Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: Doctrine and why the Grendel has an uphill battle.

  1. #21
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,658
    Quote Originally Posted by SHORT-N-SASSY View Post
    I agree. And, as a supporter of "The facts, Ma'am. Just the facts.", I'm concerned that the OP's last Post was deleted, just before he was banned.
    SNS:

    Unfortunately, a mod has to delete the post in order to ban someone on this forum. Or at least that is the only way I have found.

    If you have a problem with this decision or any decision made by a Moderator, you can contact John or Bill.

    Also, we have gone over the Half Kilometer article a couple of times. Also the kinetic energy of issued ammo and match grade 6.5 bullets and found the comparisons to be flawed because the military is not about to buy match grade bullets and issue them as ball ammo. I know that guys have thrown around the notion of two Grendel loads, one for a MG that would use a 140 grain bullet and one for the rifleman with a bullet weighing around 120 grains.

    Considering the rifleman and this theoretical 120 grain bullet, it will probably have a BC of about .300 at best and a MV of about 2450 at best from a issued carbine. Its accuracy potential with a service grade carbine would be at best, 3 minutes.

    What I would like to know is what exactly is stopping a rifleman from shooting at something that is 500 meters away?

    LR55
    Last edited by LR1955; 07-18-2017 at 02:31 PM.

  2. #22
    Super Moderator LRRPF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,487
    Currently, soldiers who score expert on the Qualification range typically are not able to even hit a man-size target out to 200m in combat because they don't get enough trigger time in practical scenarios.

    With training, they can become more effective with the current system, especially M855A1.

    My prediction is that commanders won't support any efforts to increase time on the range or a competent NCO corps who have even been trained on the basic facts about the systems, let alone how to employ them.

    It's pretty bad when you have Drill Sergeants who talk about the need to align the gas rings or the gun will blow up, or master gunners in the 82nd who have incorrect information about the AR15 family of weapons, and continue to spread false information as they are looked up to as an SME.
    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks can be found here:

    www.AR15buildbox.com

  3. #23
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by LRRPF52 View Post
    The last war we fought and won was WWII?
    Well, the Korean War ended in a stalemate; the Vietnam War we just got tired of fighting and went home; Panama and Grenada were brief operations, not wars; Desert Storm was a bigger, but also brief, operation in which most of the enemy air force ran away instead of fighting; and we're still conducting counterinsurgency and counterterrorist operations in Afghanistan.

    14.5" 5.56 NATO carbines are too much gun for RTOs, Combat Medics, LTs in many cases, PSGs, Javelin Gunners, Forward Observers, Assistant Machine Gunners, Mortarmen, and Combat Engineers. They all would be better served with something shorter in most cases.
    10.3" Mk18?

    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  4. #24
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by LR1955 View Post
    Also, we have gone over the Half Kilometer article a couple of times. Also the kinetic energy of issued ammo and match grade 6.5 bullets and found the comparisons to be flawed because the military is not about to buy match grade bullets and issue them as ball ammo. I know that guys have thrown around the notion of two Grendel loads, one for a MG that would use a 140 grain bullet and one for the rifleman with a bullet weighing around 120 grains.

    Considering the rifleman and this theoretical 120 grain bullet, it will probably have a BC of about .300 at best and a MV of about 2450 at best from a issued carbine.
    The "two load" proposal would never fly. The Army tried that approach a couple of times in the past, and dropped it in favor of a single, general issue load for rifles and machine guns.

    I have to note that you're too pessimistic about the BC of a 120gr 6.5mm ball projectile. The Norma 120gr FMJ is listed with a 0.428 BC, which is comparable to that of 147gr M80 Ball.

    However, a hypothetical ball round for 6.5 Grendel would undoubtedly be of the lead-free EPR design, so we're looking at a bullet weight circa 105 grains, which would affect BC and MV.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  5. #25

  6. #26
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,658
    SNS:

    According to anyone's data, a 107 Match King and 108 Lapua Scenar will have a much improved BC and mass over any 5.56 round. Again, one is comparing a match grade bullet to existing military issued ball rounds.

    A 105 grain service ball round will have a BC so close to a issued service round that no one would be able to tell the difference. Given a service grade carbine and service grade ball, look at 3 - 4 minutes. The same as currently issued 5.56 ball. I haven't looked at the Ke of each but I imagine the 107 grain bullet will have greater Ke but probably not so much greater that it would increase lethality. Unless the bullet was exceptionally well designed and the more parts to a bullet, the higher the probability that it will not be very stable and its mean radius will be pretty big.

    How about comparing that Wolf steel cased stuff to the improved M-855? That Wolf stuff will be pretty close in terms of BC and velocity to what ever becomes a issued ball loading. At least in terms of internal and external ballistics. Terminal ballistics not until a true ball round of Grendel is produced somewhere.

    LR55

  7. #27
    The Last Big Lie of Vietnam Kills U.S. Soldiers in Iraq (http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...ietnam_ki.html) ---








  8. #28
    S&S, I'm not the world's greatest defender of 5.56, but combining variable shot placement and adrenaline can result in ANY cartridge producing anecdotes of unpredictable wounding effects.

    I bet we could drum up quite a few anecdotes from WWII of .30-06 multiple hit failures to stop.

    Terminal effects is just one part of the cartridge selection matrix.
    :: 6.5 GRENDEL :: Make ARs Great Again ::

    :: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
    . . . Terminal effects is just one part of the cartridge selection matrix.
    BFT,

    Thanks for chiming in. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you compare the .223/5.56x45mm against the 6.5mm Grendel, as we know it, in the cartridge selection matrix?
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    ETA:

    And, let's dial-in "Extended Range Capability": The Pentagon Is Reportedly Going to Send 4,000 More U.S. Troops to Afghanistan (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ghanistan.html)
    Last edited by SHORT-N-SASSY; 07-20-2017 at 08:40 AM.

  10. #30
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by SHORT-N-SASSY View Post
    On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you compare the .223/5.56x45mm against the 6.5mm Grendel, as we know it, in the cartridge selection matrix?
    In order to answer that question, it would first be necessary to know how the "cartridge selection matrix" is defined.

    In regards to combat endurance, if 7.62 NATO is a 1, and 5.56 NATO is a 10, I would rank 6.5 Grendel at a 4.5.

    Ammo loads of roughly equal weight: 5 x 7.62 mags = 100 rds; 7 x 5.56 mags = 210 rds; 6 x 6.5 mags = 150 rds.

    Last edited by stanc; 07-20-2017 at 08:17 PM.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  11. #31
    Super Moderator LRRPF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,487
    Quote Originally Posted by SHORT-N-SASSY View Post
    The Last Big Lie of Vietnam Kills U.S. Soldiers in Iraq (http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...ietnam_ki.html) ---

    People don't instantly die when you shoot them in the chest, no matter the caliber. Charles Beckwith took 12.7mm heavy machine-gun fire to the torso and lived, which exceeds the terminal energy and speed of every elephant rifle ever made. Chargin' Charlie went on to form a unit you might have heard of later in his career.


    This is incorrect. The steel penetrator in M855 is not Tungsten. It's non-hardened, mild steel for cutting through Soviet armor of the era, as well as light-skinned vehicles. Works as advertised, kills people all day long if you make your hits. There are anecdotal accounts of 7.62 NATO hitting people and not doing anything. One particular Marine Scout Sniper shot an Iraqi kid (armed with an AK) at somewhere around 400-600m, and later ran into the kid at an Enemy Prisoner of War collection point. He had seen the impact of the bullet on the kid's chest, then saw the kid run away. He examined this kid several days later, found the scars indicating through-and-through the chest, which apparently missed everything vital it should have destroyed. Kid acted like it was cool. The guy wanted to adopt this kid and bring him to the US, but was denied.


    .45 ACP is nowhere near as effective as 5.56 NATO. These were arguments being made in favor of a new cartridge. After investigating these issues, SF determined that people needed more marksmanship training, and instituted the SFAUCC program at the Group level. People advocating for 6.8 SPC were escorted off post when they continued to try to sway people to a cartridge solution.


    More bad information that is simply false. The commercial .223 Remington cartridge did not exist before .222 Remington Special, which was a lengthened .222 Remington for the SCHV project. To the best of my knowledge, and Stan might want to chime in on this with his vast references and collection of cartridges and knowledge to support it, the .223 Remington wasn't even produced for the commercial market until 1964, after being developed in the early 1960s (1962 IIRC). 5.56x45 (the military formalized and updated cartridge from .222 Remington Special) came from the late 1950s. The AR15 prototype series was introduced in 1957, and development of the .222 Remington into .222 Remington Special took place simultaneously.

    Experienced soldiers in Reconnaissance units in both the USMC and US Army loved the 5.56x45 M193, even from short barrels. Same with US Army SF. Terminal performance in Project AGILE was very impressive, as were the body counts of these units compared to the units they worked for.

    My responses in blue above.

    There's a great discussion about this in the Primary & Secondary videos, particularly from senior enlisted USASOC/JSOC soldiers who used M16A1/M193, M16A2/M855, M4A1/M855, M4A1 SOST, M4A1 Mk.262, and other loads in real-world conflicts dating from Grenada to the present. They pointed out that we had no problem stacking enemy corpses like corkwood with any of the combinations I mentioned, and that video analysis of the events in Mogadishu show the guys who complained about M855 not killing anyone documented them missing repeatedly, with dust kicking up behind the Somalis, whereas video of the Somalis being actually shot showed very quick terminal effects.

    In Grenada as part of Urgent Fury, 1/75 and 2/75, as well as SFOD, slayed a lot of Cubans and Grenadian military with 5.56, no complaints. Same thing in Panama. Ranger Regiment and SFOD had no complaints about terminal performance of M855. All of a sudden, one guy in Mogadishu selectively quoted by Mark Bowden says M855 zips right through the enemy, doesn't work. This is then taken as gospel, and spread throughout the gun world like wildfire.

    I know my experiences are anecdotal, but everyone I've seen shot with M855 from short barrels mostly, died or was torn apart with avulsions, insane bone fragmentation, massive blood loss, and very permanent injuries that changed their lives if they survived. The ones that survived only did so because we provided world-class first aid and echelons of care for them, with readily available RBCs and experienced surgeons to repair what could be repaired in a timely manner.

    Unless you brain-punch a moon ape, there are no guarantees for an instant kill, and quickly dying combatants are still a lethal threat to be dealt with. Good units structure their marksmanship training accordingly. Amateurs look for a new gadget to compensate for the fact that they aren't even addressing the main problem of training. I can issue out the latest and greatest super AR15 chambered in 6mm Grendel even, with a .600 G1 BC explosive armor-penetrator bullet going 2800fps, and most of the units still won't be able to hit a silhouette in combat at 200m on demand because Commanders simply don't take marksmanship training seriously.
    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks can be found here:

    www.AR15buildbox.com

  12. #32
    Super Moderator LRRPF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,487


    I just weighed a 25rd Grendel magazine with 25 Federal 120gr HPBT Match Load cartridges on it. Came to 1lb 5.4oz / .60kg
    30rd Magpul PMAG with 69gr SMK HPBT load is 1lb 2oz /.51kg

    7 x 30rd .223 Rem 69gr = 3.57kg or 7.87lbs for 210rds
    7 x 25rd 6.5 Grendel 120gr = 4.2kg or 9.2lbs for 175rds

    Body armor takes up 10-16lbs for just the plates and carrier in a SOF unit that doesn't mandate soft armor, so that is the 500lb gorilla in the room that has changed with soldier's load, and very little has been done to progress hard plate technology past Vietnam-era aviator's ceramic armor plates. Regular units are saddled with IOTV, which is even more weight to consider.

    As far as mags go, it changed everything from where we were able to carry double M4 pouches comfortably across the chest, to now where single shingles are really the only practical way to be able to stay as low-profile as possible. Negotiating in and out of vehicles, window frames, breech points, tight confines, climbing walls, ladders, and rubble present serious challenges even for units with PT standards that crush the regular Army lacking standards of physical fitness.

    This is why I quickly started to see the 6.5 Grendel as something that should be replacing 7.62 NATO, not 5.56 NATO. A 6.5 Grendel/5.56 NATO weapons mix would be a breath of fresh air for Joe, who is laden with a lot of squeeze for little juice with 7.62 NATO. We need to get the 5.56 NATO systems weighing less, like the originals, but with Electro-Optical Aiming and Vis/Non-Vis Illumination capability.

    6.5 Grendel DMR/CSASS/LMG makes a lot of sense.
    Smaller 5.56 carbines
    That Colt MARS or the KAC PDW would be great really for a lot of people.
    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks can be found here:

    www.AR15buildbox.com

  13. #33
    stanc, LRRPF52,

    Thank you, both, for your respective professional input.

  14. #34
    Re the .222 Remington family as "Varmint" cartridges. From my personal experiences:

    Back in the 1960's, I helped dairy farmers in the Connecticut hinterlands rid their farms of the eastern woodchuck. I initally used the Remington Model 722 in both the .222 Remington and the .222 Remington Magnum cartridges to good effect (read: humane kills), up to approx. 250 yards ---


    Unfortunately, with the exception of a one-shot kill (to the head), at just over 400yards, I found that body hits, over 250 yards, often resulted in chucks making it to their dens. I tried the .220 Swift, with some improvement. I then switched to the 6mm Remington, and never looked back: consistent one-shot kills.

    In the 1970's, I continued to use the 6mm Remington cartridge in Colorado: A Remington Model 660, in 6mm Remington, for Mule Deer; A Bullpup'ed Remington Model 40-XB, in 6mm Remington, on "Timberline Grizzlies", for one-shot kills to well over 500 yards ---


    In retrospect: Today's 6.5mm Grendel would have been my cartridge of choice, for those favorite haunts.

  15. #35
    stanc,

    The screenshot in question was taken from this link: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.222_Remington_Magnum)

  16. #36

  17. #37
    Super Moderator LRRPF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,487
    The wikipedia screenshot in post #34 is incorrect about 5.56x45 NATO being derived from .223 Remington. When .222 Special was given its military nomenclature of 5.56x45, it was not a NATO cartridge and did not receive NATO standardization until much later. .222 Special and 5.56x45 came well before .223 Remington nomenclature and production.

    The specs for 5.56x45 brass are much different than .223 Rem SAAMI brass. Yield strength is substantially higher on the 5.56x45 brass, so that effects alloy and thickness, with thickness and reduced case capacity being the most measurable metrics for the layman.

    As to the merits of the discussion about terminal performance, I'm of the opinion that even the .222 Remington was sufficient, and would have been a better case length to stick with, move the shoulder forward, and use a higher BC projectile with a longer ogive. Back then, even within engineering circles, muzzle velocity was the focus. There was one engineer within Army Ordnance who focused more on BC's function with regard to retained energy, and Stoner was aware of it too, evidenced by his suggestion of using a boat tail bullet to help meet the moving goal posts of the CONARC/Army Ordnance .30 cal nazis.

    The Russians really got it right with the 5.45x39mm cartridge, using a short case that still allows 30rds to be carried in the same magazine profile as a 30rd AR15 mag, which also allows very high BC for caliber projectiles, unlike the 5.56x45. The Russians also used a lower working pressure so that weapon life is more manageable. That little 5.45x39 is a great cartridge as a result. A 5.56-6mmx39 based off that cartridge would have been about ideal for both common infantry and DMR loads, using a BC in the .450 G1 region and higher for the DM load.



    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks can be found here:

    www.AR15buildbox.com

  18. #38
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,393

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by LRRPF52 View Post
    As to the merits of the discussion about terminal performance, I'm of the opinion that even the .222 Remington was sufficient, and would have been a better case length to stick with, move the shoulder forward, and use a higher BC projectile with a longer ogive.

    The Russians really got it right with the 5.45x39mm cartridge, using a short case that still allows 30rds to be carried in the same magazine profile as a 30rd AR15 mag, which also allows very high BC for caliber projectiles, unlike the 5.56x45. The Russians also used a lower working pressure so that weapon life is more manageable. That little 5.45x39 is a great cartridge as a result. A 5.56-6mmx39 based off that cartridge would have been about ideal for both common infantry and DMR loads, using a BC in the .450 G1 region and higher for the DM load.
    I fully agree with all of those points.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •