+- 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: Our military adopting the Grendel? (/showthread.php?tid=1425)
Our military adopting the Grendel? - stanc - 11-13-2011
montana Wrote:Better than the 7.62X39. Its the same weight but better ballistic coefficient. The 7.62X39 has never been faulted for penetration like the 5.56 has. This isn't a Ford Chev argument its based on reality.The cartridge which has the best fundamentals of weight, terminal performance,recoil, penetration, ballistic performance AKA long range performance and cost should be used. The Grendel has them all.Do you have terminal effects test data for military ball loadings of 6.5 Grendel?
I have yet to see any, so I'm curious as to how you reached your conclusion.
Our military adopting the Grendel? - JASmith - 11-13-2011
Montana is almost certainly noting a fact of physics: Given similar construction, identical weight, and similar velocity, the skinnier bullet WILL go deeper.
Our military adopting the Grendel? - stanc - 11-13-2011
JASmith Wrote:Montana is almost certainly noting a fact of physics: Given similar construction, identical weight, and similar velocity, the skinnier bullet WILL go deeper.Yes, but that's irrelevant to his comment about shooting through windshields.
5.56 Ball has been faulted for its (in)ability to punch through windshields without being deflected.
Does 6.5 Grendel Ball penetrate auto glass without being deflected?
Silly me. I just remembered, nobody has done any terminal effects testing of 6.5 Grendel Ball ammo, so they can't possibly know how it performs in comparison to 5.56x45, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, or any other caliber...
Our military adopting the Grendel? - LRRPF52 - 11-13-2011
montana Wrote:Like I said any caliber can kill. Just read about the Falklands war , Black hawk down etc.They told of many cases where the 5.56 failed miserably. The 5.56 is illegal to use for hunting in most states because it sucks on big game. Try to shoot threw a windshield and see how effective it is. It isn't. The 6.5 Grendel is just a better cartridge.The 5.56 has its place but not as our first line military cartridge. You can use what ever you think but I would rather have a cartridge that has better one round kill, better penetration little recoil and long range performance than a middle range varmint round.I have also seen first hand the 5.56 rounds failure to perform as should be expected.The SAS in the Falklands switched back to their FAL'S because of its poor performance.
That's the first I've heard of SAS ditching 5.56 and going to FALs. They used L1A1's and Armalites in combination from the beginning, in the Malay War of 1963-1966, and have been using Armalites, Daemeco's, and M4A1's for as long as they've been in existence. The reports everyone refers to about 5.56 "failures" in Mogadishu are exaggerations and inferences from Mark Bowden's book. If 5.56 was such a bad performer, Delta would have dropped it like a bad habit, or gone to rifle-length barrels to increase the wound ballistics threshold of 2600 fps lead showers.
The opposite happened. Ranger Regiment ditched the M16A2 like a cheap suit, and adopted M4A1's immediately afterward by demand from the user level. The only way 5.56 sucks is through sucking chest wounds. How many SAS guys do you see with L1A1's now? Yes, you will see DM's and snipers use SR25's, L129A1's, and other 7.62 NATO platforms in a support role, but the go-to caliber for an individual service weapon in Tier 1 units is 5.56 NATO. The 7.62 NATO was one of the worst individual service rifle calibers ever dumped on soldiers, especially in light of the developments from WWII that were totally ignored by Army Ordnance Corps. The Brits had a much better caliber line-up with the .280 Enfield, while Garand wanted to use a much better cartridge in his rifle back in the 1930's: the .276 Pedersen, which allowed 10 rounds in the Garand clips, flat trajectory, and low recoil.
Take two equally-sized and organized units. Load one up with 7.62 Battle Rifles and machineguns, and another with 5.56 carbines and 7.62 machineguns. The one with 5.56 will outlast the one with 7.62, and out-maneuver them. Maneuver + firepower = win. Limited firepower + limited maneuver = lose. This is why the Soviets ditched 7.62x39 and went to a Small Caliber High Velocity cartridge, the 5.45x39, and didn't look back. They came to this conclusion after detailed studies of the logistics war we won against their surrogates in Indochina, as well as the tactical victories we achieved in almost every battle of that war.
Our military adopting the Grendel? - JASmith - 11-13-2011
stanc Wrote:...Does 6.5 Grendel Ball penetrate auto glass without being deflected?...
Only when the glass is presented normal to the bullet path.
Physics also tells us that every bullet regardless of caliber will be deflected to some extent when going through a barrier like glass when it is presented at an angle to the flight path.
There are apparent exceptions resulting from the details of the interaction, but the deflection always happens.
Our military adopting the Grendel? - LRRPF52 - 11-13-2011
Our military rightly should express a significant amount of protest when anyone proposes that individual riflemen lose ammunition capacity in their magazines, and increases weight on the load. Any high-power rifle cartridge of .22-.30 Cal is adequate if we look at each shot as an isolated event. When you look at training, logistics, recoil, barrel life, magazine capacity, and things along those lines, a balance has to be found. Right now, there isn't any cartridge I'm aware of that matches what 5.56 can do across the board.
Duties and responsibilities of a riflemen rarely involve engaging auto glass, although it has come up more frequently in an urban environment, but VCP's rarely involve just rifles or carbines-there is usually a SAW or M240 as well. It would be a huge mistake to judge the application of an assault rifle cartridge by an auto glass defeat requirement, although a lot of effort is being put into multi-purpose projectiles that are intended to do well against armor, glass, and tissue. The caliber won't matter in that case anyway, since the solution lies in bullet construction.
Our military adopting the Grendel? - stanc - 11-13-2011
LRRPF52 Wrote:What the Grendel offers is the possibility to rethink the whole Light Machinegun concept...Are you going to pursue this idea, with load development, terminal effects testing, and maybe even Grendelizing a LMG?
Our military adopting the Grendel? - YutYut - 11-13-2011
There is a reason why the 5.56 has been in service so long. IT WORKS. People are always trying to fix something that isn't broken. Perhaps the Grendel will serve a purpose in military operations perhaps it won't. Only time will tell.
Our military adopting the Grendel? - YutYut - 11-13-2011
If anything an LMG is the only chance the Grendel has to be used in the military. Bill Alexander said it himself that when the capability of full auto is taken away, then the Grendel loses its BIGGEST advantage. IMO, if anybody ever produces a Grendel LMG they will be very pleased.
Our military adopting the Grendel? - montana - 11-13-2011
The book the Falkland war was written by a on sight journalist. The SAS were disgusted with what they then called the 5.56 Armalite rifle. The 5.56 bullet is so small that it literally disintegrates upon impact on a windshield. Try stopping a determined suicide bomber driving towards you with a 5.56 weapon. I'll take a Grendel any day.The 6.8 was developed because of the 5.56 short comings.Yes there are other heavier weapons that could be used but why handicap our soldiers when there is a better cartridge to be had. Afghanistan has has proven the need for a more effective long range caliber. The Grendel is more effective at all ranges. Yes training, logistics, barrel life mag capacity, etc. are important but for the argument of this subject the Grendel is a better trade off in almost every account. The 5.56 will kill you dead with good shot placement , but for long range, short range, barrier penetration, terminal effects in a AR- type platform the Grendel rules. The 5.56 is slightly lighter and a little better mag capacity. That's it. The Russians wanted to increase their range and accuracy more than anything else when they developed the 5.45. This they did with a cartridge that uses less powder,less recoil and more reliable terminal performance than the 5.56.This is why we have been pulling out old M-14's in the war on terror because they needed a harder hitting rifle at longer ranges. The 5.56 is considered a superior police weapon because it will not over penetrate when entering a building.I don't think it matters what I or anyone else thinks in this forum when it comes to what the military will do. But don't tell me the military always chooses the best rifle or caliber for its soldiers.That could take up another long discussion.Use what you like and so will I.The Russians developed the AL-107 assault rifle which proved to be superior to the AK-74 and the AN-94 but they couldn't afford it.
Our military adopting the Grendel? - stanc - 11-13-2011
YutYut Wrote:If anything an LMG is the only chance the Grendel has to be used in the military. Bill Alexander said it himself that when the capability of full auto is taken away, then the Grendel loses its BIGGEST advantage.Interesting. Never heard that before.
I always thought that long-range capability is 6.5 Grendel's biggest advantage.
Our military adopting the Grendel? - YutYut - 11-13-2011
i will find the quote and post it.
Our military adopting the Grendel? - Grendel-Gene - 11-13-2011
"Shot placement" is a wonderful concept when you are engaging only ONE ANIMAL with plenty of time..... but i was engaging THREE at just 30 feet from me.... so i shot center mass!!!
Our military adopting the Grendel? - stanc - 11-13-2011
montana Wrote:The Grendel is more effective at all ranges. Yes training, logistics, barrel life mag capacity, etc. are important but for the argument of this subject the Grendel is a better trade off in almost every account. The 5.56 will kill you dead with good shot placement , but for long range, short range, barrier penetration, terminal effects in a AR- type platform the Grendel rules.Probably true, but it hasn't yet been shown via testing
Quote:The 5.56 is slightly lighter and a little better mag capacity.Actually, 5.56 is significantly (29%) lighter and has significantly (20%) greater magazine capacity.
Our military adopting the Grendel? - YutYut - 11-13-2011
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?92-Which-chamber-for-a-custom-bolt-gun/page2&highlight=bill+alexander
go to bottom of page 2. BIll explains it very well
Our military adopting the Grendel? - montana - 11-13-2011
The Grendel has good terminal effects like the 6.8spc yet it also has long range capabilities superior to both the 5.56 or 6.8spc. and as good as the 7.62 Nato in a M-16 platform. The best of both worlds. THE END.
Our military adopting the Grendel? - stanc - 11-13-2011
YutYut Wrote:http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?92-Which-chamber-for-a-custom-bolt-gun/page2&highlight=bill+alexander
go to bottom of page 2. BIll explains it very well
Bill Alexander Wrote:"Regarding a bolt action, quite honestly the Grendel chamber is not the place to start if you are chasing the Benchrest bug. It is too much of a compromise and does not get the best from the cartridge if the requirement to run in full auto is removed."Uh, Yut -- I think you kinda misquoted (or misunderstood) what he actually said. He didn't say that when the capability of full auto is taken away, then the Grendel loses its BIGGEST advantage. He said that the Grendel chamber is not the best choice for benchrest competition.
Our military adopting the Grendel? - YutYut - 11-13-2011
You're right stanc, not its biggest advantage but still what the cartridge is partly designed to do.
Our military adopting the Grendel? - stanc - 11-13-2011
montana Wrote:The Grendel...has long range capabilities...as good as the 7.62 Nato in a M-16 platform.Yeah. Right.
Our military adopting the Grendel? - montana - 11-13-2011
YutYut Bill was explaining the Grendel wasn't the best chamber for accuracy in a bolt gun because it was made to be used in automatic type actions. There were better chamber designs for bolt actions when accuracy was the goal.