Our military adopting the Grendel?

[sgt_murf]

Never served, no 1st hand experience in any of the sand boxes. But from talking with people who did, reading, and yes, even documentaries, it appears that views on 5.56 as the universal service cartridge will vary depending on where you served and the scenario.

The following are sweeping generalizations that I've observed:
- OIF/Iraq- Mostly CQB, shorter ranges, lot's of vehicular carry, etc. M4 rules.

- A'stan & others- Many, many more longer range situations. Much more hardened sites, shooting at 200 yards plus. Overall many more longer range situations even when patrolling. More reports of issues with M4's and stopping power.

Sweeping generalization, but appears to hold true for the majority. (though there is more data/info on Iraq than A'stan just due to relative numbers).

And the reports vary accordingly. Mostly in carry rifles, but also to a certain extent precision rifle/designated marksman scenarios. They love 5.56 (and M4) in Iraq. Not so much in A'stan.

I can only project my personal experience onto that. If I'm engaging at 100 yards or greater, I'd rather have grendel in the same carbine as it's just easier to shoot more accurately. Hump it around a bit, and I'd probably grumble about the extra weight for the same combat load. But with almost identical carbines in 5.56 & grendel, open sights, the grendel is easier to hit with at longer ranges. (100m and up)

Add a scope, 20" barrel, etc, and the difference is greater. Not that 5.56 can't shoot well at longer ranges, it just is more finicky about which ammo it can do it with, etc.

Which may not be a fair comparison. We don't shoot "ball" in grendel, we are essentially shooting match ammo, or reload equiv.

All that said, I like Grendel due to it's higher energy at range, accuracy, it's easy to shoot well, even in carbines. It would be my go-to carbine at home.

But I will always keep a 5.56 upper on hand simply for ammo availability reasons. When I went on an aid mission into the Katrina disaster zone, I had a 5.56 & combat load & reload stashed. And if I had to do it again, I'd still take 5.56 as it would do what I needed. While with Grendel there would be virtually no chance of a resupply should things go bad. We had no idea what we'd find, or how long we'd be there. Turned out it stayed buried, was a non-issue. In many aspects, this is "Rule 1- Have a gun". One with ammo trumps one without.

Back to US military combat- I have zero expectation or belief that they will ever move from 5.56 / 7.62 ammo to an intermediate. Just too much inertia. This does not mean that 5.56 is perfect in all scenarios, I'm pretty sure for some the folks in A'stan would rather have a 7.62 service rifle all other things being equal. (Watch Restrepo sometime). I know in that scenario, I'd rather have a G3 than an M4. But they are not having to ruck it, and they have 7.62 ammo at hand.

Pin,
well stated and In my simple opinion you hit it on the head with the differances. The scope comment threw me off because I was thinking scope? the standard Soldier does not get a scope (mental picture is Leupold 6-24X with target knobs or night force)
then (LIGHT BULB) that you are referring to the M68 /ACOG / etc which in my opinion is not a scope.

And really Lets all just be perfectly honest if SHTF here is the States and it was every man for himself -- my go tos would be calibered in 1. 223/5.56,-- 2. 30-06 absolutely tons of those calibers on the shelves to pilliage and utilize. The 30-06 would be the long gun, .223/5.56 the work horse. Simple math based on availability, not that the Grendel is my last choice, or it's bad cartridge that cannot perform both roles I believe it can. But Wal-mart or Dicks does not carry it, not close to Alexandria Virginia, and I don't see that in the scenerio that I will be able to throw everything that I need to reload the Grendel in a ruck and haul butt.