6.5 Grendel V.S. 7.62x51 500yds & Beyond........ Questions......

[LRRPF52]

This was that same persons response to what you said:
LRRPF52, i truly appreciate everything you do & the info that you share.

Maybe he doesn't know that I was in the Army, have deployed to multiple theaters of the globe pre and post-9/11, spent time in 3 different Scout Sniper Platoons, attended SOTIC Level II, and have been actively involved in deployment or training specifically related to the subject at hand literally for decades.

Guess what, we shot lots and lots of steel plates as part of that training in all the units I was in, as well as automated pop-up E-sils on transitions ranges. Coming from my background, if I could choose any rifle right now for one of several duty positions that I held, the 6.5 Grendel would be at the top of the list over anything in 7.62 NATO as far as shooting precision/distance is concerned, for all of the same reasons that make it such a useful hunting cartridge.

For the close range fight, I'm still a big fan of 5.56 slaughterhouse effects with high basic load round count for my assault elements, entry-level soldiers with limited marksmanship training, and all the support people who go outside the wire as part of a dismounted unit.

7.62 NATO is a non-starter for me personally. If that's all there is, then I'll put it to good use, and would have to find a way to carry enough of it for survivability without crushing my ideal maneuver weight, and therein lies the problem. I know several guys and units that went black or near black on 7.62 NATO who were snipers or DMs. I know of one unit in Afghanistan that almost went black on 5.56, and came razor thin close to being overrun by savages who like to rape boys and young men with no facial hair as part of their normal culture.

Replacing 7.62 NATO with Grendel capability would increase the round count of a dismounted unit, while increasing its maneuver potential, and increasing its hit probability in the existing ranges we currently engage targets at, while increasing the reach over 7.62 NATO by at least a few hundred meters, from DM, CSASS, and LMGs with shorter barrels that weigh less, with longer component life for the critical stressed parts like barrels.

It makes a ton of sense from the micro, can't see past my 4-year enlistment soldier who will never be given quality instruction on reading the wind, to 2nd and 3rd term combat leaders with Sniper or DM training, to the 4th term PSG who has to manage beans, bullets, batteries, and band-aids, to the macro level desk-driving logistics officer who looks at fleet life of SAW or M240 barrels in his Combat Brigades and Divisions, wondering how he can reduce replacement intervals.

If it was just isolated to the long gun community, that would be a great thing in and of itself, as we would get the same or longer barrel life on the schoolhouse rifles, with better hit potential for the students right out of the gate, from a gun that weighs the same as an M4 or SPR, and all the familiarity that comes with that. They can also turn around and use that same carbine as a close range blaster when moving to and from insertion platforms to the OBJ area, lay down some scunnion on savage bugger devourers with super fast follow-up shots across multiple bung violators, and still have plenty of ammo when things go south with exfil, counter-attack, FRAGO for the next mission unplanned, etc. You can't do all of that with 7.62 NATO. It's the literal albatross around any dismounted unit's neck, but we like the terminal performance of a heavier projectile hitting barriers and far targets with more authority than 5.56 NATO, hence the current mix.


I've had this conversation with guys across the relevant services, and I hear them passionately saying all this to me before I even have a chance to say, "Dude, we're tracking 100% 5x5." We're talking Army SF Sniper Instructors, guys out the Unit, USMC Division-level Sniper Instructors, all of whom have multiple relevant deployments in these duty positions.