-
-
They launched all kinds of programs over the years looking for an AR-15/5.56 replacement. The most recent one is the NGSW 6.8x51, which is basically a hot-rodded .270-08 with a steel head, brass case body, and chamber pressures of 80,000psi or higher, pushing a 135gr Armor Penetrator at 2900fps from a 13 barrel folding stock AR-10 carbine with suppressor.
6.8x43 SPC and 6.8x51 have about as much in common as a .30-30 Winchester does with a .300 Win Mag.
The NGSW is again Army institutional failure to recognize the lessons learned from about 140 years of metallic cartridge technology in military rifles, expeditionary campaigns, terminal ballistics studies, soldiers load studies, and MTO&E configurations spanning every conflict over the same time period.
It makes an amazing Sniper and Medium Machinegun Cartridge if youre ok with humping the same profile and relative weight of the 7.62 NATO, which we should have gotten away from.
It is a terrible proposition for 75-90% of the duty positions within an Infantry Company because they increased the weapon weight to that of an AR-10, while reducing the ammunition carrying capacity of everyone that carried an M4A1.
They really need a 2 cartridge solution to replace 7.62 NATO most importantly, and then 5.56 NATO with something even smaller with the same or better ballistics. Theyre trying to do a single caliber solution again, which has always failed.
The largest cartridge should not have a bore diameter larger than 6.5mm, and the case diameter should not be larger than .441. A .473 case diameter requires bulky magazines for DM Rifles and larger linked ammunition pouches for the LMG.
The smaller cartridge should not exceed the 5.56x45 case head diameter, and should be shorter than the current 2.250 COL, but match or exceed its performance.
If someone were to introduce that weapons mix, Joes would be ecstatic.
The chain of command will still manage to bend them over with more things to carry, but at least they would be able to carry more ammo than they can now, with more downrange effectiveness, less recoil, and an easier training curve.
We also have to look at disruptions to modern warfare with the proliferation of UAS, and Im not sure many people have thought about the 2nd-4th order of effects on what thats going to do to the Infantry MTO&E.
USMC has already gotten rid of their Scout Sniper Platoons (STA) and their main Sniper Training program from the Fleet by order of General Berger, after they roughed-up his son in Japan during an exercise. Nepotism is a terrible and insidious force for an organization. Marines remove Scout Sniper platoons from Infantry Battalions
After 37 years of formal US Army Sniper School training, the Army still hasnt figured out where Snipers are in the MTO&E. We were always in the Infantry Battalion Scout Platoons in the Line, but our Scout Platoon FM 7-92 didnt even mention the word Sniper. Now they have done something with incorporating Cavalry units into Infantry Brigades and tasking them with Recon.
Once all the unit-level sensing sessions and AAR comments on 6.8 NGSW start to flow back up the chain, you will see a preponderance of, This weapon is too heavy, is hard to charge, cant carry enough ammo, kinda want my M4 back please.Last edited by LRRPF52; 03-25-2024, 10:34 PM.NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO
CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor
6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:
www.AR15buildbox.com -
Well heck the new rifle and SAW the M5 and M250 are both shooting ammo that fits in a M14 magazine, in fact it seems we are going right back into the 308 rabbit hole, fewer rounds, heavier ammo. The new SAW is expected to only have 50 rounds ready to go unlike the old M249 which had 200. In my opinion 50 rounds is not enough and more would require the weapon to be crew served like the 240, M60. The M5 goes back to a 20 round mag.
The new weapons use 6.8mm rounds as the Army looked for heftier ammo than the current 5.56mm used in the M4 and SAW to better defeat body armor, protective equipment that adversaries are expected to have in future conflicts and gear that is already becoming more commonplace for terror groups. The 6.8mm was seen as a compromise between the light ammo currently used and the 7.62mm ammo used in the M240B machine gun that would be very heavy for a standard rifleman.
Army planners are already bracing for that heavier load from the new ammo and expect soldiers to carry less in the next fight. The M7 weighs 9.84 pounds, much heavier than the 6.34-pound M4. Soldiers will also use 20-round magazines, a 10-round decrease from the magazines the Army has been using for decades. A standard combat load for the new rifle is expected to be 140 rounds, a sharp drop from the 210-round loadout for the M4.
Soldiers carrying the new light machine gun will have a break, with the M250 weighing 14.5 pounds, compared to the 19.2-pound SAW. But troops are expected to carry only 400 rounds of the heavier ammo, a steep decrease from the standard 600-round load for SAW gunners.Comment
-
As an outsider (but supporter), it is just sad to me to think that an off the shelf Grendel could have been in service for 10yrs already, while the big dogs sit and contemplate what next. And as we all know, by that time they would have been happy with the "stopgap solution".Comment
-
stef:Originally posted by stef1274 View Post
The Grendel cartridge is nothing more or less than anything else the military was looking at fifteen or so years ago. Has its good and bad points. The flaws back then were mechanical. Bolt lugs would shear constantly, gas systems were abusing the rifles. A sharp shoulder like the Grendel isn't the best for reliability. Not even sure anyone tried to make a belt fed with the Grendel due to its design. Also we still seem to have problems with magazines despite years of different companies making magazines for the Grendel. Another thing was that no one was able to provide the test facilities with Grendel ammunition, when some initial tests were done.
I go with LRRP-52 that the individual Soldier should have some sort of PDW capable to 300. DM's (if they are supported by TOE), something that gives a distinct lethal advantage to about 600. Snipers to 1K or so. LMG's from there out to maybe 1K.
What cartridges? No clue but one thing the volumes of discussions on this paper and topic brought to me was that there wasn't a lot of difference between the various cartridges once they were filtered out by the requirements documents.
LR-55Comment
-
I agree with everything said in this thread.
In particular the point that every single .gov .308 class rifle we use could be better served, and in some cases MUCH better served, with 6.5 Grendel. A case can be made that 6.5 Grendel is pushing it a bit in an AR15 and there may be an increase in field failures with standard M4 sized guns. (maybe) I think that can be overcome, but bolt breakages used to be a thing, and extractor breakages still kind of are - though again, that might just be poorer quality items not dimensioned quite right. But even if so, anything that's .308 class, can be notably downgraded to just a touch beefier than 5.56 class, and now you have a much lighter belt fed SAW that you can carry a whole lot more ammo for, that still packs that extended range and punch you wanted from the .308 vs 5.56. Actually better, once you get out there. And still have plenty of punch more than 5.56, at the closer ranges. Same for DMR's, and anything else we have in .308. I personally don't even own a .308, as it just is pointless to me. Since I started and still have Garands, I run 30-06 when I want a .30 cal bullet and .30 cal Nostalgia. And the 6.5mm diameter rounds when I want modern optimized general performance ammo. A case can be made for 6mmARC, but I still agree with Bill Alexanders philosophy on why he decided to make 6.5 Grendel, not 6mm Grendel - and stil think the Grendel is the better optimized general purpose do-all round.4x P100Comment
-
Originally posted by stef1274 View PostLast edited by LRRPF52; 08-23-2023, 07:40 PM.NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO
CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor
6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:
www.AR15buildbox.comComment
-
What is the cartridge that has eventually been selected to develop? I remember seeing a 6.8mm something with a steel reinforced case. That kinda struck me as counter efficient in terms of the whole supply chain, but I am not well informed. Came across the 6.8 (Remington) SPC now, which looks ideal.Comment
-
Marines remove Scout Sniper platoons from Infantry BattalionsOriginally posted by stef1274 View PostNRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO
CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor
6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:
www.AR15buildbox.comComment
-
:: 6.5 GRENDEL Deer and Targets :: 6mmARC Targets and Varmints and Deer :: 22 ARC Varmints and Targets
:: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::Comment
-
Looking at the new weapon design it would be nice if they built one short enough for the 6ARC/6.5 Grendel rounds, Not saying you need 80K psi but 65 K psi would add a bit of punch. While doing so maybe lengthen it to be able to handle a 2.5 length cartridge overall length. Maybe a Grendel case with the shoulder moved forward just a bit with a bit more taper, possibly 23 degrees to aid functioning. That would make matching the 7.62x51 easy. I actually like the AR15 design myself but if they were to build one just a bit longer and with a larger diameter bolt designed for a .441 case head I think it would be a better overall package. That and 65K psi would make a lot of difference.Comment
-
Yo Rick:Originally posted by rickt300 View Post
Want to bet that a cartridge already exists that is similar to the Grendel adaptation you are describing? Or is just as capable with less need to alter basic mechanical things?
I don't know what it is but I bet something exists that has already been proven and is basically what you mentioned.
An extended Grendel case with a more tapered shoulder is no longer a Grendel but something else because now you are talking about a longer receiver. The intent for the Grendel was to function in a standard AR-15 receiver and lower without having to alter the lower or receiver. Sound intent, well executed.
LR-55Comment
-
NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO
CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor
6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:
www.AR15buildbox.comComment
-
NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO
CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor
6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:
www.AR15buildbox.comComment
-
I'm not sure I buy the swamp's fascination of 1-rifle for everybody (armies).
As far as today is concerned, we don't have to field 2 armies of millions+, one for each ocean. And our production abilities ought to be able to handle making 2, maybe 3 types for the various use cases...
the only things really standing in the way of this are, let me see...
1. anti-gunner lobbies, mikey blmberg-types
2. leftist politicians and briben-omics.
3. banning and restricting brass, ammo, powder etc production.
4. too many things off-shored as far as production and mining capacity.
those folks involved in #1-3 we could volunteer them to take the front lines first... first responders if you will 'cause they need to see that they've been denying human nature for too long, reap a little of the error of their ways. might wake them up real fast! #4 we still need to work on."Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"Comment
Tweet
Comment