06-11-2013, 05:00 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?
With the infantry rifle being 16", the assumption is that engagements would be 300 m or less to include CQB inside buildings. The shorter barrel (carbine or bullpup) would not be designed for longer range engagements. A certain level of performance degradation would be assumed.
I do think that the Grendel cartridge might do better if longer. How much could it be increased and yet fit within the dimensions of an M16 magazine well? There is advantages of using the current platform (M16/M4) with new barrels to ease costs thus a gradual transition. But if it is determined that we need a longer case, how much longer? I do think that the diameter of the Grendel should stay the same. What is the smallest case that can still perform as well as the .308 caliber (7.62x51)? And should we want a heavier bullet, and how much? Should we aim at 140 gn?