+- 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: If All AK-47s Had Been . . . (/showthread.php?tid=6958)
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - BluntForceTrauma - 12-26-2013
. . . chambered in 6.5 Grendel since 1947 instead of 7.62x39, and there were instead 100 million 6.5 Grendel versions, even in the crap-holes of the African jungle, what would we be saying today about the ideal assault rifle cartridge? Would we still be debating it?
Slow work day. . . .
John
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - Kikn - 12-26-2013
lol...Hank are you trolling your own forum...... :-P
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - Kikn - 12-26-2013
More than likely we would be debating this in Russian by now..... =-0
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - montana - 12-26-2013
We would be arguing the lack of terminal ballistics the 6.5 vs 7.62 vs 7.92X33 or some other new cartridge concept. I think we would be farther ahead in assault rifle cartridge development because we would of had a higher standard to compete against.
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - kiwi 1 - 12-27-2013
Just a side note Mikhail Kalashnikov died just before christmas aged 94.
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - Trooper - 12-27-2013
Look, think of how much farther along we would have been had the M1 been a magazine fed rifle much like the M14 was. And instead of the M14 we had gone with the FN-FAL using the .280 British (or the .276 British).
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - stanc - 12-27-2013
HANKA Wrote:. . . chambered in 6.5 Grendel since 1947 instead of 7.62x39, and there were instead 100 million 6.5 Grendel versions, even in the crap-holes of the African jungle, what would we be saying today about the ideal assault rifle cartridge? Would we still be debating it?Yes, John, I think we would. Here's why:
Russian adoption of 7.62x39 did not result in the US fielding an intermediate power, .30 caliber, rifle round, despite the advantages. I don't see any reason to think that chambering the AK in 6.5x39 would change that. Remember, the Russkis shoot full-auto as SOP, so there'd be no real difference in hit probability compared to 7.62x39. For all practical purposes, in a military AK, with service grade ball ammo, 6.5 Grendel would have been no better than 7.62x39.
With the same people in charge of Army Ordnance, I'd expect that 7.62x51 would still have become NATO standard. After all, the US rejected the .280 British, so I can't imagine why they would possibly be influenced by the even smaller and less powerful 6.5 Grendelski.
As a result, the US Army still ends up with the M14 rifle, followed by the M16 and 5.56x45 ammo. The Russians would've evaluated the SCHV concept, causing the development and fielding of the 5.45x39 (or something very similar) to replace the heavy, bulky, and higher-recoiling 6.5x39.
So, we still end up where we are today, with the same calibers and weapons, and the same debate.
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - Tony Williams - 12-27-2013
stanc Wrote:So, we still end up where we are today, with the same calibers and weapons, and the same debate.
I suspect that you are right, but there could be one significant difference: the long-range performance of the 6.5mm might have meant that guns like the PKM and SVD were chambered in it, rather than continuing with the old 7.62x54R. That would have meant large quantities of weapons in opposition hands, able to match the long-range performance of the 7.62x51 NATO with far less size, weight and recoil. Which would mean even greater embarrassment for NATO forces facing them.
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - stanc - 12-27-2013
Tony Williams Wrote:I suspect that you are right, but there could be one significant difference: the long-range performance of the 6.5mm might have meant that guns like the PKM and SVD were chambered in it, rather than continuing with the old 7.62x54R.I partly agree. I think it's quite possible -- maybe even probable -- that the SVD would've been chambered for 6.5 Grendel. Certainly the RPD would have, thereby eventually proliferating that 6.5mm belt-fed LMG around the world.
But, I'm skeptical of the idea that the PKM would've been designed to fire 6.5 Grendel. The PKM was intended to be a GPMG, for use not only by infantry, but as vehicle armament and other applications. IMO, that virtually dictates sticking with the old 7.62x54R. (IIRC, it is your considered opinion that 6.5 Grendel is not sufficiently powerful to replace 7.62x51, so I see no reason to think the Russians would've deemed it powerful enough to replace 7.62x54R.)
Quote:That would have meant large quantities of weapons in opposition hands, able to match the long-range performance of the 7.62x51 NATO with far less size, weight and recoil.Presumably by "opposition hands" you are referring to the insurgents in Afghanistan?
I guess the number of lightweight, 6.5mm weapons that our troops would now be facing depends on your definition of "large quantities." I see the RPD as being the only long range 6.5 platform certain to be encountered, with the 6.5mm SVD highly probable. How many RPDs and SVDs are currently used by the enemy?
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - Trooper - 12-27-2013
Wasn't the .280 British or the .276 British very close to what the 6.5 Grendel is today?
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - BluntForceTrauma - 12-27-2013
@Trooper: Very close in CONCEPT. Fatter case. High BC bullet. Like a scaled-up 6.5 Grendel.
John
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - usmc1371 - 12-28-2013
Fn concluded that the 7mm optimum was the largest caliber a soldier could fire in full auto. How does the 7mm and the 6.5g compare?
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - Tony Williams - 12-28-2013
stanc Wrote:I'm skeptical of the idea that the PKM would've been designed to fire 6.5 Grendel. The PKM was intended to be a GPMG, for use not only by infantry, but as vehicle armament and other applications. IMO, that virtually dictates sticking with the old 7.62x54R. (IIRC, it is your considered opinion that 6.5 Grendel is not sufficiently powerful to replace 7.62x51, so I see no reason to think the Russians would've deemed it powerful enough to replace 7.62x54R.)
Let me put it a different way: if the Soviets had developed a lightweight belt-fed MG in 6.5mm Grendelski they probably wouldn't have bothered with a lightweight belt-fed portable MG in 7.62x54R like the PKM. A heavier support and vehicle weapon, yes, but not for dismounted infantry. The ballistics are not quite as good, but they aren't far behind and the substantial weight and recoil reductions would be well worth having.
Quote:Presumably by "opposition hands" you are referring to the insurgents in Afghanistan?
I'm referring to any combatants, regular or irregular, which NATO forces might find themselves engaging, wherever they may be.
Quote:How many RPDs and SVDs are currently used by the enemy?
Raising the RPD in its existing (7.62x39) form is a straw man argument. Of course it isn't used, because the long-range ballistics are rubbish and the PKM is of comparable weight. A RPD/PKM equivalent designed around a 6.5mm Grendelski would be a very different matter.
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - stanc - 12-28-2013
Tony Williams Wrote:Let me put it a different way: if the Soviets had developed a lightweight belt-fed MG in 6.5mm Grendelski they probably wouldn't have bothered with a lightweight belt-fed portable MG in 7.62x54R like the PKM. A heavier support and vehicle weapon, yes, but not for dismounted infantry. The ballistics are not quite as good, but they aren't far behind and the substantial weight and recoil reductions would be well worth having.Of course those characteristics would be nice to have. But, at the price of developing and fielding two new (and completely different) machine guns, along with the attendant logistical and training issues? I can't say I'd rate that as a probable event, given the Soviets' post-WWII trend to simplify matters in regard to military small arms.
However, I can't say you're necessarily wrong. The Russians would've started out with a lightweight, belt-fed, 6.5mm RPD, which would later have been replaced by a magazine-fed, 6.5mm RPK. Would they then have turned around and developed another belt-fed 6.5mm LMG? IMO, there are too many variables to give an answer with any degree of certainty.
Quote:Raising the RPD in its existing (7.62x39) form is a straw man argument. Of course it isn't used, because the long-range ballistics are rubbish and the PKM is of comparable weight. A RPD/PKM equivalent designed around a 6.5mm Grendelski would be a very different matter.You're mistaken about it being a straw man argument. A 6.5mm RPD would've been produced in the same numbers as the 7.62mm RPD, before being superseded by a 6.5mm RPK. Therefore, it seems reasonable to think that the obsoleted 6.5mm RPDs would have achieved the same worldwide distribution as did the 7.62mm versions. It was a finite quantity, and likely relatively few made their way to Afghanistan.
If the RPD sees little use in Afghan combat, I'd say it's because of the small numbers in theatre, not due to poor long range ballistics. Remember, the AK has even worse long range ability, but is by far the most numerous gun used by the insurgents.
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - LRRPF52 - 12-28-2013
In the Soviet System, the introduction of the RPK and PK in the 1960's basically ended the RPD's long-term life as a squad support weapon. It was the primary squad support belt-fed for the NVA as the Chinese Type 56 LMG copy, and their employment of squad-level machineguns is probably one of the most effective approaches in the past 60 years. They were very disciplined with the use of RPD fire, only using them when they had the advantage, particularly with ambushes, raids, and deliberate attacks.
As an Infantry leader, I wouldn't see much need for a PKM if I had 6.5x39 RPD's, especially due to maneuverability, carrying capacity, and terminal effects. The biggest issue with the RPD as a belt-fed weapon is the fact that it doesn't have quick barrel change capability, so the design was limited mostly by that aspect.
It makes an excellent belt-fed weapon for dismounts, especially for raids and ambushes, but its role in the defense and in a training environment really suffer from the lack of a barrel-change feature, which is pretty standard for LMG's.
I also wonder if the SVD would have been designed at all, or if an accurized Kalashnikov would have become the DM rifle. The biggest headache for them with the SVD was the magazine, since they had to make it work with a rimmed cartridge. Its operating system is very much SVT-38/40, so nothing really new in terms of engineering, other than a 10rd detachable box mag meant to feed rimmed cartridges, and the laminate wood furniture process developed in the AKM program.
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - Tony Williams - 12-29-2013
stanc Wrote:Of course those characteristics would be nice to have. But, at the price of developing and fielding two new (and completely different) machine guns, along with the attendant logistical and training issues? I can't say I'd rate that as a probable event, given the Soviets' post-WWII trend to simplify matters in regard to military small arms.
If they had a belt-fed 6.5, I doubt that the PK series would ever have been built. As the 6.5 MG would become standard for dismounted troops, leaving the 7.62x54R MGs for vehicle mounts and heavy fire support, it seems far more likely to me that they would have kept the SGM in service for a long time, just as they did with the DShK.
Quote:The Russians would've started out with a lightweight, belt-fed, 6.5mm RPD, which would later have been replaced by a magazine-fed, 6.5mm RPK. Would they then have turned around and developed another belt-fed 6.5mm LMG? IMO, there are too many variables to give an answer with any degree of certainty.
I'm not so sure that they would have replaced a 6.5mm belt-fed MG as rapidly as they did the RPD. The longer practical range of the 6.5mm would have encouraged tripod as well as bipod use, for more of a support fire role, which implies a higher volume of fire. Apart from the ballistics, it seems to me that the real problem for the RPD was that the high firepower potential of a belt-feed mechanism was severely limited by the fixed barrel, as already mentioned. The two elements really go together. If you have a fixed barrel, then you might as well use a magazine feed, which means you might as well use magazines compatible with the assault rifle, which means that you might as well adopt a heavy-barrel version of the rifle with bipod attached.
So I'll modify my previous statement, to say that if they had a belt-fed 6.5 with a quick-change barrel, they wouldn't need a portable MG in 7.62x54R.
Quote:If the RPD sees little use in Afghan combat, I'd say it's because of the small numbers in theatre, not due to poor long range ballistics.
There are only small numbers around because the concept of a belt-fed MG in a calibre with poor long-range ballistics was discarded. A lightweight belt-fed QCB MG in a long-range 6.5 would probably have been built in huge numbers.
Quote:Remember, the AK has even worse long range ability, but is by far the most numerous gun used by the insurgents.
But it's not the one which caused ISAF all of the problems and sent them rushing back to reissue 7.62mm MGs and rifles to the infantry squad. The AK is fine for the set-piece assaults on ISAF bases or for a close-range ambush. But once the Taliban cottoned on to the limited range of the 5.56mm, it was the PKM and SVD used at long range which harassed and pinned down the ISAF patrols.
If All AK-47s Had Been . . . - stanc - 12-30-2013
Tony Williams Wrote:If they had a belt-fed 6.5, I doubt that the PK series would ever have been built. As the 6.5 MG would become standard for dismounted troops, leaving the 7.62x54R MGs for vehicle mounts and heavy fire support, it seems far more likely to me that they would have kept the SGM in service for a long time, just as they did with the DShK.A fair point. Yes, I agree that's a distinct possibility.
Quote:I'm not so sure that they would have replaced a 6.5mm belt-fed MG as rapidly as they did the RPD.It looks like we're not on the same page. My point is that a 6.5mm RPD would have been replaced by a 6.5mm RPK just as rapidly as the 7.62mm RPD was replaced by the 7.62mm RPK.
I was not saying that a PKM-style 6.5mm LMG would have been replaced.