+- 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: Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? (/showthread.php?tid=7541)
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - montana - 03-18-2014
cory Wrote:Interesting, but if you're only gaining 74 ft lbs compared to the 5.56 NATO is it really worth introducing a new round?
Less weight, less muzzle blast, carry more rounds. If it was my b"tt carrying the load across some place 50 miles from no where it would be.
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - cory - 03-18-2014
montana Wrote:Less weight, less muzzle blast, carry more rounds. If it was my b"tt carrying the load across some place 50 miles from no where it would be.
Actually wouldn't it be more weight and muzzle blast compared to the same platform chambered in 5.56 NATO?
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - montana - 03-18-2014
cory Wrote:Actually wouldn't it be more weight and muzzle blast compared to the same platform chambered in 5.56 NATO?
1] The receiver is 1\3 shorter including the magazine compared to the M-4
2] The 6X36 cartridge is based on the modified Fireball case which is more efficient with short barrels as compared top the 5.56, less powder= less muzzle blast.
3] The weight of the rifle is 4.5 lbs.
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - cory - 03-18-2014
Okay I get 2, but could you not chamber the KAC PDW in the 5.56 NATO and have a 4.5lb 5.56 PDW?
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - montana - 03-18-2014
cory Wrote:Okay I get 2, but could you not chamber the KAC PDW in the 5.56 NATO and have a 4.5lb 5.56 PDW?
I don't know, the KAC Personal defense weapon uses dual short stroke gas pistons. I was more interested in the cartridge concept than the rifle. LRRPF52 was suggesting it was possible to duplicate or exceed the 5.56 NATO performance from the .221 Fireball case and I thought of the 6X35 round.
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - stanc - 03-19-2014
LRRPF52 Wrote:If you look at the original assault rifle intermediate cartridge, it has a 33m case length, or max case length of 1.299", and max COL of 1.890". This cartridge changed military small arms forever.Forever? Nah. Maybe only 80 years or so, if people like Tony and Guardsman26 succeed in reinventing the battle rifle cartridge.
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - mongoosesnipe - 03-19-2014
Every time a new cartridge hits the market or a new platform is deveoped most are not really all that new and usually not significantly improved, least we forget the entire concept of an assult rifle is that engagements do not typically exceed 400 meters so having a cartridge effective at longer distance is not needed the Russians take th concept one further by only requiring the rifle to hit a man sized target at that distance putting 10 rounds up a gnats ass at a 1/4 of a mile is an impressive feat but it isn't required in the typical combat enguagement
So nothing will change, the only innovation I could see happening that would succeed in revolutionizing the assult rifle would be the development of caseless ammunition which would allow everything to become smaller lighter and in theory simpler as there is no need to extract caseless ammunition, but such projects have been shelved in favor of more conventional designs as there has not been the need for more advanced weapons, but you never no what need the future will bring
Though according to the internet so it must be true the US is working on developing the caseless concept for the role of LMG...
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - Tony Williams - 03-21-2014
The problem with holding down COL to a minimum is that you are liable to end up without enough space to load long-ogive bullets. This problem affects the 5.56x45, 7.62x51 and even the .338 Lapua Magnum (which is why the .338 Norma Magnum was developed). This won't matter in short-range weapons but it surely does if you want a decent long-range performance.
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - LRRPF52 - 03-21-2014
Tony Williams Wrote:The problem with holding down COL to a minimum is that you are liable to end up without enough space to load long-ogive bullets. This problem affects the 5.56x45, 7.62x51 and even the .338 Lapua Magnum (which is why the .338 Norma Magnum was developed). This won't matter in short-range weapons but it surely does if you want a decent long-range performance.
Which is why you don't try to make a do-all weapon. Soldier's load and combat sustainment is more important than increased effective range all day long. A 1000m-capable 16" carbine is a total waste of resources in the hands of at least 50% of the combat arms soldiers in a light infantry platoon.
A 1000m-capable carbine in the hands of 6-8 of the more senior soldiers in a light infantry platoon would be a game-changer. Do we penalize the rest of them and the logistics system for those 6-8 soldiers?
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - Trooper - 03-22-2014
mongoosesnipe Wrote:Every time a new cartridge hits the market or a new platform is deveoped most are not really all that new and usually not significantly improved, least we forget the entire concept of an assult rifle is that engagements do not typically exceed 400 meters so having a cartridge effective at longer distance is not needed the Russians take th concept one further by only requiring the rifle to hit a man sized target at that distance putting 10 rounds up a gnats ass at a 1/4 of a mile is an impressive feat but it isn't required in the typical combat enguagement
So nothing will change, the only innovation I could see happening that would succeed in revolutionizing the assult rifle would be the development of caseless ammunition which would allow everything to become smaller lighter and in theory simpler as there is no need to extract caseless ammunition, but such projects have been shelved in favor of more conventional designs as there has not been the need for more advanced weapons, but you never no what need the future will bring
Though according to the internet so it must be true the US is working on developing the caseless concept for the role of LMG...
We are doing similar procedures with the use of the Designated Marksmen. The problem is that we have two rifles, two cartridges and lots of spare parts. Likewise two MGs (M249 SAW and M240 GMG). If we can have one cartridge do both the mission of the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 that saves a lot of logistics. Plus the 5.56x45 has been shown to not be effective against stone or brick buildings (same with the Russian 5.45x39).
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - Trooper - 03-22-2014
Tony Williams Wrote:The problem with holding down COL to a minimum is that you are liable to end up without enough space to load long-ogive bullets. This problem affects the 5.56x45, 7.62x51 and even the .338 Lapua Magnum (which is why the .338 Norma Magnum was developed). This won't matter in short-range weapons but it surely does if you want a decent long-range performance.
Thus a 6.5x45 would do well as a replacement for both the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51. And then use the 8.59x64 (.338NM) in the med MG to replace the .50 cal M2.
Most of the troops would not need a long range weapon (20 inch barrel for the DM) and would only use 16" carbine. But a 6.5x45 would give the penetration at close quarters that the 5.56x45 does not have. The 5.56NATO is just too light to go against brick or stone buildings. Russians found that out with the 5.45x39 in Chechnya.
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - Tony Williams - 03-22-2014
Trooper Wrote:Thus a 6.5x45 would do well as a replacement for both the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51. And then use the 8.59x64 (.338NM) in the med MG to replace the .50 cal M2.
Most of the troops would not need a long range weapon (20 inch barrel for the DM) and would only use 16" carbine. But a 6.5x45 would give the penetration at close quarters that the 5.56x45 does not have. The 5.56NATO is just too light to go against brick or stone buildings. Russians found that out with the 5.45x39 in Chechnya.
Quite so. The point about long-ogive bullets is that they provide long-range performance for free. Just compare the 6.8mm Rem SPC with the 6.5mm Grendel: they are about the same size and weight, and develop about the same muzzle energy and recoil, but the Grendel has been designed to take long-ogive bullets while the SPC cannot. As a result, the Grendel is a good long-range cartridge while the SPC is limited to medium range only.
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - JASmith - 03-22-2014
One of the elephants in this room is the increasing availability of lightweight body armor.
The plates in that armor are designed to defeat low to moderate velocity projectiles of average mass. We should address what additional armor-defeat features, if any, should be considered for this alternative cartridge.
For example, a sabot-launched projectile might allow an increase of, say, 300 meters per second to the muzzle velocity. That increased velocity coupled with appropriate projectile design might be good medicine for current technology body armor.
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - Tony Williams - 03-22-2014
Very true. There are of course already SLAP rounds with tungsten penetrators developed in 7.62x51 - one version has seen Swedish service in sniper rifles - and I even have a saboted 5.56mm round in my collection (although I have no idea how effective it would be!).
There might be some implications for rifling twist selection, I'm not sure.
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - JASmith - 03-22-2014
Going with dense, hard metals helps a lot for both effectiveness and keeping the length short and demands on twist rate within reason.
Here is an example that many of us have probably looked at over the last couple of years. This could be implemented in a 6.5 caliber rifle cartridge with, perhaps, a sightly longer and larger diameter sliver, but still with impressive velocities:
http://www.gotavapen.se/gota/cbj/cbj_crtg.htm
I've done the math, and that tiny tungsten sliver indeed has a very similar momentum density to that of the 7.62x51 ball round, but is a lot harder. The added strength helps explain why it does a tad better.
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - stanc - 03-22-2014
Trooper Wrote:Thus a 6.5x45 would do well as a replacement for both the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51.Correction: 16-inch barrel for the DMR, 12-inch barrel for the carbine.
Most of the troops would not need a long range weapon (20 inch barrel for the DM) and would only use 16" carbine.
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - Variable - 03-22-2014
Tony Williams Wrote:Very true. There are of course already SLAP rounds with tungsten penetrators developed in 7.62x51 - one version has seen Swedish service in sniper rifles - and I even have a saboted 5.56mm round in my collection (although I have no idea how effective it would be!).Any accuracy info on the sabo sniper ammo? Not saying it couldn't somehow be made accurate, but my past experience was very poor.
There might be some implications for rifling twist selection, I'm not sure.
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - LRRPF52 - 03-23-2014
Projectile separation from sabots is inconsistent, so accuracy goes to crap. For close range armor piercing, it's great if you can reach .22-250 velocities.
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - JASmith - 03-23-2014
LRRPF52 Wrote:Projectile separation from sabots is inconsistent, so accuracy goes to crap. For close range armor piercing, it's great if you can reach .22-250 velocities.The inconsistency is probably a result of separating the sabot from a spinning projectile.
Consider the M-1 Abrams tank gun. That is a sabot round and extraordinarily accurate by most of our standards.
Of course it is a smoothbore but one could speculate a scaled down smoothbore might be interesting with respect to the accuracy needs of the average infantryman.
The fly in the ointment may be the length of barrel needed to edge above 3,500 - 4,000 fps.
Alternative to 6.5 Grendel? - Tony Williams - 03-23-2014
Variable Wrote:Any accuracy info on the sabo sniper ammo? Not saying it couldn't somehow be made accurate, but my past experience was very poor.
Dispersion is greater, but in compensation the trajectory is flatter and the flight time shorter. How these two factors work out I really don't know, but I suspect that the sabot round would be better against fleeting or moving targets because of the short flight time.