The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-arm ... -and-5-56/

The U.S. Army is discussing adopting a 6.5mm infantry rifle not based on the M4 series. Interim adoption will be a 7.62mm NATO arm for issue to a rifle squad on the basis of several rifles per squad. Seems like a poor plan to me but I guess better than all hands having only M4 carbines.

Another article I read stated that the UK is interested in participating in the 6.5mm rifle program. Any word on this on your side of the pond?

is it the 1940's again? I thought .280 British was officially flagged by the American's as being too wimpy? 80 years later seems we were right

The article mentions 6.5 Creedmoor and .260 Remington which are just too big for current platforms and would require a new weapon as well. But why mix it with these and not just go back to 7.62 NATO as already tooled for and have others chambered in it? 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC will fit with current platforms requiring the easiest transition, but they have their limitations also.

I can't see any new caliber being adopted any time soon. Firstly you'd have to convince NATO, secondly, the Western militaries just can't afford it. With the update to the SA80 in the A3 just starting, it will be at least 10 years before that's replaced...

I would agree, this subject is just as common as the 223 vs 17 hmr on fox argument.... Was it not just before spring the army in the us were on about going to 300 blackout? Ive heard certain police forces are adopting that caliber here in the uk but not sure it stands up to battle rifle needs...

Yes, the US forces have been allegedly 'just about to adopt' a vast number of cartridges ever since 1) the 7.62 was adopted in the 1950s and 2) it was replaced by 5.56 a generation later. I'd put my last £10 on seeing a flying saucer hover over Buckingham Palace and its little green men crew drop in for tea with the Queen before I'd put a bet on any 6.5 being adopted anytime soon.

Anyway, the latest iteration of the 5.56 cartridge with its new non-lead core 'green' bullet has (it is claimed) solved all the terminal energy / wounding power issues of the old M855 62gn bulleted round when fired in the itsy-bitsy M4 barrel. (Funny how the claim was made after the US basically pulled out of its shooting wars in Iraq / Afghanistan! Military cemeteries are full of men whose equipment was the best that their respective armies have ever been issued with and whose weapons and ammunition are fully tested and guaranteed to work!)

If you consider that the US Army had a 5.56mm round with actual battle tested efficiency in the M4 that actually killed people at ranges further than the width of the average high street, the M262 Mod1 using a cannelured version of the 77gn Sierra MK OTM, and that the US military ultimately discontinued it because it was too expensive compared to the M855, are these same people really going to pay for a complete new weapons system especially as they have just spent a fortune on replacing M16s with M4s.

What is stopping them just going down the AR10 / LMT route.

Simply a bigger AR in a bigger calibre.

Surely the simple solution ?

The LMT is too heavy You try and lug one over the Brecon Beacon mole hills It was bad enough with the old L1A1 and bergans aaarggh

Laurie makes some good points that reminds me of the ammo changes the yanks were making.... Ive used both m4 and l85 and my tikka 223 and i am very confident that if i hit a guy out to 300 yards the guy is going down, you cant really ask anything more of a battle/combat rifle than that..... Any more distance is sniping territory and one must weigh up the amount of ammo and weight a soldier can carry vs that performance..

That's gotta be what the pentagon are thinking as they have stuck with a proven round/rifle combo...

http://www.kotatv.com/content/news/Blac ... 96383.html

Looks like its far from discontinued.

The only issue with Mk 262 is penetration ( that’s why M855A1 is std issue as it’s very good at penetration, is barrier blind ) and now they have improved it and adopted a new magazine, it isn’t damaging the guns any more

The Army almost adopted the .276 Pedersen round for the M1 rifle in the '30s and was stopped by the massive amounts of .30 rounds in storage. I imagine the same thing would weigh against the adoption of a 6.5mm round.

The U.S. Army needs to be sure it learns the proper lessons from Afghanistan and doesn't think that longe range riflery is the future of warfare. Afghanistan, like the Boer war is most likely a one-off conflict as far as long range rifle engagements go. But I am often wrong on other things, like Trump being elected president for example, so who the heck knows?

For a time up until the mid 70s the U.S. Army in Europe was armed with the M14 to maintain NATO standardization after the rest of the Army was outfitted with M16A1s. Why not outfit forces in Afghanistan with a greater number of longer range infantry weapons in each infantry company and keep the rest of the Army equipped with M4s? A big step would be to issue M16A4s in place of M4s. That would probably pick up an additional 200 meters effective range with the correct ammunition.