Does the 6.5 grendel have the potential to replace the 5.56 for the military?

[Squatchy]

If not the grendel then maybe another 6mm/6.5 variant? Bullet design and cartridges have improved greatly since the introduction of the 5.56x45 about 70 years ago and only continue to get better in terms of terminal ballistics. If you had to take a guess what would your prediction of the next standard nato caliber be?

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

If not the grendel then maybe another 6mm/6.5 variant? Bullet design and cartridges have improved greatly since the introduction of the 5.56x45 about 70 years ago and only continue to get better in terms of terminal ballistics. If you had to take a guess what would your prediction of the next standard nato caliber be?

I think many would agree that the 6.5mm Grendel represents an outstanding 21st Century candidate cartridge to replace the .223/5.56x45mm as the standard NATO caliber:

http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/6-5mm-grendel-the-round-the-military-ought-to-have/

https://bullpupforum.com/index.php?topic=1060.msg56186#msg56186

[BluntForceTrauma]

An involved question. Gets into politics and logistics as much as technical performance parameters.

[stanc]

Does the 6.5 grendel have the potential to replace the 5.56 for the military?

Possibly. IIRC, PEO Soldier wants 800-meter capability. While some Horde members have shot targets at such long range, I don't know if anybody has tried it with service grade FMJ ammo. It might require a larger, more powerful cartridge to meet the requirements being discussed.

If you had to take a guess what would your prediction of the next standard nato caliber be?

The LSAT folks are reportedly working on 6.5mm polymer cased-telescoped ammo (and a carbine to fire it), the USAMU has developed a 6.5x47mm (.264 USA) round, and Lapua is said to have collaborated with HK to create what is essentially a slightly "stretched" 6.5 Grendel. So, 6.5mm would seem to be as good of a guess as any.



P.S. If you haven't already done so, you may wish to check some of the threads in the Military sub-forum. There have been a number of relevant discussions.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

". . . the current U.S. Army small arms development and acquisition system is dysfunctional and virtually unworkable . . ." --- http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...SmallArms.aspx

[JASmith]

Having debated in favor of and having not just a few arguments on the topic, I reluctantly concluded that the factors driving the choice of the 5.56 in the first place are even more strongly present today. That conclusion, however, does not mean that I agree with the notion that the best path for the next infantry cartridge is a smaller, not larger, footrprint in all respects that the current 5.56 NATO. My view isnthat our soldier's confidence is better served if they ready access to weapons that will eliminate any threat they can see.

The principal factor is the doctrine that air and artillery will do the heavy lifting and that the infantry is there to more or less clean up. That doctrine relegates the individual weapon to a defensive role with much less demand on range and lethality than would be if the role were more an offensive one.

To be sure, however, there are openings for a cartridge like the Grendel but they are more roles currently held by the 7.62x51.

As BFT pointed out, however, logistics and politics will dominate any decision.

The best we can do is to understand and articluste the cartridge in terms of its effectiveness and impact on logistics tail in the combined arms role and articulate that understanding. This gives those who are truly able to influence the influencers ammunition to support the political arguments.

[ah1whiskey]

when i was in pukeastan --- m4s seemed some what limited in range . a m4 in 6.5G has double the effective range, and that just about goes for the rifle as well.

the biggest improvement though would not be in rifles and carbines, it would be in light machine guns imagine what a m249 SAW firing 6.5G with military spec ammo steel, core AP core and IAP--- and now you get the picture.


the problem is with the DOD changing ammo is vary far down the list -- barrels mags , bolts, all have to be changed. the 6.5 weighs more, so there is more logistics.


in the current climate of cutting back the military to pre-ww2 size i doubt the government is the least bit interested in rounds that can penetrate and kill ISIS better.

and besides look at the millions/billions of mags that would have to be replaced.--lol

[stanc]

Having debated in favor of and having not just a few arguments on the topic, I reluctantly concluded that the factors driving the choice of the 5.56 in the first place are even more strongly present today. That conclusion, however, does not mean that I agree with the notion that the best path for the next infantry cartridge is a smaller, not larger, footrprint in all respects that the current 5.56 NATO.

Although there have been proposals in the past for micro-caliber cartridges, I haven't seen anyone in the military or industry currently advocating going smaller than 5.56mm. Afghanistan seems to have had the opposite effect, making it likely that any 5.56 replacement will be bigger, not smaller.

The best we can do is to understand and articluste the cartridge in terms of its effectiveness and impact on logistics tail in the combined arms role and articulate that understanding. This gives those who are truly able to influence the influencers ammunition to support the political arguments.

IMO, it would help to do so by demonstrating that there would actually be a worthwhile improvement to be had from switching to a cartridge like 6.5 Grendel.

So far, I've seen negligible testing done by Horde members, and what little has been done has given mixed results. Some here have done very long range shooting, with promising results. OTOH, in penetration testing of 6.5 Grendel 100gr FMJ versus cinder block, the result was no better than 5.56mm.

[Lightning8]

I would like to see a 6.5 bullet in the 6.8 SPC case. I do not think the current 6.5 Grendel case - especially the fit into the AR15 bolt - is optimal. As someone how dealt with government procurement in my career - the procurement process is ...........sad..........

[cory]

Although there have been proposals in the past for micro-caliber cartridges, I haven't seen anyone in the military or industry currently advocating going smaller than 5.56mm. Afghanistan seems to have had the opposite effect, making it likely that any 5.56 replacement will be bigger, not smaller.


IMO, it would help to do so by demonstrating that there would actually be a worthwhile improvement to be had from switching to a cartridge like 6.5 Grendel.

So far, I've seen negligible testing done by Horde members, and what little has been done has given mixed results. Some here have done very long range shooting, with promising results. OTOH, in penetration testing of 6.5 Grendel 100gr FMJ versus cinder block, the result was no better than 5.56mm.

The FMJ comparison is useless. The military no longer uses standard fmj. They use a steel core AP round. I don't see us being able to do this comparison any time soon.

A relevant comparison would be the 77gr smk load and a 123gr smk Grendel loads from 14.5" carbines. Assuming the Grendel or a variants was adopted, DMRs and special ops guys would be issued a 123gr smk load as it's available to their units. I'd bet the farm on that.

I would like to see a 6.5 bullet in the 6.5 SPC case. I do not think the current 6.5 Grendel case - especially the fit into the AR15 bolt - is optimal. As someone how dealt with government procurement in my career - the procurement process is ...........sad..........

When a new round is finally adopted, a new plarform will be developed for it. The Grendel needs a platform somewhere between the AR15 and AR10. It needs the width of the AR10 magwell, a lengthed to magwell to take a mag with ~2.4" rounds, the same carrier travel as the AR15 with a better designed bolt.

Or the LSAT telescoped ammunition would be a huge upgrade. If it can be made to work reliably.

Either way the x47 case is to much in terms of needed mag length and recoil. While the Grendel as is would be a huge upgrade, I think a slightly slimmed down x43 (closer to the current Grendel case than the 5.56) would be the sweet spot.

Personally though I look forward to the day that we have a carbine sized rail gun in the hands of our grunts.

[LRRPF52]

Something in 6.5mm is a better candidate for replacing 7.62 NATO, not 5.56 NATO.

We've beaten this topic to death over the years. Reducing the individual soldier's ammo capacity is not a recipe for success going into the future.

Reducing ammunition weight and/or increasing performance is what they are looking for, especially with regard to new Russian body armor.

Also keep in mind that the majority of soldiers, even ones who go outside the wire, rarely fire their weapons as it is. Withing an Infantry Platoon even, at least half of the duty positions don't have an M4, or should not be firing their M4 if they are assigned one, except for a worst-case, close-in overrun scenario.

1x Forward Observers
1x RTO's
1x Combat Medics
1x Platoon Sergeants
1x Platoon Leaders
2x Ammo Bearers
2x Assistant Machine Gunners (best weapon is a pair of binos and ammo for the 240)
1x Anti Armor Weapon Specialists (Javelin Gunner/SMAW Gunner)
6x SAW Gunner
2x Machinegunner

None of these 18 duty positions I listed above are going to be firing an M4, unless something has gone terribly wrong, and in that case, the highest magazine capacity is what they need. In scenarios where the Weapons Squad soldiers are taking rooms so the gun can set up, like I used to do with my AB's, AG's, and Javelin Gunners, they are room clearing a soft target with nobody inside but maybe passive civilians.

The remaining guys all carry M4's and shoot them more frequently.

6x Riflemen
6x Grenadiers
6x Fire Team Leaders
4x Squad Leaders

They go through a lot of ammo in chance contact/react to contact, as well as deliberate attacks. If you don't know what chance contact or any of the battle drills are, there are 8 of them.

Planned missions comprise a whole separate aspect of Small Unit Tactics, with the deliberate attack or raid being bread and butter, along with ambushes and movement to contact.

In any of these encounters with the enemy, planned or unplanned, your ammo is the fuel for your ability to sustain the fight. This is why I've been wanting to ax 7.62 NATO, without sacrificing terminal performance.

The only way to reduce weight and match or increase performance of my guns (we refer to belt-feds as "guns", never rifles or carbines, which are "weapons", don't ask me why), is to go with a more efficient bullet fired from a smaller, lighter pig, with less recoil.

[stanc]

The FMJ comparison is useless. The military no longer uses standard fmj. They use a steel core AP round. I don't see us being able to do this comparison any time soon.

A relevant comparison would be the 77gr smk load and a 123gr smk Grendel loads from 14.5" carbines. Assuming the Grendel or a variants was adopted, DMRs and special ops guys would be issued a 123gr smk load as it's available to their units. I'd bet the farm on that.

Concur on value of doing 77gr SMK/123gr SMK comparison. However, those are special purpose loads, and would give no useful data regarding performance of general purpose Ball ammo.

I very much disagree that FMJ comparison is useless.

First, a new caliber would almost certainly become NATO standard. Currently, all other NATO armies use FMJ; only the US uses EPR. Given the adherence to Hague Declaration III by other nations, it seems likely they would continue to want non-fragmenting FMJ. Which means that any NATO standard 6.5mm round would probably also be FMJ, with the US using non-NATO 6.5mm EPR, just as it now uses non-NATO 5.56mm EPR.

Second, 6.5 FMJ/5.56 FMJ (or 6.5 FMJ/7.62 FMJ) testing would allow "apples vs apples" comparison of relative performance capabilities of Ball ammo, especially in regards to practical accuracy at long range, and barrier penetration.

Either way the x47 case is to much in terms of needed mag width and recoil.

Recoil, possibly. Mag width, not really. The .264 USA (6.5x47) case diameter is only marginally greater than that of 6.5 Grendel. The difference would be unnoticeable.

[stanc]

Reducing ammunition weight and/or increasing performance is what they are looking for, especially with regard to new Russian body armor.

How capable is 5.56x45 at defeating the latest Russian armor?

The only way to reduce weight and match or increase performance of my guns (we refer to belt-feds as "guns", never rifles or carbines, which are "weapons", don't ask me why)...

I'll take a long shot here, and hazard a guess that belt-feds are call "guns" because they are officially classified as "machine guns"...

[LR1955]

Guys:

The solution has been there for a long time.

6.8 SPC.

He, he, he.

Of all the comments, I must admit that my buddy LRRP52 has the best view of it. You don't need to get something to replace the 5.56 but maybe, just maybe, something like the Grendel can replace the 7.62.

Like a 6.8 SPC shooting a 140 grain bullet!

LR55

[stanc]

Of all the comments, I must admit that my buddy LRRP52 has the best view of it. You don't need to get something to replace the 5.56 but maybe, just maybe, something like the Grendel can replace the 7.62.

Gene, do you mean replace 7.62 across the board (infantry, armor, aviation, etc), or just in a LMG for infantry use (as per the 1970s 6mm SAW)?

Like a 6.8 SPC shooting a 140 grain bullet!

Methinks you jest, but 6.8 SPC actually could be a viable option. Since at least 1892, whenever a new cartridge has been adopted, so has a new rifle to fire it. Therefore, there is no real need to stick with the COAL of 5.56 NATO. Increase the overall length of 6.8 SPC so that it can take a long-ogive projectile, and it ought to deliver about the same "reach" as 6.5 Grendel.

Plus, 6.8 disintegrating links already exist. (Sorry, John. I just couldn't resist. )