How could or should the 6.5 mm Grendel be improved?

[LRRPF52]

It may or may not, depending upon:

a. Is it better to have a caliber that is excellent for, say, 90% of combat theatres, but inadequate for 10%, or a caliber that is excellent for 10%, and usable for the other 90%?

b. Is it better to have the simplified logistics of a single, universal caliber versus two or three specialized calibers?

c. Is the weight penalty of a universal caliber for Key Leaders, RTOs, FOs, etc, unacceptable or tolerable? (Use of the M14/M60, FAL/MAG, and G3/MG3 before adoption of 5.56x45 would seem to indicate that the weight of universal caliber weapons is tolerable.)

a. Or is it better to have a caliber that only moderately improves effective range in one theater in the hands of the few who will actually be able to employ it (10% of the Army/Marines), while reducing combat endurance for them across the board in all theaters, and saddling all the soft skills with the same issues of increased recoil, reduced ammunition capacity per weight? Would the reduced machine gun ammo weight and increased mobility for gunners balance out the combat endurance?

b. For logistics sake only, it makes a lot of sense, but we still will have multiple application cartridge loadings, even within the same packaging and issuing containers: Tracer/ball linked for belt-feds, rifle loads on stripper clips, DM/SASS load in 20rd boxes, all in their own DODAC-mandated ammo cans.

c. With the 7.62 NATO system, SMG's and older era carbines were predominant in the hands of key leaders and non riflemen personnel, not only in the US, but in the European nations and their former colonies. The Bundeswehr with the Uzi and MP5, the Italians with the Beretta SMG, the Sten with the UK, the M1 Carbine with the US (Army Special Forces held onto the M1 and M2 Carbines up until they received the AR15, and the 82nd + Airmobile units couldn't ditch the M14 fast enough.) Even the non-NATO Finns kept using the M44 9mm SMG for their Airborne forces after adopting the Valmet Rk62 7.62x39 AK variant.

On top of that, the M14/M60 universal caliber system was a terrible failure operationally in Vietnam, due to limited combat endurance and a drag on the logistics system to re-supply units constantly after very limited contact.

I will say that the 7.62x39 universal system for light infantry units worked very well in SEA and Africa, with the Chicom Type 56 AK and RPD combo, however that isn't used in an area like Afghanistan due to the open spaces and increased distances, where the AKM copies and PKM + SVD are used together.

The Russians have had great success with the 5.45x39 assault rifle + PKM and SVD in 7.62x54R, while the Chinese have not with the 5.8x42 universal system, which leaves much to be desired at extended distances and mandates slightly larger magazines for the already diminutive chests of Sino soldiers. They still don't have a universal caliber anyway, because they have a 5.8x21 PDW cartridge. The moment you try to go one-size fits all, a lot of feet will be wearing different boots, even with the centrally-planned Chinese and Russians.



In that light, we might even consider getting rid of 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO and do a PDW based off the 6x.221 Fireball for riflemen (KAC 6x35 PDW), the high-powered Grendel for DM's and LMG's, and some .338 Long-Range weapons to replace the .50 BMG. You can carry a ton of rounds with the 6x35, since the cartridges are shorter, while not losing a lot of effective range for practical engagement distances.

Run a mix in the armory at the unit level so Joint Rapid-Deployment Units could tailor their weapons mix for the AOR and mission profiles assigned to them. Examples: CENTCOM Afghanistan would have a heavy mix of 6.5 Grendel for at least half of the soldiers normally carrying carbines/rifles, while key leaders, RTO's, etc. could carry a very lightweight carbine in 6x35, with 1.5x + the 5.56 basic load for the same weight.

If heading to Mali, the Philippines, or the Caribbean Region, a unit would end up leaning on a heavier lightweight carbine mix, with Grendel DMR's and LMG's in the usual supportive roles.

With a 14.5" barrel, enhanced bolt & extension, and the right load, I think the 6x35 could actually beat the 5.56, as a neighbor of mine gets 3,800fps with a 55gr projectile from his .221 Fireball. The KAC 6x35 PDW was built with 8" and 10" barrels in mind, and is still assault-rifle effective out to 300m in current form. By going to the 6mm, we can reduce barrel weight, open up our projectile configuration options a little, and still run a 65gr General Purpose projectile at 5.56 speeds from equivalent barrels.

Imagine the endurance of a unit that has riflemen/assaulters with 300rd basic loads, with Multi-Role LMG gunners able to carry more than a 7.62 GPMG in less space/weight, with DM's and Snipers carrying lighter, more wind-bucking, less-recoiling blasters, with the Grendel and .338 LM systems, ditching 7.62 NATO, .300 Win Mag, and .50 BMG.

When the discussion encompasses all the systems we really carry, anyone realizes straight away that any illusions of a universal caliber are quite narrow in scope.