Grendelshooter Wrote:. . . Realistically a grunt needs to carry as many rounds as possible, be able to engage to 500 meters, be able to lay a heavy volume of fire as accurately as possible. 5.56 does these things pretty well.

Sure there are rounds that are more effective, but 5.56 does everything well enough.

(http://bullpupforum.com/index.php?topic=1060.msg22280#msg22280)

Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer (http://www.defensetech.org/2010/03/01/taking-back-the-infantry-half-kilometer/) NOTE: Click-on "Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer" in first paragraph.

SHORT-N-SASSY Wrote:I agree. And, as a supporter of "The facts, Ma'am. Just the facts.", I'm concerned that the OP's last Post was deleted, just before he was banned.

LRRPF52 Wrote:The last war we fought and won was WWII?

Quote:14.5" 5.56 NATO carbines are too much gun for RTOs, Combat Medics, LTs in many cases, PSGs, Javelin Gunners, Forward Observers, Assistant Machine Gunners, Mortarmen, and Combat Engineers. They all would be better served with something shorter in most cases.

LR1955 Wrote:Also, we have gone over the Half Kilometer article a couple of times. Also the kinetic energy of issued ammo and match grade 6.5 bullets and found the comparisons to be flawed because the military is not about to buy match grade bullets and issue them as ball ammo. I know that guys have thrown around the notion of two Grendel loads, one for a MG that would use a 140 grain bullet and one for the rifleman with a bullet weighing around 120 grains.

Considering the rifleman and this theoretical 120 grain bullet, it will probably have a BC of about .300 at best and a MV of about 2450 at best from a issued carbine.

(http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/6-5mm-grendel-the-round-the-military-ought-to-have/)

LR1955 Wrote:How about comparing that Wolf steel cased stuff to the improved M-855? That Wolf stuff will be pretty close in terms of BC and velocity to what ever becomes a issued ball loading.

The Last Big Lie of Vietnam Kills U.S. Soldiers in Iraq (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2004/08/the_last_big_lie_of_vietnam_ki.html) ---

BluntForceTrauma Wrote:. . . Terminal effects is just one part of the cartridge selection matrix.

SHORT-N-SASSY Wrote:On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you compare the .223/5.56x45mm against the 6.5mm Grendel, as we know it, in the cartridge selection matrix?

SHORT-N-SASSY Wrote:The Last Big Lie of Vietnam Kills U.S. Soldiers in Iraq (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2004/08/the_last_big_lie_of_vietnam_ki.html) ---

People don't instantly die when you shoot them in the chest, no matter the caliber. Charles Beckwith took 12.7mm heavy machine-gun fire to the torso and lived, which exceeds the terminal energy and speed of every elephant rifle ever made. Chargin' Charlie went on to form a unit you might have heard of later in his career.


This is incorrect. The steel penetrator in M855 is not Tungsten. It's non-hardened, mild steel for cutting through Soviet armor of the era, as well as light-skinned vehicles. Works as advertised, kills people all day long if you make your hits. There are anecdotal accounts of 7.62 NATO hitting people and not doing anything. One particular Marine Scout Sniper shot an Iraqi kid (armed with an AK) at somewhere around 400-600m, and later ran into the kid at an Enemy Prisoner of War collection point. He had seen the impact of the bullet on the kid's chest, then saw the kid run away. He examined this kid several days later, found the scars indicating through-and-through the chest, which apparently missed everything vital it should have destroyed. Kid acted like it was cool. The guy wanted to adopt this kid and bring him to the US, but was denied.


.45 ACP is nowhere near as effective as 5.56 NATO. These were arguments being made in favor of a new cartridge. After investigating these issues, SF determined that people needed more marksmanship training, and instituted the SFAUCC program at the Group level. People advocating for 6.8 SPC were escorted off post when they continued to try to sway people to a cartridge solution.


[COLOR="#0000FF"]More bad information that is simply false. The commercial .223 Remington cartridge did not exist before .222 Remington Special, which was a lengthened .222 Remington for the SCHV project. To the best of my knowledge, and Stan might want to chime in on this with his vast references and collection of cartridges and knowledge to support it, the .223 Remington wasn't even produced for the commercial market until 1964, after being developed in the early 1960s (1962 IIRC). 5.56x45 (the military formalized and updated cartridge from .222 Remington Special) came from the late 1950s. The AR15 prototype series was introduced in 1957, and development of the .222 Remington into .222 Remington Special took place simultaneously.

Experienced soldiers in Reconnaissance units in both the USMC and US Army loved the 5.56x45 M193, even from short barrels. Same with US Army SF. Terminal performance in Project AGILE was very impressive, as were the body counts of these units compared to the units they worked for.[/COLOR]

LRRPF52 Wrote:More bad information that is simply false. The commercial .223 Remington cartridge did not exist before .222 Remington Special, which was a lengthened .222 Remington for the SCHV project. To the best of my knowledge, and Stan might want to chime in on this...the .223 Remington wasn't even produced for the commercial market until 1964, after being developed in the early 1960s (1962 IIRC).

LRRPF52 Wrote:I just weighed a 25rd Grendel magazine with 25 Federal 120gr HPBT Match Load cartridges on it. Came to 1lb 5.4oz / .60kg
30rd Magpul PMAG with 69gr SMK HPBT load is 1lb 2oz /.51kg

7 x 30rd .223 Rem 69gr = 3.57kg or 7.87lbs for 210rds
7 x 25rd 6.5 Grendel 120gr = 4.2kg or 9.2lbs for 175rds

Quote:As far as mags go, it changed everything from where we were able to carry double M4 pouches comfortably across the chest, to now where single shingles are really the only practical way to be able to stay as low-profile as possible. Negotiating in and out of vehicles, window frames, breech points, tight confines, climbing walls, ladders, and rubble present serious challenges even for units with PT standards that crush the regular Army lacking standards of physical fitness.

This is why I quickly started to see the 6.5 Grendel as something that should be replacing 7.62 NATO, not 5.56 NATO. A 6.5 Grendel/5.56 NATO weapons mix would be a breath of fresh air for Joe, who is laden with a lot of squeeze for little juice with 7.62 NATO. We need to get the 5.56 NATO systems weighing less, like the originals...

6.5 Grendel DMR/CSASS/LMG makes a lot of sense.

Quote:Smaller 5.56 carbines

Quote:That Colt MARS or the KAC PDW would be great really for a lot of people.

Re the .222 Remington family as "Varmint" cartridges. From my personal experiences:

Back in the 1960's, I helped dairy farmers in the Connecticut hinterlands rid their farms of the eastern woodchuck. I initally used the Remington Model 722 in both the .222 Remington and the .222 Remington Magnum cartridges to good effect (read: humane kills), up to approx. 250 yards ---


Unfortunately, with the exception of a one-shot kill (to the head), at just over 400yards, I found that body hits, over 250 yards, often resulted in chucks making it to their dens. I tried the .220 Swift, with some improvement. I then switched to the 6mm Remington, and never looked back: consistent one-shot kills.

In the 1970's, I continued to use the 6mm Remington cartridge in Colorado: A Remington Model 660, in 6mm Remington, for Mule Deer; A Bullpup'ed Remington Model 40-XB, in 6mm Remington, on "Timberline Grizzlies", for one-shot kills to well over 500 yards ---


In retrospect: Today's 6.5mm Grendel would have been my cartridge of choice, for those favorite haunts.

SHORT-N-SASSY Wrote:...in 1963, the .223 Remington in a slightly derived form was standardized as the 5.56x45mm NATO.