Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge

[longdayjake]

I don't understand this fear of lead. It's not like there are enough bullets going into the water supply of the quantity needed to cause any kind of harm. The only lead poisoning that we should be afraid of is high-speed lead poisoning. The kind that leaves a massive hole as it exits.

[JASmith]

longdayjake,

At the risk of heading off on a tangent -- you are probably closer to the mark than not. Lead in paint, eaten by young children in has indeed been shown to cause health issues. This led to a fair bit of negative publicity and the anti-gun community saw an opportunity to make things more difficult for the shooting public...

So, yes, they are afraid of high-speed lead poisoning...

Back to the center of the thread: Regardless of the accuracy of condemnation, the reality we face is that US military small arms bullet design is rapidly moving away from lead. My view is that we need to accommodate that reality.

By keeping the discussion separate from how a bullet generates lethality (i. e., expansion, break-up, or tumbling) we can better concentrate on how to get the bullet to the target with enough mass, energy and momentum to have the potential to cause the requisite damage or injury. This accommodates the notion that at least one of the major users of small arms is moving towards bullets with a specific gravity of 7.8 to 8.0 and another takes pains to keep bullets from expanding or breaking up.

[warped]

Warped,

Thanks! That's good information.

Do I gather that the accuracy isn't as good as the earlier M855?

One would think that the Army development folks would have done better after having tested "a million rounds" of the stuff!

Regarding "off the shelf" items: Seems like there are some conflicting requirements. Many of the European countries seem to be strict adherents to the agreement that one does not use deforming bullets but are OK with lead cores. The US, on the other hand, is OK with bullets that "just happen" to come apart in certain circumstances, but is damn near scared to death of lead -- a substance that humans have used and been exposed to for millenia!

As always the best solution will always have a negative in there somewhere.

If it is for barrier penetration, it may not incapacitate, if it is for terminal effect, it may not penetrate blind barriers.

The other problem is will it even be accurate enough to be used past 400m, let alone 600m?

[RedFalconBill]

Joe,

The M855A1 bullet is designed to be a LF version of the original bullet. It is not designed to be an enhanced bullet, other than being lead free. Because of this, it will suffer from all of the issues that the M855 bullet does, plus the added cost stemming from increased production costs.

Also, they have had to get pressure waivers because it is a single source special power and a single source primer. Great, added cost with no increased effectiveness. It is not as accurate as std. M855, but still within spec...barely.

Big Army is still thinking that we are going to be fighting in the Fulda Gap and having to shoot hordes of Ivan Ivanovic's who wear soft body armor and have to shoot at steel helmets at 1/2 mile.

Using Ballistic Gel at 50m, M-855 ammo, when fired from M-4's, has a neck length of 6"+. Not very impressive, which only gives people more ammunition to dislike the 5.56 round, when it is the bullet more than anything else.

I too do not think that you can maintain QC on what is essentially match bullets by the tens of millions, at least not at a price that the DoD is willing to pay.

20" Barrels are going to go the way of $0.10 Beer and $0.25 Gas. 12.5" to 16" barrels are going to be the norm. Here, you would see a 100-110 grain bullet with an initial MV of 2,450 to 2,600 fps.

Personally, I think that the 5.56 is TOO much of a compromise, but we have been using it for over 45 years and the people I shot with it, stayed shot.

The somewhat extended ranges that we are seeing in Afghanistan only highlight what has been known since the First World War. At ranges 400m +, individual soldiers shooting at point targets is useless, essentially. This is the purview of the Designated Marksman or Machine Gunner. Soldiers do not estimate range very well, nor do they take wind into account, so without training it would not matter if they had a round that was more effective, because they would still miss.

[JASmith]

20" Barrels are going to go the way of $0.10 Beer and $0.25 Gas. 12.5" to 16" barrels are going to be the norm. Here, you would see a 100-110 grain bullet with an initial MV of 2,450 to 2,600 fps.

Are you suggesting that 2450-2600 ft/sec is a desirable MV, or are you indicating that that's all we might get from a particular cartridge?

Personally, I think that the 5.56 is TOO much of a compromise, but we have been using it for over 45 years and the people I shot with it, stayed shot.

What do you have in mind for cartridge more suited to our needs?

...Soldiers do not estimate range very well, nor do they take wind into account, so without training it would not matter if they had a round that was more effective, because they would still miss.

Does this mean that the solution is better and more training and stay with the same cartridge?

Cheers!

[RedFalconBill]

Are you suggesting that 2450-2600 ft/sec is a desirable MV, or are you indicating that that's all we might get from a particular cartridge?

Given the STANAG magazine well, my suggested muzzle velocity is about all we will get with a chamber pressure in the 50,000 psi range. Going to a larger case, or higher pressure, will provide more velocity, but there is a diminishing return here with regards to muzzle blast, recoil, and even lower basic load.

What do you have in mind for cartridge more suited to our needs?

For what Infantry needs:

The .250 Savage with a 100 to 117gr bullet or a 6.5-250 Savage with a 107gr to 129gr bullet. A lot of case taper for its 1.912" case length, and the use of the 0.473" case head means that you are really limiting the basic load of soldiers.

Of course, if we wanted less case taper and a smaller case head, we could use the Carcano/M-S, but then the overall cartridge length would be around 2.75". Not very space efficient and using 19th century case designs will not win you any friends.

The 7.62x45mm Czech case is intriguing. Necked down to 0.264" and with much of its taper taken out, it has almost 20% case capacity than either the SPC or the Grendel case, but has 20% less capacity than the Carcano/M-S cases. With an overall cartridge length of around 2.500", a 14.5" barrel should get ~2,500fps with a 120gr to 125gr bullet, and a 20" barrel might get up to 2,700fps.

I do not see any of these thoughts as viable, even though they are good ideas. We have no money, and no enthusiasm, to fund R&D for this, the US no longer has a large, vibrant, firearms community, the EU is just fine with puny defense budgets, and lastly, no NCO above the rank of E-6 and no Officer above the rank of O-3 really care about small arms.

Does this mean that the solution is better and more training and stay with the same cartridge?

Better training, yes. Dumping the M855/M855A1 bullet and going with a Mk318 bullet concept (which can be bonded, or not, have the core in the front, or the rear, and have the core made of lead, or not), would give a boost in lethality in the 5.56 cartridge.

[JASmith]

RedFalconBill,

You last two paragraphs touched on two very important issues:

1. The "give a sh#$@!" factor, and
2. The value of training

You're right, most of the time, folks who are pressed with numerous check-box responsibilities frequently don't have the time or energy to think about the larger picture, much less how the rifle cartridge might make a difference. There are times, however, that their comfort zone is jostled by changes in the world status. At that point, there's a flurry of activity and, depending on the quality of solution and sustainability of interest, things can be changed. I'm hoping we can have a soundly thought out and tested solution ready for that singular event.

Training is critical, and can make huge differences when other things are equal. We need to include this factor in our discussions, because one outcome may still be that a mix of 5.56 and 7.62X51, with proper training and intra-squad team work, will work best for us. We need to at least partly quantify this so that alternative solutions can be compared and addressed for the amount of improvement in capability brought to the table.

[LR1955]

We have no money, and no enthusiasm, to fund R&D for this, the US no longer has a large, vibrant, firearms community, the EU is just fine with puny defense budgets, and lastly, no NCO above the rank of E-6 and no Officer above the rank of O-3 really care about small arms.

RFB:

I too agree with everything except the comment about leaders not caring about small arms. I just got off of a range with nothing but leaders to include the Battalion Commander. And by no means is this an exception. They do care about things like performance, weapons dependability, weapons / ammunition / sighting system capabilities and probably a few other things that don't come to mind right now. I have also noted this to Brigade Command level as a rule -- not an exception. And they will elevate equipment problems if they are made aware of them from subordinate leaders.

I can't say that these levels of leadership were as concerned prior to the GWOT but as the years go by with more and more deployments under their belts, they have become far more focused on small arms and small arms training than in my era.

LR55

[warped]

Gene I concur, I have many associations with commanders and upper enlisted in various places and they do care.

The strange thing is that many of them feel there is no need to replace the M16/M4 entirely, there can be a few enhancements made, all the money being spent seems to be purely political.

Firearms are much like golf clubs, they all have a certain purpose and none is a replacement for all others, everything has a niche.

If you want CQC, it won't get to sniping ranges effectively, if you want excellent barrier penetration, it won't have great terminal effect, if we want long range, it won't be as light as 5.56mm.

There will always be a downside to something, the key is to have something we can use and live with, we already have that.

A caliber change would be good, I like the 6.5Grendel in the Colt IAR or 6940 platform, however there are a few things it would not be perfect for, it would however be good for many purposes.

Even the Colt 901 has a downside, it is a big rifle, it is nice for .308 sized ammo but not good for 5.56mm, you get a size and weight penalty without the power and range benefit.

What would be nice in that platform is a capability of using it as a belt feed or SAW type using easy to load drum mags

[Tony Williams]

I have only recently joined this forum, but I have for many years been arguing the case, wherever and whenever I can, for a general-purpose 6.5mm to 7mm round to replace both 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO cartridges in the next generation of weapons. I have done this in several articles in magazines such as Small Arms Review / Small Arms Defence Journal, Tactical Operator and Jane's Defence Weekly, plus a book (Assault Rifle, written with Max Popenker) and in conference presentations to the military in the UK and the USA.

In a nutshell, my argument is simply this:

1. The 5.56mm NATO has consistently shown in combat that it is limited in effective range and unreliable in its terminal effects and penetration even within that range. As a result, US, UK and other troops in Afghanistan are increasingly carrying 7.62mm NATO rifles and MGs.

2. The 7.62mm gets the job done, but it is unnecessarily heavy (a real problem for carrying ammo for MGs) and has too much recoil to be controllable in automatic rifle fire.

3. As demonstrated by the 6.8mm Rem, it is possible to develop a far more effective cartridge than the 5.56mm without incurring a lot of extra weight and recoil. However, the 6.8mm doesn't have the range to replace the 7.62mm too.

4. A cartridge using low-drag, long-range bullets like the 6.5mm Grendel at the bottom of the calibre range, and the British 7x43 EM-2 at the top, could replace both rounds: matching the long-range ballistics of the 7.62mm with less weight and recoil, and being more reliably effective than 5.56mm at any range.

5. Replacing two rounds with one general-purpose one would bring several benefits: it would halve the number of weapons to be acquired, supported and trained for; enable all soldiers in a section to share the same ammo; and ensure that soldiers are not caught out with the "wrong" type of weapon if the combat range changes suddenly during a patrol.

The current version of my illustrated presentation on this subject is on my website HERE.

I am currently suggesting to anyone in the military who will listen that the best way to test the intermediate calibre concept is to acquire some Grendel rifles and ammo and give them to soldiers, to let them test issues such as ballistics, terminal effectiveness and recoil control. For this purpose it wouldn't be essential for these to have automatic fire capability, but presumably if a military asked nicely some rifles could be delivered with selective fire trigger units?

[bwaites]

Tony,

Welcome, and great contribution! The articles are very well written and informative.

I'm still digesting some of it, but plan on picking up the book as well.

[LR1955]

I have only recently joined this forum, but I have for many years been arguing the case, wherever and whenever I can, for a general-purpose 6.5mm to 7mm round to replace both 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO cartridges in the next generation of weapons. I have done this in several articles in magazines such as Small Arms Review / Small Arms Defence Journal, Tactical Operator and Jane's Defence Weekly, plus a book (Assault Rifle, written with Max Popenker) and in conference presentations to the military in the UK and the USA.

In a nutshell, my argument is simply this:

1. The 5.56mm NATO has consistently shown in combat that it is limited in effective range and unreliable in its terminal effects and penetration even within that range. As a result, US, UK and other troops in Afghanistan are increasingly carrying 7.62mm NATO rifles and MGs.

2. The 7.62mm gets the job done, but it is unnecessarily heavy (a real problem for carrying ammo for MGs) and has too much recoil to be controllable in automatic rifle fire.

3. As demonstrated by the 6.8mm Rem, it is possible to develop a far more effective cartridge than the 5.56mm without incurring a lot of extra weight and recoil. However, the 6.8mm doesn't have the range to replace the 7.62mm too.

4. A cartridge using low-drag, long-range bullets like the 6.5mm Grendel at the bottom of the calibre range, and the British 7x43 EM-2 at the top, could replace both rounds: matching the long-range ballistics of the 7.62mm with less weight and recoil, and being more reliably effective than 5.56mm at any range.

5. Replacing two rounds with one general-purpose one would bring several benefits: it would halve the number of weapons to be acquired, supported and trained for; enable all soldiers in a section to share the same ammo; and ensure that soldiers are not caught out with the "wrong" type of weapon if the combat range changes suddenly during a patrol.

The current version of my illustrated presentation on this subject is on my website HERE.

I am currently suggesting to anyone in the military who will listen that the best way to test the intermediate calibre concept is to acquire some Grendel rifles and ammo and give them to soldiers, to let them test issues such as ballistics, terminal effectiveness and recoil control. For this purpose it wouldn't be essential for these to have automatic fire capability, but presumably if a military asked nicely some rifles could be delivered with selective fire trigger units?

Tony:

A question for you and this is one of the major issues in this discussion. What would a 6.5 Grendel Ball round be? I can assure you and anyone else that the Army isn't about to use extremely expensive match grade bullets for service ball, even if they function in machineguns which is unlikely due to the thin jackets.

And as importantly, what will its capabilities be in terms of danger space and lethality now that it won't be a very expensive match grade bullet with a relatively high BC. Add in a 16" barrel which further reduces MV and he result is better than a 7.62 X 39 but probably less than a round of issued 5.56.

Here are two other issues to consider. Grendel bolts appear to be more prone to shear lugs than the 5.56 or AR-10 and so far no one has been able to make a dependable magazine. Alexander has indicated on this current forum that he is trying to solve the bolt lug issue and the only place so far that makes Grendel magazines is C Products where it is a roll of the dice if one feeds or not. Warped is working on a magazine that is reliable and I am sure it will be once it gets into production.

I also believe there has been some testing done by DoD but of course until the weapon has been thoroughly evaluated in terms of its reliability it won't be issued. A Commander would be imprisoned if he decided to buy a non standard rifle and ammo that DoD has not certified or authorized him to obtain, and then issue it to his guys for combat or training. Best bet is to convince DoD to run tests on the Grendel but unless someone comes up with a suitable ball round, it would be a waste of money.

My opinion only but somehow I am not sure Alexander wants to screw around with DoD either.

Gene

[Tony Williams]

Tony:

A question for you and this is one of the major issues in this discussion. What would a 6.5 Grendel Ball round be? I can assure you and anyone else that the Army isn't about to use extremely expensive match grade bullets for service ball, even if they function in machineguns which is unlikely due to the thin jackets.

And as importantly, what will its capabilities be in terms of danger space and lethality now that it won't be a very expensive match grade bullet with a relatively high BC. Add in a 16" barrel which further reduces MV and he result is better than a 7.62 X 39 but probably less than a round of issued 5.56.

Gene, I don't think it necessarily follows that a military ball round can't have a high BC. Someone on my own forum (who knows a lot more about the technicalities of bullet design than I do) pointed about that the German 7.92mm heavy ball of WW2 was superbly shaped, with a ballistic coefficient of over .5, yet was churned out by the billion. So while I agree that no military is going to be selecting a match-grade bullet, a ball round which matched the shape and weight of such a bullet shouldn't be far behind.

As it is, the Grendel's 123 grain Scenar overtakes 7.62mm ball in retained energy by about 700 metres and by 1000 metres is clearly ahead, with a flatter trajectory and less wind drift too. Given that what is needed to replace 7.62mm is to match M80 performance at long range, there can afford to be some loss of Grendel performance while still achieving this.

Bullet design is the crucial issue in the success of a long-range intermediate. It has to have low drag, but also yaw rapidly and reliably on impact in order to provide effectiveness against unprotected personnel. If the bullet also has to be lead-free that brings further design headaches...

As far as barrel length is concerned, a general-purpose cartridge really should be used in a general-purpose rifle to get the most out of it. That means the barrel should be long enough to get the most out of the cartridge. Since a general-purpose rifle also needs to be compact for urban fighting, that strongly indicates the bullpup configuration as the optimum solution (although I know most Americans don't agree!). I've considered the pros and cons of bullpups, and ways of tackling their issues, HERE.

[LR1955]

Gene, I don't think it necessarily follows that a military ball round can't have a high BC. Someone on my own forum (who knows a lot more about the technicalities of bullet design than I do) pointed about that the German 7.92mm heavy ball of WW2 was superbly shaped, with a ballistic coefficient of over .5, yet was churned out by the billion. So while I agree that no military is going to be selecting a match-grade bullet, a ball round which matched the shape and weight of such a bullet shouldn't be far behind.

As it is, the Grendel's 123 grain Scenar overtakes 7.62mm ball in retained energy by about 700 metres and by 1000 metres is clearly ahead, with a flatter trajectory and less wind drift too. Given that what is needed to replace 7.62mm is to match M80 performance at long range, there can afford to be some loss of Grendel performance while still achieving this.

Bullet design is the crucial issue in the success of a long-range intermediate. It has to have low drag, but also yaw rapidly and reliably on impact in order to provide effectiveness against unprotected personnel. If the bullet also has to be lead-free that brings further design headaches...

As far as barrel length is concerned, a general-purpose cartridge really should be used in a general-purpose rifle to get the most out of it. That means the barrel should be long enough to get the most out of the cartridge. Since a general-purpose rifle also needs to be compact for urban fighting, that strongly indicates the bullpup configuration as the optimum solution (although I know most Americans don't agree!). I've considered the pros and cons of bullpups, and ways of tackling their issues, HERE.

Tony:

I would have to look at that round of 8mm but shape doesn't always mean performance. I am pretty sure (since I pulled and sectioned some) that the later British .303 had a bullet that put wood filler into the tip to enhance yaw when it hit something. Long shape allows for more streamlined design -- thus a higher BC. The problem it that this is seen only through equations written on a piece of paper. Its exterior performance sucked.

I keep hearing about the exterior performance of this 123 Lapua Grendel load and how it overcomes M-80 so decided to test it. KD range to 1000 yards, sea level, air temperature was around 55 if I recall. Very experienced guys working the targets in the pits. 24 and 26" barrel match grade Grendels with the 123 Lapua, 30.5 grains of 2520 (the fastest load I have found to date that theoretically stays inside safe limits), Grendel brass, CCI-450 primer.

The guy pulling targets could barely hear the bullet at 1000 yards from either barrel length. I expect it went subsonic at around 700 or 800 yards, just like M-80, which actually is pretty much what I expected. So, what happens via a ballistic computer doesn't always happen in reality. And in practical terms, considering the full environment of use, does it really matter? BTW -- we threw some 118 LR and SB through a couple of Remingtons and that ammo did stay above the speed of sound.

This discussion went on for years on the old forum and was actually pretty neat to read. It changed its title a hundred times when things got off track but they always went off track no matter what. Maybe we should have paid more attention to their direction when they did go off track as that was probably the more realistic assessment.

LR1955

[Tony Williams]

Gene:

The .303 Mk VII was the standard British ball round in both World Wars, and this was given a light-alloy tip filler as standard "for ballistic reasons", but it must surely have helped rapid yaw and upset on impact. Sometimes the aluminium filler was replaced by other lightweight materials when aluminium was in short supply. The bullet wasn't boat-tailed but even so, I've never read any complaints about its performance or lethality at normal (up to 1,000 yards) fighting ranges. There was a Mk VIII round which used a boat-tailed bullet and was loaded to a higher pressure to increase the velocity, but this was designed for the Vickers MMGs, to enable them to shoot at 4,000+ yards...

Your description of range-testing the rounds makes a very good point - all theoretical performance calculations of any type need to be backed up by thorough practical testing. The ideal is of course to try them on one of the radar-equipped test ranges which give precise information about actual velocities at different ranges, trajectories, wind drift etc. Terminal effectiveness and barrier penetration also need to be exhaustively checked, as far as they can be, before being finally confirmed in combat.

I think it is important for any cartridge being offered as a potential replacement for the 7.62mm to be able to match the M80's ballistics and terminal effectiveness at 1,000 m, otherwise it will be rejected and the 7.62mm retained.