Posted on 04/20/2008 11:54:38 AM PDT by Dawnsblood
Or did I mean: Kalashnikov ?
It’s called sectional density. Weight to length ratio. The 6.5 has it in spades. The 6.5 Swede isn’t popular for nothing.
Truly a great bullet diameter and “do all” caliber.
In most environments except hard desert conditions you could not get me to give up mine. Parts availability and continuity are outstanding. Accessories, general knowledge, it’s all there.
However, I will not go below the full 16" barrel. That is to say 16” not counting the flash suppressor. M-4 barrels are around 14" and that is the VERY bottom of the performance curve for the 556 / 223. Velocity is right about 2,400. The 16" barrel will rock in at around 3,100 fps.
Your mileage may vary…
Thanks for the treatise on the 6.5.
My 6.5X50R wildcat Contender salutes you.
Regards
Look, just make the fit and finish on the M4 as lousy as you possibly can so that all the parts kind of flap and rattle about as you’re marching along. Then the gun will quickly and naturally slough off any gravel that gets wedged into its inner spaces and you can keep firing the damned thing all day long, through thick and thin... ‘Course, you couldn’t hit anything with it, sort of like the AK-47, but you’d have a legend on your hands.
The M4 is NOT a gas/piston operated system. The rest are.
As with all military testing, the results have been pre-determined. Example: The original AR-15 Aberdeen tests against the M14, where the AR's were literally destroyed before a shot was fired, and they failed miserably because of it>
When the military wants something new, or more cash, they can create that illusion.
Now, the M16/M4 system is reliable within it's parameters af keeping it clean. This report has none of the real details, number of rounds between cleanings, ammunition, temperature, etc.
And why use some convuluted 'simulated' dist, instead of the real thing?
This does not pass the smell test.
Netherlands NM-1
...in that snazzy 6.5 x 284 NVDave is refering to I would give it some serious thought.
By RICHARD LARDNER
Associated Press Writer
Related Multimedia
Compare the M4 and Other Rifles
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- No weapon is more important to tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than the carbine rifle. And for well over a decade, the military has relied on one company, Colt Defense of Hartford, Conn., to make the M4s they trust with their lives. Now, as Congress considers spending millions more on the guns, this exclusive arrangement is being criticized as a bad deal for American forces as well as taxpayers, according to interviews and research conducted by The Associated Press.
"What we have is a fat contractor in Colt who's gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
The M4, which can shoot hundreds of bullets a minute, is a shorter and lighter version of the company's M16 rifle first used 40 years ago during the Vietnam War. At about $1,500 apiece, the M4 is overpriced, according to Coburn. It jams too often in sandy environments like Iraq, he adds, and requires far more maintenance than more durable carbines.
"And if you tend to have the problem at the wrong time, you're putting your life on the line," says Coburn, who began examining the M4's performance last year after receiving complaints from soldiers. "The fact is, the American GI today doesn't have the best weapon. And they ought to."
U.S. military officials don't agree. They call the M4 an excellent carbine. When the time comes to replace the M4, they want a combat rifle that is leaps and bounds beyond what's currently available.
"There's not a weapon out there that's significantly better than the M4," says Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat developments at the Army Infantry Center in Fort Benning, Ga. "To replace it with something that has essentially the same capabilities as we have today doesn't make good sense."
Colt's exclusive production agreement ends in June 2009. At that point, the Army, in
The rest of the article - http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/THE_GUN_WARS?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
That looks like a plastic toy gun I would have played with when I was a kid back in the 1960’s.
“Netherlands NM-1”
Really? To me it looks like an Israeli Galil —and the Israelis got rid of their Galils and replaced them with M4’s and M16A2s if I recall correctly!
The Klashnikov's don't have any paid lobbyists. It's not about the men's lives it's about the lobbyists and political connections. If it was about effect, that would rebuild the Thompson in 44 cal for house to house and change down range weapon to the short and long vervion of the FNL or H&K 91 in 308. Don't fix it if it not broke.
yo...
Especially at the volume in which the military purchases.
I 2nd your observations. I think our brass have avoided the 6.5 because the Euro’s discovered it first.
I am a big fan of 6.5’s and am building a couple of converted Mausers in .260 Remington right now. One is for the wife and the other for me. I just turned/contoured/threaded/chambered her barrel. They are gonna be a matched pair, if I can find 2 stock blanks cut from next to each other.
I want one so that if a liberal sees me with one he will wet his pants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
