Our military adopting the Grendel?

[sgt_murf]

You are talking about how much better the 5.56 is than the 6.5 grendel. But, every instance you site is not of the basic grunt. You are talking sniper (scoped), and Special Forces with tricked out weapons. You are talking about the 1% .... and the privleged 1% at that. The discussion is about adopting the 6.5 for general purpose .... for the grunts to use. If they issued the grendel to everyone, there wouldn't be any logistic issues.

I know a race car driver that really likes original volkswagon bugs. Just because he likes that car, doesn't make it the best, fastest or most reliable.

Point made and taken, and to be honest with ya Mutt I know that LRRPF52 is a fan of the Grendel as well as I, otherwise I would NOT have built a NRA Match gun around the cartridge I would have used 5.56mm.
That being stated we are discussing the grunt, just using the Marksmanship Unit and those snipers to balance the same standards that everyone here is comparing their caliber to the current issue caliber. STRAC allows 18 rounds to zero, 40 to practice, 40 to qualify a min of 2x a year HOWEVER WELL over 50% of the units get that amount cut by half. Many times PMI/PMT (Primary Marksmanship Instuction / Training) is some young SPC. reading from a field manual then "maybe" doing 10 min of dime and washer drills. Then that Soldier gos to range zero, here yer 40 rounds qualify, unlike the late 70s early 1980s when I came in they gave us BRM (Basic Rifle Marksmanship) Zero with 18 Rounds yes you fired them all to comfirm. Move to KD range fired three sighters at 400 to confirm zero, Fire the KD qualifaction course if you Qual'd, then moved to the Popup range for another 40 rounds this was usually done in 3 to 5 days, If you NOGO'd the KD or the Popup the first time ya went back to BRM and through the meat grinder your days was long in the rain, the heat, the cold, and snow .

Bigger bullet does not compensate for poor training or skills if I miss you with a .22 that kicks less I will probably miss you with the 6mm that kicks ever so slightly more, no matter how abundant that supply is. And lets face it those privleged few do, attempt to teach natural point of aim , breathing, and the fundamentals and do consistantly complain to the Brass at the BN and higher about more training. But if I miss you with a thrown volkswagen it's still a miss even though it's bigger than the rock I hit you with. (More I think about it the LMG concept LR is sounding off about, is sounding better and better. )
While I like the 6.5 Grendel for the average Soldier it "might" not be ideal.
IF we really want to be fair lets take the Lowest bidder for your barrel, receiver, upper, crappiest ammo we can find you CANNOT use any loctite for the barrel Extention or Front sight post the sight will be pinned on. Let it be supported by a Supply specialist that has NO clue as to which manual to pick up (that will be your Grendel). Cut your training resources and time to half of what is needed., I really don't see that it would improve the average Joe to hit the enemy. 0.040" dia size and 100gr bullet differance don't make a better miss.
Mutt I got it brother ya got issued the A1 with 55gr pill no training went to a hostile enviroment and hate the caliber, no problem, or disagreement with you opinion. You, just like my father which was trained on the M1 Grarand - skipped the---M14 deployed 1967 and through TET 68 ---65th Engineers 25th INF Div with a issue M16 (notice I did not use A1 no forward assist) Brand new out of the crate stepped on the plane. His opinion was he like the M16 over the M1-- accurate was his words, big fan of the caliber, he gave it a so-so in under 250 he like it.
Up till 1990 I always pushed for the M14, or another caliber to replace that sorry, crappy 5.56mm, then I deployed to combat with a M16 A2 better bullet (heavier) and 6x the weapon than the A1 was that was issued with a twist rate that ensured that the bullet would come apart inside a human, 1-7 is too fast even for a 77gr much less than the issue 62grs. My View Changed once I followed the 18th ABN CORPS north into Iraq tthrough the valley of Death to the road to Hell, and used my weapon.
To state I dislike or wish to bash the Grendel is false otherwise I would not post or join this forum. Am I HUGE fan of the 5.56mm NO, Do I have faith in the caliber for the current optempo YES, Do I think it deserves to be bashed NO, is it ineffective, in untrained hands I see where it could be, just like the .50 BMG could be as ANY caliber.
BTW Mutt I really do enjoy your posts everytime ya take the time to do so.
Like I stated earlier I do enjoy a good conversation with differances in opinions as we are all going so now,so I would like to respectfully thank you all for your time, attention, and views.
Mike
BTW I am one of those Careerist NCO with over 30 years

[LRRPF52]

BTW I am one of those Careerist NCO with over 30 years

If the shoe fits, wear it! I don't believe you. You can spell and formulate sentences..,oh wait, I spoke too early. I believe you now. What's the maximum detection range of a SGM's eye-sight on a cigarette butt? 30 years...thanks for your sacrifice. That many years surely saw some injuries, and years tacked-on to the human body by a factor of at least 2 per every year as a civilian.

I think about the challenges that distance plays in the Afghan AOR for riflemen, who are still fighting as a combined arms team, and it seems to me that there is more call for a new caliber stateside than in-theater. I can see a rifleman that might want to take a shot across some orchards into a mud hut village in a quickly-developing engagement, with insurgents using RPG's, PKM's, and SVD's.

It would suck not being able to make an effective shot if I was one of the lead team in contact riflemen, as I waited for a SAW gunner trying to get that beast forward under fire. The 77gr Mk262 would be more-preferred in that situation, but would the soldier be able to place it 1st-round, from an expedient position, under-fire?

What I gather from the guys who want a different caliber is that they love the weight of the M4, but would like 7.62 performance on-call in those specific scenarios where distance and barriers are to be addressed. This seems like a custom-fit for the Grendel, and it wouldn't hurt my feelings in that AOR if I had one, but I can also hump 220 rounds of 7.62 in 20rd mags, with armor, although it does suck bigtime.

A 5'4" Joe Tentpeg raised on MW and XBOX can't hump a decent load of 7.62, but he can barely pull a load of 5.56. The 62gr M855 about 2/3 the weight of a 123gr Grendel load. If we reduce the projectile weight, we fight the benefits of retained energy and increased BC.

I'm still not going to rest on comments about the Grendel being unable to track well in a CQM perspective, since I need to test mine out with some rapid strings from a standing position still. I was impressed with the 100gr NBT performance, regarding basically no real recoil and muzzle climb, but that BC is much lower than a 123gr SMK or Scenar. It probably would make a great 400-500m military round, but how much more than M855 for the weight and reduced load, with increased profile of a soldier in the prone with a 30rd Grendel mag...

[sgt_murf]

IMO, that's a very minor issue. During WWII and Korea, they managed to ship and distribute massive quantities of .30-06, which is a much heavier cartridge.

That Sir is a very true staement, However the resorces that we currently have pales massively to that time period. Could it be done today, yes, I believe so. But a caliber change or adoption during a conflict is not wise. Hey the Guy that has the Grendel needs some 5.56 because we don't any Grendel ammo

[JASmith]

Regarding training, my son was stationed in Korea before his first trip to the sandbox. During that time he was obliged to train his unit on the .50 BMG M-2. Do you know how much experience this magnificent trainer had on the weapon before meeting his troops?

Depends on how you define "experience." You guessed it, his long and in-depth experience consisted of reading the manual in the few evenings between getting the assignment and doing the training.

So, yes, I can see where one needs to think about the skill levels and attitudes of the user when developing advocacy arguments for change, or for maintaining the status quo...

[sgt_murf]

If the shoe fits, wear it! I don't believe you. You can spell and formulate sentences..,oh wait, I spoke too early. I believe you now. What's the maximum detection range of a SGM's eye-sight on a cigarette butt? 30 years...thanks for your sacrifice. That many years surely saw some injuries, and years tacked-on to the human body by a factor of at least 2 per every year as a civilian.

SGM can detect a Butt from 100 meters, a CSM hiding in his trailer can detect a butt at 200 meters but can't find his glasses or coffe cup LMAO
too funny guys thanks for the comments.
As a senior NCO the actual thanks goes to the Young Soldier whom does the Mission every day.. I just do the guidance, mentoring, and fight to get resources for them (young Soldiers, ya know them the Pvts up to the young LT without a clue and needs to buy a vowel) now and keep give the field grades the evil eye when they talk of more classroom time or how we can get better training through on-line gaming.

[sgt_murf]

Regarding training, my son was stationed in Korea before his first trip to the sandbox. During that time he was obliged to train his unit on the .50 BMG M-2. Do you know how much experience this magnificent trainer had on the weapon before meeting his troops?

Depends on how you define "experience." You guessed it, his long and in-depth experience consisted of reading the manual in the few evenings between getting the assignment and doing the training.

So, yes, I can see where one needs to think about the skill levels and attitudes of the user when developing advocacy arguments for change, or for maintaining the status quo...

Not to take away from his vast knowledge, and to be funny yet make a point that everything is not in the manual. What does he do (use) when he loses the Headspace and timing gage and HAS to re-set it now (incorrectly done can be deadly for the user though)

[stanc]

More I think about it the LMG concept LR is sounding off about, is sounding better and better.

I think an intermediate-caliber LMG is fundamentally a good concept, but I'm not sure that 6.5 Grendel is the best choice.

For one thing, in order to match 7.62 NATO muzzle velocity, he's talking about loading the cartridge to bolt-gun pressures (60,000 psi? 65,000 psi? Maybe higher?). That can't be good for weapon durability.

For another, it depends on the ability to develop a viable metallic link, a feat that has not yet been shown to be doable.

IMO, the SPC case is a better option. It not only has been shown to be compatible with the existing link design, but Wilson Combat has (AR-safe) 110gr 6.8 SPC factory loads that equal 7.62 M80 velocity. Since 5.56 mag dimensions are not a constraint, longer, more ballistically-efficient bullets can be used to equal or better M80 trajectory.

I like 6.5 Grendel in its current OAL and chamber pressure to replace 5.56 NATO. But not in longer OAL and max'd out pressure solely for LMG use.

[pinzgauer]

"We used a 5.56 M4 a lot. I used ACOG sights, a suppressor, two-stage trigger, and Black Hills 77gr M262 ammo. It was a very, very lethal and effective cartridge. We were taking 750-yard, first-round incapacitation shots with it. It was pretty devastating, as the terminal ballistics of that round were very impressive. It rivaled, in some cases, the .308."

This to me is a bit stunning. Not that I don't believe it, just that even M262 ballistics are getting pretty wimpy past 500 yds, much less 750. At 500 yards it's roughly the same as .22 mag muzzle velocity.

I know of people killing deer with 22 mag and properly placed shots, so no doubt it's possible. But is it repeatable? Or a good idea tactically?

I guess I don't see these examples are addressing the perceived issues with M4/M885 in the "half K" challenge reportedly seen in A'stan. Add to that using an ACOG, just does not seem representative.

But I agree with all your points about training, etc.

Having shot HK91 with iron sights & milsurp ammo extensively at longer ranges, my view is that it's easier to hit at range than M-4's. And this seemed to be true for anyone who picked it up. My kids don't like shooting it with a scope because it's more fun for them to hit at range with open sights. Not advocating G3/FAL/M14 as service rifles, just that I do believe the M4 is harder to shoot by grunts than some of the alternatives.

All I know is that if A'stan is anything like the footage I've seen, I'm not sure the M4 is the best we have to offer. With or without M262 and ACOG's. I have a son in his first year at West Point. He will likely branch infantry, which likely means A'stan in about 4 years. Realistically, I don't see much changing armament wise by then. So it's something I think about occasionally.

But occasionally logic does prevail. Multi-cam allowed to replace ACU in country. Rethinking other decisions made by committee. (ACU, Strykers, M16A2, etc). That's balanced by huge defense cuts. I'm probably more concerned that my son won't get logistic support, ammo, or have enough personnel than I am about which rifle.

Interesting discussion, nonetheless!

[LRRPF52]

The Grendel has already proven to be able to take bolt-gun pressures, as I mentioned that my friend runs the 139gr Scenars at 2700fps out of a Cz527. The 6.5 projectiles beat .277 projectiles when it comes to BC/weight, as it takes 250fps more with a 140gr .277 VLD to match a 6.5 VLD at 1000yds. 6.5mm= more efficiency, so we can get away with less pressures for better performance. A 6.5x43 would require a longer action, whereas the Grendel case is of course shorter. Either one would offer advantages for the LMG concept I speak of, but no further case-development is required with the Grendel, while the SPC already relies on high pressures.

Developing cases and developing links are two different things. Of course links can be made for the Grendel. The interest just needs to be generated in the right circles.

[sgt_murf]

I think an intermediate-caliber LMG is fundamentally a good concept, but I'm not sure that 6.5 Grendel is the best choice.

For one thing, in order to match 7.62 NATO muzzle velocity, he's talking about loading the cartridge to bolt-gun pressures (60,000 psi? 65,000 psi? Maybe higher?). That can't be good for weapon durability.

For another, it depends on the ability to develop a viable metallic link, a feat that has not yet been shown to be doable.

IMO, the SPC case is a better option. It not only has been shown to be compatible with the existing link design, but Wilson Combat has (AR-safe) 110gr 6.8 SPC factory loads that equal 7.62 M80 velocity. Since 5.56 mag dimensions are not a constraint, longer, more ballistically-efficient bullets can be used to equal or better M80 trajectory.

I like 6.5 Grendel in its current OAL and chamber pressure to replace 5.56 NATO. But not in longer OAL and max'd out pressure solely for LMG use.

Stanc
if we get away from the M16 type bolt then you can hot rod the cartridge, the cartridge can stand it just the AR/M16 platform can't with it's current bolt lock up if one was to use a 240b bolt in a bullpup as Paul mentitioned , I mentioned a crabon wrapped barrel to save weight, use a control weapon of maybe the MG 42 or even the m249 for relablity and rate of fire sustained. One could turn the cartridge loose from it's chains, if "we" had not shutdown all the arsenals (small arms) from developing and building prototypes one could be done for testing (maybe it has, just I don't know fer sure). In theory one could almost achieve the match to the .308 <<<<< here is where the Users of a bolt guns chambered in 6.5G need to kick in with some assistance without a bolt gun and data /facts I'm talking out my tail end.
It would not really be much differant that the 9mm ammo we have now ----high and reg pressure just don't feed yer M9 SMG 9mm --- ask some SEALs (not picking on them, just unfornate that it happened) beside UNLESS you are way deep in True Combat (100 enemy and 5 rounds remaining) Soldier will not unbelt the ammo for a rifle.

another way that the Infantry weapon "could" use the higher pressure in the 6.5 G is a Total bolt redesign then ya might as well redesign the whole weapon in the same size and the M4/A4 egros and weights capability.

[JASmith]

Not to take away from his vast knowledge, and to be funny yet make a point that everything is not in the manual. What does he do (use) when he loses the Headspace and timing gage and HAS to re-set it now (incorrectly done can be deadly for the user though)

Too true! You've helped make the point that throwing a warm body at a problem can readily cause an avoidable tragedy!

[sgt_murf]

Developing cases and developing links are two different things. Of course links can be made for the Grendel. The interest just needs to be generated in the right circles.

For testing Cloth could be used instead of metal links ... several Browning machines ran fine while bolt and cartridge pressure are further defined with loosening of tolerances in the chamber

[LRRPF52]

This to me is a bit stunning. Not that I don't believe it, just that even M262 ballistics are getting pretty wimpy past 500 yds, much less 750. At 500 yards it's roughly the same as .22 mag muzzle velocity.

I know of people killing deer with 22 mag and properly placed shots, so no doubt it's possible. But is it repeatable? Or a good idea tactically?

I guess I don't see these examples are addressing the perceived issues with M4/M885 in the "half K" challenge reportedly seen in A'stan. Add to that using an ACOG, just does not seem representative.

But I agree with all your points about training, etc.

Having shot HK91 with iron sights & milsurp ammo extensively at longer ranges, my view is that it's easier to hit at range than M-4's. And this seemed to be true for anyone who picked it up. My kids don't like shooting it with a scope because it's more fun for them to hit at range with open sights. Not advocating G3/FAL/M14 as service rifles, just that I do believe the M4 is harder to shoot by grunts than some of the alternatives.

All I know is that if A'stan is anything like the footage I've seen, I'm not sure the M4 is the best we have to offer. With or without M262 and ACOG's. I have a son in his first year at West Point. He will likely branch infantry, which likely means A'stan in about 4 years. Realistically, I don't see much changing armament wise by then. So it's something I think about occasionally.

But occasionally logic does prevail. Multi-cam allowed to replace ACU in country. Rethinking other decisions made by committee. (ACU, Strykers, M16A2, etc). That's balanced by huge defense cuts. I'm probably more concerned that my son won't get logistic support, ammo, or have enough personnel than I am about which rifle.

Interesting discussion, nonetheless!

That also brings up the point I have made about key leaders and the weapons they carry, since Lieutenants don't engage the enemy at distance. They carry M4's as a last resort PDW for the close-in fight in a worst-case scenario of being overrun.

I've experienced some pretty amazing results with 77gr Scenars out of 18" SPR's out to 850m, which is much further than 750yds. As far as a 7.62 goes, yes, you have way more retained energy at 500m than a 5.56, but the trajectories are academic in difference from two 20" rifles, one M16 with M855, and one 20" 7.62. The drop of the M855 is actually less, while the 7.62 bucks the wind better at 500, both weapons starting with a 25yd zero. The 7.62 also has more than twice the energy at that range, but more than twice the recoil as well. Both will just be punching holes through people at that range anyway.

[stanc]

The Grendel has already proven to be able to take bolt-gun pressures, as I mentioned that my friend runs the 139gr Scenars at 2700fps out of a Cz527.

Perhaps you misunderstood. I didn't say the Grendel case couldn't take bolt-gun pressures. I said the higher pressures would likely have an adverse impact on weapon durability.

The 6.5 projectiles beat .277 projectiles when it comes to BC/weight, as it takes 250fps more with a 140gr .277 VLD to match a 6.5 VLD at 1000yds.6.5mm= more efficiency, so we can get away with less pressures for better performance.

What pressure is your friend's bolt-gun load? 65,000 psi? Higher? How do you figure that's less pressure?

A 6.5x43 would require a longer action, whereas the Grendel case is of course shorter.

You were talking about loading the 6.5 Grendel LMG round longer than 5.56 mag length, so how do you figure it'd be any better in regard to OAL than the SPC case?

Either one would offer advantages for the LMG concept I speak of, but no further case-development is required with the Grendel, while the SPC already relies on high pressures.

No further case development is necessary for 6.8 SPC, either.

Of course links can be made for the Grendel.

Yeah? Prove it.

[sgt_murf]

Perhaps you misunderstood. I didn't say the Grendel case couldn't take bolt-gun pressures. I said the higher pressures would likely have an adverse impact on weapon durability.

What pressure is your friend's bolt-gun load? 65,000 psi? Higher? How do you figure that's less pressure?

You were talking about loading the 6.5 Grendel LMG round longer than 5.56 mag length, so how do you figure it'd be any better in regard to OAL than the SPC case?

No further case development is necessary for 6.8 SPC, either.

Yeah? Prove it.

Guys
the links have been made already --- think about it ---modify the design of the Chinese and the Soviets they had belt and drum fed on the AK case toward the rear the case on 6.5 G is a AK . There is yer model