Our military adopting the Grendel?

[rasp65]

While the military adopting the Grendel would be nice. I think the next new military cartridge introduced will have a plastic case.

[bwaites]

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.

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.

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...

Stan,

Why don't you outline the tests you would like to see. Be as specific as possible. Detail the tests in the order you would like to see them performed, from most desirable and necessary to least desirable and necessary.

Then place a value on each, and detail how much you can contribute financially to that specific test.

Many of us would like to see some of the same tests you would. I have the rifles to allow me to do all that testing, from a 16" to a 28", with multiple different projectiles already loaded, including even a few of the FMJ's, and I know where I can get more.

What I don't have much of is time, so being able to specifically target the tests and set them up ahead of time would be reasonable. I suspect there are a few others here who could and would be able to perform a few of the tests as well, especially if those tests relate to something they want to investigate.

Then maybe we can get it done.

[LRRPF52]

Guys, I didn't mean to start a war, especially since this forum is known for being gentlemanly. If I stepped out of line, I'm sorry.

I have used the M14 quite a bit, so I am not unfamiliar with its capabilities and weaknesses. It saw the shortest amount of service than any other rifle in US history as the primary service rifle, and for good reason. Despite the entrenched military resistance to the adoption of the 5.56/AR15, for once, a better rifle/caliber was pushed via outside the normal chain sources, like SF and The President himself, when it was learned that memos stated to conduct testing, as long as the AR15 was shown NOT to be superior.

I used M14's on a daily basis in my first unit, in my second unit sometimes (we had National Match M14's, without optics in 1/506th Scouts), as well as in the civilian world. It is an aficionado's rifle for sure, but not a reliable system in the field, and it takes a dedicated gun guy, not some entry-level soldier with an MOS assigned to him, to keep an M14 up and running. The bolt is totally exposed for one, as is the opening to the receiver, which the magazine fits under. Add sand to that equation and you get a much lower MTBF than the AR15, which is exactly what happened in the tests back in 1955 against the AR10 and FAL, as well as the tests against the AR15 in the early 1960's, and that was with a sinister Army Ordnance Corps sabotaging the AR10 and doctoring the tests against the AR15 to make the M14 look better, and they still couldn't do it. Read the 5.56x45 Timeline by D. Waters...very interesting and educational info there.

As for Camp Perry, the AR15 has been smoking the M14 for decades now, especially after the AMU showed up and spanked the Marine Marksmanship Unit with AR15's. Take 2 rack-grade weapons, an M14 and an AR15. You might get a good shooter with the M14, and then again, you're more likely to get a lemon. I was spoiled with National Match M14's that were tricked beyond what any Army is going to do for a standard service rifle, and they still were finicky, even with glass-bedding, polished cam slots, unitized gas blocks, hooded peep sights, select barrels, trigger work, reamed flash suppressors, etc. Then look at maneuverability...yeah they ain't.

The argument that SF chooses 5.56 because it's what's in the system ignores that they were the first units to demand it before most soldiers had even heard of it, and that is SF units in the US and the UK. A West Coast SEAL Team even purchased a bunch of AR15's with unit funds in the early 1960's before they had even officially adopted them.

I'll be the first to admit that I have at least one friend with more real-world deployments than I ever could have, who loved his M14 dropped into an Italian BM-59 paratrooper stock that he used on his 2nd OIF deployment, but I wouldn't consider the gun due to the reliability issues it faces in that environment, the lack of armorer support, and lack of ammo capacity. He was using it in the DM role, which I would prefer to have a 5.56 SPR or floated M4A1 SOPMOD Block II with Mk262 in anyway. Interchangeability with the team/squad, mag capacity, can kick in doors and shoot out to distance when necessary...what's not to like?

I've engaged in this debate with a lot of different guys in a lot of different units, and I tend to find that the ones who have higher volume shoot schedules and practice hitting their targets in realistic shooting scenarios usually don't complain about caliber, but complain about units that don't shoot enough, with competent marksmanship programs driven at the unit-level. Of all the units I was in, lack of good marksmanship programs was common, although we do it better than any nation that comes anywhere near our size.

I would suggest reading Plaster's recent interviews with snipers from different walks of life in the military, especially since they all favored the M4/Mk262 platform over all others. That speaks volumes gents, in addition to the other data.

[bwaites]

I've read some of Plaster's statements, but its been in bits and pieces. Is there an online location for all the information you are talking about?

[stanc]

Stan, Why don't you outline the tests you would like to see. Be as specific as possible. Detail the tests in the order you would like to see them performed, from most desirable and necessary to least desirable and necessary.

Then place a value on each, and detail how much you can contribute financially to that specific test.

Many of us would like to see some of the same tests you would. I have the rifles to allow me to do all that testing, from a 16" to a 28", with multiple different projectiles already loaded, including even a few of the FMJ's, and I know where I can get more.

What I don't have much of is time, so being able to specifically target the tests and set them up ahead of time would be reasonable. I suspect there are a few others here who could and would be able to perform a few of the tests as well, especially if those tests relate to something they want to investigate.

Then maybe we can get it done.

Thanks, Bill. But I'm not calling for my proposed tests to be done. Besides, I've posted them before, most on the old forum, one or two here. There seemed to be little interest, and some objections.

I'm more interested in seeing what tests other forum members would do to substantiate their claims that 6.5 Grendel would:

• Improve long range engagement ability of riflemen.
  
• Have much better terminal effects than 5.56 NATO.
  
• Give a LMG equal or better performance than a 7.62 MMG.

[Grendel-Gene]

I think this episode of Future Weapons settles it ( at least for me ).... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydP3DUIT_EU

[Grendel-Gene]

That's the potential flaw in your argument. You are assuming it won't also be necessary to shoot them twice with 6.5 Grendel.

Then there is the matter that many (if not most) rounds fired in combat miss the intended target.

And in a protracted fight, such as experienced in the 1993 battle in Mogadishu, having 210 rounds (7x30-rd mags) vs 175 rounds (7x25-rd mags) could make the difference between staying in action and running dry.

There is no assumption of any kind when i state that the 123 grain Grendel bullet is twice as heavy as the 62 grain 223 and thus has much greater energy when it leave the barrel. That's just plain old physics, and the future weapons video that i posted above proves it.


As for the loss of mag capacity, perhaps just carrying one more mag could make up for the difference... I mean 30 to 26 is a loss of about 15%, isnt it?

[LR1955]

There is no assumption of any kind when i state that the 123 grain Grendel bullet is twice as heavy as the 62 grain 223 and thus has much greater energy when it leave the barrel. That's just plain old physics, and the future weapons video that i posted above proves it.


As for the loss of mag capacity, perhaps just carrying one more mag could make up for the difference... I mean 30 to 26 is a loss of about 15%, isnt it?

GG:

Aren't you making an assumption that an issued ball cartridge will be 123 grains?

And, aren't you assuming that such a Grendel ball cartridge will have a technically high BC so it can retain its energy at longer distances?

And, aren't you assuming the design of the cartridge will be such that all of this energy will be transferred to the target?

How about the assumption that the primary decision factor in ball cartridge design is kinetic energy, and that it is measured at the muzzle?

And probably the biggest assumption you are making is that adding one more magazine to the Infantryman's load doesn't mean anything.

LR1955

[Grendel-Gene]

Yes i guess i am assuming a lot!!! ha ha ! But i do know it took 27 shots of 223 to kill a running hog in my pasture. Surely the Grendel will do better... Either that or i just wasted a lot of money on my Grendel build...

[Grendel-Gene]

Surely there has to be SOME ADVANTAGE to the Grendel (and these other cartridges that have been developed lately for the AR platform) or we wouldn't be here, right? I mean this web site would be called "223.com".!!!


So somebody went to all the trouble to create these new calibers to make up for some perceived or real deficiency in the 223... right? Otherwise, what's the point?.


In Texas we say that " if it aint broke, dont fix it". Well it seems to me that too many folks are trying to fix it... so it must be broke.

I think it is too. Hell, even Gene Stoner hated the 223...

[JASmith]

...So somebody went to all the trouble to create these new calibers to make up for some perceived or real deficiency in the 223... right? Otherwise, what's the point?.

From what I understand the 6.8 SPC was designed to rectify a deficiency in a narrow mission in the special forces. Big Army looked at it, and its merits were seen to be not enough to offset loss of rounds.

Bill Alexander has said that the Grendel was designed specifically as a deer-hunting cartridge for the AR-15 platform. In that, he succeeded admirably, and indeed corrected a civil-side deficiency in the .223...

[Grendel-Gene]

From what I understand the 6.8 SPC was designed to rectify a deficiency in a narrow mission in the special forces. Big Army looked at it, and its merits were seen to be not enough to offset loss of rounds.

Bill Alexander has said that the Grendel was designed specifically as a deer-hunting cartridge for the AR-15 platform. In that, he succeeded admirably, and indeed corrected a civil-side deficiency in the .223...

So we all seem to agree that the 223 has deficiencies... and that's why we are here!

[JASmith]

Before we get a pile-on here, let me hasten to add that the 6.8 SPC was done prior to the introduction of the Mk262. That round appears to have largely rectified the perceived deficiencies in the SF and DM communities.

I am looking forward to seeing credible reports of M855-A1 combat performance. It is possible that the small number of fora I regularly follow didn't have a discussion on this topic. It is also possible that OPSEC on the issue has gotten a lot better.

On the topic of specialized ammunition, I hear an awful lot of noise to the effect that the military will adopt only one style of ammunition for the infantry rifle/carbine and the LMG. And here we have at least two variants of 5.56 being used side-by-side. The same appears to be true of the 7.62X51 when sniper ammunition is issued.

The point is that folks will upgrade ammunition if that move corrects a deficiency and a new round is usually a lot less expensive than swapping out most or all of the firearms across the service or services. In this case the first step was to introduce a specialized ammunition type, followed by a much larger R&D effort to field a new standard infantry load. Should be interesting to see how this mix of ammunition plays out.

[Texas Sheepdawg]

A few weeks ago, I was test firing my New 6.5 Grendel Build trying to get my scope on paper. After getting it on at close range, I played around a bit and starting plinking various smaller targets from about 25 yards. I set up a couple of coke cans and popped them. Later, as I was cleaning up around my backstop area, I noticed this.


I had set one of the cans right in front of one of my steel plates. Oops.....and WOW!
For some of you who aren't aware, this is the same steel plate that I have been
testing with my big bore AR15, the 450 Bushmaster. Originally, we thought this plate
to be 3/8" thick, but when we measured it, it is actually 7/16" thick.







Needless to say, the 6.5 Grendel put a pretty good smack down on the steel. It did not penetrate, but still, this
tells me I need not test the Grendel on any plates thinner than .421" thick.
What ammo was I using?
Factory Wolf Gold 6.5 Grendel
120 grain Copper MPT

If you would like to see my tests so far
on this steel plate using the 450 Bushmaster,
you can go to these links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz69z1vkMg4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk7-K6NP-3c

To sum up, I don't have military background, so I am not going to step into that discussion. However, I think I can safely say that the 6.5 Grendel has potential. Maybe the Military and politics of our current administration can't see it yet. Maybe we need to stop and think about the current constipation of our Congress and senate that has ALWAYS tied the hands of our military in the field. I fully support our troops. I fully support moving forward and improving what our warriors need to make them safer. However, I do also support that maybe the time has come to improve upon the 5.56 NATO. Living in Texas, we are permitted to use .224 caliber as long as it is centerfire on Deer. And I have seen it successfully used time and time again on everything from coyotes to hogs to deer to jack rabbits. But I also have an open mind and welcome new ideas. So maybe the military has a lot of red tape and grid lock going on, and yeah, our tax dollars are under huge burdens right now. But I do see the Grendel as a very viable and practical Law Enforcement weapon. And maybe with some patience and time and the changing of this administration in 2012,our military can move closer to bettering their already superior capabilities to a level unprecedented in previous decades.
Thanx.

[Texas Sheepdawg]

It didn't let me post this picture. This and the last picture on my previous post show depth
of penetration. Ironically the penetration was deeper than the thickness of the plate, but the bubble created on the back-side prevented full penetration. FYI, that depth shown is approximately .450".