5.56x45mm NATO rounds are better than 7.62x39nm rounds

Show video of you doing it

Snazzy original comeback.

Revolutionary. Quick, go tell the Russians to develop a small-caliber AK to replace the 7.62x39 AKM.

Faggot.

Attached: cat_irritated.jpg (622x621, 70K)

Even a manlet can do it.
youtu.be/ShDmHDwqJdQ

>5.56x45mm NATO rounds are better than 7.62x39nm rounds
This is true, but consider than 7.62 is a much older cartridge designed for a different era of propellant and construction techniques. A M855 wouldn't even be possible when 7.62 was designed.

Besides in a few years 6.5 will eclipse both these cartridges.

You're completely right and everyone with infantry combat experience knows it; so expect a lot of ignorance and deliberate contrarianism.

>so expect a lot of ignorance and deliberate contrarianism.
>literally everyone in thread agrees with him including 7.62 fanboys
Get off your pedestal you aren't special.

Nogunz

Right, that's why first hand experience in Afghanistan shaped the armys request for a round that could outperform the 5.56 and extend lethality and accuracy out to 400 meters. 5.56 leaves a lot to be desired.

>>life on the bandwagon

>fighting the last war

the next war will be nukes so why bother with small arms?

LOL right user.... keep believing those lies

What lies? Have you fired 5.56 from an m4 at ranges from 25-300 meters on pop up targets at various elevations?
It's not exactly a "flat" trajectory, it doesn't "buck the wind" at range and does not carry a whole lot of "stopping" power at range.
A simple 308 necked down to take a 130, 140gr 6.8(270) with a slight pressure increase would be a massive improvement.

The fact that you say 556 is a varmint round means you either have no gun experience and no guns, or 1 rifle chambered in 30-06 or 308.

If human sized targets are varmint, then I agree. 5.56 has got a lot of fucking power behind it. My m193s routinely go through 1/4" thick steel plates at 150m. Yeah yeah yeah if were talking 600m performance you probably want something heftier, but it still works.

So shut the hell up with your nonsense. Bullets are bullets.

Attached: 533nlxuoeq521.jpg (1040x813, 519K)

For that matter a 308 is a massive improvement.

>t. Elmer

>>responds to conversation about trajectory, wind and distance with bullshit childlike nonsense and vague claim trying to ad hominem his way out.

Come back comparing trajectory, weight, speed and sectional densities of your preferred round vs 140gr moving 3200.
Then we can talk shop kid.

*6.8* 140gr 3200
Outside the meme
>>too much recoil
There is no reason to use 556. It is a hot .22. It is literally a varmint round that can be used on deer. Especially in Texas.

556 isn't even the best hot .22
People just scamper to military shit thinking it is the best. It seldom is. Its usually just a compromise made on qualifiers that do not apply to the average citizen.

That's because 5.56 is obsolete, just like 7.62x39 was obsolete when better powders and manufacturing techniques made multimetal cartridges easier to make. Now computer modelling and even better powders are making rounds like 6.5 outperform fucking 7.62x54mm NATO rounds!!!

Also our assault combat ranges went from 150m in WWII to 300m right post war to 300m in vietnam and korea, to 500m now.

Range issues? They aren't lies mate, that's why 7.62x54mm NATO was requested by every unit in Afghanistan and those that didn't get supplied them actually got personal hunting rifles shipped there.

6.5 is comparable to 7.62x39mm NATO, because it loses energy slower over time. The 7.62 energy is dropping faster so there comes a point around 800m where the 6.5 has actually more energy which is ridiculous.

This article is funny, but it's also serious analysis
thetruthaboutguns.com/6-5-creedmoor-vs-308-winchester/

Attached: 6.5-creedmoor-vs-308-trajectory.jpg (1024x463, 126K)

Its not that there aren't better rounds, there are plenty of better calibers than 5.56. The fact is that its readily available, cheap as far as the guns and the rounds go, and its effectiveness on human targets at realistic engagement ranges has been demonstrated for decades.

Cover pretty much negates any ballistic advantage that the 5.56 has, but as far as open/soft targets at close to medium range goes, there is nothing wrong with it or its killing potential.

>7.62x39mm NATO

also
>7.62x54mm NATO
>7.62x54mm NATO

You need to compare bullets with similar SD's at similar speeds. Of course you are going to get favorable results if you use cases with similar a capacity and neck it down so you can fire a bullet with a higher sd faster.

Not to mention any advancement in case, powder and metallurgy technology is useful across the board. It can be applied to "308" as equally as any other round.

Its effectiveness is debatable if a direct comparison is made to other calibers still being fielded and those it replaced.

Years of people tinkering with the scout rifle concept have proven what you are claiming to he untrue or irrelevant.

I fucked up I'm not perfect. I'm only 99.99999% of the way to ultimate perfection.

Creed has 3.4cm3 case cap, .308 has 3.6cm3. So even though its shooting a more massive round with more propellant at higher initial velocity it still slows down faster.

This is because of the SHAPE of the bullet itself, it's more streamlined and aerodynamic, which extends the range.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient

Attached: 1567270215355.jpg (1024x463, 122K)

Go look up sd(section densities) and then re read what I wrote and come back to the conversation.

In case you can not be bothered let me help you out.
Compare 7mm08, 308, and 338 federal.
You will start to understand where each shines and why. Now compare the three hand loaded with bullets of a similar sd.
Now the butter zone for case volume (as well as neck) will show itself.
6.5 isn't magical. It depends on a large number of factors. Every bullet size has a "magic hour" bullet weight, sd. Its about the case size that can take advantage of that. 270(6.8) is inside that zone with the 308 sized case, neck. So is 6.5.

Let's not forget that magazine dictates how long it can be. A longer high sd bullet is further back and limits powder capacity.
7mm08, 308, 338 federal

Attached: 308-Win-338-Fed-7-08-Rem-copy-675x900.jpg (675x900, 72K)

Not unless it's from a 20" barrel with M193

Sectional density is a component of the ballistic coefficient.....

Bullets with higher ballistic coefficient have larger sectional density, always, it's a related metric....

>6.5 isn't magical
WHERE DID ANYONE SAY IT WAS

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO TURN THIS INTO A FUCKING ONLINE ARGUMENT

WHY CANT YOU JUST DISCUSS SHIT LIKE A CIVILIZED PERSON

>39nm
WOW! Are these rounds used for shooting up the DNA or viruses or something?

Attached: 1563006283807.jpg (1024x768, 97K)

Now start figuring the volume of a cylinder. 338 federal takes advantage of a better gas expansion runway in same sized barrels and posts the numbers on the front half to have a clear advantage inside 100 yards.
Shit isn't black and white. There are a lot of factors that need be considered.

FUCKING REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE BRING BACK HAYTCHAN
I HAVE NOT HAD A REAL DISCUSSION ABOUT GUNS IN AN MONTHS

It's not an argument. You made a claim about 6.5 based on a mismatch comparison without looking at all the factors.
Dont get your panties in a bunch.

Deflection

>>I just want to say things are better without providing evidence that actually supports what I said and having to actually discuss the matter at hand like an adult.

Well yeah OP, theres not much mass to a 7.62x39 nanometer bullet. But recoil isnt an issue unless you are a vegetable

whats it like being illiterate

"Sectional density (SD) is the numerical result of a calculation that compares a bullet's weight to its diameter"
>>fuck me this conversation isn't going to go anywhere

I compared mass, velocity and energy, ballistic coefficient, case capacity. It's better at range in every way because the ballistic coefficient is better. You come back at me and bring up sectional density, as if its a new factor, when it's actually a component of ballistic coefficent. Then you claim I said 6.5 is "magical". Nigger no one mentioned magic, you're strawmanning and clutching at random terms hoping the strawman will make me mad and the new term will be something I don't know. Well at least you made me mad. If you want to have an online argument with strawmen and insults where neither of us benefits or learns anything new just to protect your fucking epeen -

I

Can

Do

That

Too

Faggot I was right and you were wrong.

>>cant read

I provided sources you provided nothing, go fuck yourself. I am right you are wrong and that means you lost the online argument.

That's one way to leave a room when you cant keep up.

>>look ma I necked down a cartridge to take a longer bullet of a smaller diameter now I am going to show you why it's better. Lol
Epic dotard

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient#Formulae
>M = mass
>A = cross-sectional area
>ρ = density
>l = characteristic body length
Sectional density is how long is the longest line you can draw through an object per unit mass. A sphere has the lowest sectional density, a needle has the highest sectional density. Conversely a sphere has the shittiest ballistic coefficient and a needle has the best ballistic coefficient. It is a DIRECT RELATIONSHIP.

The only way sectional density wouldn't relate to BC is if the bullet was being launched sideways.

>>fuck me this conversation isn't going to go anywhere
NONONONO YOU wanted to turn this into an online argument, it's now an online argument, shit eating cunt. I hope your mother gets venereal diseases from all the niggers she fucks.

Still here throw your weak sauce on me mate.

could have been a nice thread but you had to insult the autist by calling his math "magic"

I'm trying to think what would be better though.

.22-250 is too damn hot for high volume fire, and 1:14 twists mean 60gr bullets max. .220 Swift is just as bad. .224 Valk and .22 Nosler provide about 300-400fps additional oomph over 5.56 for a given bullet weight, but reduce magazine capacity a bit.

What's left?

So you are ready to compare the 6.5 creedmore to a 30cal and cartridge that is an equal comparison?
I'll ignore its wee temper tantrum. Ignorance can cause anger.

Up the bullet weight and size and blow out the case giving it a round shoulder

I already made a more than fair comparison over here .308 has more case capacity so the "necked down" argument is cancelled, out of an inferior position the 6.5 turns superior because of BC or SD if you want to be a faggot.

Do you have a second argument?

> round shoulder
Nah, man. Nah. I know where this is going, and none of us have that kind of money just lying around.

Attached: 224-wby-magnum.jpg (880x660, 123K)

>Bullets with higher ballistic coefficient have larger sectional density, always

Acktchually... ballistic coefficient also depends on the shape of the bullet, not just mass and cross-sectional area. You could have two bullets of equal area and mass implying equal SD, but one is a round nose and the other is a boat-tail spitzer and the spitzer would have a higher BC.

It is true that for a given shape and material a longer, more massive bullet would have a higher BC and higher SD but the "always" statement is not appropriate.

Itt:
>556 is 22lr but a lil faster
>7.62x51 is big man BIG MAN CALIBER
>6.X memebullet is magic

No you didn't and you used G1 bcs that simply were not designed for what we are doing.
You need to directly compare sd, speed, out of cases that allow both to achieve the same.
For the purposes of your silly claim factory 180gr loads in a 300h&h will get you to a place you can compare against the 6.5 creedmore 140gr @280

That's true but how would you have one be good but the other not? Weld a nail to a steel cup at the ass end? Then it would have good sectional density but poor ballistic coefficient.

These are extreme examples, we're talking about bullets here, no one is trying to make it shitty. In all the cases mentioned so far SD is related to BC.

>No you didn't
Why don't you finish that claim with an explanation.

I honestly can't keep up with the absolute faggots in this thread.

Posted article about how military is looking at 6.5 to replace 7.62, posted graphs and data showing its better, the reply is
>No you didn't
And he just carries on like none of the source material is there.

I would get better conversation out of a volleyball.

Attached: castaway-wilson.jpg (400x233, 30K)

The fuck are you talking about "finish" are you that draft? Same speeds, same drop, more energy downrange for the 300H&H downrange. Without your wind drift figures I cant compare but feel free using 180gr tbt for the 30 cal if you want.
In an equal comparison 30 cal come out on top.
>>but muh, muh case.
Again dipshit you can neck any case up and down to find the butter zone. In a 308 sized case it is probably 6.8 or 7mm not 6.5 if you do the math.

>>but I was trying to compare a shitty short for caliber bullet to a long for caliber bullet designed for target practice to make me look like I knew what the fuck I was talking about.

>The fuck are you talking about "finish" are you that draft?
>tries to lecture on grammar, fails hard
The fucking cringe... You said my sources aren't good, finish the argument and explain why they are bad sources and bad data. You don't get to just say "naaaah uuuuuh" and moonwalk away pissant.

Or post at least one source of your own that counters it, I've yet to see anything out of you but bluster.

My TL;DR version is that for a given powder load, there's a bullet weight range where you can keep a lot of velocity down range.
> .308 powder charge = 105gr .243 to .143gr .264 bullets, depending on if you'd rather race to the target or retain energy on the way
> .30-06 powder charge = .270 Win but they fucked that one up with twist rates so .280 Rem with 162gr .284 bullets
> .300 Win Mag with 200-220gr .308 bullets (God help your shoulder on a

Realistically the 180gr np is still carrying 1395 at 500 and has only dropped 47 inches.
Your comparison was completely bullshit to favor your round.

This is you being
>>wrong
And called out for using a bullshit comparison.

What about 5.56 vs 5.45?

And I'm trying to point out that ballistic coefficient matters just as much, and most bullet shapes out there are not optimized for having the highest possible BC while still being able to penetrate cover AND deal damage to a body.

But its also much heavier, in my comparison one is 150gr and other is 143gr. You want to ramp it up to 180gr vs 143gr and say that's fair, I'm sorry but no.

Still waiting on
>argument
>sources
Feel free to provide either anytime mate we are 1000% ready to receive your knowledge.

Just for a visual that's
.4 @500 drop, 1308 for a 143gr 6.5
Vs
@500 drop 1395 for a 180gr

You think 6.5 is fucking better how?

>>trying to compare bullets of similar weight but different diameters.
What a fucking moron.

>optimized for having the highest possible BC
> pen and frage without yaw
Probably a monolothic then, except apparently 70gr tsx turn into a fucking flat head bolt when they hit a steel Russian magazine reating in a Chicom instead of killing the jihadi.

So you'll end up with something like the m855a1 where you have a bullet that sacrifices BC on shape in order to have a hard penetrator and a jacket that instantly opens up and goes to pieces.

Still waiting on you to make an argument that isn't stupid.
>>der de der a smaller diameter bullet is better downrange than a larger diameter bullet the same weight.
I'll take things retards think is profound for 1000 alex.

>trying to compare bullets of vastly different masses and diameters
What a disingenuous twat.

Penetration is dependent on what you are shooting through. Pointed bullets in large game animals are easily deflected and round nose tend to travel straight when thick bone like elephant skull bone is in question.

Optimal weight and length for caliber compared instead of a comparison of what is the optimal for one and not for the other.
The only thing disingenuous around here is your Google foo ass. Boy.

Still waiting for you to make any argument. Any. And provide any source please.

>performance differences have to be "profound"
>if they arent "profound" then the enemy wont die
>obvious performance differences arent effective
OOOOOKKK

Thread is literally about comparing different calibers mate, you created an artificial limit in your head and have been punishing me for not meeting your standard. Instead of both of us meeting the standard of the OP.

Kindly leave.

Are you suggesting 6.5 and 30cal are the same diameter? Because you made the comparison...

You created and artificial gap in performance that does not exist by insisting everyone stay in your dishonest comparison parameters. You then tried to act as an authority on the matter despite the fact it is obvious you have no long range experience.

> pointed bullets are easily deflected
Is that still the case for modern mettalurgy and design? Like we have evidence that guys using 300gr .338 bullets aren't making it through elephant skulls?

I've met some fucking obvious twunts on here that try to fake the funk, but you take the cake. This isn't the first time either.

One of them is slightly heavier, but it has more case capacity which makes up for it. Both mass, case capacity and velocity are all accounted for in the ENERGY they started at, which is bigger for the .308.

Arguing over any of those factors, to reiterate:
>mass
>case capacity
>velocity
>energy
Being somehow not in favor of the .308 is retarded.

Over the course of this thread I've seen every single one of those issues brought up even though they're all accounted for and nullified.

The ONLY factor which remains is caliber, yes the diameter which changes the ballistic coefficient of a cartridge, and my assertion that making a bullet thinner and longer is a fucking improvement for the front lines.

See

You are exceeding the margins where we would be able to tell. Magnum 338 rounds would at least make it in and the temporary secondary wound channel or "energy dump" would probably obliterate a pretty decent sized chunk of skill.
Woodleigh still make solid rounds for the slower shooting large rounds so one would think it still holds true.

Do a water test. What holds longer through jugs of water?

>>my assertion that making a bullet thinner and longer is a fucking improvement for the front lines.

Your assertion should be that you design the case and rifle to fire the optimally sized bullet for the caliber chose to begin with. Your statement is stupid.

Somebody should make the 6.5 creedmore thinner and longer so it will be better
>>tard logic

Attached: the-absolute-madman-he-did-it.jpg (1024x512, 137K)

When I was younger I saw a comparison through plywood,ice and water where pointed did not fare well compared to round solids as far as straight travel but it was only one test.