The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured.

[stanc]

After viewing the in-depth contributions to this Thread, this thought occurred to me, What would the M1 Carbine be, if designed today?

Well, the M1 carbine is shorter and lighter than the M1 rifle, and its cartridge is also smaller and lighter than the .30-06 round, but has the same bullet diameter.

There happens to be a weapon which follows that format, and was actually designed to be a modern day M1 carbine. The answer to your question is: The FN P90.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

Fact is: The FN P90 has always been one of my favorite Bullpup designs. However, the performance of the 5.7x28mm cartridge is a far cry from that possible with the 6.5mm Grendel. And, as reported in other Pages of our 6.5 Grendel Forum, a FN P90 6.5mm Grendel is not feasible.

From my original Post on this Thread, ". . . and dialing-in today's typical theaters of war . . . and the recommended extended-range cartridges for those battlefields . . ."

[stanc]

Fact is: The FN P90 has always been one of my favorite Bullpup designs. However, the performance of the 5.7x28mm cartridge is a far cry from that possible with the 6.5mm Grendel.

That's true, but your question was, "What would the M1 Carbine be, if designed today?"

A military grade Grendel carbine would be at least as long and heavy as the M4 carbine, and the 6.5 Grendel cartridge is much bigger and heavier (with a much fatter bullet) than the 5.56 NATO round. All of that is just the opposite of the M1 carbine design relative to the M1 Garand.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

Let's hope that Kel-Tec get's their long-promised RDB-C 6.5mm Grendel to our sport-shooting world ---


<http://olegvolk.net/keltec/2017%20catalo...%20web.pdf >

[LR1955]

SNS - while a very interesting and informative article, it is still pretty much an opinion piece. The author is relating his experiences, while providing the same charts we've all been seeing over the last several years.

I believe what LR55 was referring to is a formal, published, government sponsored test of the Grendel at distance. LR - correct me if I am mistaken.

NF:

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying. What I see is what I expected. A match grade 123 grain bullet was compared to M-80 ball using a ballistics program and was found to have a higher retained velocity at 1000 yards than the M-80.

Bottom line is that to my knowledge there has been no actual testing of something someone can present as a service ball round of Grendel to any of the issued service cartridges for accuracy, penetration, and terminal effects. The reason is simple. There is no developed round of service grade Grendel ball ammunition to compare. Nor a service grade carbine chambered for the Grendel.

LR55

[stanc]

Bottom line is that to my knowledge there has been no actual testing of something someone can present as a service ball round of Grendel to any of the issued service cartridges for accuracy, penetration, and terminal effects. The reason is simple. There is no developed round of service grade Grendel ball ammunition to compare. Nor a service grade carbine chambered for the Grendel.

Nah, that ain't the reason. The reason there has been no testing is because those (like myself) who had the interest and desire, lacked the means, while those who had the means, lacked the interest and desire.


Suitable 6.5 Grendel factory ammunition was available:


And until the demise of Sabre Defence, Alexander Arms marketed a 6.5 Grendel carbine that was identical to the M4. https://gunblast.com/65Grendel.htm

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

Re the 6.5mm Grendel vs 7.62x51mm NATO M80 Ball armor penetration at 1,000 meters, I too would appreciate the opportunity to review a definitive comparison test --- but, in all fairness to the 6.5mm Grendel, not only with the "We shoehorned a bigger cartridge into the gun" safe-for-the-AR-15 breech design loads, but including stout bolt-gun loads, as well ---


And, re my continuing efforts to get a major arms company to offer an alternative auto-loading 6.5mm Grendel rifle ---

< http://bullpupforum.com/index.php?topic=...1#msg39701 >


< http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...post108080 >

I'd like to see one of these companies get it all together, by SHOT Show 2020.

[montana]

I don't know about Germany, but here is what Ian says about the US:

The gas port was not proven especialy for the Germans. I quote from VickersWW2 Germany volume 2, page 79:By 1940 the German leadership issued a request for a semi automatic rifle proposal-albeit with stringent requirements and restrictions. The barrel could not have a gas port drilled into the barrel (which was thought , incorrectly to significantly reduce barrel life). Just FYI.

[stanc]

[video=youtube;9U46D79v5RE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U46D79v5RE[/video]

[VASCAR2]

I just notice the Hornady Frontier ammunition is advertised as a 123 grain FMJ bullet. It would be interesting to see how the 123 grain 6.5 Grendel FMJ would stack up the PPU 110 grain 6.5 Grendel compared 762x51 ball M-80 and 5.56 M-193/M-855/M-855A1.

Thanks for posting the video Stan.



https://www.targetsportsusa.com/65-grend...c-928.aspx

[stanc]

I just notice the Hornady Frontier ammunition is advertised as a 123 grain FMJ bullet. It would be interesting to see how the 123 grain 6.5 Grendel FMJ would stack up the PPU 110 grain 6.5 Grendel compared 762x51 ball M-80 and 5.56 M-193/M-855/M-855A1.

Indeed, that would be interesting. Hornady's website has no info on the 123gr FMJ ammo, just this drawing.

[Plainsman]

My carbine is a 1944 Winchester. With lovely walnut stock. Feeds everything I offer it. FMJ in the carbine is pretty puny. I load it with modern HPs and SPs and it is a great killer on ?otes, porkies, and assorted varmints. So loaded I would not hesitate to use for a PDW. Admittedly, it is not the most accurate weapon out here. But many 100-125Y ?otes might have different stories to tell, if they could.

[FloorPoor]

I would rather have a 9mm carbine than 30 carbine. Both have an effective range of about 100m, but a carbine that accepts the same magazines as your side arm makes sense.

A 9mm fired from a 16" barrel packs about the same energy that a .357 mag 4" barrel has at the muzzle.

[lazyengineer]

I would rather have a 9mm carbine than 30 carbine. Both have an effective range of about 100m, but a carbine that accepts the same magazines as your side arm makes sense.

A 9mm fired from a 16" barrel packs about the same energy that a .357 mag 4" barrel has at the muzzle.

Considering a .30 cal carbine round has about 3 times as much gunpowder in it as a 9mm round; I'm going to say no to that one.

[FloorPoor]

Considering a .30 cal carbine round has about 3 times as much gunpowder in it as a 9mm round; I'm going to say no to that one.

Have you ever fired a revolver chambered in .30 carbine? EAR-SPLITTING, inefficient, with no terminal ballistic advantage over a similar .357mag. A 9x19mm fired from a rifle is efficient and effective, basically a .357 mag with range. More powder burned does not = better. Bullet mass, and design are more important.

[stanc]

I would rather have a 9mm carbine than 30 carbine. Both have an effective range of about 100m, but a carbine that accepts the same magazines as your side arm makes sense.

While there is some logic to having a carbine that uses the same magazine as the pistol, I dislike single-feed mags for a shoulder weapon.

For a carbine, I would much prefer double-feed magazines, such as are used with the MP5 or the Army's new, 9mm sub-compact weapon.





Although I'd rather have a semi-auto MP5 than a M1 carbine, I would be fine with the latter even when carrying a pistol of different caliber.

[video=youtube;3HIywR-m6RI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HIywR-m6RI[/video]