Our military adopting the Grendel?

[montana]

The SAS were using the old m-193 in the Falklands. The military went to the 77gr. bullet for use in some operations out of the complaint of poor terminal effectiveness from the standard 62 gr bullet. The 77 gr bullet has been received with good feed back from the the field. I'm not a supporter of re-issuing the the 7.62 nato round for our standard caliber. I believe the 5.56 is still Superior, for the reasons you have stated. I do think we could improve on the M-855 round with the Grendel. I do enjoy these little discussions because you do know your facts and keep people like me thinking. The only true rifle caliber I dislike is the one I don't own. Montana.

[fanofflyn]

If only the 5.56 would penetrate a car door. 6.5=87 percent of the rounds per mag capacity, twice the bullet weight, outperforms 7.62 at range, I still can't feel the recoil. I understand the arguments against change though. I hunt with a 6.5, and I have both. I've taken dozens of animals in Africa up to 800 pounds with a 6.5, I've only taken groundhogs with the .223. I wouldn't want to be shot with either.

[JASmith]

...I have come to think that perhaps the real reason -- as opposed to all the excuses I've been given -- for the continued opposition to my calls for such testing during the last several years is that they fear hard data will disprove their claims.
Stan

So, does this mean that, like claims of the impossibility of building links to make a Grendel-based LMG, we will see statements based on reports from a well-known author that all Grendel bullets will melt when touching glass?

Stan, are these the messages about Grendel that you intend to make?

[LR1955]

Gene,

"Cult of the Grendel" members don't need test results. They have their faith in the (so far unproven) superiority of 6.5 Grendel performance.

Indeed, I have come to think that perhaps the real reason -- as opposed to all the excuses I've been given -- for the continued opposition to my calls for such testing during the last several years is that they fear hard data will disprove their claims.

Stan

Stan:

I don't think it is because people fear the results.

In the case of guys here on the Forum -- they don't have the money to run tests that would have any meaning. First off, no one knows what a ball round would be so anything anyone does is a mere guess. And what would a Grendel service carbine be? Not to mention that no one so far has been able to state any requirements or significance values.

In the case of the military, they would run such tests if they thought it was worth the total cost of a replacement for the 5.56. Congress can also direct that the military run another test of cartridges but I haven't noted that type of political interest.

I think the only person here who would know what, if anything, has been done would be Alexander.

LR1955

[Mutt]

I used 5.56 in combat and have seen plenty of it used, and I can tell you from first hand experience that it sucks ass. I really like the M16 platform and I am pretty partial to the M4. But, if it was up to me, I would rather have .308, 6.5 or 6.8 in combat. I would prefer going to the AR10 over the M16 if I couldn't have 6.5 or 6.8.

You keep arguing for the weapons that special forces use. The use 5.56 because it's already in the supply system and is easy to come by. They can pick it up from any unit along the way and don't end up with an empty useless weapon when they run out (which is what would happen with any non standard issue round). You could have a weapon with the best round in the world. But, if supply doesn't stock your ammo it's useless. Even 7.62/308 isn't exactly easy to come by in the field. Only a small percentage of the soldiers on the ground actually use 7.62/308. Just cause they use 5.56 doesn't mean it's worth a damn.

Sure, 5.56 works ok if you shoot someone in the right place. Even a .22LR will work just fine if you hit a person in the right place. But, that doesn't mean you "SHOULD" use it.

Yeah, I used 5.56 in the field ...... had too. I could have picked up an AK along the way and used it instead (which would even have been preferrable to 5.56) but didn't want to have to wait till we came across a cache or took ammo off the dead to resupply myself with ammo. So, I used the worthless 5.56 because everyone had it.

Just my .02 cents.

[sgt_murf]

So, does this mean that, like claims of the impossibility of building links to make a Grendel-based LMG, we will see statements based on reports from a well-known author that all Grendel bullets will melt when touching glass?

Stan, are these the messages about Grendel that you intend to make?

melt on cantact with glass that is a funny statement
With the right bullet construction I am quite sure it would and will blow through glass with ease

[bwaites]

Gene,

"Cult of the Grendel" members don't need test results. They have their faith in the (so far unproven) superiority of 6.5 Grendel performance.

Indeed, I have come to think that perhaps the real reason -- as opposed to all the excuses I've been given -- for the continued opposition to my calls for such testing during the last several years is that they fear hard data will disprove their claims.

Stan

WOW....Starting to sound an awful lot like a conspiracy against you Stan! Got your aluminum foil hat on? LOL

It's simple. AA is a little company, with limited resources. Why do a bunch of expensive testing that won't help them sell rifles to the general public?

Sure, we talk about whether it would be a good military cartridge, we think it would be superior, but no one even has had any projectiles that would be used by the military until just recently.

AA can just a barely keep up with the orders they have, so an argument that, "If they would do the testing, they could sell a bunch of rifles to the military or LEO's!" isn't real helpful. They are growing, and doing so in an appropriate manner, but Bill Alexander is smart enough not to gamble his whole ball of wax on a military contract.

We'll get some testing done, and I intend to get some done in the next 12-24 months, but its a ways down on the priority list.

My life is probably not at high risk over whether it will penetrate glass or not, so it will have to wait a bit!

And come on, we know what 5.56 does on glass, in its various iterations. We know what 7.62 does on glass in its various iterations, there isn't much difficulty with extrapolating the physics and believing that that 6.5 bullet with better sectional density and similar construction will do as well or better than either of them.

Got 10 grand or so? I can have the testing done in two weeks. I know just the local guys to do it. Very proficient, national level competitors, experienced in testing procedures.

If not, we'll have to wait until life lets us arrange our schedules.

[sgt_murf]

My life is probably not at high risk over whether it will penetrate glass or not, so it will have to wait a bit!

And come on, we know what 5.56 does on glass, in its various iterations. We know what 7.62 does on glass in its various iterations, there isn't much difficulty with extrapolating the physics and believing that that 6.5 bullet with better sectional density and similar construction will do as well or better than either of them.

Bill don't forget DO NOT use American Safety Glass unless they (Iraqi and Afghannies) get ahold of a US automobile.... Safety glass is NOT in their windshield Most cars there use standard glass not US saefty glass. Make the Test SOOO much easier and cheaper.
I think Mutt and everyone would agree find the crappiest car in america then find 2x worst that would be what they drive dented up crap is a limo there. I seen a datsun driving down the road with a MIG in tow engine whinning away at 3-10 mph wasn't hard for my M113A3 to catch him it was funny as h***

[Grendel-Gene]

To quote the greatest civil rights leader of our time, the illustrious Dr. Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along?" ( ha ha ha !)

Seriously, the typical Grendel bullet has twice the mass of the typical 223 bullet. Yes, you can "only" carry 26 rounds in a Grendel mag instead of the usual 30 of the 223 rounds... True. But on the other hand, you only have to shoot the bad guy ONCE with the Grendel. This means that you actually carry 26 potential "kills" per magazine with the Grendel versus 15 kills in a 223 mag ( assuming you have to shoot them twice)...

Right?

So even with 4 fewer rounds per magazine, the Grendel is in fact dispatching much more energy downrange per mag than the 223.... which means its more lethal.

[stanc]

In the case of guys here on the Forum -- they don't have the money to run tests that would have any meaning.

I disagree. There are simple and affordable tests that could show performance relative to 5.56 and 7.62 ball.

First off, no one knows what a ball round would be so anything anyone does is a mere guess. And what would a Grendel service carbine be?

I realize there's no way to actually know now what would be a 6.5 ball round and carbine in the future. But, relative performance could be demonstrated through use of 5.56 M4 carbines and identically configured 6.5 carbines, and lead-core FMJ ammo in both calibers.

[stanc]

WOW....Starting to sound an awful lot like a conspiracy against you Stan! Got your aluminum foil hat on? LOL

Always. Never leave home without it.

It's simple. AA is a little company, with limited resources. Why do a bunch of expensive testing that won't help them sell rifles to the general public?

Did I say that AA should do any testing?

Sure, we talk about whether it would be a good military cartridge, we think it would be superior, but no one even has had any projectiles that would be used by the military until just recently.

The Norma 120gr FMJ has been available for years. It would be quite suitable for hard target penetration tests to compare with 7.62 M80 FMJ.

AA can just a barely keep up with the orders they have, so an argument that, "If they would do the testing, they could sell a bunch of rifles to the military or LEO's!" isn't real helpful.

I have never made such an argument.

[JASmith]

That comment, although mildly amusing, is just too stupid to warrant a response.

Stan, roll your eyes as much as you want. Folks seem to quote or otherwise use your comments when bashing the Grendel.

The "Show Me" attitude carried to excess damages more than it helps.

Making multiple statements that the cartridge won't perform until the tests conclusively prove otherwise are excessive, unnecessary, and hurtful.

We all want to see test data to explore the questions that you and the rest of us have posed. We don't have the resources to do that testing on the schedule any of us would like to see.

Do you have the wherewithal, either personally or in connection with colleagues, to do that testing? If so, please get on with the show and share with us!

In the meantime, the rest of us are obliged to exercise some patience.

[stanc]

Making multiple statements that the cartridge won't perform until the tests conclusively prove otherwise are excessive, unnecessary, and hurtful.

You are making a blatantly false statement. I have never once (let alone multiple times) said that the cartridge won't perform.

I said that there is no test data to show that 6.5 Grendel is good enough to replace 7.62 NATO for machine guns, or that it will provide a significant improvement in terminal effects or hit probability at long range when fired from 14.5" barrel carbines.

It may be that 6.5 Grendel is capable of all those things. I don't know if it is or isn't. I just think that those who are making such claims should back them up with hard data.

We all want to see test data to explore the questions that you and the rest of us have posed. We don't have the resources to do that testing on the schedule any of us would like to see.

Do you have the wherewithal, either personally or in connection with colleagues to do that testing? If so, please get on with the show and share with us!

If one already has the necessary guns, it costs very little for most of the tests that I've proposed. Shoot, I used to do such tests, many times. If my personal situation was still as it was 15 years ago, I'd have already done the testing.

But, I no longer have the requisite rifles, and even if I had them, it wouldn't matter. I'm now blind in my shooting eye, and suffer hand tremors so severe I can't hold a rifle steady enough to hit the proverbial barn door. In addition, I've lost over 90% of my muscle strength due to MS, so lifting anything heavier than 5 lbs is extremely taxing.

In the meantime, the rest of us are obliged to exercise some patience.

Uh huh. I started urging tests almost seven years ago. At this rate I'll be dead before tests get done. Then I'll be patient...

[JASmith]

You are making a blatantly false statement. I have never once (let alone multiple times) said that the cartridge won't perform.

Do you recall typing this statement at 4:02 PM today?

...Indeed, I have come to think that perhaps the real reason -- as opposed to all the excuses I've been given -- for the continued opposition to my calls for such testing during the last several years is that they fear hard data will disprove their claims.

Doesn't take much to interpret this most recent comment as saying that the Grendel doesn't do what is claimed. About one in four of your posts are at least this explicit in making it seem that you at least strongly suspect the ability of the Grendel to perform.

[stanc]

Do you recall typing this statement at 4:02 PM today?

Doesn't take much to interpret this most recent comment as saying that the Grendel doesn't do what is claimed. About one in four of your posts are at least this explicit in making it seem that you at least strongly suspect the ability of the Grendel to perform.

I'd suggest you not "interpret" what is written in plain English.

Yes, I do suspect the ability of 6.5 Grendel to perform as its most vocal proponents claim.

But, that's not the same as saying it won't perform.