Testing, testing...

[stanc]

Okay, I'm going to take one last shot at this topic. Some people, John perhaps foremost among them, consider 6.5 Grendel capable of replacing both 5.56 and 7.62 NATO. Others, like Tony, think a slightly larger, more powerful 6.5mm cartridge will be needed, but that 6.5 Grendel could serve as a test vehicle.

It is my position that there is insufficient data to confirm either premise, and therefore shooting tests should be done. I would gladly undertake such testing myself, but no longer possess the physical ability to do so. If any Grendel shooters with requisite guns and ammo would care to participate, following are the tests I'd like to see done, and results posted in this thread.

P.S. Please do not waste thread space by posting objections to the proposed tests. If anybody would prefer to do other tests, please feel free to do them and report the results.

[stanc]

Infantry Rifle

Goal: Compare hit probability using service grade weapons and ammunition.

Use identically-configured, 14.5" (or 16") barrel, M4-type carbines in 5.56mm and 6.5mm, with same type of sights.

One target, any range 500 yards/meters to 1000 yards/meters. Use prone or (vehicle) supported position.

20 rounds slow fire. Record number of hits for each weapon.

Ammunition
5.56 NATO 62gr M855
6.5 Grendel 110gr Wolf FMJ or 120gr Wolf MPT (or handloads w/Norma 120gr FMJ)

[stanc]

Sniper Rifle

Goal: Compare hit probability using match grade weapons and ammunition.

Use identically-configured, 20" barrel, SASS/SDMR-type rifles* in 5.56mm, 6.5mm, and 7.62mm, with same type of sights.

One target, any range 500 yards/meters to 1000 yards/meters. Use prone or (vehicle) supported position.

20 rounds slow fire. Record number of hits for each weapon.

Ammunition
5.56 NATO 77gr Mk262
.264 LBC 123gr SMK (or 6.5 Grendel handloads w/123gr SMK)
7.62 NATO M118LR or Mk316 or Federal GMM w/175gr SMK

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M110_Se..._Sniper_System
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Marksman_Rifle

[stanc]

Machine Gun

Goal: Compare barrier defeat ability using FMJ ammunition.

Use 20" barrel rifles in 6.5mm and 7.62mm.

Shoot CMU -- aka cinder block -- backed up by jugs of water (see attached drawing), at any range from 25 yards/meters to 200 yards/meters. Record number of water jugs penetrated (and photograph recovered bullets, if possible).

Ammunition
6.5 Grendel 110gr Wolf FMJ (or handloads w/Norma 120gr FMJ)
7.62 NATO 147gr M80

[noone]

I think those tests would indeed show very interesting results. It might also be useful to test all three cartridges on ordnance gelatin by shooting the various bullets at 100 yards/meters for the infantry rifle test, 650 yards/meters for the sniper/designated marksman rifle, and 200 yards/meters for the machine gun test.

Comparing all the results would indeed provide very useful infomation.

The only other suggestion would be to use a better grade of factory ammo for the Grendel than Wolf. Wolf ammo is well known for being fairly inaccurate, and that wouldn't help the results. Hornady, Alexander Arms, or Black Hills ammo would provide more consistent accuracy. I'm not suggesting using match ammo for the Grendel and ball for the other cartridges as that wouldn't be fair. However, using ammo that is pretty well known for the worst accuracy of factory ammo isn't fair either.

Overall, I think the testing suggested is well thought out, and would be very helpful. I doubt the military will do such testing because the results may strongly suggest that a change is needed. And the military supply line has long been known for not wanting to change.

[stanc]

I think those tests would indeed show very interesting results. It might also be useful to test all three cartridges on ordnance gelatin...

I agree. The reason I did not suggest gel tests is because very few, if any, members have the ability (or desire) to work with gelatin. I wanted to keep things as simple as possible.

The only other suggestion would be to use a better grade of factory ammo for the Grendel than Wolf. Wolf ammo is well known for being fairly inaccurate, and that wouldn't help the results. Hornady, Alexander Arms, or Black Hills ammo would provide more consistent accuracy. I'm not suggesting using match ammo for the Grendel and ball for the other cartridges as that wouldn't be fair. However, using ammo that is pretty well known for the worst accuracy of factory ammo isn't fair either.

The trouble is, Hornady, AA and BH make premium 6.5 hunting and target ammo. They do not make 6.5 FMJ, or ammo that is representative of service grade ball in terms of accuracy.

I specified Wolf because (from what I recall posted by LR1955 on the old forum) the MPT is comparable to standard military ball in regard to accuracy, and the pending FMJ is the same bullet type.

However, a possible answer to your "fairness" objection would be to use ammo with TSX bullets for the infantry rifle and machine gun tests. That should provide the same degree of accuracy in each caliber for the infantry rifle test, and give representative penetration of each caliber in the machine gun tests. In factory ammo, Black Hills makes 62gr 5.56 TSX, AA has 120gr 6.5 TSX, and Federal offers 150gr 7.62 TSX. Would that be satisfactory?

[LR1955]

Use identically-configured, 20" barrel, M16-type rifles or 14.5" (or 16") barrel, M4-type carbines in 5.56mm and 6.5mm, with same type of sights.

Three targets, widely spaced, at any range from 25 yards/meters to 500 yards/meters. Use standing position at close range(s), kneeling, prone, or (vehicle) supported position for long range(s).

30 rounds, firing controlled pairs (aka double taps), in timed fire, using same time limit for each. Determine number of hits for each weapon.

Ammunition
5.56 NATO 62gr M855
6.5 Grendel 110gr Wolf FMJ or 120gr Wolf MPT (or handloads w/Norma 120gr FMJ)

Stan:

Since you are talking service grade rifles / carbines -- best state that the Grendel must be service grade too. Most likely can be done by identifying the Grendels on the market that you would consider service grade. This eliminates the Shilen, Krieger, and Satern match barrels.

Weight and length limitations are also part of the requirements and should be stated.

Also, no compensators.

Not sure what your research question is or your hypotheses.

LR1955

[stanc]

Since you are talking service grade rifles / carbines -- best state that the Grendel must be service grade too.

Weight and length limitations are also part of the requirements and should be stated.

Gene, I attempted too do that by writing:

"Use identically-configured, 20" barrel, M16-type rifles or 14.5" (or 16") barrel, M4-type carbines in 5.56mm and 6.5mm, with same type of sights."

[LR1955]

Use identically-configured, 20" barrel, M16-type rifles or 14.5" (or 16") barrel, M4-type carbines in 5.56mm and 6.5mm, with same type of sights.

Three targets, widely spaced, at any range from 25 yards/meters to 500 yards/meters. Use standing position at close range(s), kneeling, prone, or (vehicle) supported position for long range(s).

30 rounds, firing controlled pairs (aka double taps), in timed fire, using same time limit for each. Determine number of hits for each weapon.

Ammunition
5.56 NATO 62gr M855
6.5 Grendel 110gr Wolf FMJ or 120gr Wolf MPT (or handloads w/Norma 120gr FMJ)

Stan:

Easy one for me to do.

Just a few questions.

What is it you are trying to prove or disprove? My suggestion is that if you don't want to state your objectives in the open that you write them down and send them to a honest third party. Once they are written and sent, you can not change them. I trust Waites so given you can answer a few more questions about this portion of your test, I may be tempted to run it if Waites had a copy of your research question and agreed that the question was clearly stated and without prejudice towards any single cartridge or weapon.

As for other questions. SASS and SDMR are only names. What specific technology do these possess that other rifles don't? I have many rifles but am not sure if there is some technology unique to a SASS or SDMR that my other rifles don't have. You specified SASS and SDMR so define them so I can tell if I have the same technology in my rifles.

BTW -- what is the issued US Army SDM rifle? I have not seen one in the hands of an Infantryman -- ever. Unless you are talking about that M-14 retread.

State the specific size and shape of the target.

What type of target material? Steel is unreliable at distance so paper should be used.

Define a hit? If it is anywere on the paper or must be in a kill zone of some size. If a kill zone -- specify its location and dimensions. This makes a difference in how much attention one focuses and how one approaches the environment when shooting.

What specific distances? Sorry but you have to be specific in the distances as again, how a shooter approaches the situation depends on distances.

What is your time limit for the 20 rounds slow fire?

Under what environmental conditions would you consider the test to be valid?

LR1955

[stanc]

Stan: What is it you are trying to prove or disprove?

Gene, I stated that in post #1. For years we've discussed the idea that 6.5 Grendel has good enough performance to replace 5.56 and 7.62 NATO. I'd like to see some test data that either validates or negates the theory.

As for other questions. SASS and SDMR are only names. What specific technology do these possess that other rifles don't? You specified SASS and SDMR so define them so I can tell if I have the same technology in my rifles.

In post #3 I provided links to descriptions of the SASS and SDMR. If you want more detailed info, I don't have it.

State the specific size and shape of the target.

Head and torso silhouette. Exact type doesn't matter.

What type of target material? Steel is unreliable at distance so paper should be used.

Okay.

Define a hit? If it is anywere on the paper or must be in a kill zone of some size.

Anywhere on the target.

What specific distances? Sorry but you have to be specific in the distances as again, how a shooter approaches the situation depends on distances.

I didn't list a specific distance, because not all shooters will have access to 1000-yard firing ranges.

What is your time limit for the 20 rounds slow fire?

I'd think that would depend on the distance to the target. Whatever is appropriate, as long as it's the same for each caliber.

Under what environmental conditions would you consider the test to be valid?

Under any environmental conditions that you feel like shooting in.

P.S. I've revised post #2, the infantry rifle comparison, and added the purpose of each test to posts #2-4.

[JASmith]

Comparing the 5.56 M855 at ranges of 500 meters and beyond with 14.5" barrel weapons seems to bias the test in favor of the Grendel.

Where is the testing for barrier defeat when the pucker factor gets high? E. g. the truck door or windshield at ranges of 50 meters and less?

I'm in concert with LR1955 -- your test protocol must meet some significant standards to be taken seriously.

[stanc]

Comparing the 5.56 M855 at ranges of 500 meters and beyond with 14.5" barrel weapons seems to bias the test in favor of the Grendel.

How? The M4 carbine is the current standard individual weapon in the US Army. If 6.5 Grendel were adopted to convert existing 5.56mm weapons, it is reasonable to think that the barrel length would be kept at 14.5 inches. Ergo, compare at that length.

Where is the testing for barrier defeat when the pucker factor gets high? E. g. the truck door or windshield at ranges of 50 meters and less?

The truck door and windshield tests need to be done with ordnance gelatin in order to provide useful information. I figure that no members (with the possible exception of Bill Alexander and Gary Roberts) are likely to want to cope with performing gel tests. Cinder block penetration, OTOH, is very simple to test, and can be done by anybody fit enough to carry and emplace the block and water jugs.

I'm in concert with LR1955 -- your test protocol must meet some significant standards to be taken seriously.

As LR1955 would say, define significant standards.

Joe, this isn't intended to duplicate military acceptance testing. All I'm proposing are some informal comparison tests to evaluate if there's any substance to the theory that 6.5 Grendel is good enough to replace 5.56 and 7.62 NATO.

If the results should show results that support the theory, then at that point planning for more rigorous testing could be done. OTOH, if the results don't support the theory, then why bother spending the time to devise more complex (and expensive) tests?

[JASmith]

How? The M4 carbine is the current standard individual weapon in the US Army. If 6.5 Grendel were adopted to convert existing 5.56mm weapons, it is reasonable to think that the barrel length would be kept at 14.5 inches. Ergo, compare at that length.

The range is the hiccup. Remember that most folks carrying M-4's have a far greater chance of engaging targets well under 300 meters. One would think that relevant testing at these shorter ranges is in order.

Accuracy isn't the principal issue for these shorter range tests, but bullet performance is.

The truck door and windshield tests need to be done with ordnance gelatin in order to provide useful information.

The spirit of the test regime, especially with the cinder block and milk jug protocol, suggests that plywood and water jugs could readily be used behind something that resembles a windshield or door frame.

For example, the door frame test specifies an air gap between the gel block and the barrier. We could readily use a 3/8" wafer board backed by, say, two milk jugs, followed by perhaps a 10" air gap and then a second wafer board as a witness plate. The second air gap is to keep the witness plate from being disrupted by the splash from the milk jug. Twenty gauge steel sheet could be substituted for the wafer board if you want a more visible hole.

As LR1955 would say, define significant standards...this isn't intended to duplicate military acceptance testing.

While no amount of testing by us amateurs can hope to duplicate, let alone supersede, formal military acceptance testing, poorly defined and designed tests can do an awful lot of harm.

Remember, our goal is to encourage analysis and testing by the service acquisition community.

We need to posit a hypothesis like "The 6.5 Grendel can replace both the 5.56 and 7.62 mm NATO ammunition types." and then build the analytical case that shows that, given demonstrated ammunition performance, the hypothesis is proven. Then the tests we define and execute will have the impact they need.

I would also submit that the example hypothesis is far too weak to gain traction even with the most zealous congressman. Extending earlier posts by LR1955 about necessary performance improvements, we have to show essential equivalence in every category except those where the Grendel is clearly superior.

Anything less sets us up for a Pyrrhic victory.

[stanc]

The range is the hiccup. Remember that most folks carrying M-4's have a far greater chance of engaging targets well under 300 meters. One would think that relevant testing at these shorter ranges is in order.

I agree that testing at shorter ranges is a good idea. That's why the first iteration of the Infantry Rifle test called for target distances as close as 25 yards. However, hit probability of any assault rifle cartridge -- especially the low-recoil 5.56x45 -- will be good at close range.

I changed the range requirement to longer distances, primarily because of the reported complaints from troops in Afghanistan that 5.56 lacked sufficient reach to engage an enemy who 50% of the time attacks from as far away as 1000 yards. I think it's more important to determine if 6.5 Grendel would answer that complaint, and if so, how well.

Accuracy isn't the principal issue for these shorter range tests, but bullet performance is.

Concur. But, we don't have access to 5.56 M855A1 ammo, and AFAIK, neither an M855-type nor an M855A1-type bullet exists for 6.5 Grendel. So what 5.56 and 6.5 loads would you use to compare terminal performance?

The spirit of the test regime, especially with the cinder block and milk jug protocol, suggests that plywood and water jugs could readily be used behind something that resembles a windshield or door frame.

True. And there are other "witness pack" possibilities, as shown in a couple of NDIA presentations by Gandy and Arvidsson. But, again -- what 5.56 and 6.5 loads would you use to compare terminal performance?

While no amount of testing by us amateurs can hope to duplicate, let alone supersede, formal military acceptance testing, poorly defined and designed tests can do an awful lot of harm.

Well, if you consider my proposed tests to be poorly designed, then propose some of your own.

Remember, our goal is to encourage analysis and testing by the service acquisition community.

Agreed.

We need to posit a hypothesis like "The 6.5 Grendel can replace both the 5.56 and 7.62 mm NATO ammunition types." and then build the analytical case that shows that, given demonstrated ammunition performance, the hypothesis is proven.

Yes, but to date all we have is theory and supposition behind that hypothesis. There needs to be empirical evidence, which can only be had via testing.

[JASmith]

I would use the same ammunition you propose to use for the cinder block/milk jug "Machine Gun" test. Remember that all we need to do is best the 147 gr 7.62 round. Hence we don't need 5.56 NATO for this test.

We are, for the most part, all in agreement that the Grendel would do as well as either the 5.56 or the 7.62 NATO in dismounted infantry roles. The point that LR1955 makes is that positing the Grendel as merely being able to replace the 5.56 and 7.62 won't cause it to happen. He is right on the money. We have to identify at least one or two areas where the Grendel is far superior and assure ourselves that it does at least as well in all the other categories.

The hypothesis has to be far stronger and be supportable by analysis and testing.

Let's make sure the testing we do in the near future helps demonstrate Grendel superiority.