06-11-2013, 02:24 PM
Guardsman26 Wrote:With all this talk about the cancellation of the Improved Carbine (IC) Competition, perhaps, at last, the US Army is ready to consider a practical alternative? I agree that the universal re-adoption of 7.62 x 51 mm NATO doesn't make sense - we'd increase the weight load and reduce short-range hit probability. We've tried improving 5.56 mm NATO further with the M855A1 EP, but even that is not conclusively better.
Moreover why persist with either 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm when a palpably better solution is under our noses? Adopting a militarised 6.5 mm Grendel would provide an immediate low-risk, low-cost and easy to implement solution that would offer front-line war fighters with a quantum leap in firepower through increased range and hit probability.
As I've asked elsewhere on the forum, what do we need to do to get the 6.5 Grendel adopted as is or to upgrade it incrementally? The advantage of the current form factor is the ability to fit new uppers on existing M4 lowers. But there are a number crucial questions that I don't believe have yet been answered here:
1. What kind of performance degradation would you get firing a militarised projectile (or lead-free bullet) from a 16" barrel?
2. Is there scope to otherwise improve Grendel performance?
3. Would a smaller 108 grain / 7 gram projectile be preferable?
4. Would a longer cartridge case with increased powder capacity, say 40 grains of powder, make a difference?
5. How much would such a case increase weapon weight?
Some people here seem to believe that the Grendel matches 7.62 mm near enough. Others disagree, but think the difference is irrelevant because 1,000 metres is probably the maximum range for combat engagements and the Grendel performs well at this distance.
I am sure Bill Alexander realises that he is in a strong position to influence future military choices. So Bill what what you do to get the Grendel accepted by the military?
1. Depends on how you designed the bullet. Your question is too vague to answer.
2. There is enough evidence available to show that optics have improved hit probabilities. It would be no different for any firearm. Being a Grendel doesn't mean the optic will perform better.
3. See 1.
4. Sure it would. Ten more grains of powder means a much higher velocity. For military purposes, this means greater danger space which means a higher probability of a hit. As for lethality, see 1.
5. You need to provide the design of the cartridge first.
How many places on earth can you see 200 yards, let alone 1000 yards? Not to mention training, optics, range estimation issues, wind doping, inherent accuracy of the issued carbine and an issued round of ball ammo. Thats why the maximum effective range of small arms for the US Army remains 460 - 500 meters and not 910 meters.
LR1955