Old Time Hunter
New member
6.5 X 55 'nuff said.
Best intermediate rifle round and why
- Thread starter iMagUdspEllr
- Start date
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Whichever one works for you for reliable hits at 300 meters. Likely, they'll all work just fine.
Depends more on the rifle and shooter than the cartridge...
Depends more on the rifle and shooter than the cartridge...
sc928porsche
New member
Sorry, my term for intermediate rifle round starts with .308 and goes up a bit. 270, 280, 30/06 etc.
Palmetto-Pride
New member
Inside of 300m I would pick the 5.56
L_Killkenny
New member
Well as you can see by the posts that followed yours you are indeed wrong. While I'm sure there has never been a definitive list of "intermediate" cartridges they might generally be considered short action cartridges from 6mm to 7mm. Now that doesn't mean that long action cartridges like the .25-06 are definitely off the list nor does it mean that being over 7mm is an automatic disqualifier with the 7.62x39 and .30 Carbine being good examples of this. Also, it doesn't mean that ALL short action cartridges in the 6-7mm range qualify, the "Winchester Short Magnums" being an example. Any diameter below 6mm IS a disqualifier though. In the grand scheme of things the .22's are pipsqueaks.
Location can be another factor that may twist the list. In Africa the .308, the .30-06 and even 7mm Mag may be considered "intermediate". Like I said, there is NO definitive list.
IMO, where you got off track is in your question. You are not seeking information about the best "intermediate" rifle round, you are seeking the best so-called "assault rifle" rifle round. Just cause it doesn't fit in an AR15 platform doesn't mean it isn't an "intermediate". Many cartridge that do fit and are commonly used in that and similar platforms are not "intermediate".
LK
Last edited:
RBernie said it best if assuming what the OP listed was the range, which--right or wrong--I was as well:
"6.8SPC, assuming that the definition of 'intermediate' implies an OAL that is less than 2.26" (or 57mm). It has the broadest performance envelope and product availability of any AR friendly chambering."
But LK makes some very good points if you loosen the criteria out to a broader context, which also makes sense. Make mine 7mm-08 of the traditional short-actions or .308 family--does most of what the .308 does, flatter and with a bit less sturm und drang, making it just about an ideal "battle rifle" round I'd think (real world ramp-up/logistics aside)--in addition to being a time-proven "all round" hunter (mostly medium game). I wouldn't usually consider a .270 Win an "intermediate" round in today's context" (thinking stereotypically AR platform as that)--unless we're hunting Africa or Alaska--so I wouldn't consider 7mm-08 such either necessarily...as it's effectively a ".270 lite," only bowing to the great Win in 300+ shots. Thus, my original 6.8 response like RBernie's. Within the OP's list/context, to me the 6.8 is similarly a "7mm-08 lite"--being optimally limited to ranges under the -08's effective reach. And, even if one is talking AR platform (and no one says that, but...assuming), I'd agree that, in terms of caliber/cartridge, "intermediate" starts at 6mm, but still limited in OAL.
For us old timers out there, I also liked the .30-30 comments someone made. Have shot that great under-rated round for years. Obviously limited--at least til Hornady/Leverlution--by action type, a few bolts out there notwithstanding, still a great classic/traditional intermediate do-all if loaded and bullet'd up right.Yes, I know a x39 is "essentially" a spitzered .30-30, but IMO it still is a lesser round without quite the punch within their respective effective ranges if that makes any sense!
"6.8SPC, assuming that the definition of 'intermediate' implies an OAL that is less than 2.26" (or 57mm). It has the broadest performance envelope and product availability of any AR friendly chambering."
But LK makes some very good points if you loosen the criteria out to a broader context, which also makes sense. Make mine 7mm-08 of the traditional short-actions or .308 family--does most of what the .308 does, flatter and with a bit less sturm und drang, making it just about an ideal "battle rifle" round I'd think (real world ramp-up/logistics aside)--in addition to being a time-proven "all round" hunter (mostly medium game). I wouldn't usually consider a .270 Win an "intermediate" round in today's context" (thinking stereotypically AR platform as that)--unless we're hunting Africa or Alaska--so I wouldn't consider 7mm-08 such either necessarily...as it's effectively a ".270 lite," only bowing to the great Win in 300+ shots. Thus, my original 6.8 response like RBernie's. Within the OP's list/context, to me the 6.8 is similarly a "7mm-08 lite"--being optimally limited to ranges under the -08's effective reach. And, even if one is talking AR platform (and no one says that, but...assuming), I'd agree that, in terms of caliber/cartridge, "intermediate" starts at 6mm, but still limited in OAL.
For us old timers out there, I also liked the .30-30 comments someone made. Have shot that great under-rated round for years. Obviously limited--at least til Hornady/Leverlution--by action type, a few bolts out there notwithstanding, still a great classic/traditional intermediate do-all if loaded and bullet'd up right.Yes, I know a x39 is "essentially" a spitzered .30-30, but IMO it still is a lesser round without quite the punch within their respective effective ranges if that makes any sense!
L_Killkenny
New member
Just a guess here but I'm thinkin he's been "reading" about how bad the 5.56 is and doesn't realize there is little difference between it and the 5.45. Of coarse the latter ends in 39 some and in some circles that just automatically makes it far superior.
LK
Crow Hunter
New member
5.56 is superior to all the listed rounds for use in anything other than hunting large bodied big game.
In particular if you factor in availability in the US.
If you were in Russia, and actually able to purchase ammo, I would probably choose 5.45X39.
If you were wanting to hunt elk and moose, you should probably pick something completely different.
In particular if you factor in availability in the US.
If you were in Russia, and actually able to purchase ammo, I would probably choose 5.45X39.
If you were wanting to hunt elk and moose, you should probably pick something completely different.
iMagUdspEllr
New member
@Crow Hunter: Why is 5.56x45 superior?
iMagUdspEllr
New member
@rickyrick: I'll get right to it...
If you mean human targets, the 5.56 does fine. If you mean human targets behind some armor or a car door, while still maintaining some semblance of recoil control, I believe the 7.62x39 proved its worth. The 6.8SPC and 6.5 Grendel would also do about the same. A full-auto .308 certainly has it's detractors, so I imagine every recommendation is peppered with feasibility in mind. You can always find something "better" (read: stronger) than an intermediate cartridge, but shooting 100's of them in a battle situation can be quite fatiguing, let alone the weight to carry it.
Everything is a trade off. I think for short range engagements, whether friend, foe or deer, anything more powerful than a 7.62x39 is probably not needed. If you need more than that, I guess it ain't no intermediate cartridge!
If I could wave a magic wand to change history and impose my ruling on the intermediate cartridge crown to replace the 5.56, it would probably be the 6.8SPC. Yah, there is more powerful alternatives available, but there always is. I feel that's probably a decent tradeoff, as did the designers.
Everything is a trade off. I think for short range engagements, whether friend, foe or deer, anything more powerful than a 7.62x39 is probably not needed. If you need more than that, I guess it ain't no intermediate cartridge!
If I could wave a magic wand to change history and impose my ruling on the intermediate cartridge crown to replace the 5.56, it would probably be the 6.8SPC. Yah, there is more powerful alternatives available, but there always is. I feel that's probably a decent tradeoff, as did the designers.
SurplusShooter
New member
I said 7.62x39mm as it is one of my favorite rounds in general and have good experience from ballistic tests but I would not rule any of the other rounds listed out.
Crow Hunter
New member
1. Light weight
2. Low recoil
3. Flat trajectory
4. Penetration
5. Availability
6. Low cost
7. Lethality
5.56 is superior to the other rounds because it does all of the above combined better than all the rest. Some of the rounds you listed will be better in one or maybe more attributes, but not all of them combined.
Everything is a compromise. You just have to decide what compromise you are willing to live with.
If you are going to be spending a lot of your time shooting through intermediate barriers you will probably want to pick something else. If you are planning on shooting elk or moose, you should pick something else.
If you are into long range "deer sniping" you should pick something else.
But for a general purpose arm for use in the continental US for recreation/defense/light hunting from 0-300 yards, the 5.56 is the best compromise out there.
semi_problomatic
New member
Just thought y'all might like to read this on the tumbling issue:
*** "¼ Although the gyroscopic spin of the bullet along its axis is sufficient to stabilize the bullet in air, this spin is insufficient to stabilize the bullet when it enters the denser medium of tissue. Thus, as soon s the bullet enters to body, it will begin to wobble. As the bullet begins to wobble, its cross-sectional area becomes larger, the drag force increases, and more kinetic energy is lost. If the path through the tissue is long enough, the wobbling will increase to such a degree that the bullet will be completely unstable and will tumble end-over-end through the tissue."
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/scientific_topics/wound_ballistics/how_a_high-speed.html
*** "¼ Although the gyroscopic spin of the bullet along its axis is sufficient to stabilize the bullet in air, this spin is insufficient to stabilize the bullet when it enters the denser medium of tissue. Thus, as soon s the bullet enters to body, it will begin to wobble. As the bullet begins to wobble, its cross-sectional area becomes larger, the drag force increases, and more kinetic energy is lost. If the path through the tissue is long enough, the wobbling will increase to such a degree that the bullet will be completely unstable and will tumble end-over-end through the tissue."
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/scientific_topics/wound_ballistics/how_a_high-speed.html
iMagUdspEllr
New member
@robertsig: I know its fine. Its great. Its not the best for the role especially when you fire it out of barrels shorter than M16 barrels (20").
*Disclaimer: The following link does favor the 6.8 SPC. But, I'm using it as an example to show the deficiencies of the 5.56x45 round.*
http://www.itstactical.com/warcom/ammunition/military-ammunition-failures-and-solutions/
@Crow Hunter: See link above and consider the following.
1: These rounds are not much heavier... many of them are similar in weight to or lighter than AK-47 rounds. The important thing is that their marginal weight increase (which is very small) yields deadlier internal ballistic performance.
2: These rounds do not recoil a very noticeable amount more than 5.56x45 (many of them akin to AK rounds or less). And, again, they offer better ballistic performance that doesn't rely on high velocities that 5.56x45 never reaches out of a 16", 14.7", or shorter barrel.
3: Some of these rounds offer a flatter trajectory than the 5.56 (6.8 to name one). Others might not be as flat but they are adequately flat out to 300m and they are much more effective when they get there.
4: Penetration is pointless if it overpenetrates before yawing/fragmenting. These other rounds don't have problems penetrating and have tangible affects on soft targets.
5: Well, if one of these rounds is adopted it will be available... so this is a moot point. We are talking about "better" not "most common".
6: If one of these rounds is adopted then it will also cost very little... so this is a moot point. Again, we are talking about "better" not "cheapest"
7: Lethality. It is lethal, but a .22lr is lethal, too (don't get me wrong... I'm not equating them). I'm just saying that 5.56x45 isn't as deadly as these other rounds and they do not suffer as many of the downsides of using a full house caliber like a .308 (which you claimed that they do judging by your list). They aren't that heavy, they don't recoil that much more, they penetrate better, they do not suffer a loss in magazine capacity (generally), etc. They aren't 7.62 NATO rounds even though some of them are .308" in diameter.
*Disclaimer: The following link does favor the 6.8 SPC. But, I'm using it as an example to show the deficiencies of the 5.56x45 round.*
http://www.itstactical.com/warcom/ammunition/military-ammunition-failures-and-solutions/
@Crow Hunter: See link above and consider the following.
1: These rounds are not much heavier... many of them are similar in weight to or lighter than AK-47 rounds. The important thing is that their marginal weight increase (which is very small) yields deadlier internal ballistic performance.
2: These rounds do not recoil a very noticeable amount more than 5.56x45 (many of them akin to AK rounds or less). And, again, they offer better ballistic performance that doesn't rely on high velocities that 5.56x45 never reaches out of a 16", 14.7", or shorter barrel.
3: Some of these rounds offer a flatter trajectory than the 5.56 (6.8 to name one). Others might not be as flat but they are adequately flat out to 300m and they are much more effective when they get there.
4: Penetration is pointless if it overpenetrates before yawing/fragmenting. These other rounds don't have problems penetrating and have tangible affects on soft targets.
5: Well, if one of these rounds is adopted it will be available... so this is a moot point. We are talking about "better" not "most common".
6: If one of these rounds is adopted then it will also cost very little... so this is a moot point. Again, we are talking about "better" not "cheapest"
7: Lethality. It is lethal, but a .22lr is lethal, too (don't get me wrong... I'm not equating them). I'm just saying that 5.56x45 isn't as deadly as these other rounds and they do not suffer as many of the downsides of using a full house caliber like a .308 (which you claimed that they do judging by your list). They aren't that heavy, they don't recoil that much more, they penetrate better, they do not suffer a loss in magazine capacity (generally), etc. They aren't 7.62 NATO rounds even though some of them are .308" in diameter.