Doctrine and why the Grendel has an uphill battle.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • LRRPF52
    Super Moderator
    • Sep 2014
    • 8569

    #31
    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 & chamber brushes can be found here:

    www.AR15buildbox.com

    Comment

    • LRRPF52
      Super Moderator
      • Sep 2014
      • 8569

      #32


      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 & chamber brushes can be found here:

      www.AR15buildbox.com

      Comment

      • SHORT-N-SASSY
        Warrior
        • Apr 2013
        • 629

        #33
        stanc, LRRPF52,

        Thank you, both, for your respective professional input.

        Comment

        • SHORT-N-SASSY
          Warrior
          • Apr 2013
          • 629

          #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.

          Comment

          • SHORT-N-SASSY
            Warrior
            • Apr 2013
            • 629

            #35
            stanc,

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

            Comment

            • SHORT-N-SASSY
              Warrior
              • Apr 2013
              • 629

              #36
              Perhaps, this will clarify:

              (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO)

              Comment

              • LRRPF52
                Super Moderator
                • Sep 2014
                • 8569

                #37
                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 & chamber brushes can be found here:

                www.AR15buildbox.com

                Comment

                • stanc
                  Banned
                  • Apr 2011
                  • 3430

                  #38
                  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.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X