Is 6.5-06 ( 6.5x63 ) the alternative to 7.62x51?

[We7det_el_qetal]

Do u have any info regarding 6.5-06 ( 6.5x63 ) which obviously has a much higher muzzle velocity than the 7.62x51,

lower calibers require less energy to penetrate armour, so 7.62x51 don't have higher penetration than 6.5x63 automatically but rather u have to look at how much energy the bullet retains after it lost the minimum required penetration energy for IT'S caliber, so for the mentioned case for example

7.62x51 requires (x) joules to penetrate level III armour and it has originaly (y) joules at point of impact so it still retains (y)-(x) joules

so if comparison data in that regards could be provided it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[VICTORA1]

We7,
If i am understanding it right, the smaller clibre require less energy---I don't think so-----smaller calibres require more energy to penetrate than bigger calibres unless it was a sharp needle.

 

[mikier]

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Ammunition,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl

Military.com has an article on the two alterniative to the 5.56. may not be what you were looking for, but may be of interest..

and i think it was Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement magazine had an article on them also.

 

[Cynic]

I remember being quite upset when they took my SLR off of me and gave me an SA80. Despite what they said about the 5.56 mm ammunition being technically superior to my old 7.62 mm, it was disconcerting crawling about in the woods to find your magazine had dropped off some way back (A case of "OK, stop the war, while the silly Staff Sergeant finds the other half of his weapon!!!). As for ammo, it was lighter, so we got more to carry (grrrrr), it was more accurate being a better aerodynamic shape - but it was 5.56 (girlie bullets)!!!!