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

[LRRPF52]

New Zealand SAS has been using Colt Commandos and M4's for many decades. Same with Australian SASR, British SBS, SAS, Danes, Norwegians, French LRRPS are using them, most of the Eastern European nations dumped their garbage AK's in favor of M4's. I lost track of everybody that's using them.

[Lightning8]

I carried some version of the M16/M4 family since 1981 until I retired in July. Never had an issue with a M16/M4 that was maintained and lubricated. Unfortunately, I never saw any of the magic "bullets" including 77 OTM and certainly never a Barnes 70TSX though. Always 55 FMJ M193 and later the 62 FMJ M855. Issued and carried M855 overseas in 2005-6. See no use in piston ARs either unless you are using some exotic SBR with a suppressor.

Couple of points from my 30+ career - 1) 100 lbs of lightweight "stuff" is still 100 lbs; our "light fighters" are loaded awful heavy and 2) there are not that many Soldiers/Marines at the point of the spear engaging the enemy at any one time - we can easily afford to give the Warriors on the tip of the spear the BEST small arms available.

[LRRPF52]

Roger that. Everyone I saw shot with M855 was jacked up really bad, or DRT. I have no problems with M855 personally. It works, it's fast, it blows through things, it fragments at close range, and it's fast out of an M4 averaging anywhere from 2880-2950fps, book answer being 2920fps from the 14.5" M4.

Mortars and machineguns do a lot of the work though. By the time it gets down to M4's, you're picking up stragglers.

I've always wanted a 6.5mm LMG, and it looks like LSAT will deliver that in a 12lb package, with ammo that weighs less than 5.56 linked.

[stanc]

I've always wanted a 6.5mm LMG, and it looks like LSAT will deliver that in a 12lb package, with ammo that weighs less than 5.56 linked.

Yes it does. But, the squad automatic weapon and the individual weapon have always been the same caliber. It's a safe bet that if a 6.5mm CTA LMG is fielded, a carbine that fires the same ammo will also be adopted.

So, in the event that cased-telescoped technology does not pan out, I just don't see a Grendel LMG entering service without the carbine also being 6.5 G, despite the drawbacks you've noted.

[sneaky one]

yawn.

[LRRPF52]

Yes it does. But, the squad automatic weapon and the individual weapon have always been the same caliber. It's a safe bet that if a 6.5mm CTA LMG is fielded, a carbine that fires the same ammo will also be adopted.

So, in the event that cased-telescoped technology does not pan out, I just don't see a Grendel LMG entering service without the carbine also being 6.5 G, despite the drawbacks you've noted.

Many units have been using the Mk.48 7.62 NATO LMG in place of the SAW, which is obviously a different caliber than everyone else's M4's.

[stanc]

Many units have been using the Mk.48 7.62 NATO LMG in place of the SAW, which is obviously a different caliber than everyone else's M4's.

Yup. However, it's one thing to field a non-5.56mm LMG when the caliber has long been US/NATO standard, and is in the inventory.

It's something else entirely when it would mean introducing a third rifle/MG cartridge into the system.

The 6mm SAW was rejected in favor of keeping a common caliber for the squad, and IIRC, the US Army's Caliber Configuration Study envisioned a common caliber for carbine, DMR, and SAW.

Is there any evidence which indicates that a third caliber would even be considered for adoption?

[ah1whiskey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM214_Microgun

one of these would have been very nice in 6.5G along with a 6.5 SAW.

[stanc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM214_Microgun

one of these would have been very nice in 6.5G along with a 6.5 SAW.

A 6.5 Gatling would be awesome. But, that's getting quite a ways ahead of ourselves. We don't yet have a belt-fed 6.5 LMG, due in no small part to lack of M27-type links.

Shoot, it's over a decade after introduction of the Grendel cartridge, and we still don't even have a mag-fed 6.5 IAR, although such could be built using COTS components.


Without suitable 6.5 weapons to demo the capabilities, how does anyone hope to interest the military?

[BluntForceTrauma]

Without suitable 6.5 weapons to demo the capabilities, how does anyone hope to interest the military?

Bill now and again does interesting prototype projectiles for interesting people. And these ain't no warmed-over hunting-type, 90-grain Gold Dots. . . . Anyway, you know how the military is. But those who want to know are exploring it.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because certain projects are not trumpeted or darkly hinted at on the forums like The Other Intermediate Cartridge that nothing is happening behind the scenes. Oops! Am I now guilty of "darkly hinting" at such activities? You pushed me to it! I'm probably just making it up to generate marketing hype, anyway.

[ah1whiskey]

i'm pretty sure you could build a belt fed 6.5 fairly easy using the com block links for the 7.62x39 , too bad all the cheap communist war relics are pretty much dried up.

the soviet era 7.62x39 was used on a lot of commie belt fed machine guns --

i suspect a new round is in the works with a lot of new arms to go with it-- i just hope it ain't some case-less ammo involved--

you know that neat little micro minigun can use a feed chute without links of any kind-- imagine 4 of um in a quad mount-- ?? make a nice ISIS burner fired from a scout chopper or a hummer--lol

[stanc]

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because certain projects are not trumpeted or darkly hinted at on the forums like The Other Intermediate Cartridge that nothing is happening behind the scenes. Oops! Am I now guilty of "darkly hinting" at such activities?

Not that I can tell. You didn't say that anything actually is happening behind the scenes, let alone give even the faintest hint as to what projects are underway (if something really is being worked on).

So..........mistake or not, I'll have to continue to think nothing is happening, until given evidence to the contrary.

[stanc]

i'm pretty sure you could build a belt fed 6.5 fairly easy using the com block links for the 7.62x39

I'm equally sure that could be done. See: http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showt...ull=1#post9998

The problem is, the US Armed Forces only use disintegrating links, and neither the M13 (7.62) nor the M27 (5.56) links fit the 6.5 Grendel case properly.


Because of the Grendel case dimensions, it'll be necessary to design a new link specifically for the 6.5 cartridge. If it's doable, I expect it would look less like the M13/M27 design (above), and more like this one developed for 9x19.

i suspect a new round is in the works with a lot of new arms to go with it-- i just hope it ain't some case-less ammo involved--

I dunno if there are "a lot of new arms" in the works, but a new carbine is reportedly being developed to fire new 6.5mm polymer cased-telescoped ammo (CTA), with a 6.5 CTA LMG being considered for possible future development.

[JASmith]

BFT makes an excellent point.

We've also been through this discussion a few times already.

Bottom line, those who have been in the R&D business know all too well the difficulties of moving a new idea from the "light bulb" stage to an actual proven product. The challenge is far more difficult when we talk about military RDt&E because of the added layers of political decisions. Premature speculation, hints and announcements only serve to hinder or kill what might otherwise truly be an outstanding development if allowed to mature.

Bill A. is to be soundly congratulated for his success in getting the Grendel to where it is. Yes, the commercial side could be helped if folks could hint that the cartridge is being given a serious look for military applications. Those hints, however, might be enough to keep the correct military acquisition decision from being made because noise levels from uninvolved parties gets to be too high.

We don't need to demand, for example, that things like belt links be made in order to show the cartridge can be brought into active service. The examples Stanc displayed show that they truly are only modest extensions to current design and production practice. The effort needed to make them happen will only be a part of the decision and budgeting process.

It is enough for us to seriously explore the sporting side and to chew the military application bone on occasion.

I, for one, enjoy both discussions but prefer to avoid open speculation about whether the acquisition may be serious.

[stanc]

Bottom line, those who have been in the R&D business know all too well the difficulties of moving a new idea from the "light bulb" stage to an actual proven product. The challenge is far more difficult when we talk about military RDt&E because of the added layers of political decisions.

We're not talking about military RDT&E. We're talking about what can be done by the private sector to try to attract the interest of the military.

Premature speculation, hints and announcements only serve to hinder or kill what might otherwise truly be an outstanding development if allowed to mature.

Nonsense. Companies -- especially gun makers -- often release information about new developments long before the products are mature.

Bill A. is to be soundly congratulated for his success in getting the Grendel to where it is. Yes, the commercial side could be helped if folks could hint that the cartridge is being given a serious look for military applications.

Helping "the commercial side" is not the subject of the discussion.

We don't need to demand, for example, that things like belt links be made in order to show the cartridge can be brought into active service.

In order to show that the cartridge actually is viable for military use, links do need to be developed and proven to give reliable functioning in a belt-fed machine gun.

It is enough for us to seriously explore the sporting side and to chew the military application bone on occasion.

It may be enough for you. However, some of "us" are primarily interested in the military potential.

I, for one, enjoy both discussions but prefer to avoid open speculation about whether the acquisition may be serious.

You may do as you wish. I prefer the free and open exchange of ideas and information.

In any case, I'm not interested in speculation.

What I'm talking about is determining if 6.5 Grendel truly is capable of replacing both NATO rounds (or in the case of Paul's proposal, replacing just 7.62), then -- if it meets the requirements -- doing what we can to convince the military to seriously consider it.

Some examples:

Gary Roberts gave an NDIA presentation touting the 6.8 SPC (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf). Why have there been no NDIA presentations on 6.5 Grendel?

The M249 has been converted to fire 6.8 SPC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Pq4_XdA-k). Why is there no M249 in 6.5 Grendel? Or at least a 6.5 Grendel IAR?

I've done what I could to "pitch" the idea of 6.5 Grendel for military use (http://www.tactical-life.com/firearm...-grendel-65mm/), but I think there is still much more that could be done.