• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

16-18" AR10, would you go 308 or 6.5 creedmoor?

jpk said:
I'd be disappointed if folks werent taught to push limits but the spec is what the spec is

And yes, I saw the argument you made for 500 yards but think its overblown, especially when one factors in all of the downsides.....cost, no bac options, parts option/avail, cost of parts, barrel wear and all the others including the comment that someone made that range would be 250 or less

But like I said, it would be an interesting gun if someone has money burning a hole in their pocket and ammo avail isnt an issue like it is for many in mass
Click to expand...

Even with in the spec, 6.5CM outperforms 7.62.

As for your laundry list of things, most were valid a couple years ago, but not really any more. Only a couple hold water still.

Cost: it doesn’t cost any more than 7.62 except for the increasingly hard to find old surplus ammo. Training ammo for either round is 50 cents a round. Same same, including the prices for match and hunting ammo.

BAC: They’re out there. And my 16” with 143gr actually matches up to mil dots out to 600 yards. This issue does have legitimacy, but we’ll see more options for 6.5CM BDC coming out.

Parts options/availability: There are plenty of 6.5CM barrels out there. Not as many as 7.62, but still a lot out there. The SCAR being the exception and has few 6.5 options. Every other part is interchangeable with 7.62 rifles so they’re all the same availability. For ammo, I’ve had no issues getting 6.5CM in MA. It’s not a new round anymore.

Cost of parts: cost exactly the same

Barrel life: fair, but with a nitrided barrel, the barrel cost will be a tiny percentage of the thousands of dollars of ammo for either caliber.
 
Last edited:
jpk said:
Dont get me wrong, I think its an interesting project.....but I'm not an early adopter for all the reasons I've tossed out previously

The cost and avail ISNT the same

I can walk into most any LGS in NH and NORMALLY (No Rona) there are a dizzying number of choices for 7.62 avail for .45-55 all day every day

I'm lucky to see 1 choice of 6.5 with the least expensive starting at .75/round for 6.5

Parts/Barrels are few and far between for 6.5 while 7.62 is everywhere

Trijicon doesnt have a 6.5 BAC sight currently, they may in future or they may not so that leaves one with option of traditional glass only...certainly not the end of the world but it also speaks to limitations of early adopters and limitations period

Barrel cost is also real......and even more important is longevity, its pretty well documented that 6.5 is hard on barrel life and most of what I've READ (insert bucket of salt) points to about half the life in 6.5 as 7.62

The upside is that you can use same lower and mags

For me a 6.5 AR its a solution looking for a problem to solve.....lots of other tools that fit that niche and do a good enough job at lower cost with more avail/options

But I'm admittedly NOT an early adopter.....if .gov decides to adopt it then stuff will begin to change and it will be more common/better worked out and more options/avail.

Until that point I'll run what I brung and let you early adopters spend money I dont have/are not willing to part with unnecessarily
Click to expand...

Just a couple notes. And I get you already have 7.62 setups so there’s not much reason to change for the time being. But...

1. At this point, it’s not early adopting. It’s been around for over a decade and it’s a well developed round. I’ve held off on the round for a long while to see where it was going. It’s here to stay now and the industry has done a lot of cartridge/load development. Definitely not early adopting.

2. The gov is adopting it. SOCOM chose it to replace 7.62 in its M110s and other gas gun platforms (which apparently is just a solution looking for a problem)

3. The only difference in parts for 6.5CM vs 7.62 NATO guns is the barrel. It’s not just lower and mag compatibility, but bolts and everything else aside from the barrel. So “parts” availability isn’t an issue. And there are LOTS of 6.5CM barrel options out there now. Yes, not as many as 7.62, but plenty.

I would like to see more optics manufacturers provide BDC/wind hold reticles for 6.5CM though. Agreed on that aspect.

Aside from you not seeing much 6.5CM at your local gun store (cough: online/ Targetsports or a less fuddy LGS) , a lot of what you’re saying is what people were saying five years ago. Things have changed.
 
Queen Bee said:
What length did you throw in your ar10?
Click to expand...
20" heavy barrel. It's big bulky, heavy, and needs a bi-pod (can coming soon).

But nothing I did should factor into your decisions. I totally backed into my AR10 the wrong way. I love the rifle, love shooting it, but would do things differently now that I have it.

I wanted an AR-10 because I started loading .308 for my father-in-laws (now our) M1A Nation Match (that's a nice rifle). I liked the round and wanted to shoot it in a modern semi-automatic. I didn't consider 6.5 mostly out of ignorance. I didn't know much about 6.5 and didn't realize how mainstream it had become.

I retrospect I really did want something more like and SR-25 DMR.
 
Queen Bee said:
I hope this is not representative of faxon "match" barrels
Click to expand...

Oh dang. That sucks. My Faxon barrel wasn’t a real pain to get in the upper receiver. A lot of heat/cold and some force. But I wasn’t sure if it was the barrel extension or the receiver. No issues like you are seeing though. Hopefully they make it right.
 
Sounds like you already decided but I've got a bunch of "AR10" (in quotes because this means a few patterns) stuff and here's what I think..

16 inch AR10s are often way overlooked, so many people put them together thinking long range shooter and don't realize what a great short range blaster 7.62nato makes (ie what it does to concrete versus 5.56), or don't realize how heavy they are and goofy they get if you go longer on the barrel... 16 inches is still perfectly fine for ranges outside of blasting too, not saying it isn't.

Now in practical terms though once you put a big adjustable magnification scope on there you also probably blew the weight budget to the point where you will want to rest the rifle too. So if you insist on that versus a red dot, 2.5x, etc, then i say go with it and build a bench gun..

For a bipod/bench gun weight is a non consideration, get a barrel as long and heavy as practical ( depending on constraints of carrying it around, ie hunting).. for something along these lines 6.5 creedmoor starts to shine.

Last, these things have a hard time operating well across the range of ammo from underpowered 7.62 up to hot .308 loads.. ideally you want an adjustable gas block to compensate into a sweet spot that runs anything even thousands of rounds later. Start with a formula that runs 7.62 well, then tune the gas down so it still does, and .308 should then still eject (and remain ejected) as it should. The JP model that comes in 2 pieces is both easy to install and does the trick for me w/ Aero stuff, in about the middle of its adjustment range.
 
I had to use google to figure out what that was. Not to crap on your thread, but why are you installing that? I know you are in Mass, but why?
 
Queen Bee said:
it burns my buttons to have to buy this shitty little thing to build an AR10 in MA.

View attachment 355224
Click to expand...

While FFLs generally interpret Healey’s decree to include AR-10s, take another look at the law and the history of AR-10s/AR-15s.

Even if one believes Healey’s interpretation that all AR pattern rifles(ie 5.56 size ARs) are copies or duplicates of the original Colt AR-15, that does not apply to AR-10s. AR-10s are not AR-15s in a different caliber. They are completely different firearms. They not only existed as separate firearms when Colt AR-15s were specifically added to the AWB list, but they predate AR-15s. Therefore, there’s no logical path to conclude AR-10 pattern rifles can be copies or duplicates of AR-15s.

Obviously it is up to your own risk assessment, but Healey’s parts interchangeability tests are complete and utter nonsense with zero basis in actual law. I do not agree with her upending 18 years of MA legal interpretation and even more of federal legal interpretation (since MA AWB specifically cites federal AWB) with her decree that all ARs are copies and duplicates of the Colt AR-15. But her “tests” are in no way valid as they are not based on law... not even a loose interpretation of law.
 
Are you kidding me J.B.O.. you deserve to be outed. You tried selling me test fitted or blem...
Lindsey replied
May 8, 3:02pm​
Thank you for getting those images to us. It does appear that there was enough damage to the package in transit to result in that barrel being damaged. I will talk with the shipping department and we'll get a new barrel mailed out to you with a return label that you can use to send that damaged one back to us. Let us know if there is anything else we can help you with.
 
Queen Bee said:
Are you kidding me J.B.O.. you deserve to be outed. You tried selling me test fitted or blem...
Lindsey replied
May 8, 3:02pm​
Thank you for getting those images to us. It does appear that there was enough damage to the package in transit to result in that barrel being damaged. I will talk with the shipping department and we'll get a new barrel mailed out to you with a return label that you can use to send that damaged one back to us. Let us know if there is anything else we can help you with.
Click to expand...
Sounds like they’re doing the right thing.
 

Similar threads

Is this BS or the MA Holy Grail
Replies
18
Views
601
Yotacrawler
Yotacrawler
AR10 DMR Thoughts (LMT, DD)
Replies
18
Views
439
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
  • Poll
1st Gen Shield 9 - Sell or bubba?
Replies
29
Views
407
PappyM3
PappyM3
Revolver Guys: Would You Consider? What Caliber?
Replies
13
Views
550
PATRON
PATRON
Is a gun built off an 80% lower worth more or less than a branded complete gun?
Replies
28
Views
926
CrackPot
CrackPot
Back
Top Bottom