07-24-2011, 11:22 PM
Gents,
I think an important thing to remember is that the folks behind 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel are on the same team in the big picture, while there are two different platforms on the market to offer a different set of ballistic capabilities from within the AR receiver/magazine platform.
When the 6.8 SPC was being developed, there was a constant reference to equipping M4's with something with more similarity to the 7.62x39 without losing 300-500m trajectory of the 5.56, and without the 7.62x39's magazine size/shape handicaps. I think the 6.8 SPC achieved exactly that.
The Grendel wasn't conceived under the idea of combining certain cartridge performances, but maximizing performance across the board from within the constraints of an AR15 platform. I think it has done exactly that, especially when you look at how close it is to .308 in terms of trajectory and wind deflection. I think if the guys from 5th SFG and AMU had been collaborating with Arne and Bill, maybe the 6.8 SPC might not have ever been conceived, and there wouldn't be these two dogs in the fight.
Once the totality of problem-solving, R&D, prototyping, testing, limited fielding in the civilian sector, and other efforts had been made, people were committed and dedicated to seeing their product through, which is a commendable example of ingenuity and follow-through in our private sector. It's very difficult for successful people to accept that there is a superior design that offers the capabilities of theirs and more, especially once their resources and time have been invested wholeheartedly into their creation.
With the other potentially-revolutionary concepts being tested right now, it will be very interesting to see what cartridges go the way of the gun, and what soldiers on into the 21st Century, especially if the LSAT gains traction.
I think an important thing to remember is that the folks behind 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel are on the same team in the big picture, while there are two different platforms on the market to offer a different set of ballistic capabilities from within the AR receiver/magazine platform.
When the 6.8 SPC was being developed, there was a constant reference to equipping M4's with something with more similarity to the 7.62x39 without losing 300-500m trajectory of the 5.56, and without the 7.62x39's magazine size/shape handicaps. I think the 6.8 SPC achieved exactly that.
The Grendel wasn't conceived under the idea of combining certain cartridge performances, but maximizing performance across the board from within the constraints of an AR15 platform. I think it has done exactly that, especially when you look at how close it is to .308 in terms of trajectory and wind deflection. I think if the guys from 5th SFG and AMU had been collaborating with Arne and Bill, maybe the 6.8 SPC might not have ever been conceived, and there wouldn't be these two dogs in the fight.
Once the totality of problem-solving, R&D, prototyping, testing, limited fielding in the civilian sector, and other efforts had been made, people were committed and dedicated to seeing their product through, which is a commendable example of ingenuity and follow-through in our private sector. It's very difficult for successful people to accept that there is a superior design that offers the capabilities of theirs and more, especially once their resources and time have been invested wholeheartedly into their creation.
With the other potentially-revolutionary concepts being tested right now, it will be very interesting to see what cartridges go the way of the gun, and what soldiers on into the 21st Century, especially if the LSAT gains traction.