11-14-2011, 06:57 PM
Grendel-Gene Wrote:Surely there has to be SOME ADVANTAGE to the Grendel (and these other cartridges that have been developed lately for the AR platform) or we wouldn't be here, right? I mean this web site would be called "223.com".!!!
So somebody went to all the trouble to create these new calibers to make up for some perceived or real deficiency in the 223... right? Otherwise, what's the point?.
In Texas we say that " if it aint broke, dont fix it". Well it seems to me that too many folks are trying to fix it... so it must be broke.
I think it is too. Hell, even Gene Stoner hated the 223... I'm not sure this is well-documented, since Gene Stoner went on to design other 5.56 weapons, and was involved with the development of the .223/5.56. He did like the 7.62/AR10, but I think he realized the value of 5.56 after it cut its teeth in the field, and was the caliber of the Stoner 63 Weapon System.
The Grendel offers energy retention past 200yds and a bullet selection for hunting that simply doesn't exist with .223. Within 100yds, a fast, light jacketed 5.56 is a messy little sucker, let me tell you. I would rather be shot with a long, heavier bullet than a light, fast 5.56 any day after seeing what it does within the majority of engagement distances.
I have been very clear about where my proponency for the Grendel is for a military cartridge, and that is as a new Mulit-role Light Machinegun cartridge that could potentially displace 7.62 NATO for dismounted soldiers, provided we can demonstrate that it meets operational requirements currently being met by belt-fed 7.62 weapons, while reducing soldier's load at the same time. I believe that the Grendel is capable of meeting this requirement, and reduced load without sacrificing capability would be the most welcome thing to dismounted soldiers, as well as logisticians.