SIGforum.com Main Page The Mason-Howe Rifle Room "New Rifles Chambered In 6.5mm Creedmoor Heading To U.S. Special Operations Armories"
Main Page The Mason-Howe Rifle Room "New Rifles Chambered In 6.5mm Creedmoor Heading To U.S. Special Operations Armories"Page 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Member |
New Rifles Chambered In 6.5mm Creedmoor Heading To U.S. Special Operations Armories The new Mid-Range Gas Gun-Assault will give U.S. special operators a rifle option for greater reach, accuracy, and ballistic performance. Joseph Trevithick Aug 26, 2025 7:16 PM EDT US. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) recently awarded a contract for new rifles chambered to fire the 6.5mm Creedmoor round to Lewis Machine & Tool (LMT). The Mid-Range Gas Gun-Assault (MRGG-A) rifles will give special operators greater reach, as well as improved accuracy and terminal performance against targets at those longer ranges. The Pentagon quietly announced the deal for the MRGG-As (sometimes also referred to as Medium-Range Gas Gun-Assault or Mid-Range Gas Gun-Assaulter rifles) in its daily contracting announcement on August 22. The contract, which covers “medium range gas gun-assault kits, spare parts and accessories, new equipment training, and engineering change proposals,” has a maximum ceiling of $92 million and runs through August 14, 2035... Complete article: https://www.twz.com/land/new-r...-operations-armories FWIW, LMT is five miles NW of me in ELdridge IA. | ||
|
| Freethinker |
Fascinating. I have received emails recently from an ammunition vendor listing “government contract” 6.5 Creedmoor ammunition, and I could only think, “What?” I know the cartridge had been adopted by one (a few?) agencies, including, IIRC, DHS, but to the point of now having contract ammo overruns—? I am a little bemused, though, by wanting better long range performance and then specifying a 14.5 inch barrel. It would really be interesting to know who came up with that length as somehow optimal for our war-fighting rifles and why. That it became a darling of civilian shooters as a consequence is of course perfectly understandable but for forces that actually engage dangerous foes—? I suppose maybe it’s so those guns can be used to clear 10×10 rooms without getting hung up in the burka of some woman aggressively defending her terrorist husband.  ► 6.0/94.0 “I can’t give you brains, but I can give you a diploma.” — The Wizard of Oz | |||
|
Mistake Not... |
Is this the same configuration as the British rifle that was recently chosen? ___________________________________________ Life Member NRA & Washington Arms Collectors Mistake not my current state of joshing gentle peevishness for the awesome and terrible majesty of the towering seas of ire that are themselves the milquetoast shallows fringing my vast oceans of wrath. Velocitas Incursio Vis - Gandhi The good thing is that if Plan A fails, there are 25 other letters in the alphabet. | |||
|
Member |
The chambering and ballistics of the 6.5 Creedmoor seems a good match. I like the round but don’t own one. I have a few milsurps in 6.5 Swede, then a modern CZ in the same. With that I don’t feel the need for a Creedmoor. | |||
|
| Member |
6.5CM makes a lot of sense. The cartridge still performs well in many ways from a 14.5" barrel, just not as well as from an 18-20 inch barrel. The 6.5CM's primary downside compared to 308 Win is that effective barrel life for a given level of accuracy is cut in half. | |||
|
| Freethinker |
My question is not why the 6.5, but why a 14.5 inch barrel on a weapon whose cartridge chambering was supposedly chosen for longer range shooting. I’m guessing that doctrine will have it used with a suppressor and therefore a shorter barrel would keep it from becoming too long, but even that is a puzzle. I’m obviously not privy to the considerations that went into the decision, but on its face based on what I know about the cartridge and how such rifles are (likely to be) used it doesn’t seem to make sense. Fortunately, though, it wasn’t my decision and my opinions and/or questions will have no effect on anything. And perhaps it will result in the availability of less expensive 6.5 Creedmoor ammunition to use in my WC-10.  ► 6.0/94.0 “I can’t give you brains, but I can give you a diploma.” — The Wizard of Oz | |||
|
Shall Not Be Infringed |
Such threads are worthless without pics...   ____________________________________________________________ If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !! Trump 47....Making America Great Again! "May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20 Live Free or Die! | |||
|
| Shall Not Be Infringed |
The answers you seek are discussed from 1:30-2:30 in this video with Joe Hajny from LMT. *Spoiler Alert* - Apparently 6.5 Creedmoor w/ a 14.5" barrel 'flat' outperforms .308 Win w/ a 20" barrel. ____________________________________________________________ If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !! Trump 47....Making America Great Again! "May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20 Live Free or Die! | |||
|
| Freethinker |
Thanks. But everyone knows that the 308 Winchester cartridge is a large portion of feces and therefore saying the 6.5 is a better round is like saying that the 454 Casull is better for defense against grizzlies than the 25 ACP, so what does that prove? (Yes, , but only slightly.) When choosing a new cartridge, or for that matter, a new gun, car, refrigerator, computer printer, or anything else, what we normally look at is its overall performance and features, not just if it’s better in some way than the old one. If, for example, I were a police chief seeking a new duty handgun and cartridge, I’d be looking at much more than if the gun was more reliable than the old one after it had been immersed in a mud slurry bath—unless, of course, being able to function after being immersed in a mud slurry bath was the most important feature of our duty weapons. So, it still doesn’t answer my question: If the reason for the switch is that the 6.5 performs better at longer ranges than the 308, why reduce its potential effectiveness by handicapping it by being fired from a shorter-than-necessary barrel? If, for example, and without looking up the exact claims, it would be effective at 2500 meters with a 14.5" barrel but would be effective at 6000 meters with a 20" barrel because it’s such a fantastic round, why not the latter? What is the overriding advantage of that magic 14.5? Because it’s so superior to the 308, I’m sure it would still be better with a 12" or 10" or perhaps even a 3.5" barrel if compactness when clearing those 10×10 rooms is also an important factor—no? But when shooting at long ranges and considering bullet drop, wind drift, and terminal ballistics, more velocity equals better performance and longer barrels usually produce higher velocities. (And also yes, I know that competitors don’t need to worry about terminal ballistics, but it’s often an important factor in military combat.) Yes, I’m obviously being sarcastic at this point but I truly don’t understand the point of making the weapon’s barrel shorter than necessary for its ostensible purpose which, presumably, is not regular support of clearing little rooms when a few inches of barrel length would make the difference between success and failure. Anyway, as I say it was not my decision and I’m sure it will all become clear to me at some point. And thanks again for the video; I may have a chance to watch it at some point. ► 6.0/94.0 “I can’t give you brains, but I can give you a diploma.” — The Wizard of Oz | |||
|
| Member |
This reminds me of the bullshit verbiage and data that Rob Silvers presented when comparing the new uber-amazing 300 blackout to 5.56. IIRC Rob compared the ballistics of a 110 copper highish BC bullet to the 55 FMJ. Compare the 300blk to a decent 73-77 grain bullet and the results are different. I have virtually identical bolt actions as a starting point. A 6.5CM with a 26" Bartlein and a 308 Win with a 23" Bartlein. I will compare Hornady factory ammo -- 140 ELD-M in the 6.5 and 168 ELD-M in the 308. My 6.5 produces an average MV of 2800 fps, and the 308 does 2777 fps. I calculated best-guess MVs from various websites that chopped barrels from full-length down to 16" or SBR. I suspect the 140 ELD will produce MV of 2550 fps in a 14.5" barrel, and the 168 ELD will produce MV of 2710 in a 20" barrel. Of course -- use different inputs and the output data changes. I used JBM Ballistics for dope projections, 2" sight height, air DA of 3,000 feet -- typical summer conditions for low ASL altitude. 250 yards 6.5 has drop of 3.2 MOA, 10mph drift of 1.4 MOA, bullet at Mach 1.99, kinetic energy of 1541 foot pounds 308 has drop of 2.8 MOA, 10mph drift of 1.5 MOA, bullet at Mach 2.08, kinetic energy of 2014 foot pounds 500 yards 6.5 drops 11.1 MOA, drifts 3.0 MOA, 1.72 Mach, 1155 pounds 308 drops 10.1 MOA, drifts 3.2 MOA, 1.76 Mach, 1449 pounds 750 yards 6.5 drops 21.4 MOA, drifts 4.8 MOA, 1.47 Mach, 847 pounds 308 drops 19.8 MOA, drifts 5.3 MOA, 1.47 Mach, 1013 pounds 1000 yards 6.5 drops 34.2 MOA, drifts 7.0 MOA, 1.24 Mach, 603 pounds 308 drops 32.4 MOA, drifts 7.7 MOA, 1.21 Mach, 680 pounds LMT would not have invited me to be a part of their promotional video. I continue to believe that 6.5CM is a great cartridge, and that it offers some significant benefits over 308. Let's be honest -- 308 is getting a bit long in the tooth. But to state that an SBR 6.5 outperforms a rifle-length 308 at distance is just pure bullshit. | |||
|
| Sigless in Indiana  |
The video reveals that they produced both 20" and 14.5" iterations. | |||
|
| Sigless in Indiana |
Upon doing a little more digging, Geissele got the contract for the 20" DMR/sniper support weapon:
| |||
|
| Sigless in Indiana |
I find it a little bit strange that LMT got one contract and Geissele got the other, for what could have been one shared weapon system for parts commonality. Here is the Geissele sniper support/DMR rifle: https://geissele.com/geissele-...-creedmoorblack.html  | |||
|
| Member |
With all the LMT / 6.5 / SOCOM Craze going on now, what are the chances that LMT’s 5.56 enhanced bolts and bcg’s are going to be more available? ______________________________________________________________________ "When its time to shoot, shoot. Dont talk!" “What the government is good at is collecting taxes, taking away your freedoms and killing people. It’s not good at much else.” —Author Tom Clancy | |||
|
| Freethinker |
Thanks for the additional information. Now I’m wondering what scope will be used with the rifle(s) to achieve lethal hits at 1500 meters, but of course lethality isn’t determined by how a hit achieved, but whether it is and the terminal ballistics of the projectile. So, if we were stuck with the POS 308 Winchester/7.62mm NATO round, could it possibly be lethal at 1500 meters (~1640 yards)? Using the Applied Ballistics solver I checked on the ballistics of the Federal Gold Medal 168 grain Sierra MatchKing cartridge that was a standard military sniping load at one time. A commonly-cited muzzle velocity is 2600 feet per second, and I specified “standard” atmospheric conditions. According to AB, at 1640 yards the projectile would have 348 foot-pounds of kinetic energy. The US military has long used 58 ft-lb as the minimum projectile/frag energy necessary to cause a casualty, i.e., someone who is wounded severely enough to be taken out of action at least temporarily. But we evidently want to do more with the bullet than just cause a casualty; it should be lethal, so how does 348 ft-lb compare with some common 9mm Parabellum loads? The average MV I got with a 124 grain Federal standard pressure HST load from a full size P320 (and I didn’t even shoot myself, mirable dictu!) was about 1140 fps, or 358 fps, and therefore about the same as the 168 grain SMK. How about something with less energy, such a Speer 124 grain +P Gold Dot fired from a P365: MV = 1130 fps, KE = 351 ft-lb. Or, since we’re referring to military weapons, consider the Winchester 124 grain NATO round (Q4318) fired from a P365: MV = 1080, KE = 321 ft-lb. Would any of those projectiles be capable of being “lethal”? If so, why not the 308’s bullet? Again, none of this should be considered to be too serious, but just as a bit of “how about?” ► 6.0/94.0 “I can’t give you brains, but I can give you a diploma.” — The Wizard of Oz | |||
|
| Freethinker |
Out of curiosity I asked Copilot AI why the military adopted a 14.5 inch barrel for the M4 and was directed to this article. https://sadefensejournal.com/b...5-56mm-nato-weapons/ The article has some confusing, if not bizarre statements, but the main claim was that the 14.5 barrel was long enough for ballistic effectiveness with the M855 cartridge without being too short with the loss of effectiveness and increased muzzle blast. I’m strongly suspicious, though, that no such evaluation was conducted of any 6.5 Creedmoor loads to confirm that that barrel length was optimum for that cartridge. If I had to bet a nickel, it would be something like, “The M4 has a 14 and a half inch barrel, so that’s what this new gun should have.” As for the linked video, I did watch it and to paraphrase Mark Twain about fun, it was interesting, but mildly so. I was particularly hoping for more information about the claim that the 6.5 out of a 14.5 inch barrel is more effective than the 308 Winchester from 20 inches. The one supplied trajectory chart appeared to have been lifted from an unrelated source because it included a trajectory graph for the 6.5 PRC that had nothing to do with the subject of the video. There were no details about specific loads, velocities, bullets or anything else, making it impossible to draw any conclusions about the ballistics claims. Anyway, now that I’ve been lured into the rabbit hole about all this, I suppose I’ll continue to follow developments in the future, so thanks as always to Sigmund for starting the thread. ► 6.0/94.0 “I can’t give you brains, but I can give you a diploma.” — The Wizard of Oz | |||
|
| Sigless in Indiana |
I built my first non 5.56 gas gun a couple of years ago. Waffled really hard between 20/22/24 inch barrels. Wound up going 20" and using a suppressor. A couple hundred FPS can make a big deal with optimized cartridges. I think the 14.5 is a mistake. 16 or 18 would have been better. | |||
|
Member |
The main thing that I home to gain from this adoption of the 6.5CM is a wider selection of commercially available ammo. I’ve had a couple 6.5CM’s for 4-5 years (a 18” & 24”) but rarely shoot them. To date I’ve only bought one 20-round box of Hornady factory ammo which I was less than impressed with but this has never been a concern before as I load my own. Unfortunately arthritis has all but stopped me from loading, or even reaching to the bottom shelf of the kitchen cabinets. So far I’ve had my right shoulder replaced and the left side scheduled to be done in November, so I hope to get back to reloading by spring. If you really want something you'll find a way ... ... if you don't you'll find an excuse. I'm really not a "kid" anymore ... but I haven't grown up yet either | |||
|
| Left-Handed, NOT Left-Winged! |
This is the military, decisions are not necessarily logical. The 14.5" 5.56 carbine was developed because the carbine DI gas action was the shortest length that was deemed reliable. The barrel length forward of the FSB was selected to fit the bayonet used on the M16. Now 14.5" is selected for a different cartridge because that is the "standard". | |||
|
fugitive from reality |
Remember, this is the same Army that is looking at 338 Norma Magnum for the next GPMG because 7.62x61 pretty much caps out at 1k meters. But they are adopting 6.5 Creedmoor out of a 14.5" barrel because it "will give special operators greater reach". This may be one of the most Army things I've read in a long time. _____________________________ 'I'm pretty fly for a white guy'. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
SIGforum.com Main Page The Mason-Howe Rifle Room "New Rifles Chambered In 6.5mm Creedmoor Heading To U.S. Special Operations Armories"
Main Page The Mason-Howe Rifle Room "New Rifles Chambered In 6.5mm Creedmoor Heading To U.S. Special Operations Armories"© SIGforum 2026