Military round comparisons

[stanc]

That alone probably not. However, if it was to replace all 5.56 and 7.62, drastically improving logistics and improving soldier capabilities in short and long distance engagements, that might be enough.

To a great extent, I agree. But, I think there is zero chance of 6.5 Grendel officially replacing 7.62 NATO system wide (as long as the latter is standard equipment for vehicles, aircraft, etc).

IMO, the only way to get 6.5 Grendel in service is to adopt it as an across-the-board replacement for 5.56 NATO. If 6.5 DMRs and LMGs proved to be effective enough on the battlefield, infantry units might choose to leave their 7.62 weapons behind when going on patrol.

I completely agree most of your basic grunts won't utilize the Grendel to its full capabilities, but they'll still see an improvement in their results on the battlefield.

I think that might well be true for short range combat, where the heavier bullet ought to hit harder. What concerns me is the lack of adequate testing to determine if troops armed with Grendelized M4 carbines can actually achieve higher hit probabilities at long range than with 5.56mm M4s, and if so, just how much better. Regrettably, there is a disturbing absence of hard data to support Grendel proponents.

[LR1955]

Never saw it in any unit I was in...deployed to Afghanistan in '08 and Iraq in '09. Wonder who got them?

Mike:

I think I saw the first full issue of them at 5/2 SBCT prior to their deployment to Afghanistan but that was 2K9 or 10. So, maybe after your deployments. The EBR's are issued to units just prior to their deployment. Not in enough time for the units to get any training other than two days with a NET team. The EBRs are turned back in after the deployment to be rebuilt and then issued to the next unit.

They are not 'The Heat'. The M-110 was much better and I bet cost no more considering all the crap that had to be done to get those M-14's rebuilt, put in that stock, find magazines, PLL, etc.

LR1955

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

IMO, the only way to get 6.5 Grendel in service is to adopt it as an across-the-board replacement for 5.56 NATO. If 6.5 DMRs and LMGs proved to be effective enough on the battlefield, infantry units might choose to leave their 7.62 weapons behind when going on patrol.

I think that might well be true for short range combat, where the heavier bullet ought to hit harder. What concerns me is the lack of adequate testing to determine if troops armed with Grendelized M4 carbines can actually achieve higher hit probabilities at long range than with 5.56mm M4s, and if so, just how much better. Regrettably, there is a disturbing absence of hard data to support Grendel proponents.

From a related Thread, Third Generation Battle Rifle, Page 8, Reply #73, An Army Outgunned - Physics Demands A New Basic Combat Weapon, By Joseph P. Avery, PhD, Military Review, July-August 2012 --- ". . . United States combat forces require a versatile and reliable BCW with the ability to incapacitate the enemy at close quarters, with sufficient ballistic energy to smack-down enemy forces with authoritative force at long distance. We can either analyze the newly developed and currently existing 6.5mm cartridges, or attempt an expensive development of a new family of ammunition. . . . The new family of 6.5mm projectiles has over twice the lethality of the 5.56mm M855 NATO round . . . Additional testing is required, and there is always the option of designing an entirely new platform around the current or an enhanced 6.5mm cartridge. It may be prudent to release a group of 6.5mm, M16-chassis weapons for operational field testing in Afghanistan by deployed forces to test against the 5.56mm M855, M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round . . . Research should look into possible enhancement of an even more powerful 6.5mm Enhanced Performance Round . . ."

First, I think most would agree that the 6.5 Grendel, even in its somewhat detuned state to compensate for the additional Bolt Thrust its big butt forces on the standard AR-15 Bolt, represents a quantum performance leap over the 5.56x45mm. That said, what if we reworked the current AR-15 Bolt-Bolt Extension, as has been detailed in these pages, and unleashed the true performance capabilities of the little cartridge that could. And, in that it's already been demonstrated that the 6.5 Grendel, even in its presently detuned state, is far superior to its AR-15 platform brother, the 5.56x45mm, let's compare the Kinetic Energy of an "enhanced" Grendel (read: today's Bolt Gun Grendel) (139-grain Lapua Scenar projectile, BC - 0.615, MV - 2550 fps) with a highly-developed AR-10-length action cartridge, the M118LR (175-grain SMK projectile, BC - 0.495, MV - 2475 fps), from 16" barrels, at 500 yards and 1000 yards:

Cartridge . . Muzzle Velocity . 500 yards (fps/ft.lbs) . 1000 yards

6.5 Grendel . 2550 fps . . . . . 1895/1108 . . . . . . . . . 1375/584
M118LR . . . .2475 fps . . . . . 1693/1114 . . . . . . . . . 1156/519

[LRRPF52]

It would be great for Snipers and DM's, but they'd likely get left out-to-dry with a logistics chain. Even Snipers in SOCOM have been screwed out of M118LR when it was requested and promised through the supply system while deployed in high-priority, real-world missions where they actually needed the stuff and were part of a great unit that normally gets the best possible resources to the shooters. They had to resort to breaking off 7.62 M80 linked and loading up with that.

The moment a Sniper/DM puts his hands on a little 16" Grendel and sees how it performs at distance, he soon starts to shed any desire to carry 7.62 NATO anymore, up until the reality of the logistics posture hits him, and he realizes that he still needs to carry a heavy beast of a rifle to achieve the same basic performance. The last thing anyone wants is to be left out to dry with no ammo source.

[Tony Williams]

That alone probably not. However, if it was to replace all 5.56 and 7.62, drastically improving logistics and improving soldier capabilities in short and long distance engagements, that might be enough.

I completely agree most of your basic grunts won't utilize the Grendel to its full capabilities, but they'll still see an improvement in their results on the battlefield.

Agreed.

I think it's helpful to start with the criticisms from ISAF troops concerning their small arms and ammunition:

1. The effective range of 5.56mm ammunition is too low, mainly due its susceptibility to cross-winds. The enemy has been choosing to launch attacks on ISAF patrols from 500m or more wherever the terrain permits. The British Army reported this in 2009, and more recently I have read that US troops have stated that at least half of all attacks are from 500-900m. 5.56mm weapons are pretty well useless dead weight at such distances.

2. 7.62mm weapons and ammunition (especially MGs) have the range and hitting power required, but their weight is too great. Reducing the weight of the combat load for dismounted infantry is one of the top priorities of western armies, with British troops wearing or carrying around 140 lbs in patrol order.

3. Carrying two different families of rifles/MGs and ammunition at squad/section level is undesirable, reducing the overall effectiveness (e.g. those with 5.56mm weapons cannot usefully contribute to engagements at 500+m).

4. 5.56mm ammunition is erratic in terminal effectiveness, and has poor barrier penetration.

I see no possibility of any new cartridge being chosen to replace either the 5.56mm or the 7.62mm - to have any chance of success, a new round must be able to at least match the long-range performance of the 7.62mm NATO in MGs and DMRs (plus, more to the point, the 7.62x54R in the PKM and SVD - the real-world comparators) while saving at least 25% of the ammo weight. Such a cartridge would inevitably be of smaller calibre than 7.62mm, and would have much less recoil, making it feasible to replace 5.56mm weapons in the dismounted infantry squads while delivering benefits in penetration and terminal effectiveness. Recent studies by both ARDEC and AMU have concluded that around 6.5mm calibre is optimal for future military use. I'm not advocating any particular cartridge here, just pointing out that this calibre seems to offer the best balance of characteristics.

I should emphasise that these issues only concern portable weapons carried by dismounted infantry, because that's where the problems are being experienced. There is no need to change the whole army over to a new calibre overnight. Other soldiers can retain 5.56mm carbines as PDWs for the foreseeable future, while vehicle-mounted 7.62mm MGs can also be retained until they wear out, if required.

Iraq and A'stan provided two very different operating environments, but they had one thing in common - an emphasis on dismounted patrols, working with and among the local populations. No-one knows what the next conflicts will be, but the general thinking is that they are at least as likely to involve this type of counter-insurgency conflict as a conventional hot war. So it's important to give the dismounted troops the best equipment we can.

Finally - although my interest primarily lies with the ammunition, I am well aware that this is only one element in the effectiveness of small arms, and by no means the most important. Training comes first (by a long way), then sights, then ammunition, then the guns. But while the primary emphasis will always be on training, that's no excuse to ignore the other factors when we know they have problems.

[Trooper]

It would be great for Snipers and DM's, but they'd likely get left out-to-dry with a logistics chain. Even Snipers in SOCOM have been screwed out of M118LR when it was requested and promised through the supply system while deployed in high-priority, real-world missions where they actually needed the stuff and were part of a great unit that normally gets the best possible resources to the shooters. They had to resort to breaking off 7.62 M80 linked and loading up with that.

The moment a Sniper/DM puts his hands on a little 16" Grendel and sees how it performs at distance, he soon starts to shed any desire to carry 7.62 NATO anymore, up until the reality of the logistics posture hits him, and he realizes that he still needs to carry a heavy beast of a rifle to achieve the same basic performance. The last thing anyone wants is to be left out to dry with no ammo source.

It would be assumed that snipers and DMR would not be using the common infantry rifle (carbine with 16" barrel). Rather than they would be issued an improved version with a 20" barrel and better buttstock.

[stanc]

"The new family of 6.5mm projectiles has over twice the lethality of the 5.56mm M855 NATO round . . ."

What "new family" of 6.5mm projectiles?

Has anyone yet created a new 6.5mm military Ball projectile? Tracer bullet?

I'm curious how the author managed to compare lethality of something that, AFAIK, does not exist???

First, I think most would agree that the 6.5 Grendel...represents a quantum performance leap over the 5.56x45mm.

That depends on what you mean by "quantum" leap. :confused:

[Trooper]

What "new family" of 6.5mm projectiles?

Has anyone yet created a new 6.5mm military Ball projectile? Tracer bullet?

I'm curious how the author managed to compare lethality of something that, AFAIK, does not exist???

That depends on what you mean by "quantum" leap. :confused:

Well you have the oldest 6.5mm military cartridge is the 6.5x55 Swedish. And the .260 Rem is based on a military cartridge (7.62x51). There have been others of course.

[stanc]

I should emphasise that these issues only concern portable weapons carried by dismounted infantry, because that's where the problems are being experienced. There is no need to change the whole army over to a new calibre overnight.

That's not an issue. Caliber changes have always taken years to fully implement, as the new caliber and weapons are phased in, and the old phased out. It would be no problem to reequip infantry units first while other troops remain armed with 5.56 weapons for a period of time.

The real question is whether the benefits of such a change would be sufficient to make it worthwhile. I submit that the dearth of hard data in regard to vital aspects of the proposed change makes a rational decision impossible.

[stanc]

Well you have the oldest 6.5mm military cartridge is the 6.5x55 Swedish. And the .260 Rem is based on a military cartridge (7.62x51). There have been others of course.

I don't understand. How are old 6.5mm cartridges relevant to my question about what "new" 6.5mm military bullets have been developed?

[stanc]

SDM? I ran bunches of courses for 'SDM's between about Y2K through Y2K8. They were issued a M-4 carbine, M-855, and an ACOG until about 2K8. Then you started to see some of the EBR's being issued just before units deployed. In other words, issued when there was not enough time to train them how to do anything with the rifle or optic. And, guess what? The EBRs were considered 500 meter performers. Basically the hit probability with them was the same as a Joe with a carbine and an ACOG.

M14 EBR in action:
[video=youtube;KY4GejdDGp0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY4GejdDGp0[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY4GejdDGp0

[Tony Williams]

The real question is whether the benefits of such a change would be sufficient to make it worthwhile. I submit that the dearth of hard data in regard to vital aspects of the proposed change makes a rational decision impossible.

We know enough about bullet design to know that we can produce c.6.5mm military ball bullets with much better ballistic coefficients than the 7.62mm M80 (the Russians have been making much better shaped 5.45mm 7N6 bullets for four decades).

Even if we assume that we can't improve on the 7N6 form factor, it is still easy to demonstrate that a 6.5mm military bullet can be made to deliver a ballistic performance out to 1000m which is at least as good as the M80, from a cartridge case which is significantly smaller and lighter and generates a lot less recoil.

In evaluating different calibres, ARDEC produced EPR-style bullets in each calibre and tested them thoroughly before concluding that calibres in the 6.35-6.8mm range offered the best characteristics. AMU came to the same conclusion after careful study.

So there is plenty of data concerning the performance of the ammunition - certainly enough to justify moving on to the next stage, which is working up prototype military ammunition in military guns for exhaustive testing in order to validate the concept.

The stage after that is for armies to decide if the new weapons and ammunition are worth adopting, a decision which will obviously be affected by a range of factors. All I can say about it is that I have attended several presentations on this subject, in the UK and USA, to a wide range of
military people from different organisations, and the overwhelming response has been enthusiastic - "you make it, we'll buy it" being typical.

Stan, forgive me if I'm misreading you, but your attitude to this subject comes across to me as: "because we don't yet have a working military gun and military standard ammunition which have been tested to validate the concept, talking about it is a waste of time". Like any project, this one is passing through stages, and the current stage is to demonstrate the calculated benefits in order to generate enough interest for people to move on to making the ammunition and guns for practical testing. No-one is suggesting that any organisation will commit to acquiring such a system until after this stage has been successfully completed.

[stanc]

We know enough about bullet design to know that we can produce c.6.5mm military ball bullets with much better ballistic coefficients than the 7.62mm M80 (the Russians have been making much better shaped 5.45mm 7N6 bullets for four decades).

No argument. I'm sure that 6.5mm military ball projectiles with higher BC can be made. It's just that until they are, we don't know what the actual BC will be. Therefore, to make comparisons using calculated BCs for hypothetical, but non-existent, bullets seems of little value to me.

Even if we assume that we can't improve on the 7N6 form factor, it is still easy to demonstrate that a 6.5mm military bullet can be made to deliver a ballistic performance out to 1000m which is at least as good as the M80, from a cartridge case which is significantly smaller and lighter and generates a lot less recoil.

How can you demonstrate that without having a bullet to shoot???

In evaluating different calibres, ARDEC produced EPR-style bullets in each calibre and tested them thoroughly before concluding that calibres in the 6.35-6.8mm range offered the best characteristics. AMU came to the same conclusion after careful study.

They may be right, but how do we know that? Do we know what their test protocols were? What bullet weights and muzzle velocities? Anything at all?

So there is plenty of data concerning the performance of the ammunition...

Where is it? I haven't seen it.

...certainly enough to justify moving on to the next stage, which is working up prototype military ammunition in military guns for exhaustive testing in order to validate the concept.

Why try to jump from theory to very expensive manufacturing and comprehensive tests? Why not first do relatively low-cost testing to check the viability of the concept? For instance, conduct long range, hit probability comparisons with a number of shooters using 5.56 and 6.5 Grendel versions of the M4 carbine? Or do tactical penetration tests with 6.5 Grendel and .308 Winchester using the same type bullets? Much more affordable, and would (assuming positive results) give hard data that should make it easier to "sell" the concept than paper calculations alone.

Stan, forgive me if I'm misreading you, but your attitude to this subject comes across to me as: "because we don't yet have a working military gun and military standard ammunition which have been tested to validate the concept, talking about it is a waste of time".

That's not my position. I'm saying that comparing ballistics of, for example, 7.62 FMJ and 6.5 HPBT is a waste of time, because the latter will never be a general purpose Ball load for machine guns and rifles. I'm also asking why Grendel (and GPC) proponents seem to be so opposed to doing relatively simple and affordable comparison testing to validate their claims.

Like any project, this one is passing through stages, and the current stage is to demonstrate the calculated benefits in order to generate enough interest for people to move on to making the ammunition and guns for practical testing.

Okay. So wouldn't it be more likely to gain the interest of those people if you provide hard data (from actual shooting tests) that confirms the calculated benefits?

[Trooper]

So what would be a typical military round for the 6.5mm if the US (or any other country) would develop one? If we are going to compare to the M80 in 7.62 NATO, what would a similar round be like for 6.5mm? Has Bill Alexander, or anyone else, produced a sample of a round that would be typical of a military round in that caliber?

Any testing would have to be done with similar weapons. Therefore an M4 style platform (carbine with 16" barrel) for 5.56 NATO and 6.5 Grendel. Then a comparison of 7.62 NATO and 6.5mm Grendel in a 20" barreled weapon.

If the Grendel can not meet comparisons then what would be the best design parameters for a GPC that would compare favorable with the 5.56 AND 7.62?

[stanc]

So what would be a typical military round for the 6.5mm if the US (or any other country) would develop one?

Barring unforeseeable developments, I'd expect the US Army to create an exposed penetrator, Ball round similar to the M855A1; Western European and Nordic armies, FMJ with 2-piece, steel core; Eastern Europe, FMJ with conventional steel core.

If we are going to compare to the M80 in 7.62 NATO, what would a similar round be like for 6.5mm?

For "apples vs apples" comparison of relative performance, it'd be a lead core FMJ similar to the Norma 120gr FMJ.

Has Bill Alexander, or anyone else, produced a sample of a round that would be typical of a military round in that caliber?

The long awaited Wolf steel case ammo reportedly has a steel core FMJ similar to what some countries currently use.

Any testing would have to be done with similar weapons. Therefore an M4 style platform (carbine with 16" barrel) for 5.56 NATO and 6.5 Grendel. Then a comparison of 7.62 NATO and 6.5mm Grendel in a 20" barreled weapon.

As I have previously said.

If the Grendel can not meet comparisons then what would be the best design parameters for a GPC that would compare favorable with the 5.56 AND 7.62?

Good question. That's been an ongoing discussion in this and Tony Williams MG&A forum for quite a while. The "best" solution is still undetermined.

[Trooper]

Barring unforeseeable developments, I'd expect the US Army to create an exposed penetrator, Ball round similar to the M855A1; Western European and Nordic armies, FMJ with 2-piece, steel core; Eastern Europe, FMJ with conventional steel core.

For "apples vs apples" comparison of relative performance, it'd be a lead core FMJ similar to the Norma 120gr FMJ.

The long awaited Wolf steel case ammo reportedly has a steel core FMJ similar to what some countries currently use.

As I have previously said.

Good question. That's been an ongoing discussion in this and Tony Williams MG&A forum for quite a while. The "best" solution is still undetermined.

I started another thread on this topic. It does little to compare to the 5.56 NATO as everything out performs it. Thus the only real comparison is what can do the same as the 7.62 NATO in a smaller package (ie 6.5 to 7mm and less than 49mm case).

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

. . . A good 6.5 Grendel bullpup design with an "E" trigger could make a really nice shooting stick! . . .

. . . And, I agree, wholeheartedly!

Variable,

To update: I'm happy to report that an autoloading 6.5mm Grendel-chambered Bullpup appears to be in the offing http://bullpupforum.com/index.php?topic=4165.40 (scroll down the page to Reply #52).

Ken advises that both left- and right-side ejecting versions will be available. AND, a 3.5 lb [mechanical] trigger will be standard!

Given the uncommon attributes of both platform and cartridge, I welcome the marriage.

[stanc]

I'm happy to report that an autoloading 6.5mm Grendel-chambered Bullpup appears to be in the offing

Given the uncommon attributes of both platform and cartridge, I welcome the marriage.

Unfortunately, the M17S is far from being a military grade weapon. I don't know about the quality of the current production M17S, but my experience with the one I bought many years ago soured me on the gun. It was unreliable, and I considered it a somewhat crudely made piece of crap.

I'd love a good 6.5 Grendel bullpup -- a Steyr AUG, for instance -- but an M17S? No thanks.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

. . . I'd love a good 6.5 Grendel bullpup -- a Steyr AUG, for instance -- . . .

My sentiments, exactly! Indeed, I earlier this year appealed to Steyr Arms for just such a combo http://bullpupforum.com/index.php?topic=2475.0(Top of page).

That said, having reviewed K&M Arms' new billet Lower http://bullpupforum.com/index.php?topic=4165.0 and considering the changes Ken has for the Upper, I think it's fair to state that he is reinventing the 1980's M17S. I wish him success. And, I hope the concept of a 6.5mm Grendel in a Bullpup configuration catches on.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

From last weekend's Bullpup Shoot 2013, photo By Snapperhead363: K&M Arms' 21st Century version of the M17s, and a promising new "Star Wars" platform for the 6.5mm Grendel.