6.5 Grendel—D.O.A.

[Nukes]

How Much Would It Cost for the Army to Adopt the 6.5 Grendel?
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/...5-grendel/

[m796rider]

Where does the author source his info that the bolt is not strong enough? I get that running at 5.56 NATO pressures might not be a great idea with a Grendel bolt, but that's not where Grendel operates.

[LRRPF52]

5.56 bolts are a known failure point and have been since the introduction of the AR15 into military service. There's a good USAF/US Army joint test document dating back to 1964 that basically ran fleet testing with at least 10 different early AR15s (M16s), where bolt lug and cam pin hole failures were encountered in most of the test samples.

That's when they dropped hard chroming of the bolts, due to hydrogen embrittlement caused by the chrome process.

[BluntForceTrauma]

Not feelin' like the author is informed. Totally new upper receiver? No, unless he's seeing the receiver and barrel as a unit? Specialized buffers? No. Difficult to mass-produce 30° shoulder? Maybe in the 1940s, as he cited. Lapua engineer Janne Pohjoispää's principal concern was mass production and minimizing wastage. I really don't think Lapua making high-end brass nor the Russian War Machine making 6.5 Grendel steel-case is particularly stymied by the 30-degree shoulder.

New muzzle thread and flash hider that's incompatible with 5.56 system? Seriously? This guy do ANY research AT ALL? He has no clue why Bill A. did the infamous 9/16s?

New mags would "have to look significantly different"? Says who? He's just pulling stuff out of . . . thin air.

New development project for a 6.5mm M855A1 analog? Would cost millions? Uh, author didn't get the memo that Bill A. already did it?

I will concede that the government could FIND innumerable ways to sink millions into re-inventing the wheel to jack up costs and justify its procurement bureaucracy. Doesn't mean they NEED to. But, yeah, they probably would.

Author wants an ironclad case for "increased and meaningful effectiveness and a tangible advantage in firepower for the squad." How about we start at something simple? Give me the "tangible advantage" of 7.62 NATO over 5.56 NATO. Not anecdotal theories, but quantifiable advantage. That should be simple, right? Quantify for us how much better at killing the 7.62 is vs. 5.56. If he can quantify something that has a more than 50-year history, then we will apply the same metrics to the 65G.

I appreciate the author's effort to make a reasoned argument for his position, but overall this article seems sloppily researched and poorly reasoned.

[LR1955]

Not feelin' like the author is informed. Totally new upper receiver? No, unless he's seeing the receiver and barrel as a unit? Specialized buffers? No. Difficult to mass-produce 30° shoulder? Maybe in the 1940s, as he cited. Lapua engineer Janne Pohjoispää's principal concern was mass production and minimizing wastage. I really don't think Lapua making high-end brass nor the Russian War Machine making 6.5 Grendel steel-case is particularly stymied by the 30-degree shoulder.

New muzzle thread and flash hider that's incompatible with 5.56 system? Seriously? This guy do ANY research AT ALL? He has no clue why Bill A. did the infamous 9/16s?

New mags would "have to look significantly different"? Says who? He's just pulling stuff out of . . . thin air.

New development project for a 6.5mm M855A1 analog? Would cost millions? Uh, author didn't get the memo that Bill A. already did it?

I will concede that the government could FIND innumerable ways to sink millions into re-inventing the wheel to jack up costs and justify its procurement bureaucracy. Doesn't mean they NEED to. But, yeah, they probably would.

Author wants an ironclad case for "increased and meaningful effectiveness and a tangible advantage in firepower for the squad." How about we start at something simple? Give me the "tangible advantage" of 7.62 NATO over 5.56 NATO. Not anecdotal theories, but quantifiable advantage. That should be simple, right? Quantify for us how much better at killing the 7.62 is vs. 5.56. If he can quantify something that has a more than 50-year history, then we will apply the same metrics to the 65G.

I appreciate the author's effort to make a reasoned argument for his position, but overall this article seems sloppily researched and poorly reasoned.

John:

Knowing what I do about the DoD R&D system, most of what he says really does have a foundation of truth.

Memo's from Bill mean very little other than maybe to get the round of ammo into the system for evaluation. I never trusted what any company said about their munitions or technical concepts. This is because I have seen BRL test their stuff using the exact same conditions as the companies said they used, only to find that the companies had simply lied. Many times they lie to 'get in the door'. Doesn't work that way. You present something that fails, your product is now tainted with failure and probably won't get looked at again. Yes, the costs of evaluating a 6.5 anything would run into the hundreds of millions and no, they don't do it to 'find ways' to save their bureaucracies. The engineers I worked with who were full timer's had more than enough projects to last the rest of their lives.

Since I spent most of my time at the unit level, his comments about the magazines are 100% correct. You guys would be amazed at how many times 5.56 magazines were found to be 'bad' and we got word to turn them in. And how many times we never got word until months later. And sometimes not at all. What he is saying is true. Any 6.5 magazine would have to appear radically different just to ensure Joe didn't try to stuff a 5.56 mag with his Grendel ammo, only to end up with potentially dangerous failures to feed. I have not forgotten the days before we could get Grendel magazines easily when we were trying anything we could do to get more than 5 Grendel rounds in a 5.56 Mag so we could shoot. It is kind of humorous but is definitely true.

As for effectiveness, until someone comes up with a requirements document for a new round of ammo, no one knows. You will know when DoD really thinks they need something new. Their requirements will be pretty specific that is also possible to achieve. You know when they don't want to consider something. Their requirements are almost impossible to achieve with current technology.

Not sure about his monetary numbers but I can see it going into the billions just to get a Grendel carbine through all the development and testing and then to first unit equipped.

LR55

[cory]

Could it get into the billions, with politicians involved sure it could. There's no reason it should ever get near 9 figures let alone 10.

[JASmith]

...I appreciate the author's effort to make a reasoned argument for his position, but overall this article seems sloppily researched and poorly reasoned.

Concur, the article reads more like a hit piece than an informed argument.

The author and I have corresponded several times over the past year or so on a variety of topics, some Grendel related. I sent a note to him agreeing with his bottom line conclusion that the Grendel is unlikely to see widespread service in the US Military but questioning the supporting analysis and logic.

He normally goes to great lengths to be sure his logic and facts are accurate, but he seems to have stumbled on this one. That would explain his sensitivity to the criticism.

[montana]

The author is a very credible firearms writer and his articles on the M-1 Garand are second to none. He does tend to expose a huge nerve, "much to many readers entertainment" when proven wrong or when his opinion is put into question. Like many gun writers mistakes can be made.

[stanc]

Not feelin' like the author is informed. Totally new upper receiver? No, unless he's seeing the receiver and barrel as a unit?

Since in item 1 he talks about "a new AR-15 upper receiver is about 2/3s the cost of a new rifle," it seems pretty clear he's referring to a complete upper receiver/barrel assembly.

Difficult to mass-produce 30° shoulder? Maybe in the 1940s, as he cited. Lapua engineer Janne Pohjoispää's principal concern was mass production and minimizing wastage. I really don't think Lapua making high-end brass nor the Russian War Machine making 6.5 Grendel steel-case is particularly stymied by the 30-degree shoulder.

I don't know if he is right about manufacturing issues being the reason that the Army went from the original 30-degree shoulder to 20 degrees in development of 7.62 NATO. I was told (by Frankford Arsenal's last commander) that it was done to assure reliable chambering.

I'm skeptical that the Army would find the 30-degree shoulder acceptable. I can't think of any army that has ever adopted a rifle cartridge with a shoulder angle that steep. The steepest that I know of are 7.5x55 Swiss (28 degrees) and 6.5x55 Swedish (25 degrees). 5.56 NATO and 6.8 SPC are 23 degrees. Most military cartridges are 20 degrees or less. The USAMU's .264 USA is only 17.5 degrees, little more than half that of 6.5 Grendel.

New mags would "have to look significantly different"? Says who? He's just pulling stuff out of . . . thin air.

Disagree. Gene addressed this issue.

New development project for a 6.5mm M855A1 analog? Would cost millions? Uh, author didn't get the memo that Bill A. already did it?

I haven't seen Bill's 6.5mm EPR analog, so can't opine on whether or not the Army might find it satisfactory. Even if they did adopt Bill's design as is -- which seems highly unlikely, considering their history on such matters -- it would still be necessary to spend beaucoup bucks developing and testing 6.5mm Tracer, AP, Blank, and every other ammo type that the military uses.

Author wants an ironclad case for "increased and meaningful effectiveness and a tangible advantage in firepower for the squad." How about we start at something simple? Give me the "tangible advantage" of 7.62 NATO over 5.56 NATO. Not anecdotal theories, but quantifiable advantage. That should be simple, right? Quantify for us how much better at killing the 7.62 is vs. 5.56. If he can quantify something that has a more than 50-year history, then we will apply the same metrics to the 65G.

Few people advocate replacing 5.56mm with 7.62mm, so I don't see how that is relevant to the question of whether or not it'd be worthwhile replacing 5.56 NATO with 6.5 Grendel. I've said before that testing should be done to determine how much difference there would be in combat effectiveness with any proposed new caliber, rather than relying on calculated figures. So, I agree with the idea of finding out if there actually would be a "meaningful" increase in effectiveness before committing to such a switch.

[mongoosesnipe]

while his cost analysis seems a little excessive by the time the bureaucratic shush funding happens it will probably cost that much or more but the really funny part is even if his figures are correct it still cost less than one day at war

that said nothing will happen large scale small special units will continue to use what ever they want and the rest of the machine will just use the standard stuff

as for how it would play out even if they loved the grendel they would do all there tests and decide they would like to see a little more strength look into improving the ar platform determine there is no need to stick with said platform if they are going to change anything wander down a rabbit hole of spending on an entirely new platform at which point they are no longer constrained to the grendel as it was designed to get the most out of the ar 15 then they will start looking into other options eventually deciding they are satisfied with the current equipment and the margins for gain vs cost and weight are not significant after spending several billion dollars

[stanc]

while his cost analysis seems a little excessive by the time the bureaucratic shush funding happens it will probably cost that much or more but the really funny part is even if his figures are correct it still cost less than one day at war

that said nothing will happen large scale small special units will continue to use what ever they want and the rest of the machine will just use the standard stuff

as for how it would play out even if they loved the grendel they would do all there tests and decide they would like to see a little more strength look into improving the ar platform determine there is no need to stick with said platform if they are going to change anything wander down a rabbit hole of spending on an entirely new platform at which point they are no longer constrained to the grendel as it was designed to get the most out of the ar 15 then they will start looking into other options eventually deciding they are satisfied with the current equipment and the margins for gain vs cost and weight are not significant after spending several billion dollars

Truly, you must be as strong as Superman.