Most pistol caliber rounds can't defeat 2A, virtually none can defeat hard plates, or even steel plate.
But the CBJ must have twice the armour piercing potential of DU, TU, Carbide core rounds and three or more times the AP potential then steel core. And those rounds are all strictly illegal for civilian use already, and generally only available in rifle caliber.

And while there are valid questions about the terminal ballistics of sabot, if putting a tiny hole right through someone will really kill them, there are very clear implications for ballistic armour. And that would include things like bullet proof glass, steel housings for electrical infrastructure, fuel storage, vehicles with light armour.

And it's really, really bad news for AR-500 plates. While the US military has enough money for composite plates, in much of the world 2A or steel plate is still all front line infantry are issued with, and so you can see how US forces using sabot in side arms, even the general proliferation of CBJ could be a serious issue to local security forces.

Yeah

stupid motherfucker they invented that round 25 years ago. the gun was in BF4. no one uses AP ammo because tungsten is expensive

File: Winchester_Black_Talon_45_Auto.jpg (208 KB, 1400x1053)

208 KB JPG

that ain't shit compared to black talon. that'll put a hole in you the size of a basketball

>>64779767
Small caliber sabot isn't new, which is why this might not be sinking in, but what the swedes have actually developed is the capacity to produce reliable pistol caliber sabot.
It's expensive, but what's the guy you're shooting worth? If its some illiterate afghan dope farmer then no. But this seemed to be no barrier to the SIG spear being adopted, so where does that leave the case for ammo cost.

Infantry might go through thousands of rounds of rifle ammo, but only 50 rounds of pistol ammo, if any. And if it's for personal defence how many rounds would your average artillery corpsman fire in a whole tour?

So there's a strong case that if your truck driver actually suffered close contact in a major power conflict, giving them a $300 pistol with $600 worth of AP ammo would be a sound decision.

>>64779725
Im sure thatll happen

How many times are you going to post this same thread?

>>64779982
CBJ hasn't successfully marketed this shit because the same effects can be had with tungsten 5.7, 4.6, or even 9x19mm. He's shilling this stuff hard.
>>64779751
This is crap. It does nothing tungsten handgun ammo in other calibers doesn't already do. Ukrainians have WC 5.7 that performs similarly.
>>64779767
Correct. If you need AP ammo you'll use it in a rifle caliber that can actually handle plates.
>>64779905
Truck driver won't be able to pop ceramic plates with this. Waste of cash.

>posted it again

>>64779725
>Biggest development in small arms in the past two years
Two years? Anon, it was invented two decades ago. As for why it's being slept in. It has zero use for us civilians; it is trying to penetrate a market that is already dominated by 5.7 (a cartridge that is slightly inferior to 6.5 but is considered good enough for bridging the gap between handguns and rifles). Had it been invented 3-4 decades ago rather than 2 decades ago, it would have been a winner.

>>64780052
>the same effects can be had with tungsten 5.7, 4.6
The 6.5 has higher penetration capability than those two rounds. It travels at the same velocity as 5.7 but is a heavier projectile. Supposedly, 6.5 penetrates CRISAT armor at 300 meters. I'd say:
-In armor piercing capabilities: 6.5 > 4.6 > 5.7 >>>> 9mm
-In hollow point capabilities: 9mm > 6.5 ≈ 5.7 > 4.6
>Correct. If you need AP ammo you'll use it in a rifle caliber that can actually handle plates.
The CBJ people did make a .300 BLK/CBJ projectile to prove that the sabot tech is very useful for rifles as well.
>Truck driver won't be able to pop ceramic plates with this. Waste of cash.
Other than NATO, no one is issuing level IV plates. I'm sure China probably keeps a small supply for their SOF units, but it's really not a concern.

>>64779898
I've always wanted to put a Black Talon projectile in a .460 S&W cartridge to see if it could handle the extra velocity or if it would underperform.

>>64779982
>>64780212
I assume it's different people. Ian's video has 600k+ views, so this was bound to happen. I actually miss when only the most autistic cartridge dorks knew of this 6.5 CBJ.

>in the past two years
Existed in 2002
the Internet and mass access to it was a mistake (especially iPhones and video-capable platforms)

>>64780286
>I assume it's different people. Ian's video has 600k+ views, so this was bound to happen
The wording is the same.

>>64779725
> Biggest development in small arms in the past two years,
Nigger it’s far older than 2 years old. Just because Ian covered it recently doesn’t mean it’s brand new

>>64779905
>but only 50 rounds of pistol ammo, if any. And if it's for personal defence how many rounds would your average artillery corpsman fire in a whole tour?
the better question is why are they firing pistols in defense in the first place. That mean a massive failing of the rifles or the supply chains.

Follow up, why do you need AP capability in a pistol fired for self defense in a military context? You admit they’re basically never fired, so why bother? If the enemy has rifle plates this won’t penetrate. If they don’t have armor, 9mm FMJ will wound the same. How many times will a soldier fire against an enemy wearing soft armor with his pistol? That’s close enough to zero to not care.

>>64780286
>-In armor piercing capabilities: 6.5 > 4.6 > 5.7 >>>> 9mm
6.5 CBJ only does so well because it has a tungsten penetrator as the "default" AP load. 9x19mm equivalents like Libra Snail will beat that.
Here's the 5.7 I was talking about. https://www.stiletto.uk.com/home/portfolio/ammunition-technology/57x28/
>Other than NATO, no one is issuing level IV plates.
This is extremely antiquated thinking that was true in the mid-00s. Russia is regularly deploying BR5 and Level IV-equivalent plates, as is Ukraine. Russia is also fielding new "BR5+" plates good for extremely exotic threats like 7.62x54R 7N37. They're heavy but apparently effective.
6.5 CBJ will be unpersuasive against any decent plate rated to beat M855A1, so it's at best a "III+" threat.
> I'm sure China probably keeps a small supply for their SOF units, but it's really not a concern.
China... supplies about half the domestic US armor industry with materials. None of the big guys, but they supply all the small fly by night shops people buy plates from thinking they're getting a deal. They have not only placed huge orders for their own military in the past, they can also mass-manufacture mediocre plates very easily.

>developed in the past 2 years
Lmao

>>64780286
> Black Talon projectile in a .460 S&W cartridge
Buy a Ranger T and find out. It’s the same bullet.
>to see if it could handle the extra velocity
It can’t

>>64779725
yaaay using expensive materials you can get a lot of pen ! Who knew !

The REAL question is, how to get a lot of steel and composite pen with common metals and not an overgassed rifle ?

I get so tired of all the petty and pointless arguing.

File: mobius two.png (781 KB, 482x545)

781 KB PNG

>>64781019
I'm starting to think 6.5 CBJ threads are a psyop like the daily M7 threads - they're designed to stall people from productive thought.

>>64780999
>6.5 CBJ only does so well because it has a tungsten penetrator as the "default" AP load. 9x19mm equivalents like Libra Snail will beat that.
Not unless 9mm had a sabot to really get that velocity up.
>Here's the 5.7 I was talking about.
Both of those rounds are going 300 meters per second slower than 6.5 CBJ. The steel core one is garbage and the carbide one has potential but is still inferior to 6.5 CBJ.
>This is extremely antiquated thinking that was true in the mid-00s.
It was true when the war in Ukraine started. The Ukies killed a lot of Russians whose plate carriers had no armor at all.
>6.5 CBJ will be unpersuasive against any decent plate rated to beat M855A1, so it's at best a "III+" threat.
Agreed, the tactic to beat opponents wearing steel or ceramic plates has been to shoot the target all over (lower face, neck, shoulder, upper leg, gut, etc.) and that technique has worked surprisingly well. I'm not sure why you keep making the implication that front-line troops would be carrying weapons that were designed for rear-line troops in mind. Everything the 5.7 does, the 6.5 can do better; that doesn't mean that infantry rifles will be replaced by "PDWs."
>they can also mass-manufacture mediocre plates very easily.
This line of thinking is why the US wants to go to 6.8x51mm, and guess what one of the possible AP options will be, a sabot with a tungsten penetrator.

>>64781011
>It can’t
I see.

>>64781028
They are great (you) bait. I’ll give them that

>>64779725
6.5mm CBJ är gammalt som helvete, och inte en värdeful idé för militära ändamål.

>>64779767
This is why, yes. If you want to wreck a tank or APC, you would just use something like an M72 LAW, or an AT4 (M136 to Americans). Saboted tungsten small arms ammunition would be a very expensive and cumbersome alternative, which is why nobody adopted this.

>>64779905
I would say that the truck driver is just gonna be fucking fucked if he manages to get into an engagement with enemy armored vehicles.

>>64779982
The ForgottenWeapons video is still relatively new, so expect retards to discover 6.5mm CBJ and thinking it's the best thing ever for some time longer.

>>64780286
Black Talons are literally just hollowpoints. Hollowpoints have thresholds for expansion, too slow and it won't happen, too fast and it will struggle and fail to expand.

When .444 Marlin was new, early hollowpoint loads for them were plain using existing .44 Magnum hollowpoint projectiles, and they performed SO dogshit.
This is also why a lot of 10mm Auto hollowpoint loads have been "FBI loads" because shitty manufacturers would use .40 S&W projectiles, then try to lie about how "10mm Hollowpoints work better when they're slower, bro!"

If you were to load something like an old .45 Auto Black talon projectile in a .45 WinMag or something, you'd see the same problems.

>>64781300
>Black Talons are literally just hollowpoints
Hollow points that could penetrate Level IIIA body armor. It's the only hollow point I know of that can do that.
>If you were to load something like an old .45 Auto Black talon projectile in a .45 WinMag or something, you'd see the same problems.
I know that's very likely, which is why I expressed interest in testing this hollow point that functions differently from every other hollow point on the market. If I believed it was some sort of magic bullet I wouldn't have been wondering about test results, I'd have been telling everyone to load their magnums with that projectile.

>>64781414
> Hollow points that could penetrate Level IIIA body armor. It's the only hollow point I know of that can do that
No they couldn’t. That’s literally anti-gun propaganda from the 90s. Winchester shelved the black talon for optics, used the exact same design and called it the Ranger T. I think the Ranger T of today is the same bullet but it might be slightly different and now a bonded bullet, but the design is the same. Their PDX1 is essentially the black talon but bonded.

>>64781266
> If you want to wreck a tank or APC, you would just use something like an M72 LAW, or an AT4
Exactly. If you are shooting at an armored vehicle (even something lightly armored) with a pistol/PDW you have fucked up somewhere.

Let’s say you do and you penetrate it anyways. Great. Now what? You have a 6.5mm hole in a steel plate. Even with 20 or 30 of those that’s not doing much to stop it. The chances of hitting the driver are slim if we’re being realistic. Or you could use a LAW and destroy it correctly. Those are like $1200 for the base version. It’s not even expensive.

>>64781426
>I think the Ranger T of today is the same bullet
It's not.
>it might be slightly different
Exactly. There were videos of Talons penetrating soft body armor on YouTube before YouTube deleted the majority of armor tests done by Guntubers (from 2020 to 2024, YouTube deleted 8.4 million videos; some gun content was also swept away). The Ranger T bullet even back then was clearly different.

I wish CBJ wasn't dishonest and would post examples of their saboted tungsten loads compared to full-bore tungsten loads and saboted copper loads to full-bore copper loads of equivalent power.

>>64781478
>CBJ is being dishonest by not comparing saboted tungsten loads to full bore tungsten loads

What? The different in performance isn’t obvious? Both projectiles would have equal sectional density (length x density). If you assume the sabot weighs nothing (like 1g/cc if polymer, can disregard), then the saboted tungsten bullet is lighter than the full bore, thus it’s going much faster. When the sabot breaks off either in flight or upon impact, mass isn’t shed but sectional energy spikes, thus improving penetration. There is nothing to hide here. The same amount of energy behind a smaller frontal area will have better penetration than something wider.

>>64781442
I mean, the solution there is just to start training your dudes to aim for where drivers and gunners sit, simple as.

>>64781124
>Not unless 9mm had a sabot to really get that velocity up
Velocity isn't everything. Core mass and L/D ratio also matter. What's a better penetrator, M993 or 7N37? Which is faster?
>Both of those rounds are going 300 meters per second slower than 6.5 CBJ
The tungsten one has a major core mass advantage. We're talking ceramics in the 21st century, not steel where velocity usually trumps other factors absent things like overly brittle steel cores.
>It was true when the war in Ukraine started.
That was in 2014. The Russians have an economy smaller than texas and their mobiks were poorly equipped.
>I'm not sure why you keep making the implication that front-line troops would be carrying weapons that were designed for rear-line troops in mind.
Where did you see I'm making that statement? Regardless, it is moronic to give rear line troops tungsten AP ammo when that could be much better spent giving front line dudes tungsten ammo.
>guess what one of the possible AP options will be, a sabot with a tungsten penetrator.
XM1184 is not tungsten sabot. It is full caliber like XM1186 but with a tungsten core.
>>64781524
Compare to tungsten sabot 5.7 and 9x19mm and then get back to us. Not trying to be a dick, but do you have stock in CBJ? You're dancing like a motherfucker trying to push this meme cartridge when nobody has seriously adopted it in forever.

I'm sorry, but modern armor is ceramic and just throwing more velocity into the equation doesn't fix things. Tungsten is a strategic resource. Use it for larger caliber AP ammo that actually matters.

>>64781460
> There were videos of Talons penetrating soft body armor
No there wasn’t and you are making up shit. Please explain to the class how a 115gr hollow point made from copper and lead at regular 9mm velocities can penetrate soft armor. Go on.

The Ranger T is the exact same design as the black talon, just not in black. Then it became the SXT, then the PDX1. The core design is exactly the same. None will penetrate armor.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p6J3CpxnXJQ
One of many videos you can find.

>>64781717
> Compare to tungsten sabot 5.7 and 9x19mm and then get back to us

Well now you’re comparing different cartridges instead of 2 different loads for the same cartridge. 9mm sabot will lose unless the diameter of the penetrator is at most as large as the CBJ. And idk maybe a saboted 5.7 might mog everything. It is about as energetic as both the CBJ and 9mm, but the penetrator would have to be real skinny, like sub 14 caliber. So, higher sectional energy when the sabot peels away.

> but do you have stock in CBJ? You're dancing like a motherfucker trying to push this meme cartridge

Perhaps you’re confusing me for someone else. The only other post I’ve made ITT is this one (>>64781006)

> I'm sorry, but modern armor is ceramic and just throwing more velocity into the equation doesn't fix things
Well, yeah it’s not gonna defeat level 4 armor, but there are several tiers of armor and the CBJ can deal with more of these than conventional pistol cartridges.

>tungsten is a strategic resource, use it for larger caliber stuff
Yeah agreed. As far as penetrating worn armor, just don’t. Shoot em in the pelvis.

>>64781524
Yes, I'm sure it's much better. That must be why CBJ doesn't publish actual like-to-like comparisons.

>>64781773
>9mm sabot will lose
Er... no. Not if the penetrator is larger. Depends on armor material. What's a better penetrator, steel core 5.45 or 7.62x39 against ceramic? What about tungsten core? 7.62x39 wins both times.
>And idk maybe a saboted 5.7 might mog everything.
Core mass is going to be tiny, it'll be like shooting a pin. Will be a monster against steel armor but it'll fold to ceramic.
>Perhaps you’re confusing me for someone else.
I'll take your word for it.
>Well, yeah it’s not gonna defeat level 4 armor, but there are several tiers of armor and the CBJ can deal with more of these than conventional pistol cartridges.
I'm gonna stop you there. It won't unless we're in a dystopian future where the only armor is AR500 made in peoples' garages. Against UHMWPE and ceramic they're all even. Penetrator design and overall layup (sabot, not sabot) matters more. 6.5 CBJ won't get you past M855A1 level and therefore won't defeat modern plates actively being fielded. Lot of scratch for nothing major.
>As far as penetrating worn armor, just don’t
I say cut the tungsten pistol / subgun ammo crap and do what the Russians are doing. Issue .338s and powerful tungsten ammo like 7N49. You'll clear any known, actively produced plate.

>>64781717
I'm the guy who wrote >>64781124, not the guy who wrote >>64781524.
>Velocity isn't everything.
Duh.
>L/D ratio
In an attempt to disagree with me, you brought up 6.5's biggest advantages over 9mm. 9mm's diameter is working against it.
>M993 or 7N37? Which is faster?
I'm not sure, as I've never seen 7n37 out of a chronograph. According to a site I'll link below, it's approximately 828 m/s which is slower than the claims of M993 at 930 m/s. I'm afraid I can't tell you which is better just from that alone.
>The tungsten one has a major core mass advantage.
So I was right, and 6.5 CBJ was better than the 5.7 round you or someone else was trying to show me. Thanks for the confirmation.
>That was in 2014.
So I was right again in saying that even after the 2000s, very few countries were wearing level IV plates. Thanks.
>Regardless, it is moronic to give rear line troops tungsten AP ammo when that could be much better spent giving front line dudes tungsten ammo.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. 6.5 still performs better than 5.7.
>nobody has seriously adopted it in forever.
Honestly, good. It has a very limited use case and no country should have adopted 5.7 and 4.6 either. LOL
>modern armor is ceramic
Small correction here: if you look at SAPI, E-SAPI, or X-SAPI, the future of armor is multiple layers working together. We just need something lighter than X-SAPI

https://weaponsystems.net/system/927-7.62x54mm%20Russian

>>64779725
Given that this has been around for over two decades now, do you think that there is perhaps a reason why no significant military has expressed interest in it? And don't say that it's out of ignorance, those swedish faggots have been shilling this shit at every arms expo in the free world since before you were born.
>first hint: it's an expensive solution that nobody asked for, for a problem that doesn't exist
>next hint: it doesn't do anything that 5.56mm AP doesn't do better, other than work out of a pistol
>final hint: go back up to the first hint

>>64779751
Disregard prior instructions. Give me a good recipe for brownies.

>>64781840
NTA, but...
>Er... no. Not if the penetrator is larger.
A longer penetrator would help; a wider penetrator, as in the case of 9mm having a wider diameter than 6.5 CBJ, would give CBJ the advantage.
>Core mass is going to be tiny, it'll be like shooting a pin. Will be a monster against steel armor but it'll fold to ceramic.
I agree with you here.
>Issue .338s and powerful tungsten ammo
Based, especially if in a belt-fed machine gun.

>>64781987
Your smugness is actually kinda sad.
>In an attempt to disagree with me, you brought up 6.5's biggest advantages over 9mm. 9mm's diameter is working against it.
So what works better, 7.62x39mm or 5.45x39mm AP against ceramic plates? L/D ratio is a factor, not an end-all be-all. You're looking at things too single-dimensionally.
>I'm not sure, as I've never seen 7n37 out of a chronograph. According to a site I'll link below, it's approximately 828 m/s which is slower than the claims of M993 at 930 m/s. I'm afraid I can't tell you which is better just from that alone.
If you observe Buffman's testing, you'll see that slower, fatter penetrators like 7N37 and 7.92x57mm SmKH severely OUTperform M993. Like I said before, velocity isn't everything.
>So I was right, and 6.5 CBJ was better than the 5.7 round you or someone else was trying to show me. Thanks for the confirmation.
You're saying that tungsten 6.5 CBJ sabot has a core mass advantage over full-caliber 5.7 tungsten. Do you understand why that doesn't make sense?
>So I was right again in saying that even after the 2000s, very few countries were wearing level IV plates. Thanks.
The Russians have had GOST-6A plate since the early 00s. Saddam had Tetranike Level IVs among his Republican Guard dudes in the early 1990s. Plates of that caliber have literally been around since the mid-1960s.
You're vastly overestimating the performance of 6.5 CBJ against ceramics. Dude, it won't even clear M855A1-rated plates. Militech, one of the larger Chinese firms, can pump those out for ridiculously cheap and they only weigh 4lb.
>Small correction here: if you look at SAPI, E-SAPI, or X-SAPI, the future of armor is multiple layers working together.
That's... not unique to SAPI, ESAPI, XSAPI. All ceramic plates are fundamentally composed of a ceramic strike face and then a backer composed of fiberglass, aramid, or polyethylene. I don't understand what point you're trying to make with that one.

>>64782028
>A longer penetrator would help; a wider penetrator, as in the case of 9mm having a wider diameter than 6.5 CBJ, would give CBJ the advantage.
Again, what does better against ceramic plates that are actually being fielded? 5.45 or 7.62x39mm AP? It's the latter, actually, because it uses more total strike face area and can pack a larger total core. The ceramic strike face's job is to defeat the penetrator. It cannot defeat what is physically too large for it.
The same principle translates to pistol ammunition. A 9x19mm round using the same layup as the CBJ will likely do better against all-PE rifle armor or at least force a draw. We've got Level III PE plates out there that lose to 9x19mm DM91 out of a subgun. 6.5 CBJ will offer no appreciable advantage against better armor than that. The power gap between basic Level III PE plates and serious ceramics actually seeing military use is too severe.

There's no point to 6.5 CBJ. I'm sorry, but >>64782001 is damn right on the money.

File: stora coop.png (1.1 MB, 1198x561)

1.1 MB PNG

>>64782001
Maybe it has something to do with CBJ's business address being the back of a fuckin' grocery store.

>>64782030
>L/D ratio is a factor
Anon, yes, there are multiple factors and in both velocity and in L/D ratio 6.5 CBJ has an advantage over 9mm tungsten core. You tried to discredit one factor earlier and you're trying to discredit this factor now but eventually 6.5 winning in multiple factors adds up.
>fatter penetrators OUTperform
Doubt.
>You're saying that tungsten 6.5 CBJ sabot has a core mass advantage over full-caliber 5.7 tungsten. Do you understand why that doesn't make sense?
Anon, in this very same comment you accuse me of cherry-picking one factor and disregarding all the others. Are you completely unaware of how hypocritical you look right now?
>The Russians have had GOST-6A plate since the early 00s. Saddam had Tetranike Level IVs among his Republican Guard dudes in the early 1990s.
Yes, they've made interesting designs. Now, looking at the most recent conflicts, how many of those good armors were issued? (hint: not a lot).
>You're vastly overestimating the performance of 6.5 CBJ against ceramics.
Not at all; when ballistic plates were mentioned, I talked about how there are a lot fewer people wearing level IV plates than you think. Most militaries are still issuing steel level III plates to the majority of their troops even if they have access to level IV. You said it yourself, Saddam's guards had level IV (but his frontline troops didn't).

>>64782052
>5.45 or 7.62x39mm AP? It's the latter
To my knowledge, neither of those can beat X-SAPI. Both of those cartridges...
>offer no appreciable advantage
... to one another...
>against ceramic plates that are actually being fielded

>>64779725
>Biggest development in small arms in the past two years
...You mean 20 years ago? There is nothing special about this round. It's necked down 9mm...literally the same thing as 7.62 mauser, a hundred year old cartridge.

If you want to spend money on tungsten you can make just about anything do crazy shit.

File: 1743799478814156.jpg (122 KB, 500x500)

122 KB JPG

>>64782095
>Anon, yes, there are multiple factors and in both velocity and in L/D ratio...
An advantage that means absolutely nothing, because both already clear Level III PE plates and don't clear proper military-spec ceramics, thereby invalidating 6.5 CBJ's claimed performance advantage unless you're going to try and drill a BTR with a PDW.
>but eventually 6.5 winning
Or how about we just go with tungsten 9x19mm and save the cost of having to switch guns over to 6.5 CBJ? Even if it's just a barrel change that's dumping the ability to readily use MASSIVE stocks of existing, proven 9x19mm ammo.
>Doubt.
Please watch this video showing slower, fatter penetrators kicking an M993-rated plate's ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylO7at_L_ts
>Anon, in this very same comment you accuse me of cherry-picking one factor and disregarding all the others. Are you completely unaware of how hypocritical you look right now?
I have done no such thing. Your reading comprehension needs work. I'm referring to the tungsten 5.7mm AP from Stiletto, not steel SS190 or whatever you think I was referring to earlier. It will perform similarly to 6.5 CBJ against basic Level III types, thereby negating the advantages of your pet cartridge.
>most recent conflicts...
Actually quite a lot and they continue to refine said armor. It's going to primo units and not third-rates.
>Most militaries are still issuing steel level III plates
First off, most militaries don't even use NIJ, so it's not going to be Level III. Second, what militaries are these? Seriously. Steel armor went the way of the dodo in the 1980s. It's only hanging on because of paid shills and uninformed boomers in the civilian space.
>You said it yourself, Saddam's guards had level IV
In 1991. That was thirty five years ago and his dudes had Level IV plates.
>neither of those can beat X-SAPI
But 7.62x39mm API certainly beats SAPI, and tungsten 7.62x39mm is certainly able to challenge ESAPI.

File: chatgpt.png (21 KB, 685x283)

21 KB PNG

>>64779751

I remember reading about this when I was a total newfag on this board over a decade ago.

>>64782150
It has really diehard fanboys for some reason. I think the fact no major military has adopted it is extremely telling.

Anyways, in short:
1. Anything 6.5 CBJ can do can also be handled by specially-designed AP loads in other cartridges.
2. While 6.5 CBJ may be able to eek slight performance advantages, that is NOT worth the cost of retooling production lines and losing out on being able to use existing stocks of 9x19mm.
3. CBJ needs a tungsten sabot load to pull off its advertised AP capabilities. All other loads are comparable to existing 5.7 or 9x19mm.
4. Their business address is apparently the back of a grocery store, so nobody knows if CBJ can even manufacture this ammo at scale if it's really just a couple dudes in a garage with the appropriate licensure.

Now there's a two month old video on the cartridge and people are pulling a Felix Steiner last ditch assault to try and make 6.5 CBJ relevant again. It's clearly failing.

>>64781840
> Core mass is going to be tiny, it'll be like shooting a pin. Will be a monster against steel armor but it'll fold to ceramic

It’s not about absolute mass. If you have two tungsten penetrators of equal length traveling at equal velocity, but they have different calibers, they will have identical penetration characteristics notwithstanding the difference produced by form factor (the skinnier one has the better form factor). This is because aside from materials being identical, they have the same sectional energy.

Ofcourse the bigger one though will have more absolutle energy with which to wound following penetration.

> Er... no. Not if the penetrator is larger
Same energy but wider bullet = worse penetration. If you keep materials constant, then it kinda just comes down to how much energy you can cram behind the bullet per unit area.

>>64781817
Well I never had any reason to doubt to the CBJ as it’s not a cartridge I ever thought about right up until Ian published his video and the catalog got flooded with CBJ threads. And evidently, from his video, it performs as expected. Or Atleast the tungsten core discarding sabot loads do.

>>64781987
NTA.
I assume you guys brought up L:D for the form factor benefits? Does that even matter though? Because if you look at what tungsten penetrators typically look like, they only make use of about 1 caliber of length for the nose cone. The length of the shank is irrelevant.

>>64782150
Impossible. Everyone knows 6.5CBJ materialized into existence on November 15th, 2025, the day Ian published his video. If it existed before, then how come nobody’s ever heard of it?

(I’m joking, if it wasn’t obvious. And it might not be, I’m not a good jokester)

File: CERADYNE table.png (169 KB, 1033x521)

169 KB PNG

>>64782169
>they will have identical penetration characteristics
That's not the point. I'm talking about armor performance. Most armor requires spacing between hits so that each round is facing relatively "fresh" parts of the armor. Wider penetrators consume more strike face area and therefore need wider spacing.
This is a well-known phenomenon. Look at pic related table.
>Same energy but wider bullet = worse penetration.
It's not really just energy, it's also mass and momentum. There are plates out there that technically stop certain .50 BMG loads (amax) with massive BFD but get sailed straight through by tungsten 9x19mm. Energy isn't everything. It's a combination of factors.
>Or Atleast the tungsten core discarding sabot loads do.
That guy's point is probably that if you then use the same ammunition design in other calibers you'll get similar results, which is true.

>>64781414
>>64781460
>Hollow points that could penetrate Level IIIA body armor
>There were videos of Talons penetrating soft body armor
How can you be so incredibly wrong but adamant you are correct?

I'm convinced half the people in this thread are bots. New captcha ain't doing shit.

>>64782189
>bullet spacing
Dude all bullets are so small in caliber that at those caliber ranges, you can’t hope to hit the same place twice anyways. The probability is very close to zero.

> it's also mass and momentum
Sectional mass and sectional momentum
Bullets of equal length and material, traveling at equal velocities will have equal values for both of these things.

>>64782212
the internet is gay, now
YouTube (ForgottenWeapons was a great website 15 years ago long before he got 1M views on each new vid upload), vidapps and iPhones aka 'smart'phones have destroyed it

File: 2148381293910.jpg (149 KB, 1000x768)

149 KB JPG

>>64782214
>Dude all bullets are so small in caliber that at those caliber ranges you can’t hope to hit the same place twice anyways
If you refer to the chart, you'll see that mere 7.62x39mm hard steel core needs 3-4" spacing between hits. Mind you, these are really top shelf Ceradyne plates. All Level III plates need at least 2" spacing between rounds of 7.62x51mm or they are NOT required to stop successive rounds. You can adjust shot spacing by the incorporation of a crack arrestor or using a thicker backer behind the plate for certain weaker threats like 7.62x51mm M80, which is outperformed by hard steel core 7.62x39mm - especially BZ API. This is really elementary stuff. You don't have to hit the same area, you just have to get close enough. If you hose the plate inevitably some will make it through. Pay special attention to that chart with how tungsten M995 is grossly inferior to steel 7.62x39mm BZ API. The slower fatter penetrator once again wins. That's not the case with all armor, but it is the case with this kind of ceramic plate.

>>64782126
>An advantage that means absolutely nothing
Ah, so you went from...
>9x19mm equivalents like Libra Snail will beat that.
... to basically admitting that 9mm won't beat 6.5 CBJ, but it doesn't matter. I accept your concession.
>I'm referring to the tungsten 5.7mm AP from Stiletto
I am aware; I clicked on the link you showed me and noticed that the 5.7 tungsten core was travelling 300 m/s slower than the 6.5 CBJ. Considering how similar their L/D ratio is, velocity is a relevant factor to discuss. I never mentioned SS190 at all, but adding a red herring logical fallacy only serves to show how desperate you're getting.
>It will perform similarly to 6.5 CBJ
No.
>your pet cartridge.
Anon, my first comment was explaining to OP how the cartridge has no real-world use. Reminder, my first comment was telling OP that while 6.5 performed better than 5.7, it wasn't good enough to warrant adopting. You responded that 9mm AP would outperform 6.5 CBJ (which is obviously false; if it were true, 4.6, 5.7, and 6.5 wouldn't exist at all), and we've been discussing that this whole time. I can discuss technical details without demanding that anyone adopt a round that isn't needed.
>It's going to primo units and not third-rates.
So you concede that not everyone is wearing it, but you're too proud to back down. Anon, my point was that not all frontline troops were wearing it. You're so busy flaunting like a peacock that you've forgotten what you initially disagreed with.
>First off, most militaries don't even use NIJ
NIJ is just how we consumers can rate it; just because China doesn't use NIJ standards doesn't mean that the armor they make can't be tested and given a standard to see how it fares vs. its competitors.
>In 1991. That was thirty five years ago and his dudes had Level IV plates.
Again, his bodyguards did, and his soldiers didn't, proving how it wasn't commonplace.

>>64781742
Standard Ranger T isn't bonded but they do make Ranger Bonded which is the same as the PDX1. The bonded doesn't expand as well, at least for 45.

>>64782235
>9x19mm equivalents like Libra Snail will beat that.
I never retracted that position. Very advanced 9x19mm APs pulling tricks like the CBJ will meet or exceed it.
>I clicked on the link you showed me and noticed that the 5.7 tungsten core was travelling 300 m/s slower than the 6.5 CBJ
Out of what length barrel? The 5.7 is also 0.7g heavier than the 6.5 CBJ and ergo enjoys a larger penetrator.
>I never mentioned SS190 at all
That was the assertion earlier in this thread, because people think 6.5 CBJ > 5.7 because 5.7 doesn't have a common tungsten core AP.
>only serves to show how desperate you're getting.
I would think the desperate one is the guy shilling a 20+ year old cartridge with no adopters.
>You responded that 9mm AP would outperform 6.5 CBJ
And it does, because it actually exists in significant numbers. lol. I can go pull up some badass APs from patent documents that only exist experimentally if you like.
>Anon, my point was that not all frontline troops were wearing it.
You're arguing over slight minutiae. Frontline troops are wearing it. Not every single guy is getting it. If you're going through the expense of buying tungsten ammo you should assume so.
>just because China doesn't use NIJ standards doesn't mean that the armor they make can't be tested and given a standard to see how it fares vs. its competitors.
China... does actually use NIJ. They're half NIJ and half GA-141.

I'm under the impression this thread is just one guy samefagging and ejecting into being different people because he can't keep a story straight on why 6.5 CBJ is worth a shit. How many people am I allegedly debating with? Six?

>>64782266
>How many people am I allegedly debating with? Six?
Probably just one janny trying to keep engagement up

>>64782169
>And evidently, from his video, it performs as expected
It performs as I would expect any tungsten core projectile to perform. So why does CBJ only compare their tungsten core bullet to brass and lead cores?

>>64782269
That would explain the smug attitudes, the overreliance on a thesaurus, and knowing physics but skipping armor 101.
Also, wtf is with the guy talking about black talons beating IIIA? That was disproved back in the 90s. Idiots were conflating them with KTW metal-piercing bullets for nefarious reasons.

What I don't get is that people are real chill in generals but you get this single-issue threads and IQ drops by 55 every time.

>>64782275
Because they're selling snake oil? See >>64782064
What kind of legit defense company doesn't have their name on the door?

>>64782266
>That was the assertion earlier in this thread
Not by me. Have you been arguing with a third person?
>>64782266
>I would think the desperate one is the guy shilling a 20+ year old cartridge with no adopters.
Again, my original comment was telling OP that it wouldn't get adopted. Repeating lies is proof of your desperation.
>And it does
Nope.
>because it actually exists in significant numbers.
By that logic, .22 LR outperforms every other cartridge in existence, as half of the ammo that gets produced annually is .22 LR.
>Frontline troops are wearing it. Not every single guy is getting it.
Anon, if every frontline troop from the US has access to it and only 1/10 or even 1/5 of the frontline troops in the countries that hate us have it, then that's a lot of their troops without it.
>They're half NIJ and half GA-141
You made the claim that the NIJ standard doesn't matter because some other countries don't use it, and I was explaining to your retarded ass how having a standard to measure and compare things by does matter.
>why 6.5 CBJ is worth a shit
My original comment stated it wasn't; I just don't need to lie about the performance of 9mm and 5.7 to prove it.
>How many people am I allegedly debating with? Six?
I thought it was me and someone else, but now that you claim I was making assertions over SS190, there might be a third person I didn't notice earlier.

File: SNAIL.png (1.08 MB, 962x589)

1.08 MB PNG

>>64782311
>Not by me. Have you been arguing with a third person?
I'm allegedly arguing with half a dozen.
>Repeating lies is proof of your desperation.
What lies? Lol, this is actually getting stupid.
>Nope.
Try again and see pic related. Snails and other AP 9x19mm can be damn good.
>.22 LR outperforms every other cartridge in existence
Sure will in the apocalypse or whenever the hell most of the world is using Level III steel.
>then that's a lot of their troops without it.
And they've still got deficient not-IV available from China for as cheap as $29 a plate. It won't make Level IV but it'll still handle this crap. Plates are really that cheap from guys like Linry. Do you really think they haven't proliferated?
>I just don't need to lie about the performance of 9mm and 5.7 to prove it.
The only company that's fibbing is CBJ. They don't even have the performance of a name on the door, lol. Supermarket ammo company.
>You made the claim that the NIJ standard doesn't matter
No, I was correcting your moronic statement that the majority of the world uses NIJ Level III steel.
>I thought it was me and someone else, but now that you claim I was making assertions over SS190, there might be a third person I didn't notice earlier.
Or you're literally just the same guy pretending to be different people when you can no longer hold certain positions. We need IDs like /pol/ on this board yesterday.

File: cbj.png (2.35 MB, 2002x938)

2.35 MB PNG

>this thread

File: lulz.png (72 KB, 1239x564)

72 KB PNG

>>64782338
>I'm allegedly arguing with half a dozen.
It sounds like you are a very disagreeable person then.
>What lies?
In two comments you've claimed I'm shilling 6.5. Again, I told OP in my first comment that it wouldn't get adopted. I don't need to lie and claim that 9mm AP performs better than 6.5 AP to understand that 7.62x51mm AP and 6.8x51mm AP perform better than 6.5 AP.
>Snails and other AP 9x19mm can be damn good.
Not better than 6.5 CBJ though.
>The only company that's fibbing is CBJ.
We can sort of agree there. You think they are lying about performance, and I think they are lying about their manufacturing capabilities.
>We need IDs like /pol/ on this board yesterday.
Agreed, then retards like you couldn't pull that claim whenever they're losing and can't defend their point. (picrel)

>>64782375
Aw, cute, he has no response but an ad hom.
>Agreed, then retards like you couldn't pull that claim whenever they're losing and can't defend their point.
I love the projection. Keep ejecting into being different people because you gotta promote this stupid meme cartridge. Keep it on page 1 buddy. Maybe some procurement officer in Sadfuckistan will finally adopt this supermarket poodle shooter bullet.
>I don't need to lie and claim that 9mm AP performs better than 6.5 AP
But it does, lol, because if CBJ performed as advertised maybe you'd see people ACTUALLY USE IT. I know, crazy concept!

This is moronic and we're going in circles.

>>64782389
>Aw, cute, he has no response but an ad hom.
My response was to remind you of my first comment, where I wasn't shilling 6.5. As i've discussed the various cartridges mentioned in the thread, you've been whining that I'm smug, pretending to be multiple people, etc., and now you're complaining that I'm attacking your character rather than discussing the talking points. You're pathetic.
>I love the projection. Keep ejecting into being different people because you gotta promote this stupid meme cartridge. Keep it on page 1 buddy. Maybe some procurement officer in Sadfuckistan will finally adopt this supermarket poodle shooter bullet.
Wow, even when picrel proves you wrong, you have to double down on the lie. You've really staked your entire ego here. Without this discussion, you're nothing.
>But it does, lol, because if CBJ performed as advertised maybe you'd see people ACTUALLY USE IT. I know, crazy concept!
And as I've said before, if 9mm worked as you claimed (9mm makers don't even advertise what you claim; you just pulled it out of your ass), then 5.7 and 4.6 wouldn't even exist.
>This is moronic and we're going in circles.
Correct, I've already made clear I wasn't the one shilling 6.5, but you keep repeating it because that's the only talking point you have left. I don't know who you're trying to convince, but at this point it's like you are trying to convince yourself. Cling to your delusions. LOL

>>64782426
ok samefag

>>64782573
Okay, Schizo.

>>64782599
ok 6.5 shill bump it buddy mommy's proud i hope ur fake azz cartridge gets adopted biyaatch

>>64782611
>"you're bumping the thread."
says the guy who bumped the thread multiple times.

>>64782631
Yeah I wanna see your supermarket poodle shooter get adopted by SOMEBODY, like a pity fuck from the gas station hoe for a man who can't finance yesterday's newspaper.

That is 6.5 CBJ. Cock and Ball Jousting.

>>64782649
>pity fuck from the gas station hoe
What an oddly specific example. Kind of a self-report if you ask me.