03-05-2013, 08:20 PM
Bill,
Thanks for the response. I think we may be talking about two different meetings. I was referring to the one at Harper's Ferry. More to the point, I would be a fool to come onto the 6.5 Grendel forum pedalling 6.8 mm SPC. I was not. Besides, my understanding is that 6.8 mm SPC is a dead duck as far as all US Military departments are concerned. I was never advocating this round or any variation of it as an intermediate caliber option. I don't like it because it offers no better range than the NATO 5.56 mm M855. The fact that Saudi Arabia has bought 30,000 LRWC 6.8 mm SPC carbines is irrelevant.
On the contrary, I think people (including TSWG) are beginning to see the merits of the 6.5 Grendel. My belief, as I think I have been very consistent in stating, is that existing Grendel FMJ round does not quite match 7.62 mm at 1,000 metres in terms of velocity, retained energy, drop and trajectory. I don't have enough info to make an informed comment about lethality, but maybe Stan C's picture of a Grendel FMJ yawing after 7" of gel penetration suggests that there is scope to improve the design in this area. My overall view is shared by a number of military users and weapon manufacturers in the EU and USA. Either you buy this premise or you don't.
Another important point to make is that we're beginning to move beyond the AR15 / AR10 platform. LSAT may or may not proceed from where it is now, but polymer-cased ammunition is coming. If we do adopt case-telescoped ammunition, the paradigm changes. Since all legacy systems will be null and void, procuring this technology is an opportunity to optimise the caliber. So the requirement for an improved Grendel to fit the action length of an M4 goes away.
I think the requirement is very simple:
Unprotected human target: 600 metres
Protected human target (10 mm) 100 metres
Effective suppression to 1,200 metres
Wind drift, trajectory, drop, velocity and energy values should all be comparable to 7.62 mm.
So make a round that is a ballistic match and put it in the lightest package possible. Save at least 30% in weight.
Thanks for the response. I think we may be talking about two different meetings. I was referring to the one at Harper's Ferry. More to the point, I would be a fool to come onto the 6.5 Grendel forum pedalling 6.8 mm SPC. I was not. Besides, my understanding is that 6.8 mm SPC is a dead duck as far as all US Military departments are concerned. I was never advocating this round or any variation of it as an intermediate caliber option. I don't like it because it offers no better range than the NATO 5.56 mm M855. The fact that Saudi Arabia has bought 30,000 LRWC 6.8 mm SPC carbines is irrelevant.
On the contrary, I think people (including TSWG) are beginning to see the merits of the 6.5 Grendel. My belief, as I think I have been very consistent in stating, is that existing Grendel FMJ round does not quite match 7.62 mm at 1,000 metres in terms of velocity, retained energy, drop and trajectory. I don't have enough info to make an informed comment about lethality, but maybe Stan C's picture of a Grendel FMJ yawing after 7" of gel penetration suggests that there is scope to improve the design in this area. My overall view is shared by a number of military users and weapon manufacturers in the EU and USA. Either you buy this premise or you don't.
Another important point to make is that we're beginning to move beyond the AR15 / AR10 platform. LSAT may or may not proceed from where it is now, but polymer-cased ammunition is coming. If we do adopt case-telescoped ammunition, the paradigm changes. Since all legacy systems will be null and void, procuring this technology is an opportunity to optimise the caliber. So the requirement for an improved Grendel to fit the action length of an M4 goes away.
I think the requirement is very simple:
Unprotected human target: 600 metres
Protected human target (10 mm) 100 metres
Effective suppression to 1,200 metres
Wind drift, trajectory, drop, velocity and energy values should all be comparable to 7.62 mm.
So make a round that is a ballistic match and put it in the lightest package possible. Save at least 30% in weight.