+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Military & Law Enforcement (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Maximum Effective Range (/showthread.php?tid=18929)
Pages:
1
2
Maximum Effective Range - Lemonaid - 05-09-2019
Way back in the early 1990's one of the things we were supposed to know was the maximum effective range of our weapon. If I remember it was something like 550 yards for the m-16.
What would you consider the maximum effective range of a 16 inch barreled Grendel to be.
What are the tests to find out what it is?
Thanks in advance!
Maximum Effective Range - rabiddawg - 05-09-2019
See the link in my signature line. I got tired of searching for it each time this comes up.
Not a 16 but I think most that will post in this thread will sell the cartridge short.
The shooter and his position will limit the range more than the Grendel will.
Maximum Effective Range - Lemonaid - 05-09-2019
rabiddawg, I am seeking what range the military would say the maximum effective range of the Grendel would be if it was a standard issued weapon. For some reasons (testing I would guess) they landed on 550 yards for the M-16. Ethical Hunting range would be a different number.
What is the test criteria to determine Maximum Effective Range? (not a personal number an expert could make but what an average Joe should be able to do) There is a range where the bullet in no longer considered lethal combined with lack of hit probability.
My ignorant wild guess is between 700 and 800 yards for the Grendel using Hornady black as the standard load.
Maximum Effective Range - LR1955 - 05-09-2019
Lemonaid Wrote:rabiddawg, I am seeking what range the military would say the maximum effective range of the Grendel would be if it was a standard issued weapon. For some reasons (testing I would guess) they landed on 550 yards for the M-16. Ethical Hunting range would be a different number.
What is the test criteria to determine Maximum Effective Range? (not a personal number an expert could make but what an average Joe should be able to do) There is a range where the bullet in no longer considered lethal combined with lack of hit probability.
My ignorant wild guess is between 700 and 800 yards for the Grendel using Hornady black as the standard load.
LMA:
I believe the Max Effective Range is that range where an average trained Soldier has a 50% chance of a hit.
I do not see how a average trained Soldier firing a service grade Grendel using issued sights and service grade ball ammunition would be any different than one shooting a issued M-4 with issued ball ammo. In fact, probably worse even if the ammo and carbine were the same in capabilities. The Grendel has more recoil.
You can figure it out based on your requirements and your ammo and carbine or rifle pretty easily. Make a silhouette of the target full size and put it up at 500 yards. Put on what ever gear you wear and take up a prone off of bags or your bipod and shoot ten shots slow fire -- ten minute time frame. Then count holes. If more than five, put the target at 600 and shoot. And so on.
LR55
Maximum Effective Range - stanc - 05-09-2019
Lemonaid Wrote:Way back in the early 1990's one of the things we were supposed to know was the maximum effective range of our weapon. If I remember it was something like 550 yards for the m-16.Maximum Effective Range
What would you consider the maximum effective range of a 16 inch barreled Grendel to be.
What are the tests to find out what it is?
M14 rifle --- 460 meters (FM 23-8)
M4 carbine - 500 meters (FM 3-22.9)
I don't know how max effective range is determined by the US Army, but I expect that max effective range of a 16" Grendel (with standard ball ammo) would not differ much from the above.
Maximum Effective Range - Lemonaid - 05-09-2019
Interesting posts! Not what I expected but that's why I asked, to gain others perspective and benefit from their expertise.
So, if you were given the choice would you have your "team" armed with Ar-15s or a Grendels? and would you rather the opposing force have Ar's or Grendel's?
Maximum Effective Range - Bigs28 - 05-09-2019
My ar is a grendel. What kind of grendel are you talking about?
Maximum Effective Range - JASmith - 05-09-2019
Good reasons exist for our nation's inability to bump the 5.56 NATO cartridge as our primary infantry weapon cartridge.
There have been several lengthy threads discussing the Grendel vs other cartridges as an infantry weapon and they largely answer your question.
Find them, read through them, and then decide which -- number of rounds that one can carry, maximum range, impact energy per round, or other, best suits your postulated scenario.
After that, some of us would be very interested in your hopefully better informed understanding, your choice, and the logic supporting that choice,
Maximum Effective Range - Lemonaid - 05-09-2019
Bigs28 Wrote:My ar is a grendel. What kind of grendel are you talking about?
Ha! good one, you got me. How about .223 Ar or 6.5 Grendel Ar. I didn't want to compare a semi auto only to a full auto or select fire weapon. My mind was back in the 90's when about the only Ar's were in .223.
Maximum Effective Range - Lemonaid - 05-09-2019
JASmith Wrote:Good reasons exist for our nation's inability to bump the 5.56 NATO cartridge as our primary infantry weapon cartridge.
There have been several lengthy threads discussing the Grendel vs other cartridges as an infantry weapon and they largely answer your question.
Find them, read through them, and then decide which -- number of rounds that one can carry, maximum range, impact energy per round, or other, best suits your postulated scenario.
After that, some of us would be very interested in your hopefully better informed understanding, your choice, and the logic supporting that choice,
Why would anyone be interested in my opinion? I am a complete tyro about grendel, actual combat, current doctrine, etc., etc.
I am here to learn from the shoulders of giants!
I have read a fair amount about this in the forum and am thankful to all taking the time and effort to share.
The central question I am confused about now is if the Grendel has equal or less Maximum effective range than a AR in .223 Why have a grendel?
Maximum Effective Range - lazyengineer - 05-10-2019
For hunting? I run in the 800-1000 ft-lb crowd, mostly because I don't have any data to suggest differently. For Grendel, that's the 400-500 yard range, depending on BBL and load.
For military effective range, any shot with a reasonable chance of hit with an expert rifleman, with a bullet that is going to hit hard enough to penetrate into organs, is within max effective range. Just pulling a value out of the air, I'd say 100 yards before subsonic transition then, which with the Grendel is in the 800-1000 yard range. It has longer legs than the 5.56 or the .308; in almost any BBL length. It's one of the reasons I'm so impressed with this round - the engineering is a true optimization of size, power, range, and capability.
Maximum Effective Range - LR1955 - 05-10-2019
Lemonaid Wrote:Why would anyone be interested in my opinion? I am a complete tyro about grendel, actual combat, current doctrine, etc., etc.
I am here to learn from the shoulders of giants!
I have read a fair amount about this in the forum and am thankful to all taking the time and effort to share.
The central question I am confused about now is if the Grendel has equal or less Maximum effective range than a AR in .223 Why have a grendel?
LA:
It isn't a .223. It is a 5.56. Major difference in bullet weight and length between the two. The 5.56 is way more lethal in its current design.
And, no one knows the capabilities of a service grade Grendel firing service grade Ball ammo because neither exist.
Do read some of the other threads that cover this subject. They are all pretty good discussions.
LR55
Maximum Effective Range - Texas - 05-10-2019
Do you mean Max effective range or relative stopping power calculation?
M1 carbine max effective range 300 yards
M1 Garand max effective range 400 yards
M14 max effective range 500 yards
M16 max effective range 600 yards
At 600 yards the M1 has the highest relative stopping power.
Maximum Effective Range - stanc - 05-10-2019
Lemonaid Wrote:rabiddawg, I am seeking what range the military would say the maximum effective range of the Grendel would be if it was a standard issued weapon. For some reasons (testing I would guess) they landed on 550 yards for the M-16.The maximum range at which a military rifle bullet remains lethal is far greater than the maximum effective range.
What is the test criteria to determine Maximum Effective Range? (not a personal number an expert could make but what an average Joe should be able to do) There is a range where the bullet in no longer considered lethal combined with lack of hit probability.
Your post made me curious, so I spent a little time doing a search. What I found said exactly the same LR1955 did:
Quote:This is the maximum range at which an average shooter can hit a human-sized target 50% of the time. http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/FactorsOfEffectiveRangeI hate to cite wiki as a reference for anything, but I found nothing else on the subject that was the least bit useful.
The only other info I have is an old (March 1970) American Rifleman article, "The Practical Range of Small Arms."
But, that article discussed Swedish Army standards, which was 1 hit made out of 7 fired (i.e., 14% hit probability).
Maximum Effective Range - Lemonaid - 05-10-2019
Thanks all!
Can close out this thread.
Maximum Effective Range - SHORT-N-SASSY - 05-10-2019
![[Image: effective.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/9XR9mr6Z/effective.png)
< http://bullpupforum.com/index.php?topic=1060.msg22280#msg22280 >
Maximum Effective Range - LR1955 - 05-10-2019
Texas Wrote:Do you mean Max effective range or relative stopping power calculation?
M1 carbine max effective range 300 yards
M1 Garand max effective range 400 yards
M14 max effective range 500 yards
M16 max effective range 600 yards
At 600 yards the M1 has the highest relative stopping power.
Tex:
Guess you never shot a lot of issued M-2 Ball from service grade Garands?
The reason why M-80 came into existence was because of the inefficiencies of the flat base M-2 Ball.
Can you link me to the source you may be using for these comparisons?
Thanks!
LR55
Maximum Effective Range - Texas - 05-10-2019
Final result Figure 3. Maximum Effective Range.
Range Max possible miss distance 300 4.24 inches 200 2.02 inches 250 3.03 inches 248.5 3.00 inches Table 3. Iterating to find MER
So the accuracy MER condition is satisfied at a range of 248.5 yards. At this range, the 80-grain bullet retains 2231 fps (shot #3 conditions), which yields 883 ft-lbs of kinetic energy, thereby satisfying the established 500 ft-lbs MER lethality condition. If the bullet had less than the required energy, the MER would be dictated by decreasing the range until the 500 ft-lbs is satisfied, since the accuracy criteria was already met.
At the beginning of this article, I promised a component breakdown of the effects of each field variable on the trajectory. Table 4 shows the influence of each of the field variables on the original 300-yard target for shot #3.
Results Analysis
Contribution to total miss distance Shot #3 at 300 Yards Field variable Elev. Wind. Wind speed, Average 5 mph (+2mph error) -1.018” 2.51” Shooting direction, West (Coriolis acceleration) -0.23” 0” Muzzle Velocity, 2990 fps (-10 fps error) -0.16” 0” Air Density, Standard: 0.002378 Sl/ft3 (+5% = 0.002497 Sl/ft3) -0.29” 0” Other “6 degree of freedom” effects Gyroscopic drift 0” 0.40” Coriolis acceleration N/A 0.13” Total: -1.68” 3.04” Table 4. Miss distance component build up. The totals match those listed in Table 2 for shot #3.
The MER for our system is found to be 248.5 yards. So what? What can that information be used for? I mean, everything’s been based on assumptions, and the results are only valid for one particular combination of assumptions, so of what use is the answer “248.5 yards”, really? There are 2 basic ways that the preceding analysis can be applied.
8 The vertical component of the wind deflection is due to aerodynamic jump.
Maximum Effective Range - Texas - 05-10-2019
LR1955 Wrote:Tex:As a matter of fact, my first military issue weapon was a well worn M1. What I was referring to is Col Hatchers formula which takes into account form factor:
Guess you never shot a lot of issued M-2 Ball from service grade Garands?
The reason why M-80 came into existence was because of the inefficiencies of the flat base M-2 Ball.
Can you link me to the source you may be using for these comparisons?
Thanks!
LR55
The Hatcher formula was originally developed in the 1930s when Major General Hatcher was working in the US Army's Ordnance department. It uses the bullet mass, velocity, frontal area of the bullet and also a 'form factor' which depends on the type of bullet. Unlike the Taylor KO factor and Thorniley Stopping Power formula which only consider the diameter of the bullet in their calculations, the Hatcher formula uses the bullet cross-sectional area in its calculation. It also uses the bullet momentum formula (we studied this three posts back) as part of its equation. Additionally, unlike all the other formulae we have studied until now, this one includes the bullet type (jacketed, non-jacketed, flat point, round nose etc.) as part of its calculation. The Hatcher Formula is:
RSP = M/(2*g) * A * F
where:
RSP = Relative Stopping Power
M = Momentum of the bullet in foot-pounds/sec (momentum = mass * velocity where mass is in lbs and velocity is in feet/sec)
g = Acceleration due to gravity in feet/sec2.
A = Frontal area of the bullet in square-inches
F = A bullet form factor that depends on the type of the bullet (see notes below)
In General Hatcher's original paper, he quotes the formula as RSP=M*A*F and prints a table of the calculated RSP values for a variety of common handgun bullet types. However, he calculates the momentum incorrectly as (kinetic energy/velocity), which ends up calculating a value of 1/2 of the actual momentum (since kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity2). He also incorrectly divides by g (acceleration due to gravity) when converting grains to lbs (no need to, because grains are a units of mass, not weight). Therefore I've updated the original formula to match the numbers on his original table and translated the equation to M/(2*g)*A*F.
The values for bullet form factor for some bullet types are defined as:
F Bullet Type
700 Fully Jacketed Pointed
900 Fully Jacketed Round Nose
1050 Fully Jacketed Flat Point
1100 Fully Jacketed Flat Point (Large flat)
1000 Lead Round Nose
1050 Lead Flat Point
1100 Lead Flat Point (Large Flat)
1000 Jacketed Softpoint (unexpanded)
1350 Jacketed Softpoint (expanded)
1250 Lead Semi-wadcutter
1100 Hollow Point (unexpanded)
1350 Hollow Point (expanded)
In an earlier version of this article, your editor had accidentally quoted the numbers as 0.7, 0.9, 1.05 etc. instead of 700, 900, 1050 etc. Apologies for that and thanks to reader Nathaniel Fitch for pointing it out in the comments below (boy, do I have egg on my face now :-))
Because the type of bullet is part of the calculation, cartridges of a particular caliber meant for a single firearm can have different RSP values because they have different bullet types. For example, for a .45 ACP bullet which has a mass of 185 grains and moving at 1000 feet/sec, we compute a RSP value of 65.661 if the bullet is a Lead Round Nose bullet, but 88.642 for a Hollow Point (expanded) bullet. How do we get these numbers, you ask?
Weight of bullet = 185 grains.
We know that 1 lb = 7000 grains.
Therefore, mass of bullet in lbs = (185/7000) = 0.0264285 lbs approximately
Velocity of the bullet = 1000 feet/sec
Therefore, Momemtum of the bullet (M) = 0.0264285 * 1000 = 26.4285 foot-lbs/sec
Diameter of the bullet = 0.451 inches. Therefore, radius of the bullet = 0.451/2 = 0.2255 inches
Frontal area of bullet (A) = pi * r2 = 3.1415927 * 0.22552 = 0.160 inches2 approximately
Now, let's assume acceleration due to gravity (g) = 32.2 feet/sec2 approximately.
For a lead round nose bullet, the form factor bullet F = 1000 from the table above.
Therefore RSP for this bullet is calculated as:
RSP = M / (2*g) * A * F = 26.4285 / (2 * 32.2) * 0.160 * 1000 = 65.661
For a hollow point (expanded) bullet, the bullet form factor F = 1350 from the table above.
Therefore RSP for this bullet is calculated as:
RSP = M / (2*g) * A * F = 26.4285 / (2 * 32.2) * 0.160 * 1350 = 88.642
Special thanks go out to reader Nathaniel Fitch for pointing out the errors in an earlier version of the article. His comments are posted below. Give him a big round of applause folks!
For self-defense purposes, the Hatcher scale recommends that the RSP be between 50-55 for effective stopping power. Values of RSP beyond 55 lead to diminishing returns, as the increase in stopping power is offset by the extra recoil strength that must be managed by the user. Per the Hatcher scale, values below 30 give a user a 30% chance of stopping the target in one shot. For values between 30 and 49, the chance of a one-shot stop rises to 50%. For values above 50, the chance of a one-shot stop rise to 90% per the Hatcher scale. Most .45 ACP cartridge types have a RSP value over 50, while 9 mm. Luger cartridges are mostly between 30 and 40. This means Hatcher's formula tends to favor .44 Magnum and .45 ACP over 9 mm. Luger for stopping power.
While the Hatcher formula does not consider factors such as bullet penetration, it is considered a fairly decent formula to determine the effectiveness of pistol ammunition.
Maximum Effective Range - grayfox - 05-10-2019
Not an expert in any of those platforms so this may be a bit too elementary, but instead of looking at a 1930's work (which doubtless was a great one for its day, and still might be useful), for today's fmj's usually flat based or slightly boat-tail, why not use available ballistics and look for a point where ke falls below some minimum... for a 16" grendel like mine with 123 bullet (admitted a match-type eldm), 2410 ft/s, the above-mentioned threshhold of 538 comes at 730-735 yds; around 24-25 MOA drop however...
A 0.450 bc- fmj would be 650 yds, 20-21 MOA drop.
no opinions on whether that terminal load has enough "stopping power", probably wounding is more like it...