New Army rifle?

Appears as if they are ditching the 6.5/6.8 rounds and going back to the 7.62 NATO, albeit in a beefed up cartridge…?

Interesting comments:

"Norman said that the most important new feature would be the significantly increased chamber pressure to ensure that the rounds fired will penetrate all known body armor at a distance of up to over 1,900 feet (600 meters). The aim is to equip the service members in the field with an automatic rifle that fires a bullet at a pressure equivalent to that at which a tank would fire.

The chamber pressure for rifles currently in use is approximately 45KSI (kilopound per square inch), or 45000 PSI. The Army anticipates that the new weapon will have a chamber pressure of 60-80 KSI, which is the chamber pressure exhibited by an M1 Abrams tank."

“The Army previously focused its efforts on developing an improved carbine that still fired rounds between 6.5mm and 6.8mm to supersede the M4, but have now shifted priorities toward a beefy and highly efficient automatic NGSAR.”

“The beefed-up rifle is intended for this purpose and prototypes are currently undergoing testing at Fort Benning in Georgia by the Soldier Lethality Cross-Functional Team. Initially, the weapon will fire the 7.62mm XM11158 Advanced Armor Piercing (ADVAP) round while new specialized rounds are under development.

This is a confused mess of an article.

SOCOM is currently working with modified 7.62 mm weapons rechambered for 6.5 mm Creedmoor, which has far better long-range ballistics and armour penetration than the 7.62mm.

The big Army is supporting the development of more advanced ammunition and weapons (both rifles and MGs) operating at up to 80,000 psi. These are in 6.8 mm calibre and the army is supplying EPR 6.8 mm bullets weighing c.125 grains for the contenders to design their cartridges around. Long range performance and penetration are intended to be significantly better than 6.5 mm Creedmoor.

The ADVAP round is designed for use in standard 7.62mm weapons, i.e. it operates at standard pressures. Nobody in their right mind would develop 80,000 psi service ammo which could be chambered and fired in ordinary 7.62 mm NATO weapons.


KSI… while the rest of the world uses MPa. Stupidity and stubbornness seemingly knows no bounds.

And, like I’ve pointed out before, Norwegian trials found in 1891 that 6,5 has a better sectional density, BC, energy/velocity retainment, lower recoil, and a longer “holdover” range than 7, 7,62, and 8 mm does. Then again, refusing to adopt the better solution, then 30 years later “finding” the same solution again, is very typical of US small arms development by this point.
See for example the mess with .280 British, 7,62 NATO, 5,56 NATO…



I am a horrible mathmetician, but that did pressure comparison not sound right to me…

I am a HUGE fan of the 5.5 x 55 mm Swedish Mauser round, liking the ballistic travel as similar to the .308/.30-06 Match 168 Gr., and hunting rounds compared to the .308/.30-06 165 Gr., (in a Nosler Perition, of course).

I’m not a fan of the misnomer “Swedish Mauser” but so be it…it’s stuck with you anglosphere folks.

6,5x55 is without a doubt the most common and most underrated long range cartridge in Norway. It performs much better out to 8-900 m than .308W ever hopes to do.

I don’t like the bastard 6,5 Creedmore (or Creedmeme, Mememoor, Fadmore, Creedhype etc) but if a stubby, ugly cartridge is what it takes for the US to appreciate 6,5 bullets then all the better.



Ole, I shoot an 1896 Swedish Mauser, and an AG-42b Ljungman, both made in Sweden, which is where the cartridge was developed, under what I believe at the time was known as the ‘United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway’, no?
No offense, but, I have never heard the cartridge called the 6.5x55 Norwegian Krag.

And if you pay attention to fads, the 6.5 Creedmore is just another in a long line of 6.5mm, (and 6.8), cartridges that have come and gone in the U.S, along with a host of other calibers.
It is all about fascination with ‘New’, and Marketing to people who are gullible.

Purely from a hunting persective, nearly every ‘New’ cartridge that has been introduced over the past 20 or so years does not do anything better than the cartridge it was intended to replace, except maybe in a smaller package…

I am sure the fascination will die down as soon as the next Whoop-Dee-Doo cartridge comes along.

1 Like

The cartridge was a joint project between Norway and Sweden, where Norway did the caliber research first, finding 6,5 was the best replacement for the 10,15 and 8 mm cartridges in use at the time. The Swedes simply decided we need to find a common cartridge case for a 6,5 bullet and then we had different firearms.

I think “Swedish Mauser” is a misnomer and misleading, since the cartridge was used in the Krag-Jørgensen, M96 Mausers, the Madsen LMG, and several other firearms (M98 actions, Ksp-58A (FN MAG), Ljungman, and other rifles), and was not intended only for the Swedish rifles at the time.

The modern “SE” cartridge is a compromise of the “Krag cartridge” and “Mauser cartridge”, as the former was on the higher end of the tolerance range and the latter on the lower end. Today the “SE” cartridge is fired in “SKAN” chambers used in the Sauer 200 STR target rifles in Scandinavian rifle associations (the DFS in Norway).

Personally it ticks me off that people still call it Swedish Mauser when it was in no way proprietary to the M96, keep in mind that Norway was manufacturing Krag M/1894s before the Swedes started making the M96 (1895)…



O.K., we get that you are touchy about this, and I am sorry it is such a touchy thing for you,
But I do not think it is called a 6.5 Swedish strictly because of the Mauser action design, but that is neither here nor there.
I have heard the term ‘6.5x55 Swedish’, with and without the ‘Mauser’ applied, used not only by U.S. shooters, but by shooters I have met from several other countries, and on ammunition made worldwide.
As I said, I personally have never- before your comments- heard anyone refer to it as anything different, either by voice or in print, over the past 50+ years that I have been involved with the cartridge.
I think it is past time to be upset about the name, regardless of the history of the cartridge, because the companies that make the cartridge, the people who sell and buy the cartridge, and the people write up information in articles and sales info, will never change the name.

I’m not very touchy, neither am I very upset about it, but it’s the same level of stupidness as “8x57 JS”. Many people saying something wrong many times doesn’t make it right…



you touched upon the core of the matter.
For example, we know that AK-47 is a misnomer for the Soviet AK and AKM family of assault rifles.
We know Mauser was not involved in the development of the 6.5 x 55 (Austrian company Roth was, according to researcher Josef Mötz).
We know Mauser was not at all involved in the development of the German 7.9 mm ammunition and we also know 7.92 was created after the fact as a Czechoslovak designation for this cartridge.
We know that the “7.65 mm Argentine” actually IS a Mauser development and was first adopted by Belgium.
Should we continue to use these and other misnomers in spite of knowing the facts, just because it has always been this way? Or should we accept improved knowledge about the past and start to apply a name in line with the facts?

1 Like

Jochem, you are fully correct in almost anything you said above. And as you are saying the list of these is quite long.

Some time ago though I was surprised myself to see this 1949 dated Soviet manual (presumably the first one issued). I guess even “non-Cyrillic readers” can figure this one.

there is no doubt an AK-47 existed. But it was a limited production predecessor to the AK. It developed problems because the stamped receiver technology was not matured enough in the Soviet industry and a return to a milled receiver (the AK) had to be done. Because the AK became the first general issue weapon, its name should be used in my opinion, not the designation of an obscure prototype.
The funny thing is, early U.S. intelligence reports from Europe actually name the wapon AK. “AK-47” only turns up later.
In the foreword of the book “The Grim Reaper” the author admits the name “AK-47” is wrong, but because the wrong name is so widespread, he decided to continue using it in his book. Perpetuating wrong information is a mistake in my view.

Jochem, my point was to show that also the designation “AK-47” existed in the USSR and is not a western brain child.
That the later used generalization was not really reflecting the facts is true then. Maybe US sources kept using the initially encountered designation and did not dare to change anything for convenience and also not to confuse all the “experts”? I guess we never will find out.

Grim Reaper:
The ammunition part there is horrible! (this is kind wording for this)
When I got my copy directly from the publisher at the IWA in 2014 I mentioned to him that there is quite some flaws that needed correction. Their reaction was like:
Who the f… are you to criticize our magnificent book !?
The shame is that they are crediting Bill Woodin (I assume for having answered a few questions in the course of the research) who I am sure never saw the whole ammo chapter before it was published as it would never have happened this way I think.

Addressing ourselves as “Researcher”, how credible are we ignoring our own research results by continuing misnoming?
Just mho, Hans

1 Like

I have an illustrated Exhibition Catalogue (dual language, Russian and English) concerning The Weapons of Kalashnikov, held at The Artillery Museum in St. Petersburg to mark Mikhail Kalashnikov’s 80th anniversary.

After showing three 1946 prototypes of the assault rifle, the next series is listed as “AK-47 prototypes”, with seven versions shown dated 1947 and 1948. After these come the production models, starting with Index 56-A-212, “adopted by the Soviet Army in 1949”. These are all designated AK until 1959, when the designation changed to AKM (Index 6P1).

As I understand it, around 200 AK-47 pre-production guns were built and handed over to the army for operational testing. As a result, numerous changes were made to the design before it was adopted as the AK.

So the designation “AK-47” certainly exists - but technically should only be applied to those 200 pre-production guns. However, that horse bolted from the stable long ago…

I might add that the designation “.30’06” was not officially used by the US Army. In their monumental work on US small-arms ammunition, HWS refer to it as the “Caliber .30 Ammunition, Model 1906 Type”, or “Cal. .30” for short.

I have fired thousands of 120mm tank rounds and there is no rifle or hand gun that can handle that chamber pressure.

I think the great majority of those who have some experience in this field will wholeheartedly agree.

As noted there are a number of, for lack of a better term, “politically correct”, incorrect names for a number of case types that have been put into print & are now the go-to ID for a case type. (lets add .45 Long Colt in the list, although SAMMI does now call it that)

Perhaps someone could take it on to make a list that the IAA can post with the “proper” name in one column and the “common” name(s) across from it? And it wouldn’t hurt to provide the reasoning why these common names are not quite correct.

Just a thought. - Any volunteers?