An Army outgunned, early article pushing the Grendel

[rickt300]

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/...art004.pdf

[LRRPF52]

I think I remember that one.

Lots of flaws in his premises, but I agree with some of the spirit of the arguments.

M4 is very reliable. Not many modern carbines can hang with it in high-volume training shoots schedules.

6.5 Grendel is a great replacement for 7.62 NATO.

5.56 would be best replaced with a smaller overall cartridge that demonstrates the same or better performance, so most soldiers could have an even more compact weapon.

There isn’t a one-sized universal cartridge solution since the needs of a Mortarman, Automatic Rifleman, RTO, Drone Operator, Sniper, and Key Leaders are quite different.

Most combat arms soldiers would be better-served with PDW-sized Micro Assault Carbines that don’t weigh much, but will effectively engage enemy within 200-300m.

DMs and LMG gunners would be better-served with something like 6.5 Grendel.

Main thing is that 7.62 NATO needs to go away. It requires weapons that are too heavy, ammo is too heavy, recoil and muzzle blast are a bit excessive, with marginal downrange performance.

I don’t think there is a place for a 7.62 NATO-ized cartridge in the line, when you can have better performance from a smaller, lighter case, with far less recoil.

If you look at Machinegunners with the M240, you really need to carry your own ammo and a heck of a lot more than a stupid 50rd starter belt.

It’s insane that we still don’t have an on-gun standardized carry method after 64 years of portable medium machinegunnery.

[rickt300]

I think I remember that one.

Lots of flaws in his premises, but I agree with some of the spirit of the arguments.

M4 is very reliable. Not many modern carbines can hang with it in high-volume training shoots schedules.

6.5 Grendel is a great replacement for 7.62 NATO.

5.56 would be best replaced with a smaller overall cartridge that demonstrates the same or better performance, so most soldiers could have an even more compact weapon.

There isn’t a one-sized universal cartridge solution since the needs of a Mortarman, Automatic Rifleman, RTO, Drone Operator, Sniper, and Key Leaders are quite different.

Most combat arms soldiers would be better-served with PDW-sized Micro Assault Carbines that don’t weigh much, but will effectively engage enemy within 200-300m.

DMs and LMG gunners would be better-served with something like 6.5 Grendel.

Main thing is that 7.62 NATO needs to go away. It requires weapons that are too heavy, ammo is too heavy, recoil and muzzle blast are a bit excessive, with marginal downrange performance.

I don’t think there is a place for a 7.62 NATO-ized cartridge in the line, when you can have better performance from a smaller, lighter case, with far less recoil.

If you look at Machinegunners with the M240, you really need to carry your own ammo and a heck of a lot more than a stupid 50rd starter belt.

It’s insane that we still don’t have an on-gun standardized carry method after 64 years of portable medium machinegunnery.

Well heck the new rifle and SAW the M5 and M250 are both shooting ammo that fits in a M14 magazine, in fact it seems we are going right back into the 308 rabbit hole, fewer rounds, heavier ammo. The new SAW is expected to only have 50 rounds ready to go unlike the old M249 which had 200. In my opinion 50 rounds is not enough and more would require the weapon to be crew served like the 240, M60. The M5 goes back to a 20 round mag.



https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023...rifle.html

The new weapons use 6.8mm rounds as the Army looked for heftier ammo than the current 5.56mm used in the M4 and SAW to better defeat body armor, protective equipment that adversaries are expected to have in future conflicts and gear that is already becoming more commonplace for terror groups. The 6.8mm was seen as a compromise between the light ammo currently used and the 7.62mm ammo used in the M240B machine gun that would be very heavy for a standard rifleman.

Army planners are already bracing for that heavier load from the new ammo and expect soldiers to carry less in the next fight. The M7 weighs 9.84 pounds, much heavier than the 6.34-pound M4. Soldiers will also use 20-round magazines, a 10-round decrease from the magazines the Army has been using for decades. A standard combat load for the new rifle is expected to be 140 rounds, a sharp drop from the 210-round loadout for the M4.

Soldiers carrying the new light machine gun will have a break, with the M250 weighing 14.5 pounds, compared to the 19.2-pound SAW. But troops are expected to carry only 400 rounds of the heavier ammo, a steep decrease from the standard 600-round load for SAW gunners.

[stef1274]

As an outsider (but supporter), it is just sad to me to think that an off the shelf Grendel could have been in service for 10yrs already, while the big dogs sit and contemplate what next. And as we all know, by that time they would have been happy with the "stopgap solution".

[LR1955]

As an outsider (but supporter), it is just sad to me to think that an off the shelf Grendel could have been in service for 10yrs already, while the big dogs sit and contemplate what next. And as we all know, by that time they would have been happy with the "stopgap solution".

stef:

The Grendel cartridge is nothing more or less than anything else the military was looking at fifteen or so years ago. Has its good and bad points. The flaws back then were mechanical. Bolt lugs would shear constantly, gas systems were abusing the rifles. A sharp shoulder like the Grendel isn't the best for reliability. Not even sure anyone tried to make a belt fed with the Grendel due to its design. Also we still seem to have problems with magazines despite years of different companies making magazines for the Grendel. Another thing was that no one was able to provide the test facilities with Grendel ammunition, when some initial tests were done.

I go with LRRP-52 that the individual Soldier should have some sort of PDW capable to 300. DM's (if they are supported by TOE), something that gives a distinct lethal advantage to about 600. Snipers to 1K or so. LMG's from there out to maybe 1K.

What cartridges? No clue but one thing the volumes of discussions on this paper and topic brought to me was that there wasn't a lot of difference between the various cartridges once they were filtered out by the requirements documents.

LR-55

[lazyengineer]

I agree with everything said in this thread.

In particular the point that every single .gov .308 class rifle we use could be better served, and in some cases MUCH better served, with 6.5 Grendel. A case can be made that 6.5 Grendel is pushing it a bit in an AR15 and there may be an increase in field failures with standard M4 sized guns. (maybe) I think that can be overcome, but bolt breakages used to be a thing, and extractor breakages still kind of are - though again, that might just be poorer quality items not dimensioned quite right. But even if so, anything that's .308 class, can be notably downgraded to just a touch beefier than 5.56 class, and now you have a much lighter belt fed SAW that you can carry a whole lot more ammo for, that still packs that extended range and punch you wanted from the .308 vs 5.56. Actually better, once you get out there. And still have plenty of punch more than 5.56, at the closer ranges. Same for DMR's, and anything else we have in .308. I personally don't even own a .308, as it just is pointless to me. Since I started and still have Garands, I run 30-06 when I want a .30 cal bullet and .30 cal Nostalgia. And the 6.5mm diameter rounds when I want modern optimized general performance ammo. A case can be made for 6mmARC, but I still agree with Bill Alexanders philosophy on why he decided to make 6.5 Grendel, not 6mm Grendel - and stil think the Grendel is the better optimized general purpose do-all round.

[LRRPF52]

As an outsider (but supporter), it is just sad to me to think that an off the shelf Grendel could have been in service for 10yrs already, while the big dogs sit and contemplate what next. And as we all know, by that time they would have been happy with the "stopgap solution".

At the end of the day, the DoD and US Army don’t give a crap about Joe Tentpeg down in the Line Infantry, nor can they really afford to under all of their budget requirements and limits for the high-dollar/high performance programs.

Army Aviation, Armor, Artillery, Mobility, Long Range Fires, EW, Medical, and UAS are far more effective systems that give significant return on investment, whereas Infantry are a bottom-priority after-thought who only come into focus during Unconventional Warfare.

We yank back and forth between funding the big systems, then our enemies see that, and fire-up a distractive dilemma for us to be sucked into away from their regional focuses, where we actually need competent Light forces that don’t smash everything in their path, who can discreetly place small arms fires next to the civilian population without a lot of collateral damages.

Look at the 1950s build-up towards an all-nuclear force, with everything from strategic bombers down to nuclear recoilless rifles. In that era, they said, “Why waste our time training and equipping Riflemen to hit targets from 500-800yds, when it isn’t going to matter?” They dumbed-down the Army Rifle Marksmanship Training Program as a result, which was actually pretty advanced in the late 1940s post-WWII.

Then we got suckered into Vietnam and small arms became more of a consideration than the Train-Fire program’s emphasis on the Fulda Gap for Europe, and Northwest Corridor for Korea.

They made a major compromise in the 1950s by attempting to go with a single universal infantry cartridge that would be chambered in 3 types of weapons to replace the outgoing following weapons:

* M-2 Carbine in .30 Carbine
* M3A1 .45 ACP SMG
* M-1 Garand in M2 .30 Cal Rifle (.30-06 Springfield by civilian name)
* M-1C/D Garand Sharpshooter Rifle in M2 .30 Cal
* BAR in .30 Cal Rifle
* M1919 Belt-fed Machinegun in .30 Cal Rifle

That’s where the 7.62x51 came from, along with the T44/M-14 and M60 General Purpose Machinegun. It was an emphasis on logistics that wouldn’t be burdened anymore with 3-4 different shoulder-fired weapon cartridges with at least 6 DODICs that filled different roles. They didn’t want to give up the performance of the M2 .30 Cal Rifle cartridge, but wanted it to be smaller for more compact ammunition carrying, hence the reduction in length from 63mm case to 51mm, and pressures increased from 55ksi to over 60ksi. Funny thing is that they assumed the USAF would be happy with Security Forces lugging around M-14s, which didn’t play out with a guy like General Curtis LeMay at the helm, who got what he wanted, from bombers to rifles.

US Army Infantry Center also wanted a Squad-Level Individual Support Weapon, so they shoe-horned that into the M14E2 with a different in-line stock, pistol grip, bipod, and muzzle brake to replace the BAR, but it was still 7.62 NATO, 20rd mag-fed common to the Rifleman’s M-14. Machinegunners would lug around the M60 fed with linked 7.62 NATO, with the help of ammo bearers and an Assistant Gunner, laden with ammo, spare barrel, tripod, and Traversing and Elevating mechanism.

The M-14/M60/7.62 NATO weapons mix proved to be far less than ideal, and the USAF, Army Special Forces, Airborne, and Airmobile Units were all getting AR-15s in the early-mid 1960s, followed by the USMC. USAF contracted for the AR-15 first in 1962.

The weapons that got largely ignored and stop-gapped with less than ideal solutions were the M-1C/D and BAR.

For the BAR, the M14E2 with lightweight barrel just didn’t cut the mustard, and was abandoned quickly, with M16A1s and bipods designated for Automatic Riflemen who would carry extra magazines and fire bursts of full auto fire in support of their Fire Team and Squad during the assault, breach, and react-to-contact battle drills. No quick barrel change and an anemic cartridge at distance meant the M16A1 Auto Rifleman duty position was ill-conceived, and spawned the SAW trials of the 1970s.



For the M-1C/D, they just dropped it after Korea basically, and the Army and USMC had to come up with ad hoc solutions for Snipers and Sharpshooters during Vietnam.

US Army came up with the XM21 Sniper System by 1969, which was a National Match Competition M-14 paired with a Variable power Auto-Ranging Telescope with a mechanically-cammed mount interface with the power ring.
USMC went with a bolt-action 7.62 Sniper Rifle with heavy barrel, fixed 10x Unertyl scope.



US Army also experimented with some in-country light sniper systems based off the AR-15, namely the Colt 655 and 656, which most people have never heard of nor seen.



In the 1970s, the SAW trials saw the XM249 Minimi from Belgium eventually win, which became the M249 and replaced the Automatic Rifleman/M16A1 combo with a belt-fed 5.56 LMG that was too heavy for what it was, but demonstrated better reliability than any of the other submissions in the 1970s. 5.56x45 is not ideal for an LMG, but logisticians didn’t want another DODIC in the system, and the M249 was made with a spare magazine well that could also feed from M16 magazines in emergencies-a total waste of space and added burden on SAW gunners.

They had a good cartridge design for the 6x45 SAW, but it never went anywhere. Would have been great for LMGs and Light Sniper Systems.



All along, the US Army and USMC failed to specify and contract for a much-needed DMR, while fielding the mediocre and heavy M249 LMGs in the Rifle Squad alongside the M16A2 in the 1980s-2000s.

The M4 was a great addition to the Infantryman, replacing the unnecessarily-long M16A2, but we still didn’t get any DMR option focus, though the issuing of ACOGs helped fill that gap both in the Army and USMC.

JSOC-Army side had developed their own DMR Carbines in the Sniper Sections based off the Colt 723 before the M4 was fielded, using free-float tubes and whatever optics were available at the time.
JSOC-Navy saw those and had their armorers build them as well. Then SOCOM Snipers in SF and NSW wanted something similar, which became the SPR program and the Mk.12 Mod 0, Mod 1, and Mod H.

The cartridge still didn’t cut the mustard, so “DoD entities” asked for something that would fit in the M4 receiver set but reach out like 7.62 NATO, without the weight, recoil, ammo, and blast penalties. They tested out 6.5 Grendel and said this is great the way it is, so Hornady then took it and necked it down to 6mm.

In the line, the gaps still exist for an intermediate cartridge LMG and DMR. 6.8x51 is back to 7.62 NATO profile for mags and weight/bulk, which is a non-starter, even though the performance is impressive (135gr at 2900fps from a 13” barrel is smokin’).

[stef1274]

What is the cartridge that has eventually been selected to develop? I remember seeing a 6.8mm something with a steel reinforced case. That kinda struck me as counter efficient in terms of the whole supply chain, but I am not well informed. Came across the 6.8 (Remington) SPC now, which looks ideal.

[LRRPF52]

What is the cartridge that has eventually been selected to develop? I remember seeing a 6.8mm something with a steel reinforced case. That kinda struck me as counter efficient in terms of the whole supply chain, but I am not well informed. Came across the 6.8 (Remington) SPC now, which looks ideal.

They launched all kinds of programs over the years looking for an AR-15/5.56 replacement. The most recent one is the NGSW 6.8x51, which is basically a hot-rodded .270-08 with a steel head, brass case body, and chamber pressures of 80,000psi or higher, pushing a 135gr Armor Penetrator at 2900fps from a 13” barrel folding stock AR-10 carbine with suppressor.







6.8x43 SPC and 6.8x51 have about as much in common as a .30-30 Winchester does with a .300 Win Mag.

The NGSW is again Army institutional failure to recognize the lessons learned from about 140 years of metallic cartridge technology in military rifles, expeditionary campaigns, terminal ballistics studies, soldier’s load studies, and MTO&E configurations spanning every conflict over the same time period.

It makes an amazing Sniper and Medium Machinegun Cartridge if you’re ok with humping the same profile and relative weight of the 7.62 NATO, which we should have gotten away from.

It is a terrible proposition for 75-90% of the duty positions within an Infantry Company because they increased the weapon weight to that of an AR-10, while reducing the ammunition carrying capacity of everyone that carried an M4A1.

They really need a 2 cartridge solution to replace 7.62 NATO most importantly, and then 5.56 NATO with something even smaller with the same or better ballistics. They’re trying to do a single caliber solution again, which has always failed.

The largest cartridge should not have a bore diameter larger than 6.5mm, and the case diameter should not be larger than .441”. A .473” case diameter requires bulky magazines for DM Rifles and larger linked ammunition pouches for the LMG.

The smaller cartridge should not exceed the 5.56x45 case head diameter, and should be shorter than the current 2.250” COL, but match or exceed its performance.

If someone were to introduce that weapons mix, Joes would be ecstatic.

The chain of command will still manage to bend them over with more things to carry, but at least they would be able to carry more ammo than they can now, with more downrange effectiveness, less recoil, and an easier training curve.

We also have to look at disruptions to modern warfare with the proliferation of UAS, and I’m not sure many people have thought about the 2nd-4th order of effects on what that’s going to do to the Infantry MTO&E.

USMC has already gotten rid of their Scout Sniper Platoons (STA) and their main Sniper Training program from the Fleet by order of General Berger, after they roughed-up his son in Japan during an exercise. Nepotism is a terrible and insidious force for an organization. Marines remove Scout Sniper platoons from Infantry Battalions

After 37 years of formal US Army Sniper School training, the Army still hasn’t figured out where Snipers are in the MTO&E. We were always in the Infantry Battalion Scout Platoons in the Line, but our Scout Platoon FM 7-92 didn’t even mention the word “Sniper”. Now they have done something with incorporating Cavalry units into Infantry Brigades and tasking them with Recon.

Once all the unit-level sensing sessions and AAR comments on 6.8 NGSW start to flow back up the chain, you will see a preponderance of, “This weapon is too heavy, is hard to charge, can’t carry enough ammo, kinda want my M4 back please."

[BluntForceTrauma]

LR beat me to it on the 6.8 NGSW, but speaking of the 6mm SAW, I have a gut feeling there's still some interest in the concept in the form of the new 6mm ARC.

I say this cuz recently I've gotten interesting orders for my 6.5 Grendel/6mm ARC UltraBolt from product development types at influential national brands in the AR space, and my feeling is they're continuing to test 6ARC either behind the scenes for the military or simply for an increased presence in the commercial market.

Bill A. always said that if he had it to do over again, he would have given the Grendel case just a touch more length, not necessarily to increase velocity but to better control powders and burn rates and pressures. Well, I personally think a little increased velocity wouldn't hurt, and would recommend FN's .264 LICC as a candidate to do what we've been talking about here — if anyone's asking me.

[rickt300]

Looking at the new weapon design it would be nice if they built one short enough for the 6ARC/6.5 Grendel rounds, Not saying you need 80K psi but 65 K psi would add a bit of punch. While doing so maybe lengthen it to be able to handle a 2.5 length cartridge overall length. Maybe a Grendel case with the shoulder moved forward just a bit with a bit more taper, possibly 23 degrees to aid functioning. That would make matching the 7.62x51 easy. I actually like the AR15 design myself but if they were to build one just a bit longer and with a larger diameter bolt designed for a .441 case head I think it would be a better overall package. That and 65K psi would make a lot of difference.

[LR1955]

Looking at the new weapon design it would be nice if they built one short enough for the 6ARC/6.5 Grendel rounds, Not saying you need 80K psi but 65 K psi would add a bit of punch. While doing so maybe lengthen it to be able to handle a 2.5 length cartridge overall length. Maybe a Grendel case with the shoulder moved forward just a bit with a bit more taper, possibly 23 degrees to aid functioning. That would make matching the 7.62x51 easy. I actually like the AR15 design myself but if they were to build one just a bit longer and with a larger diameter bolt designed for a .441 case head I think it would be a better overall package. That and 65K psi would make a lot of difference.

Yo Rick:

Want to bet that a cartridge already exists that is similar to the Grendel adaptation you are describing? Or is just as capable with less need to alter basic mechanical things?

I don't know what it is but I bet something exists that has already been proven and is basically what you mentioned.

An extended Grendel case with a more tapered shoulder is no longer a Grendel but something else because now you are talking about a longer receiver. The intent for the Grendel was to function in a standard AR-15 receiver and lower without having to alter the lower or receiver. Sound intent, well executed.

LR-55

[LRRPF52]

LR beat me to it on the 6.8 NGSW, but speaking of the 6mm SAW, I have a gut feeling there's still some interest in the concept in the form of the new 6mm ARC.

I say this cuz recently I've gotten interesting orders for my 6.5 Grendel/6mm ARC UltraBolt from product development types at influential national brands in the AR space, and my feeling is they're continuing to test 6ARC either behind the scenes for the military or simply for an increased presence in the commercial market.

Bill A. always said that if he had it to do over again, he would have given the Grendel case just a touch more length, not necessarily to increase velocity but to better control powders and burn rates and pressures. Well, I personally think a little increased velocity wouldn't hurt, and would recommend FN's .264 LICC as a candidate to do what we've been talking about here — if anyone's asking me.

If you use the same metallurgy that LMT (Enhanced Bolt), FN (SCAR-H bolt), POF (Revolution/Rogue), and Ruger (SFAR) did with AR-15 sized bolts for larger cartridges, any worries about bolt longevity would be erased. The extension will have to be made from the same alloy though if people are pushing the pressures.

In the late 1950s, Army Ordnance sent Stoner on a bit of a wild goose chase once his AR-15 out-performed the M-14 at Benning and Fort Greeley, Alaska. Up until that time, they didn’t see it as a threat and more of just a space-age novelty.

They had him reacting to new cartridge configurations based on .25 Remington, then kept moving the specs around to keep him busy, while they rapidly pushed for fielding the M-14 and getting contracts for large rifle orders for the Army. Even though the circles they had him chasing were meant to do just that, the concepts were in the right direction for a multi-purpsoe assault rifle/LMG/DMR cartridge, at the slight sacrifice of weight and reduced load-carrying capacity/round count.

The .264 LICC uses a .473” case head diameter, which means SR-25 magazine width, but shorter COL. From the soldier’s load standpoint, that means pouches and round count won’t be that much different than an SR-25. Especially with armor, your magazine volumetric considerations have to be taken into account. It’s already hard enough to find space for 5.56 mags when wearing plates, even with just a plate carrier, no soft armor. Regular units are forced to wear the whole shebang with a soft armor/plate combo ensemble that is unforgiving of larger magazine size, especially width.

This is why I think a .441” case head diameter max limit is important to bake into the case configuration, and also keep the COL limited to 2.500” for the larger cartridge meant for DMs and LMGs. That cartridge should not be issued to most of the Infantrymen though. They need a Micro High Performance Carbine with even smaller magazines than the current STANAG 5.56x45mm ones.

[LRRPF52]

Looking at the new weapon design it would be nice if they built one short enough for the 6ARC/6.5 Grendel rounds, Not saying you need 80K psi but 65 K psi would add a bit of punch. While doing so maybe lengthen it to be able to handle a 2.5 length cartridge overall length. Maybe a Grendel case with the shoulder moved forward just a bit with a bit more taper, possibly 23 degrees to aid functioning. That would make matching the 7.62x51 easy. I actually like the AR15 design myself but if they were to build one just a bit longer and with a larger diameter bolt designed for a .441 case head I think it would be a better overall package. That and 65K psi would make a lot of difference.

That was called the .264 USA:

[grayfox]

I'm not sure I buy the swamp's fascination of 1-rifle for everybody (armies).
As far as today is concerned, we don't have to field 2 armies of millions+, one for each ocean. And our production abilities ought to be able to handle making 2, maybe 3 types for the various use cases...
the only things really standing in the way of this are, let me see...
1. anti-gunner lobbies, mikey blmberg-types
2. leftist politicians and briben-omics.
3. banning and restricting brass, ammo, powder etc production.
4. too many things off-shored as far as production and mining capacity.

those folks involved in #1-3 we could volunteer them to take the front lines first... first responders if you will 'cause they need to see that they've been denying human nature for too long, reap a little of the error of their ways. might wake them up real fast! #4 we still need to work on.

[grayfox]

one more thought.
In my line (nuclear), independent and diverse and redundant are key topics. So 2 or more lines, capable of same or similar tasks, difference in design/approach or key points, independent of each other; so a fall-down or stoppage of one does not affect the other. Always have a backup; don't allow common-mode failures to get you.

A country that has been (maybe even still) able to be the largest production-machine in the world... ought to be able to do this.

[rickt300]

That was called the .264 USA:

Pretty cool, If indeed we could design the AR15 platform to reliably function at 65K the Grendel would be fine. That would still require a bolt designed for the .441 head diameter and that would mean the barrel extension would also have to be a bit heavier. Is a pound all that horrible?