Remington is NOT developing a 6.5mm round

A few days ago Confederate Yankee wrote that Remington were not developing a 6.5mm cartridge. This contradicted what Adam Heggenstaller reported a couple of weeks ago. I checked with Jessica Kallam (Freedom Group – Remington’s parent company), and the statement Confederate Yankee posted on his blog is the official statement regarding the ACR and 6.5mm round …

We are not currently in the process of developing our own 6.5mm round for the AR platform. We have mentioned the 6.5 in our communications on the ACR simply because that platform is capable of handling the Grendel or something like it. At this point, there are no plans to chamber the ACR for the Grendel. However, that may change if we receive enough input from the marketplace to make it seem necessary.

Remington Military Products Division still list it as a caliber on their ACR webpage.

Screenshot of the Remington ACR webpage.

I expect this has generated much confusion as the company now has an official statement regarding the issue. For now the only 6.5mm cartridge in the Remington stable is the .260 Remington1

Many thanks to rootman for sending me the top link.

  1. The .260 is a necked down .308. It is comparable to the 6.5×55 Swede, a full power cartridge, not an intermediate such as the 6.5mm Grendel. 

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


  • rootman

    Not good news.
    The .260 is a great round.
    It could replace the 308 and the 5.56 using different bullet weights and pressures.
    It could be loaded to lower pressures for the assault rifle role and full power for better than 308 performance.

  • Freiheit

    Is this that big of a deal?

    If there is one thing the AR market has shown us it is that we need not wait for the big players to take a base platform and tune it as desired for niche markets.

    Unless I’m missing something obvious (such as the 6.5mm being obscenely different in dimensions from other ACR calibers) this doesn’t seem like that big of a deal.

    Please clue a hopeless rookie in if I am missing something.

  • Redchrome

    This is a non-issue.

    What this *does* tell me is that they’re still not interested in taking advantage of the best feature of the ACR design — interchangeable lowers so you have an easy migration path away from the broken-by-design AR15 magazine.

    I want an ACR that takes AK47 magazines. Most durable and reliable magazines ever designed.

    I really want a Massood (ACR’s big brother) that incorporates a wholly novel magazine design that offers:

    * easy release like the AR15
    * straight-in-and-out load and release like the AR15
    * constant-curve geometry like an AK, so your mag follower doesn’t have to be a sloppy fit in order to fit around a ‘kink’ or changing-radius curve in the mag body.
    * tapered catch/locking lug like the AK47 for lots of dimensional tolerance
    * Lots of bolt overtravel (travel of the bolt face past the back of the magazine), so a worn/dirty/damaged magazine has more time to get the next cartridge up into line to be picked up by the bolt, like the AK47. (This is why awful-quality AK mags well over 40 rounds capacity will feed reliably in an AK)
    * greater Cartridge Overall Length than the AR15

    Let the flames begin and the market decide! 🙂

    • Redchrome, the one thing missing is support for bolt hold open.

  • Redchrome

    you are perceptive and correct sir!

    I forgot to mention that.

  • Redchrome

    I should probably also mention:

    * ready support for drum magazine with short/no feed tower. The Ultimax 100 has a tolerable design for this. I do not know what drawbacks the ‘vampire fangs’ on the Ultimax 100 might have; but it does seem to have remained in use for some time.

    The actual utility of monster drum magazines is limited; they’re bulky and heavy things. Still, there may be some utility in compact drums (consider how handy the Ruger 10/22 rotary mag is, on the small end of the scale). A 45-50 round drum magazine of modern design might be marginally shorter than a 30-round curved magazine; albeit bulkier and heavier. Soviet soldiers in WW2 reputedly preferred to start their assaults with PPSh41s loaded with 71-round drums, then switch to stick mags after the first mag ran dry. (This is of course subject to a lot of revisionism and interpretation and situations; so just accept it as an anecdotal story and please debate with me the value of the mechanics and tactics rather than the likelihood of the history).

  • Redchrome

    As a suggestion for an example to look at which embodies many of my suggestions above; the Skorpion has many of the desireable features in its magazines. They’re easy to insert and remove like the AR15; but durably built like the AK.

  • Matt Groom

    So… the ACR’s gonna be available in .260 Remington? Awesome!

    Yeah, I know.


    My understanding is that Soviet soldiers widely disliked the drum magazines on the PPSH-41 because they were difficult to load correctly, noisy when you ran or moved, easily jammed unless constantly cleaned, and hard to get. The Soviet high command didn’t like them because they were expensive to produce, so the PPS-43 was designed to use stick mags only.

    Personally, I have read too many negatives about drum and pan magazines of decades past to have any faith in them now. Also, they’re heavy and expensive. A Beta Mag might work great, but it costs $250 and it’s hard to carry extras. I believe the failures of Drum mags are why disintegrating links were developed in the first place, so I really don’t see the ability to take a drum as a positive. The only fault I find with the Ultimax-100 is the drum mag, but maybe that’s just me.

    • Matt, nope, it cannot chamber .260 which is .308 in size.

  • Redchrome

    I had not heard that, but your anecdote is probably just as good as mine. 🙂

    I will provisionally accept your points. Drums can be noisy. I don’t know about ‘hard to load’; I think that’s a design issue as much as anything. More expensive than stick mags per round, and heavier than stick mags per round, are fairly certain.

    Conversely, much of the same thing can be said about belts; if not more so. Belts are noisy, prone to tangling, and prone to jamming. The big drawback of belts is that they’re very slow to change compared to mags. I think Jim Sullivan (formerly of Armalite, and one of the Ultimax 100 designers) was involved in a study where they found it too over 20 seconds for a SAW gunner to change a belt while on the move. His solution is to prepackage belts into containers that the user just slaps into the gun like a magazine, and have the gun open the box and load the belt; but I don’t know how far his development has gotten with that.

    For now tho; I think large capacity magazines have a lot of merit for SAW applications; and this is why I would advocate a rifle magwell being designed to accept drum magazines as well as stick mags. This is not to say that they must always be manufactured that way… I think it would be fine to have a ‘type 1’ magwell that only accepted stick mags, if this sped up reloads or had other advantages; and a ‘type 2’ magwell that accepted both stick and other types of mags. The SAW/IAR applications (and the mall ninjas) will use type 2 magwells; others who need to optimize for their common case of only using stick mags will use type 1 magwells.

    The merit of having the same basic rifle for both the individual and for the SAW is of course debateable; and should be left to folks with combat experience (unlike me). I think the flexibility to easily do so is quite valuable tho.

  • Matt Groom


    Yeah, I know!

  • Destroyer

    what a shame…the combo of the two would make a unstoppable weapons system