Secret Service Eyes New 6.5mm Semi-Automatic Sniper Rifle (RFI)

[Habu34]

Secret Service Eyes New 6.5mm Semi-Automatic Sniper Rifle​

New 6.5mm Creedmoor rifles would give Secret Service counter-sniper teams valuable extra range, accuracy, and ballistic performance.
JOSEPH TREVITHICK
PUBLISHED MAR 21, 2025 4:39 PM EDT

Secret Service Eyes New 6.5mm Semi-Automatic Sniper Rifle

New 6.5mm Creedmoor rifles would give Secret Service counter-sniper teams valuable extra range, accuracy, and ballistic performance.

www.twz.com

 

[BurtG]

In to here @Terry Cross commentary

 

[Rodney65]

I'm kind of curious how they determine barrel life. 3,500 isn't super high but it's not especially low either. I haven't seen a lot of manufacturers guarantee a barrel life for 6.5cm.

 

[Terry Cross]

In to here @Terry Cross commentary

Me commenting on their stuff would be like AOC commenting on Elon's latest SpaceX designs.

I know a few of those guys and have worked with a couple of their Sr. TLs (that are now promoted out of that section) but their doings are still a mystery to me.

They sure seem to be re-tooling while they can.
They are already cutting some big checks to Acc Intl. for the new primary bolt action sniper rifle. I think that deal was sealed before the solicitation even closed.

Now I guess they are laying out a solicitation that has specs written to match KA or Larue projects designed to keep others from being able to bid.


Regarding 6.5CM for that work. . .
Who's gonna tell them that a 6.5CM out of a 16" gas gun is NOT going to have much if any improved ballistics over a 308Win from a 20" barrel?
Their gas guns are supposed to be deployed more for a DMR role as part of a counter-assault, not a primary counter-sniper role. If kept in that role context, the current .308 gun/ammo combo is more than capable of handling threats inside their normal engagement envelope.

I think it's more of a case of someone itching for new kit rather than actual need in this instance.

They need to just keep training hard with what they already have and concentrate the new budget dollars on counter-drone and perimeter surveillance. Proliferation of drones now enable a 12yr old nerd to defeat any perimeter security and successfully reduce a high value human before it could be countered.

 

[Jack_L]

Now I guess they are laying out a solicitation that has specs written to match KA or Larue projects designed to keep others from being able to bid.

They released an RFI to ensure that they would get a good number of responses from a wide array of potential suppliers.
HERE
It's pretty wide open, and I would expect the major players along with a few wild-cards to respond to the RFI and submit for the potential RFP when/if it releases.

 

[Terry Cross]

They released an RFI to ensure that they would get a good number of responses from a wide array of potential suppliers.
HERE
It's pretty wide open, and I would expect the major players along with a few wild-cards to respond to the RFI and submit for the potential RFP when/if it releases.

It will be interesting to see what they finally refine the specs down to when they move from an RFI to an RFP.
They certainly boxed in the RFP specs for their primary sniper rifles so that nobody could quote but A.I.
Will be interesting to see if they do similar with this if it goes forward at all.

*edited for spelling

 

[DocRDS]

I got no hat in this game, but it seems all fun and game with new cartridges and all, but what is it we all say to newcomers?

Get Training. Caliber Selection is probably in the 2nd or 3rd decimal point of success calculation especially under 800 yards.

My worthless 0.02

Kinda like the replacing the 1911 with Beretta and Beretta vs Sig and then the M-4 with the 416 and now the Sig Fury or whatever. Story as old as time.

Someone is getting rich and it ain't us and I don't really see a pressing need.

 

[Holliday]

Do these come with sloped roof warning/protection systems?

 

[Evolution 9]

Yeah, doesn’t matter one lick if they are issued red rider BB guns or 50 BMG. They are either monumentally inept… or involved. Period.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I agree with Terry. Other than the slight recoil reduction there is no real benefit over a 308 already in the system. Shots over 2-300 yards are virtually unheard of for the semi. The SOW specs 130-145gr so similar bc to the newer 308 rounds.

You have a plethora of open air and barrier rounds with the 308 that are proven and predictable. You are going to burn barrels up faster. A 16" 6.5creed is anemic. If they try to push performance via double based wonder powders they are going to prematurely start breaking the rifles.

I get wanting new guns and as the resident 308 hater on this website.....the one place where it makes sense is in LE work. 308 just works so well in that application there is no reason to deviate.

 

[Milspec Longhorn]

Agree. Cost/Benefit/Capability gains are not there

 

[LRRPF52]

Just a guess, but if they have been training next to other units who have something in 6.5CM, they are probably saying, “We wan that too."

 

[Milspec Longhorn]

Sounds like Knights Armament deal.

 

[Habu34]

Sounds like Knights Armament deal.

+1 And no request for a forward assist.

 

[Milspec Longhorn]

+1 And no request for a forward assist.

And they will say it is open competitive bid but essentially it will be sole source

 

[powerspc]

I don't care how good a shot you are, get in shape you fat fuck.

 

[232593]

I agree with Terry. Other than the slight recoil reduction there is no real benefit over a 308 already in the system. Shots over 2-300 yards are virtually unheard of for the semi. The SOW specs 130-145gr so similar bc to the newer 308 rounds.

You have a plethora of open air and barrier rounds with the 308 that are proven and predictable. You are going to burn barrels up faster. A 16" 6.5creed is anemic. If they try to push performance via double based wonder powders they are going to prematurely start breaking the rifles.

I get wanting new guns and as the resident 308 hater on this website.....the one place where it makes sense is in LE work. 308 just works so well in that application there is no reason to deviate.

Wouldn’t a .308 have better terminal effect on tissue?

 

[WeR0206]

Wouldn’t a .308 have better terminal effect on tissue?

I think it does have more up to a certain distance (800yd?) then 6.5 starts pulling away. So as others have said the use cases for LE taking shots that long from gassers are pretty nonexistent. The cost to re-outfit everyone, more barrels to replace, etc compared to the nonexistent benefit makes no sense.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I doubt anyone getting hit by a 6.5creed or. 308 in COM or the head is going to notice the difference. It's going to be an instantly incapacitating kill shot either way.

 

[Milspec Longhorn]

I don't care how good a shot you are, get in shape you fat fuck.

View attachment 8657908

Is that’s MK11?

 

[LRRPF52]

I don't care how good a shot you are, get in shape you fat fuck.

View attachment 8657908

That guy is pretty lean by today’s trends. Any mid-section mass can compensate for the sloped roofs....

 

[Terry Cross]

I doubt anyone getting hit by a 6.5creed or. 308 in COM or the head is going to notice the difference. It's going to be an instantly incapacitating kill shot either way.

Shooters on these guns aren't typically tasked with direct action HR.

They are going for a center mass anchoring as fast as possible.

Perhaps a head shot could be had if that's all that is exposed to a direct flight path but it wouldn't be something they train for like other US LE.

 

[Near miss]

The SS could gain some benefit from the shorter flight time of the 6.5CM.

The latest target they wasted was engaged about 3 minutes too late so I'd figure they need all the help they can get.

 

[Jack_L]

I agree with Terry. Other than the slight recoil reduction there is no real benefit over a 308 already in the system. Shots over 2-300 yards are virtually unheard of for the semi. The SOW specs 130-145gr so similar bc to the newer 308 rounds.

You have a plethora of open air and barrier rounds with the 308 that are proven and predictable. You are going to burn barrels up faster. A 16" 6.5creed is anemic. If they try to push performance via double based wonder powders they are going to prematurely start breaking the rifles.

I get wanting new guns and as the resident 308 hater on this website.....the one place where it makes sense is in LE work. 308 just works so well in that application there is no reason to deviate.

A 16" 6.5 with appropriate ammunition out-performs 20" .308 with 175gr SMK in drop and wind deflection. But what really matters is that the gun is smaller and lighter.

Sounds like Knights Armament deal.

There are at least 5 other companies with compliant models, and we all fully expect this to go to full and open competition.

And they will say it is open competitive bid but essentially it will be sole source

Of the competitive tenders that I have participated in for the USSS, they are among the best for fairness and adherence to requirements. No, I haven't won every opportunity, and the ones I was not successful with I do believe that they got what matched their needs the best. The world of government procurement is strange for those that don't work in it, so I understand the suspicion and "feels" associated with it, but ultimately it comes down to hitting threshold and objective requirements, and all else being equal, showing a greater value over the life of the contract. We aren't building spaceships or bridges, so "going over budget" isn't something that applies.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

A 16" 6.5 with appropriate ammunition out-performs 20" .308 with 175gr SMK in drop and wind deflection. But what really matters is that the gun is smaller and lighter.

There are at least 5 other companies with compliant models, and we all fully expect this to go to full and open competition.

Of the competitive tenders that I have participated in for the USSS, they are among the best for fairness and adherence to requirements. No, I haven't won every opportunity, and the ones I was not successful with I do believe that they got what matched their needs the best. The world of government procurement is strange for those that don't work in it, so I understand the suspicion and "feels" associated with it, but ultimately it comes down to hitting threshold and objective requirements, and all else being equal, showing a greater value over the life of the contract. We aren't building spaceships or bridges, so "going over budget" isn't something that applies.

The point is at that distance the ballistics are virtually identical. Inside 300 yards , go with the cartridge with better ammo options and longer barrel life.

I'm one of the biggest 308 haters on the site, and even I can see how its superior in this application.


If they wanted smaller and lighter, they could have specked a suppressed 13-14" 6 ARC and shaved pounds off the gun.

 

[Jack_L]

The point is at that distance the ballistics are virtually identical. Inside 300 yards , go with the cartridge with better ammo options and longer barrel life.

Eh, really the point is that a smaller gun is desired, and once you get into the 16" range .308 is harder to precisely place than good .264 projectiles at similar speeds. Barrel life isn't really a big concern per their requirements.

I'm one of the biggest 308 haters on the site, and even I can see how its superior in this application.

There are definitely good reasons to choose .308, and there are some very interesting developments in .308 projectiles that should really be the comparison point rather than 175gr SMK. That said, terminal performance and terminal-performance related considerations are a key part of caliber change in conjunction with going to a smaller gun. Unfortunately, I am not able to go into detail on that subject.

If they wanted smaller and lighter, they could have specked a suppressed 13-14" 6 ARC and shaved pounds off the gun.

They are aware of 6mm ARC and it does not meet their requirements for several reasons.

 

[Milspec Longhorn]

Eh, really the point is that a smaller gun is desired, and once you get into the 16" range .308 is harder to precisely place than good .264 projectiles at similar speeds. Barrel life isn't really a big concern per their requirements.

There are definitely good reasons to choose .308, and there are some very interesting developments in .308 projectiles that should really be the comparison point rather than 175gr SMK. That said, terminal performance and terminal-performance related considerations are a key part of caliber change in conjunction with going to a smaller gun. Unfortunately, I am not able to go into detail on that subject.

They are aware of 6mm ARC and it does not meet their requirements for several reasons.

Thanks. Good info. What "interesting developments in .308 projectiles" would you recommend? Second - I like the "smaller gun" concept - but would the .264 projectiles in 16" be better than .308 in terms of precision out of 16" or less?

 

[Terry Cross]

A 16" 6.5 with appropriate ammunition out-performs 20" .308 with 175gr SMK in drop and wind deflection.

Almost all US LE have moved on from any 168 or 175 SMK based ammo. Those that haven't are making preparation to do so.
The move is so profound and widespread that an entity could almost be considered taking on unnecessary liability by going with any BTHP style target projo. Current Hornady TAP, Federal T308T and RUAG have set the precedent for that. They also have more efficient propellants and higher BC bullets than older school LR or AB39 flavors.

We are clocking 168gr T308T at 2,600 FPS out of a lot of 16" bolt guns.

I'm sure you already know all of that plus a bunch I am not aware.
I am also sure that the USSS is not near as worried about over-penetration, etc. due to their typical mission profile and different risk model.
We just don't see most LE using GM308M or LR/AB39 type ammo for comparisons any more.

But what really matters is that the gun is smaller and lighter.

I assume smaller and lighter only due to 16" vs 20" since both would be on a large frame model?

Not picking on you and appreciate you being part of the conversation. Just trying to Red Team the concept and get your POV.

 

[Jack_L]

Thanks. Good info. What "interesting developments in .308 projectiles" would you recommend? Second - I like the "smaller gun" concept - but would the .264 projectiles in 16" be better than .308 in terms of precision out of 16" or less?

Most of my world in .308 revolves around 175gr SMK, specifically due to it being the projectile in AB39 and M118LR. What I know about other projectiles is mostly due to personal interest, with a little bit on the job side for improved terminal performance, but those have almost always shown a degradation in dispersion compared to the 175 SMK. That precision loss has generally been accepted in favor of the improved terminal performance given the distances involved in most applications.

As far as precision goes, I can't really say that all else being equal that .246 projectiles are *better* than .308 projectiles from 16" barrels. What I can say, in real world application, is that at 16" velocities, the .264 projectiles I am throwing show better range error and wind error budget out to effective range than 175gr SMK.

 

[Jack_L]

We are clocking 168gr T308T at 2,600 FPS out of a lot of 16" bolt guns.

That's faster than I expected given the Federal data. That said, 2500 isn't a crazy number for 168s from 16" .308 either.

I am also sure that the USSS is not near as worried about over-penetration, etc. due to their typical mission profile and different risk model.

Their requirements are different than LE, Mil, and "normal guy", as they do have a pretty diverse mission set. I can't really talk a lot about that, but I'm also not intimately involved in those requirements, so I wouldn't truly be an SME in that regard as I don't work there.

We just don't see most LE using GM308M or LR/AB39 type ammo for comparisons any more.

I still see it pretty frequently, but the shift is good.

I assume smaller and lighter only due to 16" vs 20" since both would be on a large frame model?

Barrel length reduction is part of it, but so is barrel profile and suppressor.

Not picking on you and appreciate you being part of the conversation. Just trying to Red Team the concept and get your POV.

No worries, I don't take it personally, and if I wasn't willing to discuss what I can I would have just ignored it. I do kinda raise my hackles when I see comments that imply or directly state that things are written specifically for KAC given the amount of work we have to do to respond to something as seemingly simple as an RFI, and not even getting into the thick of an actual RFP for competitive down-select.