6.35mm UMC

deadduck357 · #1 05-06-2010, 09:56 PM

Now this all depends on whether brass will be made

http://www.datafilehost.com/download-c8b88f61.html

shane256 · #2 05-07-2010, 06:30 AM

Too long to fit in the AR15, though. That'll probably be a strong strike against it.

deadduck357 · #3 05-07-2010, 02:18 PM

Will require a new platform. Larger than AR15/M16, smaller than AR10/SR25.

broom_jm · #4 05-07-2010, 03:43 PM

Uh, I can't imagine any cartridge being great enough to spawn an entirely new firearm that will fit in-between those two platforms. I'd rather not go into all of the minutiae again, but it will be hard enough to effect any change to the standard service cartridges, let alone the rifles they are fired from.

deadduck357 · #5 05-07-2010, 09:34 PM

U.S. military is looking at conducting test for a new military rifle

broom_jm · #6 05-08-2010, 04:22 AM

That's like saying the Federal government is looking into creating a committee to....blah, blah, blah. Going all the way back to the 30 caliber, model '03, the US Army has a history of taking way too long to act on new technology or implement an obvious change. If a "new military rifle" is adopted by our forces in this decade, I'll be stunned.

mattsbox99 · #7 05-08-2010, 07:12 AM

I agree, our military is broke, they can barely afford to replace broken equipment. Also, congress is considering slashing budgets since they seem to have realized that they can't keep spending in deficit or the Americans are going to find out and be really mad.

shane256 · #8 05-17-2010, 08:44 AM

Something I just noticed... there's a typo in that PDF... it identifies the bullet itself as being 6.53mm instead of 6.35mm.

deadduck357 · #9 05-18-2010, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shane256

Something I just noticed... there's a typo in that PDF... it identifies the bullet itself as being 6.53mm instead of 6.35mm.

Not a typo, 6.53mm diameter is correct. .257in = 6.5278mm

broom_jm · #10 05-19-2010, 05:05 AM

OK, so the 6.35 UMC shoots a 6.53 bullet? Either there is a typo SOMEWHERE, or this is arguably the most confusing cartridge ever created.

Can't we just neck down a 308 to .257" and call it a 25-08?

deadduck357 · #11 05-19-2010, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broom_jm

OK, so the 6.35 UMC shoots a 6.53 bullet? Either there is a typo SOMEWHERE, or this is arguably the most confusing cartridge ever created.

.224in(.223rem) = 5.6896mm(5.7mm) bullet / bore(land-land) 5.56mm

.264in = 6.7056mm bullet / bore 6.5mm

.308in = 7.8232mm bullet / bore 7.62mm

So

.257in = 6.5278mm(6.53mm) bullet / bore 6.35mm

broom_jm · #12 05-19-2010, 07:39 PM

Clear as mud. Your cartridge is called a 6.35, but shoots a 6.53 bullet. Like I said earlier, it's bound to lead to confusion. The naming convention used when designating a new cartridge should follow one of a handful that is universally understood by your target market. In this case, you are calling a 25 caliber cartridge a 6.35mm. That is confusing to the American consumer and will result in many potential buyers ignoring the round.

deadduck357 · #13 05-19-2010, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broom_jm

Clear as mud. Your cartridge is called a 6.35, but shoots a 6.53 bullet. Like I said earlier, it's bound to lead to confusion. The naming convention used when designating a new cartridge should follow one of a handful that is universally understood by your target market. In this case, you are calling a 25 caliber cartridge a 6.35mm. That is confusing to the American consumer and will result in many potential buyers ignoring the round.

Is .308win / 7.62nato confusing ?

Is .223rem / 5.56nato confusing ?

How many American consumers ignoring these rounds...