Designing a Grendel IAR

[cory]

I definitely agree. The only reason I even broach the subject of a Grendel IAR is because -- unlike a Grendel belt-fed LMG -- it appears feasible to create with existing technology, at a cost that should be affordable by an individual Grendel enthusiast.

P.S. I see that you're now a "Super Moderator," Paul. What super powers do you have?

While I agree it'll be cheaper to build, from an engineering stand point, I think it'd be easier to design a reliable belt fed Grendel than a reliable 45+ round mag for the Grendel.

[usar_ds]

I don't want to be a party pooper, but are you positively sure that a transferable HK sear is legal to run in a MGA MK46???

http://www.hkpro.com/forum/hk-nfa-talk/167821-transferable-sear-mga-mk46.html

I don't think it is, but I'd love to be wrong!

Reading the thread in the above link, and also reading MGA's FAQ page leads to me to believe they are playing a dangerously deceptive game with their wording. If their product was legal to run with a pre-86 registered pack or sear, I'm quite positive they'd be screaming it from the rooftops!

well holy crap, i just read that thread and re-read MGA's faq and yeah, there wording is deceptive (at least to me). wtf

[Variable]

well holy crap, i just read that thread and re-read MGA's faq and yeah, there wording is deceptive (at least to me). wtf

Yeah, same reaction here. Double WTF. It's like they are trying to play a $250,000 and 10 year federal felony joke on somebody. They appear to be playing with the definition of "transferable". The common definition of a "transferable" sear or pack amongst the NFA community is that it is a pre-86 civvy legal transferable. They are technically correct that a post-86 sear or pack could be transferred to another SOT, but that's not what their deceptive wording comes across as, unless you read it very carefully. Definitely not cool.

If sears were mobile outside their weapon "family" they'd be the Holy Grail of the NFA world. I wish it were so! Instead they are just revered artifacts of lesser power.LOL Now if I could get a Shrike style AR upper that takes 6.5 Grendel in RPD belts.... Booyah!

[Variable]

I think the whole concept of an IAR (mag fed) is flawed due to capacity limitations, even with reliable drum mags. Linked is really the way to go with the duty position.

What I see with the Russians is that they love 45rd RPK mags, but you don't see the RPK used much at all, while you do see the PKM as one of the most important weapons at the dismount level.

Agreed as usual. I'd rather rock a belt. I guess we always come back to IARs because it's easier to acquire something like that in the civvy world.

I sort of envision a narrow engagement window where an IAR would be simpler and handier, but since the real world doesn't feel constrained to that narrow window, I'd default to a belt-fed where and when I could.

[Variable]

I frequently wonder if there couldn't be some kind of ingenious way (that I haven't seen yet, and can't personally envision) that'd stack 50 rounds of grendel in a P90 style mag that was somehow dead-nuts reliable, quiet, sturdy, and somehow unobtrusive while allowing rapid swaps and wasn't awkward on the weapon? That would really peak my interest, but I don't guess I'm asking for much am I?

[stanc]

...I think it'd be easier to design a reliable belt fed Grendel than a reliable 45+ round mag for the Grendel.

a. Is a 45-rd mag necessary? Doesn't the USMC use 30-rd mags on the M27 IAR?

b. Considering that 30-rd mags have long been made for 6.8 SPC, it seems like it should be no great feat to design and manufacture 30-rd 6.5 Grendel mags.

c. You force me to bring this point up, once again: It has not yet been demonstrated that viable disintegrating links can actually be designed/developed for the 6.5 Grendel cartridge.

[stanc]

Agreed as usual. I'd rather rock a belt. I guess we always come back to IARs because it's easier to acquire something like that in the civvy world.

Yes, that's the main reason I keep coming back to it. I view a Grendel IAR as an affordable approach to quickly create a concept demonstrator, which might inspire some entity to develop a belt-fed LMG in the caliber.

And let us not forget, the Marines currently use an IAR. So, there could possibly be military interest in a Grendel IAR as well.

[cory]

a. Is a 45-rd mag necessary? Doesn't the USMC use 30-rd mags on the M27 IAR?

b. Considering that 30-rd mags have long been made for 6.8 SPC, it seems like it should be no great feat to design and manufacture 30-rd 6.5 Grendel mags.

c. You force me to bring this point up, once again: It has not yet been demonstrated that viable disintegrating links can actually be designed/developed for the 6.5 Grendel cartridge.

Nor has it been demonstrated that a 30+ rd magazine can be made to mil spec requirements.

Do I think it can? Yes, with a wider magwell.

[stanc]

Nor has it been demonstrated that a 30+ rd magazine can be made to mil spec requirements.

Do I think it can? Yes, with a wider magwell.

IMO, a wider mag well, a la that of the LWRC Six8, would certainly be desirable. But, since standard-width, 25-rd 6.5 and 6.8 mags are available, and Barrett has made a 30-rd 6.8 mag for use in standard-width mag wells, I see no reason to think that such a 30-rd mag couldn't also be created for 6.5 Grendel.

In contrast, there is good reason to doubt that viable disintegrating links for 6.5 Grendel are actually doable.

[dobrodan]

Agreed as usual. I'd rather rock a belt. I guess we always come back to IARs because it's easier to acquire something like that in the civvy world.

I sort of envision a narrow engagement window where an IAR would be simpler and handier, but since the real world doesn't feel constrained to that narrow window, I'd default to a belt-fed where and when I could.

Well, I suspect you have walked down the normal route of one beltfed vs one magfed. The beltfed would win just about every time.

However, if you stack one beltfed against TWO magfed, I think the odds would be stacked the other way, even if the beltfed had a QCB. (at least if the barrels of the beltfeds and the magfeds were of similar profile.

Two magfeds would give:

-Better precision
-higher firepower for a short window of time
-be able to take out a higher number of targets inside a given window of time
-no firebreaks if properly used
-better mobility

Or, you could have two beltfed lightweight lmgs, without QCB, like the KAC LMG. Which would give you many of the pros, and even lose some of the cons with small magazines.

I am not a big fan of QCBs in the classic offensive infantry-role. IMO, it should only be brought along when you have large amounts of ammunition readily available, like in a defensive position.

[stanc]

MagPul MOE?

A possible candidate.

Or maybe not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6cwh4IxXSc

[stanc]

However, if you stack one beltfed against one magfed, I think the odds would be stacked the other way...

Two magfeds would give:

-higher firepower for a short window of time
-be able to take out a higher number of targets inside a given window of time

Hmm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4QagenzsK0

[Variable]

Hmm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4QagenzsK0

As an old school '60 gunner.....

[am4966]

The M27 IAR imo intended purpose is to lay down suppresing fire but with greater precision than that of the saw. I don't know the range but it's full auto for this range and can be used like a DM for longer ranges. The only way to suppress a enemy isnt by putting high volume of ammo on them. Plus the ability to help in clearing a room due to its size.

[stanc]

At this stage, I really don't care whether a belt-fed LMG or a mag-fed IAR is "better."
I just want to see any kind of Grendel squad automatic weapon built and tested.