How could or should the 6.5 mm Grendel be improved?

[Guardsman26]

If you push both weapon and also ammunition envelope then you find that the approximation is so close to the existing 7.62 as to make the effort academic. Longer ammunition will demand the envelope for the bolt to travel now matches the 7.62 so any weight saving is negated for the weapon. So too does the now long ammunition require both case and projectile weight so the savings basically disappear. I am currently working on a 338 semi auto and the effort to remove a 1/2" of length from the receiver is a substantial weight saving. Look, we're talking about a weapon in between the AR10 and AR15 in weight. With a modern assault rifle design like the SCAR-H in 6.5 mm, the weapon weight increase is negligible.

In the instance were weight is secondary to performance as stated, and the soldiers solution is to spend more time training, then the consultants are now truly tilting at windmills. You already have the solution but quest not to find it but to invent reasons for your existence.That's a cheap shot, so forgive me for not bothering to respond to it..

I have posed two questions in this thread. The first is for a definition of what the performance should be. Not in respect to "well like a 7.62" but actual hard numerical requirements in terms of range, lethality and target definitions. What do you want it to do? In the absence of the question are we to find the answer is indeed 42? You should know what the requirement is, Bill. You were at the same Government meeting that defined it. That's why industry is looking at this topic. Confidentiality prohibits revealing the exact nature of the requirement, but using 7.62 mm performance as a benchmark and setting out to create a VLD projectile that matches it in the lightest possible package is actually pretty succinct description of what is needed. Moreover, it allows plenty of scope for creativity. You will also be aware that at the same meeting it was expressed that the existing 6.5 mm Grendel was not considered suitable for military use in both assault rifles and machine guns, nor a close enough match for 7.62 mm when FMJ projectiles were used. PM me if you'd like me to jog your memory.

The second is that if 200 fps can be justified as the increase required, how can 400 fps be excluded. Why does a 7.0 g projectile make the cut but you can already disregard a 9.0 g projectile. This question in effect mimics the first, but then poses the question that perhaps the proposed long 6.8 will also fall short. It's simple, a 7.0 g projectile is probably the heaviest bullet you'll get in a lead-free 6.5 mm based on existing VLD design. If you can manufacturer a heavier lead-free bullet, then great. The requirement for lead-free is not mine, but a Big Army one. No new round is likley to be accepted unless it is so constructed. Besides, if you use a slow shooting heavy 123 gr 6.5 mm round, you end up with a significantly higher trajectory than either 7.62 mm NATO or 5.56 mm NATO

Given the number of cartridges that currently fit the package needs, starting at the 6.5 Grendel and progressing through the 6.5x47, 6.5 Creedmore to the 260 Rem, 7-08 and finally the 7.62 with variations on either side both in case diameter (Italian) and also length (BR types) The pursuit of the one we do not have but that overlaps perfectly with another seems odd. Perhaps a 7mm BR or 7mm Creedmore would be a better initial platform buried in the confines of a 417. Lot less development and debate. Problem solved now man up and carry it. Sorry, Bill, but I would argue that no current round fits the requirement. Your round isn't quite a ballistic match for 7.62 mm, although it comes close. The 6.5 mm x 47 Lapua, .260 Rem and even Cris Murray's 6.86 mm UIAC are, in fact, all better than 7.62 mm. The problem is they are much better than 7.62 mm than they need to be, so weigh more and are around the same size. We want equal performance in the smallest possible package.

My question is a very simple one: how should the 6.5 mm Grendel be improved. You're saying it's fine as it is. Fair enough, but so far no NATO or Western Army has adopted it. And it's been around for quite a while. What you achieved with the Grendel is amazing. I'm definitely a fan. I believe it deserves a wider audience, that's why I started this thread.