User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:49:48 PM EDT
Should the US Marines have stuck with the 6mm ?
So much potential compared to what replaced it. So what do you think? Stuck with the 6mm Lee and eventually ended up with 6mm BARs and M1s.....? ETA: 112 grain .244 caliber at 2,560 fps here with .45-70 Gov and .30-40 Gov 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:51:58 PM EDT
[#1]
Its a beautiful rifle, and an outstanding shooter.
I think it would have needed a better bullet, but at rate the 6mm was decades ahead of its time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:53:30 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its a beautiful rifle, and an outstanding shooter. I think it would have needed a better bullet, but at rate the 6mm was decades ahead of its time. very well stated, thanks for your input! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:53:44 PM EDT
[#3]
They should all have gone 6.5 CR
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:55:39 PM EDT
[#4]
looking at the ballistics of the round, it wasn't a bad cartridge and probably would have done well once spritzers became the way to go
Imagine the idea of a 6mm battle rifle....ala a M14 or FAL in .243 or 6mm Remington Wonder what the capacity would have been on a 6mm Navy M1 Garand with a flush magazine? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 12:04:53 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
looking at the ballistics of the round, it wasn't a bad cartridge and probably would have done well once spritzers became the way to go Imagine the idea of a 6mm battle rifle....ala a M14 or FAL in .243 or 6mm Remington Wonder what the capacity would have been on a 6mm Navy M1 Garand with a flush magazine? think about how controllable a 6mm BAR would have been, probably with a 30 round mag. The 6mm Lee armed Marines were able to carry significantly more ammo than their peers from what I have read of their actual use, combat record and time in service |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 12:06:49 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They should all have gone 6.5 CR Grendel |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 12:08:28 AM EDT
[#7]
Is the round heavier than a .233? Can .223 kill shit out to 600 meters easily?
Weight. Capacity. 300-600 meter effectiveness. ETA: it's not a hunting round. You have squad and other logistical improvements in a light round shot through a light rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 12:08:50 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
think about how controllable a 6mm BAR would have been, probably with a 30 round mag. The 6mm Lee armed Marines were able to carry significantly more ammo than their peers from what I have read of their actual use, combat record and time in service Quote HistoryQuoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
looking at the ballistics of the round, it wasn't a bad cartridge and probably would have done well once spritzers became the way to go Imagine the idea of a 6mm battle rifle....ala a M14 or FAL in .243 or 6mm Remington Wonder what the capacity would have been on a 6mm Navy M1 Garand with a flush magazine? think about how controllable a 6mm BAR would have been, probably with a 30 round mag. The 6mm Lee armed Marines were able to carry significantly more ammo than their peers from what I have read of their actual use, combat record and time in service that would have been really fun to fire I could see that. Weren't they carrying them at Peking in 1900? Didn't realize who posted the thread at first. Keep up the good work |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 12:20:29 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is the round heavier than a .233? Can .223 kill shit out to 600 meters easily? Weight. Capacity. 300-600 meter effectiveness. ETA: it's not a hunting round. You have squad and other logistical improvements in a light round shot through a light rifle. Issued to both naval armed guards (bluejackets) and Marine battalions, the 6 mm Lee Navy cartridge saw combat service with U.S. forces (primarily Marine riflemen and machine-gun teams) in both Cuba and the Philippines during the Spanish–American War, and was also issued to small formations of attached Cuban rebels participating in the Guantánamo Bay campaign. The lighter weight of the 6 mm Lee cartridge meant individual riflemen could carry more cartridges, since 160 .30 Army cartridges weighed as much as 220 rounds of 6 mm.[22] During the fighting to secure Guantánamo Bay harbor in Cuba, the light weight of the 6 mm Lee Navy cartridge enabled individual Marines to carry extra ammunition without an undue weight penalty, an advantage when pursuing an enemy over mountainous and difficult ground. The extra cartridges proved useful when early ammunition resupply from Navy ships was disrupted at the outset of the Guantanamo operation, allowing Marines to continue their assault even while individually resupplying Cuban rebels who had run short of ammunition.[23] Later, during the early stages of the Moro Rebellion in the Philippines, the 6 mm round was criticized by some Marines for failing to stop the frenzied charges of bolo-wielding Moro juramentados at very close ranges.[24] The possibility a 6 mm bullet might lack shocking power (stopping power) had been raised as far back as 1895 when the cartridge was in the process of being developed for adoption.[4][10] On the other hand, the Marine Legation Guard, which used the 6 mm Lee in the defense of the foreign legations in Peking during the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, together with marines and navy bluejackets serving in the expedition relieving the besieged legations, apparently had no such criticisms.[25] |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 12:21:29 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that would have been really fun to fire I could see that. Weren't they carrying them at Peking in 1900? Didn't realize who posted the thread at first. Keep up the good work Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
looking at the ballistics of the round, it wasn't a bad cartridge and probably would have done well once spritzers became the way to go Imagine the idea of a 6mm battle rifle....ala a M14 or FAL in .243 or 6mm Remington Wonder what the capacity would have been on a 6mm Navy M1 Garand with a flush magazine? think about how controllable a 6mm BAR would have been, probably with a 30 round mag. The 6mm Lee armed Marines were able to carry significantly more ammo than their peers from what I have read of their actual use, combat record and time in service that would have been really fun to fire I could see that. Weren't they carrying them at Peking in 1900? Didn't realize who posted the thread at first. Keep up the good work Yes, you are correct, they were carrying them during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900! and thanks! Much appreciated |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 12:22:59 AM EDT
[#11]
Considering that their guns could not handle that cartridge. No.
The .236 USN was great in theory, but the metallurgy the time and the chemical composition of their powder simply did not make it feasible. Also the Lee-Navy rifle has problems of its own. The extractor is floating and easily lost when the rifle is stripped for cleaning. Removing the bolt also is a pain in the ass and takes a mallet, and even clearing a live round requires depressing a lever. Loading is also a bear and either requires painstakingly loading single rounds while navigating around the retarded extractor design or using proprietary 2-piece clips. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 12:25:47 AM EDT
[#12]
Parody thread?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 12:28:14 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Parody thread? Hey dangit you stay in your own lane........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 12:29:53 AM EDT
[#14]
Nah bro, throat erosion. That's all that matters for military weapons according to all the army guys around here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 12:31:39 AM EDT
[#15]
nah should have just gone and standardized everything in .338LM
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 12:42:48 AM EDT
[#16]
Some quick numbers I crunched if the 6mm Lee is loaded with
a modern Berger 115 grain bullet with a G1 BC of .567 stays supersonic all the way past 1,100 yards.......LOL RANGE (YARDS).....VELOCITY (FPS.........)ENERGY (FT.-LB) Muzzle..........................2560...............................1673 300...............................2116................................1143 600...............................1721..................................756 800...............................1490..................................567 1000.............................1294..................................428 1200.............................1142..................................333 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 1:58:14 AM EDT
[#17]
still looses to the
4,800 FT LBS at the muzzle from the 338 LM
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 6:41:56 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Should the US Marines have stuck with the 6mm ? So much potential compared to what replaced it. So what do you think? Stuck with the 6mm Lee and eventually ended up with 6mm BARs and M1s.....? I agree the 6mm Navy did have interesting potential, but I doubt that logistical considerations would have permitted its use much past the Spanish-American War. I think it's highly improbable the M1 Garand would ever have been adapted to 6mm, especially in time for WWII. The Marines had it hard enough just getting .30-caliber Garands. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 6:45:28 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wonder what the capacity would have been on a 6mm Navy M1 Garand with a flush magazine? Probably would've had 10-rd clips, like the .276 Garand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 6:49:23 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree the 6mm Navy did have interesting potential, but I doubt that logistical considerations would have permitted its use much past the Spanish-American War. I think it's highly improbable the M1 Garand would ever have been adapted to 6mm, especially in time for WWII. The Marines had it hard enough just getting .30-caliber Garands. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Should the US Marines have stuck with the 6mm ? So much potential compared to what replaced it. So what do you think? Stuck with the 6mm Lee and eventually ended up with 6mm BARs and M1s.....? I agree the 6mm Navy did have interesting potential, but I doubt that logistical considerations would have permitted its use much past the Spanish-American War. I think it's highly improbable the M1 Garand would ever have been adapted to 6mm, especially in time for WWII. The Marines had it hard enough just getting .30-caliber Garands. How about a Johnson rifle chambered in 6mm Lee Navy?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 6:53:10 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
think about how controllable a 6mm BAR would have been... Quote HistoryQuoted:
think about how controllable a 6mm BAR would have been... Indeed. ...probably with a 30 round mag. I doubt it. There isn't much difference in case diameter between .30-06 and 6mm USN. A 6mm BAR magazine of the same height as the 20-rd, .30-cal mags would still hold only 20 rounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 6:53:22 AM EDT
[#22]
6.8 SPC II is what you seek
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 6:58:19 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about a Johnson rifle chambered in 6mm Lee Navy? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should the US Marines have stuck with the 6mm ? So much potential compared to what replaced it. So what do you think? Stuck with the 6mm Lee and eventually ended up with 6mm BARs and M1s.....? I agree the 6mm Navy did have interesting potential, but I doubt that logistical considerations would have permitted its use much past the Spanish-American War. I think it's highly improbable the M1 Garand would ever have been adapted to 6mm, especially in time for WWII. The Marines had it hard enough just getting .30-caliber Garands. How about a Johnson rifle chambered in 6mm Lee Navy? That's quite possible. Johnson was a Marine, so if the Corps had been still using 6mm in 1941, I think he definitely would've designed his rifle for that cartridge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 7:48:58 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some quick numbers I crunched if the 6mm Lee is loaded with a modern Berger 115 grain bullet with a G1 BC of .567 stays supersonic all the way past 1,100 yards.......LOL RANGE (YARDS).....VELOCITY (FPS.........)ENERGY (FT.-LB) Muzzle..........................2560...............................1673 300...............................2116................................1143 600...............................1721..................................756 800...............................1490..................................567 1000.............................1294..................................428 1200.............................1142..................................333 Thanks for doing the math, that's really pretty sweet |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 12:57:12 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for doing the math, that's really pretty sweet Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Some quick numbers I crunched if the 6mm Lee is loaded with a modern Berger 115 grain bullet with a G1 BC of .567 stays supersonic all the way past 1,100 yards.......LOL RANGE (YARDS).....VELOCITY (FPS.........)ENERGY (FT.-LB) Muzzle..........................2560...............................1673 300...............................2116................................1143 600...............................1721..................................756 800...............................1490..................................567 1000.............................1294..................................428 1200.............................1142..................................333 Thanks for doing the math, that's really pretty sweet But not really representative of performance with military ball. The 6mm 105gr FMJBT bullet (below, left) had a much lower BC, somewhere in the 0.42-0.44 range, IIRC. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 1:34:02 PM EDT
[#26]
No.
Had the same problem of all the military 6.5 at the time, it was a good people shooter rifle round but lousy as a GP MG round ( downrange energy, AP, tracer, Incendiary ). Every country that stuck with 6.5 service round ( Italians, Japanese, Swedes, Greeks, Danes, Portuguese etc etc...) also ended up adopting a larger round for MG's so now they had to supply two different cal or more creating a logistics nightmare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:43:22 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But not really representative of performance with military ball. The 6mm 105gr FMJBT bullet (below, left) had a much lower BC, somewhere in the 0.42-0.44 range, IIRC. http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt91/Ukraine2009/6x49_zpsaa11e7bf.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Some quick numbers I crunched if the 6mm Lee is loaded with a modern Berger 115 grain bullet with a G1 BC of .567 stays supersonic all the way past 1,100 yards.......LOL RANGE (YARDS).....VELOCITY (FPS.........)ENERGY (FT.-LB) Muzzle..........................2560...............................1673 300...............................2116................................1143 600...............................1721..................................756 800...............................1490..................................567 1000.............................1294..................................428 1200.............................1142..................................333 Thanks for doing the math, that's really pretty sweet But not really representative of performance with military ball. The 6mm 105gr FMJBT bullet (below, left) had a much lower BC, somewhere in the 0.42-0.44 range, IIRC. http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt91/Ukraine2009/6x49_zpsaa11e7bf.jpg That projectile is also an old military design weighing just 105 grains. A modern design are significantly better with higher BCs |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:45:43 PM EDT
[#28]
Yes you are of course correct.
And luckily the US military didn't have two MG rounds, heaven forbid. We were smart and only had to worry about .30-'06 .30 carbine .45 ACP .38 Special |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:47:15 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its a beautiful rifle, and an outstanding shooter. I think it would have needed a better bullet, but at rate the 6mm was decades ahead of its time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:57:47 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Had the same problem of all the military 6.5 at the time, it was a good people shooter rifle round but lousy as a GP MG round ( downrange energy, AP, tracer, Incendiary ). Every country that stuck with 6.5 service round ( Italians, Japanese, Swedes, Greeks, Danes, Portuguese etc etc...) also ended up adopting a larger round for MG's so now they had to supply two different cal or more creating a logistics nightmare. To a logistician once they leave the factory floor the ammunition for an M4 and a SAW are different calibers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 5:00:11 PM EDT
[#31]
The Marines should have nothing metric
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 5:00:28 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly right. The powder was a problem though. The contemporary formulations didn't play well with the smaller bore and would eat the barrels. Useful life was something like 800 rounds, IIRC. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Its a beautiful rifle, and an outstanding shooter. I think it would have needed a better bullet, but at rate the 6mm was decades ahead of its time. The cartridge was way ahead of bullet and powder designs of the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 5:05:09 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To a logistician once they leave the factory floor the ammunition for an M4 and a SAW are different calibers. No, they're not. They are different inventory items. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 5:17:01 PM EDT
[#34]
Just my opinion...there was a superior round and platform already in existence, the 7x57 in the Mauser M93/95.
"Not Invented Here!" Yeah, I know. Still, we ended up paying royalties to Mauserwerke for copyright infringements with the M1903 Springfield, probably would have just been easier to have bought the license to manufacture the M1898 Mauser in the first place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 5:31:07 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That projectile is also an old military design weighing just 105 grains. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Some quick numbers I crunched if the 6mm Lee is loaded with a modern Berger 115 grain bullet with a G1 BC of .567 stays supersonic all the way past 1,100 yards.......LOL RANGE (YARDS).....VELOCITY (FPS.........)ENERGY (FT.-LB) Muzzle..........................2560...............................1673 300...............................2116................................1143 600...............................1721..................................756 800...............................1490..................................567 1000.............................1294..................................428 1200.............................1142..................................333 Thanks for doing the math, that's really pretty sweet But not really representative of performance with military ball. The 6mm 105gr FMJBT bullet (below, left) had a much lower BC, somewhere in the 0.42-0.44 range, IIRC. http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt91/Ukraine2009/6x49_zpsaa11e7bf.jpg That projectile is also an old military design weighing just 105 grains. Granted, but it's probably as good as would ever have been used in the 20th century if the 6mm Navy had not been replaced by the .30 Army. A modern design are significantly better with higher BCs That's questionable. A modern 6mm military ball projectile would have to be lead free. That would make it much lighter, thereby negatively affecting BC, unless bullet length is increased substantially, which is probably not feasible when taking into consideration design of a companion tracer. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 6:49:49 PM EDT
[#36]
With a modern design I don't see a reason for a tracer round with a rifle, carbine or automatic rifle.
Once you step up to a tripod and an AG it becomes useful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 7:16:45 PM EDT
[#37]
Seeing as how it's about the size of a crayon, it's probably best they didn't keep it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 8:48:00 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With a modern design I don't see a reason for a tracer round with a rifle, carbine or automatic rifle. Once you step up to a tripod and an AG it becomes useful. 6mm Navy was used in both rifle and machine gun. It would seem rather negligent to design without taking into account machine gun requirements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 8:54:12 PM EDT
[#39]
No, not until gunpowder and bullet technology caught up to the idea. The cartridge was a decade or more early.
If it could have hung on until the rest of the industry was ready, we would probably not be a .30 caliber nation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 8:55:26 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
6mm Navy was used in both rifle and machine gun. It would seem rather negligent to design without taking into account machine gun requirements. I segued from nostalgia to practical concerns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 10:04:18 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I segued from nostalgia to practical concerns. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
6mm Navy was used in both rifle and machine gun. It would seem rather negligent to design without taking into account machine gun requirements. I segued from nostalgia to practical concerns. Ignoring requirements for tracer ammo doesn't seem very practical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 10:10:24 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ignoring requirements for tracer ammo doesn't seem very practical. What requirement? The way most people use rifles and automatic rifles doesn't warrant a tracer, and with the newest designs all hard mounting an optic (magnified or thermal) there really isn't a lot of need. Dim trace I could see for use at night but that is about it. I don't know, the infantry guys could tell you more about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 10:15:54 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What requirement? The way most people use rifles and automatic rifles doesn't warrant a tracer, and with the newest designs all hard mounting an optic (magnified or thermal) there really isn't a lot of need. Dim trace I could see for use at night but that is about it. I don't know, the infantry guys could tell you more about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 10:22:28 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Taliban have gotten along fine with no tracers on their PKMs. ??? This thread is about the USMC. What the Taliban does is not relevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 10:44:06 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What requirement? The way most people use rifles and automatic rifles doesn't warrant a tracer, and with the newest designs all hard mounting an optic (magnified or thermal) there really isn't a lot of need. Dim trace I could see for use at night but that is about it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ignoring requirements for tracer ammo doesn't seem very practical. What requirement? The way most people use rifles and automatic rifles doesn't warrant a tracer, and with the newest designs all hard mounting an optic (magnified or thermal) there really isn't a lot of need. Dim trace I could see for use at night but that is about it. Whether or not you think rifles don't need to use Tracer is irrelevant. The military has long wanted that capability. Therefore, rifling twist must stabilize both Tracer and Ball. If the 6mm Ball projectile is made as long as possible, a companion Tracer bullet may have to be too long to be feasible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 11:43:14 PM EDT
[#46]
How small minded this conversation has become.
ETA: Why do I care what the military thinks they want? They had a great rifle and cartridge 120 years ago and they abandoned it for a middling at best rifle and cartridge, before replicating that level of performance, now obsolete, and using it for another 60 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2017 1:19:13 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How small minded this conversation has become. ETA: Why do I care what the military thinks they want? They had a great rifle and cartridge 120 years ago and they abandoned it for a middling at best rifle and cartridge, before replicating that level of performance, now obsolete, and using it for another 60 years. Pretty much......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2017 1:22:52 AM EDT
[#48]
They should have kept the cartridge and adopted it in the M1903.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2017 1:40:41 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They should have kept the cartridge and adopted it in the M1903. 6mm Navy in a slightly shortened M1917 Enfield rifle would have been interesting Hell even the P13 with its original .276 Enfield would have been a great idea....But then a war came along and a good idea was given up for the sake of logistics Something akin to a M1903A3 in 6mm Navy with a type C stock would have been a hell of a rifle |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2017 1:56:59 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes you are of course correct. And luckily the US military didn't have two MG rounds, heaven forbid. We were smart and only had to worry about .30-'06 .30 carbine .45 ACP .38 Special And .50bmg, 12 gauge, and 9mm (UD42) |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
