What do you think of the 6mm ARC?

[Doc Dan]

What do you all think of the 6mm ARC? It looks really good to me. The ballistics are spot on. It is long past due for our military. We should have had this 40+ years ago.

[Doc Dan]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... hxX2W15LQi

[TomAiello]

I am waiting to see if it takes off.

I'm a 6.5 Grendel fan, and this basically looks like a further development along the same lines. So if it takes off (meaning, primarily, that cheap practice ammo becomes available), I'll definitely look into adding it to my stable.

[RustyIron]

(meaning, primarily, that cheap practice ammo becomes available),

Cheap practice ammo?
You mean if we built a time machine and traveled back before the Great Gun Buying Frenzy of 2020?
Yup, those were the good ol' days.

[MacLaren]

You men will have to excuse my ignorance - I've never been in the Military.
But, why not just go back to .308/7.62×51?
Too heavy?
I love the .308 round, especially in my M1A Scout.

[RustyIron]

I've never been in the military, but I know just a little about guns. From what I understand, the new 6mm can reach WAY out there. It can reach way out there, put 'em in a little group, and still have a lot of energy. I'm sure a little googling will reveal some ballistics.

[TomAiello]

You men will have to excuse my ignorance - I've never been in the Military.
But, why not just go back to .308/7.62×51?
Too heavy?
I love the .308 round, especially in my M1A Scout.

One of the major difficulties the US military has encountered in Afghanistan is increased engagement ranges. A lot of the present generation of infantry weapons were developed to fight at much closer ranges (like jungles in Southeast Asia, or houses in Western Europe) than the average engagement range in Afghanistan. In a jungle, it's hard to get outside the range of a rifle caliber like 5.56. But in the mountains of Central Asia, it's not actually very hard at all.

Better ballistic coefficient in the 6.5mm and 6mm rounds mean they can carry more velocity longer. That means they stay supersonic at much greater ranges, improving both stopping power and accuracy.

It makes more sense to compare the 6.5 and 6 to 5.56. That's the platform/weight class they are intended for, and the round they are intended to compete with. 6mm ARC offers _a lot_ more range and _a lot_ more stopping power at that range when compared to 5.56.

Comparing to 7.62 x 51, the 6.5G and 6 ARC both offer similar ballistics and range at _greatly_ reduced weight. Because they fire from AR-15 (light rifle) sized platforms, where the 7.62 fires from AR-10 (medium rifle) sized platforms, they mean _a lot_ less weight to carry in the field. That matters for maneuvering, but it also matters for CQB situations.

A better comparison to 7.62 x 51 is 6.5mm Creedmoor. Creedmoor offers a similar upgrade (better ballistic coefficient yielding increased range, along with improved accuracy and stopping power at range). Creedmoor, however, has such extreme range that it's better suited to bolt action sniper rifles. I've never had a gas gun that I can actually get to take advantage of Creedmoor's extreme long range capability. Either I'm not spending enough on the gun (likely) or I'm just not a good enough shot (almost certainly). It works great in my (reasonably priced) bolt action rifle though, even at very long ranges.

The simplest 'upgrade' to the average infantry load out for US soldiers (and really for most NATO countries' military) would be to upgrade the 5.56 (light rifles carried by the average soldier) to 6.5 Grendel or 6mm ARC (ARC is better on paper, but Grendel has a lot more time out in the wild to expose possible problems) and then also upgrade the 7.62 x 51 (squad automatic weapons--basically support machine guns, as well as sniper rifles) to 6.5 Creedmoor.

The 7.62 x 51 / .308 round that you have in your scout rifle is a great cartridge, but it's outdated. It's greatest strength today is massive supply and logistics advantage (it's basically everywhere). That's actually a really important thing for civilian use (like yours and mine) because we have to actually buy our ammunition, and we need to be able to find it to buy it. I own multiple .308 rifles, and I admit that they get a lot more trigger time than my 6.5 Creedmoor, because they're cheaper and easier to feed. I am well stocked on 6.5G, so that's not really the case for my 5.56--for me 5.56 is mostly useful for taking friends out plinking in the desert. But for the average (or new) gun owner, 5.56 is going to present similar advantages to .308--widespread ammunition that is relatively available and inexpensive ('relatively' being a key word in the present environment).

[Ankerson]

You men will have to excuse my ignorance - I've never been in the Military.
But, why not just go back to .308/7.62×51?
Too heavy?
I love the .308 round, especially in my M1A Scout.

EXACTLY.... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nothing wrong with the 7.62mm...

Changing from it was a large mistake in the 1st place.

Never should have happened...

[Ankerson]

You men will have to excuse my ignorance - I've never been in the Military.
But, why not just go back to .308/7.62×51?
Too heavy?
I love the .308 round, especially in my M1A Scout.

One of the major difficulties the US military has encountered in Afghanistan is increased engagement ranges. A lot of the present generation of infantry weapons were developed to fight at much closer ranges (like jungles in Southeast Asia, or houses in Western Europe) than the average engagement range in Afghanistan. In a jungle, it's hard to get outside the range of a rifle caliber like 5.56. But in the mountains of Central Asia, it's not actually very hard at all.

Better ballistic coefficient in the 6.5mm and 6mm rounds mean they can carry more velocity longer. That means they stay supersonic at much greater ranges, improving both stopping power and accuracy.

It makes more sense to compare the 6.5 and 6 to 5.56. That's the platform/weight class they are intended for, and the round they are intended to compete with. 6mm ARC offers _a lot_ more range and _a lot_ more stopping power at that range when compared to 5.56.

Comparing to 7.62 x 51, the 6.5G and 6 ARC both offer similar ballistics and range at _greatly_ reduced weight. Because they fire from AR-15 (light rifle) sized platforms, where the 7.62 fires from AR-10 (medium rifle) sized platforms, they mean _a lot_ less weight to carry in the field. That matters for maneuvering, but it also matters for CQB situations.

A better comparison to 7.62 x 51 is 6.5mm Creedmoor. Creedmoor offers a similar upgrade (better ballistic coefficient yielding increased range, along with improved accuracy and stopping power at range). Creedmoor, however, has such extreme range that it's better suited to bolt action sniper rifles. I've never had a gas gun that I can actually get to take advantage of Creedmoor's extreme long range capability. Either I'm not spending enough on the gun (likely) or I'm just not a good enough shot (almost certainly). It works great in my (reasonably priced) bolt action rifle though, even at very long ranges.

The simplest 'upgrade' to the average infantry load out for US soldiers (and really for most NATO countries' military) would be to upgrade the 5.56 (light rifles carried by the average soldier) to 6.5 Grendel or 6mm ARC (ARC is better on paper, but Grendel has a lot more time out in the wild to expose possible problems) and then also upgrade the 7.62 x 51 (squad automatic weapons--basically support machine guns, as well as sniper rifles) to 6.5 Creedmoor.

The 7.62 x 51 / .308 round that you have in your scout rifle is a great cartridge, but it's outdated. It's greatest strength today is massive supply and logistics advantage (it's basically everywhere). That's actually a really important thing for civilian use (like yours and mine) because we have to actually buy our ammunition, and we need to be able to find it to buy it. I own multiple .308 rifles, and I admit that they get a lot more trigger time than my 6.5 Creedmoor, because they're cheaper and easier to feed. I am well stocked on 6.5G, so that's not really the case for my 5.56--for me 5.56 is mostly useful for taking friends out plinking in the desert. But for the average (or new) gun owner, 5.56 is going to present similar advantages to .308--widespread ammunition that is relatively available and inexpensive ('relatively' being a key word in the present environment).

If it's not broken don't fix it...

When they went to the 5.56mm they fixed something that wasn't broken.

Was a huge mistake that they lived with for decades.....

Now they are going to change again?

Wasting money on all the R&D etc when all they had to do was use the 7.62mm that we are already still using anyway...

WASTE OF MONEY.... TIME and RESOURCES.....

The 7.62 is not outdated.... It still works as well as it always did and still does work very well...

And the 6.5mm ARC will be yet another mistake that will take decades to figure out before they change yet again..

Well at least they made it half way back to the 7.62 from the 5.56 this time....

If one really wants to talk about a battle proven rife round that would be the 30-06... 2 World Wars battle proven in the Springfield (WW 1) and Garand (WW 2).....

So what's changed from WW 1 and 2 to now as far as what a battle rifle has to do?

Are the targets somehow harder to kill now than they were back then?

Still the same target so.....

[Doc Dan]

The combat soldier today carries a very heavy load in equipment. If you add the extreme weight of a 7.62 rifle and combat load it reduces soldier effectiveness and this has been demonstrated many times. Added to that the 7.62 does not allow the soldier to carry as much ammunition and that is important in an extended fight. The 5.56 does give lighter weight rifles and ammunition while allowing a greater amount of ammunition to be carried. However, effective range is limited. The special forces that requested this wanted a round that was light recoiling but powerful. It had to penetrate at distance as good as the 7.62 and have as good an effective range. It had to allow the use of the AR/M26 platform and allow the soldier to carry a lot of ammunition. That is a tall order.

The 6.5 Grendel was tested and came up wanting downrange energy, flight path, penetration, and ballistic coefficient. So, the decision was made to go down to 6mm and use heavy for caliber long bullets. Viola! Perfection. The new 6mm ARC actually out performed the larger 7.62 in many scenarios, was light recoiling, beat out every other contender significantly, and met all or exceeded all other requirements.

What is funny is that in the early 80’s I had bandied this exact idea about as a standard cartridge.

[Ankerson]

The combat soldier today carries a very heavy load in equipment. If you add the extreme weight of a 7.62 rifle and combat load it reduces soldier effectiveness and this has been demonstrated many times. Added to that the 7.62 does not allow the soldier to carry as much ammunition and that is important in an extended fight. The 5.56 does give lighter weight rifles and ammunition while allowing a greater amount of ammunition to be carried. However, effective range is limited. The special forces that requested this wanted a round that was light recoiling but powerful. It had to penetrate at distance as good as the 7.62 and have as good an effective range. It had to allow the use of the AR/M26 platform and allow the soldier to carry a lot of ammunition. That is a tall order.

The 6.5 Grendel was tested and came up wanting downrange energy, flight path, penetration, and ballistic coefficient. So, the decision was made to go down to 6mm and use heavy for caliber long bullets. Viola! Perfection. The new 6mm ARC actually out performed the larger 7.62 in many scenarios, was light recoiling, beat out every other contender significantly, and met all or exceeded all other requirements.

What is funny is that in the early 80’s I had bandied this exact idea about as a standard cartridge.

There still are plenty of excellent and proven battle rifles in 7.62 NATO available that could have been used..

And I am not talking about the M14 either... Although with synthetic stocks it's not too bad weight wise.

I have used the M14 and M16 and the M16 is almost too light weight really, the round is weak as we know...

The M14 is a MUCH better rifle all the way around than the M16....

[Doc Dan]

The M14 had many, many problems as a main battle rifle and was not that good of a battle rifle due to weight and limited ammunition. It problems were such that its service was short lived. The M16 is better as a battle rifle, but has needed more horsepower. It now has that.

[Ankerson]

The M14 had many, many problems as a main battle rifle and was not that good of a battle rifle due to weight and limited ammunition. The M16 is better, but has needed more horsepower. It now has that.

Same mag capacity of 30 rounds...

Yes, they had 30 round mags for the M14.. MOST mags used with the M16 were 20 round in Viet Nam....

AMMO wasn't limited either....

We could go back to the 1903 Springfield and M1 Garand with the .30-06 Springfield and WW 1 and 2 and talk about those obvious success stories....

All BS aside here the targets haven't changed, only opinions have.....

The changes back then were actually improvements... From the Springfield to the Garand to the M14.....

Then they started going backwards as to the M16 and they are still there..... Backwards....

Ever think about the possibility that today's solders are carrying too much crap?

I would bet if another major World War ever broke out that would change pretty fast.

Peace time has a way of creating a lot of BS and totally useless crap that is not really needed....

[TomAiello]

So what's changed from WW 1 and 2 to now as far as what a battle rifle has to do?

Follow up shots, range of engagement, and total weight.

In WWI and WWII, most infantry engagements involved massed groups with reasonable cover making limited movements. That was especially true in WWI, which largely featured static engagements during trench warfare. Today, we're seeing a more diverse set of engagements, ranging from close quarters (requiring faster follow up shots and lighter, more maneuverable weapons) to extreme long range. We're also seeing much more dynamic field movements (no one was using a helicopter to make battlefield maneuvers in either WWI or WWII), and fast movement and the use of vehicles (and the consequent need to mount/dismount rapidly) argue for lighter, more maneuverable weapons. The M1 Garand is a great rifle--but have you tried to get in and out of a helicopter with one? How about exiting an aircraft in flight and deploying a parachute with an M14 on a two point sling?

Soldiers today spend more time moving faster, so total weight is a much bigger consideration.

Greatly reduced recoil leads to faster follow up shots, which means a higher take down rate.

Engagement ranges are much longer than 5.56 can really handle. 7.62 x 51 is probably a better choice for many modern engagements, but the weight considerations are real, and gaining the same engagement range, lighter weight and faster follow ups is a real improvement.

The targets may not have changed (although body armor means that they may have changed), but the nature of warfare on the modern battlefield is certainly different from the massed infantry engagements of WWI and WWII. The US military has a bad habit of fighting the last war (bringing M16 in 5.56 to Afghanistan, for example, or trying to use WWII open-field tactics in Vietnamese jungles). Fielding M14s might be an improvement to M16s in 5.56 in some modern theaters, but there are definitely options that are better than either.

[TomAiello]

We could go back to the 1903 Springfield and M1 Garand with the .30-06 Springfield and WW 1 and 2 and talk about those obvious success stories....

The biggest small arms success story of WWII was the STG-44. It revolutionized infantry weapons, and for good reason.

[Ankerson]

So what's changed from WW 1 and 2 to now as far as what a battle rifle has to do?

Follow up shots, range of engagement, and total weight.

In WWI and WWII, most infantry engagements involved massed groups with reasonable cover making limited movements. That was especially true in WWI, which largely featured static engagements during trench warfare. Today, we're seeing a more diverse set of engagements, ranging from close quarters (requiring faster follow up shots and lighter, more maneuverable weapons) to extreme long range. We're also seeing much more dynamic field movements (no one was using a helicopter to make battlefield maneuvers in either WWI or WWII), and fast movement and the use of vehicles (and the consequent need to mount/dismount rapidly) argue for lighter, more maneuverable weapons. The M1 Garand is a great rifle--but have you tried to get in and out of a helicopter with one? How about exiting an aircraft in flight and deploying a parachute with an M14 on a two point sling?

Soldiers today spend more time moving faster, so total weight is a much bigger consideration.

Greatly reduced recoil leads to faster follow up shots, which means a higher take down rate.

Engagement ranges are much longer than 5.56 can really handle. 7.62 x 51 is probably a better choice for many modern engagements, but the weight considerations are real, and gaining the same engagement range, lighter weight and faster follow ups is a real improvement.

The targets may not have changed (although body armor means that they may have changed), but the nature of warfare on the modern battlefield is certainly different from the massed infantry engagements of WWI and WWII. The US military has a bad habit of fighting the last war (bringing M16 in 5.56 to Afghanistan, for example, or trying to use WWII open-field tactics in Vietnamese jungles). Fielding M14s might be an improvement to M16s in 5.56 in some modern theaters, but there are definitely options that are better than either.

I am not talking about little off the wall stuff we shouldn't even be involved in.... Afghanistan...

I am talking about major wars here.

Nobody really knows were that's going to be, or when for that matter.

So they don't know if that whole mechanized warfare will actually work, or if it could even be used at all. Think Jungle Warfare, you can forget it.... I am sure they learned a lot about how not to do things in the Vietnam War... That they forgot now completely.....

In the cold war days we had the USSR to think about so that's how we trained....

Even in WW2 there was a lot of different fronts with a lot of very different terrains and even dessert and jungle warfare...

So it was pretty broad... Things they could actually look back on now and maybe learn something..... Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel....

As far as tactics go, we yeah they tend to go with what they know and develop tactics on the fly as needed in a new war.

That's how it really works.... Adapt on the fly....

Hard to develop something for something that doesn't even exist, not knowing anything, who? Were?, How much?, How widescale? Conventional or NOT?


I never said the M14 was the answer, there are OTHER excellent choices in 7.62 NATO that are better than both the M16 and M14 that could be been used... Or they could have developed their own upgrade to the M14 here in the US that used the 7.62 NATO round, yes I know about the AR-10.... I mean something better than that...

But yeah the M16 has no place in Afghanistan for sure, even the M14, AR-10 or a few other rifles in 7.62 would have been better choices... The M16 was a mistake from the beginning, a real brain fart.... Was even dumber to keep using it for all these years..... They could have developed something better than that even before Vietnam ended....

[MacLaren]

I'm really outta my depth here, but I wanna say great discussion here, Jim, Tom and Dan.
A lot of good info and good points for both sides.
I don't have any experience with 6mm but, I do know that the .308 is a mean sonovagun that hits extremely hard with that big 30 cal bullet.
However, I'm sure the 6mm is super effective too.
I don't wanna say anymore because I can't really lol
Outta my league here....
Just thanx for the good discussion men.

[Ankerson]

I'm really outta my depth here, but I wanna say great discussion here, Jim, Tom and Dan.
A lot of good info and good points for both sides.
I don't have any experience with 6mm but, I do know that the .308 is a mean sonovagun that hits extremely hard with that big 30 cal bullet.
However, I'm sure the 6mm is super effective too.
I don't wanna say anymore because I can't really lol
Outta my league here....
Just thanx for the good discussion men.

A lot of the issue is there haven't really been any major wars since WW 2. (That's really a positive thing overall for all of us)

There was Korea and Vietnam after WW 2 but they were for the most part confined to those small Countries.

The ones after that, well..... :rolleyes:

So as I was saying before peacetime creates problems, people in Command have nothing more to do than sit around and think too much. :rolleyes:

Like I said reinvent the wheel when the wheel was already working fine...

[MacLaren]

I'm really outta my depth here, but I wanna say great discussion here, Jim, Tom and Dan.
A lot of good info and good points for both sides.
I don't have any experience with 6mm but, I do know that the .308 is a mean sonovagun that hits extremely hard with that big 30 cal bullet.
However, I'm sure the 6mm is super effective too.
I don't wanna say anymore because I can't really lol
Outta my league here....
Just thanx for the good discussion men.

A lot of the issue is there haven't really been any major wars since WW 2. (That's really a positive thing overall for all of us)

There was Korea and Vietnam after WW 2 but they were for the most part confined to those small Countries.

The ones after that, well..... :rolleyes:

So as I was saying before peacetime creates problems, people in Command have nothing more to do than sit around and think too much. :rolleyes:

Like I said reinvent the wheel when the wheel was already working fine...

Nah, thats a helluva solid argument for 7.62x51

[Ankerson]

I'm really outta my depth here, but I wanna say great discussion here, Jim, Tom and Dan.
A lot of good info and good points for both sides.
I don't have any experience with 6mm but, I do know that the .308 is a mean sonovagun that hits extremely hard with that big 30 cal bullet.
However, I'm sure the 6mm is super effective too.
I don't wanna say anymore because I can't really lol
Outta my league here....
Just thanx for the good discussion men.

A lot of the issue is there haven't really been any major wars since WW 2. (That's really a positive thing overall for all of us)

There was Korea and Vietnam after WW 2 but they were for the most part confined to those small Countries.

The ones after that, well..... :rolleyes:

So as I was saying before peacetime creates problems, people in Command have nothing more to do than sit around and think too much. :rolleyes:

Like I said reinvent the wheel when the wheel was already working fine...

Nah, thats a helluva solid argument for 7.62x51

If another major war ever does happen we are going to be in a lot of trouble on the ground.... I would hope they would figure that out quickly and correct all the mistakes they have made in the past 25 years or so...

Time to get back to the basics, training wise anyway so maybe they might be ready when something happens.

Someone made the comment, well all the stuff they have to carry...... Why the **** are they carrying all that stuff in the 1st place?