Does the 6.5 grendel have the potential to replace the 5.56 for the military?

[cory]

Concur on value of doing 77gr SMK/123gr SMK comparison. However, those are special purpose loads, and would give no useful data regarding performance of general purpose Ball ammo.

I very much disagree that FMJ comparison is useless.

First, a new caliber would almost certainly become NATO standard. Currently, all other NATO armies use FMJ; only the US uses EPR. Given the adherence to Hague Declaration III by other nations, it seems likely they would continue to want non-fragmenting FMJ. Which means that any NATO standard 6.5mm round would probably also be FMJ, with the US using non-NATO 6.5mm EPR, just as it now uses non-NATO 5.56mm EPR.

Second, 6.5 FMJ/5.56 FMJ (or 6.5 FMJ/7.62 FMJ) testing would allow "apples vs apples" comparison of relative performance capabilities of Ball ammo, especially in regards to practical accuracy at long range, and barrier penetration.


Recoil, possibly. Mag width, not really. The .264 USA (6.5x47) case diameter is only marginally greater than that of 6.5 Grendel. The difference would be unnoticeable.

Excuse me, I meant mag length in reference to the x47 case. A grunt needs to be able to hold 2 mags comfortably to be able to reload quickly while retaining the expended mag.

As far the FMJ, you're correct and for the europeans it'd be a good comparison. However they need to keep up or get the hell out of the way. They and their hague declaration can pound sand. We shouldn't be lowering our standards to accommodate their ignorance.