JASmith Wrote:No confusion -- If Grendel is better in terminal effects than 7.62X51 then it will be better than 5.56. Hence this and the cinder block test don't need 5.56.I agree that cinder block penetration only needs to be done with 6.5 and 7.62, since that barrier is more likely to be hit by MMG fire, and the deficiency of 5.56 in that regard was noted almost two decades ago in Somalia.
However, I've seen no complaints about 7.62 in defeating truck doors and windshield glass, and at the close range you cited, it's highly unlikely that a 110gr 6.5 FMJ @ 2500 fps will prove superior to a 147gr 7.62 FMJ @ 2800 fps.
IMO, trying to compare 6.5 vs 7.62 at close distances virtually guarantees that 6.5 will come off second best. As evidence of that, the only 6.5 FMJ gel test we currently have shows a wound profile inferior to that of non-fragmenting 7.62 FMJ.
As a consequence, it seems to me that for comparisons of close-range terminal effectiveness, it'll be necessary to do 6.5 vs 5.56, which can't be done "apples-to-apples" with the 5.56 M855 or M855A1. The best that could be done is a relative comparison of 6.5 110gr (or 120gr) lead-core FMJ vs 5.56 62gr lead-core FMJ, which may be of little value in presenting the case.
Quote:The tests do indeed need to be fair and balanced -- but if the results show that the Grendel is about the same as the 7.62 and 5.56 in all areas, then you're done and we'll continue with the current weapons mix.Yes. What I think need be done is to show 6.5 is significantly better than 5.56, but only comparable to 7.62, not necessarily better. There is no chance of 6.5 Grendel officially replacing 7.62 NATO. The best that could be hoped for is to replace 5.56 NATO, and then -- because of its range capability and relatively light weight -- be used in lieu of 7.62 in the field.