Military round comparisons

[stanc]

stanc, With all due respect, the "6.5 Grendel look[s] great," because that's just what it is --- no matter how you slice it!

If that's true, why are you unwilling to do your comparison with 6.5 Grendel 120gr FMJ (0.420 BC) vs 7.62 M80 FMJ? Afraid it won't "slice" so great?

[JASmith]

...I don't think we will see a new brass cartridge rifle introduced into military use, period. We aren't going that route. The head shed wants a HUGE next step, not an incremental improvement, and that won't happen with mature technology...

I think that is close to the mark.

It is also interesting that Hitler diverted effort on advancing propeller-driven aircraft in favor of jets. He also wanted that HUGE next step. Hence, there wasn't much improvement in his propeller driven aircraft from 1939 on. There was speculation among experienced aerodynamic engineers that, had Hitlers' engineers been allowed to proceed with incremental improvements, the outcome of the war would have been different.

[montana]

Actually Hitler diverted the jet program from fighters to fighter bombers. This had delayed the delivery of jet fighter squadrons which may have changed the out come of the war. The German jet program was always hindered by the lack of strategic metals which resulted in poor reliability and engine life of their jet engine. That said there was no way Germany could have changed the outcome of the war using comparable piston aircraft when up against the resources of the U.S. and Soviet union. The German blitzkrieg war had turned to a war of attrition and they needed a game changer in weapons if they were to have chance of victory. The latest Faulk wolf fighters were second to none but were issued in so few numbers like the German tanks they had little effect on the out come of the war. Hitler at the beginning didn't understand the benefits of their new storm rifle the MP43 or stg 44. Their jet fighter, storm rifle and nuclear weapons program came to late to make a difference. Great ideas don't make a difference if the people in charge don't have the understanding or ability to utilize them with the resources that are available.

[LRRPF52]

The consequences of allowing an artillery corporal/starving artist to be supreme chancellor of a nation are eternally painful for Germany, let alone the millions who lost their lives or had families destroyed by him.

I've also caught hint that the Germans were more interested in a smaller bore diameter for the Sturmgewehr, but the choice of 7.92mm was driven more by strategic logistics at the barrel-makers. They had as many barrel diameters to drill already and allocate to SMG's and pistols in 9mm, with shoulder-fired and belt-fed weapons taking 7.92mm. I would like to find more information about the other calibers they were considering for the Intermediate Cartridge.

[cory]

That statement may be true, but it ignores my objection: Comparing 6.5mm 123gr HPBT Match to 7.62mm 147gr FMJ Ball gives an inaccurate and misleading representation of relative performance, because it's highly unlikely that a 6.5mm 123gr military FMJ bullet would have a BC anywhere close to that of the Scenar.

Such comparisons should be as much "apples vs apples" as possible. Don't want to compare M80 FMJ to the Norma FMJ? Okay, but just don't compare it to the Scenar, either. Compare 7.62mm M118LR 175gr SMK to 6.5mm 123gr SMK. Anybody care to wager that the 6.5 SMK load will outperform the M118LR in SASSY's comparison? :p

Why should we not compare it to a match bullet or for that matter a HPBT 123gr?

The common consensus of this thread is that the military isn't going to switch to a new round unless there is a significant improvement in capabilities. What if developing a method for mass producing match grade bullets as at a similar cost to FMJs was part of that improvement?

How do we know that the future isn't going to see a shift to using HPBTs? When hunting game, as a hunter, you want to kill the game as quickly and painlessly as possibly (DRT), partly out of respect, but mostly because it's the HUMANE thing to do. Most hunters use the bullet, within their price range, that they feel will perform the best in accomplishing that goal. I, personally, have never heard a hunter tell me a FMJ is the best choice to accomplish a DRT, because it isn't and not by a long shot. Now why are we still standing behind this preconceived notion that the FMJ is the most humane means to shoot the enemy when we can scientifically prove that the HPBT and Ballistic tips are the better way to "humanely" kill the enemy?

I'm probably dreaming big hoping the powers that be will open their eyes to what's right in front of them, but I'm going to keep hoping we get away from the FMJ, eventually.

[montana]

The consequences of allowing an artillery corporal/starving artist to be supreme chancellor of a nation are eternally painful for Germany, let alone the millions who lost their lives or had families destroyed by him.

I've also caught hint that the Germans were more interested in a smaller bore diameter for the Sturmgewehr, but the choice of 7.92mm was driven more by strategic logistics at the barrel-makers. They had as many barrel diameters to drill already and allocate to SMG's and pistols in 9mm, with shoulder-fired and belt-fed weapons taking 7.92mm. I would like to find more information about the other calibers they were considering for the Intermediate Cartridge.

I wonder what the world's and our nation's consequences will be for electing a self admitted, "coke snorting, Mao Zedong admirer, white hating church going", president will be.

I have read where smaller caliber bores were being considered but logistics ended that idea. The cartridges that I have found that were experimented with before adoption of the 7.92X33 were 7X39,7X45,7X46,7.75X40,7.9X30,8X33.5,8X35.5,8X45, and8X46. Americas history of not adopting good ideas is extensive. The Christie tank design which the soviets used in their T-34, the maxim machine gun, the Lewis machine gun, Henry rifles, etc. We have also been on the cutting edge when free enterprise is allowed to work. Nothing works better than getting feed back from the people who actually plan on using the product, rather than the political or corporate entities that will profit from it.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

Whatever the reason, my point --

Such comparisons should be as much "apples vs apples" as possible. Don't want to compare M80 FMJ to the Norma FMJ? Okay, but just don't compare it to the Scenar, either. Compare 7.62mm M118LR 175gr SMK to 6.5mm 123gr SMK. Anybody care to wager that the 6.5 SMK load will outperform the M118LR in SASSY's comparison? :p

stanc,

I believe we owe it to ourselves and to the Forum to clear this matter up, and move on.

To clarify: I included the 7.62mm M80 in my Kinetic Energy comparison, simply because it was among the cartridges listed in Tony Williams' Post. When one considers the fact that the 7.62mm M80 cartridge has a case capacity of 56 grains (H2O) vs 35 grains for the 6.5 Grendel, and an overall length of 2.80" vs 2.26", I think it's fair to state that the 6.5 Grendel is the clear underdog, in this comparison --- except for the superior Ballistic Coefficient of its projectiles. Let's not hold that against the 6.5's --- they're "born" with it. It's their Ace in the Hole!

Now, for an "apples vs apples" comparison, from 16" barrels: In the near corner, we have the superb 7.62mm M118LR, with 175-grain SMK (BC - 0.495, O.A.L. - 2.80", case capacity - 56 grains); and in the far corner, we have the .260 Remington, with 140-grain Hornady AMAX (BC - 0.585, O.A.L. - 2.80", case capacity - 53.5 grains).

Cartridge . . . . . . Muzzle (fps/ft.lbs) . .1000 yards . . 1000 yards (Drift, 10mph)

7.62mm M118LR . . . 2475/2380 . . . . . 1156/519 . . . . . . . 104"
.260 Remington . . . .2550/2021 . . . . . 1331/551 . . . . . . . . 80"

[stanc]

Why should we not compare it to a match bullet or for that matter a HPBT 123gr?

I'd have thought that would be obvious: It does not give a true comparison of relative performance.

How do we know that the future isn't going to see a shift to using HPBTs?

We don't. All we know is what's being used at present.

I'm probably dreaming big hoping the powers that be will open their eyes to what's right in front of them, but I'm going to keep hoping we get away from the FMJ, eventually.

We already have. The Army is using M855A1, an exposed penetrator round, and the Marines are employing the Mk318, an expanding/fragmenting hollow point.

[stanc]

stanc,

I believe we owe it to ourselves and to the Forum to clear this matter up, and move on.

To clarify: I included the 7.62mm M80 in my Kinetic Energy comparison, simply because it was among the cartridges listed in Tony Williams' Post. When one considers the fact that the 7.62mm M80 cartridge has a case capacity of 56 grains (H2O) vs 35 grains for the 6.5 Grendel, and an overall length of 2.80" vs 2.26", I think it's fair to state that the 6.5 Grendel is the clear underdog, in this comparison --- except for the superior Ballistic Coefficient of its projectiles. Let's not hold that against the 6.5's --- they're "born" with it. It's their Ace in the Hole!

Unfortunately, you're not clearing it up. You're still evading my challenge.

Now, for an "apples vs apples" comparison, from 16" barrels: In the near corner, we have the superb 7.62mm M118LR, with 175-grain SMK (BC - 0.495, O.A.L. - 2.80", case capacity - 56 grains); and in the far corner, we have the .260 Remington, with 140-grain Hornady AMAX (BC - 0.585, O.A.L. - 2.80", case capacity - 53.5 grains).

Cartridge . . . . . . Muzzle (fps/ft.lbs) . .1000 yards . . 1000 yards (Drift, 10mph)

7.62mm M118LR . . . 2475/2380 . . . . . 1156/519 . . . . . . . 104"
.260 Remington . . . .2550/2021 . . . . . 1331/551 . . . . . . . . 80"

Hee hee hee. ROTFLMAO. You actually think AMAX vs SMK is an "apples vs apples" comparison?

Not that it matters. My challenge was to compare M118LR w/175gr SMK to 6.5 Grendel w/123gr SMK. But, yet again you evade the issue by bringing .260 Remington into a discussion about 6.5 Grendel.

Since you continually engage in such evasions, there's no point in continuing this.

[LR1955]

stanc,

I believe we owe it to ourselves and to the Forum to clear this matter up, and move on.

To clarify: I included the 7.62mm M80 in my Kinetic Energy comparison, simply because it was among the cartridges listed in Tony Williams' Post. When one considers the fact that the 7.62mm M80 cartridge has a case capacity of 56 grains (H2O) vs 35 grains for the 6.5 Grendel, and an overall length of 2.80" vs 2.26", I think it's fair to state that the 6.5 Grendel is the clear underdog, in this comparison --- except for the superior Ballistic Coefficient of its projectiles. Let's not hold that against the 6.5's --- they're "born" with it. It's their Ace in the Hole!

Now, for an "apples vs apples" comparison, from 16" barrels: In the near corner, we have the superb 7.62mm M118LR, with 175-grain SMK (BC - 0.495, O.A.L. - 2.80", case capacity - 56 grains); and in the far corner, we have the .260 Remington, with 140-grain Hornady AMAX (BC - 0.585, O.A.L. - 2.80", case capacity - 53.5 grains).

Cartridge . . . . . . Muzzle (fps/ft.lbs) . .1000 yards . . 1000 yards (Drift, 10mph)

7.62mm M118LR . . . 2475/2380 . . . . . 1156/519 . . . . . . . 104"
.260 Remington . . . .2550/2021 . . . . . 1331/551 . . . . . . . . 80"

SAS:

1000 yards? For a carbine being issued to the average Joe and as a round of ball ammo?

Lay down on a golf course and look around. Tell me how far you can see.

Then, tell me how you intend on training tens of thousands of Joes, many who don't give a shit what carbine or ammo they carry, how to dope winds without using a powerful and very well made optic.

Then tell me how you intend on sustaining the capability. Particularly when you find that 95% or more of your small arms ranges lack the surface danger zone to accept this high speed ammo. And that the other five percent that allow a sufficient SDZ are also being used to keep guys trained on heavy machineguns.

The absurdity of this entire argument has been gone over time and again.

First, there is no quantum improvement of any of these 6.5, 6mm. 6.8 etc chamberings over what is already issued.

Second, the majority of ammo fired by the majority of Soldiers in the combat arms is fired at ranges under 100 yards. I would say at least 30% is done in CQC / CQB, or what ever it is called today. There is no need to issue guys '1000' yard capable ammo because their doctrine does not require that capability, their equipment lacks the precision to make such ammo effective on man size targets at those distances, you can't see that far in most places on earth, and training guys to that capability is a complete waste of time.

Third, the SDZ's on the vast majority of ranges in the Army and USMC are too short to use these long range cartridges safely. You can't grow land so those few range areas that can accept rounds like 118LR, .300 WM, .338 are in very high demand due to machinegun use and lack the size and targets needed to train the 'Average Rifleman'.

You ain't going anywhere if you can't train with the ammunition. And you ain't training with ammo that outshoots your SDZ's.

LR1955

[Trooper]

SAS:

1000 yards? For a carbine being issued to the average Joe and as a round of ball ammo?

Lay down on a golf course and look around. Tell me how far you can see.

Then, tell me how you intend on training tens of thousands of Joes, many who don't give a shit what carbine or ammo they carry, how to dope winds without using a powerful and very well made optic.

Then tell me how you intend on sustaining the capability. Particularly when you find that 95% or more of your small arms ranges lack the surface danger zone to accept this high speed ammo. And that the other five percent that allow a sufficient SDZ are also being used to keep guys trained on heavy machineguns.

The absurdity of this entire argument has been gone over time and again.

First, there is no quantum improvement of any of these 6.5, 6mm. 6.8 etc chamberings over what is already issued.

Second, the majority of ammo fired by the majority of Soldiers in the combat arms is fired at ranges under 100 yards. I would say at least 30% is done in CQC / CQB, or what ever it is called today. There is no need to issue guys '1000' yard capable ammo because their doctrine does not require that capability, their equipment lacks the precision to make such ammo effective on man size targets at those distances, you can't see that far in most places on earth, and training guys to that capability is a complete waste of time.

Third, the SDZ's on the vast majority of ranges in the Army and USMC are too short to use these long range cartridges safely. You can't grow land so those few range areas that can accept rounds like 118LR, .300 WM, .338 are in very high demand due to machinegun use and lack the size and targets needed to train the 'Average Rifleman'.

You ain't going anywhere if you can't train with the ammunition. And you ain't training with ammo that outshoots your SDZ's.

LR1955

The average soldier is not going to be trained to do long range shooting. Only the squad designated marksman will get that training. Now the Marines might train every grunt to that standard but the Army will not.

[Michael]

The average soldier is not going to be trained to do long range shooting. Only the squad designated marksman will get that training. Now the Marines might train every grunt to that standard but the Army will not.

Sorry to disappoint you Trooper, Marines only train out to 500m - no difference in marksmanship between grunts or any other MOS (hence, every Marine is a rifleman). Different DM Courses usually train in the 6-800m range, and snipers get the longer range training.

[JASmith]

...which brings us back to the position held by LRRPF52: A cartridge like the Grendel makes a lot of sense in the hands of the DM and running through LMG at the squad and platoon level.

My take is that the DM is already issued unique ammunition in 5.56 or 7.62x51 so the logistics tail for the DM is not particularly different.

Getting traction for the LMG may be more of a challenge but the effectiveness of dismounted infantry is arguably well-served by having a 6.5 mm LMG vice a 5.56.

Replacing the MMG is more of a challenge even though many of us have concluded that the guy on the receiving end likely won't know the difference between a 150 gr FMJ and the 120 gr Norma except that more Norma's will land on or near them over the duration of an engagement.

[Michael]

...which brings us back to the position held by LRRPF52: A cartridge like the Grendel makes a lot of sense in the hands of the DM and running through LMG at the squad and platoon level.

My take is that the DM is already issued unique ammunition in 5.56 or 7.62x51 so the logistics tail for the DM is not particularly different.

Getting traction for the LMG may be more of a challenge but the effectiveness of dismounted infantry is arguably well-served by having a 6.5 mm LMG vice a 5.56.

Replacing the MMG is more of a challenge even though many of us have concluded that the guy on the receiving end likely won't know the difference between a 150 gr FMJ and the 120 gr Norma except that more Norma's will land on or near them over the duration of an engagement.

I may be outdated on this, but your DMs usually got nothing different - maybe a better scope on a standard M16A4. There was a time when the Marine Corps played with the Mk 12 and Mk 10 (think accurized AR 15 and AR 10), but those were in short supply outside of the Recon/SoCom communities.

[KentuckyBuddha]

I may be outdated on this, but your DMs usually got nothing different - maybe a better scope on a standard M16A4. There was a time when the Marine Corps played with the Mk 12 and Mk 10 (think accurized AR 15 and AR 10), but those were in short supply outside of the Recon/SoCom communities.

This is what they are on about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_14_Enhan...ttle_Rifle

[Michael]

This is what they are on about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_14_Enhan...ttle_Rifle

Never saw it in any unit I was in...deployed to Afghanistan in '08 and Iraq in '09. Wonder who got them?

[stanc]

...the position held by LRRPF52: A cartridge like the Grendel makes a lot of sense in the hands of the DM and running through LMG at the squad and platoon level.

I agree. IMO, 6.5 Grendel would make a fine chambering for the DMR and LMG.

However, 7.62 seems to be delivering acceptable performance in those roles, so it's difficult to see sufficient justification for complicating the logistical equation by replacing it with a smaller caliber of unproven capability.

6.5 Grendel offers an undetermined amount of ammo and weapon weight reduction, but is that enough to "sell" it as a replacement for 7.62 NATO?

[cory]

6.5 Grendel offers an undetermined amount of ammo and weapon weight reduction, but is that enough to "sell" it as a replacement for 7.62 NATO?

That alone probably not. However, if it was to replace all 5.56 and 7.62, drastically improving logistics and improving soldier capabilities in short and long distance engagements, that might be enough.

I completely agree most of your basic grunts won't utilize the Grendel to its full capabilities, but they'll still see an improvement in their results on the battlefield.

When I was in we never trained at marksmanship skill, other than just before we went to the range to qualify, but why would we off spent that much time training to hit a target that our weapon couldn't effectively destroy? While we certainly would of benefited from more rounds down range, squad movement training was more important with the weapons we had.

I could be completely off, but if the military had small arms with the capability of destroying targets beyond 500m I'd think they would train to do just that. I think I can safely say the Marines would spend more time on it.

[LR1955]

The average soldier is not going to be trained to do long range shooting. Only the squad designated marksman will get that training. Now the Marines might train every grunt to that standard but the Army will not.

Trooper:

SDM? I ran bunches of courses for 'SDM's between about Y2K through Y2K8. They were issued a M-4 carbine, M-855, and an ACOG until about 2K8. Then you started to see some of the EBR's being issued just before units deployed. In other words, issued when there was not enough time to train them how to do anything with the rifle or optic. And, guess what? The EBRs were considered 500 meter performers. Basically the hit probability with them was the same as a Joe with a carbine and an ACOG. Some of the EBRs were very good to 800 but there was no pattern to any of it. Some shot M-80 way better than 118LR and others shot 118LR exceptionally well but not M-80. Most didn't shoot either any better than a Joe with a carbine and M-855.

And, in order to contend with winds of any challenge you really need a spotter. An SDM is not equipped to dope winds and in his capacity as a SDM supporting squad maneuver, he will have his eyes focused on target ID and interdiction through his scope. If he noticed mirage blowing or perhaps felt or saw something indicating a cross wind, he would give himself a hold and take the shot. Certainly, he was not equipped or capable of doping winds well enough for even a 20% hit probability past about 500. It wouldn't have mattered because most (not all but a good 80%) of the EBRs were incapable of holding a upper torso size target with any of the issued 7.62 past 500 meters. Particularly when they heat up.

Not intending on smoking you or anyone else here. Been through this with more than a few units and the SDM concept and the EBR. It is the reality of things and even more so today as the units tire of perpetual deployments.

The Marines qualify at 500 meters or yards depending on the scale of a KD range at their base. The Army out to 300 on Train Fire. Of the two, most likely the Army is more common sense in terms of reality bit the Marines are certainly far more focused on marksmanship training. Probably because marksmanship is part of their existence as a entity. I harbor no ill will towards them. That is their thing and it is better they try to train Marines how to dope winds for 500 even if it is highly unlikely the majority of Marines will ever be in a position where they can see an enemy that far and actually be in a position and have the time to shoot him with any deliberate intent, than to waste the time of the Marines listening to moronic politically correct lectures on what ever social experiment is in vogue today.

LR1955

[KentuckyBuddha]

Never saw it in any unit I was in...deployed to Afghanistan in '08 and Iraq in '09. Wonder who got them?

I reckon it is from AAR's from folk (possibly like yourself) that got them to spool up the program for regular ground pounders and grunts instead of just SpecOP guys in 2010 bub! : )