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

[JASmith]

We're not talking about military RDT&E...

The military will need to use the product. Therefore it will be part of the military Research, Development, Test and Evaluation effort.

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.

This continued hammering at the link non-issue only serves to give the impression that a straightforward but expensive engineering development can't be done.

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)

Self evident in both cases but with a slight tactical logistics disadvantage compared to the 5.56 and a significsnt logistics advantage compared to the 7.62 NATO.

[stanc]

The military will need to use the product. Therefore it will be part of the military Research, Development, Test and Evaluation effort.

It would only become part of military RDT&E after the military becomes sufficiently interested in it. Until then, it is not a military RDT&E endeavor.

This continued hammering at the link non-issue only serves to give the impression that a straightforward but expensive engineering development can't be done.

Anyone who reaches that conclusion has either poor English comprehension or poor reasoning ability. I didn't say it can't be done. I said that until it is done, the capability cannot be demonstrated.

Self evident in both cases...

Oh, really? And just where are the gel tests and barrier penetration tests that show terminal performance of 6.5 Grendel matches 7.62 NATO? How does the trajectory of 6.5 Grendel FMJ compare to that of 7.62 M80 Ball? How does visibility of 6.5 Grendel Tracer compare to that of 7.62 M62 Tracer? How does the armor penetration of 6.5 Grendel AP compare to that of 7.62 M993 AP?

Nope. There's far too much data missing to be able to declare the issue "self evident."

[stanc]

Self evident in both cases but with a slight tactical logistics disadvantage compared to the 5.56 and a significsnt logistics advantage compared to the 7.62 NATO.

Wrong. It's a significant logistical disadvantage compared to 5.56 NATO. Otherwise Paul wouldn't be opposed to replacing 5.56 with 6.5 Grendel.

[ah1whiskey]

like everything it going to be a trade off if you go for 5.56 and 7.62nato.

i suspect the DOD would need to develop military ammo for the 6.5 to get it up to 7.62x51 standards same goes with the links. it shouldn't be no biggie for industry to make 6.5 links.


the 6.5G although promising , i seriously doubt the DOD will adopt it simply because the m-16 series is long over due for replacement and the 6.5G was made for the limitations of m-16 mag-well.

the 6.5 although very good don't really offer enough to go into service to replace the 7.62 nato by itself.

it would have to be a package deal -- you DRM rifles, assault rifles, shorties, and LMGs would all have to adopt the round for the economy of scale required.

since your going to need new mags, and links anyway-- why not go with a all new round that don't have to fit the m-16 mag-well? that why i don't think the DOD is all that serious about the 6.5g 6.8 and all the other improved m-16 rounds--

although a 6.5G firing micro-minigun would be a very impressive sight -- minigun firepower in a micro weight--lol

i do think the 6.5G is pointing the way for future systems , highly efficient, good power and barrier penetration , long effective range and reasonable recoil and report-- all of which can be very valuable in military arms--

[stanc]

i suspect the DOD would need to develop military ammo for the 6.5 to get it up to 7.62x51 standards

Don't know what you mean by "get it up to 7.62x51 standards," but there is no doubt that 6.5 Grendel military loads would have to be developed: Ball, Tracer, AP, Blank, etc.

same goes with the links. it shouldn't be no biggie for industry to make 6.5 links.

<sigh> Again, no one has claimed that 6.5 links can't be made. What I'm saying is that, if you want to demonstrate (instead of just making theoretical arguments) that 6.5 G can replace 7.62 NATO, you need to have a belt-fed 6.5 LMG and linked ammo for it.

Currently there are no 6.5 links -- and therefore no linked 6.5 ammo -- and no 6.5 machine gun, so there is no way to show that 6.5 Grendel actually is good enough to replace 7.62 NATO.

the 6.5 although very good don't really offer enough to go into service to replace the 7.62 nato by itself.

it would have to be a package deal -- you DRM rifles, assault rifles, shorties, and LMGs would all have to adopt the round for the economy of scale required.

I'm sure that if 6.5 Grendel were to be adopted, it would be used for all of those weapons. I don't see it being adopted solely for LMG (or LMG and DMR) use.

since your going to need new mags, and links anyway-- why not go with a all new round that don't have to fit the m-16 mag-well?

i do think the 6.5G is pointing the way for future systems , highly efficient, good power and barrier penetration , long effective range and reasonable recoil and report-- all of which can be very valuable in military arms--

That's what a number of people are thinking. Cris Murray, with the 7mm UIAC; the USAMU, with the .264 USA; HK/Lapua, with a 6.5x40-something (variously described as 6.5x43 and 6.5x45).

[Buck2732]

However they need to keep up or get the hell out of the way. They and their hague declaration can pound sand. We shouldn't be lowering our standards to accommodate their ignorance.

Would you care to rephrase that... You guys squashed the 280/30...

[Buck2732]

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.

I cant speak for the other nations but the bog standard L85A2 is a hell of a lot heaver than any thing in the AR range. Which counts a lot when you are humping a great weight fast.

L85A2 4.98kg (with loaded magazine and optical sight)
Demarco C8 2.7 kg empty w/o magazine 3.2 kgloaded with 30 rounds

[stanc]

However they need to keep up or get the hell out of the way. They and their hague declaration can pound sand. We shouldn't be lowering our standards to accommodate their ignorance.

Would you care to rephrase that... You guys squashed the 280/30...

How about this for rephrasing: You guys should've told the US to pound sand, and stuck with your decision to adopt the .280/30 and EM2.

[Buck2732]

How about this for rephrasing: You guys should've told the US to pound sand, and stuck with your decision to adopt the .280/30 and EM2.

We were until Sir WS Churchill came back in to power then he scrapped it insisting we change to 7.62x51 to follow NATO and you guys... How did that turn out..

[stanc]

We where until Sir WS Churchill came back in to power then he scrapped it insisting we change to 7.62x51 to follow NATO and you guys... How did that turn out..

Quite well, actually.

7.62x51 has been a pretty decent GPMG cartridge. More importantly, its drawbacks as a rifle round, together with the shortcomings of the M14, helped lead to development and adoption of 5.56x45 and the M16. All of which eventually resulted in creation of 6.5 Grendel.

If the US had adopted the 7x43 British and the FAL, as some people wish had occurred, there might never have been any motivation to develop the 5.56 cartridge and the AR15 rifle. No 5.56 NATO and no AR15, means no 6.5 Grendel.

[joker31]

First of all, cant believe this thread is still around. Funny thing about the Grendel, I was talking to colleagues the other day at an agency that works to track certain trends in Small arms and it looks like the Ratnik report was released and the Russians may be picking up the Grendel, at least on a certain level. I never thought that this little cartridge would amount to much outside of a few guys here and there hunting and target shooting. Evidently K-Concern had a few examples that they entered into the competition back in 2012, one of which was a AK-12 (Heavy) in 6.5Grendel. I was asked by someone in the publication business if I heard anything about it and at the time I had heard a few things here and there but only thought it was Russian "Dream Sequencing" because everyone knows they dont have the money for research right now and they are sitting on a mountain of AKM's that they cant do anything with. I'm not sure if they are going to keep them for domestic use (Makes most sense) or if they plan on using them in expeditionary deployments. From what I hear, the powers that need to be impressed were quite impressed. I guess its great to get all of their work done for them by Americans and HAD to be a big selling point.

[stanc]

Funny thing about the Grendel, I was talking to colleagues the other day at an agency that works to track certain trends in Small arms and it looks like the Ratnik report was released and the Russians may be picking up the Grendel, at least on a certain level. Evidently K-Concern had a few examples that they entered into the competition back in 2012, one of which was a AK-12 (Heavy) in 6.5Grendel.

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?1177-Grendelski

[longshooter67]

I don't think we'll see a change in caliber in our lifetime. The Grendel is great, I also like my SPC. If you look at the current program to update the M-9 as an example you'll see just how broken the system for small arms procurement is. Even the top brass are disgusted with the whole process. I'm a 24yr vet and I've used a lot of different arms in that time frame and witnessed some great improvement in the weapon systems we have. My take is that unless all our allies come to some kind of concensus in a weird meeting of the minds that actually produces some kind of common sense approach, we'll never see a change. First off, the gov't won't adopt an existing cartridge because of the narcissistic attitudes among the procurement civilian contractors the control the process. The 06, 5.56x45, 7.62x51 were all created even though there were cartridges widely available that performed similarly. The 300 savage and the 222 rem mag come to mind. Not invented here mentality comes into play. Secondly, contracts are sent out and builders of arms and ammo produce test beds to submit. In today's shaky economics here and abroad not many are going to invest the tens of millions to retool? The govt would have to fork out billions of advance monies to the contract award winners. Unlikely. Thirdly, the govt sets a parameter for what they want and select the tool that meets the requirements for the best price. You never get the absolute best tool, you get something in the middle. The tool will do some things great, a lot of things pretty good and a few things marginally. Small arms are not on the highest priority list anymore. We don't do massive battles from foxholes, or regiments charging the trenches. We have satellite battles of hit and run engagement. A soldiers weapon has to be able to do CQB in the mornings, midrange battles at lunch with a few longer distance engagements for supper. None of which its ideally suited for but does all OK. The aimpoint most soldiers carry can't take advantage of the grendels extra reach anyway. Bigger glass doesnt help the CQB guy either. NAVSPECWarfare has used the grendel, a friend in the business is who got me interested in it in the first place. He swore by its effectiveness. So you may see it in the hands of specialists, but as a general issue weapon, no way. What we'll probably see is improved platforms and ammo advancements coming out of Aberdeen or crane.

[LR1955]

I don't think we'll see a change in caliber in our lifetime. The Grendel is great, I also like my SPC. If you look at the current program to update the M-9 as an example you'll see just how broken the system for small arms procurement is. Even the top brass are disgusted with the whole process. I'm a 24yr vet and I've used a lot of different arms in that time frame and witnessed some great improvement in the weapon systems we have. My take is that unless all our allies come to some kind of concensus in a weird meeting of the minds that actually produces some kind of common sense approach, we'll never see a change. First off, the gov't won't adopt an existing cartridge because of the narcissistic attitudes among the procurement civilian contractors the control the process. The 06, 5.56x45, 7.62x51 were all created even though there were cartridges widely available that performed similarly. The 300 savage and the 222 rem mag come to mind. Not invented here mentality comes into play. Secondly, contracts are sent out and builders of arms and ammo produce test beds to submit. In today's shaky economics here and abroad not many are going to invest the tens of millions to retool? The govt would have to fork out billions of advance monies to the contract award winners. Unlikely. Thirdly, the govt sets a parameter for what they want and select the tool that meets the requirements for the best price. You never get the absolute best tool, you get something in the middle. The tool will do some things great, a lot of things pretty good and a few things marginally. Small arms are not on the highest priority list anymore. We don't do massive battles from foxholes, or regiments charging the trenches. We have satellite battles of hit and run engagement. A soldiers weapon has to be able to do CQB in the mornings, midrange battles at lunch with a few longer distance engagements for supper. None of which its ideally suited for but does all OK. The aimpoint most soldiers carry can't take advantage of the grendels extra reach anyway. Bigger glass doesnt help the CQB guy either. NAVSPECWarfare has used the grendel, a friend in the business is who got me interested in it in the first place. He swore by its effectiveness. So you may see it in the hands of specialists, but as a general issue weapon, no way. What we'll probably see is improved platforms and ammo advancements coming out of Aberdeen or crane.

Pretty much on the money. I never saw the 'narcissistic attitude' thing among the RDTE people or the civilians. If anything, many civilian companies want nothing to do with the governmental RTDE system because the government can terminate any contract at any time without having to provide a reason. And the government is not keen on seed money. In fact, the govt won't in most cases give companies money to develop the item. It has become too risky for any but the most capital wealthy of companies to get involved with the hardware side of govt contracting.

I wouldn't short change the M-68 sight. It is far more effective than any of the iron sight systems that have been issued. In fact, my opinion is that it is the only thing issued to guys in the last forty years that has actually improved lethality with the carbine or service rifle. More so than with any of the ACOG types of low power optics. For non mil guys, I mean accurate sustained fire at practical ranges (to 500 meters). Past that and you really need a magnified optic to see things.

I honestly don't see a difference between the Grendel any of the various 'specialty' CQB rounds such as the 6.8 for CQB to around 300.

Agree that most likely improved platforms and ammo.

LR55

[stanc]

I don't think we'll see a change in caliber in our lifetime. The Grendel is great, I also like my SPC. If you look at the current program to update the M-9 as an example you'll see just how broken the system for small arms procurement is. Even the top brass are disgusted with the whole process. I'm a 24yr vet and I've used a lot of different arms in that time frame and witnessed some great improvement in the weapon systems we have. My take is that unless all our allies come to some kind of concensus in a weird meeting of the minds that actually produces some kind of common sense approach, we'll never see a change. First off, the gov't won't adopt an existing cartridge because of the narcissistic attitudes among the procurement civilian contractors the control the process. The 06, 5.56x45, 7.62x51 were all created even though there were cartridges widely available that performed similarly. The 300 savage and the 222 rem mag come to mind.

Bad examples to make your point.

Development of what became 7.62x51 actually began with .300 Savage, but it had insufficient powder capacity to achieve the desired muzzle velocity.

And .222 Rem Mag did not exist at the time 5.56x45 was created. IIRC, .222 Rem Mag is a commercial version of the .224 Springfield, which was developed by the Armory to compete with 5.56x45.

The 7.65x53 Mauser was a previously existing round which would arguably have been superior to 7.62x51, but there was no comparable off-the-shelf cartridge for 5.56x45.

Not invented here mentality comes into play. Secondly, contracts are sent out and builders of arms and ammo produce test beds to submit. In today's shaky economics here and abroad not many are going to invest the tens of millions to retool? The govt would have to fork out billions of advance monies to the contract award winners. Unlikely. Thirdly, the govt sets a parameter for what they want and select the tool that meets the requirements for the best price. You never get the absolute best tool, you get something in the middle. The tool will do some things great, a lot of things pretty good and a few things marginally. Small arms are not on the highest priority list anymore. We don't do massive battles from foxholes, or regiments charging the trenches. We have satellite battles of hit and run engagement. A soldiers weapon has to be able to do CQB in the mornings, midrange battles at lunch with a few longer distance engagements for supper. None of which its ideally suited for but does all OK. The aimpoint most soldiers carry can't take advantage of the grendels extra reach anyway. Bigger glass doesnt help the CQB guy either. NAVSPECWarfare has used the grendel, a friend in the business is who got me interested in it in the first place. He swore by its effectiveness. So you may see it in the hands of specialists, but as a general issue weapon, no way. What we'll probably see is improved platforms and ammo advancements coming out of Aberdeen or crane.

I agree with much of what you say. If the Army were to go for a new, onventional cartridge, I think it's far more likely to be something like the AMU's .264 USA, than 6.5 Grendel.