Our military adopting the Grendel?

[Variable]

5.56 will smoke deer just the same. A lot of people don't want to hear that, but it has and will. It also kills people deader than dead quite brutally, especially within 100m. Every 5.56 injury/death I have seen involved some pretty impressive wound characteristics. My opinion is based on real-world experience with 5.56, not something I read in a highly-polished stack of toilet paper, bound with staples. I've seen 5.56 take half a dude's head off, make injuries that normally would be non-lethal, look like someone blew hamburger apart with a 1/4 stick of TNT, and I've seen these types of wounds after 5.56 has skipped off body armor, gone through walls, and skipped off dirt and rocks.

If 5.56 sucked, the SAS, SBS, SASR, Delta, Force Recon, MSOR, Ranger Regiment, SF, SEALs, the Israelis, and countless other special operations units around the world drop it like a bad habit. Most of those units have a lot of input into what weapons they use, and what calibers they use. As a matter of fact, most of those units have actually driven the adoption and mass-distribution of 5.56 because it IS such an effective caliber for an individual service rifle/carbine.

If I personally saw how worthless 5.56 was from my experiences, I'd be the first to tell you. Is it magic? Does it erase people upon contact? No, but it really delivers a lot of bang for the amount of weight it takes up, and effective kills have been made with standard NATO M855 out to 500m, and 800m kills have been made with Mk262 77gr SMK's. Regardless of my experiences, Tier 1 units in the world vote with the weapons they use the most frequently. Right now, the ballot has been in-favor of 5.56 for over 50 years by these units. If you choose to argue with that, go ahead, but they will not be changing.

Now, when it comes to 7.62 NATO, I'm open to looking at a replacement for it. It's too heavy for what it delivers. Because so many weapons mounted on aircraft and vehicles use linked 7.62, there is a natural institutional resistance across NATO to switch to something different. I think something like the Grendel with a long-range trajectory comparable to 7.62 would be one of the most welcome additions to dismounted warfighters' tool box.

5.56 ain't broke, and needs very little tweaking to continue on as an awesome carbine cartridge. Our belt-fed systems are way too heavy, and we don't have a lightweight cartridge that would really serve them well.

As much as I love Grendel, I can't dispute a single thing you said!!! I'd rather use Grendel in an M4 or a Commando, but I can't dispute the 5.56's ability to get'er done when using the right ammo and shot placment

[Grendel-Gene]

The Grendel has good terminal effects like the 6.8spc yet it also has long range capabilities superior to both the 5.56 or 6.8spc. and as good as the 7.62 Nato in a M-16 platform. The best of both worlds. THE END.

I agree. Its hard to think of anything that is better or more versatil on the AR platform. That's why we are here.

[RStewart]

"Shot placement" is a wonderful concept when you are engaging only ONE ANIMAL with plenty of time..... but i was engaging THREE at just 30 feet from me.... so i shot center mass!!!

Which is why I use a G for deer hunting. We have a lot of feral hogs down here and you never know when you may come across momma and her babies.

[Grendel-Gene]

Believe me, next time i will too.

[sgt_murf]

The book the Falkland war was written by a on sight journalist. The SAS were disgusted with what they then called the 5.56 Armalite rifle. The 5.56 bullet is so small that it literally disintegrates upon impact on a windshield. Try stopping a determined suicide bomber driving towards you with a 5.56 weapon.

I did on several occasions in Iraq 03-04, did not have any problems or failure to stop the insurgant would I have like something bigger?.. yup and sometimes did use bigger ... M240B, and the M2 .50 BMG or the MK19 when I was mounted. Dismounted I relied on the 5.56mm only thing I found in my experiance it didn't work on was incoming mortars but the .50 BMG didn't work either. Not disagreeing with anyone just facing the facts. The US Army looked at the .280 British (they even modified the cartridge to .30 cal, changed the bolt face to apease the US Military) in the 50s which was basically a 7mm Grendel by all rights and favored the 7.62x51 . In the sixties the Army wanted to stay with the 7.62mm M14 until SECDEF Robert McNamara ordered the Production of the M14 in 1963 to a halt and that the DoD agencies will adopt the M16 which has been steadly improved upon bringing us up to version A4. The last Service Rifle adopted by the Army was the M14 not the M16 series of rifles. Would the 6.5 G work better in Afghan region I think so as the ranges are sometimes a bit further than in Iraq. But let's be honest here in both theathers the enemy has to engage within the range of their weapons which does not exceed the 5.56 range plus the 5.56 is a LOT more accurate than the 7.62x39 at any range. The main reason the Army probably will not adopt is Logistics consider the re-tool at Lake City the last Government owned arsenal, the amount of 5.56mm on hand. As well as Big Army does not like big changes in the Log side of the house unless it opens up a vast array of resources such as the adoption of the 9mm sidearm did, we was the last country to have the 45 everyone else was 9mm. Do I trust the 5.56mm to get the job done yes if I do my part are there better tools ... yes ... is the Grendel one, could be, but, I go to war with what I am issued not what is in my gun cabinet or my desires. Is the Grendel a good cartridge yes a fine one worthy of a fair assessment will it happen probably not.

[RStewart]

I definitely trust the opinions of guys who have been in combat with different platforms to have a better perspective on what works and what doesn't. There will always be discussions on what caliber is best, but like said, the gears of the government move slowly.

Thanks to all you guys who have put it on the line for our country. It's because of your willingness to sacrifice that we have the freedom to even have this discussion. Stay safe!

[sgt_murf]

RStewart,
You are so right Sir, there always will be better and disagreements. And If one reads between the Lines I am not a die hard 5.56mm fan but, I don't bash it either it is a fine cartridge. Given the choice I would carry a M14 bigger in my opinion is ways better, is it a perfect fit ...by all means ..NO. The Grendel does have may fine points I honestly do not trust that it would get a fair shake in the Trials if one was held today.
My opinion and experiance does not mean that someone here is wrong (as MANY have served they just don"t mention it )that have differant opinions or experiances than I. Heck my father a Viet Nam Vet talks about the M16 (not a1 guys the orginal) bullet being deflect by a wet leaf in SE Asia. Does the current bullet do the same NOPE. My post is not the end all be all opinions. Prior to Desert Storm and my deployments since 9/11 I would have been in TOTAL agreement with Montana and several others I hated the 5.56mm prior to using it real world.

[JASmith]

I've participated in the 5.56 debates a lot, and have learned much from them.

I surmise that much of the 5.56 bashing stems from the fact that it was derived from a varmint cartridge used mainly for competitive target shooting plus eliminating rabbits, squirrels, and prairie dogs. It was nowhere near the then-mainstream hunting or military cartridges of the time.

Indeed there are still those who maintain that no one should hunt with less than 7mm, preferably magnum in a larger caliber.

The debate lurches on...

[sgt_murf]

I've participated in the 5.56 debates a lot, and have learned much from them.

I surmise that much of the 5.56 bashing stems from the fact that it was derived from a varmint cartridge used mainly for competitive target shooting plus eliminating rabbits, squirrels, and prairie dogs. It was nowhere near the then-mainstream hunting or military cartridges of the time.

Indeed there are still those who maintain that no one should hunt with less than 7mm, preferably magnum in a larger caliber.

The debate lurches on...

Woohooo !!!
I like a good debate gets one to thinking and opens up differant Ideas, viewpoints, etc etc

[montana]

sgt-murf Well said.

[VASCAR2]

Another thing to consider is rules of engagement and political correctness which weren't near the concern during WWII. In certain conditions in Irag and Afghanistan our troops were not permitted to fire into a building unless they actually saw the insurgent shooting. I know a lot of troops carried armor piercing rounds in their M-1's and I'd say if soldiers came under fire in France in WWII our troops opened up with just about everything they had. In Law Enforcement and Military there appears to be is a lot more concern about hitting civilians (hearts & minds) and non combatants. I've never been in the military but from my LE experience the 5.56/223 is a welcome addition to 38/357, 9MM, 40, 45 and 12 gauge. From my experience the 12 gauge is no better penetrating cars than the 5.56 but if I have to go after an active shooter I'd rather have my 16 inch 5.56 carbine with our issued 55 grain JSP ammo. I haven't read about any failures to stop where the LEO used a 5.56 carbine or rifle. When I started in LE the local departments had a few M-1 carbines and a few mini 14's in the Pd to go along with the shotgun in the cars, now a high percentage of patrol officers carry a 5.56 AR-15 if they so desire. I carried a Remington 870 with slugs as well as my AR-15. Right before I retired from the St. Police my department withdrew our tactical 8 pellet OO buck because of potential of hitting a noncombatants.

[LRRPF52]

The book the Falkland war was written by a on sight journalist. The SAS were disgusted with what they then called the 5.56 Armalite rifle. The 5.56 bullet is so small that it literally disintegrates upon impact on a windshield. Try stopping a determined suicide bomber driving towards you with a 5.56 weapon. I'll take a Grendel any day.The 6.8 was developed because of the 5.56 short comings.Yes there are other heavier weapons that could be used but why handicap our soldiers when there is a better cartridge to be had. Afghanistan has has proven the need for a more effective long range caliber. The Grendel is more effective at all ranges. Yes training, logistics, barrel life mag capacity, etc. are important but for the argument of this subject the Grendel is a better trade off in almost every account. The 5.56 will kill you dead with good shot placement , but for long range, short range, barrier penetration, terminal effects in a AR- type platform the Grendel rules. The 5.56 is slightly lighter and a little better mag capacity. That's it. The Russians wanted to increase their range and accuracy more than anything else when they developed the 5.45. This they did with a cartridge that uses less powder,less recoil and more reliable terminal performance than the 5.56.This is why we have been pulling out old M-14's in the war on terror because they needed a harder hitting rifle at longer ranges. The 5.56 is considered a superior police weapon because it will not over penetrate when entering a building.I don't think it matters what I or anyone else thinks in this forum when it comes to what the military will do. But don't tell me the military always chooses the best rifle or caliber for its soldiers.That could take up another long discussion.Use what you like and so will I.The Russians developed the AL-107 assault rifle which proved to be superior to the AK-74 and the AN-94 but they couldn't afford it.

If the SAS were so disgusted with 5.56, maybe someone can explain to me why they continue to use it, and why the rest of the British Army & Marines (who actually did use L1A1's in the Falklands) adopted the 5.56 NATO as the primary service rifle cartridge right after the Falkland's War....?

After following this debate since I was a kid, and thinking that 7.62 was a superior rifle cartridge, my position changed the moment I saw what 5.56 does to human targets the first time, and every time since then it never failed to impress me. I used to buy into that claim that the M14 is a "real man's rifle", and that 5.56 is for shooting varmints, until I saw it take half a guy's head off.

Yes, the ranges in Afghanistan are typically longer due to the terrain, and one of the most effective weapons the enemy uses is the PKM, along with RPG's. Giving Grendels to every swinging private will not equal extended practical range of the rifleman, since riflemen are not trained to make shots at those distances anyway, so they will be carrying extra weight, less mag capacity, with more recoil for nothing.

M14's were not pulled from inventory to fill the void that 5.56 leaves in people's minds. They were re-issued to be used as Designated Marksman Rifles, and they failed terribly, especially in units without the armorer support it takes to keep an M14 barely functional.

Look at Plaster's interviews with snipers who have participated in both these theaters, often with multiple tours. The consensus among them all was surprising to many when asked what their most preferred sniper weapon was, even with Barrett's, M24's, and other systems in their units. Instead of listing some high-speed uber sniper rifle, they all said that the M4, not SPR, but M4 with optics and Mk262 was the go-to gun, and many made 800m+ kills with it. They like the SPR, but didn't see the need for it given the inability to really distinguish the difference downrange.

If you want to argue with dudes who have done the deed multiple times over, who have seen the performance of 5.56, and choose it over other calibers as not only an assault rifle cartridge, let alone sniper cartridge, you're whistling in the wind. I was surprised when I saw Tier 1 Sniper Sections all mostly carrying suppressed Colt 727 Carbines with Red Dots, and maybe one or two guys with SR25's, but practical realities of combat highly favor lightweight carbines that shoot flat, and have high mag capacities.

The Grendel offers another great cartridge in the AR15 platform that a shooter can use for the same purposes, with more retained energy downrange, but it is no reason to cheat soldiers out of mag capacity in carbines and rifle, wile stacking more weight on them. It would be great to have a Grendel LMG that could eliminate 7.62 belt-fed guns, since they are the weak link when it comes to maneuverability in the Infantry Platoon and Squad+.

Believe none of what you read in the trash magazines, unless it is bona fide first-hand accounts from guys who are in combat arms positions, not some REMF who says the M14 is what he would take to combat, if given the chance.

[montana]

I was telling my opinion not arguing. The SAS of the Falklands are from my generation . I find it amusing when you argue about the great 5.56 being something that isn't broke and doesn't need fixing. This is the same argument the ww2 crowed was using to prevent the adoption of the 5.56. I'm saying' just maybe we could improve upon the 5.56, not start ww3 on this forum.

[sgt_murf]

After following this debate since I was a kid, and thinking that 7.62 was a superior rifle cartridge, my position changed the moment I saw what 5.56 does to human targets the first time, and every time since then it never failed to impress me. I used to buy into that claim that the M14 is a "real man's rifle", and that 5.56 is for shooting varmints, until I saw it take half a guy's head off.

M14's were not pulled from inventory to fill the void that 5.56 leaves in people's minds. They were re-issued to be used as Designated Marksman Rifles, and they failed terribly, especially in units without the armorer support it takes to keep an M14 barely functional.

Believe none of what you read in the trash magazines, unless it is bona fide first-hand accounts from guys who are in combat arms positions, not some REMF who says the M14 is what he would take to combat, if given the chance.

LRRPF52,
Brother my comments are not to sway or take away what you state and I agree with your support on the 5.56mm My first windshield shoot in early 03 Iraq AR Ramadi was a single burst (3rounds) of issue M855 at less than 50 meters the guys brain was found in the back seat of the car.
On the M14 what the General population does not know is that the Army's inventory of M14 produced from 1958 to Jan1963 yes ya'll it was that short a period less than 6 years ONLY. The weapons that survived the early stages of Vietnam and sent back was mothballed as well as brand new weapons. Those that was mothballed have been loaned to shooting programs used by Marksmanship units in all branches. The inventory of parts have been all but sold Off years ago through DRMO since that time THOUSANDS of M14s have been dismantled and distroyed prior to the invasion of Panama, and severals since to today at the tune of probably hundreds of thousands at a wack the actual inventory is a mere 10th (1.3 Million in 1963, probably less than 10 thousand now) of what it used to be. Armours are NO longer trained to support this rifle nor is there a surplus of parts they have been SOLD!! In order to get parts MANY times a rifle is stripped the receiver is distroyed with this all being done a Rifle that once properly maintained and would consistanly Hold 20 to 30 rounds in 2-3 MOA in substained semi automatic fire now is no where near what it used to be. So no the M14 is not what it used to be the new stuff production that USED to be in storage was distroyed in the 1980s as they was not earmarked to units leaving only worn out rifles. Yes there was a recall on the rifles loaned out to rifle clubs by the Army again stripped for parts receivers distroyed.

BTW having owned M14s and used them in the early eighties I love the Rifle, is it more effective than the M16A2 and up version of the M16 only at range beyond 600m does it start to outshine the "mousegun" IN the RIGHT hands that is not the average marksman. Don't believe me go to a service rifle match that allows any Service Rifle and watch. The "Black Rifle" / "mousegun" M16 series out of the crate will Hold 1 to 1-1/2 MOA period.
Shot placement is everything!! you can kill any animal at 100yds and beyond with a 22lr with the correct shot placement (used to poach deer in a field witha 22 short at 100yds plus at night, usually 1 shot right in the eye, only thing heard was spat that was over 30yrs ago).

[LR1955]

The book the Falkland war was written by a on sight journalist. The SAS were disgusted with what they then called the 5.56 Armalite rifle. The 5.56 bullet is so small that it literally disintegrates upon impact on a windshield. Try stopping a determined suicide bomber driving towards you with a 5.56 weapon. I'll take a Grendel any day.The 6.8 was developed because of the 5.56 short comings.Yes there are other heavier weapons that could be used but why handicap our soldiers when there is a better cartridge to be had. Afghanistan has has proven the need for a more effective long range caliber. The Grendel is more effective at all ranges. Yes training, logistics, barrel life mag capacity, etc. are important but for the argument of this subject the Grendel is a better trade off in almost every account. The 5.56 will kill you dead with good shot placement , but for long range, short range, barrier penetration, terminal effects in a AR- type platform the Grendel rules. The 5.56 is slightly lighter and a little better mag capacity. That's it. The Russians wanted to increase their range and accuracy more than anything else when they developed the 5.45. This they did with a cartridge that uses less powder,less recoil and more reliable terminal performance than the 5.56.This is why we have been pulling out old M-14's in the war on terror because they needed a harder hitting rifle at longer ranges. The 5.56 is considered a superior police weapon because it will not over penetrate when entering a building.I don't think it matters what I or anyone else thinks in this forum when it comes to what the military will do. But don't tell me the military always chooses the best rifle or caliber for its soldiers.That could take up another long discussion.Use what you like and so will I.The Russians developed the AL-107 assault rifle which proved to be superior to the AK-74 and the AN-94 but they couldn't afford it.

Montana:

I take it you have tested the Grendel against car windshields and intermediate barriers?

Or perhaps you have taken say, 30 average trained riflemen and conducted a series of tests to determine hit and kill probabilities at 'long range' given a service grade Grendel carbine firing a ball round of some sort (not a very expensive match grade bullet), verses the M-4 and the various issued 5.56 rounds?

The EBR issue is another one. Your reasons are pretty much the formal ones used to resurrect that extremely difficult to maintain and failure prone design. There was more to it than that, though. It was resurrected because the debate between a 5.56 and 7.62 battle rifle hasn't died and in this case, those who can't give up the .30 caliber won. In practical terms, it is pretty much a failure as the original M-14 and for the same reasons.

I am not even sure if the Brits in the Falklands were using the old M-193 or the then new M-855. Probably the older M-193 given the time frame. If so, they were using a round of 5.56 that is no longer in service.

And certainly, like this forum, there are guys who think bigger is better and guys who don't. I can buy into each argument to a degree but one thing for sure is that nothing is absolute. Some cartridges have a greater ability to do one thing but in return you have a lesser ability to do something else. There is no median and never will be. Why? This discussion / argument is living proof why there will never be agreement.

LR1955