http://strawpoll.me/7026753
>>29193291
>Tfw we had 6.5 swede FALs on trial.
Wonder what happened to them.
.260 Remington is the most efficient overall
.243 is also good, but I guess 6mm might be too small for some.
>>29193309
True
>>29193291
7.62x39mm
>7.62x39mm
7.62x39mm
>7.62x39mm
7.62x39mm
>7.62x39mm
7.62x39mm
>7.62x39mm
>>29193688
>7.62x39
>Battle rifle
>NATO standard
Spotted the retard.
>>29193737
what about .243?
That's a deer cartridge.
>>29193302
If only the FAL weren't inherently inaccurate, that've been amazing to have
>>29193744
243 would be dumb too, barrel would be gone quick.
this. too bad it came too late.
>>29193291
>.280 British
>Battle Rifle Round
7mm NATO was an assualt rifle cartridge. Too bad the US and NATO were too stupid to adopt two cartridges for battle rifles and for assualt rifles at the time till 'Nam came
>>29194271
adopting two cartridges was the stupid move. people who didn't have their heads up their asses already knew that 7.62x51 was suboptimal.
8mm mauser 2bh
>>29193309
bingo
.276 Pedersen is GOAT
>>29194381
I was going to add that but I felt like NATO wouldn't have adopted it because the ebil not z's
>>29193744
>Shifting the goalpost.
The .243 is still better than x39 while people hunt deer with 5.56.
>>29193860
>barrel would be gone quick.
>Less energy than .308
>Barrel is bored out from .308 thick bar.
>Twist is 1:8
>Common load is soft points.
>>29193744
.243 is fine
In some ways, it's a better 1000 yard cartridge than even the 6.5mm (.260/.264) diameter due to the ability to push the low drag bullets to high velocities, all with little recoil.
The lighter bullet weights and smaller diameter probably work against it for material effects. After all, you battle rifle will share a round with your GPMG, and the latter do need to shoot up stuff like lightly armored cars, houses and shit.
.260 is the perfect compromise, as you get .300 WM range with high penetration. Recoil is more, but then, you're only shooting semi-auto with a battle rifle.
6.5x55 master race.
>>29194886
YES
6.5 Swedish is probably the best cartridge between full-power and intermediate. Ballistics-wise anyhow
>>29194574
Why not? 8mm mauser probaly has the best ballistics for a full powered cartridge. The cartridge has been in use since before ww1. By that logic 9mm is le ebil nazi 30 caliber boolet.
>>29194886
>>29194914
.260 Remington does it better with a 6.5mm projectile.
6.5x51mm in metric
all depends on what exactly you're using it for.
for big game hunting in the southeast the 243 and 260 are fine, 270 is excellent. my favorite in recent yrs however is the 25-06. gun has low recoil and the round is awesome...flies fast and flat and hits hard. most deer stop in their tracks or just go a short distance. pro tip: for hogs don't for the typical kill zone, aim either at the base of the ear or just behind and below on the neck.
id probably run a 6.5 grendel with 123 grain matchkings out of a 16 inch barrel if given the choice. throw a 3.5x35 acog on there with an accurate bdc reticle.
.277 wolverine is the best choice. too bad you didn't include it on the poll.
>>29195447
since 55mm can carry more propellant than 51mm, why does the 51mm do better?
>>29193291
>People not voting .280 British
I hate my fellow Americans so fucking much
>MUH THUDDY CAL
>>29194333
.280 British was literally perfect for the military, since it was a universal cartridge for both rifles/carbines and general-purpose machineguns.
But we Americans were insistent on having a .30 caliber "full power" cartridge.
Are all the idiots posting in this thread missing the "SHOULD HAVE BEEN" at the top of this poll?
Obviously it doesn't make sense to ditch 7.62x51 now, we're talking about if it had never been.
>>29196983
The actual geometry of a cartridge determines a lot about it's performance, beyond just the powder capacity.
>>29195447
.260 Remington is also over a hundred years younger than 6.5x55
>>29196983
Cartridge width is also important for determining propellant density
Though in the .260's case, it's proofed to a higher pressure, so you can load hotter powder per volume.
>>29195407
>8mm mauser probaly has the best ballistics for a full powered cartridge
among military loads maybe, but only because the sS bullet was GOAT.
>>29197001
I feel ya, m8
>>29193291
>all these heretics who want to get rid of 7.62x51 for something that did fuck all
I smell me some faggots.
>>29197001
.308 is better than .280 Brit
>>29197062
the only thing i know is that the angle of the neck matters. but if two cartridges have the same powder capacity i would think they would propel the same bullet similarly. i dont know. can you give me some links where i can read more about this. thanks
>>29197376
it's so good that it was largely replaced by a varmint cartridge a few years after its introduction.
>>29193302
Sweden yes happened
>>29197001
kek
.308 and 7.62x51.
look at m1 garand or FAL, simply great.
>>29196091
well if youre doing that then we may as well throw .240 tomahawk in there
>>29197607
fatter cartridges also tend to do better than longer cartridges of the same capacity
>>29193848
Elaborate
>>29193302
.280 British is the original caliber
>>29193309
.243 is identical to 6mm, skippy. Only difference is the case size. I'd go 6mm all the way for long ranges. Shoots flat as fuck
7.62x54mmR master race
>>29200288
Depends on if we are saying what we should do now or should have done then?
>No .300 Win mag
What is the effect of a more extreme case shoulder angle? like why do precision cartridges tend to the 30-40 degree angles while others tend to 20-25?
>>29201277
>7.62x54mmR
>54mmR
>54mm
>mm
Idiot.
>>29202003
what?
>>29202003
literally addicted to memes and shitposting
take a break son god damn
>>29197013
>perfect for the military
>rainbow trajectory
>perfect
>>29202088
54mm is bigger than a skateboard wheel
>>29202099
One time =/= addiction.
>>29202215
>54mm is bigger than a skateboard wheel
and? 7.62 NATO's case length is 51mm, only three millimeters less.
I sincerely don't understand why anyone but a military sniper would have rifles in anything but
>.22lr
>5.56mm
>.308
I mean, unless you just gotta be special or you're hunting moose at over 1000 yards or something.
7.7x58mm only answer
>>29202241
I... may have derped. lolz
>Not 7.7x58mm
What's wrong? Don't like Japanese superiority?
>>29202252
>>29202315
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ0emX5RgZQ
>>29202188
16"s more arc difference at the maximum, between 500-600 yards, compared to 30-06.
>engaging targets with the standard issue service rifle at 600 yards is something that totally happens and is relevant to the discussion
>also, Arfcom tier fags bringing up 'rainbow' trajectory of .280 British over 700 yards from the army trials, yet simultaneously constantly shitposting about secret squirrel edition 5.56 rifles with 14.5" barrels.
>yfw you realize you're a tremendous moron for every mentioning trajectory
>>29193291
There is absolutely no reason not to use 6.5 over 7.62.
6.5 has superior ballistics in EVERY scenario. This poll simply elucidates the fact the majority of this board doesn't own guns, nor has any knowledge of firearms. Fucking embarrassing lot of cucks.
