Our military adopting the Grendel?

[stanc]

Guys, I didn't mean to start a war, especially since this forum is known for being gentlemanly. If I stepped out of line, I'm sorry.

No problemo. No war. Just a spirited discussion.

[Grendel-Gene]

I think this episode of Future Weapons settles it ( at least for me ).... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydP3DUIT_EU

[Grendel-Gene]

That's the potential flaw in your argument. You are assuming it won't also be necessary to shoot them twice with 6.5 Grendel.

Then there is the matter that many (if not most) rounds fired in combat miss the intended target.

And in a protracted fight, such as experienced in the 1993 battle in Mogadishu, having 210 rounds (7x30-rd mags) vs 175 rounds (7x25-rd mags) could make the difference between staying in action and running dry.

There is no assumption of any kind when i state that the 123 grain Grendel bullet is twice as heavy as the 62 grain 223 and thus has much greater energy when it leave the barrel. That's just plain old physics, and the future weapons video that i posted above proves it.


As for the loss of mag capacity, perhaps just carrying one more mag could make up for the difference... I mean 30 to 26 is a loss of about 15%, isnt it?

[LR1955]

There is no assumption of any kind when i state that the 123 grain Grendel bullet is twice as heavy as the 62 grain 223 and thus has much greater energy when it leave the barrel. That's just plain old physics, and the future weapons video that i posted above proves it.


As for the loss of mag capacity, perhaps just carrying one more mag could make up for the difference... I mean 30 to 26 is a loss of about 15%, isnt it?

GG:

Aren't you making an assumption that an issued ball cartridge will be 123 grains?

And, aren't you assuming that such a Grendel ball cartridge will have a technically high BC so it can retain its energy at longer distances?

And, aren't you assuming the design of the cartridge will be such that all of this energy will be transferred to the target?

How about the assumption that the primary decision factor in ball cartridge design is kinetic energy, and that it is measured at the muzzle?

And probably the biggest assumption you are making is that adding one more magazine to the Infantryman's load doesn't mean anything.

LR1955

[Grendel-Gene]

Yes i guess i am assuming a lot!!! ha ha ! But i do know it took 27 shots of 223 to kill a running hog in my pasture. Surely the Grendel will do better... Either that or i just wasted a lot of money on my Grendel build...

[Grendel-Gene]

Surely there has to be SOME ADVANTAGE to the Grendel (and these other cartridges that have been developed lately for the AR platform) or we wouldn't be here, right? I mean this web site would be called "223.com".!!!


So somebody went to all the trouble to create these new calibers to make up for some perceived or real deficiency in the 223... right? Otherwise, what's the point?.


In Texas we say that " if it aint broke, dont fix it". Well it seems to me that too many folks are trying to fix it... so it must be broke.

I think it is too. Hell, even Gene Stoner hated the 223...

[JASmith]

...So somebody went to all the trouble to create these new calibers to make up for some perceived or real deficiency in the 223... right? Otherwise, what's the point?.

From what I understand the 6.8 SPC was designed to rectify a deficiency in a narrow mission in the special forces. Big Army looked at it, and its merits were seen to be not enough to offset loss of rounds.

Bill Alexander has said that the Grendel was designed specifically as a deer-hunting cartridge for the AR-15 platform. In that, he succeeded admirably, and indeed corrected a civil-side deficiency in the .223...

[Grendel-Gene]

From what I understand the 6.8 SPC was designed to rectify a deficiency in a narrow mission in the special forces. Big Army looked at it, and its merits were seen to be not enough to offset loss of rounds.

Bill Alexander has said that the Grendel was designed specifically as a deer-hunting cartridge for the AR-15 platform. In that, he succeeded admirably, and indeed corrected a civil-side deficiency in the .223...

So we all seem to agree that the 223 has deficiencies... and that's why we are here!

[JASmith]

Before we get a pile-on here, let me hasten to add that the 6.8 SPC was done prior to the introduction of the Mk262. That round appears to have largely rectified the perceived deficiencies in the SF and DM communities.

I am looking forward to seeing credible reports of M855-A1 combat performance. It is possible that the small number of fora I regularly follow didn't have a discussion on this topic. It is also possible that OPSEC on the issue has gotten a lot better.

On the topic of specialized ammunition, I hear an awful lot of noise to the effect that the military will adopt only one style of ammunition for the infantry rifle/carbine and the LMG. And here we have at least two variants of 5.56 being used side-by-side. The same appears to be true of the 7.62X51 when sniper ammunition is issued.

The point is that folks will upgrade ammunition if that move corrects a deficiency and a new round is usually a lot less expensive than swapping out most or all of the firearms across the service or services. In this case the first step was to introduce a specialized ammunition type, followed by a much larger R&D effort to field a new standard infantry load. Should be interesting to see how this mix of ammunition plays out.

[Texas Sheepdawg]

A few weeks ago, I was test firing my New 6.5 Grendel Build trying to get my scope on paper. After getting it on at close range, I played around a bit and starting plinking various smaller targets from about 25 yards. I set up a couple of coke cans and popped them. Later, as I was cleaning up around my backstop area, I noticed this.


I had set one of the cans right in front of one of my steel plates. Oops.....and WOW!
For some of you who aren't aware, this is the same steel plate that I have been
testing with my big bore AR15, the 450 Bushmaster. Originally, we thought this plate
to be 3/8" thick, but when we measured it, it is actually 7/16" thick.







Needless to say, the 6.5 Grendel put a pretty good smack down on the steel. It did not penetrate, but still, this
tells me I need not test the Grendel on any plates thinner than .421" thick.
What ammo was I using?
Factory Wolf Gold 6.5 Grendel
120 grain Copper MPT

If you would like to see my tests so far
on this steel plate using the 450 Bushmaster,
you can go to these links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz69z1vkMg4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk7-K6NP-3c

To sum up, I don't have military background, so I am not going to step into that discussion. However, I think I can safely say that the 6.5 Grendel has potential. Maybe the Military and politics of our current administration can't see it yet. Maybe we need to stop and think about the current constipation of our Congress and senate that has ALWAYS tied the hands of our military in the field. I fully support our troops. I fully support moving forward and improving what our warriors need to make them safer. However, I do also support that maybe the time has come to improve upon the 5.56 NATO. Living in Texas, we are permitted to use .224 caliber as long as it is centerfire on Deer. And I have seen it successfully used time and time again on everything from coyotes to hogs to deer to jack rabbits. But I also have an open mind and welcome new ideas. So maybe the military has a lot of red tape and grid lock going on, and yeah, our tax dollars are under huge burdens right now. But I do see the Grendel as a very viable and practical Law Enforcement weapon. And maybe with some patience and time and the changing of this administration in 2012,our military can move closer to bettering their already superior capabilities to a level unprecedented in previous decades.
Thanx.

[Texas Sheepdawg]

It didn't let me post this picture. This and the last picture on my previous post show depth
of penetration. Ironically the penetration was deeper than the thickness of the plate, but the bubble created on the back-side prevented full penetration. FYI, that depth shown is approximately .450".

[Greyfox]

I served with the 101st Airborne in Viet Nam from Sept 68-Sept69. My unit was C 1/501 Inf. We carried the original M16A1 with the three prong flash suppressor. We were out in the field for all 12 months with our M16A1's and 55gr FMJ ammo in 20 round magazines. They never tought us marksmanship, only the Quick Kill method. In other words you pointed the rifle and fired fully auto. I am sure you heard of the term "spray and pray". This worked very well at close range but we expended alot of ammo.

The realy bad thing about the M16 was hitting at longer range. This really turned me off about it being a short range cartridge.

Most of us came back home alive because it did work at the short ranges of our firefights.

There is no way I would ever want to carry a 5.56mm in Afaganistan.If I ever had to go, a 6.5 Grendel upper would have to be attached to my lower receiver. I shoot in 600 yard matches and can attest to it's accuracy at long range. You are only going to need one hit with a 107-115gr bullet at any range. With todays optics and good marksmanship training you can carry a few less rounds and be ok in a firefight.

Bill Alexander has the perfect cartridge in the 6.5 Grendel for National Defence to Deer Hunting with the AR15 or M16/M4.

Greyfox

[Grendel-Gene]

Greyfox, I agree. I personally would give up 4 rounds per mag to have a round that travels farther and hits harder. You can always carry a few extra rounds in your pack or pocket if needed to make up the 15 % difference.

Sheepdawg, a picture is worth 1000 words. Its obvious that the Grendel speaks loudly for itself. I cant wait to see a hog.... ha ha ha !

[JASmith]

Greyfox,

Glad to see another VN Vet!

I was with the AF but arrived in-country about the time you returned home. Worked with the ROK Capital (Tiger) division out of Qui Nhon and Phu Cat before working with Mike Strike Force out of Pleiku.

[LRRPF52]

If I was in the Afghan AOR as a Rifleman, the 77gr Mk262 would be plenty, with a floated rifle-length handguard as on the SOPMOD Block II and a good trigger, but I would be competing with SAW's and 240's for those longer shots, unless I was a DM/Sniper.

Would a Grendel hurt my feelings, not really. I think it would be a great distance carbine in that AOR, but would every riflemen experience real benefits that could be realized at distance, while not sacrificing the close-in lead shower that 5.56 demonstrates when traveling over 2600fps. In other words, is it worth shedding the tissue-destroying capabilities where riflemen carry the brunt of the fight at close range within 100m, like in mud hut villages, alleys, culverts, ditches, etc., just to compete into the territory of LMG's and GPMG's?

Here's a video that demonstrates a scenario in Afghanistan where the SPR was used successfully as part of a combined arms team, next to M240's and 203's: (notice the DM confirming that he made at least one head shot)

[video=youtube;PBA6H0VXzqw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBA6H0VXzqw[/video]

[JASmith]

Very impressive use of combined arms. It is easy see the value added by the grenade launcher. It seemed to work well in conjunction with the SPR and the other rifles.

It also appears that a semi-auto in smaller caliber grenades might be useful.

[LRRPF52]

Surely there has to be SOME ADVANTAGE to the Grendel (and these other cartridges that have been developed lately for the AR platform) or we wouldn't be here, right? I mean this web site would be called "223.com".!!!


So somebody went to all the trouble to create these new calibers to make up for some perceived or real deficiency in the 223... right? Otherwise, what's the point?.


In Texas we say that " if it aint broke, dont fix it". Well it seems to me that too many folks are trying to fix it... so it must be broke.

I think it is too. Hell, even Gene Stoner hated the 223... I'm not sure this is well-documented, since Gene Stoner went on to design other 5.56 weapons, and was involved with the development of the .223/5.56. He did like the 7.62/AR10, but I think he realized the value of 5.56 after it cut its teeth in the field, and was the caliber of the Stoner 63 Weapon System.

The Grendel offers energy retention past 200yds and a bullet selection for hunting that simply doesn't exist with .223. Within 100yds, a fast, light jacketed 5.56 is a messy little sucker, let me tell you. I would rather be shot with a long, heavier bullet than a light, fast 5.56 any day after seeing what it does within the majority of engagement distances.

I have been very clear about where my proponency for the Grendel is for a military cartridge, and that is as a new Mulit-role Light Machinegun cartridge that could potentially displace 7.62 NATO for dismounted soldiers, provided we can demonstrate that it meets operational requirements currently being met by belt-fed 7.62 weapons, while reducing soldier's load at the same time. I believe that the Grendel is capable of meeting this requirement, and reduced load without sacrificing capability would be the most welcome thing to dismounted soldiers, as well as logisticians.

[Grendel-Gene]

LRRPF52,

Is it not possible that the reason Stoner went on to design other 5.56 weapons was simply because he knew in advance who his customer would be ( the US military ), and he wanted to give them something that would work with the same round they were already using? In other words, could the commercial considerations not have outweighed the "ballistic" ones in his thinking at the time?

just a thought...

[stanc]

Before we get a pile-on here, let me hasten to add that the 6.8 SPC was done prior to the introduction of the Mk262. That round appears to have largely rectified the perceived deficiencies in the SF and DM communities.

On the topic of specialized ammunition, I hear an awful lot of noise to the effect that the military will adopt only one style of ammunition for the infantry rifle/carbine and the LMG. And here we have at least two variants of 5.56 being used side-by-side. The same appears to be true of the 7.62X51 when sniper ammunition is issued.

Once again you are mis-stating (or have failed to comprehend) what I wrote.

I said that the US, UK, and other Armies use one bullet type and weight for general purpose, standard issue ammo.

5.56 Mk262, like 7.62 M118LR sniper ammo, is a special purpose, limited issue round.

Do armies use special purpose loads, with bullets of various types and weights? Yes, certainly, but it's limited issue, for specific mission requirements.

Do they use more than one bullet type or weight for general purpose ammo for infantry rifle/carbine and SAW/LMG? No.

[LRRPF52]

LRRPF52,

Is it not possible that the reason Stoner went on to design other 5.56 weapons was simply because he knew in advance who his customer would be ( the US military ), and he wanted to give them something that would work with the same round they were already using? In other words, could the commercial considerations not have outweighed the "ballistic" ones in his thinking at the time?

just a thought...

5.56 immediately received high-demand from Special Operations units: Specifically SF, SEALs, SAS, SBS, as well as Airborne and Airmobile units. From reading the 5.56 Timeline, by D. Waters, Stoner was in the middle of the whole development of 5.56 to meet the Army's concept for a Small Caliber High Velocity rifle that could penetrate a steel helmet at 500yds. The .222 Remington couldn't meet the pressure requirements to push 55gr projectiles fast enough to penetrate, so they blew the shoulder forward for more case capacity, and the .222 Special..AKA .223 Remington was born.

Stoner's involvement with the cartridge pre-dates military adoption, as he was meeting a military concept request in the late 1950's. Units with direct influence on what weapons they wanted drove demand for the 5.56 from the beginning.