02-04-2013, 06:50 PM
First post here. Hello everyone. Ex-UK Army infantry platoon leader point-of-view:
It really doesn't make sense to have different loadings for any GPC cartridge. As soon as you do that, you might as well stick with 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm in rifles and machine guns respectively. Anyone familiar with logistical constraints of resupply in the field know the headache this would provide.
The 6.5 mm Grendel is undoubtedly the best intermediate calibre cartridge available today. Having seen comparisons of its long-range performance versus improved 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm rounds, I am convinced that it has merit. Where the Grendel comes unstuck is through the requirement to fit within the action length of 5.56 mm weapons.
The bullet, which has an ideal form factor, is very long - but you really wouldn't want to change that. What we really need is increased powder capacity to give it a little extra energy and thus retained energy at long range - especially when fired from short-barrel weapons - and better short-range terminal effectiveness, including barrier defeat. In other words, what the Grendel really needs is a slightly larger case - something in between the current 11.3 x 39 mm and the 6.5 mm x 47 Lapua brass.
Freed from this obvious constraint, the Grendel would be a natural choice for any Army. It would necessitate a 5.56 mm AR-15 weapon with a slightly longer receiver. Or an a 7.62 mm AR-10 model with a lightened receiver. Either way, the weight increase over existing 5.56 mm weapons could i believe be kept to 500 grams or 1.1 lb.
The other reason to put more power behind the bullet is because for it to be adopted as a military round, then you'd probably need a lead free projectile. Assuming a steel core in a copper shoe, a la M855A1 EPA, this is likely to reduce bullet mass to 100-110 grains. So you would need more energy to ensure the same ballistic effect.
It really doesn't make sense to have different loadings for any GPC cartridge. As soon as you do that, you might as well stick with 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm in rifles and machine guns respectively. Anyone familiar with logistical constraints of resupply in the field know the headache this would provide.
The 6.5 mm Grendel is undoubtedly the best intermediate calibre cartridge available today. Having seen comparisons of its long-range performance versus improved 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm rounds, I am convinced that it has merit. Where the Grendel comes unstuck is through the requirement to fit within the action length of 5.56 mm weapons.
The bullet, which has an ideal form factor, is very long - but you really wouldn't want to change that. What we really need is increased powder capacity to give it a little extra energy and thus retained energy at long range - especially when fired from short-barrel weapons - and better short-range terminal effectiveness, including barrier defeat. In other words, what the Grendel really needs is a slightly larger case - something in between the current 11.3 x 39 mm and the 6.5 mm x 47 Lapua brass.
Freed from this obvious constraint, the Grendel would be a natural choice for any Army. It would necessitate a 5.56 mm AR-15 weapon with a slightly longer receiver. Or an a 7.62 mm AR-10 model with a lightened receiver. Either way, the weight increase over existing 5.56 mm weapons could i believe be kept to 500 grams or 1.1 lb.
The other reason to put more power behind the bullet is because for it to be adopted as a military round, then you'd probably need a lead free projectile. Assuming a steel core in a copper shoe, a la M855A1 EPA, this is likely to reduce bullet mass to 100-110 grains. So you would need more energy to ensure the same ballistic effect.