02-06-2013, 12:36 AM
Guardsman26 Wrote:...However, as soon as you fire the existing 6.5 Grendel from a weapon with a 16" barrel, retained energy levels drop-off alarmingly - to the point where the Grendel offers no appreciable difference versus 5.56 mm...This is a rather extreme statement and needs to be expanded.
As you think about how to expand, let's make sure terms are adequately defined so that we can either enthusiastically agree or respectfully disagree. Examples of areas where terms and performance levels need to be defined are:
* What is meant by "appreciable?"
* Engagement range under consideration -- are we talking close quarters battle, 200 meters, or ranges where designated marksmen and snipers predominate?
* Desired barrier perforation -- do we discuss absolute or comparative? Comparative means that one doesn't have to go beyond sectional density and impact velocity to get significant insight.
* Numbers of rounds carried -- some feel the 5.56 has a big advantage in this area while others feel longer range trajectory and terminal effects are important.
Further, you should use this barrel length vs velocity estimator to get a feel for how velocity changes with barrel length on average.
I can say that the wind drift for 14.5" Grendel at 500 meters tends to be less than the wind drift of ta 22" barreled .243 Winchester and that the Grendel bullets hit harder. A 16" barrel on the Grendel does better of course.
In this category, one would be hard pressed to accept arguments that the 5.56 and Grendel are relatively indistinguishable.
I would, however, accept the argument that there is no appreciable difference in terminal effects and trajectories inside 250 meters against unarmored humans.
So, let's get terms defined and a productive discussion underway before some of your readers respond more from emotion than with knowledge and understanding.