+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Military & Law Enforcement (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers (/showthread.php?tid=482)
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - Variable - 06-15-2015
stanc Wrote:Just how much better, I'm not sure, and I'd really prefer a cartridge more like the 5.45x39 than the 5.56x45.
There I was, tooling along in this thread nicely.... When all of a sudden you hit me with a plate glass door.LOL
![[Image: 131.gif]](http://replygif.net/i/131.gif)
5.45???
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - stanc - 06-15-2015
Variable Wrote:There I was, tooling along in this thread nicely.... When all of a sudden you hit me with a plate glass door.LOLHeh, heh. Yeah, why not? After all, it's very similar in concept to 6.5 Grendel -- a long, streamlined bullet, in a short, relatively fat cartridge case.
5.45???
Straighten the case taper a bit to increase powder capacity, and maybe increase caliber to 6mm. No?
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - cory - 06-15-2015
stanc Wrote:Okay, but other people are advocating it for dismounted use, as is the manufacturer:
[video=youtube;JNB7khjOSXc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNB7khjOSXc[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNB7khjOSXc
Yes we are advocating dismounted use. However, we're aware that implementing a .338 MMG and a 6.5 LMG will change tactics for employing machine guns.
Currently we have a 5.56 SAW as the LMG and the 240G as the MMG. There isn't much comparison in the two. In situations where you need the 240G, the SAW is useless. So we have other troops devoted to deploying a 2nd 240G.
A 6.5 LMG would compliment a .338 MMG, and would demand that they be deployed on the battlefield in such a manner. The LMGs could and should be used as the brunt force, allowing the MMG to engage the critical and hard to reach targets. Therefore, if we make the switch to a 6.5 LMG and a .338 MMG, we don't as many MMGs on the battlefield. This would allow more troops to be devoted to a single MMG, allowing more ammunition to be carried.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - LRRPF52 - 06-15-2015
stanc Wrote:As would I.
I don't recall seeing any claims that 6.5mm can't be as lethal as 6.8mm. But, I do remember Gary Roberts saying that the 6.5 Grendel load which was tested, proved significantly inferior to 6.8 SPC. However, that's hardly surprising, since the 6.8mm bullets were designed specifically for the SPC round and optimized for terminal effects, whereas the 120gr 6.5mm MatchKing used in the tests was not developed for either wounding effects or the Grendel cartridge.
It's because they were comparing a .277" varmint bullet with SMK's in all the other bore diameters. They were laughed out of professional circles every chance they got with the way they ran the marketing and testing for 6.8. It was like a snowballing accumulation of every worst possible proponent jumping aboard, and kept getting worse. Dudes lost their jobs over it, were escorted off of Fort Bragg, non contract losers with ancillary systems were jumping on the wagon to try to circumvent the earlier decisions using the 6.8 as a new avenue of approach to contracts, etc.
"But one of these kids is doin' his own thing, now it's time to play our game..."
![[Image: SPC_trials1_zps09scamsg.jpg]](http://i1085.photobucket.com/albums/j422/LRRPF52/SPC_trials1_zps09scamsg.jpg)
.277" is a dead-end, and was a really bad choice with that cartridge. The methodology used to conclude its terminal performance superiority was so blatantly fraudulent, that people could hardly believe proponents were that stupid to put forth such a claim on its face. The backstory to 6.8 is so filled with these kinds of full retard approaches, it boggles your mind really.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - LRRPF52 - 06-15-2015
If you go CT with a .338 MG, like a big LSAT, that would bring the weapon and ammo weight and length down significantly.
The DTIC power point seems to favor training and an intermediate 6.5mm cartridge/weapon system for Snipers and DM's, as well as LMG's. Notice how we're not really talking about the future of 7.62 NATO as a given though.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - JASmith - 06-16-2015
The problem with the SPC case length is that there is not enough room for a decent ogive within the AR15 magazine length.
Shortening the case moves the optimal caliber in the direction of 6mm or .25 so the velocity can be kept at OK levels.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - stanc - 06-16-2015
JASmith Wrote:The problem with the SPC case length is that there is not enough room for a decent ogive within the AR15 magazine length.Don't shorten the case. Lengthen the receiver. Historically, whenever a new cartridge has been adopted, new weapons have been developed specifically for it. Which means the AR15/M16/M4 magazine length is probably irrelevant for military use.
Shortening the case moves the optimal caliber in the direction of 6mm or .25 so the velocity can be kept at OK levels.
Then load a long-ogive bullet in the case. Like below (except with lead-free construction, which would make the bullet substantially lighter than 135 grains).
![[Image: 135smk.JPG]](http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/135smk.JPG)
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - LRRPF52 - 06-17-2015
And now you push into a heavier weapon, with longer bolt travel requirements, with less available space on my kit for mags, in order to reach 6mm-6.5mm BC's that can be used already within the existing system dimensions of the AR15 family. Like I said, going with .277" was a really bad idea from the start, and the reasoning behind it was patently fraudulent. Trying to pass off a varmint bullet as OTM to career ballistics engineers was one of the first major mistakes. It's a dead end. If people knew the back story, they would laugh.
A 6mm SPC or 6.35mm SPC would have been much better. 6.5mm run at lower pressures gives you the ability to get longer barrel life, whereas 6mm's are renowned for poor barrel life. That has significant implications for training and logistics, which I have personally seen manifest especially in the sniping community where we had to send our M24's off to be re-barreled by Remington at a certain round count.
With the .300 Win Mag in the Sniping Community, it has serious throat and bore wear considerations that severely limit the ability to train with the gun, especially after the introduction of the newer load that tries to be a .338 LM. Pressure on it would make Roy Weatherby blush.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - stanc - 06-17-2015
LRRPF52 Wrote:And now you push into a heavier weapon, with longer bolt travel requirements, with less available space on my kit for mags, in order to reach 6mm-6.5mm BC's that can be used already within the existing system dimensions of the AR15 family.Hey, I just said it was an option. I didn't say it was the best option.
But, if the military should decide to adopt a new conventional cartridge, I think it'll likely have a longer COAL than 5.56 NATO (for example, .264 USA, 6.5x43 Lapua), making the issues you raise above inevitable.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - stanc - 08-08-2017
SMALL ARMS AND AMMUNITION WHERE ARE WE HEADING? http://quarryhs.co.uk/ArticleDCMS2017.pdf
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - LRRPF52 - 08-08-2017
I would say that's a fairly decent synopsis, other than the obvious fact that we've always had a healthy mix of 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO.
Not only has that been true in the US Army and Marines, but the UK, Australia, New Zealand, German, and other NATO partner nations.
That's one of the main things that has always stuck out to me about these discussions: The total misunderstanding that M16s/M4s are central to the Platoon and Squad small arms mix as a function of combat power. The individual rifleman is the final piece of the echelons of fire and maneuver who puts his boot on the face of the carcass in the rubble left over from the fusillade of CAS, artillery, mortars, rockets/AT weapons, machine guns, and grenade launchers.
Even at the Squad Level, the M4 is not the dominant system for firepower. The SAW is. If you have DMs like you should, then the SAWs and DMs are the most casualty-producing duty positions when trained properly.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - dega37 - 08-10-2017
I agree with Cory and LR. While small arms are effective at incapacitation, they do not win battles or wars in traditional warfare with tanks, artillery, armored vehicles, and aircraft. When you have small unit troops in contact, they need to have enough ammo to sustain until reinforced, resupplied, or until the above are used - unless of course it was a small group of civilian, armed combatants where usually they disappear quickly after they take fire or one of them is killed.
When you are the guy patrolling you want something that is light and effective to the range that you can see what is shooting at you which is usually less than 300 yards but in most circumstances doesn't reach 800-1000. At those longer ranges, MMGs, the 50BMG, and Mark19s allow you return fire and mount up and/ or maneuver.
5.56 is generally effective and you can carry ~200 rounds in a normal combat load with armor and a day or two day pack and can still move quickly. The grendel is definitely superior/ more effective than 5.56 in what I have seen, all aspects, but does have a slight trade off of weight, size, and carrying capacity, however it is still very close to the current combat load. I can only imagine how much more effective a 6.5 grendel green tip with a tungsten penetrator twice the size of M855 would be.
That being said i am not sure if they went with the grendel what grain projectile they would use, maybe a 100-110gr to keep velocity high? Or like Stanc was saying, perhaps slightly elongate the case to use a 120-130 gr projectile with a bit more powder and slightly widen and lengthen the receiver to accommodate the change. It might even be possible to keep the same exterior receiver dimensions and remove some of the inner receiver material (with some other adjustments) to make up for the small difference in size. Either way people that have much more knowledge, experience, and funding will be (have done/ are) doing tons of research and development.
Also, a 338 MMG does make sense because if you have ever seen 240 MMGs shoot past 800 or just look at their ballistic tables, their trajectory and energy fall off quickly. While the 338 would have similar ballistics to a 50BMG with the ability to have differing projectile types. However, I really do not see the 50BMG going anywhere. It always was an anti material cartridge even though it certainly can be used for anti personal purposes.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - stanc - 08-10-2017
dega37 Wrote:That being said i am not sure if they went with the grendel what grain projectile they would use, maybe a 100-110gr to keep velocity high?If 6.5 Grendel were to be adopted, it seems likely that bullet weight would be in that range, or perhaps even a bit lighter.
That's because with a lead-free projectile of the EPR type, bullets heavier than 110 grains would extend rather deep into the case, using up propellant space.
For example, note how long is the base of the 123-grain EPR bullet in CT ammo.
![[Image: 6.5CTw.jpg]](http://quarryhs.co.uk/6.5CTw.jpg)
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - Drift - 08-13-2017
So ..you fix that by using a more energetic powder.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - doofus65 - 08-17-2017
Drift
Quote:So ..you fix that by using a more energetic powder.
Doesn't that raise pressures which puts you back in the "need a new, heavier receiver" side of the equation?
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - n9nwo - 08-23-2017
Had a question on this.
while we are mostly in agreement that we need to move to a 6.5mm cartridge, there is some question as to whether we stay with the current M4 platform thus using a round like the 6.5 Grendel (6.5x39) or go to a longer round like the 6.5x45. Or do we go to something new like a 6.5mm CT round?
And do we also go to a .338 round like the .338LM (8.59x70) or .338NM (8.59x63) in a MG that then allows the .50 M2 to be retired?
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - stanc - 08-23-2017
n9nwo Wrote:Had a question on this.Since smokeless powder was adopted in 1892, the Army never adopted a completely new cartridge specifically to upgrade old weapons.
while we are mostly in agreement that we need to move to a 6.5mm cartridge, there is some question as to whether we stay with the current M4 platform thus using a round like the 6.5 Grendel (6.5x39) or go to a longer round like the 6.5x45. Or do we go to something new like a 6.5mm CT round?
So, I think it is rather unlikely that the M4 platform would be kept and converted to 6.5 Grendel, if that round were to be be adopted.
CT ammo would be preferred over brass-cased cartridges like 6.5 Grendel, but it remains to be seen if it will ever be ready for fielding.
Even if CT technology does someday reach that level of maturity, it is currently uncertain what caliber(s) would actually be adopted.
The CT carbine is being developed in 6.5mm, but the CT machine gun is 7.62mm. This says to me the Army is not sure what it wants.
n9nwo Wrote:And do we also go to a .338 round like the .338LM (8.59x70) or .338NM (8.59x63) in a MG that then allows the .50 M2 to be retired?I doubt that .338 LM/NM would be a viable replacement for .50 BMG, except for a few special purposes where weight is a critical factor.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - n9nwo - 08-24-2017
cory Wrote:Yes we are advocating dismounted use. However, we're aware that implementing a .338 MMG and a 6.5 LMG will change tactics for employing machine guns.
Currently we have a 5.56 SAW as the LMG and the 240G as the MMG. There isn't much comparison in the two. In situations where you need the 240G, the SAW is useless. So we have other troops devoted to deploying a 2nd 240G.
A 6.5 LMG would compliment a .338 MMG, and would demand that they be deployed on the battlefield in such a manner. The LMGs could and should be used as the brunt force, allowing the MMG to engage the critical and hard to reach targets. Therefore, if we make the switch to a 6.5 LMG and a .338 MMG, we don't as many MMGs on the battlefield. This would allow more troops to be devoted to a single MMG, allowing more ammunition to be carried.
This is something I have seen discussed. That these two calibers have nearly the same BC and are at the "sweet spot" along the 1" (25mm).
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - hdrolling - 08-30-2017
LRRPF52 Wrote:If you have DMs like you should, then the SAWs and DMs are the most casualty-producing duty positions when trained properly.
As a retired 11c Mortar man, I would have to disagree with this statement
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - LRRPF52 - 08-31-2017
hdrolling Wrote:[/COLOR][/B]
As a retired 11c Mortar man, I would have to disagree with this statement
Within the Infantry Platoon. If it's Company or Battalion level, then Scout Platoon Recon Teams and good FOs in the line Platoons with comms with indirect assets will be the most of course.
Ask anyone here how I feel about mortars. I would exchange my collection of long range rifles for a mortar and a good supply of HE.
It's all fun to shoot little bullets on target, but I much preferred calling in 81s.
But again, with the Platoon, your belt-feds and DMs are going to be the main guys with high hit probability on target, whereas a lot of people outside of the profession get fixated on riflemen, not even knowing what weapons are MTO&E in an Infantry Platoon or Company.