Cartridges you just hate

[HankBuck]

I think the cartridge I don't like at all is the 30-06, for no apparent reason, and perhaps the 6.5 Creedmore because I'm fed up with the amount of publicity they've given it.

@oscar1975 - disparaging the “.30-06” is very concerning and might even be considered a “crime”…. Certain calibers are sacred and should be worshipped - even for reasons we don’t fully understand, it is Not ours to question (so said John M. Browning — as he ascended into Heaven !!)

 

[HankBuck]

The government did a study some years ago... and I wish I could recall the source. The study claimed that 6.8(277) was the ideal balance for lethality, carry ability, and I want to say ballistics. So while everyone else went 6.5 or 7, the data wonks want the next gen cartridge to be 6.8. LWRC and Sig both cited it as the reason the Six8 and 277 SigFury were not what anyone else really wanted. I'll source it if I can find it. Or somebody more knowledgeable can chime in.

@akrifleman - well you lost me right after you wrote “the Government did a study..”. That right there should prove whatever follows is “inaccurate”. But on a more serious note, wasn’t the logic behind our military going from larger calibers down to the .556 (around 1960) because soldiers could carry more ammo (less weight & bulk) and also that “wounding” the enemy accomplished the same as killing the enemy — took them out of commission and maybe even took out additional enemy to transport & care for that “wounded” enemy?? So much goes into the military’s decision about what caliber or firearm will be adapted - and only part of that decision concerns ballistics and effectiveness….beats me?? I would think a small step up to a .243 would significantly increase power and still keep rounds of ammo small. Most soldiers can’t shoot a .30-06 accurately anyway (or any rifle caliber) under combat situations, the stress must be unbelievable and I can’t imagine the courage it must take to fight in Combat - I admire anyone that has.

 

[akrifleman]

@akrifleman - well you lost me right after you wrote “the Government did a study..”. That right there should prove whatever follows is “inaccurate”. But on a more serious note, wasn’t the logic behind our military going from larger calibers down to the .556 (around 1960) because soldiers could carry more ammo (less weight & bulk) and also that “wounding” the enemy accomplished the same as killing the enemy — took them out of commission and maybe even took out additional enemy to transport & care for that “wounded” enemy?? So much goes into the military’s decision about what caliber or firearm will be adapted - and only part of that decision concerns ballistics and effectiveness….beats me?? I would think a small step up to a .243 would significantly increase power and still keep rounds of ammo small. Most soldiers can’t shoot a .30-06 accurately anyway (or any rifle caliber) under combat situations, the stress must be unbelievable and I can’t imagine the courage it must take to fight in Combat - I admire anyone that has.

Please see post #277 where I sourced the study.

Yes, the move to the 5.56 was weight and bulk. However, at that time, the math proved that most combat engagements were under 100 yds, and the expended round to hit ratio was something insanely bad like over 300,000 rounds to casualty ratio. (Which was 100 to 1 during Gettysburg). Tactics have changed massively since then, such as fire suppression.

However, as everyone else worldwide made the shift, and the range increase to over 300 yds for engagements, the demand for lighter yet more powerful rounds are forcing a change again. That is the way of the world, things are fluid and they continue to morph as the enemy does.

The 243 is an AWFUL combat round. A 5.56/308 barrel goes 10,000 rounds, and a 243 torches throats. The 5.56/308 are incredibly efficient cartridges at all barrel lengths, and the 243 is incredibly inefficient (the much smaller 6XC and 6GT easily match it). It may be fine for hunting, but it is an absolute shite combat round.

The statement about soldiers shooting a 30-06 accurately under combat conditions was probably not well put. A soldier shooting ANY round under combat will not be as accurate as the firing range. Our troops are still very combat accurate, but the battlefield has stretched out significantly.

 

[HankBuck]

Please see post #277 where I sourced the study.

Yes, the move to the 5.56 was weight and bulk. However, at that time, the math proved that most combat engagements were under 100 yds, and the expended round to hit ratio was something insanely bad like over 300,000 rounds to casualty ratio. (Which was 100 to 1 during Gettysburg). Tactics have changed massively since then, such as fire suppression.

However, as everyone else worldwide made the shift, and the range increase to over 300 yds for engagements, the demand for lighter yet more powerful rounds are forcing a change again. That is the way of the world, things are fluid and they continue to morph as the enemy does.

The 243 is an AWFUL combat round. A 5.56/308 barrel goes 10,000 rounds, and a 243 torches throats. The 5.56/308 are incredibly efficient cartridges at all barrel lengths, and the 243 is incredibly inefficient (the much smaller 6XC and 6GT easily match it). It may be fine for hunting, but it is an absolute shite combat round.

The statement about soldiers shooting a 30-06 accurately under combat conditions was probably not well put. A soldier shooting ANY round under combat will not be as accurate as the firing range. Our troops are still very combat accurate, but the battlefield has stretched out significantly.

@akrifleman - so are we back to using a .308 for our future combat rifles? Or do we need to reinvent the wheel - again? A .308 round is far less bulky then a .30-06 and as you mention “very efficient”, plenty of power at 300 yrds and known as an inherently accurate round. I don’t know that there is a significantly better round but the debate could go on forever - looking for something more perfect…as is said “perfection is the enemy of excellence”.

 

[akrifleman]

@akrifleman - so are we back to using a .308 for our future combat rifles? Or do we need to reinvent the wheel - again? A .308 round is far less bulky then a .30-06 and as you mention “very efficient”, plenty of power at 300 yrds and known as an inherently accurate round. I don’t know that there is a significantly better round but the debate could go on forever - looking for something more perfect…as is said “perfection is the enemy of excellence”.

So, if you go back to that study that I referenced:

Joint Service Wound Ballistics–Integrated Product Team

They identified that 7mm had the best penetration and 6.5mm had the best ballistics, and 6.8mm provided what they found to be the ideal balance of lethality, penetration, and ballistics. This was particularly true for over 300 yds, and another army paper found over fifty percent of firefights in the war were now over that distance.

The next gen rifle is intended on being .277 caliber with a next gen cartridge (higher pressure, or polymer cases, etc) that meets a weight and performance specification. All manufacturers are required to submit designs based on those specifications.

 

[CBH Australia]

@akrifleman - so are we back to using a .308 for our future combat rifles? Or do we need to reinvent the wheel - again? A .308 round is far less bulky then a .30-06 and as you mention “very efficient”, plenty of power at 300 yrds and known as an inherently accurate round. I don’t know that there is a significantly better round but the debate could go on forever - looking for something more perfect…as is said “perfection is the enemy of excellence”.

So, if you go back to that study that I referenced:

Joint Service Wound Ballistics–Integrated Product Team

They identified that 7mm had the best penetration and 6.5mm had the best ballistics, and 6.8mm provided what they found to be the ideal balance of lethality, penetration, and ballistics. This was particularly true for over 300 yds, and another army paper found over fifty percent of firefights in the war were now over that distance.

The next gen rifle is intended on being .277 caliber with a next gen cartridge (higher pressure, or polymer cases, etc) that meets a weight and performance specification. All manufacturers are required to submit designs based on those specifications.

Sounds like a 7mm-08 would be just right.

Even something similar on a high pressure case, change the shoulder angle if they don't want a civilian cartridge.

I would watched a you tube video comparing the 6.5cm, 7-08 and .308 comparing velocity, trajectory and wind drift. I found the presenter often saying if you look here there’s not much difference, it’s very close and similar comments. In many cases I think it was the 6.5cm wasn’t far behind the 7-08 for ballistics but he was biased toward the 6.5cm.

My only bias against the 6.5cm is because of the nonsense that’s thrown around.

As for better ballistics of 6.5, .277 or 7mm(.284) in comparable cartridges necked appropriately with similar weights that suit the cartridge I think the trajectory and wind drift would not matter enough in combat or under 300m.

That leaves penetration and lethality as considerations for a combat

I decided I wanted a 7mm-08 by dumb luck because I thought it was a good compromise of ballistics and cartridge size. I owned several .308s before I ever got one but I have never found my 7mm-08 lacking in the tasks in the capacity I use it.

All that said 7mm cartridges were proven by foreign military 100 years ago.

 

[Dukeisok]

Frankly, I hate my 338 win mag. It may just be the rifle (BAR safari mark ii) or the fit, but I"d much rather spend the day shooting my 375 h&h or my 416 or even 450 rigby. The 338 just hits wrong, it's uncomfortable, and if I run the muzzle break, obnoxious.

 

[HankBuck]

So, if you go back to that study that I referenced:

Joint Service Wound Ballistics–Integrated Product Team

They identified that 7mm had the best penetration and 6.5mm had the best ballistics, and 6.8mm provided what they found to be the ideal balance of lethality, penetration, and ballistics. This was particularly true for over 300 yds, and another army paper found over fifty percent of firefights in the war were now over that distance.

The next gen rifle is intended on being .277 caliber with a next gen cartridge (higher pressure, or polymer cases, etc) that meets a weight and performance specification. All manufacturers are required to submit designs based on those specifications.

@akrifleman: I believe the details you cite are true, just wonder “so what”? How much difference - if any - does a .308; 6.5mm; .277 etc really make? I would think ALL will be Highly effective at striking their target and inflicting the intended damage. Priorities ease of carrying the ammo, ability to cycle thru firearm designs, availability to commandeer and use “enemy ammo”?, and cost to produce are more important than “fractional differences” in ballistics

Sounds like a 7mm-08 would be just right.

Even something similar on a high pressure case, change the shoulder angle if they don't want a civilian cartridge.

I would watched a you tube video comparing the 6.5cm, 7-08 and .308 comparing velocity, trajectory and wind drift. I found the presenter often saying if you look here there’s not much difference, it’s very close and similar comments. In many cases I think it was the 6.5cm wasn’t far behind the 7-08 for ballistics but he was biased toward the 6.5cm.

My only bias against the 6.5cm is because of the nonsense that’s thrown around.

As for better ballistics of 6.5, .277 or 7mm(.284) in comparable cartridges necked appropriately with similar weights that suit the cartridge I think the trajectory and wind drift would not matter enough in combat or under 300m.

That leaves penetration and lethality as considerations for a combat

I decided I wanted a 7mm-08 by dumb luck because I thought it was a good compromise of ballistics and cartridge size. I owned several .308s before I ever got one but I have never found my 7mm-08 lacking in the tasks in the capacity I use it.

All that said 7mm cartridges were proven by foreign military 100 years ago.

@CBH Australia - 1000s of excellent cartraiges ALREADY just PICK ONE…can’t see a reason to “invent” another. Put that time & $$ into something else for our soldiers (increase their PAY & Bonus $$)