Which is theoretically better? The Chicken or the egg or the chick?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.270_British

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

Or the 276 Pederson.

A lot of what is new is really old.

Which is theoretically better? The Chicken or the egg or the chick?

Better at what ?

You are comparing Military experimental cartridges from a specific genre / class to a modern sporting round !

First and foremost the former the result of R&D into a battle rifle requirement with a range performance limitation of around 300m

The current 6.5 CM a long range paper punching requirement of about 1000 yards . Two vastly different theatres of application and requirement.

The Military intermediate cartridge simply application and example of what John Corner and others referred to as the question of the "Ideal gun platform" and the "Ideal load".

The point is that Military establishments sets the requirement and the designers meet or try and that requirement.

The German Stg-44 set the tone , the AX-47 a very successful continuation of the same.

Critical analysis of the facts surrounding morbidity and mortality during WW2 showed that the average GI did not shoot their weapon much during battle some not at all, especially if you did not physically see the enemy. Further this you were statistically more likely to die from shell or bomb blast injury and not small arms fire.

264 USA would be nice.

If we are asking which would kill a deer deader with a well aimed shot at a reasonable distance( say 300 yds. ), we all know the answer.
If it is performance at 1000 yds. ???. But there is some legitimacy in comparing the the CM here to the Military, 6.5x55, 7x57, .308, 30-06, and 8x57. To make it a fair comparison all cartridges would have to be hand loaded to Max. Since this is Accurate Reloading I think that would be a just procedure.
It's MHO that the 6.5 Cm should not even be considered in that arena.
A fellow shooter used to shoot a well made 45-70 ( Military cartidge ),550gr.cast bullet at a measured 1150 ft./sec. using a three foot long scope. At 600 yds. he could hold a 5" to 7" group.
This did not indicate that the 45-70 was magic and every shooter breather in should buy one.
The Creedmore has no mystic power either.
Boomy, If you want to get a comparison
you certainly have the right, no matter what some neigh sayers might say in criticism.
roger

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Which is theoretically better? The Chicken or the egg or the chick?

Better at what ?

You are comparing Military experimental cartridges from a specific genre / class to a modern sporting round ! Inside 300 meters for military need at that time , I think they all would perform admirably with period bullets and guns. I think if they had the 6.5CM back then, things would look different today in terms of cartridge development. The 308 may never have enjoyed ubiquity it does today.

It seems I was comparing experimental military rounds of similar size to the 6.5CM IIRC is being considered for military use. All cases are shorter than 2" and of similar diameter. For paper punching at 1k the 6 or 6.5CM would be better due to ammo and guns available.

First and foremost the former the result of R&D into a battle rifle requirement with a range performance limitation of around 300m



The current 6.5 CM a long range paper punching requirement of about 1000 yards . Two vastly different theatres of application and requirement.

The 6.5 CM started as a paper puncher but is being sold as a paper puncher that can kill up to Elk at decent ranges

The Military intermediate cartridge simply application and example of what John Corner and others referred to as the question of the "Ideal gun platform" and the "Ideal load".

The point is that Military establishments sets the requirement and the designers meet or try and that requirement.

The German Stg-44 set the tone , the AX-47 a very successful continuation of the same.

Critical analysis of the facts surrounding morbidity and mortality during WW2 showed that the average GI did not shoot their weapon much during battle some not at all, especially if you did not physically see the enemy. Further this you were statistically more likely to die from shell or bomb blast injury and not small arms fire.

Interesting info.

Sooooo, what cart is better in your opinion based on your needs and criteria? I think the 6.5CM is the conclusion of a drunk cowboy trying to get on the horse and falling over the other side who finally sobers up and gets it right.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Or the 276 Pederson.

A lot of what is new is really old.

True

Maybe we got it right with the 45-70. Maybe pass new Geneva Convention rules barring use of anything but the 45-70 in single shots.
You are a wise man bartsche.

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
If we are asking which would kill a deer deader with a well aimed shot at a reasonable distance( say 300 yds. ), we all know the answer.
If it is performance at 1000 yds. ???. But there is some legitimacy in comparing the the CM here to the Military, 6.5x55, 7x57, .308, 30-06, and 8x57. To make it a fair comparison all cartridges would have to be hand loaded to Max. Since this is Accurate Reloading I think that would be a just procedure.
It's MHO that the 6.5 Cm should not even be considered in that arena.
A fellow shooter used to shoot a well made 45-70 ( Military cartidge ),250gr.cast bullet at a measured 1150 ft./sec. using a three foot long scope. At 600 yds. he could hold a 5" to 7" group.
This did not indicate that the 45-70 was magic and every shooter breather in should buy one.
The Creedmore has no mystic power either.
Boomy, If you want to get a comparison
you certainly have the right, no matter what some neigh sayers might say in criticism.
roger

"Inside 300 meters for military need at that time , I think they all would perform admirably with period bullets and guns. I think if they had the 6.5CM back then, things would look different today in terms of cartridge development. The 308 may never have enjoyed ubiquity it does today."


FN fal and cetme were developed to use ~280B cartridges but US forced NATO to use a bigger cartridge and refused to adopt the better european rifles. The next NATO cartrige are probably choosen by US too.

Serbia has adopted 6.5 Grendel as a marksman rifle in a ak platform, it fits a smaller platform than 6,5 Credmoor.

6.5*55 Browning BAR/Carl Gustaf kg m1921.


http://www.gotavapen.se/gota/a...r/kg/swedish_kg2.htm

they had the 6.5 creedmore back then it was just called something else.
not only did they have it they had it twice, and then Winchester had one, and Lapua had a better one, then Grendel had one.
now the whiz bang hyped up one comes along and is the shortest greatest middle of the road thing ever.

if we are gonna talk about better we need some definition.
better at selling rifles?
better than a bigger cased counterpart?
better than the cartridge we choose to compare it to?
yep why the 308?
why not the 300 win mag with 180's, or the ancient 375 H&H shooting 275's and we are gonna shoot giraffes at 400 yards.

we can pick and poke and choose various rounds all day every day and we will never ever come up with the best one for anything because someone will change the yardage or the weight of the animal, or the wind direction,, or?

The history surrounding the search for the best possible intermediate cartridge and gun platform combination makes for very interesting reading.

Of particular interest the fact that warfare as practiced at the time was very much a game of statistics.

The statistical chance of actually shooting and hitting your enemy with a bullet fired from a gun. or then being hit yourself , for WW2 very very low indeed !

If you were going to actually hit a enemy soldier you would actually need to fire your gun ! Believe it or not very few GI's / tommies actually fired their shoulder arms during combat

Even more, the inborn propensity for the average GI not to shoot at anything if he did not actually see the enemy. This then this whole notion of the 300 m field of fire limit

You have to train soldiers to fire at spots in a field of vision where the enemy could be hiding ! They will not do it on their own ... its unnatural!

Then off course the issue of more bullets in the air at any given time raises your chance of actually hitting something.

In this game its not the biggest baddest gun that wins, its not the endless street fight stopping argument between 45 ACP and 9mm Para that favours the 45, statistically the smaller 9mm wins when it comes to the game of warfare.

And so we can go on. An irony is that during WW2 just about everyone was issued bayonets, some like the Japanese very impressive long almost mini sword like affairs and yet the Statistics showed that very few soldiers died from primarily bayoneting injuries alone !

Lots of BS surrounding the Creedmore IMO, Its a neat caliber and like the old 250=3000, 243, 257 Robts, for instance it will kill and elk,under the right circumstances, but none of these are ideal..Ive shot elk wite the 250, 257 Robts, 30-30 and 25-35 but in every case I shot only at shorter ranges and broadside placement under ideal circumstances, as I had to pass on couple of real trophy quality bulls that I felt were just out of range or too much angle..

I feel the same applies to the Creedemore, and I have read posts and articles that have that pee shooter killing elk at extreme range and singing praises about the SD of the long 160 gr bullet. somewhat of an old wives tail when used in this since.. When you do this your certain at some point to let one get away to die on its own a sorrid death. If you can control your emotion and let one walk away when hunting with the light calibers, then those light calibers are fine and work well., but few can do that if they are honest with themselves.. A 30-30, 25/35 is a 100 yard elk gun, a bow is a 40 yard shooter on elk, a 250 or Creede more is a 200 yard elk rifle and on and on..and that depends on how good a shooter your are..Its just common since..The larger and faster the caliber is the better it performs on big animals, end of story if you can shoot the bigger guns.

Alf,
I might add that a soldier is supposed to wound, not necessarily kill, as it takes two or three of the enemy to carry him out so one shot removes 3 or 4 of the enemy, Not a good comparison to hunting.

Ray:
The notion that soldiers aim to wound and mil guns are designed to wound and not kill is misplaced urban myth ! In fact it is against the law !

a "Took and look" at the history of what is commonly referred as the "Geneva convention" specifically outlaws wounding for the purpose of wounding ! That is why American servicemen and women operate under the rules of engagement and the JAG oversees each and every operation undertaken to make sure there is compliance under international law !

Alf, Perhaps Ray didn't express himself adequately but many times when in the service it was explained that it isn't a lose to wound the enemy as it removes others out of action. I was issued an M2 carbine that would fall into WOUNDER category at best.Believe it or not. That weapon threw an 8 foot pattern.That barrel was completely shoot out in Korea. NO roger

Bartsche:

I have enough first hand experience of what wounds of war look like ! Been there done it got the T shirt and wear some of my own !

But here lies the rub and the dichotomy of war.

Whilst bombs , bullets and devices causing loss of life are employed it has to be done " humanely " ????? Speak of a contradiction in terms ! You kill but have to do so humanely ?

In "rules of warfare" the World Court and International and Humanitarian law has been very clear on this issue. To the extent that military operations in modern warfare operate under legal oversight"


" The laws of war do not recognize in belligerents an unlimited power in the adoption of means of injuring the enemy.”

As per the original St Petersburg declaration of
1868

Since that original declaration various other followed and though in the last two great wars unspeakable Horror was unleashed on humanity, officially sanctioned by those who lead the fight things have changed dramatically.

The Geneva convention of 1977

Article 35:

“Basic rules
1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.
2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.
3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.”

And so we can go on.

Nevermind....

Maybe we should just go back to throwing rocks...that predates bows and arrows AND the 45-70...then we could argue apples, oranges and kumquats...size vs weight, granite vs sandstone...square vs round vs octagonal vs pointy hard things....

BE GLAD YOU HAVE CHOICE and are free to talk unequivocal trash!!!!! DAM a 22 LR will kill MOST things if you do it right.

Good Hunting

45-70 old school Creedmoor VS new school 6.5 Creedmoor. Maybe rename the 45-70 to 11.6 Creedmoor

quote:

Originally posted by NONAGONAGIN:
Maybe we should just go back to throwing rocks...that predates bows and arrows AND the 45-70...then we could argue apples, oranges and kumquats...size vs weight, granite vs sandstone...square vs round vs octagonal vs pointy hard things....

BE GLAD YOU HAVE CHOICE and are free to talk unequivocal trash!!!!! DAM a 22 LR will kill MOST things if you do it right.

Good Hunting

Oddly enough and I cannot think why you'd ever do it except to prove some sort of an argument there are guys here in the UK that built some hunting rifles in the 1990s chambered for, yes, .280 British. The story then got written up in one of the British gun magazine. Then, from my recall, someone then even made a bullpup bolt gun in .280 British. Me? There's only two "Two Eighties" worth bothering with. .280 Ross and .280 Remington. .280 British? Best left back in the 1950s and the history books. It was designed to solve a military problem not as solution to a hunting problem.

So much mental masturbation.

quote:

"Took and look" at the history of what is commonly referred as the "Geneva convention" specifically outlaws wounding for the purpose of wounding !

I'd disagree. As someone who had to learn in the late 1970s the laws of war the phrasing in the Hague Regulations of 1907 (which as the OP says is often commonly but incorrectly cited as being the Geneva Convention rule)s is "designed to cause unnecessary suffering".

Our .303 Mk VII ball was notorious for tumbling on impact.

This is because it used a lighter weight tip filler (usually aluminium) so that the bullet was longer than it should be for its weight.

This known as the "velopex" principle gave it a better ballistic curve just as do today's, lawful for use in war, open tip bullets.

But because both the "public" reason for the .303 Mk VII tip filler and today's open tip bullets was to improve trajectory they are held to be lawful for use in war.

Now you and I and everybody else knows that in fact this now increases the wounding potential of the bullet but as it isn't "designed" to do this there's no illegality.

As an interesting addition to the above the British fought WWI with the all lead .455 Mk II bullet in our revolvers. In the late 1920s when the decision was made to adopt a ".36" calibre revolver, made in house at Enfield, the original proposed .380 Mk I cartridge was an all lead 200 grain blunt nose bullet like in the old USA 200 grain Super Police .38 loading. It was then that some Tank Corps officers questioned if it'be be legal that this loading was dropped. Thus the .380 Mk II a conical 178 grain fully jacketed loading was instead adopted for the new Enfield No2 revolver.

And, also, in came the .455 Mk VI cartridge was adopted with its fully jacketed 265 grain bullet. Hence military packets of .455 Mk II overstamped "For Practice Only".

Indeed AFAIK the only all lead projectile war legal small arms projectiles are now those still current today cartridges for military shotguns loaded with military issue buckshot?

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
Alf, Perhaps Ray didn't express himself adequately but many times when in the service it was explained that it isn't a lose to wound the enemy as it removes others out of action. I was issued an M2 carbine that would fall into WOUNDER category at best.Believe it or not. That weapon threw an 8 foot pattern.That barrel was completely shoot out in Korea. NO roger

I remember being told the same thing during my military training years ago. We were also told at the bullet designs and how it can shatter an arm or leg bone and incapacitate a person without killing. And yes, shot on the vitals is going to kill the person, but in a firefight one does not have the time for careful aim. Well, a sniper can from a distance, I guess.

I trained in the Vietnam Era, so maybe nowadays things are different?