6mm Grendel Group Design Project

[BluntForceTrauma]

In the case of 7.62 NATO developers, the evidence shows they were not hidebound in their thinking on this matter. When development started in 1945, instead of rigidly copying the 17-degree shoulder of the venerable .30-06 case, they elected to use a 30-degree shoulder. It was only after a few years of test and evaluation that shoulder angle was changed to 20 degrees, a fact which says to me that the 30-degree shoulder likely caused feeding or chambering issues.

Solid reasoning, Stan, can't fault it. But none of us knows conclusively if the change was due to technical merits or politics or hidebound thinking. All of which, to me, are distinct possibilities. You know the sordid history of small arms development in this country as well as I.

[stanc]

Solid reasoning, Stan, can't fault it. But none of us knows conclusively if the change was due to technical merits or politics or hidebound thinking. All of which, to me, are distinct possibilities.

I agree, John. Those are all possibilities. Some years ago I tried to find out for sure, and asked Frank Hackley (Frankford Arsenal's last commander) about it. Unfortunately, even he did not know the reason they decided to go with a 20-degree shoulder, since it happened long before his time there.

However, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. The developers clearly were progressive in their early thinking on shoulder angle, because they did just as you advocate and opted for 30 degrees instead of a more conservative angle. Plus, there is other evidence to support the idea that the shoulder angle changed as a result of reliability testing -- neck length also increased, a year or two before the change in shoulder angle.

There is good reason to be somewhat conservative in military cartridge design. Soldiers lives depend upon reliable operation of their weapons. Had I designed 6.5 Grendel, I would've just scaled down the 7x43 British, keeping the 20-degree shoulder.

Or, per the thread topic, scale down the 6.25x43 British to take your idealized 6mm projectile, possibly increasing shoulder angle to 23 degrees.

_ 7x43 British _ 6.25x43 British _ 5.56x45 NATO _

You know the sordid history of small arms development in this country as well as I.

Yeah, I'm somewhat familiar with the subject, having written a book about the development of US Army small arms and ammo. However, unlike many people, I don't view the history as sordid.

[Keef]

I know nothing about cartridge design, but I would not give any government the benefit of the doubt......

[stanc]

i know nothing about cartridge design, but i would not give any government the benefit of the doubt......

[Kswhitetails]

That's a book I could sink my teeth into. Any info stanc?

[stanc]

That's a book I could sink my teeth into. Any info stanc?

Alas, no. About ten years ago I submitted the manuscript to a publisher. The editor liked it, and accepted it for publication. But then the economy tanked and they canceled all new projects.

[grayfox]

Stan, maybe the people who published the Handbooks would do your book now?

Maybe the horde could set up a "go fund me" thingy to help on costs............

[bj139]

Alas, no. About ten years ago I submitted the manuscript to a publisher. The editor liked it, and accepted it for publication. But then the economy tanked and they canceled all new projects.

Maybe you could publish it in electronic form for a minimal cost?

Here is a Kindle version of a book I have been wanting to buy.

https://www.amazon.com/Long-Range-Shooting-Handbook-Beginners-ebook/dp/B01BE3LEQK/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1517186836&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=long+range+shooting+handbook+by+ryan+cleckner&psc=1

Dummy me, I went to buy it on Amazon and they say I already bought it. Time to start reading.

[Kswhitetails]

Well, schpuutz.

[stanc]

Stan, maybe the people who published the Handbooks would do your book now?

Maybe you could publish it in electronic form for a minimal cost?

Publication in any form would be more than a little challenging at this point. For one thing, the text was written on an older computer, and saved to a 3.5" diskette. This computer has no 3.5" drive, so I'm unable to access the text.

More importantly, a large portion of the book was devoted to the now-defunct Objective Individual Combat Weapon and Objective Crew Served Weapon. Revising those sections, and adding coverage of more recent developments, would necessitate a considerable amount of rewriting. With my continually declining health, I just no longer have the desire or energy to undertake such an effort.

Besides, I'm not sure the book was ever really worth doing in the first place. In my younger years I had an unfortunate tendency to get excited about projects that usually proved to be a waste of time and $$$. But, attached below are a few sample pages (that I made for querying publishers) for your entertainment.

[Kswhitetails]

Lots of pictures, my kind of book! They make USB interfaced 3.5 drives these days, I believe Sandisk still makes one, if you're interested in ever recovering your work.

[grayfox]

A 1903 was my first rifle, found an old one for sale at an Army-Navy store in Idaho in the 70's... for $47.50.

[stanc]

Lots of pictures, my kind of book!

Mine, too!

They make USB interfaced 3.5 drives these days, I believe Sandisk still makes one, if you're interested in ever recovering your work.

I did not know that. Thanks, I'll keep it in mind. However, it remains to be seen if it'll matter.

While attaching those .JPG files yesterday, I discovered a couple pages of text from the manuscript. Curiously, I was unable to open them. And when I tried to attach them to my previous post, I got an "Invalid File" message. I don't know if that means the files were corrupted when they were copied from the old computer to this one, or if .WPS files became obsolete during the last 10 years, and can no longer be read. If the latter, then having a 3.5" drive would seem moot.

My only other option would be if the hard copy of the book is still in storage, and I wouldn't bet that it is. After I moved here five years ago, I found that my brother had discarded just about everything of mine that I hadn't specifically requested be put in storage.

[stanc]

A 1903 was my first rifle, found an old one for sale at an Army-Navy store in Idaho in the 70's... for $47.50.

I think I paid about twice that for mine. Man, I don't know how soldiers of old were able to shoot the '03 at all well. That sucker kicked like the proverbial mule!

[Kswhitetails]

You can translate the file, I'm no IT nerd but I know it can be done. Google is a capable wench for these purposes especially. If it can't be directly done, someone out there can take your discs, and get the data for you. I have a guy if you find an itch that you cannot scratch, and it won't go away; let me know.

As far as the 1903, yea. Mule legs are what my grandfather called his two. A NM 1903 that was "his", and a service 1903 that apparently Great Grandpa may have carried in the Great War. My great Aunt has pictures of him with one in his hands. Cool open sights rifle, it's obvious they weren't intended to be limited at 300 meters...