Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge

[LRRPF52]

This is why I think the only real environment for the Grendel to gain traction in is amongst the Eastern European Countries that are aware of the Russian threat, while NATO leaves them out to dry. The biggest issue for them is that 5.56, 7.62 NATO, & 7.62x54R are the dominant cartridges in their small arms inventories, with 7.62x39 on its way out in many cases, along with 5.45x39 being displaced by 5.56 NATO. Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary have formed a new military alliance separate from NATO since they see the writing on the wall.

As I kick this dead horse again, the biggest and most important factor that would make the Grendel get noticed is if a modern LMG was chambered in it, and shown to provide the same downrange benefits as 7.62 GMPG's such as the PKM and MAG58, only from a much smaller package. The biggest threat to that will be the success of the cased telescoping ammunition and LMG's, if they prove to be reliable. That will seal the deal as the most important development in small arms technology going into the future, but reliability is a big unknown right now with that concept and prototype program.

The adoption of the Grendel in Eastern Europe would already have a logistics framework in-place for brass and ammo with Lapua and PPU from the North and South, but weapons and magazines would be the main new items to be purchased. Selling points for budget-strapped countries:

* Longer barrel life
* One-caliber small arms system potential
* Longer weapon life with lower chamber pressures
* Inherent accuracy potential
* Existing framework for ammunition components
* Existing framework for barrel blanks in 6.5mm, a popular European bore
* Existing framework for projectiles

[LRRPF52]

The B-1 was canceled by Carter, true, but he did so knowing we had the B-2 under design. Reopening the B-1 line ensured we would not have enough funding to build more than a token 20 B-2 stealth bombers, a much more effective bomber.

One more edit: While the 22 months of F-14 development is a remarkable story, it's not completely surprising even by today's standards. Typically, engine development takes about twice as long as airframe integration, and the Navy left the F-14 with the TF-30, the same crappy engine used in the F-111. It left the F-14 crew with an engine they had to manage in combat, RPMs, angle of attack, etc., when you'd really rather be doing something else. FWIW, the F-18 was designed to be cheaper than the F-14, and it failed miserably at that; it would have been cheaper and more effective, IMO, to use the entire F-18 funding line to re-engine the F-14 with the F100 engine (same as F-15/F-16), then buy more F-14 aircraft, because nothing else came close to the Phoenix interceptor missile, but that's not what happened, obviously.

The B-1A with supersonic capability could penetrate Soviet Air Defenses quite easily back then, and wouldn't need to in many cases with ALCM's. I think it makes a lot of sense to have a balance leaning more towards B-1's, especially looking at what a workhorse that has been, versus allowing Warsaw Pact countries to G2 the radar signature and operating profile of the B-2 just to dump a bunch of conventional munitions in limited conflicts on man-dress-wearing miscreants. A trans-contitnetal, trans-atmospheric bomber would be the next step at replacing the B-2, and we wouldn't need that many of them.

The F-14B with the F101, and F110 engines in the F-14A+ should have happened a decade earlier. The Navy has been trying to do F-15 work with the F/A-18 for decades, and the whole Lightweight Fighter airframe from the YF-17 doomed that platform from the start, especially when considering combat radius, although the avionics, FBW, and thrust-to-weight have made it a formidable multi-role fighter, gas capacity restrictions aside. The Pheonix was certainly impressive in the trials, but real-world use resulted in failures, unless we are to accept the claims of the Iranian Air Force, which are highly-plausible, considering the missiles were still relatively new in the Iran-Iraq war during the 80's.

[Jaywalker]

IIRC, the B-1A design criteria called for a certain airspeed/altitude/time relationship, and, though I may be off a bit, it was something like the following: 200 feet above ground level (AGL) for 1500 miles at Mach 1.2. Long before the B-1A cancellation, these criteria had been dropped, primarily due to engine inlet geometry costs, so there was no supersonic capability until the B-1B, though I think that made little practical difference against a high-subsonic aircraft penetrator. Soviet interceptor aircraft had several limitations; one was related to fuel fraction and the other air-to-air acquisition radar capability. Virtually their entire air force was limited to ground control vectors of the type such as "Turn now to a heading of 216 and increase airspeed to (something in KM/Hr)." If the controller figured it wrong, or the pilot increased at the wrong rate, or didn't pick up the target, most of the USSR's interceptors would run dry of fuel and have to bingo return to base. From practical experience I can say that an interceptor would have to be nearly perfect to intercept a 600-knot, low level aircraft, even without Mach capability (though it's nice to have it when you need it).

We've noted the tendency to adopt an adversary's systems; after southeast Asia, the US is moving bigger than 5.56, the USSR moved to their own small, high-speed bullet. The same effect took place in the air. Our experience in the air over southeast Asia led us to buy a small, highly maneuverable F-16/F-18 capability, while getting rid of the large, fast, and smokey-engined F-4. Is it a surprise that the Soviets changed their approach, too? The MiG 23/27 is a large, smokey-engined, multi-role fighter, with speed and legs, and I wouldn't be surprised to find better acquisition capability, but I don't know about that. The MiG-25 was designed to target the non-built B-70, but would have worked also against a high-speed, high-altitude B-1 penetration, while the MiG and the Sukhoi-27 would be assigned the penetrators. Speaking as a penetrator (in my B-52 role), I was delighted to have Short Range Attack Missiles and Air-Launched Cruise Missiles, both for mission capability and for cluttering up radar returns.

I don't know about the real world aspects of the Phoenix, but the Soviets had to honor its range and spend time watching for high angle contrails. Missiles themselves weren't too hard to defeat - think of them as very highly wing-loaded fighters. A small turn at high Mach speed meant 20 - 40 G's on an AA missile, and that would bleed speed quickly. F-4s routinely (though with great puckering) dodged thousands of ground to air missiles over southeast Asia, a much more dense electronic environment than existed elsewhere.

Still, on the point of requirements, our shift to cruise missiles made the entire industrial effort put into interceptors essentially wasted, as, in general, they make poor, and expensive, air to ground platforms. We could afford the change, while our adversaries could not.

I'd have to say that most - or even, "virtually all," of the contract competitions are real and honest, and the one's that aren't are extremely difficult to identify. Companies pay six-figure salaries to sales staff to help determine which direction a contract competition is leaning, and if they aren't going to win, why would they continue to spend millions of dollars to compete? Where the finangling happens is in the wording of the RFP, and some of that takes place as system requirements above the contracting officer level. I saw one once in which a small item was required to be black, when the color didn't matter at all and only one contractor used that color; I called the project staff on it (I was the contracting officer in that scene), and they changed the wording. Sometimes it's just laziness, rather than conspiracy; the larger system is made up of smaller systems that were developed from R&D, and some of those smaller contracts may well have been guided, yes, to the only possible contractor, and that rationale doesn't exist at the higher component level.

So, we're back to requirements again. Some, such as the choice of the 7.62x51 in the early Fifties was just bone-headed; the authorities just "knew" the more powerful round was better. Today, the authorities might not be concerned about the cost of replacing the 5.56, but instead be learning from the example of introducing the 5.56 during wartime - it cost some lives. Can we imagine CNN showing bodies attributable to new rifle/cartridge malfunctions? Chair-borne fear is different than operational fear, but it's a real motivator, nonetheless.

Now, with lecture mode off, I have a question suggested Tony's web site. We recognize the retained energy beyond 500 meters is advantage: Grendel, compared to the 7.632x51, but what about inside 500 meters? Is there a power requirement inside 500 meters that would disadvantage the Grendel in favor of the more powerful M80 ball? I'm thinking about chewing up cinder block, or something the M80 could do better...

[stanc]

I have a question suggested Tony's web site. We recognize the retained energy beyond 500 meters is advantage: Grendel, compared to the 7.62x51...

Unfortunately, that info is misleading. Like so many other 6.5 Grendel vs 7.62 NATO comparisons, it pits the high-BC 6.5 123gr Scenar against the relatively unstreamlined 7.62 147gr Ball.

When you compare 6.5 120gr FMJ with 7.62 147gr FMJ, 6.5 Grendel comes off noticeably inferior in trajectory, retained energy, etc.

...but what about inside 500 meters? Is there a power requirement inside 500 meters that would disadvantage the Grendel in favor of the more powerful M80 ball? I'm thinking about chewing up cinder block, or something the M80 could do better...

Testing is needed to verify it, but based on the video (in another thread) of concrete block being shot by 7.62 and 6.5 MatchKings, I'd bet that Grendel would also be less capable of chewing up cinder block and other tough barriers. As I've said before, with such target sets there is no substitute for mass. With 7.62x51, you not only have more mass (than 6.5), you have more velocity.

[JASmith]

...Is there a power requirement inside 500 meters that would disadvantage the Grendel in favor of the more powerful M80 ball? I'm thinking about chewing up cinder block, or something the M80 could do better...

This is the key point of a debate still in progress after months (possibly years) of discussions.

My own limited knowledge of penetration mechanics suggests that the Grendel can have very much the same potential for deep penetration or perforating barriers as does the 7.62X51 M80 round. The qualifier is important, because the M80 does not come close to exploiting the potential of the 7.62X51 cartridge.

While bullets from the Grendel won't carry as much kinetic energy, this metric is perhaps the least important measure of lethality. On the other hand, momentum and energy density are important measures of the potential for a bullet to get deep inside of something or to break through a barrier. (Divide momentum or kinetic energy by the area of the bullet -- in much the same manner as sectional density.) The Grendel can easily match or exceed the M80 in these two categories.

The additional qualifier is bullet construction. A bullet with, for example, the same style as the M855A1 (there are others too), but carrying the same momentum and energy density as the M80, will outperform it in all aspects but temporary wound cavity dimensions. One can debate the importance of this metric. Some of the literature suggests that the permanent wound cavity size (as measured in gel) is the better measure of lethality potential. Again, we can reasonably assert that the Grendel will be more lethal than the 5.56 when similar bullet construction is used. This would make it good enough while the 7.62X51 is more than needed at these shorter ranges.

What has not been done is live-fire testing to test the theory (or assertions depending on mindset). For this, we would need at least FMJ bullets in an appropriate weight category and preferably bullets with a penetrator core.

The Lapua 144 gr FMJ bullet is too long and too heavy for the Grendel. Their 100 grain offering is a round nose. I suspect the reason we haven't heard much said about the Norma 120 gr FMJ (Specifically called out as "6.5 Grendel" on the MidwayUSA website) is that it is too new for folks to play with much.

Some of us are reluctant to push testing with bullets we know are not representative of those that would be used for cat. Others would be happy to see any testing move forward.

[stanc]

This is why I think the only real environment for the Grendel to gain traction in is amongst the Eastern European Countries that are aware of the Russian threat, while NATO leaves them out to dry. Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary have formed a new military alliance separate from NATO since they see the writing on the wall.

That's interesting. I haven't paid attention to such matters, so it's news to me.

As I kick this dead horse again, the biggest and most important factor that would make the Grendel get noticed is if a modern LMG was chambered in it, and shown to provide the same downrange benefits as 7.62 GMPG's such as the PKM and MAG58, only from a much smaller package.

I completely agree. However, I have to also kick a couple of other dead horses, which have been lying around for the last seven years.

1. There is as yet no proof, or even convincing evidence, that viable disintegrating links can be developed for 6.5 Grendel. (Although in the case of the aforementioned countries, that may not matter. If they are still using non-disintegrating links for their machine guns, such links ought to be easily redesigned for use with 6.5 G.)

2. There is still no test data to show that 6.5 ball is capable of delivering the same downrange performance as 7.62 ball.

[JASmith]

...There is still no test data to show that 6.5 ball is capable of delivering the same downrange performance as 7.62 ball.

One might get the impression that the continuing repetition of this and the machine gun links assertions are arguments for abandoning interest in the Grendel.

We know that the Grendel will not equal the 7.62X51 NATO in all areas. We need only to equal the performance in some categories as a trade in favor of lighter cartridges and weapons. Other categories, e. g., lethality under 300 meters, can be significantly less than that of the 7.62X51 and still be good enough.

As far as machine gun links are concerned, we've had comments from folks with real experience in mechanical design indicating that the design challenge is solvable.

Put these worries into the list of things to check when resources are available. In the meantime, move on to new observations, complaints, or opportunities.

[stanc]

One might get the impression that the continuing repetition of this and the machine gun links assertions are arguments for abandoning interest in the Grendel.

Not at all. They are arguments for getting facts that support the claims of Grendel proponents.

We know that the Grendel will not equal the 7.62X51 NATO in all areas. We need only to equal the performance in some categories as a trade in favor of lighter cartridges and weapons.

Perhaps so. However, where is the proof that 6.5 Grendel can equal 7.62 NATO Ball performance in any area?

As far as machine gun links are concerned, we've had comments from folks with real experience in mechanical design indicating that the design challenge is solvable.

The trouble is, that is only their opinion. While it is to be respected, an opinion -- however educated it may be -- does not carry the same weight as proven fact.

Put these worries into the list of things to check when resources are available.

Those are the two most critical items relevant to 6.5 Grendel's potential for use as a military cartridge, particularly in regard to LRRP's idea of replacing 7.62x51/7.62x54R in machine guns, and you want to ignore them??? It seems to me they should be at the top of the list. All else is of secondary importance.

[stanc]

This is the key point of a debate still in progress after months (possibly years) of discussions.

What has not been done is live-fire testing to test the theory (or assertions depending on mindset). For this, we would need at least FMJ bullets in an appropriate weight category...

The Lapua 144 gr FMJ bullet is too long and too heavy for the Grendel. Their 100 grain offering is a round nose. I suspect the reason we haven't heard much said about the Norma 120 gr FMJ (Specifically called out as "6.5 Grendel" on the MidwayUSA website) is that it is too new for folks to play with much.

Actually, the Norma bullet has been around for awhile. Several years ago, Alexander did a gel test of the Norma FMJ, and the wound channel looked close to, but not quite as good as, that of 7.62 FMJ. I think that's the main reason why no further testing has been done with it; those who might do such testing would rather wait until a better bullet is available.

Some of us are reluctant to push testing with bullets we know are not representative of those that would be used for cat.

Meanwhile, year after year goes by...

BTW, "cat"?

[warped]

Stan the links to make Grendel feed a belt fed weapon are not a difficult task, the key is who would be footing the bill.

Do you realize how much money would be laid out for dies alone?

There is virtually nothing that cannot be solved if given financial resources.

I already asked several experts about the dies and links, they all said it is not even a tough job, but to do it on speculation would leave someone homeless.

Unless you think someone with 50years of making dies for stamped metal parts which are far more advanced is not understanding the problem.

[stanc]

Stan the links to make Grendel feed a belt fed weapon are not a difficult task, the key is who would be footing the bill.

Do you realize how much money would be laid out for dies alone?

Nope, I have no idea what it'd cost. How much?

There is virtually nothing that cannot be solved if given financial resources.

I already asked several experts about the dies and links, they all said it is not even a tough job, but to do it on speculation would leave someone homeless.

Unless you think someone with 50years of making dies for stamped metal parts which are far more advanced is not understanding the problem.

I'm sure they understand the problem. But, until somebody actually makes it a reality, it remains no more than a theory.

Same for a 6.5 ball projectile with a BC equal to that of a Scenar. It's easy for Grendel advocates to say "I think it can be done." But, to paraphrase the line from a Tom Cruise movie, I have to say "Show me the proof!"

[stanc]

...Those are the two most critical items relevant to 6.5 Grendel's potential for use as a military cartridge...

Mindless repetition of this point does nothing to move the process forward.

a. It's not mindless. It's quite conscious.

b. Ignoring the issues does even less to "move the process forward."

c. Apparently you think continuing to send insults my way is somehow going to produce positive results...

[JASmith]

a....Ignoring the issues does even less to "move the process forward."...

We are all aware of and share your concerns on this topic.

You have posted this position at least twenty times since the forum came back online. At some point the repetition does seem mindless, because nothing new is being posted.

I will repeat, store the concerns and bring them up when resources are available to address the concerns.

In the meantime, can we get off the stuck record?

[LRRPF52]

I wouldn't have interpreted an insult from Warped's post. At the end of the day, I think everyone would agree that we want the same thing...the development of the best tools for those who use them. Keeping that in mind, I don't see any new links being made for any of the new cartridges that have emerged over the past decade, which has a lot to do with the fact that there isn't any military solicitation for a new set of links for these cartridges. Have we already discussed the possibility of using RPD links for the Grendel? Same parent cartridge (7.62x39)...

[JASmith]

...the one that keeps repeating the old song about how a 6.5 Grendel LMG can give performance equal to that of a 7.62 MMG, even though there's no test data to prove it and there's no certainty that links can be developed for it...

The most recent breath of fresh air is the observation by LRRPF52 that some East European countries might develop an interest in the cartridge. Let's help him pursue that notion and see where it takes us.

So, in that spirit, consider where our discussions seem to have stagnated:

in this business Good Enough frequently trumps Equal To or Better Than because the issues are extraordinarily complex, even before the political and social consequences are brought into play.

Others have told us that the link problem will almost certainly be solved once the resources are made available. Continuing to harp on that and the testing topics suggests that your audience has the wherewithal to demonstrate new link designs and to do the kinds of testing the government either conducts in-house or funds contractors to do.

We, even as a collective body, would be hard-pressed to define and execute unsolicited testing that would be viewed as credible, even if we could somehow get the funds from non-government sources.

Further, I recall an admonition from Bill Alexander that some of the testing advocated can easily be counterproductive. I have indicated in prior posts that my own experience validates Bill's concerns.

Warped has told us that building dies for making links will cost a lot. I know enough to accept his conclusion as credible.

Support for this design and testing will happen when (or if) the current mix is shown to be inadequate or that somehow the Grendel is vastly superior to the current mix. Alternatively, political pressures of the kind LRRPF52 may have uncovered may drive the interest in an alternative cartridge.

I am also guilty of repeating in multiple different times with several different choices of words that we are not attempting to equal the performance of the 7.62X51 in all categories for either the rifle and the machine gun.

So, let's get on with the discussion and address something new in the "Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge" theme.