Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Site Notices
11/2/2022 4:30:06 PM
Posted: 5/9/2008 2:55:55 PM EST
Saw some stuff in the new shotgun news about High Standards selling uppers chambered for that round.  Supposedly the military trialed them several years ago.  Then I saw you could buy reloading dies for it.

Just curious about velocity, accuracy, etc. if anyone here used that caliber.
missing
Link Posted: 5/9/2008 3:57:09 PM EST
[#1]
It's called a 6 x 45. A good friend of mine uses a custom Mauser in that round for varmints and swears by it.

There's also a 6 x 47 that I believe is based on a .222 Magnum case.
Link Posted: 5/9/2008 4:44:25 PM EST
[#2]
I've thought about it from time to time.

I like the thought of using the heavier bullets that are available in 6mm.
Link Posted: 5/9/2008 6:01:40 PM EST
[#3]
I love the 6mmx45.  Very nice hunting cartridge, easy to load for, and requires very little in modifications to the AR (barrel only).

I took two deer with mine this past year and had excellent results.
Link Posted: 5/9/2008 8:26:08 PM EST
[#4]
Many years ago when I was shooting IHMSA, I built a 223x270 necked a 223 to 270 in a XP100.  It was fun to shoot and it handled the rams at 200 yards real well.  I used the 130 gr bullets for the close in targets and 150 grs for the longer targets.  As long as I did my part, all of the targets would go down.
It used to be in IHMSA one would see all kinds of calibers.  Some were fun to shoot and somewere real wrist busters.
Link Posted: 5/10/2008 5:11:37 AM EST
[#5]
Are there any bullets that are too long for use in an AR magazine & which ones?

Sorry for the hijack, but it seemed like a good follow-up.
Link Posted: 5/10/2008 6:11:59 AM EST
[#6]
Nice cartridge - just needs a bit more oomph (powder capacity) - it would be interesting to neck a Grendel down to 6 mm.
Link Posted: 5/10/2008 1:27:19 PM EST
[#7]

Quoted:
Nice cartridge - just needs a bit more oomph (powder capacity) - it would be interesting to neck a Grendel down to 6 mm.


Or mabye a 6.8 SPC necked down.


Mabye we should agree on one & call it the 6mm ARFCOM.
Link Posted: 5/10/2008 2:08:34 PM EST
[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Nice cartridge - just needs a bit more oomph (powder capacity) - it would be interesting to neck a Grendel down to 6 mm.


Or mabye a 6.8 SPC necked down.


Mabye we should agree on one & call it the 6mm ARFCOM.


Team Member constructor has already necked down the Grendel to 6mm, along with shoulder changes.

Look at the 6mm Banshee and his website: www.ar15performance.com

Also, Ken Waters reported on the 6mm SM Wasp in Handloader Magazine decades ago.

This was a .225 Winchester necked up to 6mm and cut down to 1.69".
Link Posted: 5/10/2008 8:44:50 PM EST
[#9]
Strong rumors say the USMC is testing the 6x45, or 6mmTCU, in Iraq.
Link Posted: 5/11/2008 5:22:38 AM EST
[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Nice cartridge - just needs a bit more oomph (powder capacity) - it would be interesting to neck a Grendel down to 6 mm.


Or mabye a 6.8 SPC necked down.


Mabye we should agree on one & call it the 6mm ARFCOM.


Team Member constructor has already necked down the Grendel to 6mm, along with shoulder changes.

Look at the 6mm Banshee and his website: www.ar15performance.com

Also, Ken Waters reported on the 6mm SM Wasp in Handloader Magazine decades ago.

This was a .225 Winchester necked up to 6mm and cut down to 1.69".


It didn't say anything on there about a 6.8 SPC bieng necked down on that site though, or at least that I could find. I think we have an opportunity here.

I like the Idea of using the 6.8 as a parent round better anyway, you don't have to worry so much about the bolt. I wonder how the trajectory would work out? Would it be similar to the 5.56 given the extra capcity?

I think the neck should be set back a little to allow for heavier bullets though.

What does everybody think?
Link Posted: 5/11/2008 7:51:17 AM EST
[#11]
6mm version of 6.8 = 6 WOA ... look up White Oak Armament
several other versions out there as well, including those from AR15Performance
Also a 223 version and a 30 cal version
Trust me, a lot of these have already been done ...
Link Posted: 5/11/2008 10:19:55 AM EST
[#12]

Quoted:
Trust me, a lot of these have already been done ...


This is very true.  Still, it doesn't prevent us from trying, though!!
Link Posted: 5/12/2008 12:37:26 AM EST
[#13]
I've had several AR's over the years in 6X45 its a sweet cartridge and easy to make. Just a barrel change in an AR and your good to go. Use 80-85 grain bullets, these are Ideal for the platform.

Link Posted: 5/12/2008 4:13:49 AM EST
[#14]



Four different bullets in the 6.5 MPC.  Note all are
seated to 5.56 OAL to run through M-16 magazines.

6.5 MPC SSK Industries...


The 6.5 MPC  (Multi Purpose Cartridge)  is a SSK development urged by Brian Hormberg (USMC) based on the 5.56 cartridge shortened and opened to 6.5 MM and the same OAL as the 5.56.   In the M-16-AR-15 rifles it utilizes the 5.56 bolt and magazines as well as all other parts except the barrel itself.  Its design adapts it to a short Close Quarter Battle rifle with a 12” barrel moving a 107 6.5 SMK at 2400 FPS with superior full auto controllability and excellent accuracy.  The 12” barrel model easily puts it into the realistic 300+ yard combat category and longer barrels stretch that realistic combat range considerably further.

Factory ammunition is not yet available for the 6.5 MPC; however we are working on that. Ready to load brass and dies are in stock.  

The 120 grain BT is near maximum bullet weight for good performance.  85 grain is about the least weight for good performance.  Some 140 grain bullets may be used but ballistically are counterproductive.


 95 SSK Solid
- - - - - - -
12"
2600 FPS

20"
2800 FPS 110 Sierra HP
- - - - - - - - - - -
12"
2480 FPS

20"
2731 FPS 120 SMK
- - - - - - - - -
12"
2220 FPS

20"
2400 FPS
 
Defense Review

Infantry Mag


Option 2: Load a bigger bullet in the 5.56x45mm case

The second easiest way to increase performance is to "neck up" the 5.56x45mm case to accept a 6mm bullet, something that has been done by civilian competition and varmint shooters who wanted more capability than the original round could provide. The result is the "wildcat" 6x45mm cartridge (not to be contused with the 6x45mm XM732 round that was developed in the 1970s), which can be loaded with bullets weighing 80-90 grains, with ogives that allow overall cartridge length to be the same as M855 ball.

To achieve a flat trajectory, and thereby improve long range capability, requires a higher degree of ballistic efficiency than can be provided by the 6x45mm. Since very streamlined bullets tend to have greater length, to load such projectiles into the basic 5.56mm cartridge case will make it necessary to shorten the case slightly. Although the smaller powder capacity will reduce muzzle velocity, the superior projectile shape results in more retained velocity at the target. Case length depends on the diameter and shape of the projectile selected for use, but should be about 41mm with a 6mm bullet, and possibly somewhat shorter if caliber is 6.5mm or larger.
Link Posted: 5/15/2008 8:46:38 AM EST
[#15]

Quoted:
Nice cartridge - just needs a bit more oomph (powder capacity) - it would be interesting to neck a Grendel down to 6 mm.


Wouldn't that be the 6mm PPC then?  Isn't that what the 6.5 Grendel case is taken from?
Link Posted: 5/15/2008 10:47:02 AM EST
[#16]

Quoted:

Also, Ken Waters reported on the 6mm SM Wasp in Handloader Magazine decades ago.

This was a .225 Winchester necked up to 6mm and cut down to 1.69".


If a person were to nitpick, he could say the cartridge originally used 30-30 brass.  Since Seely Masker is dead, I'm sure nobody else cares enough. The original article is in Handloader No. 136.  There is another, more extensive article, although I don't know which magazine it originally appeared in.  It is in Wolfe publishing's Wildcat Cartridges Vol. II.

I have a set of dies on my shelf.  A great old cartridge, one of the few that ran with the 6mm PPC for a while.

David
Link Posted: 5/15/2008 5:24:30 PM EST
[#17]

Quoted:
Are there any bullets that are too long for use in an AR magazine & which ones?

Sorry for the hijack, but it seemed like a good follow-up.


I have found in my 6x45 that once you get above 85 grain bullets, with noses that are pointy, you can run into problems getting them to fit in a standard magazine.  There are some magazines out there that do allow for a little more OAL, but with standard mags you really have to run a fine line with the heavier bullets, so as to get them to fit the mag, and not have the case mouth fall above the bullet ogive.

Craig
Link Posted: 5/15/2008 6:41:04 PM EST
[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Also, Ken Waters reported on the 6mm SM Wasp in Handloader Magazine decades ago.

This was a .225 Winchester necked up to 6mm and cut down to 1.69".


If a person were to nitpick, he could say the cartridge originally used 30-30 brass.  Since Seely Masker is dead, I'm sure nobody else cares enough. The original article is in Handloader No. 136.  There is another, more extensive article, although I don't know which magazine it originally appeared in.  It is in Wolfe publishing's Wildcat Cartridges Vol. II.

I have a set of dies on my shelf.  A great old cartridge, one of the few that ran with the 6mm PPC for a while.

David


David,

If I remember correctly, which I might not, the .225 was used because of the .473" rim and its suitablity in bolt guns.

I try and tell people that there is very little that is new under the sun, when it comes to cartridge developement.

A few years ago, I was in a store I frequent, with a bunch of guys who were oogleing a Model 70 in .300 WSM.

I said that, IMO, the .300 WSM was nothing more then a modern .308 Norma, which was a post WWII .30 Newton.

All I got back was four blank stares.

I guess nobody reads much anymore, or at least reads about what was done "back in the day".
Link Posted: 5/15/2008 6:41:45 PM EST
[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Nice cartridge - just needs a bit more oomph (powder capacity) - it would be interesting to neck a Grendel down to 6 mm.


Wouldn't that be the 6mm PPC then?  Isn't that what the 6.5 Grendel case is taken from?


Ding, ding, ding!!!!
Link Posted: 5/15/2008 8:56:20 PM EST
[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Also, Ken Waters reported on the 6mm SM Wasp in Handloader Magazine decades ago.

This was a .225 Winchester necked up to 6mm and cut down to 1.69".


If a person were to nitpick, he could say the cartridge originally used 30-30 brass.  Since Seely Masker is dead, I'm sure nobody else cares enough. The original article is in Handloader No. 136.  There is another, more extensive article, although I don't know which magazine it originally appeared in.  It is in Wolfe publishing's Wildcat Cartridges Vol. II.

I have a set of dies on my shelf.  A great old cartridge, one of the few that ran with the 6mm PPC for a while.

David


David,

If I remember correctly, which I might not, the .225 was used because of the .473" rim and its suitablity in bolt guns.

I try and tell people that there is very little that is new under the sun, when it comes to cartridge developement.

A few years ago, I was in a store I frequent, with a bunch of guys who were oogleing a Model 70 in .300 WSM.

I said that, IMO, the .300 WSM was nothing more then a modern .308 Norma, which was a post WWII .30 Newton.

All I got back was four blank stares.

I guess nobody reads much anymore, or at least reads about what was done "back in the day".


Seely Masker developed the round using 30-30 brass, in one of his articles Waters mentions that .225 Win brass could be an alternative for those that didn't want to have the boltfaces of their rifles opened up or turn the rims on 30-30 brass to fit a .473' bolt face.  Doubtless people that adopted SM wasp and similar cartridges during the great 6mm PPC brass famines used .225 brass as available out of convenience.

The 300 WSM is and is very similar to Rick Jamison .404 based short magnum and a close copy of Jim Busha's 300 HE Mag books.google.com/books?id=dN2Riq7zfToC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=338+heavy+express+busha+&source=web&ots=kSzcy2QqG4&sig=D1LfijdDtu_H5X9bP_sBmOMsJ2Q&hl=en#PPA102,M1
Neither Jamison's or Busha's designs are especially unique.  Look at Fred Wade's and Roy Gradle's rimless .348 Win based cartridges from decades before.

Nobody reads, nor has much respect for the people on who's shoulders they stand.

David
Link Posted: 5/15/2008 9:47:32 PM EST
[#21]

Quoted:



Four different bullets in the 6.5 MPC.  Note all are
seated to 5.56 OAL to run through M-16 magazines.

6.5 MPC SSK Industries...


I think this this case size (41-43mm long w/ a 0.378" case head) is limited to 85-110 grains.

Seems to be possible to launch the 100gr Laupa Sencar BTHP bullet at 2,500 fps in a 14.5" to 16" barrel.

With its BC of 0.444, this would make it supersonic past 800 meters.

Maybe a 85-90gr AP bullet as well?
Link Posted: 5/16/2008 5:39:14 PM EST
[#22]

Quoted:
The 300 WSM is and is very similar to Rick Jamison .404 based short magnum and a close copy of Jim Busha's 300 HE Mag books.google.com/books?id=dN2Riq7zfToC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=338+heavy+express+busha+&source=web&ots=kSzcy2QqG4&sig=D1LfijdDtu_H5X9bP_sBmOMsJ2Q&hl=en#PPA102,M1
Neither Jamison's or Busha's designs are especially unique.  


Actually, Jamison's short magnum is VERY unique.  Enough so that is is patented.  See, Rick took all these old rounds that have been mentioned and started looking at performance versus dimensions.  He looked at rounds that appeared to "perform far beyond what you would expect" (look in an OLD COTW and Barnes makes a similar statement about the 22 Spitfire).  Anyway, Rick put together a number of ratios of dimensions that appeared to be consistent (or within a tight range) for all of these rounds and theorized that it was this combination of dimensions that yielded their extraordinary performance.  He did oodles of testing, wrote all of it up very neatly, and applied for his patent.  That patent was awarded and with all of his goodies in hand, he then approached all the big gun makers (Winchester, Remington, FN, several more).  He made sure, however, that he had rock solid NDAs in place on his information, including clauses more or less making it clear that any round that fell within the patented range would be subject to patent infringement.  He tried to get the big makers to bite but after taking all of his information they kicked him to the curb.  Their thought: we are bigger, have deeper pockets, even if he sues, we can wear him down.  So Win came out with the WSM, Rem with the RSAUM, and Rick got shafted.  Or not?  He contacted an attorney, legal battles ensued and said attorney realized that if they stayed in the fight, they could win.  Eventually one of the big firms decided they had had enough (we're talking a few years of legal battles with commensurate cost) and folded.  This then caused the others to have to do so as well and Rick got awarded the settlement.  However, after that, he was black balled from the industry and was unable to get much of any work related to his previous endeavors.

As told to me by a very well connected insider in the industry.
Link Posted: 5/16/2008 7:52:22 PM EST
[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The 300 WSM is and is very similar to Rick Jamison .404 based short magnum and a close copy of Jim Busha's 300 HE Mag books.google.com/books?id=dN2Riq7zfToC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=338+heavy+express+busha+&source=web&ots=kSzcy2QqG4&sig=D1LfijdDtu_H5X9bP_sBmOMsJ2Q&hl=en#PPA102,M1
Neither Jamison's or Busha's designs are especially unique.  


Actually, Jamison's short magnum is VERY unique.  Enough so that is is patented.  See, Rick took all these old rounds that have been mentioned and started looking at performance versus dimensions.  He looked at rounds that appeared to "perform far beyond what you would expect" (look in an OLD COTW and Barnes makes a similar statement about the 22 Spitfire).  Anyway, Rick put together a number of ratios of dimensions that appeared to be consistent (or within a tight range) for all of these rounds and theorized that it was this combination of dimensions that yielded their extraordinary performance.  He did oodles of testing, wrote all of it up very neatly, and applied for his patent.  That patent was awarded and with all of his goodies in hand, he then approached all the big gun makers (Winchester, Remington, FN, several more).  He made sure, however, that he had rock solid NDAs in place on his information, including clauses more or less making it clear that any round that fell within the patented range would be subject to patent infringement.  He tried to get the big makers to bite but after taking all of his information they kicked him to the curb.  Their thought: we are bigger, have deeper pockets, even if he sues, we can wear him down.  So Win came out with the WSM, Rem with the RSAUM, and Rick got shafted.  Or not?  He contacted an attorney, legal battles ensued and said attorney realized that if they stayed in the fight, they could win.  Eventually one of the big firms decided they had had enough (we're talking a few years of legal battles with commensurate cost) and folded.  This then caused the others to have to do so as well and Rick got awarded the settlement.  However, after that, he was black balled from the industry and was unable to get much of any work related to his previous endeavors.

As told to me by a very well connected insider in the industry.


The story is exactly as I have heard it.  I don't doubt it.

I'll don't think Jamison's cartridges are what is unique.  It was certainly is no secret that similar designs were capable of extraordinary efficiency.  I think what sets him apart is the quality and thoroughness of his testing and the capability to prove his findings.  That, plus the efforts he went through to protect and defend his intellectual property.  

David
Link Posted: 5/17/2008 3:24:55 AM EST
[#24]
6.8SPC neck to 6mm would rock. any info on it would be nice.
Link Posted: 5/17/2008 5:56:33 AM EST
[#25]

Quoted:
6.8SPC neck to 6mm would rock. any info on it would be nice.


It was talked about earlier in this very thread.
Link Posted: 5/17/2008 6:48:10 AM EST
[#26]
I have a 6x45, but I find that the ammo stack binds in the magazine.

The "ribs" on the magazine pinch the necks of the cases, causing the ass-end of the rounds to "yaw" outward in the back of the magazine.

Too much friction in the mag.

Works OK if I only load about 4 rounds in the magazine.
A full mag is unreliable.
Link Posted: 5/17/2008 7:27:56 AM EST
[#27]

Quoted:
I have a 6x45, but I find that the ammo stack binds in the magazine.

The "ribs" on the magazine pinch the necks of the cases, causing the ass-end of the rounds to "yaw" outward in the back of the magazine.

Too much friction in the mag.

Works OK if I only load about 4 rounds in the magazine.
A full mag is unreliable.


My G.I. mags work ok, but I also see there is more binding at the ribs than for the same mag with 5.56x45mm. In looking for mags to give more room for cartridge length I tried many different ones and currently use the CProducts SS 30 round mag it lets me seat the bullets out .030" farther and has less drag at the ribs. You might give them a try to see if it helps, some times you can get a tight magwell that also adds to the problem.

If you reload the 6x45mm is a great cartridge to work with. The 6mm ppc Has been noted to be a bolt buster in the AR platform because of bolt gun reloading data being used. Because of the bolt thrust issue with the 6mm ppc the 6x45mm may be the better choice in the AR.

Joe
Link Posted: 5/17/2008 10:14:40 AM EST
[#28]
One of these days, I think I'll just dremel some slots where the necks bind. Since I built the rifle mainly to annoy the FUDDS where I hunt (no .223 allowed for deer), I really only need the mag to reliably feed a half-dozen rounds or so. At the risk of sounding like a FUDD myself, how many shots you gonna take at a deer before you're just making noise?
Link Posted: 5/17/2008 2:49:06 PM EST
[#29]

Quoted:
One of these days, I think I'll just dremel some slots where the necks bind. Since I built the rifle mainly to annoy the FUDDS where I hunt (no .223 allowed for deer), I really only need the mag to reliably feed a half-dozen rounds or so. At the risk of sounding like a FUDD myself, how many shots you gonna take at a deer before you're just making noise?


Here in Michigan we are only allowed 5 in the mag and 1 in the chamber for hunting, I was not suggesting you use a 30 round mag for hunting it was just an example of some things to look at when choosing a mag for the 6x45mm. The stainless steel mags generally have a little more room inside.

Joe
Link Posted: 5/18/2008 4:38:54 PM EST
[#30]
as to the number of shots fired - as the old folks say at home,

one shot, meat in the pot

two shots, maybe

three shots, seldom
Link Posted: 5/19/2008 4:31:23 AM EST
[#31]

Quoted:
I have a 6x45, but I find that the ammo stack binds in the magazine.

The "ribs" on the magazine pinch the necks of the cases, causing the ass-end of the rounds to "yaw" outward in the back of the magazine.

Too much friction in the mag.

Works OK if I only load about 4 rounds in the magazine.
A full mag is unreliable.
]

Wow, I chambered my first AR in 6 x 45 about 16 years ago, have chambered dozens of them since, and I have yet to hear of anyone else having this problem.  I use my 6 x 45 all the time, and I just don't have feed/function issues.

As far as the 6.8 SPC necked down to 6mm:  John @ White Oak Armament did it a long time ago.  He built the rifle that won Camp Perry this year, and it was chambered on a round quite similar to the 6 WOA.  It was the 6 Haggar (SP?) a slightly longer case, but the same origin.

I think you will find that someone will commercialize the 6.8 SPC necked down to 6 mm,  and probably also .224, in the near future.
Link Posted: 5/19/2008 8:06:50 AM EST
[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I have a 6x45, but I find that the ammo stack binds in the magazine.

The "ribs" on the magazine pinch the necks of the cases, causing the ass-end of the rounds to "yaw" outward in the back of the magazine.

Too much friction in the mag.

Works OK if I only load about 4 rounds in the magazine.
A full mag is unreliable.
]

Wow, I chambered my first AR in 6 x 45 about 16 years ago, have chambered dozens of them since, and I have yet to hear of anyone else having this problem.  I use my 6 x 45 all the time, and I just don't have feed/function issues.

As far as the 6.8 SPC necked down to 6mm:  John @ White Oak Armament did it a long time ago.  He built the rifle that won Camp Perry this year, and it was chambered on a round quite similar to the 6 WOA.  It was the 6 Haggar (SP?) a slightly longer case, but the same origin.

I think you will find that someone will commercialize the 6.8 SPC necked down to 6 mm,  and probably also .224, in the near future.


I do not know if either the 6mmWOA or the 5.56x42 DMR will be commercialized.

What do either do that the 22 PPC and 6mm PPC don't in single shots and bolt guns?

And I do not see a large, commercially viable, market for either round in an AR.

Then again, I like the .250 Savage, 10mm, and .338 Federal, so I might not know much about the marketplace.
Link Posted: 5/19/2008 8:31:24 AM EST
[#33]
Well I'm just sticking my neck out a little, but "mark the tape" I bet you will see at lease one form of necked-down version of the 6.8 SPC commercialized within a year.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! 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.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top