Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • RedFalconBill

    #31
    Originally posted by LR1955 View Post
    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
    Perhaps I was being a bit dramatic with my characterizations, but end users do not always know what they want, nor do they keep themselves up to date on innovations in their field.

    Using a more powerful round does not mean much if you cannot hit what you are aiming at.

    Comment

    • Tony Williams

      #32
      Rumours are flying around concerning the US "trade study" of different small-arms calibres mentioned by General Brogan in my hearing at the NDIA in Dallas last May. The US Army's ARDEC has completed this, comparing the 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds with 6.5mm and 7mm over a wide range of criteria, assuming the use of similar lead-free bullets. The conclusion is that both the 6.5mm and 7mm were much better overall than either the 5.56mm or the 7.62mm. The report has yet to be released, but the rumours seem pretty definite.

      This should come as no surprise; the abstract of Ehrhart's 2009 study (Increasing small arms lethality in Afghanistan: Taking back the infantry half-kilometer) contains this:
      "The 2006 study by the Joint Service Wound Ballistics – Integrated Product Team discovered that the ideal caliber seems to be between 6.5 and 7-mm. This was also the general conclusion of all military ballistics studies since the end of World War I."

      How many more studies will it take, I wonder, before the US and/or NATO actually does something about this?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Tony Williams View Post
        ...How many more studies will it take, I wonder, before the US and/or NATO actually does something about this?
        Tony,

        My experience was that the studies will be repeated with small changes in assumptions, constraints and weighting factors until the 'right' answer emerges.

        Who gets to decide if the answer is right? Of course it's the senior civilian and military service leaders!

        The real miracle happens when they get fired up enough to convince congress of the need to do the new work!

        I believe our best contribution is to continue what we're doing, culminating in more than one (I sincerely hope!) "commercial off the shelf" (COTS) cartridge and rifle set that would fit.

        Reason for getting real hardware in commercially viable form: Makes the 'right' answer easier to grasp.

        Reason for creating choices: It's a lot easier to go ahead if one knows that several solutions exist and that a couple have been reduced to practice!

        Cheers!
        Joe

        Comment

        • Tony Williams

          #34
          I agree that an early stage of the process should be to get competitive gun/ammo combinations in the hands of soldiers for practical testing, in parallel with work intended to determine the optimum calibre and bullet design.

          Comment

          • LR1955
            Super Moderator
            • Mar 2011
            • 3355

            #35
            Originally posted by Tony Williams View Post
            Rumours are flying around concerning the US "trade study" of different small-arms calibres mentioned by General Brogan in my hearing at the NDIA in Dallas last May. The US Army's ARDEC has completed this, comparing the 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds with 6.5mm and 7mm over a wide range of criteria, assuming the use of similar lead-free bullets. The conclusion is that both the 6.5mm and 7mm were much better overall than either the 5.56mm or the 7.62mm. The report has yet to be released, but the rumours seem pretty definite.

            This should come as no surprise; the abstract of Ehrhart's 2009 study (Increasing small arms lethality in Afghanistan: Taking back the infantry half-kilometer) contains this:
            "The 2006 study by the Joint Service Wound Ballistics – Integrated Product Team discovered that the ideal caliber seems to be between 6.5 and 7-mm. This was also the general conclusion of all military ballistics studies since the end of World War I."

            How many more studies will it take, I wonder, before the US and/or NATO actually does something about this?
            Tony:

            Earhart didn't produce a study. He produced an opinion paper. It is amazing how many things he left out that he should have included and that countered many of his opinions. I won't argue with his comment about wound ballistics but I would with his prejudice in favor of the Grendel.

            He, like many others continue to compare the match grade, 123 Lapua load with issued Service Ball in terms of exterior ability. He shouldn't have done so or should have detailed the potential of a match grade cartridge to that of service ball. Sorry but he did not study anything, just stated an opinion without all the facts.

            Note he talked about the old M-1 30-06 ball in favorable terms but didn't state why it fell into disuse. Not only the increase in recoil but it outshot SDZs and that was in the 1930's. What ever DoD decides to do, I hope they can also produce land to increase surface danger zones on ranges. Many ranges today are based on the 5.56 ball SDZ and if you go to something that increases maximum range, you will render many current ranges as being unusable.

            There were other details that were left out of his paper and should have been included. I wouldn't cite his paper as a study at all. An opinion, yes. A study, no.

            LR55

            Comment

            • Tony Williams

              #36
              Someone in a position to know what's going on sent me an interesting news item the other day:

              "Last week the JSSAP LSAT program lost its funding based on the direction of the joint service user committee. There is no requirement for a M249 SAW replacement and especially one in 5.56mm. The recommendation of the committee was to have LSAT refocus on a caliber more effective than 5.56mm."

              Comment

              • stanc
                Banned
                • Apr 2011
                • 3430

                #37
                Originally posted by Tony Williams View Post
                "Last week the JSSAP LSAT program lost its funding based on the direction of the joint service user committee. There is no requirement for a M249 SAW replacement and especially one in 5.56mm."
                Convert the M249 to 6.5 Grendel?

                Comment

                • Tony Williams

                  #38
                  Originally posted by stanc View Post
                  Convert the M249 to 6.5 Grendel?
                  In effect, possibly - but with ammo weight reduced by up to 40%!

                  Comment

                  • BluntForceTrauma
                    Administrator
                    • Feb 2011
                    • 3897

                    #39
                    Tony, I think you meant to reference the 7.62x51 M240?

                    John
                    :: 6.5 GRENDEL Deer and Targets :: 6mmARC Targets and Varmints and Deer :: 22 ARC Varmints and Targets

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

                    Comment

                    • stanc
                      Banned
                      • Apr 2011
                      • 3430

                      #40
                      Originally posted by Tony Williams View Post
                      In effect, possibly - but with ammo weight reduced by up to 40%!
                      I omitted the last sentence in your quote ("The recommendation of the committee was to have LSAT refocus on a caliber more effective than 5.56mm.") because that part I found confusing. With funding eliminated, how can they work on a machine gun, regardless of caliber?

                      Comment

                      • Tony Williams

                        #41
                        Originally posted by JWH View Post
                        Tony, I think you meant to reference the 7.62x51 M240?
                        John, I meant that a 6.5mm plastic-cased LSAT with the same performance as the Grendel could have ammo with weight reduced by up to 40%. This is the weight saving currently achieved by plastic-cased 5.56mm LSAT over the standard brass-cased 5.56mm.

                        Having said that, I suspect that the bullet will form a higher percentage of the weight of a long-range intermediate than it does of 5.56mm M855, so maybe the weight saving won't be as great, but it should still be at least 30%.

                        Comment

                        • Tony Williams

                          #42
                          Originally posted by stanc View Post
                          I omitted the last sentence in your quote ("The recommendation of the committee was to have LSAT refocus on a caliber more effective than 5.56mm.") because that part I found confusing. With funding eliminated, how can they work on a machine gun, regardless of caliber?
                          I believe that under the current contract LSAT development is specifically focused on 5.56mm, so I suspect that the contract (and its associated funding stream) will need to be cancelled and replaced by another one if they're going to change the calibre.

                          Comment

                          • stanc
                            Banned
                            • Apr 2011
                            • 3430

                            #43
                            Originally posted by Tony Williams View Post
                            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.
                            An excellent idea, IMO, albeit hindered by lack of ball ammo.

                            If the Wolf 110gr FMJ load would ever materialize, or Alexander's "GP" round becomes reality ( http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showt...full=1#post657 ), then there'd be something to compare against 5.56 (and 7.62) weapons.

                            Comment

                            • Tony Williams

                              #44
                              Originally posted by stanc View Post
                              If the Wolf 110gr FMJ load would ever materialize, or Alexander's "GP" round becomes reality ( http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showt...full=1#post657 ), then there'd be something to compare against 5.56 (and 7.62) weapons.
                              The sooner the better - I can promise a mention in Jane's Ammunition Handbook as soon as data are available!

                              Comment

                              • Tony Williams

                                #45
                                Some interesting news from the NDIA Small Arms conference held last week (I didn't attend, but have received a report).

                                The bad news is that the US Army are going ahead with the carbine competition which everyone with an interest is 100% certain will resuilt in 5.56mm being confirmed and 90% certain that none of the competitors will be found to be so much better than the Product Improved M4 that the change will be worth it.

                                The US Army also didn't say a word about the ARDEC study which demonstrated the superiority of 6.5mm and 7mm over 5.56mm and 7.62mm, and appear to be regretting that they ever asked for it. It is most definitely not in the public domain!

                                The good news is that it is confirmed that the JSSAST panel withdrew new funding from LSAT unless they can demonstrate downrange performance superior to the 5.56mm M249 LMG. It was announced publically that JSSAP will conduct a Caliber Study for LSAT in support of improved downrange performance. It will include 6.5mm as well as 7.62mm NATO.

                                Perhaps JSSAP would fund some experimentation and bullet development with 6.5mm Grendel?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X