So... this thread about hating a specific gun devolved into a caliber debate. Surprise surprise. However, I came across this little nugget.
I say all of this because it seems apparent that there is a lot of interest an intermediate round (between 6mm-7mm, or roughly .235-.285 caliber) as a combat caliber, and that after 70+ years that interest still remains and still produces desirable tests.
To be honest, I have no personal experience with an intermediate caliber anything. There are a couple Mauser and Mosin Nagants in our house, and the 10/22. However, I know people who treasure their .270's as very accurate, very capable rifles for hunting deer, and more than a few people with Swedish Mausers that've been preaching their accuracy and ability for years. "Politics" aside, the 6.5 Grendel outperformed in most nearly every category both of the common US small arms rifle rounds (the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51), and is designed for an AR platform.
The general conclusion appears to be that intermediate calibers are more efficient at moving through air than their larger and smaller counterparts and appear to lose energy less quickly than their larger and smaller counterparts, lending themselves to greater accuracy. Having seen the windy-day shooting of such intermediate calibers, I am also confident in saying they appear less effected by wind than lighter and larger rounds (which seem to be either easier to blow around or have more surface area to be blown around).
So, politics aside, what says the community on intermediate calibers for small arms combat purposes? With interest nearing close to a century in age, and the successes of many tests and hunting scenarios, would it be reasonable to rate intermediate calibers as, generally-speaking, better than many (or most) others?
-B
It's interesting he mentioned this. The FN FAL was initially chambered for the intermediate caliber .280 (7mm, I believe) and allegedly performed quite well in British tests. The modern 6.5 Grendel has also been receiving quite a bit of attention as a successfully-tested intermediate caliber only slightly smaller than the .280 British round. And of course, folks with 6.5x55 Swedish Mausers and 7.5x55 K31's have been touting accuracy and capability for over half a century.
I say all of this because it seems apparent that there is a lot of interest an intermediate round (between 6mm-7mm, or roughly .235-.285 caliber) as a combat caliber, and that after 70+ years that interest still remains and still produces desirable tests.
To be honest, I have no personal experience with an intermediate caliber anything. There are a couple Mauser and Mosin Nagants in our house, and the 10/22. However, I know people who treasure their .270's as very accurate, very capable rifles for hunting deer, and more than a few people with Swedish Mausers that've been preaching their accuracy and ability for years. "Politics" aside, the 6.5 Grendel outperformed in most nearly every category both of the common US small arms rifle rounds (the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51), and is designed for an AR platform.
The general conclusion appears to be that intermediate calibers are more efficient at moving through air than their larger and smaller counterparts and appear to lose energy less quickly than their larger and smaller counterparts, lending themselves to greater accuracy. Having seen the windy-day shooting of such intermediate calibers, I am also confident in saying they appear less effected by wind than lighter and larger rounds (which seem to be either easier to blow around or have more surface area to be blown around).
So, politics aside, what says the community on intermediate calibers for small arms combat purposes? With interest nearing close to a century in age, and the successes of many tests and hunting scenarios, would it be reasonable to rate intermediate calibers as, generally-speaking, better than many (or most) others?
-B
