What about FN .264 LICC?

If you are starting with a blank'ish slate for the rifle and magazine there is no reason to compromise with the Grendel case. Grendel's case diameter is great, it's case capacity isn't. Add four or five grains capacity to a bolt that will allow 62kPSI of pressure. I like Grendel but when you take it out of the AR15 it makes zero sense.
The compactness of the AR-15 has been a great limiting stick though to force the industry to develop higher performance cartridges that still fit within a magazine that is easy to carry on soldier’s load. Once you depart from that basic form factor for the magazine, the pouches and soldier’s load suffers. A lot of people might see this and only have reference to a mag pouch or two on their range belt, never having had to hump a basic load or basic load plus, in addition to all the rest of their duty position-specific equipment (Radios, Medic Bags, breaching tools, demo, Anti-Tank weapons, linked 7.62 on gun teams, tripods, T&E mechanism, 40mm Grenades, smoke grenades, grenades, Night Vision, etc.). This is why the 6.8x51 is an abortion even if they had a great weapon design, which they don’t.

This is why I have been more of an advocate for Grendel replacing 7.62 NATO. Similar concept as replacing 50 BMG with 338 Norma Mag.

5.56 is a very inefficient case that wastes a lot of powder, so it’s too long for what it delivers. We could replace 5.56 with something smaller in overall length, and deliver better performance with a look at bore diameter, case design, and propellant. KAC/Hornady already showed that with the 6x35 PDW. (.221 Fireball necked up). You can carry a bunch of those 6x35 KAC PDW mags, almost like M2 Carbine mags.

The .264 LICC is a good compromise getting us away from the 7.62 NATO form factor battle rifle cartridge though. It would be far superior in DM Carbines and LMGs, and would make a nice changeover with NATO coordination for a new set of weapons based on it in those roles. I think 5.56 will be around until the 2nd Coming though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ledzep and Bakwa
I would have agreed with you prior to seeing my 1k results and 4DOF comparison. The 100gr ELD-VT isn’t in the 4DOF program, so I used actual 1000yd results with factory ammo from my 17.6” Grendel. You might have mistakenly used the 100gr ELD-M, which is not the same bullet at all. 100gr ELD-VT looks like a 123gr ELD-M, but with less lead inside. Way longer boat tail, ogive, and OAL than the 100gr ELD-M.

Real world data for 18” 6mm ARCs and Hornady’s load data show it maxed at 2550fps from 18” barrel for 103-105gr, and somehow increases with 108gr and 110gr A-TIP to 2575fps. But you see the factory ammo velocity thread here with 16” bolt guns and 18” gas guns, where it was 2408-2590fps across several different AR-15s.

Real world for 18” Grendels with 100gr ELD-VT factory ammo is 2650-2690fps. The BC might be better as well. Something is happening to where they track almost identically once you get out to mid-range. I posted about it before asking people to sanity-check what I was seeing, and nobody responded with any details contrary to that. I’m open to whatever the data shows. I was planning on getting a 6mm AR for a long time, but after everything I’m seeing with the 100-110gr class in 6.5mm, I’m just not seeing any advantages.

The 100gr ELD-VT at 2690fps beats any of the 6mm 103-110gr class at 2575fps, flatter, more impact velocity, less wind drift.
Don't spew easily disproven nonsense:
1730416600198.png


Values pulled directly from 4DOF (STP, 10mph crosswind)
1730417440296.png
 
Huh? That's factory Hornady, all of which is loaded at 52ksi. View attachment 8536267
What's really wild is people vastly overestimating the 'piston effect'.

Hornady doesn’t load factory ammo to SAAMI MAP, but more in the high 40ksi region to leave room for their lot MPSM and MPLM. They said as much in a recent podcast where numbers like 47-49ksi were mentioned.

With CFE223 in 6.5 Grendel out of a 16” Enfield-rifled barrel, I went way higher than you would typically see in a pressure ladder test when I first started experimenting with CFE223, and I easily got up to speeds that make bolt guns blush, but I never mass-produced those loads of course.

My 123gr A-MAX load is only 47,302psi doing 2520fps from that 16” barrel.
My 123gr A-MAX load that hit 52,075psi was doing 2572fps from the 16” AA/ER Shaw pipe.

Those were 2.272-2.275” COL loads. Pressures were tested independently in a pressure test breach cut with a mid-life spec reamer from Manson, calibrated over a 6-month period and checked with various factory ammo data sets prior to giving merit to the readings. The factory RSI gauges were replaced with quality transducers recommended by industry sources who do pressure-testing for a living.

The Hodgdon’s new data for 100gr ELD-VT shows the fastest speeds from the lowest chamber pressures with CFE223 and LVR, no surprise. I purposely chase those more efficient powders for the case/bullet combo, not max pressures. I think trying to brute-force the performance with pressure is not really the best way to go about things, especially as armorers, soldiers, and leaders become more technically-incompetent. We need to build more safety margins into systems mainly for wear, not chase mongoloid-strength 80ksi cartridges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Earnhardt
Do you have no concept of burn speed and pressure curve shape? I pulled 2600 as a rough number off the chart above, but the Hornady manual lists two loads that have a 108 going 2575 out of an 18" at max.
I've been handloading these cartridges for a long time and I've chronographed thousands of rounds of Grendel. Your post is bullshit.

Cartridge : 6 mm ARC
Bullet : .243, 108, Hornady ELD-M 24561
Useable Case Capaci: 29.273 grain H2O = 1.901 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.260 inch = 57.40 mm
Barrel Length : 18.0 inch = 457.2 mm
Powder : Hodgdon LVR

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 1.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-10.0 97 26.10 2261 1226 39142 9243 90.0 1.187
-09.0 98 26.39 2288 1256 40470 9375 90.6 1.168
-08.0 99 26.68 2316 1286 41846 9504 91.2 1.149
-07.0 100 26.97 2343 1316 43274 9631 91.8 1.131
-06.0 101 27.26 2370 1347 44756 9755 92.3 1.114 ! Near Maximum !
-05.0 102 27.55 2398 1379 46292 9876 92.9 1.096 ! Near Maximum !
-04.0 103 27.84 2426 1411 47890 9995 93.4 1.079 ! Near Maximum !
-03.0 104 28.13 2453 1443 49549 10111 93.9 1.062 ! Near Maximum !
-02.0 105 28.42 2481 1476 51270 10223 94.4 1.046 ! Near Maximum !
-01.0 106 28.71 2509 1509 53062 10333 94.9 1.029 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+00.0 107 29.00 2537 1543 54924 10439 95.3 1.013 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+01.0 109 29.29 2565 1577 56861 10541 95.8 0.998 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+02.0 110 29.58 2592 1612 58875 10640 96.2 0.982 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+03.0 111 29.87 2621 1647 60974 10735 96.6 0.967 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+04.0 112 30.16 2649 1682 63160 10826 96.9 0.952 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+05.0 113 30.45 2677 1718 65431 10913 97.3 0.937 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 107 29.00 2678 1720 66717 10502 99.4 0.935 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 107 29.00 2356 1331 44636 9828 87.2 1.113 ! Near Maximum !
 
Don't spew easily disproven nonsense:
View attachment 8536320

Values pulled directly from 4DOF (STP, 10mph crosswind)
View attachment 8536321
It wasn’t on Hornady’s desktop program. I just checked it to see if they had added the 100gr ELD-VT and it still isn’t there. It is on the Hornady phone app though.

Don’t assume malice. That 4DOF program does match my 1k drop dead-on though. I was holding less wind.

I’ve been using G7 for the 100gr ELD-VT in the absence of the 4DOF. Those are different results for sure.

If the data shows I’m wrong, I’ll own it. It didn’t make sense to me either because the BC advantages are clearly in 6mm favor until you step up in weight with 6.5mm, but then trajectory gets more 175gr SMK-like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bfoosh006
A 190gr 7mm MG42 with Polymer receiver and CF barrel/ 1913 pic rails would even be better then MG250, M240, and MG338.

But I must digress.

U.S. must have British or French engineers.

M80A1 is STILL inferior to 8mm.

How many years since 1945? Really?
 
It wasn’t on Hornady’s desktop program. I just checked it to see if they had added the 100gr ELD-VT and it still isn’t there. It is on the Hornady phone app though.

Don’t assume malice. That 4DOF program does match my 1k drop dead-on though. I was holding less wind.

I’ve been using G7 for the 100gr ELD-VT in the absence of the 4DOF. Those are different results for sure.

If the data shows I’m wrong, I’ll own it. It didn’t make sense to me either because the BC advantages are clearly in 6mm favor until you step up in weight with 6.5mm, but then trajectory gets more 175gr SMK-like.

I don't really understand what's being argued in this thread on 6 ARC vs 6.5 G, but since folks seem to be using box or Quickload numbers for 18" ARC velocities, here is factory 108gr and my main handload out of my 18".
Screenshot_20241101-070731.png

Screenshot_20241101-072121.png


I haven't been very impressed with Quickload modeling of progressive powders like LVR, and it's downright unuseable for others like Staball 6.5 ( I have to use a modified H100V profile to get close because the stock STB profile is so far off).
 
I don't really understand what's being argued in this thread on 6 ARC vs 6.5 G, but since folks seem to be using box or Quickload numbers for 18" ARC velocities, here is factory 108gr and my main handload out of my 18".
View attachment 8536572
View attachment 8536573

I haven't been very impressed with Quickload modeling of progressive powders like LVR, and it's downright unuseable for others like Staball 6.5 ( I have to use a modified H100V profile to get close because the stock STB profile is so far off).

It isn't hard to understand, Hornady factory 6ARC ammo is over pressure at that velocity. It isn't a little over pressure either. QL has been dead on with 6ARC and has really come around on Grendel too. I think I've loaded at least 10 powders in Grendel and QL tracks all of them perfectly. Other users are reporting the same with 6ARC. There's multiple threads on this forum alone.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Macht and Earnhardt
It isn't hard to understand, Hornady factory 6ARC ammo is over pressure at that velocity. It isn't a little over pressure either. QL has been dead on with 6ARC and has really come around on Grendel too. I think I've loaded at least 10 powders in Grendel and QL tracks all of them perfectly. Other users are reporting the same with 6ARC. There's multiple threads on this forum alone.

Nah, I don't think so. I've never seen a whiff of real evidence that Hornady is putting out Grendel or ARC that is over SAAMI pressures, just speculation. Repeating speculation doesn't make it true, would love to see some real pressure data if you have it though.

QL accuracy is dependent on truing for dimensions, capacity and measured velocity, as well as the powder profile you're using. Many of the powder profiles are decent as is (AR-Comp, H4350, 8208), some require some work (LVR), and a some are just awful (STB 6.5).

What all powders have you had track perfectly with your measured velocities in the 6 ARC?

Ever bounce the model outputs on Staball 6.5 against reality? It's eye opening, and it's not the only one.
 
Hodgdon's Data:

Cartridge: 6MM ARC
Your search returned 14 loads
Twist: 1:7.500"

Barrel Length: 24.000"

Trim Length: 1.480"
Bullet: 107 GR. SIE HPBT

Diameter: 0.243"

Case: Hornady

Primer: Federal 205M, Small Rifle Match
black_open.png

Starting LoadMaximum LoadAvailability
ManufacturerPowderC.O.L.Grs.Vel. (ft/s)PressureGrs.Vel. (ft/s)Pressure
WinchesterStaBALL 6.5

2.260"27.22,25834,400 PSI30.3C2,55750,300 PSIBuy Now
Winchester760

2.260"26.52,35238,100 PSI29.4C2,61051,100 PSIBuy Now
HodgdonH414
2.260"26.52,35238,100 PSI29.4C2,61051,100 PSIDiscontinued
Accurate2700
2.260"26.52,35238,100 PSI29.4C2,61051,100 PSIBuy Now
HodgdonCFE 223





2.260"25.82,45040,300 PSI28.82,68751,400 PSIBuy Now
Accurate2520
2.260"25.02,39539,700 PSI28.52,67251,300 PSIBuy Now
HodgdonLEVERevolution





2.260"25.42,40037,700 PSI28.22,66951,800 PSIBuy Now
HodgdonBL-C(2)



2.260"24.92,35841,200 PSI27.72,57651,500 PSIBuy Now
Winchester748



2.260"24.72,39840,400 PSI27.42,62351,500 PSIBuy Now
WinchesterStaBALL Match







2.260"24.82,34742,200 PSI27.02,53851,500 PSIBuy Now
RamshotTAC
2.260"24.02,32639,700 PSI26.32,54950,900 PSIBuy Now
Accurate2495
2.260"23.02,21539,200 PSI25.82,45951,300 PSIBuy Now
Accurate2460
2.260"23.02,28739,100 PSI25.82,53751,300 PSIBuy Now
HodgdonVarget





2.260"23.22,32540,900 PSI25.8C2,54151,600 PSIBuy Now
 
Nah, I don't think so. I've never seen a whiff of real evidence that Hornady is putting out Grendel or ARC that is over SAAMI pressures, just speculation. Repeating speculation doesn't make it true, would love to see some real pressure data if you have it though.

QL accuracy is dependent on truing for dimensions, capacity and measured velocity, as well as the powder profile you're using. Many of the powder profiles are decent as is (AR-Comp, H4350, 8208), some require some work (LVR), and a some are just awful (STB 6.5).

What all powders have you had track perfectly with your measured velocities in the 6 ARC?

Ever bounce the model outputs on Staball 6.5 against reality? It's eye opening, and it's not the only one.
65StaBall is too slow for Grendel or ARC so no. I've loaded 8208, ARComp, Varget, H4895, LVR, 2200, 2520, BLC, etc. Just to name a few. I have every powder you've mentioned on my shelf and have chronographed it against QL, yes.
 
Hodgdon's Data:

Cartridge: 6MM ARC
Your search returned 14 loads
Twist: 1:7.500"

Barrel Length: 24.000"

Trim Length: 1.480"
Bullet: 107 GR. SIE HPBT

Diameter: 0.243"

Case: Hornady

Primer: Federal 205M, Small Rifle Match
black_open.png

Starting LoadMaximum LoadAvailability
ManufacturerPowderC.O.L.Grs.Vel. (ft/s)PressureGrs.Vel. (ft/s)Pressure
WinchesterStaBALL 6.5
2.260"27.22,25834,400 PSI30.3C2,55750,300 PSIBuy Now
Winchester760
2.260"26.52,35238,100 PSI29.4C2,61051,100 PSIBuy Now
HodgdonH4142.260"26.52,35238,100 PSI29.4C2,61051,100 PSIDiscontinued
Accurate27002.260"26.52,35238,100 PSI29.4C2,61051,100 PSIBuy Now
HodgdonCFE 223




2.260"25.82,45040,300 PSI28.82,68751,400 PSIBuy Now
Accurate25202.260"25.02,39539,700 PSI28.52,67251,300 PSIBuy Now
HodgdonLEVERevolution




2.260"25.42,40037,700 PSI28.22,66951,800 PSIBuy Now
HodgdonBL-C(2)


2.260"24.92,35841,200 PSI27.72,57651,500 PSIBuy Now
Winchester748


2.260"24.72,39840,400 PSI27.42,62351,500 PSIBuy Now
WinchesterStaBALL Match






2.260"24.82,34742,200 PSI27.02,53851,500 PSIBuy Now
RamshotTAC2.260"24.02,32639,700 PSI26.32,54950,900 PSIBuy Now
Accurate24952.260"23.02,21539,200 PSI25.82,45951,300 PSIBuy Now
Accurate24602.260"23.02,28739,100 PSI25.82,53751,300 PSIBuy Now
HodgdonVarget




2.260"23.22,32540,900 PSI25.8C2,54151,600 PSIBuy Now

Yes there are discrepancies between the data put out by the company that developed the cartridge and the company that markets but doesn't make powders.

65StaBall is too slow for Grendel or ARC so no. I've loaded 8208, ARComp, Varget, H4895, LVR, 2200, 2520, BLC, etc. Just to name a few. I have every powder you've mentioned on my shelf and have chronographed it against QL, yes.

I shoot other cartridges than Grendel and ARC, the Staball question was a general question. Did you try these powders in a Grendel or ARC? I've got them all on the shelf except BLC, but have only tried the first 6 in G/ARC, as well as Staball M.

One pound reference containers for load development, does not include the bulk.
You're doing better than me at streamlining the powder shelf, I've got too many oddballs from past experiments hanging around.
 
Yes

Hornady 6ARC is the outlier in all of the 6ARC load data and measured velocities. All other 6ARC load data sources are in alignment.
I don't think this is true. What other published sources for ARC data are you referring to beyond Hodgdon and Hornady to make this claim?

Edit: We should probably take this interesting line of discussion to the DMs to avoid derailing this thread more. I look forward to learning about new published 6 ARC data sources that Google has let me down on though.
 
Last edited:
I don't think this is true. What other published sources for ARC data are you referring to beyond Hodgdon and Hornady to make this claim?

Edit: We should probably take this interesting line of discussion to the DMs to avoid derailing this thread more. I look forward to learning about new published 6 ARC data sources that Google has let me down on though.

The original question was why would someone want 6.5 100ELDVT going 2600 when they can have 6mm 108 ELDM going the same speed? The answer is, ignoring pressure, you wouldn't. The 6mm 108 going the same speed is ballistically superior in every way. The factory 6ARC goes the speed you say it does.

If you're comfortable with the pressure then 6ARC is the clear winner. You can push up the Grendel pressure too, if you want but, it really doesn't matter. If all you care about is factory ammo that makes legit velocity, the Hornady 6ARC does it.

I don't think continuing the conversation in private is necessary. You're welcome to do whatever you feel is best.
 
I don't really understand what's being argued in this thread on 6 ARC vs 6.5 G, but since folks seem to be using box or Quickload numbers for 18" ARC velocities, here is factory 108gr and my main handload out of my 18"
I haven't been very impressed with Quickload modeling of progressive powders like LVR, and it's downright unuseable for others like Staball 6.5 ( I have to use a modified H100V profile to get close because the stock STB profile is so far off).
Quick Load is usually off by at least 9,000psi in 6.5 Grendel for some reason (overestimated), so charges that have been pressure test breech-verified as under 50,000psi show up at 58,900-64,000psi in QL. If you follow it with those estimations, it tells you charge weights that are under start load territory are already at MAP.

No real reason to even reference it since we have so much data from Hodgdon’s that is real, not a theoretical model that is clearly not working with the right parameters. You have to go into QL and tweak it to match up with real data to get any meaningful results.

I just reference Hodgdon’s and don’t worry about it.
 
It isn't hard to understand, Hornady factory 6ARC ammo is over pressure at that velocity. It isn't a little over pressure either. QL has been dead on with 6ARC and has really come around on Grendel too. I think I've loaded at least 10 powders in Grendel and QL tracks all of them perfectly. Other users are reporting the same with 6ARC. There's multiple threads on this forum alone.
QL has been way off with Grendel for years, as I mentioned above. Take any of the Hodgdon’s loads, which are tested in a pressure test breech, and run them through QL.

Hornady and other ammo manufacturers have to test their ammunition lots with a test breech as well, and they coordinate with the powder manufacturers regularly to keep abreast of new lots of standard powders and their specific canister powders made for them.

They avoid riding the edge of MAP because it increases the reject rate with MPLM and MPSM.

SAAMI Terms based on statistical analysis:
MAP = Maximum Average Pressure
MPLM = Maximum Probable Lot Mean (2.5% over MAP)
MPSM = Maximum Probable Sample Mean (6.3% over MAP)

So if MAP is 52ksi and you try to mass-produce a lot of ammunition set to that number, your incidence of exceeding MPSM and MPSM increases. Better to back off your lot average pressures so you don’t exceed the SAAMI specs for MPLM and MPSM.

Hand-loaders should hold themselves to this too. Nobody is cranking out loads that are all exactly the same pressure. There is always a deviation due to component variables and reloading practices, and imperfections in dies, presses, and mechanical operations.

For me, I like running at 93% of MAP in the Grendel, which is in that 48,500psi region. Especially with powders that smoke all the other powders for mv, like CFE223 and LVR.

The main thing I don’t like about the 264 LICC cartridge is the .473” case head, because now we’re back to 7.62 NATO magazine width and limited capacity. It would be an interesting replacement for 7.62 NATO in belt-feds, but also limit your linked carrying capacity due to pouch and soft case volume/shapes, but still better than 7.62 due to some weight/space savings, and ease of sight picture management/lower recoil.
 
The original question was why would someone want 6.5 100ELDVT going 2600 when they can have 6mm 108 ELDM going the same speed? The answer is, ignoring pressure, you wouldn't. The 6mm 108 going the same speed is ballistically superior in every way. The factory 6ARC goes the speed you say it does.

If you're comfortable with the pressure then 6ARC is the clear winner. You can push up the Grendel pressure too, if you want but, it really doesn't matter. If all you care about is factory ammo that makes legit velocity, the Hornady 6ARC does it.

I don't think continuing the conversation in private is necessary. You're welcome to do whatever you feel is best.
2690fps from Grendel w/100gr vs 2550-2575fps for 6mm w/108gr. Looks like the only advantages are drop out to 600 and barrel life for Grendel. Trajectory is within an inch for both of them to 600, while wind and energy go to the 6mm.

At 600, you’re looking at 1.3 mils drift for 6mm and 1.5 mils for Grendel with 100gr ELD-VT.

If you shoot the 123gr SMK or 123gr Scenar in Grendel, it really tightens the gap but puts more energy on-target and is louder when it hits.

The Fort Scott 123gr TUI is more aerodynamic than the SMK and Scenar with a .296 G7, so it does really well against any of the 6mms.

I have some of the factory ammo with that and need to shoot it. The bullets look like spears, very secant ogive with pointed tips.
 
QL has been way off with Grendel for years, as I mentioned above. Take any of the Hodgdon’s loads, which are tested in a pressure test breech, and run them through QL.

Hornady and other ammo manufacturers have to test their ammunition lots with a test breech as well, and they coordinate with the powder manufacturers regularly to keep abreast of new lots of standard powders and their specific canister powders made for them.

They avoid riding the edge of MAP because it increases the reject rate with MPLM and MPSM.

SAAMI Terms based on statistical analysis:
MAP = Maximum Average Pressure
MPLM = Maximum Probable Lot Mean (2.5% over MAP)
MPSM = Maximum Probable Sample Mean (6.3% over MAP)

So if MAP is 52ksi and you try to mass-produce a lot of ammunition set to that number, your incidence of exceeding MPSM and MPSM increases. Better to back off your lot average pressures so you don’t exceed the SAAMI specs for MPLM and MPSM.

Hand-loaders should hold themselves to this too. Nobody is cranking out loads that are all exactly the same pressure. There is always a deviation due to component variables and reloading practices, and imperfections in dies, presses, and mechanical operations.

For me, I like running at 93% of MAP in the Grendel, which is in that 48,500psi region. Especially with powders that smoke all the other powders for mv, like CFE223 and LVR.

The main thing I don’t like about the 264 LICC cartridge is the .473” case head, because now we’re back to 7.62 NATO magazine width and limited capacity. It would be an interesting replacement for 7.62 NATO in belt-feds, but also limit your linked carrying capacity due to pouch and soft case volume/shapes, but still better than 7.62 due to some weight/space savings, and ease of sight picture management/lower recoil.


The factory 108ELDM is either over pressure or it isn't, which is it? If both are going the same speed, ignoring pressure, the 6mm is the obvious choice. The factory 100gr ELDVT isn't as fast as the 6ARC. It's right on Hornady's site. But, You can lean on the 6.5 the same as the 6 and then the 6mm is no longer an advantage. The factory 6ARC ammo is going the speed everyone is claiming though.

It's incredible watching everyone waffle back and forth. Hornady s own published load data says their factory ammo shouldn't be going the speed it is to be safe. It's like 6ARC is everything to everyone while being safe but not.

QL used to be way off for Grendel. That was at least five updates ago. If you go look at recent Chrono reports from users, Grendel and ARC are spot on. Everyone is welcome to believe whatever they want though.
 

Attachments

  • 6mm-arc-gas-58-105gr-data.pdf
    299.4 KB · Views: 3
This is just another way of providing "overmatch" the DOD buzzword for "we are willing to spend lots of money to be able to better kill you than you can kill us". So, being able to hold enemy infantry (wearing ceramic body armor) at risk at out to 500 - 700 yards, instead of 100-200 yards, from small arms, is "overmatch". Whether or not the capability is fielded, some of this is certainly to advertise a capacity, much like Russia does with its "1 of 1" next gen aircraft. What I like about this is that it is one generational step forward in small arms cartridges (cartridge optimization around velocity and payload, and overall size), as opposed to the two steps that the 6.8 represented, since it also called for 20% across the board increases in chamber pressures.