SOCOM Looks to 6.5mm Creedmoor, .260 Remington for New Semiautomatic Sniper Rifle

Original caption: "A U.S. Marine with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) Maritime Raid Force fires an M40 sniper rifle during a nighttime live-fire exercise June 21, 2013, in Jordan as part of exercise Eager Lion 2013." Photo credit: Sgt Christopher Q. Stone. Public domain.

The United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is considering a caliber change for their future semiautomatic sniper weapons systems. Although traditionally these medium range precision weapons have been chambered for the 7.62x51mm caliber common to NATO, it seems SOCOM is looking to get a little more out of them by changing over to a new 6.5mm/0.264″ caliber round. The Command is investigating two off-the-shelf options: The 6.5mm Creedmoor (6.5x49mm) and the .260 Remington (6.5x52mm). Both rounds are extremely similar, each being based on the .308 Winchester case (the Creedmoor by way of the all-but-forgotten .30 T/C) necked down. From Military Times:

Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action sniper rifle systems.

Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the .260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.

Research shows that both rounds will “stay supersonic longer, have less wind drift and better terminal performance than 7.62 mm ammunition,” SOCOM officials said.

Hauquitz said that the research is focused on the popularity and availability of the cartridge, and finding out the benefits and drawbacks of the different rounds.

He didn’t provide a specific date or timeline for when the new rifle would be in operators’ hands but said they would have a better idea regarding the caliber later this year.

“We’re purely in the exploratory phase,” Hauquitz said. “We’re trying to see if we can take a weapon that is 7.62 and give it greater range, accuracy and lethality.”

Hauquitz said the 6.5 mm exploration came out of preliminary results of the Small Arms Ammunition Configuration study, which evaluates for the military commercially available ammunition, emerging ammunition capabilities, and ammunition technologies for conventional and non-conventional calibers.

The primary differences between the 6.5 Creedmoor and the .260 Remington are the slightly shorter case and slightly longer neck of the Creedmoor, and the more aggressive shoulder and slightly greater case taper of the .260 Remington. Other than those differences (which make the two decidedly non-interchangeable), both rounds are essentially the same, providing very similar levels of performance. Versus the 7.62mm, either 6.5mm offers a much flatter trajectory, greater wind resistance, and shorter flight time; in these respects the hotshot 6.5s more resemble the .300 Winchester Magnum which has been used in military sniper rifles than they do the 7.62mm. In addition, both rounds give greater striking velocity and energy at extended distances, adding penetration and possibly also fragmentation range versus 7.62.

The new caliber will apparently be sought for the semiautomatic sniper system, as well as the Advanced Sniper Rifle (ASR), and an M40A6 upgrade.





Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • FormFactor

    And yet theyr performance pretty much suck for theyr Weight and Recoil because theyr bad FF’s. Same energy retention at range could be done lighter, with less recoil, less wind drift, flatter trajectory, higher supersonic range. So,surely better than 7.62×51 but still rather bad.

    • ostiariusalpha

      I disagree. For use with a conventional bottle-necked, metallic cartridge, the 6.5mm has excellent form factor; and a good balance of kinetic energy at close, medium, and long range. Sure, you could outperform it by taking a .358 Winchester case and stuffing a sub-6.5mm bullet with a more advanced ogive profile into a sabot, but with the traditional case and feed ramp designs, you would quickly develop feeding malfunctions in an autoloading rifle. A more advanced setup needs an entirely new design, such as the polymer case-telescoped cartridge, that doesn’t use the traditional feed ramp for loading.

    • Jack

      Holy crap….. Didn’t we hear this on like three other threads?!? What would you suggest?

      • Major Tom

        He’s a 5.56mm fanboy, nothing more needs to be said. He sounds like an overenthusiastic southern preacher. “Oh Lawd! Show us believers the path of your .223 grace! Bless us with 5.56mm’s superiority! Bless us Lawd! Amen!”

        To him, everything else sucks.

        • FormFactor

          No im not advocating 5.56×45 even in a perfected aerodynamic form, for this specific Rifle. I’m just saying 6.5Creedmore de facto sucks an is insanly unoptimized, sure its damn better than 7.62×51, but still a complete waste of potential.

          • Aono

            He didn’t say 5.56×45. And you haven’t said anything at all.

      • Aono

        Fairy dust.

    • Bradley

      But what theyr FF bad would better? What would theyr be then?

    • Threethreeight

      Found the guy who doesn’t shoot literally anything at all.

      • FormFactor

        The question is – why waste a ton of potential, as said they are completely underperforming. A Designated Marksmen will for sure be more interested if he gets more performance for the same weight/ same performance for less weight. The government too, they would get a hell lot more for the theyr money. You might be funny but that doesn’t change physics.

        • Threethreeight

          What wasted potential are you talking about? This is effectively a drop in solution with no changes except to the barrel for a fairly significant improvement in ballistics and shootability. It’s cheaper and effective for all parties involved.

  • Holdfast_II

    How about a depleted uranium 6mm? That would combine great cross section with heavier bullet weight.

    • Major Tom

      Ad hoc AMAT rifle? DU ammunition would be armor piercing after all.

    • Goody

      The funny thing about bullets is that a lighter alloy can yield a higher BC, by virtue of greater length & sleeker form. My preferred 308 match bullets contain about 15% airspace by length, just to stretch out that ogive. DU would be great with enough powder (and probably a copper jacket) but in current bullet weights would have a rather pistoline form factor.

  • 8166PC1

    Superiority of the 6mm calibers

  • SJB

    Better ballistic coefficient for the 6.5 mm projectile, as I understand.

    • Rap Scallion

      Not to mention a cutesie name too…..Creedmoor evokes memories of when the Americans whipped the drunk Irish in a real shooting match! AND as an added bonus it is in the disgusting metric calibration……SOLD to the American Public!

  • Aono

    As always COAL is the constraint for these platforms and that is a hard constraint for then choosing a case and bullet. So for those wondering why 6.5, let’s review.

    1. Incomplete list of manufacturers whose 6.5 bullet has a superior form factor to every single other bullet they make, which is of a smaller caliber than 6.5 (i.e. that will fit within the same COAL constraints as 308):

    Warner Tool
    Hornady
    Nosler
    JLK
    Norma
    Nosler
    Berger
    Sierra
    Lapua
    Barnes

    2. Complete list of manufacturers who has even a single bullet of smaller caliber than 6.5 which also has a superior form factor to their 6.5 offering or a 6.5 offering from any of those manufacturers listed above:

    Does this clarify things?

    • RealitiCzech

      Your facts are irrelevant. The .30 caliber must exist in rifle form or else this country will collapse. This was decided during the presidency of Benjamin Harrison, chief warlock of the Freemasons. Worried about the possibility of European invasion or a 2nd Civil War, he set up a secret government project in which over 13 million goats were sacrificed to the God of Bore Diameter. In return, he promised to preserve the territorial integrity of the United States as long as its military carried a rifle in his sacred caliber, .30.
      We had a string of decisive military victories from that point until the appointment of the vile wizard MacNamara, follower of the evil god of high velocity and legume-numbering. His heresy was permitted despite the hard work of the prophet Jeff Cooper and his acolytes, and since then we have seen nothing but disaster. If SOCOM adopts 6.5, I predict that we will lose Alaska to ISIS within 10 weeks of that decision. Emu entrails don’t lie.

      • Lostcoast

        Now that is a brilliant (and funny) post..

      • Rap Scallion

        I do like your insight…..Your words have Iron!

      • Aono

        /slowclap

        I only wish you had had time to include “something something oprod.”

      • iksnilol

        I am glad to not have been alive during the MacNamara Heresy. It definitely put the Imperium of Americans on a dark path.

      • jonp

        you have been on Alex Jone”s Infowars again, haven’t you?

      • Mr Nobody

        Sshhhhhhh, your letting the brotherhoods secrets out of the bag…

  • Shaun Connery Oliver II

    How much you want to bet that the 6.5 Creedmoor is going to be adopted by SOCOM? Oh and by the way, has anyone looked at ALCO bullets? Because I think their 6.5 projectiles combined with the Creedmoor would be great. Or is that a sucky idea?

  • 1LT Homer

    Re-barrel the SCAR-17. Proof carbon barrel in 6.5 dropped into a MK20 platform

    • Jared A. Faber

      That would make sense, but since this is the US government; they are probably going to just order SCAR-17s chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor and mothball the 308 SCARs until they are torched/surplussed.

  • jonp

    Welcome back to 100yrs ago and something quite a few of us have known for quite some time. The 6.5’s are accurate, penetrate all out of proportion due to the BC and don’t kick as hard.
    The longer neck of the Creedmore will allow heavier bullets, right?

    • Rap Scallion

      WHY do they adopt a small cartridge and then immediately before the ink is dry, start the quest for heavier bullets, to make it a 30-06?????? WHY IS THAT???????

      • Smedley54

        Because nothing lighter than 150gr is lethal enough. Your 123gr Scenar data is invalid.

        My sons swore this was true, at least until one of them had to track a lung shot buck (150gr 30-06) and the other brother dropped a bigger buck with a 130gr 260 Rem. At longer range. Through brush. And this is the son that uses a 260 reluctantly because he has severe TMJ and heavy recoil – from, say, a 150gr 30 caliber – dislocates his jaw.

        I’m a long-time 260 advocate that never saw a need for the 6.5 Creedmoor (or the 6.5×47 Lapua, either, for that matter), but at least it has brought attention to the 6.5 caliber in general.

        • Threethreeight

          So your one secondhand anecdotal shooting a deer invalidates everyone’s ballistic data, research, bullet design, and dead animals?

          • Smedley54

            They are two anecdotal examples that corroborate contemporary ballistics research and bullet design. Large, heavy calibers have an intuitive appeal, but in many situations there are better tools.

      • iksnilol

        Because heavy bullets in a small caliber mean a long (read: high bc) bullet.

        • Pendant

          In a man-sized target a projectile of 100 grains with an initial velocity of +2800 fps is demonstrably sufficiently destructive; say .243 Win or 6mms Rem

          • jonp

            Indeed, I always wondered about the 243 and it’s lack of adoption but the increased throat erosion and barrel burning may have dissuaded the “powers that be” to not adopt it and seek a friendlier non-overbore caliber.

    • Pendant

      The kick from a .264 Win mag will get your attention. Though it is less than a .338

    • Mark Horning

      It’s not the neck length per se, it’s the further set back shoulder and generally longer throat. Also most commercial .260 Rem barrels do not have a fast enough twist so are limited to lighter barrels, though of course SOCOM could order up any twist they liked.

      The whole point of the Creedmore is that it can use heavier bullets than the .260. Its the main reason for it to exist.

      • John

        Mark- The .260 Rem. can handle any of the 6.5 cal. bullets that the 6.5 Creedmoor can. The longest bullets, such as a Sierra 142 Mk, protrude into the cartridge case and rob powder space from the .260., when loading for the appropriate length of a short bolt action. The same bullet, loaded into the shorter case of the Creedmoor, can be seated further out, and still meet the standard bolt action magazine length. The 30 degree shoulder angle of the Creedmoor is desirable for less throat wear. Experimenters will find that a .30-06 and a .308 perform very closely with bullets weighing less than 190 grains. Any higher weight, the .30-06 wins. I think that 130 grain bullets will excel in 6.5 caliber for the same reason. I’ve chambered about 10 barrels to .260 Rem., getting about 4000 rounds out of the most used one before accuracy went bad. On the contrary, I had a 6.5-06, that went bad with only about a 1000 rounds thru it. If I were to start all over again, I would chamber 6,5 Creedmore because of the 30 degree shoulder angle and the now available Lapua brass.

  • Edeco

    Interesting to see the institutional inertia of the 7.62 maybe slipping. I read where it was kept because it’s performance is really well understood… well, that’s OK for a while but sooner or later I’d think the added performance of something new would be worth more than the maturity of the 762.

    • Sticky-eye Rivers

      I agree, with the only exeption of “new” since 6.5x55SE is 126 years old.

  • BravoSeven

    .260 Remington. I’m done here. Have a nice day.

    • Rap Scallion

      I can remember when there wern’t enough bad things to say about the .270 bookends…….260 to small and 280 well thats so close to 308/30-06 ya can’t even tell! Looks like we may have come full circle in the last 100+ years. Time to throw the black plastic varmint gun on the bonfire of stupidity!

      • Aono

        You DO understand that the whole point of this exercise is to retire the 30-06 Short with a 6.5 sent from said black plastic varmint gun?

        • ostiariusalpha

          He doesn’t, and he’s happier for it. You’re free to say whatever you want when you just ignore the whole gist of the article.

      • No one

        Sorry you’re still salty that the M14 got stomped by the AR-10/15 as flat out better guns by light years, but we’re still not going back to your 20s-30s era tech relic that was obsolete before the day it was adopted.

        • The Brigadier

          Nobody said the 7.62 the Army has said will be their new smallest caliber will brought back in the M1A. A SCAR Heavy with a 20 inch barrel will be a better technology and the recoil will be straight line just like the ARs. The SCAR is superior to the AR platform and that frightens a lot of people. I hope its adopted as Baby Bear.

  • lostintranslation

    SOCOM shows initiative and leads the way.

    • Rap Scallion

      HAHAHAH Possibly, but I would buy me a compass, if I were following them, maybe one with a moral compass on it too!

  • john huscio

    7mm08

  • ProLiberty82

    Only thing that has kept me from going full 6.5 is the fact that they are barrel burners, with 6.5 you get about 2000 rounds vs 5000 rounds in 7.62×51 before you’d want to change barrels in a precision platform. This might not be a problem for SOCOM in a limited special purposes rifle but it’s the reason I think 6.5 calibers will never replace the 7.62×51 for general military use.

    • Rap Scallion

      First intelligent argument I have heard here so far!

    • I wonder if hard chrome lining (not typically found in a precision rifle, but default in most .mil weapons) would extend barrel life?

      • Or melonite. Over at SH much has been going back and forth over meloniting actions, but barrels seem to be more prosaic.

        • Nicks87

          It seems like they can apply the melonite in a way that it’s much more evenly distributed than hard chrome, having a lesser effect on accuracy. So that could be a possibility.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Melonite isn’t a coating, it is a treatment that permeates the surface of the steel, and therefore doesn’t change the dimensions of the bore.

          • Nicks87

            Makes sense.

    • iksnilol

      Load milder loads. Go long action (6.5×55) and use milder loads, should last about as well as 308 with the hot loads does but with waaay better brass life and performance.

      • The Brigadier

        But that negates the reason for considering the Creedmor – faster and longer. If you use milder loads you are “limiting” it to 7.62 distance and speed. SOCOM comes out with requests from time to time and they rarely get what they ask for. I don’t see the Army muddying their waters with a decision to bring out a caliber smaller than their new smallest caliber choice the 7.62 X 51 Nato. This choice was made because the twelve million man army of China now all carry .308 bullpups. The Pentagon is preparing for a war with a China that was 69% probable before the election of Trump and now its around 51% by military odds makers.

        • iksnilol

          China doesn’t use .308 bullpups.

          And a 6.5 even with milder loads has much superior ballistics to 308. But the barrel burning factor was irrelevant to the army, it’s more relevant to civilians.

          • The Brigadier

            They most certainly do. You are always a naysayer. Get over yourself.

          • iksnilol

            No they don’t, they use 5.8 bullpups.

    • Goody

      Barrels are cheaper than bullets. Uncle Sam will barely notice.

    • LilWolfy

      2000rds? That sounds more like a 6mm-08 class of cartridge, .243, 6mm Creedmoor territory.

      6.5CM and .260 Rem will go into the 3000-4500rd count, depending on volume and concentration in time.

  • FOC Ewe

    JFK disapproves of 6.5mm ballistics.

    • DW

      That’s mind blowing.

    • SignalFromTheRim

      Damn.

    • Tassiebush

      Hehe he’s particularly upset about the metric designation of the 260rem (6.5×52)!

      • ostiariusalpha

        Probably gets the heeby-jeebies around .25-35 Winchester too.

        • Tassiebush

          I was thinking the metric designation of 260rem is 6.5×52 (citing this article) and JFK was shot with a 6.5x52carcano

          • ostiariusalpha

            .25-35 Win has the same metric designation as those two cartridges. Though it has the R suffix, which stands for “Rekt,” and thus is an even more scary cartridge than its murder-happy fellows.

          • Tassiebush

            Oh man that’s awesome! I didn’t realize that.

        • Tassiebush

          Must admit that cartridge gives me feelings I don’t understand

    • Aono

      Well no, it’s 6.8mm he doesn’t like..

    • Baggy270

      Too soon

  • Rap Scallion

    I guess when they finally get the wheel reinvented, it will come back full circle to the 30-06! I guess that when the war is finally over in another 10 years or so, they will have a pile of money to spend on new guns for the ground pounders! Secretly I have been thinking that the only reason for the M16 and it’s clones got to hang around so long, is nothing more than not wanting to change horses in mid stream!

    • Vitor Roma

      6.5×55 >>>> 30-06.

      • ostiariusalpha

        ‘Tis true, but .30-06 puts hair on your balls.

        • Tassiebush

          I’ve got a creedmore on order. Didn’t need any more hair!

    • iksnilol

      But 6.5×55 is older than 30-06. About 12 years older.

    • Tassiebush

      If you look at the rounds dominating PRS match and consider that they could use 3006 or 300win mag if they wanted but instead use 6.5 or 6mm then it’s probably a sign that this has some merit
      precisionrifleblog.com/2017/02/16/long-range-calibers-cartridges-what-the-pros-use/

  • Aono

    As for 260 vs 6.5CM, given:
    – a semi-automatic max COAL of ~2.825″
    – the near certain selection of the Berger 130 AR Hybrid OTM (just like its big brother 230 in the 300 Norma)
    – the willingness to abandon legacy or already fielded cartridges (see again 300 Norma)

    The choice is obvious. 6.5CM was designed precisely to fit VLDs like that 130 in short action COALs that the 260 couldn’t manage. There is a reason 6.5CM is successful in the market and that wasn’t because the market conspired around purchasing soft Hornady brass. Comparing them is almost like comparing 6.8SPC to 6.5 Grendel in terms of the case design’s ability to accept long nosed projectiles. The 260s boiler room advantage is virtually nullified by these long pills in these short COALs, and what tiny fps advantage remains is so marginal that any situation in which it is a controlling advantage is a situation that should be handled by the 300 Norma.

    6.5CM, small primer, 130 Berger, Reloder. Anything less doesn’t make sense.

    • LilWolfy

      .260 Rem fits VLDs just fine. It isn’t the COL that is the advantage, but the projectile base placement and neck tension of the 6.5 Creedmoor, which is more ideal for consistent burn and prevention of more gas leakage around a boat tail design.

      With .260 Rem and longer bullets, you have a lot of projectile base intrusion into the powder column, which encourages gas slip and erratic projectile uncorking into the lands.

      • Aono

        It’s not just the longer neck and shorter shoulder, but also the additional .115″ length available for the projectile’s nose in 6.5CM. While today’s Berger 130s will fit both 6.5CM and 260 comfortably, and even the 140 is right at the very limit of what the 260 can fit, there are already VLDs with superior form factors to either today that can’t fit on the 260 Remington within 2.825″ COAL because the ogive would sit in the case mouth.

        In the same way that 1:7 twist barrels fortunately lent 5.56 the headroom to evolve into the Mk262 and deal with longer lead-free projectiles, we should be picking the most efficient cases with some room to accommodate tomorrow’s longer (and very likely lead-free) projectiles, not just today’s. COAL still matters even if the Berger 130 is currently the shoo-in choice.

  • lostintranslation

    Reading through the comments it appears that many people assume that the 6.5 is earmarked to solely replace the 30-06, or 7.62×51. I’m not so sure that this is a good assumption.
    An alternative view might be that this is a foretaste of the replacement of 5.56×45. After all…..the USMC has shown that, using the side entrance with the (piston based) 416, avoided endless administrative procrastination and procurement inertia.

    I’m surprised that 6.5x47L is not also included in the evaluation mix.

    • FormFactor

      No, changing a >few< precision Rifles to a Round that gives vital advantages, while also reducing weight is COMPLETLY different than replacing hundret thousands of infantery rifles with a round that includes a ton of tradeoffs. 6.5 is de facto bs for an infantery rifle, rounds with the same performance can be made lighter and with less recoil.

    • No one

      Yes, because replacing a very small amount of precision and sniper rifles chambered in 7.62x51mm (potentially) with a 6.5mm round only in socom branches = Clearly linked to the Military wanting to replace 5.56x45mm NATO as general issue! And the fact the USMC just ordered a massive amount of more 5.56x45mm AR-15 derivatives is proof of this……somehow.

      How in the everliving hell did you come up with this insanely backwards nonsense? There is literally no logic at all and just pure mental gymnastics here.

      • lostintranslation

        Content appreciation may require (10th Grade) ‘reading carefully and reading between the lines.’

        • No one

          The fact your post makes no sense at all other then you trying to find something that isn’t there (other then “yet a new way to make s–t posts about the 5.56x45mm caliber.) is your own problem, sorry to tell you you’re not nearly as smart as you think you are.

  • GD Ajax

    Upgrading the M40? A major waste of tax dollers when they just by a rifle that isn’t a Cold War relic.

    • iksnilol

      But it’s so economical to just change the follower, the barrel and bolt assembly.

      • GD Ajax

        Pointless when everybody else is upgrading to 7.62×51 semi autos and 8mm bolt actions for their primary sniper rifles. Even the Taliban and Deash snipers will eventually be better armed and provide their guys better overwatch than those in the USMC.

        • iksnilol

          You do know that I was being sarcastic, right?

          Barrel and bolt and magazine is basically the entire rifle (minus stock).

  • tiger

    Just wondering, Why not a .300 Win Mag Semi Auto? Like the FNH FNAR or Benelli R-1?

  • GD Ajax

    *insert stupid fanboi suggestion that .300 BLK should be used instead*

  • Jerry Buchanan

    heck give me a 243 and I bet with 100gr bullets it will make an excellent sniper round!

  • The Brigadier

    Excuse me, but why do they need a weapon that is inferior ballistically that needs to reach targets farther than 1000 yards? The semi-match M1A is capable of that already and with its match grade barrel and service grade receiver its an acceptable field grade semi-automatic sniper rifle. There was an article in here last year comparing the 6.5 Creedmoor to the 7.62×51 Nato round and the author found the development of the Creedmor questionable. He asked the question, “Why do we need this new caliber?” SOCOM rarely gets what they ask for, and in this case the Army brass wants the 7.62 X 51 Nato round as the smallest round in their new three caliber plan. I don’t see the move from 5.56 to 7.62 as the new baby bear size to include calibers in between these two calibers. SOCOM also announced back in 2007 that they were getting a new double stack .45 pistol and the brass nixed it after the bids were received and remained with the 9mm Beretta. I suspect this will happen again since they announced that the three calibers will include 7.62 X 51 Nato as Baby Bear, .338 Lapua as Mama Bear and .50 BMG as Papa Bear.

    • Mike Baggott

      The Army also said that the 7.62 would be an interim caliber and that the ultimate batitle rifle caliber would be 6.5 or 6.8.
      Which SOCOM unit wanted a .45? I recall the .40 was bandied about but I don’t recall them talking a double stack .45. Besides SOCOM is pretty much issuing the Glock 19 to everyone now.
      If SOCOM can find an off the shelf 6.5 rifle that fits their needs they will probably get it. Ammo compatability with big Army isnt something they are concerned about, especially when we’re talking about a sniper system.

  • CavScout

    This is why they should have bought LMT MWS’s instead of the HK crap option. Just swap a barrel and you’re there!

  • bobk90

    “…better terminal performance than 7.62 mm ammunition…” is BULL—-!!!!
    The 308 has 500 ft lbs more out the barrel then the 6.5 creedmoor & 260 just a simple fact! Also, the 308 is a larger bullet that will do more DAMAGE down range, fact!
    Then if you put either of these PUNTA rounds against the 300 Win Mag it becomes a NO BRAINER as to which is better suited for Terminal Performance! A 200 gr 300 Win Mag blows away the 308 with a 1,000 ft lbs out the barrel and is moving at 3,200 ft per sec out the barrel.
    The 300 Win Mag CRUSHES the 6.5, 260 & 308!!! Fan Boys of the 6.5 round and I mean BOYS, just can’t handle the RECOIL of a MANS Round like 300 Win Mag and the Velocity of the 6.5 that they claim is superior with a Light Bullet is Negated with the 300 Win Mag! https://www.midwayusa.com/product/397693/hornady-superformance-sst-ammunition-300-winchester-magnum-180-grain-sst-box-of-20
    Then 6.5 fan boys will claim that the Bullet Co-Efficient is better right? Well look at this 308 bullet which is 240gr Bullet with a Co-Efficient .711 which will let you reach 1.500 yards easy and that bullet alone will do more than any 6.5 period!
    https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1482557247/sierra-matchking-bullets-30-caliber-308-diameter-240-grain-hollow-point-boat-tail

  • Indiana Mike

    There are films of Mussolini’s son in law, Count Ciano, getting shot in the head from behind at short range with a 6.5 Carcano His skull blows out exactly as did President Kennedy’s.