05-04-2011, 12:23 AM
Tony,
I might suggest that most of what is read about 5.56 not being effective, even at close ranges, is totally opposite of what I've personally seen with the cartridge in real world wound ballistics on enemy combatants and "friendly" fire incidents. As a rule, every 5.56 injury/death I have been able to analyze has been characterized by unusual tissue destruction, and generally avulsive (ripped/torn/pulled flesh) effects to soft tissue and extreme bone fragmentation. I have seen countless magazine articles pre-texting an argument for a new caliber with statement about how "Everyone knows the deficiencies of 5.56 on human targets", etc., which is why the credibility of most gun rags has dropped to "not worth picking up" for me anymore-even though I grew up on a healthy reading diet of them.
I've seen 5.56 M855 canoe a man's head, shatter arms, legs, pelvis's, and feet, sometimes after going through thin walls and bouncing off SAAPI plates. Most of those have been fratricidal, unfortunately. Is it my number one choice for making 400-500m shots? No, it isn't-but it is for most of what a rifleman would encounter in the engagement distances that riflemen are tasked to operate in, while next to their SAW, MG, and DM counterparts. I don't like thinking of shooting much else in the house or courtyards-especially as the caliber increases.
I really like the 6.5 Grendel as a cartridge that pretty much duplicates 7.62 NATO ballistics, but with much less weight, recoil, and a smaller receiver/magazine system. I do not think of the 7.62 NATO as a 1000m-capable cartridge, though it is often listed as such. I think 600m is a more realistic distance for 7.62 NATO and the Grendel, having shot both of them enough to reach that conclusion in realistic wind conditions. I have made much farther hits with match .308 loads out of trick rifles, but the winds were dead or canceled at chance opportunities in my favor for those hits, and they were rarely 1st-round.
I recently wanted to test the lighter weight 123gr Scenars in my .260 Rem out to 700 yards (640m), running them at higher velocities. Even at 2960 fps, I was disappointed in the 123 Scenar at that range out of my custom 22" GAP AR10. I had much better results with the 130gr Berger VLD's going 2850 fps, but the same ballistics program showed the 123's doing better for wind deflection at that distance. I was skeptical, but needed to see the actual results for myself. With the shifting wind speeds, even by maybe 5 mph at half value, I was still one-minute of wind off target either way at 700 yds with the 123gr Scenar. A Grendel will never get a 123 near that speed, so I would list the 600m range as a limit for 1st round hit probability with the Grendel for a highly-trained shooter/spotter team with 10 mph winds. A standard rifleman would just be spitting in the wind...
It would be nice to have a Lightweight Belt-fed Machinegun in Grendel to replace the M240 GPMG for dismounted soldiers, if a lower-cost bullet could be made for it with a long tracer endurance like the 7.62 tracer. That would allow SAW gunners and 240 gunners to carry the same MG, creating a new class of machine-gunner, who is capable of supporting the Squads and Platoon without losing current capabilities. Maybe a larger case-capacity would be best for the MG, but then barrel life would most likely suffer. I've made this argument before about more of a need for a lightweight Universal Machinegun, not a replacement for the M4 carbine. We need LMG's that allow Joe to shoot and move with his buddies carrying lightweight carbines, not a new carbine.
LRRPF52
I might suggest that most of what is read about 5.56 not being effective, even at close ranges, is totally opposite of what I've personally seen with the cartridge in real world wound ballistics on enemy combatants and "friendly" fire incidents. As a rule, every 5.56 injury/death I have been able to analyze has been characterized by unusual tissue destruction, and generally avulsive (ripped/torn/pulled flesh) effects to soft tissue and extreme bone fragmentation. I have seen countless magazine articles pre-texting an argument for a new caliber with statement about how "Everyone knows the deficiencies of 5.56 on human targets", etc., which is why the credibility of most gun rags has dropped to "not worth picking up" for me anymore-even though I grew up on a healthy reading diet of them.
I've seen 5.56 M855 canoe a man's head, shatter arms, legs, pelvis's, and feet, sometimes after going through thin walls and bouncing off SAAPI plates. Most of those have been fratricidal, unfortunately. Is it my number one choice for making 400-500m shots? No, it isn't-but it is for most of what a rifleman would encounter in the engagement distances that riflemen are tasked to operate in, while next to their SAW, MG, and DM counterparts. I don't like thinking of shooting much else in the house or courtyards-especially as the caliber increases.
I really like the 6.5 Grendel as a cartridge that pretty much duplicates 7.62 NATO ballistics, but with much less weight, recoil, and a smaller receiver/magazine system. I do not think of the 7.62 NATO as a 1000m-capable cartridge, though it is often listed as such. I think 600m is a more realistic distance for 7.62 NATO and the Grendel, having shot both of them enough to reach that conclusion in realistic wind conditions. I have made much farther hits with match .308 loads out of trick rifles, but the winds were dead or canceled at chance opportunities in my favor for those hits, and they were rarely 1st-round.
I recently wanted to test the lighter weight 123gr Scenars in my .260 Rem out to 700 yards (640m), running them at higher velocities. Even at 2960 fps, I was disappointed in the 123 Scenar at that range out of my custom 22" GAP AR10. I had much better results with the 130gr Berger VLD's going 2850 fps, but the same ballistics program showed the 123's doing better for wind deflection at that distance. I was skeptical, but needed to see the actual results for myself. With the shifting wind speeds, even by maybe 5 mph at half value, I was still one-minute of wind off target either way at 700 yds with the 123gr Scenar. A Grendel will never get a 123 near that speed, so I would list the 600m range as a limit for 1st round hit probability with the Grendel for a highly-trained shooter/spotter team with 10 mph winds. A standard rifleman would just be spitting in the wind...
It would be nice to have a Lightweight Belt-fed Machinegun in Grendel to replace the M240 GPMG for dismounted soldiers, if a lower-cost bullet could be made for it with a long tracer endurance like the 7.62 tracer. That would allow SAW gunners and 240 gunners to carry the same MG, creating a new class of machine-gunner, who is capable of supporting the Squads and Platoon without losing current capabilities. Maybe a larger case-capacity would be best for the MG, but then barrel life would most likely suffer. I've made this argument before about more of a need for a lightweight Universal Machinegun, not a replacement for the M4 carbine. We need LMG's that allow Joe to shoot and move with his buddies carrying lightweight carbines, not a new carbine.
LRRPF52