sat.March 24,2018 The idea of A SALT weapons being offered for SALE by the Gov. will be out of the question. The ultra liberal left & the brain dead students think the NRA is the reason for massacre's and to put more high capacity mags with more assult weapons would be unthinkable.....Let's let the 13 to 19 year old students make decisions for the USA That sounds like a good idea. SCHUMER & PELOSI would vote for that...WE THE PEOPLE NEED A BIG CHANGE IN THIS COUNTRY; WHILE WE STILL HAVE ONE. tom kelly
As much as I appreciate the benefits of 6.5CM over 7.62X51 in a full length barrel (≥20"), 7.62X51 offers better performance comparatively when using a 16" (1/10" twist) barrel like on the new CSASS.
x/S
miclo18d
04-02-2018, 21:18
As much as I appreciate the benefits of 6.5CM over 7.62X51 in a full length barrel (≥20"), 7.62X51 offers better performance comparatively when using a 16" (1/10" twist) barrel like on the new CSASS.
x/S
What’s the source on that statement? (and) What do you mean by “performance”?
The 6.5CM high BC bullet is ballistically superior to .308. Barrel length only affects muzzle velocity not accuracy. Elevation is generally easy to predict by doping your bullets to your rifle. The windage is the difficulty and the 6.5 high BC bucks the wind similar to a 300WM. Another advantage is less recoil.
G2squared
04-02-2018, 21:30
Nothing makes sense to me anymore.
For years - the M16A2 just wasn't getting it done - we needed.........
........shorter barrels
we NEED shorter barrels
So everyone got shorter barrels - then they realized that things were a little...
....off. Things were still just a little off and we needed to fix it - bad guys weren't dying quite the way we wanted them to die - 5.56 rounds from an M4 just weren't killing bad guys the right way.
we needed something a little extra....
....so SOF went out and bought some SPR's
....because we needed something with a little bit more barrel
....and then turned around and spent 12 jillion dollars buying 10 inch uppers
Then complained that something was still a bit off
...so we looked for something better - we needed a new gun
So we bought SCARS
...some of which were in 5.56
...but they had long AND short barrels
...but we didn't keep them because they sucked
We also bought 7.62 SCARS because it came with different barrels so we could shoot it at longer ranges
....but we still needed to spend a lot of money on a new 7.62 semi-auto sniper gun
...so we bought a bunch of older M14s and hot rodded them
...and we bought a bunch of guns that were nothing more than Gucci style M16A2 rifles chambered to fire 7.62
...but we still aren't quite there yet
Then we needed piston driven M4s because 10' inch gas guns and piston driven SCARS in 5.56 weren't quite the answer we wanted - it had to be an M4 platform with a piston.
.....and that horrible caliber choice we have been cursed with - oh Jesus - 5.56 wont kill any body unless it is in the hands of a child. An M4 is useless in a CQB situation - no adult sized target killing capability
Soooo...... as soon as we can field a new caliber, in a slightly different gun, we can start finding reasons why that one doesn't work either.
Box,
Looks like you thoroughly understand the history of the "Attempts" at finding the perfect rifle. You probably already know this, but... If the perfect rifle in the perfect caliber for all missions was designed and sold to the gov't, there would be no need to spend more money trying others... No more spending our seemingly endless tax dollars to design and sell yet another, not quite right rifle. They would hav etc find a new way to spend all that unspent money!!
IMHO
There is no "One size fits all" in rifles. The right fit is dependent on the application or intended use. But are multiple rifles for various missions or even the same mission practical for units? Why does life have to be so complicated?!
P52 Modulator is the right answer, just need to get it away from the creepy little Martian cartoon. . .
G2
I have got to figure out how to get a job in the procurement and sales industry...
...the peanuts I make in the contact instructor realm just cant hold a candle to this level of corruption and profit.
Baby needs a new pair of shoes!!
G2squared
04-03-2018, 18:08
When you figure it out please share. Mamma wants matching shoes with baby!
miclo18d:
By "performance" I am referring to external ballistics only. As I understand it. If you compare the external ballistics of the 6.5CM vs. the 7.62X51 in a 20" inch barrel, the 6.5CM will shoot flatter, more stable, and stay supersonic to a greater distance due to the higher BC. However, if you are shooting the shorter 16" barrel the decrease in velocity causes less negative effect on the 7.62X51 (when using a high twist rate like 1:10") vs. the 6.5CM. I don't have the numbers, but if I remember correctly, the 6.5CM will actually go transonic sooner. Now, I am no Brian Litz and I could be wrong, but that is how I understand it. As for terminal ballistics, I have no idea. If I don't have to hump it around, like riding around in an RG or sitting in a VSP, I would absolutely take a 20" 6.5CM due to the increased accuracy and range. If I am patrolling on foot, I would take the "handier" 16" 7.62X51 and accept that my range is 800mtrs maximum.
x/S
miclo18d
04-07-2018, 15:55
miclo18d:
By "performance" I am referring to external ballistics only. As I understand it. If you compare the external ballistics of the 6.5CM vs. the 7.62X51 in a 20" inch barrel, the 6.5CM will shoot flatter, more stable, and stay supersonic to a greater distance due to the higher BC. However, if you are shooting the shorter 16" barrel the decrease in velocity causes less negative effect on the 7.62X51 (when using a high twist rate like 1:10") vs. the 6.5CM. I don't have the numbers, but if I remember correctly, the 6.5CM will actually go transonic sooner. Now, I am no Brian Litz and I could be wrong, but that is how I understand it. As for terminal ballistics, I have no idea. If I don't have to hump it around, like riding around in an RG or sitting in a VSP, I would absolutely take a 20" 6.5CM due to the increased accuracy and range. If I am patrolling on foot, I would take the "handier" 16" 7.62X51 and accept that my range is 800mtrs maximum.
x/S No worries, I wasn’t trying to create drama. Everything I have researched shows the 6.5CM matches more to 300WM and is superior to .308. The only downside I’ve ever heard was barrel wear. Which, IMHO, is a BS argument. Uncle Sugar can afford barrels (and so can I). Another cartridge I’ve been wondering about is the 300 Norma Magnum which is performing more like ultra mag. What I seem to read about, it’s all about the ability to seat longer bullets (not that big army is hand loading), which allows you to dial in the accuracy.
Basic military small arms design considerations point to the .260 Remington as the better military cartridge. The reason is it is just a necked down version of the .308 WIN. This cartridge has more of a body taper from the head to the shoulder to facilitate extraction in a dirty chamber. A straight walled case will have more friction on it until the shoulder clears the rear of the chamber. Plus this taper facilitates the feeding from a box magazine better. Think of a triangle vs a rectangle, picture both of them being puled out of a matching slot, the triangle becomes loose after a small movement, not so with the rectangle. Just basic military small arms design that all 18"Bs should know.
Team Sergeant
11-12-2018, 12:10
7.62x51 to 5.56 to 6.5 very amusing indeed. The army in it's infinite wisdom is now climbing back up the bullet tree it climbed down from in the 50's and 60's.
Actually very surprising as females wish to join the "combat" ranks. The combat load is once again becoming "heavier", again.
Personally I'd have every other soldier assigned to the infantry carrying 7.62x51 for long range and 5.56 for the close in stuff. But that's not "uniform". Wouldn't look good in a parade, generals would hate that.....................
After WW II, the Army ALMOST selected the FN FAL. The initial tests were with the British 280 cal. But Mother Army had to have a .30 inch, so the 7.62x51 was born :]
The .280 British was an experimental rimless bottlenecked intermediate rifle cartridge. It was later designated 7 mm MK1Z, and has also been known as 7 mm NATO, .280/30, .280 Enfield, .280 NATO, 7 mm FN Short, and 7×43mm.
Like most armed forces in the immediate post-World War II era, the British Army began experimenting with lighter rounds after meeting the German StG 44 in combat. The Army began development in the late 1940s, with subsequent help from Fabrique Nationale in Belgium and the Canadian Army. The .280 British was tested in a variety of rifles and machine guns including the EM-2, Lee–Enfield, FN FAL, Bren, M1 Garand and Taden gun.
Despite its success as an intermediate cartridge, the .280 British was not considered powerful enough by the U.S. Army and several variants of the .280 British were created in an attempt to appease the U.S. Army. However, the U.S. Army continued to reject these variants, ultimately adopting the 7.62×51mm NATO.
:munchin
Once they weaponize the iPAD we can do away with all of this silly gun stuff anyway.
338 Norma Magnum. With 16in barrel and 10rd box magazine, It will be California compliant ! Man up and take the recoil you wont need a follow on shot, Even comes in belt fed Machinegun form.