The Survivalist’s Odds ‘n Sods:

Re: 6.5 x 55 verses the 6.5 Creedmore, and 7.62 x51 Nato

For Swede fans out there, my M38 has been capable 6.5 Creedmore performance, and is faster to shoot and more accurate than the 7.62×51 Nato match load. It has been capable of this for the past 81 years. Price, $250 with scope.

To optimize the benefits described in the article, using an old Swede, reduce the charge of IMR 4140 to 40-41g, and use either the Hornady 123 grain SST, or Amax that have the same B.C, of .510. The load will run at a flat 2,700 fps. Play with the C.O.L. for best results. Seating the shank of the bullet deeper in the neck is better, as it better centers the round in the case.

This is a time tested accuracy load in most old Swedes like myself, or the M38/M96. It will go another 100fps faster in the old M96, exceeding 6.5CM speeds by about 100 fps using the same bullet. The 123 grain SST and AMAX are useful in the 6.5 Grendel as well, and are interchangeable bullets in the same accuracy load detailed. One might be a tad more accurate. The results will often be < 1 MOA, and is a tad flatter than the 7.62 x51 Nato 168 grain match load trajectory and bucks the wind much better. It is lower recoil than the best 6.5mm 129 grain load. Lapua cases have a variance in weight of no more than 0.1 grain, but cheap Privi Partisian brass works if sorted. Swede cases fired at lower pressures last 15-20 reloads+.And best advantage yet, no spotter needed as you can see it hit, every time. Instantly adjust, and repeat. It is amazingly deadly on deer. Very ugly.

6.5×55 in a modern chamber is faster than 6.5CM, and the old Swede is virtually identical to the 6.5CM. IHMO, the most sensible 6.5 cartridge uses necked down .308 cases, and is the .260 Remington. That runs the 140 grain 6.5 bullet 100fps faster than 6.5CM, and about the same as 6.5×55 in a modern a CZ550 or Tikka. Unless one has a lifetime supply of components, it's best to have at least one rifle in .308. And there is the real advantage of the .260 Remington, mountains of .308 brass that can be necked down.

Logistics will be the key to victory. For a mountain of good quality 6.5×55 cases, here is the source, 4,800 cases for only $96.00. Shipping increases the delivered price to Montana to about 0.04 cents per case. I'd save the powder dumped for a 'rainy day':

^[12]

Re: 6.5 x55 vs 6.5CM, Correction to the previous comment needed.

IMR 4064 is the correct power. IMR 4140 to my knowledge does not exist and was unfortunately stated as the powder to use in the previous comment. Always verify load data for in a published reloading manual.

Taking the opportunity to once again elaborate, 6.5 cartridges might be the sensible sweet balance that makes it a winner, but .308 barrels last much longer than 6.5-.284 or other hot rod 6.5 cartridges. Low pressure loads in the 6.5×55 is easier on the barrel and brass, and the shooter is often more accurate with low recoil,and is faster back on target. Run 6.5×55 in modern rifle, and it can exceed the performance of .260 Remington that is also a 6.5mm. The 6.5×55 has a larger case than either the .260 or .308, by just a tad.

If the Army adopts a polymer cased 6.5mm cartridge that is similar to the 6.5 Grendel in performance, I suspect barrels will last as long as .308 barrels, and one would have the optimum balance of all the important characteristics that make it is a practical choice as a military cartridge, and deer cartridge. As an all around hunting cartridge,.308 is superior.

It is satisfying to this old Swede, that finally the underappreciated 6.5×55 SE, is once again being validated as a sensible military cartridge, although in modern dress. We been yammer about this for decades, but they finally caught on! And the beauty of it is that there are thousands of old Swedes still out there. Drill and tap, and put an awesome turret scope, or whatever ya got scope on that old puppy, and the M96 will blow the 6.5 Creedmore away with a flatter trajectory with a load that can be 100 fps faster using the same bullet.

Another favorite of mine is also been around for quite a while, an Springfield 03A3. Any Mauser type bolt gun can get it done, and is better suited to the rigors of battle field action that it is designed to endure. Modern bolt guns with smoother and faster actions, are not designed for battle. Tight tolerance in the chamber can cause fired cases to stick, and ejectors fail, and without a a ‘controlled’ feed, a cartridge could jam under the hot and heavy fire. And unfortunately for these modern 6.5 cartridges in modern sporting actions, most have never been a proven performer on the battle field. How sweeede it is that you’ve still got that dusty old Mauser around.

The warranty provisions have been in effect for over a decade. When my battery was issued the then new prime movers we were informed of the warranty issues. I tried to find out what qualified to service issues(almost any issue with a car/truck/heavy truck can be addressed by a ASE mechanic and charged back for reimbursement) and ONLY “factory training” would not void warranty for even simple maintence. This procurement SNAFU could of only happened under the criminal administrations of the Clinton/Bush(Best friends now-fake enemies when it served them)

1. It sounds as though we are being prepped for the reality that a global pandemic is going to happen and to be ok with the deaths. While it may be wise to prepare considering global transportation, it just feels like it is a planned pandemic.
2. Former President and Retired five-star General Eisenhower: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.” So, is the dog wagging the tail or the reverse?

Regarding Eisenhower.

It is theorized that the U2 affair was at least partially Eisenhower’s motivation for the “military-industrial complex” comment. Although Eisenhower publicly said he approved Gary Power’s flight, it is rumored he did not in fact do that. This theory has some credence for several reasons.

1. Eisenhower had already expressed reservations about further flights and had always been very cautious in how many he approved because he knew they were provocative. However they were providing good intel that the Soviet “Missile Gap” was not true and they gave him ammunition to fight down defense spending.

2. The flight was on May 1, 1960. May Day. Basically Communist Fourth of July. Perhaps the most provocative day possible for an over flight.

3. The Paris Peace talks were in two weeks and Eisenhower had high hopes that some progress could be made to thaw the Cold War.

Eisenhower is reported to have wanted to cap his Presidency and indeed his whole life’s work with improved relations with the Soviet Union. Khrushchev, despite his public bluster, largely wanted the same and desired to improve agriculture and other things in the Soviet Union at the expense of defense spending. It is theorized that the “military-industrial complex” deliberately short circuited this progress by first sending Power’s up (against Eisenhower’s will) and then perhaps through sabotage or other means bringing him down.

It is no theory that the event destroyed Eisenhower’s dream and cost Khrushchev his career and nearly his life. So the theory states that Eisenhower was not speaking theoretically about the “military-industrial complex” but from personal and painful experience.

With regard to warranties/contractual agreements in the military: 20 years ago, a microfiche viewer with critical information had a light bulb go out. The bulb from the vendor (mandatory), which had to be ordered( quantity of 50), and was then back ordered, cost $39 per bulb. The tech, who went down town, bought one(identical to the original) for $7. Had it been brought to the appropriate peoples attention, The tech would have been written up and barred from further repair work, after all, he didn’t follow proper procedure/protocol. Things don’t really change much.

Back in the 70’s, we were experimenting with hyper-compressing polystyrene. The result was very difficult to cut with a knife, file or saw. but wouldn’t hold up to ballistic impact. But even back then, we figured sooner or later a synthetic layered in scale would become an effective ballistic stop. It just took the right combo of polymer and application to get it there. Smarter people than me anyways.

I was in the Navy from 1982 to 2005. You were nearly always limited in what you could do to the equipment.

It appears to be worse in some ways now because the Navy now purchases less documentation as a rule. It should be noted that the military always had to pay for the prints to any piece of equipment it purchased and sometimes they bought the prints, sometimes not and sometimes only bought the high level prints to save money. Now the tech manuals are abbreviated compared to what they previously were. Again a cost savings measure. Good documentation costs a lot of money.

So are support calls for Military Equipment going to be handled by Indian call centers in Bangalore?

On “Neighbors Suck?…”

I came across the following dissertations. If Fort Galt is the same as Galts Gulch Chile, that got ruined and it is a bad idea to get involved with it. Among other things water rights were taken causing the lots to be without water. I advise extreme caution and diligent inquiry.

^[13]

^[14]

^[15]

This is nothing new in the military. It was that way in the 80s and till I got out 20yrs later. If it’s not warranties and companies it’s politicians like Janet Reno and Klinton who stopped the armorers from fixing rifles.

Goes back to the 70’s. Onboard a ship, out EW PO had had the 19+ week training on the system down to the component level.
When onboard the system broke, he knew exactly which part on which board it was.
He was not allowed to even replace the board, muchless repair it.
Instead a tech Rep was flown out to the Indian ocean and helo’d over to our ship to run a diagnostic (which matched the EW’s) and then swap out the board and get helo’d back to the carrier to be flown home. IMO absolute mismanagement by the navy.
One of the reasons I got out. (the other being a lack of leaders and leadership.

DOD has a large selection of standard tactical generator sets available to all Services that can be fully repaired by Military Mechanics via component removal/replacement in the field. No restrictions. Non-standard generators can have different rules. People write books and papers about DOD acquisition but ponder this. DOD has direction from Congress to purchase commercial products and technology when it meets the requirements. This can reduce purchase costs and time, since the private sector has already performed the R&D and developed products. The owners of that commercial technology are generally unwilling to sell full design rights and data, if they will sell it the cost can be prohibitive, or no one else may have the tooling or knowledge to manufacture the part, or the number of parts DOD needs to purchase is too small to interest other manufacturers in a competitive solicitation. Ponder a diesel engine. They cost at least tens to hundreds of millions to develop today and take years of development. Those OEMs won’t sell their designs. Let’s say DOD was able to purchase an old design, few vendors other than the OEM would bid on spares contracts because of recurring and non-recurring engineering, tooling, materials sourcing and other expenses to manufacture a relatively small number of parts DOD would need to purchase. It’s complicated.