Military round comparisons

[LR1955]

stanc,

I believe we owe it to ourselves and to the Forum to clear this matter up, and move on.

To clarify: I included the 7.62mm M80 in my Kinetic Energy comparison, simply because it was among the cartridges listed in Tony Williams' Post. When one considers the fact that the 7.62mm M80 cartridge has a case capacity of 56 grains (H2O) vs 35 grains for the 6.5 Grendel, and an overall length of 2.80" vs 2.26", I think it's fair to state that the 6.5 Grendel is the clear underdog, in this comparison --- except for the superior Ballistic Coefficient of its projectiles. Let's not hold that against the 6.5's --- they're "born" with it. It's their Ace in the Hole!

Now, for an "apples vs apples" comparison, from 16" barrels: In the near corner, we have the superb 7.62mm M118LR, with 175-grain SMK (BC - 0.495, O.A.L. - 2.80", case capacity - 56 grains); and in the far corner, we have the .260 Remington, with 140-grain Hornady AMAX (BC - 0.585, O.A.L. - 2.80", case capacity - 53.5 grains).

Cartridge . . . . . . Muzzle (fps/ft.lbs) . .1000 yards . . 1000 yards (Drift, 10mph)

7.62mm M118LR . . . 2475/2380 . . . . . 1156/519 . . . . . . . 104"
.260 Remington . . . .2550/2021 . . . . . 1331/551 . . . . . . . . 80"

SAS:

1000 yards? For a carbine being issued to the average Joe and as a round of ball ammo?

Lay down on a golf course and look around. Tell me how far you can see.

Then, tell me how you intend on training tens of thousands of Joes, many who don't give a shit what carbine or ammo they carry, how to dope winds without using a powerful and very well made optic.

Then tell me how you intend on sustaining the capability. Particularly when you find that 95% or more of your small arms ranges lack the surface danger zone to accept this high speed ammo. And that the other five percent that allow a sufficient SDZ are also being used to keep guys trained on heavy machineguns.

The absurdity of this entire argument has been gone over time and again.

First, there is no quantum improvement of any of these 6.5, 6mm. 6.8 etc chamberings over what is already issued.

Second, the majority of ammo fired by the majority of Soldiers in the combat arms is fired at ranges under 100 yards. I would say at least 30% is done in CQC / CQB, or what ever it is called today. There is no need to issue guys '1000' yard capable ammo because their doctrine does not require that capability, their equipment lacks the precision to make such ammo effective on man size targets at those distances, you can't see that far in most places on earth, and training guys to that capability is a complete waste of time.

Third, the SDZ's on the vast majority of ranges in the Army and USMC are too short to use these long range cartridges safely. You can't grow land so those few range areas that can accept rounds like 118LR, .300 WM, .338 are in very high demand due to machinegun use and lack the size and targets needed to train the 'Average Rifleman'.

You ain't going anywhere if you can't train with the ammunition. And you ain't training with ammo that outshoots your SDZ's.

LR1955