How could or should the 6.5 mm Grendel be improved?

[Bill Alexander]

I do not intend to be abrasive in this matter but when you have stood on my side of the fence for a little time it behests one to be short and obvious.

Yes I sat in the meeting that is referred to, I was the token Grendel guy. My job was to sit through the presentations so that it could be recorded that I had attended and that the movement forward by this private group on contract to the DoD was with my input. Not asked to prepare anything to present until the last moment and then asked if I would stand on my hind legs in front of a group that was clearly biased to present the case for the 6.8. BS and not even very clever BS.

Was I asked to attend the definition for the performance? No! I was excluded because I work from private industry or at least that was the excuse given. Have I seen the performance spec? No! Have I been asked to attend any of the subsequent meetings? No! Will anybody tell me what the spec is? No! and as noted I have asked.

Was I asked to provide a short barrel Grendel and 1000 rounds of Wolf 123 SP ammunition for trials? Yes! And what was the reason given for this from the contracting office working on behalf of T%^G. "We only need this so we can eliminate the Grendel from any further consideration and move forward with the proposal for the 6.8". These guys do not even lie well.

So if you expect me get excited about being asked to develop something else without a hard specification only to play aunt sally again, I will determinedly disappoint you. I hope you can appreciate this position.

[stanc]

Yes I sat in the meeting that is referred to, I was the token Grendel guy. My job was to sit through the presentations so that it could be recorded that I had attended and that the movement forward by this private group on contract to the DoD was with my input. Not asked to prepare anything to present until the last moment and then asked if I would stand on my hind legs in front of a group that was clearly biased to present the case for the 6.8.

Wow! Are you and Guardsman26 talking about the same meeting? He made it sound like it was about development of a lightweight, general purpose cartridge that could replace 7.62 NATO, which the 6.8 SPC clearly cannot do.

[Michael]

I do not intend to be abrasive in this matter but when you have stood on my side of the fence for a little time it behests one to be short and obvious.

Yes I sat in the meeting that is referred to, I was the token Grendel guy. My job was to sit through the presentations so that it could be recorded that I had attended and that the movement forward by this private group on contract to the DoD was with my input. Not asked to prepare anything to present until the last moment and then asked if I would stand on my hind legs in front of a group that was clearly biased to present the case for the 6.8. BS and not even very clever BS.

Was I asked to attend the definition for the performance? No! I was excluded because I work from private industry or at least that was the excuse given. Have I seen the performance spec? No! Have I been asked to attend any of the subsequent meetings? No! Will anybody tell me what the spec is? No! and as noted I have asked.

Was I asked to provide a short barrel Grendel and 1000 rounds of Wolf 123 SP ammunition for trials? Yes! And what was the reason given for this from the contracting office working on behalf of T%^G. "We only need this so we can eliminate the Grendel from any further consideration and move forward with the proposal for the 6.8". These guys do not even lie well.

So if you expect me get excited about being asked to develop something else without a hard specification only to play aunt sally again, I will determinedly disappoint you. I hope you can appreciate this position.

And that's how the military procurement system gets ya (at least in my experience). You see a widget you want off the shelf (OTS), and you form the requirement based on the specification of the widget you want. Sounds to me someone already had it in their mind the 6.8 was the wave of the future and they will not be swayed. Sorry you had to endure the jack@ssery Bill.

[Kikn]

And that's how the military procurement system gets ya (at least in my experience). You see a widget you want off the shelf (OTS), and you form the requirement based on the specification of the widget you want. Sounds to me someone already had it in their mind the 6.8 was the wave of the future and they will not be swayed. Sorry you had to endure the jack@ssery Bill.

That is true not only in military but in other forms of Government as well.

I work in IT and was asked to set up a specification for computers so that only one vendor would able to qualify with specific parts that were also in the requirment so as to exclude any other vendors or pieces of hardware that they wanted specifically.

[JASmith]

If true, the requirement as interpreted by Guardsman26 was clumsily written. There is no way the 6.8 can get the legs to even approach the 7.62x51 NATO round at any range, and especially not 1000 meters.

Something smells fishy...

[Variable]

I do not intend to be abrasive in this matter but when you have stood on my side of the fence for a little time it behests one to be short and obvious.

Yes I sat in the meeting that is referred to, I was the token Grendel guy. My job was to sit through the presentations so that it could be recorded that I had attended and that the movement forward by this private group on contract to the DoD was with my input. Not asked to prepare anything to present until the last moment and then asked if I would stand on my hind legs in front of a group that was clearly biased to present the case for the 6.8. BS and not even very clever BS.

Was I asked to attend the definition for the performance? No! I was excluded because I work from private industry or at least that was the excuse given. Have I seen the performance spec? No! Have I been asked to attend any of the subsequent meetings? No! Will anybody tell me what the spec is? No! and as noted I have asked.

Was I asked to provide a short barrel Grendel and 1000 rounds of Wolf 123 SP ammunition for trials? Yes! And what was the reason given for this from the contracting office working on behalf of T%^G. "We only need this so we can eliminate the Grendel from any further consideration and move forward with the proposal for the 6.8". These guys do not even lie well.

So if you expect me get excited about being asked to develop something else without a hard specification only to play aunt sally again, I will determinedly disappoint you. I hope you can appreciate this position.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions Bill. This whole thing has that same recognizable "vibe" to it. The stuff about not being able to disclose requirements is hogwash. Not saying that Guardsman wasn't told that, but there is nothing super secret about small arms ammo. If the mysterious group actually wanted the real (best) answer, then they'd be open about what the actual requirements were. I see things like this happen in my agency, and it pisses me off to no end.

If you want the best answer you come out and declare: I want the best system to do "X". Then you very clearly define what "X" is. Everybody needs to understand very clearly what the true requirements and goals are, or it's either a waste of time at best, or a sham intended to dishonestly pick something subpar for dishonest reasons at worst.

If you invented a 40 watt plasma rifle that weighed 3 pounds, was recoilless, net neutral on heat, and cost $29.99... Half the time the system would pick something else because they had a buddy that could make them kickbacks off of it.

P.S. 42 indeed. Adams rocked!!!

[Variable]

Wow! Are you and Guardsman26 talking about the same meeting? He made it sound like it was about development of a lightweight, general purpose cartridge that could replace 7.62 NATO, which the 6.8 SPC clearly cannot do.

Pehaps they have something else other than the 6.8 SPC to push, but either way I still have a strong spidey tingle about how the whole thing is presented. It has agenda written all over it the way it has been presented to us so far.

Without the actual performance requirements, we could chase our tails forever and we'd never get anywhere.

[stanc]

Pehaps they have something else other than the 6.8 SPC to push, but either way I still have a strong spidey tingle about how the whole thing is presented. It has agenda written all over it the way it has been presented to us so far.

Without the actual performance requirements, we could chase our tails forever and we'd never get anywhere.

Well, Guardsman is clearly not pushing the 6.8 SPC, so bringing it into this discussion seems like a large red herring. Perhaps that accounts for the fishy smell Joe noticed?

IIRC, the TSWG was advocating the 6.8 SPC as a successor for 5.56 NATO back in 2008 or earlier. Don't know what relevance that has to the current interest in a GPC to replace 7.62 NATO.

[Trooper]

If you push both weapon and also ammunition envelope then you find that the approximation is so close to the existing 7.62 as to make the effort academic. Longer ammunition will demand the envelope for the bolt to travel now matches the 7.62 so any weight saving is negated for the weapon. So too does the now long ammunition require both case and projectile weight so the savings basically disappear. I am currently working on a 338 semi auto and the effort to remove a 1/2" of length from the receiver is a substantial weight saving.

In the instance were weight is secondary to performance as stated, and the soldiers solution is to spend more time training, then the consultants are now truly tilting at windmills. You already have the solution but quest not to find it but to invent reasons for your existence.

I have posed two questions in this thread. The first is for a definition of what the performance should be. Not in respect to "well like a 7.62" but actual hard numerical requirements in terms of range, lethality and target definitions. What do you want it to do? In the absence of the question are we to find the answer is indeed 42?

The second is that if 200 fps can be justified as the increase required, how can 400 fps be excluded. Why does a 7.0 g projectile make the cut but you can already disregard a 9.0 g projectile. This question in effect mimics the first, but then poses the question that perhaps the proposed long 6.8 will also fall short.

Given the number of cartridges that currently fit the package needs, starting at the 6.5 Grendel and progressing through the 6.5x47, 6.5 Creedmore to the 260 Rem, 7-08 and finally the 7.62 with variations on either side both in case diameter (Italian) and also length (BR types) The pursuit of the one we do not have but that overlaps perfectly with another seems odd. Perhaps a 7mm BR or 7mm Creedmore would be a better initial platform buried in the confines of a 417. Lot less development and debate. Problem solved now man up and carry it.

Bill

I got interested in this with the Shooting Times article on the 6.5 Grendel. In doing my research (learning curve), I have learned that the 6.5mm is about the sweet spot among calibers. I had asked about the 7mm but now see that the 6.5mm is better.

The next question was how big should the cartridge be. The M16 platform, given that we have so many of them to include magazines and spare parts, seems like a limiting factor. Given that, the Grendel seems to be the best match. It could be improved but it is a good start.

What we also need is a rifle that is scalable. I thought that the Remington ACR would do that but it seems to have issues. Lewis Machine does have a good design that at least allows easy caliber shifts but merely removing the barrel.

I have come to appreciate the 6.5mm. Too bad I can not get a rifle (either a FAL or AR10) that uses FAL mags so that I could use the 260 Remington.

BTW, Kevin Collins was hired away from Savage to FN.

[babaganoush]

I am neither a weapons or munitions expert, but having followed the gist of this thread, it appears to me that (wittingly or otherwise) Guardsman has attempted to engage the group at large in the classic cycle of "Bring me a Rock" development. For those who are not aware, it is a request that is lacking either specification or requirement, and goes something along the lines of:

“Revise this,” they say.

“What am I missing?” we ask.

“It doesn’t quite address the issues,” they answer. “When it’s right, I’ll know it.”

That said, I have to completely agree with Bill, Joe, et al, and suggest that the game ends until someone can put some real requirements together, and ask for real solutions, and not speculation on what might satisfy an undefined problem.

[Tony Williams]

Several years ago, I was part of the team that looked at Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) for the Marine Corps. As I remember it, there was no talk in the requirements for a specific bullet weight, caliber or velocity. We were focused on accuracy at 100m, penetration/damage in gel, and penetration of body armor type X (cannot remember what type we wanted to penetrate), weight/size of system, ammo capacity and weight of ammo, and modularity of the system/ability to accept current optics/accessories. Purpose of the PDW was to replace the M9 for vehicle drivers, aircrew, and armored vehicle crewmen with a weapons system more capable than the M9, yet smaller than the M4/16.

The other focused area we looked at was what would be the suitability of anything we recommended for the future - theaters other than Iraq/Afghanistan. None of us on this team was SpecOps, nor were any of us competition shooters. We all had some combat experience, and came from a variety of specialties. We all realized to get the corporation to buy off on our recommendations, we needed to show utility in all military applications, current and future, and get buy in from all parts of the corporation – not just the combat arms folks. This is the same tact that would need to be taken for – I would assume – any military small arms procurement.

Was this the one which involved testing the MP7 and P90? This is somewhat OT, but I never did hear the outcome of that - can the conclusions be revealed?

[Michael]

Was this the one which involved testing the MP7 and P90? This is somewhat OT, but I never did hear the outcome of that - can the conclusions be revealed?

Tony - yes it was. I don't really remember the outcome - went back to Iraq when the final decision was made, but I think it boiled down to ammo availability/NATO standard. We went with issuing more M4s across the board.

My opinion, from the testing, was the P90 was a better PDW IAW the parameters we were given. Only problem I had with the P90 was I didn’t think it would be received well by the corporation due to its unconventional design.

[stanc]

...I have to completely agree with Bill, Joe, et al, and suggest that the game ends until someone can put some real requirements together, and ask for real solutions, and not speculation on what might satisfy an undefined problem.

If Guardsman made a mistake, it was in coming onto the 6.5 Grendel forum and asking how to improve upon 6.5 Grendel. It's usually a waste of time to ask people who are emotionally and/or financially invested in their pet cartridge for ideas on how to make it better. They tend to think it's great just the way it is. (And that reaction isn't limited to this forum.)

[bwaites]

If Guardsman made a mistake, it was in coming onto the 6.5 Grendel forum and asking how to improve upon 6.5 Grendel. It's usually a waste of time to ask people who are emotionally and/or financially invested in their pet cartridge for ideas on how to make it better. They tend to think it's great just the way it is. (And that reaction isn't limited to this forum.)

I would disagree completely. We've spent a considerable amount of time making the Grendel better...better bullets, lots of experimentation with powder and primers, comparisons of brass between Lapua, Wolf, and Hornady, etc.

The real issue is trying to hit a target that doesn't really exist. Tell us what your goals are, tell us the parameters, and we'll be more than happy to help improve the Grendel, but you can't do that by telling us what you DON'T want. IE...we don't want a .308 size cartridge, we don't want .308 recoil, etc. You cannot define a standard with negatives.

Define it by saying:

We want MOA accuracy at 400 yards.

We want 800 foot pounds of energy at 1000 yards

We want recoil of 7 pounds or less.

We want 300 rounds of ammo to weigh 27 pounds or less.

(All of these numbers are completely spurious, but make my point. You can't define it on the backside.)

Give us end results and positive goals, and we'll be glad to help. We'll also be glad to say...You can't get there from here! We've told guys that the Grendel isn't really a 1000 yard competition cartridge. We've told guys you can't be competitive in F Class Open with the Grendel, (though I think in 600 yard matches it might be useful.)

But you can't ask us how to improve the Grendel with some nebulous goal. It doesn't work like that.

[LRRPF52]

If Guardsman made a mistake, it was in coming onto the 6.5 Grendel forum and asking how to improve upon 6.5 Grendel. It's usually a waste of time to ask people who are emotionally and/or financially invested in their pet cartridge for ideas on how to make it better. They tend to think it's great just the way it is. (And that reaction isn't limited to this forum.)

I seem to remember a forum member coming into this discussion several years ago suggesting that the Grendel case be slightly lengthened, and case capacity increased, with a slightly larger receiver set to get a little more performance out of it. Remember who that was?


Yeah: ME. After I stopped stabbing in the dark, and ran the numbers, I saw that there was no real benefit to going that route, especially after seeing that the Grendel case can already serve as a basis for pushing those velocities, but again, 200fps is not a significant velocity increase with high BC 6.5 projectiles. Run the numbers on a 16" barrel and a 24" barrel and see how miniscule the downrange performance differences are.

It's also interesting to see that Bill was asked to supply AR15 Grendels with the Wolf 123gr Soft Point, which is one of the worst bullets you could possibly use to demonstrate the capabilities of the 6.5 Grendel, and totally inappropriate for a military demonstration of course.