How could or should the 6.5 mm Grendel be improved?

[Variable]

Hi Guardsman, My reply is below, and I hope it doesn't come across as confrontational, because I don't intend for it to be. I'm asking questions because they help me understand what you are wanting/expecting to get answers about.

As a professional defense industry consultant,To whom? I am involved in a project looking at future military ammunition types.For whom? I am not a ballistics expert, but as an ex-infantry platoon leader and company commander, I know something about how such products are used by the end customer!

Over the last 12 months several NATO armies have begun to look at the issue of caliber. The speed and ease with which the 8.59 mm cartridge has become a new and de facto NATO sniping calibre and, similarly, the way in which the 4.6 mm round has become a a de facto PDW standard has reassured military procurement personnel that maybe the barriers to caliber change are not so great.

For this reason, both the 6.8 mm Remington SPC and 6.5 mm Grendel have been evaluated quite extensively. To cut a long story short, the 6.8 mm Remington provides demonstrably superior terminal effectiveness to that of the M855 5.56 mm NATO round at all ranges to 400 metres. The problem is, however, that we need to engage targets at ranges of up to 600 metres in assault rifles (usually as a squad firing collectively), up to 800 metres for DMRs, and up to 1,200 metres for machine gunners with LMGs / SAWs. There is also the problem of Level III and Level IV body armour. Without extended range and power, the 6.8 mm SPC cartridge is not a valid substitute for 5.56 mm NATO.You already know the 6.5 Grendel is superior to the 6.8 for that role.

Consequently, we have seen the wider re-introduction of 7.62 mm at squad level. Now that every UK infantry soldier is required to carry 200 rounds of belted 7.62 mm in addition to his own kit, we've all been reminded of the weight disadvantages of this larger calibre, not to mention the problem of training soldiers to shoot accurately with a rifle that has greater recoil.Which is what we were trying to tell you-- weight and recol wise.LOL

Are we really stuck with 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm? It's starting to become obvious that the 5.56 mm M855A1 EPR is still most effective below 500 metres despite claims to the contrary. There are other concerns that I am sure everyone here is aware of, including massive costs. Meanwhile, 7.62 mm remains very inefficient, so loses energy rapidly. The thing is it works.

Against this backdrop the armies of several NATO members are looking at alternate calibers. Not surprisingly the 6.5 mm Grendel is starting to receive a lot of attention. (Kudos to you Bill A) it is certainly a highly respected solution and is now being evaluated widely. With all due respect to forum members own testing, a consensus opinion about the Grendel appears to be forming from within the military community. Let me underline the issues:

• The Grendel doesn't quite match 7.62 mm at 1,000 metres across all combat scenarios Agreed. The laws of physics must apply. There are no free lunches to be had, but the Grendel (In my opinion) hits the sweet spot exceedingly well. Factoring in size, weight, and recoil points squarely at the Grendel in my book.
  OTM bullets for precision target shooting are likely to provide better results than a lower standard military spec ammunition
  Concern about loss of energy when ammo fired from shorter barrels What load? At what length?
  Concerns about high pressure loadings heating up weapons quickly in combat and possibly causing malfunctionsCan you elaborate on that one? I have a registered sear, shoot full auto, and have had no problems.
  Need to ensure the bullet design combines maximum efficiency with terminal effectiveness at all ranges
  

I have mentioned elsewhere that tests conducted by an EU manufacturer using piston AR15s showed marked energy reductions with weapons having barrels of 12" and 14.5" and 16" versus 24" and 20" barrels. Alas, I cannot cite my data sources. Apologies.So: "Someone said they didn't like it, but I can't say who, or what the results were..."? We at least need numbers. We can only deal in facts and educated opinions.

If we assume then that the Grendel, good as it is, is fine for target shooting and hunting, what could be done to make it a better military calibre? if anything. A specifically designed projectile to help achieve whatever goal they are looking for (within reason, and they'd have to define that one), and dedicated powder for whatever envelope they wanted to shoot it out of.

The question I asked before remains valid: does it need a larger case to (a) give it more energy to compensate for shorter barrelsIn my personal opinion--- No. Again, what is the requirement? (b) to ensure it is blind to yaw and blind to barrier Blind to yaw? I'm a bit confused there. Are you saying you don't want it to tumble and fragment in flesh? If it's designed to be non-expanding, non-tumbling, and non-fragmenting... How do you expect it to have any real terminal performance? The 5.56 already does ice pick wounds in a smaller package at the longer ranges, unless you stack the deck to help it out. © so that it matches 7.62 mm across all situations with a cartridge that is the same across all dimensions except for weight and recoil and (d) to compensate for generally lower standards of ammunition quality for military purposes?That isn't possible. Again, no free lunches in the physics world. Mass and velocity equal recoil. The Grendel provides an excellent compromise, but it doesn't defy physics. It simply hits the sweet spot of being small enough and light enough while still giving you decent performance.

Secondly, does the bullet need to be redesigned? Can anyone provide data on its lethality at short range?Anecdotal real world observations-- It kills the hell out of whitetail deer and pigs. People aren't tougher. I know you really want statistical data, but so far there hasn't been a lot done (to my knowledge anyway). In the early days of the 6.5 vs. 6.8 wars the powers that be favored the 6.8, and did much more testing (with manufacturer support) on it than the 6.5 projectiles. Common sense will tell you that neither caliber is magic, and the 6.5 is simply better in it's designed format to deliver it's payload at range more efficiently. Lethality isn't just about energy, it's about how you expend it in the target. That primarily falls to bullet construction and can be optimized depending on what your requirements for it are (providing they are realistic).

This is open-ended research designed simply to gain perspectives from an expert user community. No one is suggesting that anyone's data is bogus, but military standards do differ from civilian ones. Similarly test methods also vary.

Feel free to PM me if you wish.

Thanks in anticipation.