Printable View
Say what now?
I feel like I got blindsided here, anyone else here aware of this fancy new Hornady baby / SAAMI approved cartridge for our wonderful AR's?
I am still trying to figure out the difference between this and 6.5 Grendel (other than .5)
Is the ammo going to be cheaper? [Coffee]
U.S. Military Adopts Hornady's New Cartridge: 6mm ARC
Hornady 6mm ARC: New Cartridge to Take AR-15 Platform to New Heights
6mm ARC Released ? Hands On Testing and Comparisons
So someone in DoD is running it. I’m also completely sure someone in DoD is running 300BLK and 22LR on ops.
Pretty sure I won't be the first on my block to own one.
No doubt there's plenty of funny money available in the US treasury to fund the changeover but will all NATO members follow?
Not sure but i have 4 emails from vendors and MFG saying THE NEW CARTRIDGE IS IN !! 6mm bullet on a necked down 223 case. TAKES THE SAME MAGS AND LOWER AS YOUR AR.
meaning it's back ordered till nov 3rd.
Even though they're showing a box of Hornady ammo with the upper and pic of the cartridge
No thanks, I'll stick with 5.56. From the looks of the paper thin bolt Im sure there wiil be no shortage of broken bolts.
it's the same bolt & carrier as the 223 / 5.56Quote:
Originally Posted by beast556
Unless I missed something, it uses the case and bolt from a 6.5 grendel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
This image shows the bolt face, where you can see what beast556 was talking about. 5.56 bolt on left, 6.5 grendel (and 6mm ARC) on right:
https://gununiversity.com/wp-content...-Bolt-GunU.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverGP
youse guys are right. I keep hearing AR-15 platform and keep thinking 223 base.
https://vimeo.com/413742360
Do the Grendels have bolt issues so far? I kind of want to build one.
Likely a SOCOM/JSOC unit is using the new cartridge. I wouldn’t get too amped about DoD-wide adoption of the cartridge.
I heard the magazine is the problem. Does it use the same mags as the Grendel?
Yes, and my experience the mags for 6.5 Grendel are not the greatest quality. The masters of mags MAGPUL needs to make a 6/6.5mm Grendel mag.Quote:
Originally Posted by KS63
I read through those articles and then a couple more, the reviewers are all excited (save a few that are skeptical) but most of the commenters have the same thought as I ; "A solution to a problem that didn't really exist."
I cannot see the "major" advantage of the 6mm ARC over the 6.5 Grendel ballistics, strangely the 6mm ARC is based off the 6.5 Grendel Case, BCG and Mags.
The cost for the pre-order for ammo puts it at a $1+ a round which is the same as 6.5 Grendel for the good stuff, Grendel at least has Wolf making cheap plinking ammo.
In the last year and and half the BIG company's create a new round for all of us, 350 Legend last year which hasn't really taken off and a lot of experts criticizing the hyperbole of it performance. (Chuck Hawke's de-struction of 350 legend was hilarious.)
A Little lost but usually we get some mini hype prior to a launch, this just came out of the blue unless I missed an article somewhere? Anyone go to Shot Show and see this announced?
I have been shooting this caliber for several years. It is almost a 6 Grendel or 6AR. Very cool caliber. Scary accurate. No issues with broken bolts.
For sure it isnt meant for CQB type stuff.
I am using PRI 6.8 mags. Work flawless.
5 shots at 610 yards out of a gasser with a 4-16 scope.
https://i.imgur.com/QAV1TGm.jpg
Cool, nice shooting Hoser.
I heard about the 6arc on ultimate reloaders channel yesterday, seems interesting. I always wanted to get into the 6mm ar turbo but this will be easier with hornady backing it. I do find it funny how the us military addopted a cartridge whos parent case is a soviet cartridge. If I build one of these someday I'll probably neck down and fire form some of the many yugo berdan brass 7.62x39 cases I have haha
Very likely. Would be interesting to know what kind of volume is in the contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by CS1983
What length barrel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoser
22Quote:
Originally Posted by MattR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoser
Great hearing about the reliability after lengthy shooting from Hoser but looking at his 400 yd target is like me saying, "yeah, that might be me at 100 ..."Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
It seems like the US military is starting to turn into Japan or Italy in WWII with an excessive number of service cartridges.
The pendulum swings back and forth, with a few low points along the way...
1890- .45-70-500 rifle, .45-55-405 carbine, .45 revolver (Schofield length case).
1918- .30-06 M1906, .45 ACP
1950- .30-06 M2, .30 M1 Carbine, .45 ACP, .38 Special
2000- 7.62x51mm, 5.56 M855, 5.56 M193, 9mm NATO (and some .45 ACP in SOCOM or .300 Win Mag for snipers)
How many are in use now?
Don’t get lost in the sales hyperbole. This is special application stuff for special groups.
Yeah, but even the logistics for special groups starts to become a problem when enough variations are introduced without little to no interchangeability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_A_Llama
Haven't had to fight a full-scale war for a while. Military minds begin to wander to find ways to expand their budgets.
Don?t you think a sniper cartridge should have max lethal range? I guess what I?m saying is that you want a cartridge that will be lethal from the muzzle as far as it is supersonic. I know some of you believe transonic can be breached without disruption, that may be true at the cost of billistic coefficient. The other issue is energy. When the M9 won the military contract in the 80?s the minimum energy they would approve was 400lbs. So I believe if the government wants a new sniper round it needs to have 400 lbs just before it goes transonic. That sticks you with 120g + bullets. The Russians may have figured this out in WW2.
It's kind of like the .300 Blackout. All the hype and talk during the release but it's been available for years in a different form. I'll probably buy one.
I suspect this is exactly like 300 Blk. the military was playing around and found a cartridge that they wanted to put into commission, but it's not legitimized. Cant cut a contract on a cartridge that isn't being pumped out by a manufacturer. So, SOCOM finds someone who will legitimize it to make it accessible. 6AR is probably still under patent and Hornady didn't want to buy it. So, the redesign the shoulders, submit it to SAAMI, boom. New cartridge to fulfill the contract. There are a few in the Govt in the "what's new and do we want it" gun-nut crowds working for the military. SO... they start dicing around with Hornady looking for a 'better' cartridge and they shoot and test an array of different ammo. They shoot 6 AR and figure out it's an amazing cartridge that will work in the AR-15/M-4/M-16 platform and they got excited. I've been enamored with 6 AR/Grendel for a couple years now, but getting a barrel isn't just pulling one off the shelf. This is going to legitimize the 6mm in the AR-15. It might very well kill 6.5 Grendel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Linkless
So hold off on building a 6.5 Grendel?
Depends on the use and time frame. Hunting hogs this summer? no, build the Grendel. Shooting PRC matches and making a gas gun for the division but currently shooting a bolt gun? Sure, hold off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Copy, thanks.
Not really. They are generally procured on a unit to unit basis. Some of the units are even responsible for acquiring certain things themselves. When doing it on a small scale it's not that big if a problemQuote:
Originally Posted by .455_Hunter
My office is actively supporting R&D for SOCOM right now, and getting as many items standardized for fielding is an important factor. I guess it just depends on your direct personal experiences with the military supply system. I have experienced it from both ends- as a service member and as a vendor.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmckay2