02-09-2013, 11:22 PM
Quote:How does the Grendel compare to the 7mm UIAC? Or to the 260 Rem and other 6.5mm rounds? Are their better rounds out there? At the moment it appears that the 6.5 Grendel is at the bottom of the range and the 7mm UIAC at the top. Does anyone have any good comparison data?
The 7mm UIAC requires a larger action, larger magazines, larger magazine pouches, and takes up more space on a vest than traditional intermediate cartridges like the 7.62x39 and 5.56 NATO. The original 7.92x33 Kurz takes up the least space for length of magzines, but the magazines had to be taller because of the case head diameter.
The .260 Rem is a necked-down .308 to 6.5mm, so it would occupy the same practical space as any current 7.62 NATO weapon, with reduced barrel life. It is not ever going to fit in an assault rifle frame, so it falls into the traditional battle rifle footprint, which we're trying to get away from, while retaining as much downrange performance that battle rifles have.
If a general purpose cartridge is what one seeks, there have to be trade-offs on both ends of the spectrum:
Weight/recoil penalties for heavier projectiles driven at faster speeds
Reduced External & Terminal ballistics performance for lighter projectiles fired from low-recoiling weapons
I can't think of a cartridge that hits a more optimum balance point between these than the Grendel, especially since it allows a carbine or rifle that is lighter than a 5.56 equivalent, with better wind drift at 600yds than a 16" 7.62 NATO carbine, with a higher magazine capacity, and 50% of the recoil.
During one of the last DMR Courses I was running, I was really wishing that I would have had my little 16" Grendel with me, as the 5.56 wouldn't knock down steel poppers at 200m and 300m unless you did a rapid pair accurately into the head, whereas the 7.62 NATO HK417 sent the poppers and their bases clanking head over heel, and was punishing on the steel plates...but recoil and mag capacity were issues.