12-27-2013, 04:47 AM
HANKA Wrote:. . . chambered in 6.5 Grendel since 1947 instead of 7.62x39, and there were instead 100 million 6.5 Grendel versions, even in the crap-holes of the African jungle, what would we be saying today about the ideal assault rifle cartridge? Would we still be debating it?Yes, John, I think we would. Here's why:
Russian adoption of 7.62x39 did not result in the US fielding an intermediate power, .30 caliber, rifle round, despite the advantages. I don't see any reason to think that chambering the AK in 6.5x39 would change that. Remember, the Russkis shoot full-auto as SOP, so there'd be no real difference in hit probability compared to 7.62x39. For all practical purposes, in a military AK, with service grade ball ammo, 6.5 Grendel would have been no better than 7.62x39.
With the same people in charge of Army Ordnance, I'd expect that 7.62x51 would still have become NATO standard. After all, the US rejected the .280 British, so I can't imagine why they would possibly be influenced by the even smaller and less powerful 6.5 Grendelski.
As a result, the US Army still ends up with the M14 rifle, followed by the M16 and 5.56x45 ammo. The Russians would've evaluated the SCHV concept, causing the development and fielding of the 5.45x39 (or something very similar) to replace the heavy, bulky, and higher-recoiling 6.5x39.
So, we still end up where we are today, with the same calibers and weapons, and the same debate.