FMJ yaw and upset performance

[Tony Williams]

I am interesting in promoting the idea of a long-range intermediate military cartridge capable of replacing both 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO rounds.

In order to be "Geneva legal" without getting into lots of arguments with lawyers, the bullet needs to be of the FMJ, non-fragmenting type - definitely not with an open tip. The wounding mechanism will therefore mainly be via rapid and reliable yaw and upset on impact: the bullet should start to yaw within about two inches of entering a body, and should have entirely turned over and be travelling backwards by about 12 inches.

The problem is, I have read in a British report that in a gel test by Alexander Arms of an FMJ bullet fired from a Grendel case, it did not start to yaw until after penetrating several inches, which is not good enough.

So I really have a two-part question here:

1. Is it possible to design a low-drag 6.5mm FMJ bullet of around 120-125 grains which exhibits rapid and reliable yaw and upset on impact?

2. Is it possible to achieve the same performance using a lead-free bullet, since that seems to be a growing military requirement?

[Hoot]

The two easy ways to encourage upset upon impact with soft tissue is to either cast an air pocket at the front of the bullet when you swage it. The tip doesn't have to be open, just have air immediately behind it. The second is to choose a body style with a short ogive and a pronounced boat tail, think M80 ball.

Hoot

[LR1955]

The two easy ways to encourage upset upon impact with soft tissue is to either cast an air pocket at the front of the bullet when you swage it. The tip doesn't have to be open, just have air immediately behind it. The second is to choose a body style with a short ogive and a pronounced boat tail, think M80 ball. Hoot

Hoot:

Got it backwards. M-80 has a very long ogive for its overall length and a short boat tail. However, that combination does make it pretty unstable when it strikes something but it still must penetrate close to a foot of gel before it starts to tumble. The old 5.56 M-193 had the same basic shape. The problem with these shapes is that they are not real good in exterior performance due to their design either.

LR1955

[LR1955]

I am interesting in promoting the idea of a long-range intermediate military cartridge capable of replacing both 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO rounds.

In order to be "Geneva legal" without getting into lots of arguments with lawyers, the bullet needs to be of the FMJ, non-fragmenting type - definitely not with an open tip. The wounding mechanism will therefore mainly be via rapid and reliable yaw and upset on impact: the bullet should start to yaw within about two inches of entering a body, and should have entirely turned over and be travelling backwards by about 12 inches.

The problem is, I have read in a British report that in a gel test by Alexander Arms of an FMJ bullet fired from a Grendel case, it did not start to yaw until after penetrating several inches, which is not good enough.

So I really have a two-part question here:

1. Is it possible to design a low-drag 6.5mm FMJ bullet of around 120-125 grains which exhibits rapid and reliable yaw and upset on impact?

2. Is it possible to achieve the same performance using a lead-free bullet, since that seems to be a growing military requirement?

Tony:

In answer to your questions. I am sure both are possible. I am also sure the same can be done with 5.56 and 7.62 at a much lower cost. And I am also sure that what ever design got developed that it would not increase battlefield lethality.

For the lead free designs, that too is possible. The same is possible with 5.56 and 7.62.

Same goes for designing something that starts to yaw in two inches. Am sure it can be done given enough money. The result would probably be dollar a shot ball ammo whose hit probability is less than a similar redesigned 5.56 and 7.62 because anything it hits on the way would result in it becoming grossly unstable.

Still haven't commented on some new VLD design ball round out shooting surface danger zones on ranges. Or the basic weakness of the Grendel bolt and the lack of reliable magazines.

LR1955

[Tony Williams]

The British analysis I was reading reckoned that a relatively long bullet with a sharp point rather than a flat meplat (but not so sharp as to be easily damaged) aided rapid upset. Obviously, a steel core helps to increase the length but it needs to stay below the 6:1 L/D ratio.

Another solution was used by the old British .303 inch Mk VII ball, which had a light-alloy (or other lightweight) tip filler, putting the centre of mass well to the rear.

My intention is not to increase battlefield lethality or range over the 7.62mm M80, but to match them in a smaller and lighter-recoiling package which could also replace the 5.56mm.

I don't see why such a bullet need be any more expensive than the M855A1 or even the M855, which are already complicated bullets to make.

If there is a problem with the range being too long for some places, then the approach already in place for .50 cal (and being developed in 7.62mm) can be adopted: design a training bullet which matches the trajectory of the ball round out to a certain distance, then loses stability and falls to the ground much sooner than usual.

I'm not specifically arguing for the Grendel gun or even the ammo, but for a long-range medium-powered round somewhere in the 6.5-7mm calibre range. The Grendel is currently the closest available round at the bottom end of that range, which is why I'm interested in it: it would make a good test-bed.

[stanc]

It's true that the Norma 120gr FMJ load tested by AA did not begin to yaw until about 7 inches into the gel block.

As for your questions, I'd say:

1. Yes. By using either a two-piece core with lightweight (aluminum?) front and lead rear, or perhaps a design similar to that of the WWII 6.5mm Jap bullet.

2. Maybe. Although substituting copper or other non-lead material may not produce as rapid onset of yaw.

[LR1955]

If there is a problem with the range being too long for some places, then the approach already in place for .50 cal (and being developed in 7.62mm) can be adopted: design a training bullet which matches the trajectory of the ball round out to a certain distance, then loses stability and falls to the ground much sooner than usual.

Tony:

The Training Practice rounds have been done in various forms over the decades and unfortunately it is a very expensive failure, both mechanically and in terms of realism in training.

OK -- if you only want to match 7.62 Ball -- why would you want a VLD?

A true VLD has so many design flaws that it would be an extremely poor choice for any organization that depends on mass produced ammunition and weapons. VLD's are hard on dies and harder to get to shoot well as the shooter must tune the seating depth to suit his individual rifle and this changes as the throat gets eroded. I used to make some true VLD's in .30 caliber and you have big problems with them because they also need to be shot at a pretty specific speed for you to see a difference in any practical terms. This is because with a true VLD you don't have any rounded area before the shoulder of the bullet that the air can flow over easily. It hits a pretty abrupt junction between tip and shank and if that speed is too high or low, you get some severe drag from the tip and that junction. Not a good idea.

Yes, reducing the meplat down to a needle point does increase a ballistic coefficient and the results are impressive when reading them from a ballistics computer. In terms of real use, compared to the open tip match bullets or even a FMJ, it may have meaning to some competitive long range shooters but for military or hunting purposes, it has no meaning aside from perhaps more penetration. Providing the tip isn't bent when it cycles through the weapon and all the tips are made absolutely perfectly.

A hybrid design between a tangent and secant ogive is an option and I would bet the current issued M-80 and 855 use a hybrid design. So, that one is a probable. 123 Lapua, AMAX, SMK are (I believe) hybrid ogives. OK then a 110 - 120 grain 1.2" long 6.5 with a hybrid ogive of 7 or 8 and a boat tail of some length where by the shank is still long enough for mechanical advantage even in barrels that are heavily worn -- probably around 3/10th of an inch.

Now you got to invent a powder that will push that bullet out a 16" barrel at 2700 fps with chamber pressures under 45K and then you will match the issued M-80 but you won't surpass it to any significant degree unless you can hit 2800 or more FPS.

Or, you can issue the guys a 77 grain 5.56 load for their carbines and be done with it.

LR1955

[Tony Williams]

To match the long-range (up to 1,000m) performance of the 7.62 M80, in terms of retained energy and other metrics, with a smaller and less powerful cartridge requires a bullet with a better ballistic coefficient than the M80's. The 123 grain Lapua Scenar seems to do that job very well in the Grendel, so it's a matter of getting close to the BC of the Lapua with a mass-produced FMJ military bullet.

As far as 77 grain 5.56's are concerned, I have the strong impression that no calibre smaller than 6.5mm is likely to prove acceptable as a replacement for 7.62mm, in terms of penetration and terminal effectiveness. The Chinese tried to make a universal cartridge with their 5.8x42 (in light and heavy loads), but their army is hanging onto their 7.62x54R MGs.

[JASmith]

As far as 77 grain 5.56's are concerned, I have the strong impression that no calibre smaller than 6.5mm is likely to prove acceptable as a replacement for 7.62mm, in terms of penetration and terminal effectiveness. The Chinese tried to make a universal cartridge with their 5.8x42 (in light and heavy loads), but their army is hanging onto their 7.62x54R MGs.

Tony, you are probably on the mark with the 7.62 observation. The debates here haven't gone to the level of detail as they have in your Military gun and Ammunition forum. For this reason, not everyone here will instantly concur.

Further, it would seem that there is wisdom to carrying more than one hypothesis forward until at least the time a new cartridge is adopted by one or more significant military. The value added is that, especially if your position is ultimately shown to be the best realizable option. the debate will have shown that and the adoption decision will be more clear-cut.

This would suggest at least one hypothesis that has the 7.62 maintained as the "heavy" and a "light" that is somewhat more capable than the current 5.56 NATO.

One of the "light" options could well be something like the 77gr MatchKing that LR1955 mentioned and that the reporting indicates that it is be liked and respected by the troops using it.

Another might be a larger case in either 5.56mm or 6mm.

[stanc]

One of the "light" options could well be something like the 77gr MatchKing that LR1955 mentioned and that the reporting indicates that it is be liked and respected by the troops using it.
Joe, that doesn't seem like a viable option for Tony's goal. I'm pretty sure that the Brits consider hollowpoints (whether of the fragmenting type, like Mk262, or expanding, like Mk318 and "brown tip") to be in violation of the Hague treaty.

[JASmith]

Joe, that doesn't seem like a viable option for Tony's goal. I'm pretty sure that the Brits consider hollowpoints (whether of the fragmenting type, like Mk262, or expanding, like Mk318 and "brown tip") to be in violation of the Hague treaty.

Stan,

You are correct. The 77 gr Matchking is a place-holder for the longer term solution. A convention-compliant bullet needs to be the core of the discussion. Also, our marksmanship guru points out that bullets of the MatchKing quality are not likely to be manufacturable in the quantities we need. Further, those manufacturing limitations will likely also result in less aerodynamic efficiency. Both the aero efficiency and terminal effectiveness goals push us to longer and heavier bullets with the 77 gr 5.56 being at the low end.

That's part of the reason I mentioned the slightly larger case. We can get the effectiveness of the high quality 77 gr bullet with a somewhat heavier but less efficient cooper-steel bullet driven at the same or slightly higher velocity. I can see this logic pushing us into 6mm...

Remember also that Tony is searching for a universal infantry cartridge to replace both the 5.56 and the 7.62 in infantry roles up to and including the GPMG. He has it right that the 6.5 120+ grain class of bullet is the minimum likely to be seen as a viable 7.62 replacement for the GPMG. Problem is that it stresses the assault rifle role and we still have the vehicle and aircraft-borne 7.62 inventory. The vehicle and aircraft-borne weapons community, given a choice, would likely opt for retaining the 7.62 but enhancing the ammunition.

[Tony Williams]

Remember also that Tony is searching for a universal infantry cartridge to replace both the 5.56 and the 7.62 in infantry roles up to and including the GPMG. He has it right that the 6.5 120+ grain class of bullet is the minimum likely to be seen as a viable 7.62 replacement for the GPMG. Problem is that it stresses the assault rifle role and we still have the vehicle and aircraft-borne 7.62 inventory. The vehicle and aircraft-borne weapons community, given a choice, would likely opt for retaining the 7.62 but enhancing the ammunition.

Yes, that sums it up well, but I'd make a few additional points:

1. The 5.56mm is an unreliable performer (in terms of penetration and terminal effectiveness) even at short ranges, so a bigger and more powerful round would be desirable even if there were no call for a significantly longer range. This is what led to the 6.8mm Rem. So any "ideal" assault rifle round would have more ammo weight and recoil, by definition.

2. The recoil of a rifle with an intermediate round in the 1,800-1,900 ft/lb energy zone (probably the minimum for a "universal" cartridge) doesn't feel much worse than 5.56mm, and feels a lot less than 7.62mm. I say this after firing HK416, HK416/6.8 and HK417 in quick succession. So it should still be controllable in burst fire if needed in a short range emergency.

[LR1955]

Gene:

I don't see any mention of wanting to use a VLD in Tony's posts. :confused:

FWIW -- a year or two ago, I asked on the IAA (cartridge collectors) forum about M80 projectile shape, and was informed by one of the knowledgeable individuals that it has a secant ogive.

Stan

Stan:

Tony said "Is it possible to design a low-drag 6.5mm FMJ bullet of around 120-125 grains which exhibits rapid and reliable yaw and upset on impact?"

This implies VLD all the way.

LR55

[LR1955]

To match the long-range (up to 1,000m) performance of the 7.62 M80, in terms of retained energy and other metrics, with a smaller and less powerful cartridge requires a bullet with a better ballistic coefficient than the M80's. The 123 grain Lapua Scenar seems to do that job very well in the Grendel, so it's a matter of getting close to the BC of the Lapua with a mass-produced FMJ military bullet.

As far as 77 grain 5.56's are concerned, I have the strong impression that no calibre smaller than 6.5mm is likely to prove acceptable as a replacement for 7.62mm, in terms of penetration and terminal effectiveness. The Chinese tried to make a universal cartridge with their 5.8x42 (in light and heavy loads), but their army is hanging onto their 7.62x54R MGs.

Tony:

This one shouldn't be too hard to figure out. How much better does the 6.5mm bullet have to be before it shows a quantum improvement in exterior and terminal performance?

Start out with defining what that quantum improvement is and the rest will be easy to solve -- on paper.

What must the BC and velocity be to match in exterior terms and then multiply by about 50% before anything can be proven in real terms. When that is solved, then look at powder technology and finally bullet construction.

LR55

[stanc]

To match the long-range (up to 1,000m) performance of the 7.62 M80, in terms of retained energy and other metrics, with a smaller and less powerful cartridge requires a bullet with a better ballistic coefficient than the M80's. The 123 grain Lapua Scenar seems to do that job very well in the Grendel, so it's a matter of getting close to the BC of the Lapua with a mass-produced FMJ military bullet.
According to Lapua's numbers, the 108, 123 and 139 grain Scenars, and the 144 grain FMJBT, have BCs in approx the same proportion to their weight. If the same length is retained for a 123 grain FMJBT, it should have a BC close to that of the 123 Scenar: 0.527

[Tony Williams]

Tony:

This one shouldn't be too hard to figure out. How much better does the 6.5mm bullet have to be before it shows a quantum improvement in exterior and terminal performance?

Start out with defining what that quantum improvement is and the rest will be easy to solve -- on paper.

What must the BC and velocity be to match in exterior terms and then multiply by about 50% before anything can be proven in real terms. When that is solved, then look at powder technology and finally bullet construction.

LR55

My approach is a bit different: I would start with the bullet, because its characteristics are the key to the success of any new round. There are two main aspects to this success:

1. Terminal effectiveness, in terms of straight-line penetration through various intermediate barriers (including car windscreens, a real headache for 5.56mm) plus rapid and reliable yaw and bullet upset on impact (I'd like to see the bullet begin to yaw within a couple of inches of penetrating a body, and completely turn over in order to travel backwards within 12 inches).

2. Exterior ballistics, in terms of a rate of velocity loss significantly less than 7.62mm M80 (probably around 0.50 BC).

With the bullet design settled it would then be easy to work back from the requirement to match the retained energy of the 7.62mm M80 at 1,000m, in order to decide what the muzzle velocity needs to be. The next stage would be to calculate the propellant load to achieve this MV in a specified barrel length, and therefore the case capacity, and finally the form of the cartridge.

This approach could be applied to any calibre, of course, but I think that the 6.5-7mm range looks the most promising. A 7mm round would probably show more reliable terminal effectiveness than 6.5mm at the cost of more ammo weight and recoil, and a steeper trajectory; you pays your money and takes your choice...

[stanc]

2. Exterior ballistics, in terms of a rate of velocity loss significantly less than 7.62mm M80 (probably around 0.50 BC).

With the bullet design settled it would then be easy to work back from the requirement to match the retained energy of the 7.62mm M80 at 1,000m...
We did some similar calculations on the old 65grendel forum. With the superior BC of a 123gr 6.5 Grendel load, it's easy to exceed 7.62 M80 energy @ 1000 meters. The trouble is that at the closer distances (<500 meters) where most infantry combat occurs, 6.5 Grendel doesn't come close to matching 7.62 M80 retained energy.

[Tony Williams]

We did some similar calculations on the old 65grendel forum. With the superior BC of a 123gr 6.5 Grendel load, it's easy to exceed 7.62 M80 energy @ 1000 meters. The trouble is that at the closer distances (<500 meters) where most infantry combat occurs, 6.5 Grendel doesn't come close to matching 7.62 M80 retained energy.
No argument with that Stan, but it really doesn't have to - at closer ranges it merely has to show a substantial improvement over the close-range calibre (the 5.56mm) in barrier penetration and terminal effectiveness, which should be no problem!

[RangerRick]

No argument with that Stan, but it really doesn't have to - at closer ranges it merely has to show a substantial improvement over the close-range calibre (the 5.56mm) in barrier penetration and terminal effectiveness, which should be no problem!

One thing that hasn't been discussed here in detail is barrel length. Is it possible to have one cartridge that will perform well in a 16 inch bbl for riflemen, in a 22-24 in. bbl on a squad machine gun like the M249, and of 28 in. (or more) in a heavy bbl version of the SAW for a platoon machine gun?

Designated marksmen could carry a rifle with 20-24 inch bbl with a PRS type butt and good optics.

What is the point of diminising return on bbl length in the 6.5 Grendel?

In a pinch, riflemen could break down linked belts to load mags or machine gunners could use magazines in the mag wells of the SAW.

[Tony Williams]

Barrel length is an interesting and somewhat controversial issue.

Clearly, if you adopt a general-purpose cartridge with excellent long-range potential, it makes sense if the gun you use it in is capable of exploiting that potential. Which is to say, has a barrel long enough to develop the velocity the round is capable of. On the other hand, the current trend with rifles is to use ever-shorter barrels in order to keep the guns compact for urban warfare and clambering in and out of cramped vehicles.

So there would seem to be three options:

1. Select an intermediate length barrel (say 16 inches) which isn't quite short enough to be really handy and isn't quite long enough for good long-range performance.

2. Choose a modular gun with a quick-change barrel and issue both short and long barrels - and hope that your troops don't get caught with the wrong barrel fitted if the tactical circumstances change suddenly.

3. Choose a bullpup, and for the same length gun enjoy a barrel eight inches longer than with a traditional design. This is by far the most logical choice, but the US seems to have something against bullpups...

[noone]

With the "big bolt" that is now available, pressures for the Grendel round could safely be increased. But, along with increased pressure would come increased cost for licensing of the big bolt's production. However, if a military was interested in this concept, I'm sure they could pay for licensing it.

That still leaves the issue of designing a bullet. There was one Nato country that deliberately used a very brittle 7.62x51 bullet and jacket design that was made to tumble shortly after entry, and break in half at the cannelure. Then there were at least two bullet fragments making at least two wound channels. This could also be done with a 6.5mm bullet.

As long as the money was available for research, I don't see any reason why a bullet couldn't be made with two cannelure type indentations so it would break into three pieces each weighing around 40 grains.

[JASmith]

No argument with that Stan, but it really doesn't have to - at closer ranges it merely has to show a substantial improvement over the close-range calibre (the 5.56mm) in barrier penetration and terminal effectiveness, which should be no problem!

I think Tony's point is on the mark. The challenge is to define the metrics so that we can go a tiny step beyond qualitative (read intuitive) comparisons and work toward quantitative assessments. We also need to remember that bullet design makes a huge difference. The good news here is that what is doable in 5.56 is also transferable to 6, 6.5, 7, and 7.62. The converse is largely true up to limits of scaling. For example, we won't necessarily be able to have the same ratio of meplat to bullet diameter in the 5.56 as we do for the 7.62 and maintain large-scale manufacturability.

This logic suggests that we ignore results that depend on a specific bullet design and focus on design potential as the caliber-based metric. For example, kinetic energy density is a good metric for comparing the potential for bullets of the same design to perforate thin barriers. Similarly, the momentum density is a good metric for penetration depth potential.

Lethality potential is a slightly more controversial subject. Fackler's and others studies show that the shape and size of the wound is an important indicator of average lethality. A lot of folks like to use kinetic energy to assess lethality. The problem is that KE does not give even a hint of the shape of the wound channel. For that reason, I lean toward a metric that captures both the penetration potential and the amount of material to cut a permanent wound channel. The metric is the product of the bullet mass and the momentum density. Go to http://shootersnotes.com/battle-rifle-cartridge/ii-terminal-effects/ for more detail and a reference to Fackler's work.

My own assessments suggest that matching or exceeding the penetration and perforation potential of the 147 grain 7.62 bullet is easy in the smaller calibers. The lethality metric is more challenging because the smaller calibers carry a significant bullet mass penalty.

I've tried a couple of different metrics that use direct comparisons to existing rounds, e. g., M855 at 25 meters, M80 at 1100 meters, etc. , but at specified longer ranges. For example, one can ask the new cartridge to have a 600 meter lethality potential at leas as great as that of the M855 at 25 meters. These tend to be a challenge and the outcome suggests that the choice of threshold metric will have a tremendous influence on the calibers, bullet weights, and muzzle velocities that survive the filter.

I'm open to suggestions, and am intrigued by LR1955's suggestion to go 50% greater than the current standard (e. g., the M855 at the same range as the new cartridge). This would stress the perforation and penetration potential but might bring the required lethality metric more in balance with the other two.

[Tony Williams]

There was one Nato country that deliberately used a very brittle 7.62x51 bullet and jacket design that was made to tumble shortly after entry, and break in half at the cannelure. Then there were at least two bullet fragments making at least two wound channels. This could also be done with a 6.5mm bullet.

As long as the money was available for research, I don't see any reason why a bullet couldn't be made with two cannelure type indentations so it would break into three pieces each weighing around 40 grains.

The German ball bullet fragmented violently, but I'm not clear whether this was deliberate or accidental.

The problem is that the "Geneva legal" requirement excludes fragmentation (the British 5.56mm L2A2 ball has a thicker jacket than the original L2A1, specifically to reduce the probability of fragmentation).

Which is why I'm so concerned that the bullet must yaw rapidly on impact. If it just punches a neat hole straight through, then the effectiveness will be limited unless it hits something vital. If it yaws rapidly and travels sideways through much of the body it will tear a much bigger wound channel, giving a greater chance of hitting something vital or of rupturing enough blood vessels to cause more rapid bleed-out. A long, low-drag bullet will tear a bigger wound than a short one when it's sideways, which in an intermediate calibre would compensate to some extent for the reduction in calibre and mass (the 123 grain 6.5mm Lapua is longer than the 7.62mm M80).

[stanc]

The German ball bullet fragmented violently, but I'm not clear whether this was deliberate or accidental.
I'm inclined to think it may not have been deliberate, but rather incidental to using mild steel as jacket material. US M80 Ball has been produced in two flavors, one with a relative thick jacket of gilding metal (which yaws, but does not fragment), and the other made of thinner, mild steel (which yaws and does fragment!). I've seen belts of Vietnam-era M80 that had GM jackets, and other belts with steel jackets (it varied according to manufacturer). All of the recent M80 I've seen has had steel jackets.

[stanc]

FWIW, attached is the wound profile of the .303 MkVII.

[Tony Williams]

Thanks Stan, the .303 seems to compare pretty well with other FMJ bullets, although an even earlier onset of yaw would obviously be preferable.

[LRRPF52]

Tony,

I might suggest that most of what is read about 5.56 not being effective, even at close ranges, is totally opposite of what I've personally seen with the cartridge in real world wound ballistics on enemy combatants and "friendly" fire incidents. As a rule, every 5.56 injury/death I have been able to analyze has been characterized by unusual tissue destruction, and generally avulsive (ripped/torn/pulled flesh) effects to soft tissue and extreme bone fragmentation. I have seen countless magazine articles pre-texting an argument for a new caliber with statement about how "Everyone knows the deficiencies of 5.56 on human targets", etc., which is why the credibility of most gun rags has dropped to "not worth picking up" for me anymore-even though I grew up on a healthy reading diet of them.

I've seen 5.56 M855 canoe a man's head, shatter arms, legs, pelvis's, and feet, sometimes after going through thin walls and bouncing off SAAPI plates. Most of those have been fratricidal, unfortunately. Is it my number one choice for making 400-500m shots? No, it isn't-but it is for most of what a rifleman would encounter in the engagement distances that riflemen are tasked to operate in, while next to their SAW, MG, and DM counterparts. I don't like thinking of shooting much else in the house or courtyards-especially as the caliber increases.

I really like the 6.5 Grendel as a cartridge that pretty much duplicates 7.62 NATO ballistics, but with much less weight, recoil, and a smaller receiver/magazine system. I do not think of the 7.62 NATO as a 1000m-capable cartridge, though it is often listed as such. I think 600m is a more realistic distance for 7.62 NATO and the Grendel, having shot both of them enough to reach that conclusion in realistic wind conditions. I have made much farther hits with match .308 loads out of trick rifles, but the winds were dead or canceled at chance opportunities in my favor for those hits, and they were rarely 1st-round.

I recently wanted to test the lighter weight 123gr Scenars in my .260 Rem out to 700 yards (640m), running them at higher velocities. Even at 2960 fps, I was disappointed in the 123 Scenar at that range out of my custom 22" GAP AR10. I had much better results with the 130gr Berger VLD's going 2850 fps, but the same ballistics program showed the 123's doing better for wind deflection at that distance. I was skeptical, but needed to see the actual results for myself. With the shifting wind speeds, even by maybe 5 mph at half value, I was still one-minute of wind off target either way at 700 yds with the 123gr Scenar. A Grendel will never get a 123 near that speed, so I would list the 600m range as a limit for 1st round hit probability with the Grendel for a highly-trained shooter/spotter team with 10 mph winds. A standard rifleman would just be spitting in the wind...

It would be nice to have a Lightweight Belt-fed Machinegun in Grendel to replace the M240 GPMG for dismounted soldiers, if a lower-cost bullet could be made for it with a long tracer endurance like the 7.62 tracer. That would allow SAW gunners and 240 gunners to carry the same MG, creating a new class of machine-gunner, who is capable of supporting the Squads and Platoon without losing current capabilities. Maybe a larger case-capacity would be best for the MG, but then barrel life would most likely suffer. I've made this argument before about more of a need for a lightweight Universal Machinegun, not a replacement for the M4 carbine. We need LMG's that allow Joe to shoot and move with his buddies carrying lightweight carbines, not a new carbine.

LRRPF52

[Tony Williams]

Thanks for taking the time to post that. I don't have any personal experience of examining 5.56mm wounds, and I don't doubt what you say. I've also been careful (I hope) to say that, according to the large number of reports I've read from both combat and lab testing, the problem is not that the 5.56mm is ineffective (because it can be extremely effective) but that it is not reliably effective. Of course, no bullet will put down a man first time every time, but the 5.56mm seems to fail more often than most, for reasons which have been demonstrated in gel tests - that unless it is already yawing before impact, it will punch a small hole straight through. The figure I have seen from test results is that 85% of the time, the M855 bullet does not even start to yaw after impact (if it yaws at all) until it has penetrated at least 4.7 inches of gel.

That's on top of the other issues, to do with the 5.56mm's poor barrier penetration, lack of suppressive effect and lack of effective range (which different military sources put at anywhere between 200 and 400 metres, depending partly on barrel length).

These issues with the 5.56mm form only one of three reasons to consider a long-range intermediate round to replace both 5.56mm and 7.62mm.

The second reason is, as you mention, to replace 7.62mm guns and ammo with something with a comparable long range performance but with significantly less weight and recoil. This motivation has been moving up the agenda in recent years, given the nature of the fighting in Afghanistan, and is now arguably stronger than the case for replacing 5.56mm.

The final reason is the advantages in replacing two calibres and weapon families with one. This would halve the number of different firearms which an infantryman has to become familiar with, saving money on procurement, training and support. It also ensures that all infantrymen are equipped with a rifle or LMG which can be effective at any range, should the tactical circumstances change suddenly, and everyone in a section will be carrying the same ammo (which some soldiers I have heard from regard as an important advantage).

Whether anything will come of all this I don't know, but the calibre debate within the US military and small arms community seems to be hotting up, in the light of the recent ARDEC report and the reported decision over LSAT. I am observing with interest!

[JASmith]

Tony,

Before you go too far into mea culpa, many of the events recounted by LLRPF52 involved the bullet hitting something immediately prior to entering the body. This means that the bullet is highly likely to be significantly yawed and possibly even upset by the prior impact.

The conclusion one can draw is the almost universally accepted one -- "The 5.56 does well within the first 100 or so meters."

The question we should address might be "How far out do we want the the new cartridge to have the potential for the effects described by LRRPF52?"

I would also concede that this question might be mooted by the desire to have the lethality at least equivalent to that of the 7.62 M80 round at 1100 meters.

[LRRPF52]

Gents,

I must clarify that there was only one event that involved 5.56 penetrating a thin barrier. The rest were all from muzzle to target. Basically, with the single barrier incident, a SAW gunner was left outside a light-framed building when he should have followed his team, which was the trail team in an Airborne Infantry Squad of 9 men. The lead team had already penetrated the building and pushed into a 2nd room. The SAW gunner from the lead team fired a burst into a plastic E-type target, and the rounds went through the wall, which was made of thin plywood that was dried out from the extreme heat. His forearm and leg were severely injured with significant tissue destruction, bone fragmentation, and blood loss. He survived, but looked like Frankenstein in the areas that needed reconstructive bone and various other surgeries.

That was from a Commando barrel SAW pushing M855. His radius and ulna in the left arm looked like someone had completely fragmented each bone, with only the styloid processes, radial head, and olecranon process of the ulna being recognizable on his x-rays. Our medics and PA used ace wraps to form compressive pressure dressings, and evac'd him successfully. He ended up with pins forming his radius and ulna in that arm, and I think the soft tissue damage to his leg just left heavy scarring and some muscle tissue loss. The PA said it looked like at least one round had skipped the SAAPI plate on his IBA. That could explain the yawing, as I doubt that there was much yawing after going through such a thin piece of wood. There were some direct connects without the SAAPI plate involved though.

I have also seen M855 cut through very thick and wet trees in Panama like they weren't even there, which really surprised me, so I'm skeptical of many of the claims about weak barrier penetration with that round on trees, although I know it is quite limited on cinder block and solid brick. All I know is that after seeing that, most trees went from being "cover" to only "concealment" in my mind. I would not count on a tree to protect me from 5.56 or any other high power rifle caliber.

The guy that got his head canoed was in the Korean Peninsula, and he was a bona fide bad guy. A ROK Army soldier shot him with a Daewoo K2 with the South Korean made M855, which is manufactured to the same specs. That incident really woke me up to the reality of what 5.56 can do, and nothing anybody says about it will change that. As far as reliable performance goes, every person I have seen that took a 5.56 round had a very bad day. I have rarely seen or heard any of my friends complain about a clean 5.56 injury and the resulting ineffectiveness, though I readily admit my experience is limited to less than a dozen incidents where I was able to witness the details of those injuries/deaths on actual human targets.

Gel tests will rarely correlate to humans, since there is such a wide quality in tissue density and dimension on human torsos, arms, and legs. Gel tests rarely involve bone simulation, or body heat, and they don't compartmentalize the various layers of fascia, sinew, connective tissues, vessels, skin, etc.

What this means from a practical standpoint in my mind is that I lean towards the school of thought where I divide the human target into thirds, and aim for the smallest point within the center third of center of mass, regardless of how the target is presented, and put as many well-placed rounds into that point until the target goes down, regardless of what caliber is being used. That is what I taught soldiers I was responsible for, and many of them have used that concept with lethal results.

If we want catastrophic hydrostatic effects on human tissue at even 400m, you are pretty much talking about .338 LM with some type of projectile that would at least toe the line of the Hague, unless you use API. For an assault rifle, I think 100m is the threshold of expecting that type of performance since you need at least 2700fps to make that happen with FMJ's. That doesn't bother me at all, as long as Joe can put a hole that bleeds well in his target past 100, and carry plenty of it with minimal space/weight.

For AOR's commonly found in Afghanistan, it might be appropriate for small unit leaders who deal with dismounted patrolling to spill in a heavier mix of 7.62 rifles/carbines, but not too heavy. You could also equip DM's with SPR's and the Mk262, but the real area of weakness as far as weapons goes is the weight and portability of the M240. It would really be great to have a smaller pig that duplicates 7.62 ballistics, with less recoil and lighter ammo. That is what would make Joe happy, because it would increase the maneuver capability of gunners and the unit overall, so effective suppressive fire could be brought into play against the well-coordinated far ambushes that are the forte of the Muj/Taliban.

LRRPF52

[JASmith]

LRRPF52,

Thanks for the excellent clarification!

Your discussion helps sharpen my thinking! I lean toward finding a cartridge that can take the near-muzzle lethality of the M855 and push that lethality level out to slightly beyond where one can reasonably expect to get reliable hits. For some, that range is about 7 meters, for others it is much further, but enough folks would like to see 400-500 meters that this makes a good starting point for discussions.

There's a lot in terminal effects on humans and real-world barriers that we just can't accurately model. That's why I try to use metrics like momentum and energy density coupled with a reasonable lethality metric. My favorite is the product of the bullet mass and the bullet momentum density to give a measure of penetration depth (momentum density) and material available to create a permanent wound channel (the mass part of the expression).

The bullet design is also important, but the critical first step is to assure that it has the right combination of mass and velocity so that the design can work!

Anecdotal observations like yours go a long way toward anchoring the though processes. Thanks again!

[stanc]

It would be nice to have a Lightweight Belt-fed Machinegun in Grendel to replace the M240 GPMG for dismounted soldiers, if a lower-cost bullet could be made for it with a long tracer endurance like the 7.62 tracer.
I don't know for sure what trace distance might be possible with 6.5 Grendel, but some indication might be had from that of 6.5x55 m/41 tracer, shown as 800 meters:

http://www.amkat.se/index.php?Env=Ammo&Menu_A=30&Menu_B=60&Menu_C=20&Menu_Value_A=6,5x55&Menu_Value_B=Tracer&Menu_Name=Tracer

As for a "lower-cost" ball projectile, that's another question. If the US Army stays with the exposed-penetrator configuration of 5.56 M855A1 and 7.62 M80A1, a similar 6.5mm bullet would have similar cost.

Attached: 5.56 M855A1 / 6.5 "M2065A1" :cool: / 7.62 M80A1

[LRRPF52]

Stan,

My opinion is that this whole push for environmentally-friendly ammo is simply the entrenched communists within our national "leadership" using the economic warfare angle against us under guise of environmental friendliness. Regardless, Joe will have what he has to do the job. I have no issues with M855 as it is for general use. Designated Marksmen should have Mk262 available to them.

The longer 6.5 bullets could provide the same tracer burn or comparative to 7.62 NATO, and 800m will cover most engagements with the belt-fed guns, but will require a longer bullet to house the magnesium for a good burn. A larger bolt with 3 huge lugs like the Sako 75 would help run a higher pressure load if the Grendel were used in a belt-fed MG. Since there are so many restrictions on machinegun ownership, we are limited in how much RDT&E we can do because of the costs associated with obtaining an 07 mfg license under an FFL, whereas we can tinker around with this cartridge in our AR's all day long.

As far as future assault rifles go, I don't think we should get so hung up on the caliber for that, especially as the trend moves to more and more modular systems with caliber-change options that can be determined by the purchasing authority of whoever is buying them (read as countries, not subordinate commands). As for the US, I think the M4 works great, but just needs a rifle-length free-float tube and the A1 trigger mech. That burst system has got to go. The focus should really be on reducing weight for the guys carrying belt-fed weapons, and something like the Grendel seems to show promise in at least providing a replacement for the current 7.62 NATO GPMG's, and maybe even the SAW at the same time.

I say this having carried and employed the M60, SAW, and M240 at different stages in my career-all from a dismounted perspective where it was SOP to distribute linked 7.62 to other members of the Platoon or Squad. 100rds of linked 7.62 weighs at least 7 lbs, and the basic load for the gun was usually 800-1200 rounds for the 2-3 man gun team. Units in the Afghanistan AOR that conduct dismounted patrols have been sacrificing basic loads due to the weight of the IBA, plus the thin air in many high altitude locations. When guys from the 505th PIR got back from their deployment there in 2002, they briefed us in the 325th AIR on their kit selection, and said that they actually were reducing the basic load of riflemen significantly to cut weight.

LRRPF52

[LRRPF52]

LRRPF52,

Thanks for the excellent clarification!

Your discussion helps sharpen my thinking! I lean toward finding a cartridge that can take the near-muzzle lethality of the M855 and push that lethality level out to slightly beyond where one can reasonably expect to get reliable hits. For some, that range is about 7 meters, for others it is much further, but enough folks would like to see 400-500 meters that this makes a good starting point for discussions.

There's a lot in terminal effects on humans and real-world barriers that we just can't accurately model. That's why I try to use metrics like momentum and energy density coupled with a reasonable lethality metric. My favorite is the product of the bullet mass and the bullet momentum density to give a measure of penetration depth (momentum density) and material available to create a permanent wound channel (the mass part of the expression).

The bullet design is also important, but the critical first step is to assure that it has the right combination of mass and velocity so that the design can work!

Anecdotal observations like yours go a long way toward anchoring the though processes. Thanks again!

JASmith,

All I know is that when I pick up an M4 or AR in 5.56, I have respect for the capacity it has to do some seriously ugly damage or lethality, especially if using thin-jacketed M193 and M855 or similar loads on the hotter end of the scale. Most soldiers are not able to make 400m hits with RDS-equipped sticks in a dynamic scenario with stress, which is why belt-fed weapons and Designated Marksmen or Sniper Teams shine at those distances. What I saw over several different light infantry units was that only about 25-50% of Infantry soldiers could reliably make the 300m hits on the standard qualification range in fairly stress-free conditions with recently-zeroed weapons in sunny weather and fresh chow in their guts.

Maybe magnified optics increases that hit probability, but we were using Elcans on the M240's and SAWs back then, which worked out well, except for the weight. I saw guys in Ranger Regiment who would mount 4x ACOG's on the 240's, which is a much lighter solution than the M145 Elcan. I just start to naturally lean to discussing belt-fed weapons again without even intending to when we talk about those distances, unless we're talking about DM's and Sniper Teams, which usually located themselves with the support-by-fire position where the 240's were located for planned attacks at the Platoon or higher level. If I had not spent 10 years with dismounted Infantry and Airborne units, I think my posts would look entirely different than they do, focusing more on the caliber solution, versus a holistic solution that includes training and employment, weapons, equipment, doctrine, procurement, RDT&E, mindset, etc. That is not meant to distract from the equipment/weapons portion of the solution in any way, but it helps to have the context in mind that these weapons will be employed in before jumping the gun. I just wish we could be testing a Grendel LMG right now...

LRRPF52

[JASmith]

LRRPF52,

There are others who share your views on the holistic approach. In spite of the impression given by my comments, I am one of them, although my technical R&D background would lead me to describe the interrelationships terms of interrelated systems.

Cheers!

[VASCAR2]

Regardless of which firearm is being employed I think the projectile and velocity is maybe slightly behind the users ability to employ the weapon effectively. I put a lot more emphasis on training and tactics than a particular bullet in most cases from a law enforcement perspective. One shooting I'm familiar with involved a local officer armed with a 20" barrel AR 15 with 55 grain ballistic tips. The subject was running and the round penetrated the subject in the buttocks area whereupon the subject fell to the ground. The subject then became compliant and was taken into custody even though this varmint bullet exhibited varmint bullet penetration and tissue destruction. This subject fully recovered from being shot with no permanent disability. Personally I like some of the newer bonded core JSP bullets which are now employed by a lot of police departments. From all my research the 5.56 in use by US police has been very effective where most subjects are stopped. I think the bonded core bullets are penetrating barriers like automobiles better than some of the older designs. I think the 6.5 G would make an excellent LE cartridge but I just don't see it happening when the 5.56 has been a big step up in performance for the local uniformed or tactical police officer in the US. With the lack of funding and training budgets I can't see LE transitioning to a different rifle/carbine caliber anymore than the US military. From my personal experience I felt a lot better armed with my 16" AR 15 than any other weapon I'd previously employed as a LEO. I would have gladly used my 16" 6.5 Grendel AR but I felt fortunate to have an AR15 in 5.56 the last few years where I was permitted to carry this weapon. The 5.56 with the proper ammo probably makes a better LE weapon than it does a Military weapon due to the fact LE departments don't have to comply with the Hague convention rules on bullet design which are a crock!

[stanc]

The longer 6.5 bullets could provide the same tracer burn or comparative to 7.62 NATO, and 800m will cover most engagements with the belt-fed guns, but will require a longer bullet to house the magnesium for a good burn.

Since there are so many restrictions on machinegun ownership, we are limited in how much RDT&E we can do because of the costs associated with obtaining an 07 mfg license under an FFL, whereas we can tinker around with this cartridge in our AR's all day long.
Yeah. One way it might be possible to tinker with a belt-fed is maybe conversion of an RPD or Czech vz52 LMG. However, I dunno if the taper of 7.62x39 links would work with the straighter Grendel case.

The only other option I see is to build a 6.5 upper similar to that of the 5.56 Colt "LMG" and put it on a full-auto lower. Not entirely satisfactory, to be sure, but perhaps it might be good enough to serve as a "test bed" of sorts? (This idea was discussed on the old forum, wherein Variable expressed an interest in trying it, but only if it could be done to his standards... ;) )

[Tony Williams]

On the subject of barrier penetration, I found this interesting account:


Jason Gillis, a former Army staff sergeant, first witnessed the M855’s shortcomings in 2004 on the streets of Baghdad. He was a squad leader with 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, on patrol when a vehicle began speeding toward his unit.

After several warnings, “both of our M249s opened up instantly, forming a crisscross pattern of tracer that met at the vehicles engine compartment and windshield. Within seconds, riflemen and grenadiers were executing magazine changes while the vehicle kept rolling and finally stopped 10 meters from my lead troops,” Gillis recalled in an e-mail to Army Times. He is now a freelance writer who often focuses on military small-arms issues.

“Assuming the driver was most likely riddled beyond recognition, we were all astounded to see the driver emerge from the vehicle completely unscathed,” Gillis wrote. “Closer inspection revealed that the M855 ammunition had failed to effectively penetrate the vehicle’s windshield despite the fact over 400 rounds were expended at extremely close range and on target.”


I have read similar complaints about barrier (in general) and windscreen (in particular) penetration from a study of combat experience carried out by the Royal Marines last year (which included the SBS - their SEALS). This study showed that only about half of the Marines consulted felt that the 5.56mm ammo was "fit for purpose"; there was a majority view that an intermediate round could solve these problems; and that if that wasn't possible, they tended towards entirely replacing 5.56mm with 7.62mm. This wasn't just due to the longer range, but to greater effectiveness even at short ranges (they have a new 7.62mm rifle, the L129A1, and really like it).

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Image103.jpg

[LR1955]

I have read similar complaints about barrier (in general) and windscreen (in particular) penetration from a study of combat experience carried out by the Royal Marines last year (which included the SBS - their SEALS). This study showed that only about half of the Marines consulted felt that the 5.56mm ammo was "fit for purpose"; there was a majority view that an intermediate round could solve these problems; and that if that wasn't possible, they tended towards entirely replacing 5.56mm with 7.62mm.

Tony:

And I would say well over 90% of this is anecdotal and pure opinion. Lets see the empirical studies.

A Soldier will always opt for what looks cool but when you run them through the simplest of evaluations you find that the chances of them actually hitting anything is small and gets smaller as the recoil and blast increases.

You will find that in most cases a Soldier will get the notion a cartridge sucks because he isn't hitting anything and blames the cartridge when he probably never even zeroed his carbine (happens more often than you may think) and otherwise is a lousy shot. Another one is that Soldiers will tend to believe that just because a cartridge is bigger such as 7.62 vs 5.56, that it must be better.

In the case of intermediate penetration and terminal effects, I tend towards scientifically run experiments more than a Joe's opinion. I have seen way too much over the years to trust the opinions of most (not all) military folks when it comes to small arms capabilities. There are some I do trust -- but most I don't.

Bottom line is that one has to prove a quantum leap in hit and kill probability before anyone will take a new cartridge seriously.

So, what would define a quantum leap in hit and kill probability?

LR1955

[Tony Williams]

And I would say well over 90% of this is anecdotal and pure opinion. Lets see the empirical studies.
I would say that there are three types of evidence which can be taken into account:

1. An accumulation of anecdotes from soldiers in combat (one by itself means little, if there are lots which are mostly saying the same thing, then it's worth paying attention). Given the immense burdens that they have to carry, I don't believe that soldiers would be willing carry the extra weight of 7.62mm guns and ammo (as they are, in both US and UK armies) unless they were satisfied that it was worth it.

2. Laboratory tests (there seems to be some sort of objection to testing ammo on live people, so substitutes like ballistic gel need to be used for comparison). Fackler and Roberts have both demonstrated the poor performance of 5.56mm.

3. The many attempts to improve the performance of 5.56mm, including MK262, MK318 SOST, M855A1 (and, of course, the 6.8mm Rem). If M855 were satisfactory, why bother to put in all this effort to improve on it?


Bottom line is that one has to prove a quantum leap in hit and kill probability before anyone will take a new cartridge seriously.

Not necessarily, if there are also other reasons for considering a change (e.g. to get a lighter round than 7.62mm, and to get one standard round, as I mentioned). And not at all if you're adopting a new technology like LSAT, where you're starting from scratch with all-new guns, ammo and production lines anyway. Then you might just as well go for the best solution, which as ARDEC recommended would be 6.5-7mm, and as JSSAP seems to have accepted in rejecting 5.56mm LSAT. But we can't expect the US Army to go for an intermediate LSAT unless the performance of the calibre has already been demonstrated in conventional form.

[noone]

Anecdotal reports are discounted in drug testing, and other types of testing because they are so often biased. The only truly useful data will come from actual testing in both field conditions, and lab conditions. These tests must use not only gell, but also actual tissue such as pig or goat carcasses. By combining both the lab, field, and carcass testing, we can get a reasonably accurate prediction of how a bullet will likely perform.

However, this kind of testing is very expensive, and time consuming. Unless a military is already looking for a new cartridge, or if someone is interested in selling a new cartridge, this testing is very unlikely to be done just out of simple curiosity.

This type of testing also gets us away from hit probability as a factor. It is presumed that the bullet will performed based on placement. Trying to predict a bullet's effectiveness based on the varying degree of marksmanship that the troops demonstrate, is sort of like predicting who will win the Indy 500 based on driver's skill, without considering vehicle performance...or like predicting the race based on vehicle performance without considering driver performance.

If we presume the same amount of marksmanship, or drivers skill, in either case, the bullet with better performance, and the vehicle with better performance will be superior.

[LR1955]

I would say that there are three types of evidence which can be taken into account:

Laboratory tests (there seems to be some sort of objection to testing ammo on live people, so substitutes like ballistic gel need to be used for comparison). Fackler and Roberts have both demonstrated the poor performance of 5.56mm.

The many attempts to improve the performance of 5.56mm, including MK262, MK318 SOST, M855A1 (and, of course, the 6.8mm Rem). If M855 were satisfactory, why bother to put in all this effort to improve on it?

Not necessarily, if there are also other reasons for considering a change (e.g. to get a lighter round than 7.62mm, and to get one standard round, as I mentioned). And not at all if you're adopting a new technology like LSAT, where you're starting from scratch with all-new guns, ammo and production lines anyway. Then you might just as well go for the best solution, which as ARDEC recommended would be 6.5-7mm, and as JSSAP seems to have accepted in rejecting 5.56mm LSAT. But we can't expect the US Army to go for an intermediate LSAT unless the performance of the calibre has already been demonstrated in conventional form.

Tony:

How about a citation for the Fackler and Roberts test, the ARDEC and the JSSP reports? If you can, include the page numbers.

You ask "If M855 were satisfactory, why bother to put in all this effort to improve on it?"

Show me were the issued M-855 failed to meet its requirements when it was tested and accepted in the early 1980's? You know that it did met the requirements set for it and that these requirements were based on ground war against the Soviets in Europe. The requirements changed, doctrine changed, training changed, and so we adapted.

And, instead of going through an immense RDTE process, we bought commercial bullets that had already been tested via the mechanism of capitalism. And, they work!

LR1955

[JASmith]

My wife did a master's in school nursing a few years back. My own experience and education has been in the technical arena where testing and statistics means verifiable, repeatable and quantitative measurement. Imagine my shock and dismay when I found that much of the statistics developed in education and the psychological arenas are derived from anecdotal reports.

Yes, it appears that appropriate controls and qualitative measures can be imposed on a body of anecdotal reports so that they generate actionable insight. Biggest challenge is eliminating bias from the assessment.

I remember reading the gun magazines and books of the '50s when the .17 caliber craze first got started. There were discussions of the effect of the tiny bullet on donkeys. For example, a chest hit resulted in "the blood coming out as a single organ." It sounded like we had found a magic pill and my younger brother even bought one.

A long time and a fair bit of experience later I will admit I'm biased in favor of a larger bullet -- and that that bias is largely due to having seen a whole host of anecdotal reports from both the hunting and the military world. I cannot say, however, that my own reading and study is an appropriate statistical analysis.

[LRRPF52]

Jason Gillis, a former Army staff sergeant, first witnessed the M855’s shortcomings in 2004 on the streets of Baghdad. He was a squad leader with 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, on patrol when a vehicle began speeding toward his unit.

After several warnings, “both of our M249s opened up instantly, forming a crisscross pattern of tracer that met at the vehicles engine compartment and windshield. Within seconds, riflemen and grenadiers were executing magazine changes while the vehicle kept rolling and finally stopped 10 meters from my lead troops,” Gillis recalled in an e-mail to Army Times. He is now a freelance writer who often focuses on military small-arms issues.

“Assuming the driver was most likely riddled beyond recognition, we were all astounded to see the driver emerge from the vehicle completely unscathed,” Gillis wrote. “Closer inspection revealed that the M855 ammunition had failed to effectively penetrate the vehicle’s windshield despite the fact over 400 rounds were expended at extremely close range and on target.”

That was my Brigade. If I think he is who I think he is, I went to basic training with the guy 10 years before that. It makes sense that we were the same rank, but he must have been in another Battalion. Anyway, it doesn't surprise me at all that his SAW gunners lit up the engine compartment of the car and had no connection with the driver. The M4 and 203 gunners could have been dumping mags in a mad minute at the car all day long, but since they probably were shooting from a kneeling position or standing position in the scenario described for the 1st or 2nd time in their lives, I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't getting any driver hits.

You have to realize that at that time, we almost exclusively did marksmanship training from the foxhole supported, or prone unsupported positions. In addition, we would conduct some really lacking CQM (Close Quarters Marksmanship) drills run by people who usually didn't know anything about CQM, unless they had been to SOT while they were back in Ranger Regiment. Even if we did have guys who were subject matter experts in CQM and CQB, the command climate in my battalion was so screwed up that the SME's (Subject Matter Experts) were rarely given the opportunity to cross-pollinate their knowledge and experience in formal training sessions.

Even with the CQM training that I received, being a gun guy, having been through much more marksmanship training in several Scout Sniper Platoons, I couldn't hit the kill zone on a man-size target at less than 75m from a kneeling position with my RAS-equipped M4 during live-fire MOUT exercises, and one of my former Ranger Regiment Team Leaders under me couldn't either. I want to blame the loss of zero or barrel flex associated with the RIS, or something else, but the sad reality is that we didn't ever run marksmanship training that duplicated those scenarios and shooting positions, and practical marksmanship is one of the most perishable skills.

I'm pretty sure we weren't connecting on target effectively because we had the wooden mannequins that were suspended in the houses with 550 gut (the white string within paracord) that was run through a 4" hole and tied to a balloon in the dummy's stomach, wearing BDU's. You lean the target slightly so that a lot of pressure is on the balloon in his or her chest area, so that when a projectile sails through, the target reacts by crumpling to the ground. I have seen instances where during freezing temps, the balloons just don't deflate since they are frozen in their blown-up size, but several more hits will make them collapse enough to slip through the hole and the target will drop at least some.

Another indicator that day in my/our lacking in CQM abilities was that I couldn't even hit a half silhouette target at maybe 15m while moving from the woodline to the first shoot house, and I was supposed to be the leader of my Squad. Reason: I had never trained on shooting moving targets like that with my M4, because we were doing parades, trash pick-up, area beautification, guard duty, and spending more time in starched BDU's and highly-polished jungle boots. I got into USPSA and 3-gun shortly thereafter, and I could make those hits now easily with my pistol, but you see where I'm going with this...

Now ask yourself how many of those Joes had ever shot at a moving target under stress ("You're gonna die if that vehicle gets close enough to you!!!) from alternate shooting positions with IBA on and sleep deprivation. I'll tell you: They probably never did. We occasionally did exercises in the 82nd where these levels of performance were demanded or expected of us, but we had never really done any formalized CQM training to support the building blocks that need to be in-place before we could produce any acceptable levels of individual and collective performance in them.

Another caliber with more recoil and less mag capacity might have gotten them killed in the above-mentioned scenario if the poor driver had actually had a VBIED. My understanding is that there have been some fundamental changes in marksmanship training, the leadership climate, and the underlying culture that created a lot of these problems, but I'm not sure about the 82nd. That unit had some serious leadership issues in the higher echelons that severely limited junior leaders in taking risks or conducting enough realistic training. If you talk to any E-5, E-6, or E-7 who wasn't raised in the 82nd, you'll hear the same thing. The Joes are fresh out of high school, so they are like clay ready to be molded. Most of them are hard-chargers who want to take names and are very patriotic. Some of the officers we had were great leaders who were the same, but most seemed more concerned about their personal careers, were risk-aversive, and were content upon hiding behind the whole airborne mentality that supposedly made us better than our light infantry counterparts in 10th Mountain, 101st, 25th ID, and the few light units in 2nd ID. My experience was that we trained to our METL (Mission Essential Task List) jobs in those light units way more than we did in the 82nd, but were Airborne, you see...

It really came down to the leadership climate at Brigade, Battalion, and Company levels. Some Battalions had a former SF Battalion Commander and a Sergeant Major from CAG. I can tell you right now that those guys trained like it was real around the clock, and had a great time and were quite lethal in OIF1. If you had a non-performer for a BC, a reject for a BN SGM, you were pretty much suckin' when it came to training, unless your Company Commander and 1SG were gifted at conducting good training under battalion's noses, which is not likely. (Try hiding 150 swingin' Joes from the BN weenies...)

You see how this is not a caliber issue though...

LRRPF52

[HANKA]

Liberty Ammunition has a video addressing the 5.56 vs. windshield issue: http://www.libertyammunition.com/Lead_Free_Ammunition/LIBERTY_T.html .

Of course, it's "sales and marketing" and not rigorous, unbiased testing, so take it for what it's worth.

I've seen a lot of dog and pony shows come and go. I think of how various gun makers heap mud or sand on their completely sealed AR and then pull the gun out of the mud or sand, shake it off, fire a few rounds, and we're supposed to be impressed that their weapon has passed some kind of extreme conditions test.

Glop mud or spray sand INTO the receiver and then we'll talk. . . . But I digress. . . .

John

[stanc]

Bottom line is that one has to prove a quantum leap in hit and kill probability before anyone will take a new cartridge seriously.
Gene, can you please cite a .mil document for that claim?

How about a citation for the Fackler and Roberts test, the ARDEC and the JSSP reports? If you can, include the page numbers.
Roberts http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

p. 15 Gel tests (100 meters, thru glass)
p. 16 Wound profiles (bare gel)
p. 17 Gel tests (3 meters, thru loaded AK mag)

...instead of going through an immense RDTE process, we bought commercial bullets that had already been tested via the mechanism of capitalism.
Only partly true. In 5.56mm, the 77gr SMK has seen limited use, and the 70gr TSX, very limited use. However, an immense RDTE process was done to create M855A1 and Mk318.

[stanc]

IMO, some of the wound profiles shown below give a good idea of what's possible for non-deforming bullets.
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Images/DocGKR/40052-MilitaryAssaultRifleWPcopy.jpg
To achieve early onset of yaw, it seems necessary to have rearward weight bias in the projectile. There appears to be two ways to achieve this:

1. A long-for-diameter, streamlined bullet -- such as 6.5 Grendel -- needs an air space in the nose. See 5.45x39 M74 profile for example.

2. In a short-for-diameter, not so streamlined projectile -- such as 6.8 SPC -- an air space in the nose in not so vital; the bullet shape seems to "want" to yaw relatively quickly after impact. See 7.62x39 M67 profile. (The Yugo M67 is a lead core, flat base bullet that is shorter than the original Russki M43 steel core, boat tail design.)

Terminal Performance

I have found only a few test results of 6.5mm and 6.8mm FMJ ammunition.
Awhile back, Silver State Armory tested a 6.8mm 101 grain "penetrator" that was reportedly of the same steel tip/lead core configuration as 5.56mm M855.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/68mm101grpenetratorvsM855againstste.jpg
As shown above, the 6.8 FMJ (101gr M855-type) displayed pretty good terminal effects after punching through a thin steel plate. However, when fired into bare gel, wound profile was reportedly little or no better than for M855.

Attached: Gel tests of 6.5 Grendel 120gr FMJ and 6.8 SPC 115gr FMJ, both with lead core bullets. Note that the 6.5mm bullet was neither developed for the cartridge, nor designed to yaw, which explains the undesirably long (7") neck. The 6.8mm projectile had better (3") neck length, but still longer than the (>1") ideal.

Conclusion: Designing a streamlined, non-deforming, non-fragmenting, 6.5mm bullet that -- when fired at Grendel velocities -- will deliver terminal performance substantially superior to 5.56 NATO seems likely to be a great challenge.

[LRRPF52]

I just watched an interview with Mossad Ayoob back in 1990, where he was asked about which caliber/bullet is best for incapacitation. His response was that there is no such animal because there is no statistical, empirical baseline from which that question can be answered scientifically. He did say that he prefers the use of hollow points made to tight QC standards where bullet performance was predictable as far as velocity and expansion are concerned.

When I first saw the diagram displayed above, which is an artist's rendition of military assault rifle wound profiles dating way back (with added representations of Mk262 & 6.8 SPC), I remember how it contrasts with the large black book of forensic documentation of actual wounds that I studied back in 1998. This leads us back to the "no empirical data" position again. We can gel test all day long, but the gel tests don't incorporate bone or tissue segmentation which is fundamental to human and mammalian anatomy. They might give us a theoretical baseline from which to compare projectiles with each other, but how do we interpret that data to come to conclusions on what the projectiles will do on tissue?

Can we agree that the information is limited, but not totally useless? For example, when viewing this forum before the crash, I saw a lot of guys in the hunting thread say that they would never use the Nosler 100gr Ballistic Tips for hunting except on varmints, because it is basically explosive on tissue. Guess what my next purchase was? After I do some testing with the Nosler 100gr BT on certain mediums, it just might be in my bedside gun if I can reliably say that I have a significantly reduced capacity to endanger anyone beyond the intended target in a home defense scenario. Since the US uses the Hague guidelines, despite our signatory status, the Nosler BT is out of the question as far as I understand it.

Regarding rear weight bias projectiles such as the 7N6 (5.45x39mm original production), 7N10, 7N22, and 7N24, there are differences in the shape of the armor penetrator, but they all have a hollow nose cavity. The Russian guys I have spoken with who actually have used and do use AK74-based weapons in the Caucasus region said they had some problems with the 7N6 exhibiting radical ricochet characteristics that were lethal to friendlies, especially when supporting troops who were assaulting a building entry point, and the RPK-74 gunners and riflemen would lay down fire in front of the guys getting ready to go in. This resulted in the development of the 7N10 and higher projectiles that use a tungsten rod versus a sectional steel/lead core.

This is the design that interests me the most, and could be great for a barrier blind/tissue expansive device. Now find someone to manufacture such a bullet, test the prototypes, decide if it's worth pursuing, and move from there. If such a projectile could demonstrate a better of both worlds performance over M855, Mk262, and AP even, that would gain the military's attention, provided it could be done at reasonable costs.

LRRPF52

[stanc]

We can gel test all day long, but the gel tests don't incorporate bone or tissue segmentation which is fundamental to human and mammalian anatomy. They might give us a theoretical baseline from which to compare projectiles with each other, but how do we interpret that data to come to conclusions on what the projectiles will do on tissue?
Shoot hogs? That's what the 6.8 guys tout as the ultimate test medium, and (IIRC) the Swedes also shoot anesthetized pigs (in addition to ballistic soap) to test bullet performance.

Since the US uses the Hague guidelines, despite our signatory status, the Nosler BT is out of the question as far as I understand it.
So far. However, the USMC is currently using expanding bullets (Mk318) in Afghan combat, so perhaps someday bullets like the Nosler BT will be considered acceptable.

[LR1955]

Gene, can you please cite a .mil document for that claim?

Stan:

That gets into my personal experience with the RDTE system. If your cartridge only 'compares to' what ever it is intended to replace then you will not get anywhere as what exists is good enough. To get the attention of people, it must present a quantum improvement. What is quantum? In the early 90's it meant doubling hit probability and lethality to 300 or 500 meters (I can't remember which) given an 'average trained rifleman'. However it is my opinion that the Infantry School put this out because they weren't interested in going through another M-9 Pistol circus so they asked for something that couldn't be done to please Congress who insisted they bring up the lethality issue with the service rifle.

So, in reality the subject is much more than simply designing a cartridge and rifle that does everything and weighs nothing. If you want to get someone's attention, prove to them that your cartridge and rifle combination fired by an average rifleman can do everything you demand of it twice as well as what is already on hand. Do that and you have something going that may cause a change within the next ten or fifteen years.

That said, I sure do agree that a larger diameter bullet and more powerful cartridge should have been chosen in the late 1950's but it wasn't. Sure, a 6.5 or 7mm would have been a better bet but my bets are that even these two choices would be under severe criticism today for one reason or the other. If it wouldn't concern the weight of the ammunition it would be lethality or hit probability.

You see, no one will be satisfied with anything for long. Lets say we went to a 7mm which is something I would agree with like Tony. Within a few years as the novelty wore off and guys entered the service with no 5.56 experience, the complaining would start about recoil, noise, ammunition weight, over penetration / not penetrating enough / not penetrating and then being able to stop an African Elephant in full charge / not penetrating the frontal armor of a T-80 / not good for CQB / etc.

And I agree, the issued 855 is not a good choice for the type of doctrine and conditions we face today. However it was an ideal choice to meet the demands when it was designed and produced.

LR1955

[stanc]

Gene, nicely summarized. Thanks.

Stan

[RangerRick]

..., so perhaps someday bullets like the Nosler BT will be considered acceptable.

The plastic tip will have to go. One of the Hague Convention requirements is no materiel that is hard to spot in X-Rays.

[bwaites]

The plastic tip will have to go. One of the Hague Convention requirements is no materiel that is hard to spot in X-Rays.

That's an easy fix though, put some metal fragments in the plastic or use radioopaque plastics, they are cheap and easily done.

[JASmith]

The plastic tip will have to go. One of the Hague Convention requirements is no materiel that is hard to spot in X-Rays.

If I recall correctly, the Hague convention was originally enacted in an era where X-radiography was an emerging science. Is this a recent update?

Would it be possible to point us to the relevant paragraph in the current document?

[stanc]

If I recall correctly, the Hague convention was originally enacted in an era where X-radiography was an emerging science. Is this a recent update?
No. It's not in the Hague accords. It's the Geneva convention which bans bullet components that are X-ray translucent.

[JASmith]

... It's the Geneva convention which bans bullet components that are X-ray translucent.

Is there a link to the current version?

I wonder if any of our participants have enough background in interpretation of the law to do a non-binding pro bono review of the language and generate a summary of constraints? That review and summary could go a long way toward minimizing confusion and blunting wishful thinking.

The result would add relevance to the discussions and greatly assist Tony on his side of the pond and some of us on this side when we make our case to decision makers.

[LR1955]

No. It's not in the Hague accords. It's the Geneva convention which bans bullet components that are X-ray translucent.

Stan:

Don't tell me that we will walk this path again. Man, that topic went on for a while on the last forum.

LR1955

[JASmith]

LR1955

I believe we're interested in the same objective.

Absent a definitive summary of what is and is not allowed by the conventions, we fall prey to continuing speculation about "what if the bullet could..."

Tony's challenge is presenting a cartridge concept that will provide the desired effectiveness under the rules his nation is obliged to work under.

I see way too many references to US practice, including egregious extensions of that practice, in a thread motivated by UK and European needs.

So, the request for a more or less definitive summary is an attempt to keep the thread on track.

JASmith

[stanc]

Is there a link to the current version?
IIRC, I did read it online, but it was some years ago and I didn't consider it important enough to record the URL. Can only suggest google... :D

I wonder if any of our participants have enough background in interpretation of the law to do a non-binding pro bono review of the language and generate a summary of constraints?
As I recall, the Hague restrictions are quite specific, and those (i.e., the US JAG) who "interpret" it do so because they want it to mean something other than what it says. :rolleyes:

And Gene, that's all I intend to say on the subject. ;)

[LR1955]

I wonder if any of our participants have enough background in interpretation of the law to do a non-binding pro bono review of the language and generate a summary of constraints? That review and summary could go a long way toward minimizing confusion and blunting wishful thinking.

The result would add relevance to the discussions and greatly assist Tony on his side of the pond and some of us on this side when we make our case to decision makers.

Joe:

Not being a wise guy but why? The US has already determined that open tip match bullets are legal in combat. That happened circa 1991 if I recall correctly. Sure, one can argue the case either way but that argument was settled twenty years ago. For service ball, I doubt anyone is going to use an open tip match bullet due to cost.

Now, you better believe any potential enemy of ours will argue in the international courts to ensure we do not ever use a lethal bullet so what every design anyone tries to make according to international conventions will be argued in a court no matter what. It was done throughout the entire era of the various 5.56 bullets to include that hated 'Green Tip' M-855.

So, let me suggest that we get a bullet design that meets what ever requirements someone has in mind. Or maybe it would pay off more for someone here to specify the requirements for this bullet first and do it technically and specifically. Once the requirements are clear, then the design stuff can happen.

LR1955

[RangerRick]

LR1955

I believe we're interested in the same objective.

Absent a definitive summary of what is and is not allowed by the conventions, we fall prey to continuing speculation about "what if the bullet could..."

Tony's challenge is presenting a cartridge concept that will provide the desired effectiveness under the rules his nation is obliged to work under.

I see way too many references to US practice, including egregious extensions of that practice, in a thread motivated by UK and European needs.

So, the request for a more or less definitive summary is an attempt to keep the thread on track.

JASmith

Here is the Army Judge Advocate General's (JAG) deskbook on the Laws of war. It's a pdf document so you can search it. The x ray restriction is about fragmenting weapons, but a strict interpretation can include rifle bullets, as they can fragment. It has some stuff about the SMK.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/deskbook.pdf


There are lots of treaties, conventions, laws, regulations, etc., etc. concerning this stuff with many amendments, so it gets complicated.

An Army buddy of mine once showed me some 300 Winchester magnum ammo that was "State Department Approved" for sniper work. They cost about $25 each. The requirement was to be able to penetrate the windshield of a 747 and still be accurate enough after penetration to take out a hijacker holding a gun on the pilot without hitting the pilot.

It was a bear to develop because the windshield is so thick and angled. Then the diplomats had to approve it.

[JASmith]

Joe:
...but why? The US has already determined that open tip match bullets are legal in combat...
LR1955
Gene,

I would concur with the 'but why?' sentiment if this were a thread dedicated solely to US interests.

The complication arises because the OP is working for a UK solution, and they have a much more restrictive interpretation. I have my personal thoughts about the wisdom of the interpretation but if we're to give Tony the support he needs we need to stay within the tighter rules.

I know you understand this, but others (including yours truly) occasionally forget!

Joe

[JASmith]

Here is the Army Judge Advocate General's (JAG) deskbook on the Laws of war...
Many thanks! I will use this...

I had run across the plastic restriction in another life, along with arcane things like beryllium.

The challenge for us in this thread, however, is that the question posed by the OP refers to the UK interpretation. I know enough to realize that he is stuck with that more strict interpretation.

[stanc]

The challenge for us in this thread, however, is that the question posed by the OP refers to the UK interpretation. I know enough to realize that he is stuck with that more strict interpretation.
It's been awhile since I read that section of the 1899 Hague dealing with small arms ammo, but I think I'm remembering correctly that it bans bullets which "expand or flatten easily" in flesh.

It's written in plain English. No interpretation needed...unless you want to make it seem as if expanding bullets like TSX and SOST are somehow lawful and don't violate that prohibition.

You're working too hard at this, Joe. It's simple, really. What Tony requires is a bullet that does not expand or fragment, but still rates high in lethality/incapacitation. Terminal yaw seems to be the only mechanism available to meet the specified need. No fragmenting bullets, no "barrier blind" expanding bullets, just good ol' non-deforming FMJ (like the US used to use before the mid-1950s).

[davidj]

Has anyone really thought how absurd this whole concept is. When you get hit it doesn't matter wtf the rules are. The politicians who make the unrealistic rules don't really care what the effect is on you. Believe me ...there is no humane way to kill a person. There is only a timely way to do it.

[stanc]

Has anyone really thought how absurd this whole concept is. When you get hit it doesn't matter wtf the rules are. The politicians who make the unrealistic rules don't really care what the effect is on you.
Yeah, in one sense the restriction on small arms ammo is absurd, especially considering all of the far more destructive weapons on the battlefield.

However, I think the guys who wrote the 1899 Hague agreement actually did care. The standard bullet type used back then (by everybody except the French, who had secretly developed a solid bronze, spitzer boattail projectile) was a round nose, flat base FMJ that penetrated straight through the human body, without yawing, deforming, expanding or fragmenting. If such bullets did not kill, they typically produced an easy-to-recover-from wound. That was in line with the idea that war (between nation-states) is essentially a game, and there is no reason to use bullets that inflict amputating injury, greviously maiming combatants who were wounded but not killed.

Of course, back then all the infantryman had to contend with were rifles and machine guns (and art'y). Today there are RPGs, Hellfire missiles, aircraft bombs, cluster munitions, and a host of other items extremely hazardous to the health. :(

[Tony Williams]

The exact wording of Declaration III of the 1899 Hague Convention is:

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions".

European lawyers interpret this to mean that the jacket must entirely enclose the nose of the bullet. The MK318 SOST definitely fails this test, and the M855A1 EPR technically does. As the EPR is designed to fragment easily, it also gets caught by the Geneva Conventions which prohibit the use of "weapons, projectiles and material and methods of war of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering". This one is so vague it's a lawyers' delight.

Personally, I think that placing restrictions on bullet types like this is ridiculous - but my personal opinion does not matter. This is the situation we are faced with on this side of the Pond, and which caused the UK to introduce a thicker jacket for their 5.56mm because the original fragmented too easily.

So yes, yaw performance is the key to terminal effectiveness, and that is difficult to combine with other requirements. This makes the design of the bullet essential to get right - it's the first priority, and may even determine what calibre the bullet comes in. Everything else follows from that.

Incidentally, some of the more radical types in the International Red Cross (who monitor these things) would like to see bullets which yaw banned as well. In which case, we'd be back to round-nose bullets which rely on calibre to do the job, and the choice would be between a .458 SOCOM and a .50 Beowulf!

[JASmith]

Tony and Stan,

Thanks -- that should have cleared the air!

Cheers!
Joe

[stanc]

So yes, yaw performance is the key to terminal effectiveness, and that is difficult to combine with other requirements. This makes the design of the bullet essential to get right - it's the first priority, and may even determine what calibre the bullet comes in. Everything else follows from that.
How quickly do you want the bullet to yaw? The relatively stubby 6.8mm 115gr SMK has a neck length of a little more than an inch, and the more streamlined 6.5mm 123gr SMK is about 2.5 inches. While both of these are "open tip" designs, and therefore not themselves suitable for your purpose, I think they demonstrate what should be achieveable with similar FMJs.

[stanc]

Tony, if it'll help, the following was originally posted by Bill A back in late 2007.
----------------------------
The attached photograph shows the following projectiles (left to right)

i) 120 grain Berger (Bc=0.492). Thin hard jacket that will fragment easily.
ii)100 grain Lapua Scenar (Bc=0.444). This is the shortest jacket in this projectile class. Note that the nose closure is greater than any of the SMK projectiles and that the lead core is pressed flat on the front. Equally note the jacket weight. The Scenars all have heavy ductile jackets which restrict fragmentation but do deform and tumble.
iii)108 grain Lapua Scenar (Bc=0.478). Shares a common jacket with the 123 Scenar.
iv)123 grain Scenar (Bc=0.547) As above note tip closure, jacket weight and core finish.
v)107 grain SMK (Bc=0.407) The jacket is slightly thinner and is less ductile but the tip closure on this projectile are very close to the equivelent Lapua projectile. Note the formation of the lead core at the front into a standing short cylinder.
vi)120 grain SMK (Bc=0.420) The jacket on this projectile is noticably thinner than the equivelent Scenar and even the Berger. This projectile has the most open tip of the 6.5mm projectiles.
vii)123 grain SMK (Bc=0.510) The construction bar core length is practically identical to the 107 SMK. This round does fragment well in gelatine and the tip is well closed. The core extends further into the jacket nose than the 123 Lapua due to a shorter bullet length and the formation of the short cyclinder on the core front seen on all the SMK.
viii) 115 grain 6.8 SMK (Bc=?) This example is pre canelure but shows a heavy thickening as the nose is formed. The lead cylinder on the core front is still present but the stubby ogive has mainly deformed its presence. The nose is well closed but the airspace at the front of the jacket is present.
ix)115 grain Hornady (Bc=0.320) Current production example. Note the jacket weight and the open tip. There is little airspace within this the jacket nose.
x) 115 grain Hornady (Bc=?) Older production example. The jacket is very noticably thinner than the current bullet and the lead core itself carries a cavity, although this is closed slightly by the action of forming the projectile nose.
----------------------------
Unfortunately, I don't recall if Scenar gel tests were ever posted. If such can be had, it would give a better representation of what non-fragmenting 6.5mm FMJ wound trauma would be like.

Stan

[Tony Williams]

Thanks for that, Stan. The 6.5mm Scenar performance looks very good to me - I was thinking in terms of yaw starting after no more than 2 inches and turnover being complete within 12 inches.

If the bullet doesn't deform then replicting that performance with an FMJ shouldn't be too difficult. Doing so in a production ball bullet without losing too much of the ballistic coefficient may be more of a challenge.

And then there's the big unknown - the consequences of using copper+steel-cored "green" bullets.

[JASmith]

As we move forward, we need to think about experimental standards to assess whether a bullet will "...expand or flatten easily in the human body..." This would give us a more objective standard.

The language above uses the term "easily" as a modifier. Further the exposed lead and slits were specifically cited.

So, has the UK already adopted a standard for testing to determine if a particular bullet deforms or flattens easily?

If not, I would suggest the classic gelatin test as a standard. For example, the bullet not deform beyond a specified amount on penetration a gelatin block placed 20 meters from the muzzle for a standard velocity cartridge.

Further, I would argue against including barriers or bone simulators in the gelatin. Any barrier is beyond the scope of the agreement. A rigid projectile impacting bone will generate secondary fragments (chunks of bone) so the additional requirement could be argued as excessive.

[stanc]

I am interesting in promoting the idea of a long-range intermediate military cartridge capable of replacing both 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO rounds.

The problem is, I have read in a British report that in a gel test by Alexander Arms of an FMJ bullet fired from a Grendel case, it did not start to yaw until after penetrating several inches, which is not good enough.

So I really have a two-part question here:

1. Is it possible to design a low-drag 6.5mm FMJ bullet of around 120-125 grains which exhibits rapid and reliable yaw and upset on impact?

2. Is it possible to achieve the same performance using a lead-free bullet, since that seems to be a growing military requirement?
Tony, I should've asked this earlier. I know that on your website you show some photoshopped pics of possible 6.5, 6.8 and 7mm cartridges. Does item 1 above mean that you've settled on 6.5mm? Are you planning to create one or more "wildcat" cartridges to do load development and terminal effectiveness tests? If so, do you intend to have custom bullets made for you?

FWIW, in addition to the 120gr 6.5mm FMJ, Norma also shows a 130gr .270 FMJ and 150gr 7mm FMJ.
http://www.norma.cc/content.asp?Typ=28&Lang=2&Submeny=4&Rubrik=Components

[stanc]

Tony, I was just rereading your "Next Generation" article ( http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/The%20Next%20Generation.htm ) and was intrigued by the following comment:


Ironically, the EM-2's 7x43 cartridge might actually prove to be a good basis for such tests since it has the same case diameter as the 7.62 NATO, so rebarrelling existing 7.62 weapons should in principle be easy. Even the same belt links can be used.

At first, I thought that was a great idea, as one might even be able (albeit at some expense) to buy up enough 7x43 rounds for preliminary testing. Unfortunately, as I looked at the photo of the 7x43 and 7.62x51 side-by-side, it occurred to me that the old .280 British has the same problem in using M13 links as does 6.5 Grendel with the M27 link design, only more so.

I see no way that 7.62x51 links can be used to feed 7x43, because the foward link loop would extend beyond the 7x43 shoulder almost up to the neck. See attached.

[Tony Williams]

Tony, I was just rereading your "Next Generation" article ( http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/The%20Next%20Generation.htm ) and was intrigued by the following comment:



At first, I thought that was a great idea, as one might even be able (albeit at some expense) to buy up enough 7x43 rounds for preliminary testing. Unfortunately, as I looked at the photo of the 7x43 and 7.62x51 side-by-side, it occurred to me that the old .280 British has the same problem in using M13 links as does 6.5 Grendel with the M27 link design, only more so.

I see no way that 7.62x51 links can be used to feed 7x43, because the foward link loop would extend beyond the 7x43 shoulder almost up to the neck. See attached.

Yes, it does - I have some 7x43 dummies in 7.62mm links, made by a small ammo firm in the UK. They tried out a short length of belt by manually cycling it through a GPMG, and reported that the belt and rounds fed just fine (although the rounds obviously then disappeared up the too-long chamber!).

[Tony Williams]

Tony, I should've asked this earlier. I know that on your website you show some photoshopped pics of possible 6.5, 6.8 and 7mm cartridges. Does item 1 above mean that you've settled on 6.5mm? Are you planning to create one or more "wildcat" cartridges to do load development and terminal effectiveness tests? If so, do you intend to have custom bullets made for you?

I have always had a preference for 6.5mm since I think this provides more advantages over 7.62mm than 6.8mm or 7mm would, in terms of weight, trajectory and recoil. Provided of course, that the performance requirements can be met.

However, someone who knows more about bullet design than I do has expressed a view that there could be problems in designing a lead-free 6.5mm bullet of 120-125 grains with the required ballistic coefficient (.500+), since it would be very long, maybe creating stabilisation issues. It might therefore be necessary to drop the BC somewhat, in which case a larger calibre might better suited: it would keep the same overall length but with a lower LD ratio. So I'm keeping my options open.

There are no firm plans yet over developing a round, but confidential discussions are ongoing...

[JASmith]

...someone ... has expressed a view that there could be problems in designing a lead-free 6.5mm bullet of 120-125 grains with the required ballistic coefficient (.500+), since it would be very long, maybe creating stabilisation issues. It might therefore be necessary to drop the BC somewhat, in which case a larger calibre might better suited: it would keep the same overall length but with a lower LD ratio...

Tony,

Getting a bullet to tumble immediately on impacting a soft medium means that you will be working with one that is marginally stable in flight. I suspect you will have stabilisaton issues regardless of caliber.

To the best of my knowledge, the factors of concern for stability are the overall length, bullet weight (or density), velocity, and twist rate. Has anyone looked at the twist rate needed to stabilize a 123 gr solid copper bullet in 6.6mm? There's at least one on-line implementation of the Greenhill formula.

The other, perhaps more challenging, issue is the space taken up bu the long bullet. This favors the smaller bullet.

We can arbitrarily add length to account for voids, trace materials, etc. if it's deemed necessary for the yaw performance and compute the twist needed.

Barnes bullets offers a solid (no-lead) 110 gr bullet with an interesting ballistic coefficient:

.264" 110-gr Banded Spitzer BT SD=.225 BC=.452

They make no special twist rate call-out for this offering. One would think that this bullet is in the right ballpark.

Here's a couple of sources of very long solid bullets in 6.5mm. They might be able to give recommended twist rates based on actual tests:

http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/rifle/banded-solids/
http://www.gsgroup.co.za/sp.html and,
www.thegunroomuk.com
http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/rifle/tipped-tsx-bullet/

[Tony Williams]

Thanks for the links, Joe. The next question is obviously - to what degree can these BCs be replicated in a mass-production military ball round?

[JASmith]

Thanks for the links, Joe. The next question is obviously - to what degree can these BCs be replicated in a mass-production military ball round?
Darn! you've been listening to Gene!

Longer answer is that a mass-production military ball round will probably need to be somewhat heavier to counteract the inevitable compromises. We can estimate based on current and historic experience with production rounds.

[stanc]

I have some 7x43 dummies in 7.62mm links, made by a small ammo firm in the UK. They tried out a short length of belt by manually cycling it through a GPMG, and reported that the belt and rounds fed just fine...
Despite their reported success with manual cycling, I remain skeptical that it would function reliably when fired.

The feed tray on machine guns like the M240 and M249 has a cartridge stop at the right front, which is designed to contact the shoulder of the cartridge to keep the round from going past the feed slot. With no shoulder protruding in front of the link, what will keep the cartridge from "overshooting" the slot and becoming misaligned?

IIRC, the frontmost feed pawl is also placed so that it pushes against the left side of the exposed cartridge shoulder. With no shoulder ahead of the link, what does the feed pawl push against?

[stanc]

I downloaded the Barnes 110gr banded solid photo...
http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/medium/811/811212.jpg
...and took some measurements on the screen. It is almost exactly the same length as the Swedish 113gr AP bullet, and very close to the same shape (except more sharply pointed).

Based on that, it's difficult to see getting a mass production 110gr FMJ with a 0.450 BC, although it can probably be done if weight is boosted to 120gr. Trouble is, a 120gr "unleaded" bullet will likely exceed 5.0 L/D... :(

[stanc]

That unsatisfactory gel test of the FMJ bullet has already been used in a British report on future small-arms ammunition to discredit the effectiveness of the 6.5mm calibre...
Aside from the yet-to-be-answered question if adequate terminal performance can be achieved with 6.5mm FMJ "green" bullets, your mention of that gel test with the 120gr Norma FMJ brings to mind a nagging thought. In regard to using a single, 6.5mm cartridge for infantry, history tells us that it's been tried before, and was found wanting.

All the countries that I know of which used a moderate-velocity 6.5mm round, also had a more powerful, .30-.32 caliber cartridge for machine guns. Also, they all instituted a switch away from 6.5mm, some (such as Sweden) for political or logistical reasons, but others (like Italy and Japan) for perceived inadequate terminal performance.

Now, Italy's change to 7.35mm can be ignored because they used obsolete round-nose bullets in 6.5mm. IMO, they would have been better served by upgrading 6.5 Carcano to a (110-130gr) spitzer bullet.

However, in the 6.5 Arisaka cartridge, Imperial Japan had what is essentially a 6.5 Grendel Magnum. Nevertheless, they still began a changeover to a full-power, 7.7mm round, reportedly as a result of combat experience.

Since you're proposing, in effect, a modernized 6.5 Arisaka cartridge -- with slightly lighter bullet at slightly higher velocity -- what reason is there to think it would fare any better?

[Tony Williams]

Stan, the Japanese 6.5mm Type 38 certainly did not suffer from "inadequate terminal performance"; I have a 1920s book which refers to it as being noted for inflicting unexpectedly severe wounds and I have also read a WW2 US Army medic's report which says the same thing. The weight distribution of the bullet promoted rapid yaw on impact and apparently it also often fragmented at short range.

The reason that the Japanese started to develop 7.7mm guns and ammunition in the late 1920s was for MGs, as you indicate - but in those days indirect MG fire was seen as being a normal tactic with sights adjustable to well over 2,000 metres. At such ranges, a bigger bullet is certainly useful (other things being equal) both for ballistic reasons and for tracer performance. Other countries also introduced powerful new 8mm rounds in the interwar period, primarily if not solely for MGs (e.g. Swedish, Solothurn and Breda rounds).

The Japanese used the 7.7mm calibre in MGs for about a decade before introducing it in rifles, which I suspect they may have done to simplify logistics (some of the new European 8mm MG rounds were introduced in rifles for the same reason - in at least one case 8mm rifles were only issued to MG units). And of course in those days of bolt-action rifles, recoil and ammo weight were a lot less significant than they are in modern automatic rifles.

If I was responsible for designing a new family of small arms around any single cartridge/loading which has seen significant military service, then I would pick the 6.5mm Type 38 without hesitation: its performance characteristics put it leagues ahead of anything else. We should be able to do even better now, though, since we can get the same performance from a smaller case.

[warped]

Stan I am pretty sure that those Barnes 110's could be produced on high speed screw machines, in fact since our country has lost so much of its manufacturing to the Chinese there are an abundance of these machines and some sadly are going to be turned into scrap.

I know this because I live in the worlds largest manufacturing area (well at least it used to be) The Chicago to Rockford area was home to nealry all types of Manufacturing, you should see how many vacant factories we have now. Some of these are in the half million sq ft range.

[warped]

Despite their reported success with manual cycling, I remain skeptical that it would function reliably when fired.

The feed tray on machine guns like the M240 and M249 has a cartridge stop at the right front, which is designed to contact the shoulder of the cartridge to keep the round from going past the feed slot. With no shoulder protruding in front of the link, what will keep the cartridge from "overshooting" the slot and becoming misaligned?

IIRC, the frontmost feed pawl is also placed so that it pushes against the left side of the exposed cartridge shoulder. With no shoulder ahead of the link, what does the feed pawl push against?

If the demand was there it would certainly be addressed and worked out in a speed like you have never seen.

Personally I am of the opinion a high melting temperature polymer link could be made, that or good old fashioned steel, although a polymer would be far lighter.

[JASmith]

Tony,

Thanks! You put a nice historical perspective on the question.

The answer scratches an itch but kind of opens the question of what we really want the new cartridge to do. I haven't yet found a way to properly articulate my thoughts about the MG, but when we think about the notion of dismounted infantry per New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers introduced by LRRPF52, it may be easier.

Should we upgrade the cartridge from the 5.56 NATO to e.g., the Grendel, the LMG will be far more capable. Experience with its use by the infantry would likely result in it supplanting the GPMG in dismounted operations.

Back to the thread topic: I've seen mentions of the wounding potential of the Arisaka. I just found references in one of Stan's posts in another forum: http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter2figure45.jpg that helps illuminate the weight balance. (Ref: http://xcrforum.com/index.php?action=printpage;topic=4981.0).

Attaining the implied weight distribution with a single material may prove to be challenging...

[Tony Williams]

By the way - this is a bit off-topic but it might amuse you.

I was puzzled for a long time as to why the Italians necked-up their 6.5mm Mannlicher case to 7.35mm when they planned the switch to pointed bullets (which of course they had to step back from when WW2 started).

An Italian military historian told me the reason: they were desperately short of money, and had allowed their 6.5mm weapons to get into a bad shape with many having shot-out barrels. They could not afford to replace all those barrels, so they decided it would be cheaper to just ream out the whole lot to a larger calibre and cut new rifling grooves. So that explains the increase, and also the selection of the very odd calibre of 7.35mm...

[warped]

By the way - this is a bit off-topic but it might amuse you.

I was puzzled for a long time as to why the Italians necked-up their 6.5mm Mannlicher case to 7.35mm when they planned the switch to pointed bullets (which of course they had to step back from when WW2 started).

An Italian military historian told me the reason: they were desperately short of money, and had allowed their 6.5mm weapons to get into a bad shape with many having shot-out barrels. They could not afford to replace all those barrels, so they decided it would be cheaper to just ream out the whole lot to a larger calibre and cut new rifling grooves. So that explains the increase, and also the selection of the very odd calibre of 7.35mm...

Wow, what a monumental error, good thing for our guys though.

[stanc]

Stan I am pretty sure that those Barnes 110's could be produced on high speed screw machines...
You may be right. But even if they could, there is still the question of terminal effects. It's likely that the Barnes bullet would produce a wound pattern in gelatin much like that of the Norma FMJ: undesirably deep penetration before yawing. Would need testing to be sure, though.

...in fact since our country has lost so much of its manufacturing to the Chinese there are an abundance of these machines and some sadly are going to be turned into scrap.

I know this because I live in the worlds largest manufacturing area (well at least it used to be) The Chicago to Rockford area was home to nealry all types of Manufacturing, you should see how many vacant factories we have now.
Yeah, that's been a gripe of mine for many years. I've long thought that "outsourcing" so much of our manufacturing is very bad long term strategy for this country, even if good for short term tactics of US corporations.

Oh, well. No nation stays #1 forever...

[stanc]

Personally I am of the opinion a high melting temperature polymer link could be made, that or good old fashioned steel, although a polymer would be far lighter.
The ability to manufacture links is not in doubt. What I question is the ability to design links to properly interface cartridges like 6.5 Grendel with the feed mechanisms of existing 5.56mm LMGs.

Understand, I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm only saying that I don't see how it could be accomplished.

[bwaites]

You may be right. But even if they could, there is still the question of terminal effects. It's likely that the Barnes bullet would produce a wound pattern in gelatin much like that of the Norma FMJ: undesirably deep penetration before yawing. Would need testing to be sure, though.


I agree on the outsourcing of machine work and industry, its no doubt a bad idea in the long run.

As for 110 Barnes terminal ballistics, I've shot them into wood, and most of them, if recovered, look like they could be reloaded and fired again. They aren't capable of penetrating 1/2" steel, at least from the Grendel, though.

They punch a very nice hole through wood, though. I do intend to shoot some into some type of gel, but I seriously doubt they would tumble or upset in their current configuration. I've talked with coyote hunters who use them specifically because they make a small hole entering and leaving, saving the pelt. Doesn't sound like what you want.

I'm sure they could be redesigned to tumble, but suspect they'd lose some of their BC advantage for such a light bullet in the process, though.

[stanc]

Should we upgrade the cartridge from the 5.56 NATO to e.g., the Grendel, the LMG will be far more capable. Experience with its use by the infantry would likely result in it supplanting the GPMG in dismounted operations.
I agree. IMO, that's far more likely to occur than actually replacing 7.62 NATO in the system.

Back to the thread topic: I've seen mentions of the wounding potential of the Arisaka. I just found references in one of Stan's posts in another forum: http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter2figure45.jpg that helps illuminate the weight balance.
Thanks, John. I was trying to remember what book that was in.

Attaining the implied weight distribution with a single material may prove to be challenging...
Indeed. For Tony's interest -- the UK and Europe -- I suspect it will require an FMJ with a two-piece core, as in M855/SS109, although a one-piece core design similar to 5.45 M74 might possibly give the desired results.

[bwaites]

Is it frustrating to anyone else that we can do this easily with hollowpoint bullets, but that we have to intentionally design a compromise? A bullet that meets the Hague criteria in name only? Where the intent is to do exactly what the Hague DOESN'T want it to do, (wound more effectively than a round nose, solid bullet), but not because it was actually designed that way, but because it does it as a function of its accuracy?

Weird business we are discussing!

[stanc]

Well, the British are wierd people... ;)

It's human nature, Bill. Most individuals say they want law and order...until a law interferes with doing something they want. Then they seek a loophole in the law, a legal technicality to enable them to do as they wish.

Same with the Hague prohibition of expanding bullets. Tony (and presumably others in the UK and Europe) wants to remain in technical compliance with Hague, but willfully violate the spirit of the agreement.

The US has gone even further, with the JAG approving expanding bullets like TSX and SOST (which clearly violate the Hague) on flimsy legal arguments like they were selected for "barrier blind" performance, not for expanding in soft tissue. :rolleyes:

Myself, I find it rather amusing. As I've long said, humans are not rational beings; they are rationalizing ones.

[bwaites]

Well, the British are wierd people... ;)

It's human nature, Bill. Most individuals say they want law and order...until a law interferes with doing something they want. Then they seek a loophole in the law, a legal technicality to enable them to do as they wish.

Same with the Hague prohibition of expanding bullets. Tony (and presumably others in the UK and Europe) wants to remain in technical compliance with Hague, but willfully violate the spirit of the agreement.

The US has gone even further, with the JAG approving expanding bullets like TSX and SOST (which clearly violate the Hague) on flimsy legal arguments like they were selected for "barrier blind" performance, not for expanding in soft tissue. :rolleyes:

Myself, I find it rather amusing. As I've long said, humans are not rational beings; they are rationalizing ones.

Trust me, I agree on all of these points!

However, the other piece of the US puzzle is that we AREN'T Hague signatories, so it really doesn't matter. I think its ludicrous that the 100 year old Hague outlaws expanding bullets, but then says nothing about fragmentation mines, grenades, smart munitions that expand, etc. I understand that the smart munitions weren't available, but the guys who wrote the Hague guidelines did know about the others.

[LRRPF52]

"Ok, our civilizations want to wipe each other out, as we conflict on every ideological landscape in human relations. Let's declare war on each other...but we must agree on how we will be doing the killing, bombing, gassing, etc....do all the diplomatic representatives present concur?

LRRPF52

[stanc]

However, the other piece of the US puzzle is that we AREN'T Hague signatories, so it really doesn't matter.
I would agree, except for one thing: While it's true that the US did not sign Declaration III, it has always been official policy that we will conform to it. And we did so for at least the first half of the 20th century.

But, even under Declaration III, the US has always been free to use expanding bullets against other non-signatories (such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban). Since we practice an obvious fiction that we still abide by the Hague ban, I say that is dishonest, at best.

[stanc]

"Ok, our civilizations want to wipe each other out, as we conflict on every ideological landscape in human relations. Let's declare war on each other...but we must agree on how we will be doing the killing, bombing, gassing, etc....do all the diplomatic representatives present concur?
War has rarely been about eradicating the enemy. Rather, it has usually been only about defeating the opponent. Afterwards, everyone chooses up sides again in preparation for the next war.

The Hague composers realized war is essentially a game. In a game, there's no good reason to intentionally inflict unnecessary injury on members of the opposing team. So, war -- like other team sports -- has rules.

[bwaites]

War has rarely been about eradicating the enemy. Rather, it has usually been only about defeating the opponent. Afterwards, everyone chooses up sides again in preparation for the next war.

The Hague composers realized war is essentially a game. In a game, there's no good reason to intentionally inflict unnecessary injury on members of the opposing team. So, war -- like other team sports -- has rules.

Interesting viewpoint.

[stanc]

Interesting viewpoint.
Well, if anybody disagrees with my evaluation, I'm open to other opinions as to why war has rules.

[Tony Williams]

Well, if anybody disagrees with my evaluation, I'm open to other opinions as to why war has rules.

I think that you are basically correct, Stan. The USA had a taste of total war before Europe, in your Civil War, but the first European total war of modern times was WW1 - years after Hague.

The Crimean War, at much the same time as the ACW, is regarded as a pretty bloody affair but even so I recall reading of at least one incident when, on the day before a battle, officers from opposing armies separately decided to ride to a nearby hilltop to get a view. They met by chance at the top and had a civilised conversation before returning to their armies and preparing to kill each other the next day.

[LRRPF52]

Gents,

I like the stories about the soccer games on Christmas during The Great War of 1914-1918, where a ball was tossed out into no man's land, and the Germans, Brits, and French played massive games after singing Christmas carols in the muddy trenches. I think they had one that first Christmas in 1914.

When I was a kid, there was a local diner that had pictures on the wall of an F4U Corsair ace and one of his victories portrayed with the downing of am A6M. The Japanese pilot had survived and immigrated to the US, and lived in the same town if I remember correctly. He signed the artwork, as did the F4U pilot, and they became good friends, frequently meeting there for breakfast and good conversation.

Makes me wish a certain % of politicians would have to participate in a celebrity death match type competition...

LRRPF52

[Tony Williams]

Old enemies often become friends after the war is over - they have a lot in common, after all.

One of my favourite tales concerns an event which took place in North Africa in WW2 when a Messerschmitt 109 fighter, which had been strafing British troops until it ran out of ammunition, took one last pass over the scene to check the damage. A British officer pulled out his .38 service revolver (the most unlikely AA gun ever!) and fired a few shots in sheer frustration. One of the bullets just happened to hit either a fuel or coolant line (I forget which) causing the plane to crash-land before getting back to base.

Decades later, someone followed up this story, discovered that both men had not only survived the war but were still alive, and arranged a meeting. They had a great time together!

[bwaites]

Well, it's not a story of how enemies became friends, or how FMJ's perform, but it's still seriously cool, and another example of how strange things happen!

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nuts/2011/06/best-shot-1911-ever?cmpid=enews060311

[JASmith]

Well, it's not a story of how enemies became friends, or how FMJ's perform...
Hey that was pretty good performance for an FMJ at about 775 ft/sec!

(Velocity a guess based in .45 ACP muzzle velocity and allowing for a very close fly-by.)

[stanc]

As for 110 Barnes terminal ballistics... I've talked with coyote hunters who use them specifically because they make a small hole entering and leaving, saving the pelt.
Thanks, Bill. That's how I suspected it would perform.

The only 6.5mm bullet I know of that displayed relatively early yaw is the 123gr MatchKing, the gel test of which is shown in the lower half of attached photo.

Trouble is, I don't know if the early yaw was caused by:

a. The open tip coming apart due to impact stresses;
b. The rearward weight bias due to the nose cavity;
c. A combination of the above and/or other factors.

[bwaites]

Stan,

Wolf has announced steel case FMJ Grendel with a 110 Grain FMJ similar to the 5.45 7N6 round. That means an air pocket in the nose for rapid yaw if I remember the discussion correctly.

Price, $189/1000.

Per David Fortier, the initial run of steel cases are done, so it will rapidly become a transportation issue.

No one likes to leave steel cases laying around, the insides will rust too quickly, so it would make sense that we'll see them before year end, even with boat shipping.

That said, I'll believe it when they show up!! LOL :)

[stanc]

Bill, that will be too cool for words. Sounds something like a scaled-up version of their lead-core 5.45 bullet. (At right, in attached pic.)

Here's hoping that Wolf comes through, this time. :D

[stanc]

I have read similar complaints about barrier and windscreen penetration from a study of combat experience carried out by the Royal Marines last year. This study showed that only about half of the Marines consulted felt that the 5.56mm ammo was "fit for purpose"; there was a majority view that an intermediate round could solve these problems; and that if that wasn't possible, they tended towards entirely replacing 5.56mm with 7.62mm. This wasn't just due to the longer range, but to greater effectiveness even at short ranges (they have a new 7.62mm rifle, the L129A1, and really like it).
L129A1 in action.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4qnxL_54Ls

[stanc]

Wolf has announced steel case FMJ Grendel with a 110 Grain FMJ similar to the 5.45 7N6 round. That means an air pocket in the nose for rapid yaw...
Yeah. It's too bad that AA refuses to do a gel test with the pre-production FMJ ammo, so we could see how quickly it yaws. :(

[bwaites]

Yeah. It's too bad that AA refuses to do a gel test with the pre-production FMJ ammo, so we could see how quickly it yaws. :(

So they could repeat the whole process when there is some change before the production ammo shows up? Yep, that makes a lot of financial and time sense!:)

Bill is like a long tailed cat in a room full of rockers as it is! He's been working on new barrel profiles for the Grendel, new iterations of the Beowulf, and finishing all the details of the .17 HMR and trying to bring Wayne Holt up to speed on the marketing side so that Wayne can work his magic.

Bill promised me that we would see gel testing, but I hope not until we have a finalized version of the bullet.

[Tony Williams]

L129A1 in action.

Interesting how fast he was firing - not exactly precision sharpshooting!

The Kiwis have bought the same gun only with a 20 inch barrel (instead of 16 inch) and with selective fire (rather than semi-auto).

[stanc]

So they could repeat the whole process when there is some change before the production ammo shows up? Yep, that makes a lot of financial and time sense!:)

Bill promised me that we would see gel testing, but I hope not until we have a finalized version of the bullet.
Do you seriously think that after all the money and time spent developing the 110gr FMJ, they would now change anything about the bullet? Talk about something that wouldn't make financial and time sense.

The projectile design and weight is one of the parameters we are exploring. We are looking towards the best weight for the carbines without compromising down range ability. Equally there is a trade to be made in respect to construction wrt cost, accuracy and terminal performance. Given the market for this, cost will be the driver.

...we completely expect that the 110 grain FMJ will be the bullet used...

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_453/209639_6_5_Grendel_Trademark_Released_and_Steel_Ca ses_In_Hand.html&page=1#i1724603

[JASmith]

Stan,

Recall that we had a long discussion on this topic in the "Testing, Testing" thread.

Bottom Line: There's a whole lot of sound fiscal, marketing, and reputation needs that promote a certain reluctance to prematurely test or to release the results of development testing.

Let's give Bill the space he needs to grow things.

[stanc]

There's a whole lot of sound fiscal, marketing, and reputation needs that promote a certain reluctance to prematurely test or to release the results of development testing.
Oh, balderdash. (Always wanted to use that word. ;))

There's no such thing as premature testing. Testing is necessary to either validate the design, or show the need for changes.

If (as Bill noted in the quoted post above) terminal performance is a concern, they will have to conduct gel tests anyway. I see no reason to not publish the results just as they did a few years ago with the developmental 123gr Sierra MatchKing.

[JASmith]

Don't matter whether it's government or industry tests.

You ain't gonna see them until they decide it's time -- complaining won't do much to change that.

[JASmith]

I have the same want!

...and I feel your pain.

[LRRPF52]

I want a purple Oompa Loompa and I want one NOW daddy!

http://i1085.photobucket.com/albums/j422/LRRPF52/Brat.jpg

[stanc]

Interesting how fast he was firing - not exactly precision sharpshooting!
When he initiated the ambush, his first two shots were more deliberate. Then, when the machine guns opened up, I guess he got a bit excited. Notice that after his first mag change, he forgot to chamber a round. :eek:

The Kiwis have bought the same gun only with a 20 inch barrel (instead of 16 inch) and with selective fire (rather than semi-auto).
Maybe they're planning to use it as an automatic rifle?

[HANKA]

Stan, the thing is that first impressions are everything. For example, the simple conjecture and then internet rumor that 6.5 Grendel won't work in belt-feds has taken on an amazing life of it's own in the Wild West World of the internet. I regularly see 6.8 guys state something like, "So what if the 6.5 Grendel has better long-range ballistics, it's been Definitively Proven that it won't work in belt-fed machine guns."

Internal testing? Yes, obviously. Early and often. Public results of internal testing? No, given the nature of the internet rumor beast.

John

[stanc]

Sorry, John. I just don't buy it. AA published the gel test of the developmental version of the 123gr MatchKing, so I see no rational excuse to not do the same for a gel test that's done of the pre-production 110gr FMJ.

In the seemingly unlikely event that the bullet weight or shape changes as a result of the current testing, then any new gel test results would simply obsolete the old.

First impressions don't matter that much with gel tests. Tests are constantly re-done when changes are made to bullet designs.

As for the belt-feed issue, that's a whole different story. First, I never conjectured that 6.5 Grendel won't work in belt-feds. Other people misunderstood or intentionally distorted what I wrote.

But a gel test photo isn't subject to such errors. It unmistakeably shows onset of yaw, permanent cavity, etc.

[JASmith]

Stan,

We have had a lot of discussions about belt links for the Grendel. Regardless of your own perceptions, insisting that you "won't believe it until you see it" gives the impression that you do not believe it is possible to implement them.

This flavor of writing invites others to improperly use your own credibility when attempting to damn the Grendel.

I strongly subscribe to John's admonition: "Internal testing? Yes, obviously. Early and often. Public results of internal testing? No, given the nature of the internet rumor beast."

These issues are not new, and are among the primary drivers of governmental and industrial protection of information.

[Bill Alexander]

Testing yes, doing the work now. Public results, given the nature of the round as an economy entry I see this as an entirely futile effort.

There are considerably better projectile designs for the task of establishing baseline termianl behaviour

[stanc]

Stan, We have had a lot of discussions about belt links for the Grendel. Regardless of your own perceptions, insisting that you "won't believe it until you see it" gives the impression that you do not believe it is possible to implement them.

This flavor of writing invites others to improperly use your own credibility when attempting to damn the Grendel.
To repeat what I just told John, my observations on 6.5 Grendel belt feeding do not apply to gel test results. Other people can distort what I said about disintegrating links, but they can't look at a wound profile with a 3" neck and say it is actually a 7" neck.

And as I said, AA published the gel test of the developmental 123gr MatchKing -- it didn't hurt anything that they didn't wait for the production version to come out -- so I don't understand this opposition to publishing a gel test of the pre-production 110gr FMJ. I mean, WTFO? :confused:

[HANKA]

First impressions don't matter that much with gel tests.

Au contraire! Again, in the grand laboratory of marketing cartridges on the internet, to which I've had a front-row seat lo these many years, I've seen this firsthand.

The 6.8 developed much of its reputation based on early gel test photos by Gary Roberts using a preproduction Hornady projectile with an "illegal" preformed cavity at excessive velocity. No amount of subsequent "facts" can ever serve to dissuade a significant percentage of 6.8 fans that their cartridge is not the deadliest man-stopper since the invention of the 155mm artillery shell.

First impressions, in regard to gel tests, are everything.

Stan, you're far to reasonable for your own good. You may be able to change your opinions based on subsequent data. The unwashed masses, generally, do not. It is with these that I would concern myself.

AA, ultimately, will do what they want. If I were advising them, and anybody else for that matter, I would never release preproduction data into a very competitive and unfriendly market.

John

[stanc]

Au contraire! Again, in the grand laboratory of marketing cartridges on the internet, to which I've had a front-row seat lo these many years, I've seen this firsthand.

The 6.8 developed much of its reputation based on early gel test photos by Gary Roberts using a preproduction Hornady projectile with an "illegal" preformed cavity at excessive velocity. No amount of subsequent "facts" can ever serve to dissuade a significant percentage of 6.8 fans that their cartridge is not the deadliest man-stopper since the invention of the 155mm artillery shell.
Okay, John -- I must admit, ya got me on that one! :p :D

AA, ultimately, will do what they want. If I were advising them, and anybody else for that matter, I would never release preproduction data into a very competitive and unfriendly market.
But didn't you do precisely that, when you posted the gel test of the pre-production 123gr SMK? And I don't know of any instance where that info has been used against 6.5 Grendel. Do you?

That's why I don't understand the objection to showing the gel test of the pre-production 110gr FMJ. Since you've been one of the staunchest advocates of 6.5 Grendel for military use, I'd have thought you would be right alongside me in wanting to see how a military-type load would perform.

[Tony Williams]

Maybe they're planning to use it as an automatic rifle?

I asked that question, but I was told no, the auto fire option is just a contingency in case they see targets close together (others have suggested it could also be useful in suppressing enemy fire while breaking contact).

[bwaites]

Okay, John -- I must admit, ya got me on that one! :p :D

But didn't you do precisely that, when you posted the gel test of the pre-production 123gr SMK? And I don't know of any instance where that info has been used against 6.5 Grendel. Do you?

That's why I don't understand the objection to showing the gel test of the pre-production 110gr FMJ. Since you've been one of the staunchest advocates of 6.5 Grendel for military use, I'd have thought you would be right alongside me in wanting to see how a military-type load would perform.

Three years or more ago, keeping the Grendel in the public mind was a big deal. New data in the 6.5 vs 6.8 war was being voraciously consumed and debated. The Grendel has matured, with a major manufacturer producing ammunition, Wolf now on the verge or producing another load to go with the MPT, and the release of the Grendel trademark.

Publishing pre-production testing makes little sense. Hunters have multiple commercial loads available now, target shooters have multiple commercial loads available and so this load is a very low cost plinking load which will happen to have a bullet that might have very typical military profile.

None of us really expect LE or military adoption based on this bullet, do we? If we did, it might make sense to release some testing information, but not under that situation.

[stanc]

Publishing pre-production testing makes little sense.
I disagree.

...this load is a very low cost plinking load with a bullet that was designed to have a very typical military profile.
Fixed it for ya. ;)

None of us really expect LE or military adoption based on this bullet, do we?
No. But what it would do is give a much better indication of 6.5 Grendel's military potential than any other available load.

[JASmith]

Stan,

Stan, why are you trying to goad AA and Wolf into making a marketing blunder?

To be repetitive --
No ammunition manufacturer stands to gain by releasing pre-production tests. To do so would violate a long established tradition. The tradition results from too many folks having been burned by misuse of information that is not complete nor properly caveated.

[stanc]

Stan, why are you trying to goad AA and Wolf into making a marketing blunder?
First, I am asking that gel test pics be shown.

Second, why are you assuming it would be a blunder?

I view it just the opposite: as a good marketing move. Publishing gel test photos would serve to renew interest in the steel-cased round during the time between the announcement and delivery of the ammo.

As to why I'd like to see the gel tests, it's to have some hard data that would enable a better evaluation of 6.5 Grendel's military potential. To date we have almost exclusively theory, and virtually no test results.

To be repetitive --
No ammunition manufacturer stands to gain by releasing pre-production tests. To do so would violate a long established tradition.
:rolleyes: Actually, AA released pics of the pre-production 123gr SMK gel test. It wasn't a "marketing blunder" and nobody used it against 6.5 Grendel.

And nobody here has given any logical reason to conclude that showing gel test photos of the pre-production 110gr FMJ would be any different.

[JASmith]

Stan,

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not shared by others. Further the interest in steel-cased ammunition is already very high, so there is little to be gained at this point beyond satisfying someone's curiosity.

I would also very much like to see the results of gel- and other tests. We have been told that that information will be released in due course. I can wait, however, because I am confident there will be no surprises when the data is released. You have enough experience in these things that you should also have a good understanding of what the tests will tell us.

Let's give folks space to do what they have decided needs to be done -- after all, it is their livelihood, not ours, at stake.

In the meantime, all the ranting about publishing tests only supports the view that someone is trying to hide bad news.

Is this what you want the world to think of the Grendel?

-Joe

[stanc]

...the interest in steel-cased ammunition is already very high, so there is little to be gained at this point beyond satisfying someone's curiosity.
Judging by discussions on arfcom and other forums, interest was very high right after the FMJ load was announced. Since then it's died down considerably, and will continue to decline until more news brings it back into the spotlight.

I would also very much like to see the results of gel- and other tests. We have been told that that information will be released in due course.
Told by whom? The one that counts is Bill Alexander, and in his recent post it sounds like he intends to not release the FMJ gel test, be it pre-production or production.

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?330-FMJ-yaw-and-upset-performance&p=14155&viewfull=1#post14155

I can wait, however, because I am confident there will be no surprises when the data is released. You have enough experience in these things that you should also have a good understanding of what the tests will tell us.
I expect the 6.5 FMJ to perform similar to 5.45 military ball:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/545x39mmBlk1.JPG

But, that isn't the same as actually knowing how it performs.

Let's give folks space to do what they have decided needs to be done -- after all, it is their livelihood, not ours, at stake.
If I thought that publishing gel test photos had any probability of adverse impact on their livelihood, I wouldn't even consider requesting it. But there are a multitude of gel test pics that have been published on the internet and in magazines, and I've yet to hear of any negative effect on the manufacturers.

In the meantime, all the ranting about publishing tests only supports the view that someone is trying to hide bad news.
You have it backwards. It's not the request to publish that causes the view someone is trying to hide bad news. It's the refusal to publish.

[JASmith]

...You have it backwards. It's not the request to publish that causes the view someone is trying to hide bad news. It's the refusal to publish.

Someone indeed has it backwards. Continued strident demands for information suggest that someone suspects that something is amiss.

I repeat, is this the message you want to give the world about the Grendel and its community?

[LRRPF52]

Any military among Western Nations will give a crap about what projectile design Wolf uses in the civilian market, as far as consideration for adoption as a military cartridge goes. If anyone in NATO starts to look at the Grendel seriously, it will be with the understanding that they will spend considerable resources on RDT&E for a dedicated line of standard, tracer, AP, and blank cartridges with specific requirements, none of which will have anything to do with steel-cased Grendel.

On the other hand, countries in that region close to Wolf production may be watching development of steel-cased Grendel ammunition, based on economics, logistics, and so forth. 5.56 is gaining more and more favor among Eastern Europeans and Central Asians for individual weapons, but the Grendel might rear its head in other platforms, and thus, my shameless plug for LMG again...

[stanc]

Someone indeed has it backwards. Continued strident demands for information suggest that someone suspects that something is amiss.
No, it's refusal to provide info that raises suspicion of hiding something.

And I have made no demands, strident or otherwise. I've made one respectful request. The rest of my posts have been to deal with objections by you and others.

You do like to use pejorative terms, don't you. :rolleyes:

I repeat, is this the message you want to give the world about the Grendel and its community?
It ain't me sending that message. It's those like you who oppose publishing the gel test.

[stanc]

Any military among Western Nations will give a crap about what projectile design Wolf uses in the civilian market, as far as consideration for adoption as a military cartridge goes. If anyone in NATO starts to look at the Grendel seriously, it will be with the understanding that they will spend considerable resources on RDT&E for a dedicated line of standard, tracer, AP, and blank cartridges with specific requirements...
Of course. But to reach that point, IMO first it must be shown that 6.5 Grendel is capable of sufficient performance with military-type ball projectiles to be worth considering for further development and possible adoption. The Wolf FMJ load offers the opportunity to see how close theory and reality match up.

On the other hand, countries in that region close to Wolf production may be watching development of steel-cased Grendel ammunition, based on economics, logistics, and so forth. 5.56 is gaining more and more favor among Eastern Europeans and Central Asians for individual weapons, but the Grendel might rear its head in other platforms, and thus, my shameless plug for LMG again...
Well, don't just make a plug. Grendelize an RPD. :cool:

[JASmith]

...And I have made no demands, strident or otherwise. I've made one respectful request. The rest of my posts have been to deal with objections by you and others...

LRRPF52 has it right -- there isn't much military interest in the gel tests you demand.

Listen to folks who have been in the military combat and development arenas. They know what is doable and what constitutes a credible test.

Every post after the first you made on this topic constitutes a repeated demand, especially when the responses uniformly indicate that an answer is not forthcoming for now. I don't care whether you are looking at the Grendel, another cartridge, or a car that I would never own, the multiple demands (not just ONE as you claim) annoys a lot of folks.

Give folks space to get their stuff done and you will likely want to get what you're demanding in due time even though the gel and barrier tests won't make much difference in a military decision.

[stanc]

Every post after the first you made on this topic constitutes a repeated demand, especially when the responses uniformly indicate that an answer is not forthcoming for now. I don't care whether you are looking at the Grendel, another cartridge, or a car that I would never own, the multiple demands (not just ONE as you claim) annoys a lot of folks.
So aside from your convoluted reasoning that my single request is actually a "repeated demand", are you saying that when others oppose what I've written, that I shouldn't reply to their posts and address their objections? :rolleyes:

If you and "a lot of folks" found my "repeated demand" (as you call it) annoying, there is an easy way you could've avoided it: by not making repeated objections.

[JASmith]

So aside from your convoluted reasoning that my single request is actually a "repeated demand", are you saying that when others oppose what I've written, that I shouldn't reply to their posts and address their objections?

If you and "a lot of folks" found my "repeated demand" (as you call it) annoying, there is an easy way you could've avoided it: by not making repeated objections.

Yes, you should politely acknowledge that a substantial majority of posts do not concur with your logic and move on to a topic where concurrence is possible.

I don't want to count the number of posts you have made that constitute this repeated demand, but I'm willing to bet it's on the order of 50. Repeating the claim that you made only one request in the face of the number of posts you've made on the topic is disingenuous at best.

[JASmith]

Well, if the shoe fits...

[HANKA]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, please. . . . Deep breaths and cold beers are in order. . . . Let's please drop the back and forth.

John

[bwaites]

Stan, we all would love to have gel pictures. But they aren't going to happen until we have production ammo.

Lets review.....

1) The case itself is in testing to determine safe pressures with available projectiles and powders.
2) The final projectile hasn't even been decided on. Multiple projectiles are being used for the case testing.
3) The final pressure and velocity for the bullet you are concerned with hasn't been decided.
4) The powder used for the projectile hasn't been determined.
5) There is no intention for this bullet/cartridge combo to be a military cartridge, its a plinking ammo cartridge, albeit one that has an obvious similarity to some previous art of military cartridges.
6) Terminal ballistics are a consideration, but only one of several which also include: Cost, availability, accuracy, and consistency. BUT above all, COST. This has to be a cheap bullet to make, or the price on steel case won't come close to target.
7) It makes no sense to publish testing on anything but the final product and production ammo. Why publish data on that projectile at velocities that may not meet the production ammunition criteria.
8) Since AA still doesn't know the safe pressure levels, it's impossible to simulate the velocity data and give real world estimates of projectile velocities.
9) Once again, the intent of this ammo is to come in at close to suplus ammo prices. That predetermines that the projectile probably won't be state of the art!
10) Once again, this isn't a military or LEO driven load, its a plinking load.

I've talked with Bill at length about the ammunition. He's assured me that eventually we will have pictures, but not until we have production ammo.

That said, there is little more than can be gained from this discussion until we have actual production ammunition, so lets all take a break, and reconvene when Wolf deigns to bring it to market!

I will promise that if no pictures are forthcoming from AA, I have several friends who have developed the ability to do gel testing, and I'll impose upon them to run some tests with this ammo and I'll publish the pictures.

[stanc]

The final projectile hasn't even been decided on. Multiple projectiles are being used for the case testing.
If the Russkis are not set up to produce any bullets other than the 110gr FMJ, there would have to be significant problems to warrant a change. That's because such a change would add to the cost. Given the priority to keep cost to a minimum, it seems almost certain that the 110gr FMJ will be in production ammo.

" Until the production cartridge is ready and testing is complete, the final bullet won't be set in stone. What we know is that it will be an FMJ, probably of 110 grains, and probably with a shape similar to the 107 Sierra."

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_453/209639_6_5_Grendel_Trademark_Released_and_Steel_Ca ses_In_Hand.html&page=1#i1724532

There is no intention for this bullet/cartridge combo to be a military cartridge...
Never said there was. What I say is that it could be used for comparative testing against other lead core FMJ ammo (such as 7.62x51 M80), to evaluate concepts like John's proposal that a 6.5 LMG would be a viable replacement for a 7.62 MMG.

It makes no sense to publish testing on anything but the final product and production ammo.
Non-concur.

Once again, the intent of this ammo is to come in at close to suplus ammo prices. That predetermines that the projectile probably won't be state of the art!
Of course not.

I've talked with Bill at length about the ammunition. He's assured me that eventually we will have pictures, but not until we have production ammo.
That sure isn't the impression he gave when he wrote:

"Public results, given the nature of the round as an economy entry I see this as an entirely futile effort."

That said, there is little more than can be gained from this discussion until we have actual production ammunition, so lets all take a break, and reconvene when Wolf deigns to bring it to market!
No problemo. The futile nature of this and other discussions has pretty much burned out my remaining interest in 6.5 Grendel for military use.

[bwaites]

If the Russkis are not set up to produce any bullets other than the 110gr FMJ, there would have to be significant problems to warrant a change. That's because such a change would add to the cost. Given the priority to keep cost to a minimum, it seems almost certain that the 110gr FMJ will be in production ammo.

There is more than one available option, the 110 FMJ is simply the leading candidate, and unless serious problems are encountered, it will be used. That doesn't preclude continued testing of other options.


" Until the production cartridge is ready and testing is complete, the final bullet won't be set in stone. What we know is that it will be an FMJ, probably of 110 grains, and probably with a shape similar to the 107 Sierra."

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_453/209639_6_5_Grendel_Trademark_Released_and_Steel_Ca ses_In_Hand.html&page=1#i1724532

Never said there was. What I say is that it could be used for comparative testing against other lead core FMJ ammo (such as 7.62x51 M80), to evaluate concepts like John's proposal that a 6.5 LMG would be a viable replacement for a 7.62 MMG.

Perhaps not, but your history and posts in the past have repeatedly focused on the military capabilities and possibilities, as have your articles. I've never seen anything you have written with any other objective. Your history thus indicates your interest. I apologize if you are looking at the FMJ in another bent, but the only real world reason for FMJ is plinking because of their cost, and military because of their required use. You've never indicated any interest in plinking, ergo, you must be interested in military use. (Plinkers also couldn't care less about gel tests.)


That sure isn't the impression he gave when he wrote:

"Public results, given the nature of the round as an economy entry I see this as an entirely futile effort."

You interpreted that to mean that there would be no public release of the gel results ever, I read that to mean that Alexander Arms won't release the testing results until the final bullet selection and production ammo is released. My conversations with Bill Alexander have also confirmed that. It makes no sense to release anything BUT the final production ammunition results.

[stanc]

Re FMJ yaw:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55CkeT7qdtM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGgojSI62pI

[Variable]

Any link for those of us who are "embed" blind?LOL :)

[bwaites]

Any link for those of us who are "embed" blind?LOL :)

Youtube:

Search "M855 versus Ballistic Gelatin" and "M855 Slower Version". Both uploaded by BrassFetcher

[stanc]

Any link for those of us who are "embed" blind?LOL :)
Sure thing. :cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55CkeT7qdtM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGgojSI62pI

[Variable]

Thanks guys.

[LRRPF52]

Looks like what it's done to everyone I've seen shot with it...simply brutal really. I can't recall any clear entrance or exit with most 5.56 wounds that I've seen...just hamburger. I'd like to see an M193 gel test as well. This is why I'm a 5.56 nazi. Will it do this at distance.....nope, but other FMJ's poke little holes through people at distance as well. As long as the 5.56 is above that 2600 fps threshold, you usually see catastrophic hydrostatic tissue separation, even breaking bones that had zero contact with the projectile and projectile fragments. It often just tears apart the tissue so fast, even femurs fracture into a compound open injury with massive avulsion and permanent muscle mass destruction that requires radical debridement and removal of much of the remaining muscle mass as well, if the casualty survives.

[DocGKR]

["The 6.8 developed much of its reputation based on early gel test photos by Gary Roberts using a preproduction Hornady projectile with an "illegal" preformed cavity at excessive velocity. "

This is NOT a true statement, as I have previously noted. There was a batch of Hornady 115 gr projectiles manufactured AFTER our initial SPC testing in June of 2002 that exhibited a larger than normal cavity--we never saw them, shot them, or tested them at our facility. The early AMU 6.8mm ammo we tested was indeed loaded hot, much like AMU ammo in other calibers...

Below are a couple of 6.8 mm Hornady production OTM shot into bare gel from 100 yds away, MV was in the 2550 fps range (certainly NOT an "excessive velocity")--personally this looks like ideal terminal performance, but hey, what do I know...
http://www.tridentconcepts.org/alumni/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/1424173551554.jpg

[Variable]

Up late?LOL

I realize you are here to refute something you disagree with regarding the 6.8, but since this is the Grendel board and I have no interest in the 6.8----

Which Grendel rounds do you think would have the most "ideal terminal performance"?

Any gel shots?

[DocGKR]

Well, working at a Level I Trauma Center often results in somewhat unusual hours...

This week someone asked me about the misinformation posted in this thread regarding our initial SPC testing, so I thought it might be prudent to provide the correct facts.

Some of the characteristics of an ideal performing general purpose rifle projectile have been described in recent government wound ballistic meetings and in commentary by SSA Buford Boone of the FBI BRF:

-- Penetration of 12 to 18 inches
-- No impact AOA induced variations
-- Blind to barriers
-- No deviation from shot line after impact
-- Minimal fragmentation
-- Consistent terminal performance from 0 – 300 meters
-- Sufficient accuracy to hit threat targets out to 600 meters

Assuming properly prepared, calibrated, and sized gel blocks, I'd be supportive of any Grendel load that meets the criteria listed above and offers barrier blind terminal performance, as depicted below:

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/riflegeltestanalysis.jpg?t=1330501642

Keep in mind that “Barrier Blind” ammunition should demonstrate minimal changes in terminal performance between unobstructed shots into bare gelatin and those obstructed by intermediate barriers.

[JASmith]

Good information!

I am one of those who knows that, while the 6.5 will be sleeker than the 6.8 for equal bullet weight, the terminal performance magic is in bullet design. The potential exists independent of caliber.

From that point of departure, one next looks at both near-in or under 300 meters -- several cartridges in this size class will deliver over these most common engagement ranges, including both the 6.5 and the 6.8. The next is to ask the question "Is the combination of muzzle velocity and ballistic coefficient for those well-designed bullets to be adequate in terms of drop and drift to get high hit probability out to 600 meters?"

Independent of where one's heart lies, the 6.8 bullets launched by the SPC tend to lose velocity with the attendant drop and drift issues compared to the 6.5 in the 300-600 distance. To be sure, the differences aren't large, but they exist.

Of course, one can pack a few more SPC cartridges in the mag -- but this may not matter out in the deer or hog hunting arena.

[Variable]

I am one of those who knows that, while the 6.5 will be sleeker than the 6.8 for equal bullet weight, the terminal performance magic is in bullet design. The potential exists independent of caliber.

I agree. That's why I was wondering if he had anything to contribute about the Grendel. I know he was involved in 6.8SPC testing, but I believe only very limited 6.5 useage. I just wish someone who was in a position to test things had the Grendels interests in mind once in a while, instead of just the SPC. Not impugning GKR, by the way, just stating that he hasn't been very involved in Grendel stuff to my knowledge. I guess that if we pooled money and paid someone to do the testing then we'd get our great looking gel shots eventually, but no one has ever stepped up to the plate.

I really doubt that the 6.8SPC projectiles are imbued with any magical terminal performance qualities that couldn't be readily duplicated in a 6.5 projectile with a tweak or two. Some of them probably already fit the bill. I know they sure do a fine job of killing anything I've ever aimed them at.LOL

The 6.8 crew has always been driven to promote their package as being suitable for .mil adoption, and torwards that end they have produced some good data and good looking gel shots. No one on the Grendel reservation has dedicated nearly that much time nor resources toward the same end. I'd just like to see the same amount of effort expended behind the 6.5, but since the Grendel makers seem to be doing fine in the commercial market without it, they've never been motivated to do so.

Oh well, I guess.... Maybe someone will one of these days.:)

[stanc]

I agree. That's why I was wondering if he had anything to contribute about the Grendel. I know he was involved in 6.8SPC testing, but I believe only very limited 6.5 useage.
AFAIK, the only 6.5 Grendel load in official tests was 120gr SMK.

I just wish someone who was in a position to test things had the Grendels interests in mind once in a while, instead of just the SPC. Not impugning GKR, by the way, just stating that he hasn't been very involved in Grendel stuff to my knowledge. I guess that if we pooled money and paid someone to do the testing then we'd get our great looking gel shots eventually, but no one has ever stepped up to the plate.
Yup.

I really doubt that the 6.8SPC projectiles are imbued with any magical terminal performance qualities that couldn't be readily duplicated in a 6.5 projectile with a tweak or two.
I think that depends on the type of bullet. Any expanding bullet optimized for 6.5 Grendel ought to give terminal performance indistinguishable from the same make and model as for 6.8 SPC. Evidence of this can be seen in the tests of 6.8 SPC 110gr TSX and 6.5 Grendel 120gr TSX:

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/Barnes-SSA110grTSX100yds.jpg?t=1227985841
http://www.shopalexanderarms.com/img-189-820.jpg

However, for projectiles that depend on yaw, such as the FMJ in the subject title, it appears to me that the short 6.8 bullets tend to yaw more quickly than the long, streamlined 6.5 bullets. This is evidenced by the gel tests of the Remington 115gr 6.8 FMJ and Norma 120gr 6.5 FMJ. I'm skeptical that such 6.5 bullets can be tweaked enough to match 6.8 yaw ability.

The 6.8 crew has always been driven to promote their package as being suitable for .mil adoption, and torwards that end they have produced some good data and good looking gel shots. No one on the Grendel reservation has dedicated nearly that much time nor resources toward the same end. I'd just like to see the same amount of effort expended behind the 6.5
Ditto. But, I won't mention my "Testing, Testing" thread. :eek: ;)

[stanc]

RUAG military rifle ammo:

http://www.ruag.com/de/Ammotec/Armee_und_Behoerden/Weitere+Informationen/Downloads/04_Rifle_Ammunition_for_Armed_Forces.pdf

I found particularly interesting the illustration near the top of page 5, showing the lead-free 5.56mm LF HC SX FMJ bullet expanded like a hunting hollowpoint. Unfortunately, it doesn't say what was the target medium.

On page 11 is the French-designed 7.62mm lead-free AP bullet.

[txgunner00]

Pretty cool. If it performs like that in human tissue it may have better terminal effects than M855.

[Variable]

RUAG military rifle ammo:

http://www.ruag.com/de/Ammotec/Armee_und_Behoerden/Weitere+Informationen/Downloads/04_Rifle_Ammunition_for_Armed_Forces.pdf

I found particularly interesting the illustration near the top of page 5, showing the lead-free 5.56mm LF HC SX FMJ bullet expanded like a hunting hollowpoint. Unfortunately, it doesn't say what was the target medium.

On page 11 is the French-designed 7.62mm lead-free AP bullet.
I'm curious about the LF HC SX as well. When I zoom in on the pic I can't tell if it's a digital rendering or an actual picture. It looks kinda digital, but it might be real. I would expect they had to score the jacket to get it to peel like that if it really does. It'd be darn interesting if so. I'm surprised they'd market something like that with the old continents political sensitivities being as they are...

The french bullet looks interesting as well.