The FAL Files

The FAL Files (https://www.falfiles.com/forums/index.php)
-   Ammunition (https://www.falfiles.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=22)
-   -   High End Intermediate Cartridge Showdown (https://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=449831)

BarnOwlLover February 11, 2020 16:16

High End Intermediate Cartridge Showdown
 
These are rounds that are basically intermediate between like the 6.5mm Creedmoor and 7.62mm NATO/.308 Winchester in power and performance.

First is the .280 British (7x43mm) designed for the Enfield EM-2 rifle and Taden LMG. Killed off when the .308 was adopted as the 7.62mm NATO

Second is the .276 Pedersen (noted either as 7x51mm or 7x52mm) designed for prototype versions of what would become the M1 Garand and Pedersen semi-auto rifles, but what abandoned when General Douglas MacArthur recommended retaining the .30-06 Springfield.

Third is the 7.35x52mm (also called 7.35x51mm) Carcano developed in the 1930s to replace the 6.5x52mm Carcano, and based on the same shell casing necked up to take a 7.35mm (.298) bullet.

All three rounds have similar ballastic performance, and can be described as high powered intermediate rounds that were much more powerful than say a 5.56mm NATO or 7.62x39mm, but not as powerful as say a .308 Win. or .30-06 class round.

History and specs here for the .280:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British

.276:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.276_Pedersen

7.35:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.35%C3%9751mm_Carcano

Which would be your choice?

moonbat60 February 11, 2020 20:30

As I've been shooting .308 since 1979, I'm not going to change.

W.E.G. February 11, 2020 20:36

The gee-whiz 6mm and 7mm bullets get through the wind just a bit better than 7.62.

That’s all.

Points are precious in precision shooting games.

For hit/miss events the metric is more pass/fail than 100-6x vs. 98-7x

BarnOwlLover February 11, 2020 22:43

Basically what I'm looking for is opinions on these rounds vs like say 6.5mm Creedmoor and such, and that a round intermediate between like a .30 Remington/.30-30 Winchester and a .308 Winchester/.30-06 Springfield might be better than most "intermediate" rounds today for most uses.

Thing is, these rounds existed, but mostly as experiments in the end, and only the 7.35 Carcano saw issue, but only in the very early days of Italy's direct involvement in World War II. Most 7.35mm Carcano rifles got issued to second line units, though a lot got sent to Finland and used to an extent as substitute standard issue rifles. However, the Finns favored their Mosin-Nagant adapations, captured Russian Mosin-Nagants and Tokarev SVT-40s.

IMO, all those rounds do represent missed opportunities, as 7.35 Carcano seemed to be pretty effective at most ranges that targets could be accurately engaged with iron sights at the time, and .280 British simply was a short case powerhouse.

W.E.G. February 11, 2020 22:47

For killing, anything 5mm to 12.7mm seems to do the trick if you put it inside the 8-ring.

I've seen whitetail deer killed with 4.5 mm.

MAINER February 12, 2020 14:04

The 6.5 Creedmore is the latest flavor of the month cartridge. No telling how long it will stand up to what will come along next.
I think it is an excellent cartridge, but somewhat specialized. It was built as a long range target round for heavy bullets in 6.5mm and a tight target type chambered rifle.
These rifles are already showing up on the used gun rack in my area. No surprise to me in the heavily forested environment where I live. Long range shots here are not the norm.

The 6.5 Creed rifles I'm seeing are all heavy long barreled 12lb affairs.
I like less weight, more portability.
My preference is the Sporter Weight rifles with standard barrels shooting normal weight bullets, a 260 Rem or 7mm/08 is the calibers I would choose.

I don't have either of those, but a 6.5X55 and 7X57 Mauser fills that need adequately. .308 Winchesters and 30-06's are also favorites.

I'd consider a 6.5 Creedmore if it came in Sporter weight configuration and had a twist rate that handled 130~140 grain bullets accurately.

Tuhlmann February 12, 2020 17:48

Never owned one, but I always thought the 7mm-08 was about perfect for an “HP intermediate” round, right after 7.62x51mm of course.

BarnOwlLover February 12, 2020 19:38

I consider anything based on the standard length .308 shell casing to be high power, not high end intermediate since it reproduces .30-06 ballistics, as well as .30-06 levels of recoil and control issues for rapid semi-auto fire.

I'm asking this in the context of a military style round that can be used in a select fire automatic rifle and still be controllable.

I'm having issues considering the 7x49mm Second Optimum an intermediate round, since it fires a 140+ grain bullet at 2700fps. It it produced recoil comparable to 6.5mm Creedmoor or .30 TC then it might be a candidate for most powerful intermediate round.

I'd consider the 6.5 Creedmoor or maybe the original .30 TC that it came from to be maybe the most powerful rounds that can be fired from an assault rifle type rifle. Or maybe like the .276 Pedersen and the 7.35mm Carcano.

W.E.G. February 12, 2020 19:50

Does anybody really think a 130-grain 6.5 bullet delivers NOTICEABLY less recoil than a 150-grain 7.62 bullet?

I get it that if you do the maths for recoil-calculation, the numbers say there is less recoil with the 130's.

But, I've shot 125-grain bullets in 30-06 and .308 guns, and I gotta say, I hardly notice any difference between those 125's versus the 150's if each is loaded near the preferred accuracy range of SAAMI spec pressure.

If you don't need to generate enough pressure to cycle an autoloader, you can always load-down the .30 caliber to the point where you really will notice less recoil. Thing I dislike most about reduced loads is the way the neck doesn't seal when fired. This can result in serious schmootz being blasted back around the case-body and into the shooter's face. The 1903 Springfield is an ESPECIALLY bad offender in this regard. When shooting 38 grains of Varget (normal charge is 50 grains), you better be damn sure you have your shooting glasses on, and better-yet wrap your face so the back-blast schmootz coming around the bolt-head doesn't imbed in your nose and lips.

I'm going to soon be experimenting with Trail Boss and heavy .30 caliber bullets at sub-sonic speeds. That is bound to have noticeably less recoil. Hoping I don't have to dress like Hamas to make it through a testing session without having to wear a grinding-mask.

BarnOwlLover February 12, 2020 20:36

So basically pud-loading .30-06 or .308 is a no go like the Japanese did for the Type 64 rifle?

I'm no ammo designer, but it's notable that .208 British has about a 8mm shorter shell casing than .308/7.62mm NATO, and that the 7.35 Carcano (and 6.5mm Carcano for that matter) and .276 Pedersen have a base/rim diameter similar to 7.62x39mm. The .270 British (which was designed at the same time as the .280 but was abandoned in favor of the .280 in 1948 or '49) also had a base/rim diamater identical to those rounds.

Also, .30 TC was noted as having signifcantly less recoil than .308 or .30-06, for similar velocities and with similar bullet weights (it was designed to use commonly available .308 bullet types). And 6.5x50mm Arisaka had very low recoil for a high powered rifle, and fired 140 grain bullets usually. Even the Fedorov Avtomat was reasonably controllable for a full auto rifle that weighed less than 10 lbs.

Invictus77 February 12, 2020 20:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.G. (Post 4840408)
Does anybody really think a 130-grain 6.5 bullet delivers NOTICEABLY less recoil than a 150-grain 7.62 bullet?

Yes, Blondzilla thinks so :facepalm:

I've been trying to get her to step up from her 243 deer rifle to something with a bit more "knockdown".

She got a black eye and a bloody nose once from a 30-06. It was a bad, rushed, snap shot situation on a deer and was not a good reflection of her abilities. Nonetheless, she got thumped in the face with it. She can shoot an FAL and she can shoot a Garand. A turn-bolt in 30-06 with a scope however she somehow cannot get past mentally.

Last week she shot a friend's 6.5 Creedmoor and loved it. Three shots hitting a 5" then 4" then 3" steel plates at 100 yards. She wants one!

I am now in the market to find her a Creedmoor, which (IMHO, like you) is no less recoil than anything else, but sometimes you must take in the mental aspect in your selection of calibers.

BarnOwlLover February 12, 2020 21:25

If there's so little difference in recoil between .308 and 6.5mm Creedmoor, then why is USSOCOM bothering with it aside from maybe somewhat better long range ballistics?

There was a bit of a debate on HKPro forums about 6.8x51mm/.277 Fury, 6.5mm Creedmoor and .308 Win/7.62x51mm NATO. Especially with what the US Army is looking for with their new ammo, I said why bother when they have the M80A1 ball round that probably can do most of what they want in a rifle.

Not to mention that Sig claim that the .277 Fury can be loaded to 80,000 PSI, which I doubt that any service load will be anywhere near that hot. 7.62 NATO/.308 and .30-06 is normally maxed out at 62-63,000 PSI by CIP and SAMMI.

Aside from USSOCOM looking at 6.5mm Creedmoor in sniper rifles and maybe a version of the Mk48 LMG, wouldn't filling the requirement for a longer ranged round maybe be filled by like the .338 Norma Mag?

jhend170 February 13, 2020 09:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.G. (Post 4840408)
If you don't need to generate enough pressure to cycle an autoloader, you can always load-down the .30 caliber to the point where you really will notice less recoil. Thing I dislike most about reduced loads is the way the neck doesn't seal when fired. This can result in serious schmootz being blasted back around the case-body and into the shooter's face. The 1903 Springfield is an ESPECIALLY bad offender in this regard. When shooting 38 grains of Varget (normal charge is 50 grains), you better be damn sure you have your shooting glasses on, and better-yet wrap your face so the back-blast schmootz coming around the bolt-head doesn't embed in your nose and lips.

WEG, have you tried neck sizing only? You have a military chamber. You know it's going to be generous as function was always more important than accuracy in military arms, so a sloppy chamber is how most military chambers are made. I'm thinking that if you neck size only the case should better fill the chamber, and help with your blow-by issue. It's much the same as an engine with worn rings, if you're not sealing properly you'll get gasses where you don't want them. Help seal the case to the chamber wall a bit better and I bet you deal with a lot less blast to the face.

ftierson February 13, 2020 10:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Invictus77 (Post 4840434)
Yes, Blondzilla thinks so :facepalm:

I've been trying to get her to step up from her 243 deer rifle to something with a bit more "knockdown".

She got a black eye and a bloody nose once from a 30-06. It was a bad, rushed, snap shot situation on a deer and was not a good reflection of her abilities. Nonetheless, she got thumped in the face with it. She can shoot an FAL and she can shoot a Garand. A turn-bolt in 30-06 with a scope however she somehow cannot get past mentally.

Last week she shot a friend's 6.5 Creedmoor and loved it. Three shots hitting a 5" then 4" then 3" steel plates at 100 yards. She wants one!

I am now in the market to find her a Creedmoor, which (IMHO, like you) is no less recoil than anything else, but sometimes you must take in the mental aspect in your selection of calibers

And there is that... :)

I remember the first M94/17 Swedish carbine that I bought in 1964 (in 6.5x55mm, of course, which all the 'spurts glorified as a girlie cartridge) and having it kick the shit out of me with Swedish 156gr military ball and it's nice hard steel buttplate...

Just sayin'... :)

Forrest

W.E.G. February 13, 2020 10:39

Perceived recoil is more a function of FIT of the gun to the shooter than recoil-physics per se.

A big factor in me marrying my wife was her firing the single-barrel 12 gauge with a 3” MAGNUM without even a sniff. But I digress.

The suggestion to neck-size the reduced loads to cut-down the back-spray makes sense. I must try this (as much as it pains me to make ammo for use “only in one particular gun.”

MAINER February 13, 2020 11:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.G. (Post 4840654)
A big factor in me marrying my wife was her firing the single-barrel 12 gauge with a 3” MAGNUM without even a sniff. But I digress.

:uhoh:..................:bow:

BarnOwlLover February 13, 2020 13:24

How about a modern version of the .270 British (6.8/7x46mm)?

It was based on the 6.5/7.35mm Carcano rim/base diameter (virtually identical to 7.62x39mm) and was originally designed to fire a 100 grain bullet at 2800fps, though there was room for using longer and heavier bullets at similar or higher velocities. It (if still produced) can use any bullet that's not just compatible with the 6.8 SPC, but the .270 Winchester.

johnnycobra February 13, 2020 15:06

My 11 year old son hated the recoil of my savage 99 in 308, even with “managed recoil” loads from Remington. He love the CZ550 in 6.5x55. Didn’t bother him a bit.
The Swedish round benefited from being loaded lighter than it had to be from the factory, and is a bit slower than the creedmore, but I doubt it’s a huge difference.

BarnOwlLover February 15, 2020 15:22

So what is an ideal higher end intermediate cartridge that's more powerful than 5.56mm, 7.62x39mm and such?

yovinny February 15, 2020 16:27

Sorry..Im not following your point....at all..
If less power is what your wanting, lighter bullet weights loaded down should do nicely in most any caliber.
Your obviously not speaking of 'intermediate' case or ammo size, as is usually always the case with this subject, as 2 of your 3 original examples are cartridges over 308 length.

BarnOwlLover February 15, 2020 19:13

Yet they produce much less recoil than .308 or 30-06, and much better balistics than 5.56mm or 7.62x39mm, both of which are commonly criticized as being 300m or less rounds as far as being able to hit much of anything, let alone do much damage at that range.

It also doesn't make sense for me for the US Army to be looking at a new basically high power 6.8mm round when 7.62mm NATO can do basically everything they're looking for.

So what would work best? Trying to make a round (or even take one from the past) that's between 5.56mm and 7.62x39mm and 7.62mm NATO in performance, or just either pud-load the .308 or use a rifle with a muzzle brake/compensator for full auto or rapid semi-auto fire?

It should be noted that even .280 British can't fit in a AR-15 or AK-47/74 sized action since the max length of those round for those actions is like 57.5mm. .280 British is 64.5-65mm long, so you'd need basically an AR-10 sized action.

meltblown February 15, 2020 19:29

This thread is ghey. :rofl: I have an A5 shotty that will work your ass over after a box or 2 shooting regular 2 3/4 low brass 8 shot.

ftierson February 15, 2020 20:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by meltblown (Post 4841799)
This thread is ghey. :rofl: I have an A5 shotty that will work your ass over after a box or 2 shooting regular 2 3/4 low brass 8 shot.

There was a time when I had a single barrel M37 Winchester (12ga, 28in, full choke) that would do the same thing in much less than a box or two. I bought it mostly because I paid $18 for it. used (OK, so it was in the early 1980s, but that was still dirt cheap) and it was beautifully made, especially for the price (no crappy scratching (er, I mean, engraving, of course) on the very nice flat sides of the receiver and a nice beech stock.

I don't have it anymore. There are times that I regret selling it because it evoked a time when Winchester made really nice, inexpensive stuff, but then I remember shooting it and regret it less...

And, like yovinny, I also wonder what the point is here even after the 'explanation.'

Forrest

W.E.G. February 15, 2020 22:12

I ordered a 300 BO pistol kit on Valentine's Day.

Palmetto is the love I love to hate.

In an "intermediate" sort of way..

I mean really, who can't love a "handgun" that is accurate to 100 yards.

I makes sense in a doesn't-make-sense sort of way.

Which in this climate makes sense to me.

More shit to move I guess.

Stop making sense!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-__aX0ApT7w" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:51.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2019 The FAL Files