02-11-2013, 04:02 AM
We've hashed this out before over the years. For any serious students of the discussion, I would suggest the following reading assignments:
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...-Cartridge
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...es-Article
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...ammunition
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...y-Soldiers
If you want a 6.5mm "GPC", you don't need any extra case capacity over the Grendel, unless you are trying to keep the pressure down at 50,000psi. If you're willing to develop a Grendel-specific industrial powder for a particular military load, using a larger bolt design, you can find a load that will exceed the 147gr 7.62 NATO trajectory and drift from equivalent barrel lengths. The 123gr AMAX, NCC, SMK, and Scenar will already do that, but they are BTHP target bullets, except for the AMAX, which is tipped.
The problem you run into with the 7.62-augmenting/Replacement requirement for sheer performance numbers is that you pull the GPC further away from a viable assault rifle cartridge, into the albatross battle rifle category, which should have never been created post-WWII. Augmenting, then replacing 7.62 NATO is the most logical course of action in my opinion, so therein lies the challenge.
Option 1: This is why I lean to the idea of a mix of 5.56 NATO carbines with a 6.5x38 DM/Sniper/LMG system, where a 123-130gr set of military projectiles are used. The DM's and Snipers would have a target load BTHP with cannelure, and the LMG would have a Boat-Tail FMJ, a new barrier-blind round, and a tracer.
Option 2: If you really needed a single caliber system, you have the option of making a separate assault rifle load with a very light bullet of 85-100gr going 2700-2850fps, and a 130gr LMG load, or
Option 3: Penalize the Riflemen/Assaulters/RTO's/Key Leaders/ Engineers/Scouts with an LMG-based load meant for 500-1200m performance, with one distributed in links, and the other on stripper clips, so that every swinging Richard is slinging a too-heavy-for application load, especially in built-up terrain in close quarters, through a dual logistics packaging & distributing system anyway.
You reduce the already dismal qualification standards that mostly urban youth conscripts produce with the current, virtually recoilless 5.56 NATO, while burdening the logistics system across the board in the only area where it is currently efficient (5.56 NATO).
Has it been done before? Yes, in several armies with the FN/FAL and MAG58 GPMG, or G3 and MG3, or M14 and M60, but none of those small arms mixes are viable when you look at combat duration from contact-to-contact, or contact-to-continue mission. One contact with 7.62 NATO, and you're basically done until you can get a resupply.
One aspect of this problem I will always bring up is from the Riflemen Skill Level I-through-General Officer logistician perspective. Having occupied and functioned as a:
Rifleman
Grenadier
PLT RTO
SAW Gunner
Fire Team Leader
Rifle Squad Leader
Scout Observer
Scout Sniper
Assistant Recon Team Leader
Assistant Machine Gunner
Ammo Bearer
Weapons Squad Leader
My experience is anecdotal, yet relevant and diverse to this discussion. I know what will happen when you put a heavier load into an assault rifle and then hand it to entry-level soldiers. I especially know what will happen when you try to add weight to everyone's fighting load, while reducing ammunition capacity.
That's why I think the biggest thing that needs fixing first is the LMG, making it lighter, and capable of providing an acceptable replacement for the current 7.62 NATO belt-fed machine guns, while adding an improved DMR/SASS chambered in an intermediate 6.5mm that is the same chambering as the LMG.
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...-Cartridge
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...es-Article
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...ammunition
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...y-Soldiers
If you want a 6.5mm "GPC", you don't need any extra case capacity over the Grendel, unless you are trying to keep the pressure down at 50,000psi. If you're willing to develop a Grendel-specific industrial powder for a particular military load, using a larger bolt design, you can find a load that will exceed the 147gr 7.62 NATO trajectory and drift from equivalent barrel lengths. The 123gr AMAX, NCC, SMK, and Scenar will already do that, but they are BTHP target bullets, except for the AMAX, which is tipped.
The problem you run into with the 7.62-augmenting/Replacement requirement for sheer performance numbers is that you pull the GPC further away from a viable assault rifle cartridge, into the albatross battle rifle category, which should have never been created post-WWII. Augmenting, then replacing 7.62 NATO is the most logical course of action in my opinion, so therein lies the challenge.
Option 1: This is why I lean to the idea of a mix of 5.56 NATO carbines with a 6.5x38 DM/Sniper/LMG system, where a 123-130gr set of military projectiles are used. The DM's and Snipers would have a target load BTHP with cannelure, and the LMG would have a Boat-Tail FMJ, a new barrier-blind round, and a tracer.
Option 2: If you really needed a single caliber system, you have the option of making a separate assault rifle load with a very light bullet of 85-100gr going 2700-2850fps, and a 130gr LMG load, or
Option 3: Penalize the Riflemen/Assaulters/RTO's/Key Leaders/ Engineers/Scouts with an LMG-based load meant for 500-1200m performance, with one distributed in links, and the other on stripper clips, so that every swinging Richard is slinging a too-heavy-for application load, especially in built-up terrain in close quarters, through a dual logistics packaging & distributing system anyway.
You reduce the already dismal qualification standards that mostly urban youth conscripts produce with the current, virtually recoilless 5.56 NATO, while burdening the logistics system across the board in the only area where it is currently efficient (5.56 NATO).
Has it been done before? Yes, in several armies with the FN/FAL and MAG58 GPMG, or G3 and MG3, or M14 and M60, but none of those small arms mixes are viable when you look at combat duration from contact-to-contact, or contact-to-continue mission. One contact with 7.62 NATO, and you're basically done until you can get a resupply.
One aspect of this problem I will always bring up is from the Riflemen Skill Level I-through-General Officer logistician perspective. Having occupied and functioned as a:
Rifleman
Grenadier
PLT RTO
SAW Gunner
Fire Team Leader
Rifle Squad Leader
Scout Observer
Scout Sniper
Assistant Recon Team Leader
Assistant Machine Gunner
Ammo Bearer
Weapons Squad Leader
My experience is anecdotal, yet relevant and diverse to this discussion. I know what will happen when you put a heavier load into an assault rifle and then hand it to entry-level soldiers. I especially know what will happen when you try to add weight to everyone's fighting load, while reducing ammunition capacity.
That's why I think the biggest thing that needs fixing first is the LMG, making it lighter, and capable of providing an acceptable replacement for the current 7.62 NATO belt-fed machine guns, while adding an improved DMR/SASS chambered in an intermediate 6.5mm that is the same chambering as the LMG.