6.5 PRC SOCOM Should have waited?

After reading all I could of SOCOMs testing and finally adopting the 6.5CM over .260 Remington (which performed the same) and 7.62x51, I was left wondering. Hornady released the 6.5 PRC (Precision Rifle Cartridge) right around the start of the SOCOM testing. The 6.5 PRC out performs the 6.5CM, the .260 Remington, and the 7.62x51 by far. It matches .300 Win Mag performance from a lighter weapon, with less recoil. I guess the only down side to the 6.5 PRC is it requires a magnum bolt face. Then again so does the .300 Win Mag. Has anyone heard of another ammo manufacture getting into the 6.5 PRC game. There are a number of rifles being chambered in it already.

Well...good luck getting that to run in a semi-auto at a reliability level acceptable for .mil use. Semi-auto 308's are only finally coming into their own.

If you look at numbers of other cartridges of the short magnum/ultra magnum persuasion, the 6.5 PRC isn't that great of a performer by comparison to those.

It's also about logistics too. Barrel life, recoil management and keeping a system up an running long enough for a work up. Luckily you can do as you please, If you dig it have at it.

I don't think it is a good idea for all of the above aforementioned reasons. Also the magazines, bolt face, and OAL requirements of the AR platform really handicap magnum/short magnum cartridges.

Lots of work has already been done by Armalite adapting an AR-10 to shoot the 300 SAUM. It worked OK but wasn't the ballistic wonder it was hoped to be due to OAL and mag issues. Long term there were issues with extractor life as it was thinned to accommodate the larger bolt face. In comparison the archictecture of the AR works very well with the 6.5 Creed, existing mags are suitable, and reliability is good.

The other thing big issue with the 6.5 PRC is barrel life. No way that it is even close to the smaller 6.5 cartridges, which aren't great anyways.

The 6.5CM is kind of like the 300WIN, at least ballistically, not on energy. The 6.5PRC seems to be underspeed for what it should be and it doesn’t have a 200+ grain bullet option like the 300Win has over the 308WIN 175s- the CM and PRC both shoot the 147s class. If the PRC could launch at 160-170gr at 2800-2900, then you’d have a more compelling case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dano5326

6.5PRC not going to out perform afore mentioned rounds in a barrel length suitable for service weapons.

OAL length suitable for what?

The geometry of 6.5PRC unknown in self-loading weapons, would take years to evolve the reliability.

The 300 or more importantly the 300NormaMag throw a more substantial projectile which has significantly better terminal effects and kicks up more splash for spotting purposes.

300 & 338 Norma are the new defacto baseline for LR military work

6.5 PRC doesn't band to a requirement I can think of.

---

This nails it.
The immediate need for 6.5CM is to increase capability of in-service semi-auto platforms, with in-service magazines, based on years of data accumulation, with manufacturer support. 6.5 PRC is not in that space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dano5326

The 300 or more importantly the 300NormaMag throw a more substantial projectile which has significantly better terminal effects and kicks up more splash for spotting purposes.

---

I'm a fan of this... and have yet to find affection for the 6.5 genre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Failure2Stop

This nails it.
The immediate need for 6.5CM is to increase capability of in-service semi-auto platforms, with in-service magazines, based on years of data accumulation, with manufacturer support. 6.5 PRC is not in that space.

---

So the new kid on the block semi-vaporware isn't a viable option? :D

A lot of people haven't seen the perspective from some important angles:

* Dismounted, small units feeding rifles out of magazines carried on their load bearing kit, who have to be able to maneuver with the rest of their Team/Squad/Platoon in various terrains across the theaters
* Barrel life in the formal sniping courses being taught at Bragg, Pendleton, Quantico, and elsewhere

In my opinion, having had to do this as an end-user, even the .308-based cartridges are too heavy and take up too much physical volume on your kit, with detrimental off-axis mass from your body's core, especially when factoring in plates. From a practical perspective, not much changes in that regard with the 6.5 CM or .260 Rem unless you shoot 123gr-130gr compared to 175gr M118LR, and it's still marginal. Performance is there, and the units already have multiple dedicated ELR cartridges and rifles ranging from 300 Win Mag to .50 BMG. That's not what SOCOM was looking for when soliciting for the SSR.

6.5CM has plenty of performance for what the SSR is, far exceeding the .308's performance, supersonic reach, wind deflecting abilities, with slightly less recoil.

The problem driven by the .308-based actions is weight and bulk of the receiver set and mags. The ArmaLite/Colt AR10A that was supposed to be mass-produced starting in 1959 addressed the receiver bulk and weight with a smaller frame and AR15 LOP, but was almost forgotten in time until Colt did the 901, then DPMS did the GII.

One problem they will see in the school houses relative to existing M118LR .308 rifles like the SR25 and M110 is reduced barrel life, so that armorers will have to have a higher volume of supply lined up to keep those rifles shooting at consistent speeds so students don't get short-changed for record fire like what was happening with the SEAL Sniper course and .300 Win Mag. The good thing is that the AR design is very easy to service from a barrel replacement standpoint, without any need to send back to manufacturers.

Any conversations about a 6.5 PRC, .300 Norma, or magnum-class cartridges is irrelevant to the SSR and the SOCOM Assault Machinegun.