+- 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: Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge (/showthread.php?tid=59)
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - stanc - 08-22-2011
Jaywalker Wrote:I'm less concerned that the end-state ammunition would have to be in place, however; this is a carbine competition, not an ammunition one. There is no military standard 6.5mm load, and the RFP invited alternative calibers.That's true. IIRC, it also specified that ammunition for alternate calibers would have to be land warfare legal. Presumably, a 6.5 MatchKing load would meet this requirement, since MatchKings in other calibers currently in service have been JAG-approved.
But, the MatchKing is not the bullet type used in standard ball ammo, so it seems to me that might provide grounds for criticism, whereas a 6.5 load of the M855A1 type might be looked upon more favorably...or at least viewed as giving an apples-vs-apples comparison with entrants shooting M855A1 Ball.
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - LRRPF52 - 08-24-2011
The mentality of the DOD procurement system has changed a lot from what it was at the height of the Cold War. I always refer back to the legacy of the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, which went from a concept to the sky in 14 months. That was the Golden Era of US technological capacity and achievement, when schools still taught science, hard math, real English, and multiple foreign languages.
Now, we have a combination of Pentagon Corporate Welfare dependents with eternal pet projects who have monopolized many of the former competitors into mega-companies like Lockheed-Martin, and Northrop-Grumman. We've allowed a Belgian-based small arms company to dominate most of that market for our military manufacturing several of our home-grown designs, combined with other 1950's designs repackaged as "State-of-the-art". The "new" submissions are even more obsolete operating systems disguised in space-age polymer packaging to woo the imbeciles holding the purse strings. It's rather entertaining to watch, really...
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - JASmith - 08-24-2011
LRRPF52, I assure you living and working through that change was painful for us folks who were trying to do new things!
The average time from concept to IOC was about 15 years in the late '70s - Cold war was still alive and well. The F-14 went into IOC well prior to this time.
Our improvement management practices, coupled with aggressive minimization of fraud, waste, and abuse have resulted in adding ten years to that and significant increases in development costs. Look at B2, F22, and F35 for examples.
The real culprit is not so much micromanagement as it is our national perception that we don't need new improved systems just now. This creates an environment where the pressure to actually field a new system is so low that folks can play with them.
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - LRRPF52 - 08-24-2011
Agreed. The threat of the Soviet Union was the mother of invention back then, and drove the development of a plethora of cutting-edge systems and platforms, many of which are still unknown to the public and even industry and military professionals. Some examples:
A5 Vigilante: first fly-by-wire military aircraft, Mach 2 capable, was largely copied by the Soviets when they "developed" the MIG-25.
The F-106A's radar ground-controlled intercept, & AIR-2A Genie nuclear air-to-air rocket intercept concept.
Despite its publicity in the raid on Libya in 1986, the capabilities of the F-111A-F series and FB-111A were never appreciated by the general public or most military planners, but the Soviets often brought them up in international arms talks, insisting on limitations to the number of airframes manufactured and its forward deployment.
The 70's under Carter were a horrible time for the military, and we actually had more military loss of life in 1979 than any year since, including the GWOT. The supersonic B-1A was cancelled by Carter, after the Soviets demanded it. The F-14B was cancelled, even though that engine was exactly what the F-14 needed. These programs had to be revived during the Reagan years, but their delay made them close to obsolescence by the time they had reached Initial Operating Capability.
Meanwhile, the Soviets went to work frantically on the Blackjack copy of the B-1, Su-22, MIG-29, MIG-31 with F-14 avionics & copies of the Phoenix missiles, and their missile programs after acquiring the TDP's from traitors within our own military and government, to refer to when reverse-engineering the F-14A components received from Iran after the Iranian Revolution/major foreign policy fiasco that was.
As a kid growing up in that industry in those days, I heard a lot of cussing, moaning, and disdain for Carter and the Congress. Things changed drastically with Reagan. Anyway, I'd like to see a decentralization of the military procurement process that is doomed in the vortex of the Pentagon and D.C. Let the States compete with regional military cooperative pacts for standardization, and manage the money at the State level, rather than send it off to D.C. to be raped, plundered, defrauded, and abused.
I recently learned that 95% of my State's National Guard budget is controlled by the Pentagon, and we send off about $15 billion per year in Federal Income taxes. We could just keep our .00567% of the Federal Budget here and use it much more responsibly, especially since they print trillions like its monopoly money. D.C. is a cesspool of waste and no accountability of our money.
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - stanc - 08-24-2011
Tony Williams Wrote:I really don't see the US Army approving anything in other than 5.56mm, given the huge amount of effort and publicity behind the M855A1 and the fact that their own in-house study of carbine calibres (which came down in favour of the 6.5-7mm range) has been withdrawn from further discussion after the initial presentation.I'm sure you're right, Tony. It's just that the carbine competition seems like it would be the perfect opportunity for the Army to see a side-by-side comparison of 6.5 Grendel (and 6.8 SPC) with 5.56 NATO.
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - Jaywalker - 08-27-2011
The combination of our aerospace companies in the Seventies and Eighties wasn't their own idea, I assure you. The DOD realized they couldn't support multiple companies R&D and production lines with the budget they had to work with, and as each lost a major contract, the DOD worked with Department of Justice to ensure a purchase of the losing company would not fall afoul of monopoly rulings. Some, such as Northrup, managed to shoot themselves in the foot by producing a major program and taking it through testing - billions of dollars - without a clear requirement. The resultant F-5G, later F-20, was a wondrous transformation of the T-38/F-5 with a remarkable engine that would have made another MiG-21-type aircraft that had so many fewer engine parts that they could have flown two or three sorties a day, easily. That didn't matter much against the lack of requirement for the aircraft, and Northrup then became a part of Grumman.
The Belgian M249 machine gun purchase was a quid-pro-quo for the Deal of the Century, the purchase of the F-16 by the four countries of Europe in the early Seventies who had all agreed to all buy the same aircraft. Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway had committed to the F-16, but Belgium was being strongly pressed by France to buy the Mirage F-1 with the M53 SNECMA engine. This multi-billion dollar contract was coincidentally cemented after a DOD announcement that they had adopted the Belgian machine gun that became the M249. FWIW, future of the F-16 was assured by the consortium, and, to date, there have been over 4,400 F-16s produced to date, a phenomenally successful run by recent standards.
ETA: The F-111/FB-111 probably should have been restricted under then-current interpretations. At the time, strategic treaties, i.e., "special weapons," were counted as a "single" or "MIRV" (Multiple Independently-targeted Re-entry Vehicle), and if they were ever tested as MIRV, they would always be counted as MIRV under the treaty. (B-52 aircraft were counted as MIRV, for instance.) FB-111 aircraft, being assigned to Strategic Air Command (SAC), carried the same sort of payload as the B-52, so the soviet Union, quite reasonably, attempted to group Tactical Air Command's conventional attack aircraft with those of SAC. FWIW.
The B-1 was canceled by Carter, true, but he did so knowing we had the B-2 under design. Reopening the B-1 line ensured we would not have enough funding to build more than a token 20 B-2 stealth bombers, a much more effective bomber.
One more edit: While the 22 months of F-14 development is a remarkable story, it's not completely surprising even by today's standards. Typically, engine development takes about twice as long as airframe integration, and the Navy left the F-14 with the TF-30, the same crappy engine used in the F-111. It left the F-14 crew with an engine they had to manage in combat, RPMs, angle of attack, etc., when you'd really rather be doing something else. FWIW, the F-18 was designed to be cheaper than the F-14, and it failed miserably at that; it would have been cheaper and more effective, IMO, to use the entire F-18 funding line to re-engine the F-14 with the F100 engine (same as F-15/F-16), then buy more F-14 aircraft, because nothing else came close to the Phoenix interceptor missile, but that's not what happened, obviously.
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - LRRPF52 - 08-27-2011
Jaywalker,
I remember all that. The F-5G/F-20A Tigershark was a great little plane. As a kid, reading Aviation Leak and Spy Technology, I was certain it would be adopted by the Air Force, but my dad related to me how the Pentagon brass openly asked, "WTF are we going to do with the F-20?", in late 1985. Since we already had the F-16, it was hard to justify, but it would have made a great Foreign Military Sales aircraft for Southern Asia, Central and South America, and so forth. From what I understand, Northrop sold the TDP for it to China, and they used that for the Chengdu JF-17 Thunder. If you look it up, you'll see the resemblance immediately.
That's the first I've heard that the F-16 licensed production in Europe was connected to the adoption of the POS SAW, which I've carried and used extensively. Similar rumblings surrounded the placement of our bases in Italy and the adoption of the POS Beretta M9 (although an actual Italian M92S is a nice pistol).
I can understand the Soviets' concern over a deep-penetration bomber, even under TAC use with the F-111D's and F's, since the combat radius of that bird was simply impressive. I do lament the retirement of the F-111 quite often. That was a beautiful plane with impressive capabilities. That we even agreed on any arms treaties with the Soviets is a testament to how they desperately needed to rely on diplomatic warfare against us, since their stuff was broke like a joke and completely overrated by their high-level double assets in the CIA, who exaggerated and spread fear at every assessment possible (MIG-25, nuke capabilities, soldier readiness, etc.). It backfired on them by ramping-up our development of weapons systems at a double-time, to a point where they're still playing catch-up, but don't seem to invest the funds into areas you'd think they would now.
They realized after Lend-Lease that capitalists will always build a better mouse trap than communists could ever dream, even with full access to the US Patent Office. They killed all their brains between 1918-1939, literally...by the millions.
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - Jaywalker - 08-27-2011
There's no question in my mind (though there is in some others) that Reagan's buildup in the Eighties brought down the Berlin Wall and caused the breakup of the USSR. Around 1980, the US was putting about 3% of our Gross Domestic Product (IIRC) into DOD, while the Soviets were spending about 20%. We increased to 6% under Reagan, and the Soviets just couldn't double theirs, and the stresses tore them apart.
The only real thing the F-20 Tigershark could have been used for (in the US) was as a Red-Flag-type aggressor aircraft, but the Navy passed on it in favor of using the F-18 (I think), and thereby lowering fly-away costs for their combat aircraft.
The US can't buy aircraft just for Foreign Military Sales purposes; we have to have and operate it, first. We sold a lot of F-5E aggressor aircraft that way.
ETA: The F-111 was impressive, as long as you could keep it in the air, which wasn't often. F-4 aircraft would do about 1.8 sorties per day (my estimate of my memory when I flew them), while the F-111 could only manage 0.8 sorties per day, across the whole fleet, including the F model, IIRC, which absolutely would not fly. (They turned it into an electronic airplane and couldn't keep it in the air - hangar queens, mostly.) There were times when the whole fleet was grounded, too, and all the other tactical aircraft had to fly their hours so we could end up the fiscal year with the exact, to the tenth of a flight hour, absurdly, that the USAF had budgeted. What PITA that was - all training stopped and we just flew to turn JP-4 into noise - add external tanks and fly cross country instead of low level training. President Johnson chose the TFX (what later became the F-111) the day after he was inaugurated on 23 November 1963 - Texas Forever - since it was to be built in Fort Worth. I worked the F-15E program, which was to replace the F-111, and the active force was glad to see it go. It was pretty, though - the Aardvark, the Switchblade Edsel.
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - BluntForceTrauma - 08-27-2011
Never in the history of internet forums have digressions been so fascinating. I simply cannot bring myself to moderate this stuff! Very cool, gentlemen.
John
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - JASmith - 08-27-2011
JWH Wrote:Never in the history of internet forums have digressions been so fascinating. I simply cannot bring myself to moderate this stuff! Very cool, gentlemen.John,
John
These comments about the history of weapons development. production, and procurement help us better understand the large-scale challenges to be overcome in moving a cartridge like the Grendel from the status of a very interesting but specialty cartridge into a mainstream military round.
For example, part of the value of the threads on "requirements" is in helping folks better understand and think in terms that the technical bureaucrat is obliged to work with.
On top of that, it is indeed fascinating history.
My thanks to Jaywalker for bringing it to our attention and to you for being patient!
Cheers!
Joe
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - Tony Williams - 08-27-2011
I recently heard a presentation from a social scientist with an interest in military firearms history, whose theme was that it was very common for the "best" technical solution to a problem not to be selected. He was interested in why this was so.
We can all roll off the examples: .276 Pedersen, .280 British....
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - JASmith - 08-27-2011
My hipshot response is that government procurements are driven as much by political and constituency support needs as they are by the technical.
I think your social scientist can get better insight into the question by studying the larger world of government procurement.
To be sure, the requirements documents appear to codify a search for the best technical solution. In truth, however, their (unstated) role is to assure a technically adequate solution so that the larger games can be played without unduly sacrificing future capability.
Sometimes the trade errs too far on the side of the political, but so far it has worked well enough.
Hence, when advocating a new cartridge, we need to cultivate enthusiasm in that larger world. It isn't easy, but it is necessary.
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - LRRPF52 - 08-27-2011
This is why I think the only real environment for the Grendel to gain traction in is amongst the Eastern European Countries that are aware of the Russian threat, while NATO leaves them out to dry. The biggest issue for them is that 5.56, 7.62 NATO, & 7.62x54R are the dominant cartridges in their small arms inventories, with 7.62x39 on its way out in many cases, along with 5.45x39 being displaced by 5.56 NATO. Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary have formed a new military alliance separate from NATO since they see the writing on the wall.
As I kick this dead horse again, the biggest and most important factor that would make the Grendel get noticed is if a modern LMG was chambered in it, and shown to provide the same downrange benefits as 7.62 GMPG's such as the PKM and MAG58, only from a much smaller package. The biggest threat to that will be the success of the cased telescoping ammunition and LMG's, if they prove to be reliable. That will seal the deal as the most important development in small arms technology going into the future, but reliability is a big unknown right now with that concept and prototype program.
The adoption of the Grendel in Eastern Europe would already have a logistics framework in-place for brass and ammo with Lapua and PPU from the North and South, but weapons and magazines would be the main new items to be purchased. Selling points for budget-strapped countries:
* Longer barrel life
* One-caliber small arms system potential
* Longer weapon life with lower chamber pressures
* Inherent accuracy potential
* Existing framework for ammunition components
* Existing framework for barrel blanks in 6.5mm, a popular European bore
* Existing framework for projectiles
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - LRRPF52 - 08-27-2011
Jaywalker Wrote:The B-1 was canceled by Carter, true, but he did so knowing we had the B-2 under design. Reopening the B-1 line ensured we would not have enough funding to build more than a token 20 B-2 stealth bombers, a much more effective bomber.
One more edit: While the 22 months of F-14 development is a remarkable story, it's not completely surprising even by today's standards. Typically, engine development takes about twice as long as airframe integration, and the Navy left the F-14 with the TF-30, the same crappy engine used in the F-111. It left the F-14 crew with an engine they had to manage in combat, RPMs, angle of attack, etc., when you'd really rather be doing something else. FWIW, the F-18 was designed to be cheaper than the F-14, and it failed miserably at that; it would have been cheaper and more effective, IMO, to use the entire F-18 funding line to re-engine the F-14 with the F100 engine (same as F-15/F-16), then buy more F-14 aircraft, because nothing else came close to the Phoenix interceptor missile, but that's not what happened, obviously.
The B-1A with supersonic capability could penetrate Soviet Air Defenses quite easily back then, and wouldn't need to in many cases with ALCM's. I think it makes a lot of sense to have a balance leaning more towards B-1's, especially looking at what a workhorse that has been, versus allowing Warsaw Pact countries to G2 the radar signature and operating profile of the B-2 just to dump a bunch of conventional munitions in limited conflicts on man-dress-wearing miscreants. A trans-contitnetal, trans-atmospheric bomber would be the next step at replacing the B-2, and we wouldn't need that many of them.
The F-14B with the F101, and F110 engines in the F-14A+ should have happened a decade earlier. The Navy has been trying to do F-15 work with the F/A-18 for decades, and the whole Lightweight Fighter airframe from the YF-17 doomed that platform from the start, especially when considering combat radius, although the avionics, FBW, and thrust-to-weight have made it a formidable multi-role fighter, gas capacity restrictions aside. The Pheonix was certainly impressive in the trials, but real-world use resulted in failures, unless we are to accept the claims of the Iranian Air Force, which are highly-plausible, considering the missiles were still relatively new in the Iran-Iraq war during the 80's.
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - Jaywalker - 08-27-2011
IIRC, the B-1A design criteria called for a certain airspeed/altitude/time relationship, and, though I may be off a bit, it was something like the following: 200 feet above ground level (AGL) for 1500 miles at Mach 1.2. Long before the B-1A cancellation, these criteria had been dropped, primarily due to engine inlet geometry costs, so there was no supersonic capability until the B-1B, though I think that made little practical difference against a high-subsonic aircraft penetrator. Soviet interceptor aircraft had several limitations; one was related to fuel fraction and the other air-to-air acquisition radar capability. Virtually their entire air force was limited to ground control vectors of the type such as "Turn now to a heading of 216 and increase airspeed to (something in KM/Hr)." If the controller figured it wrong, or the pilot increased at the wrong rate, or didn't pick up the target, most of the USSR's interceptors would run dry of fuel and have to bingo return to base. From practical experience I can say that an interceptor would have to be nearly perfect to intercept a 600-knot, low level aircraft, even without Mach capability (though it's nice to have it when you need it).
We've noted the tendency to adopt an adversary's systems; after southeast Asia, the US is moving bigger than 5.56, the USSR moved to their own small, high-speed bullet. The same effect took place in the air. Our experience in the air over southeast Asia led us to buy a small, highly maneuverable F-16/F-18 capability, while getting rid of the large, fast, and smokey-engined F-4. Is it a surprise that the Soviets changed their approach, too? The MiG 23/27 is a large, smokey-engined, multi-role fighter, with speed and legs, and I wouldn't be surprised to find better acquisition capability, but I don't know about that. The MiG-25 was designed to target the non-built B-70, but would have worked also against a high-speed, high-altitude B-1 penetration, while the MiG and the Sukhoi-27 would be assigned the penetrators. Speaking as a penetrator (in my B-52 role), I was delighted to have Short Range Attack Missiles and Air-Launched Cruise Missiles, both for mission capability and for cluttering up radar returns.
I don't know about the real world aspects of the Phoenix, but the Soviets had to honor its range and spend time watching for high angle contrails. Missiles themselves weren't too hard to defeat - think of them as very highly wing-loaded fighters. A small turn at high Mach speed meant 20 - 40 G's on an AA missile, and that would bleed speed quickly. F-4s routinely (though with great puckering) dodged thousands of ground to air missiles over southeast Asia, a much more dense electronic environment than existed elsewhere.
Still, on the point of requirements, our shift to cruise missiles made the entire industrial effort put into interceptors essentially wasted, as, in general, they make poor, and expensive, air to ground platforms. We could afford the change, while our adversaries could not.
I'd have to say that most - or even, "virtually all," of the contract competitions are real and honest, and the one's that aren't are extremely difficult to identify. Companies pay six-figure salaries to sales staff to help determine which direction a contract competition is leaning, and if they aren't going to win, why would they continue to spend millions of dollars to compete? Where the finangling happens is in the wording of the RFP, and some of that takes place as system requirements above the contracting officer level. I saw one once in which a small item was required to be black, when the color didn't matter at all and only one contractor used that color; I called the project staff on it (I was the contracting officer in that scene), and they changed the wording. Sometimes it's just laziness, rather than conspiracy; the larger system is made up of smaller systems that were developed from R&D, and some of those smaller contracts may well have been guided, yes, to the only possible contractor, and that rationale doesn't exist at the higher component level.
So, we're back to requirements again. Some, such as the choice of the 7.62x51 in the early Fifties was just bone-headed; the authorities just "knew" the more powerful round was better. Today, the authorities might not be concerned about the cost of replacing the 5.56, but instead be learning from the example of introducing the 5.56 during wartime - it cost some lives. Can we imagine CNN showing bodies attributable to new rifle/cartridge malfunctions? Chair-borne fear is different than operational fear, but it's a real motivator, nonetheless.
Now, with lecture mode off, I have a question suggested Tony's web site. We recognize the retained energy beyond 500 meters is advantage: Grendel, compared to the 7.632x51, but what about inside 500 meters? Is there a power requirement inside 500 meters that would disadvantage the Grendel in favor of the more powerful M80 ball? I'm thinking about chewing up cinder block, or something the M80 could do better...
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - stanc - 08-27-2011
Jaywalker Wrote:I have a question suggested Tony's web site. We recognize the retained energy beyond 500 meters is advantage: Grendel, compared to the 7.62x51...Unfortunately, that info is misleading. Like so many other 6.5 Grendel vs 7.62 NATO comparisons, it pits the high-BC 6.5 123gr Scenar against the relatively unstreamlined 7.62 147gr Ball.
When you compare 6.5 120gr FMJ with 7.62 147gr FMJ, 6.5 Grendel comes off noticeably inferior in trajectory, retained energy, etc.
Quote:...but what about inside 500 meters? Is there a power requirement inside 500 meters that would disadvantage the Grendel in favor of the more powerful M80 ball? I'm thinking about chewing up cinder block, or something the M80 could do better...Testing is needed to verify it, but based on the video (in another thread) of concrete block being shot by 7.62 and 6.5 MatchKings, I'd bet that Grendel would also be less capable of chewing up cinder block and other tough barriers. As I've said before, with such target sets there is no substitute for mass. With 7.62x51, you not only have more mass (than 6.5), you have more velocity.
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - JASmith - 08-27-2011
Jaywalker Wrote:...Is there a power requirement inside 500 meters that would disadvantage the Grendel in favor of the more powerful M80 ball? I'm thinking about chewing up cinder block, or something the M80 could do better...This is the key point of a debate still in progress after months (possibly years) of discussions.
My own limited knowledge of penetration mechanics suggests that the Grendel can have very much the same potential for deep penetration or perforating barriers as does the 7.62X51 M80 round. The qualifier is important, because the M80 does not come close to exploiting the potential of the 7.62X51 cartridge.
While bullets from the Grendel won't carry as much kinetic energy, this metric is perhaps the least important measure of lethality. On the other hand, momentum and energy density are important measures of the potential for a bullet to get deep inside of something or to break through a barrier. (Divide momentum or kinetic energy by the area of the bullet -- in much the same manner as sectional density.) The Grendel can easily match or exceed the M80 in these two categories.
The additional qualifier is bullet construction. A bullet with, for example, the same style as the M855A1 (there are others too), but carrying the same momentum and energy density as the M80, will outperform it in all aspects but temporary wound cavity dimensions. One can debate the importance of this metric. Some of the literature suggests that the permanent wound cavity size (as measured in gel) is the better measure of lethality potential. Again, we can reasonably assert that the Grendel will be more lethal than the 5.56 when similar bullet construction is used. This would make it good enough while the 7.62X51 is more than needed at these shorter ranges.
What has not been done is live-fire testing to test the theory (or assertions depending on mindset). For this, we would need at least FMJ bullets in an appropriate weight category and preferably bullets with a penetrator core.
The Lapua 144 gr FMJ bullet is too long and too heavy for the Grendel. Their 100 grain offering is a round nose. I suspect the reason we haven't heard much said about the Norma 120 gr FMJ (Specifically called out as "6.5 Grendel" on the MidwayUSA website) is that it is too new for folks to play with much.
Some of us are reluctant to push testing with bullets we know are not representative of those that would be used for cat. Others would be happy to see any testing move forward.
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - stanc - 08-27-2011
LRRPF52 Wrote:This is why I think the only real environment for the Grendel to gain traction in is amongst the Eastern European Countries that are aware of the Russian threat, while NATO leaves them out to dry. Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary have formed a new military alliance separate from NATO since they see the writing on the wall.That's interesting. I haven't paid attention to such matters, so it's news to me.
Quote:As I kick this dead horse again, the biggest and most important factor that would make the Grendel get noticed is if a modern LMG was chambered in it, and shown to provide the same downrange benefits as 7.62 GMPG's such as the PKM and MAG58, only from a much smaller package.I completely agree. However, I have to also kick a couple of other dead horses, which have been lying around for the last seven years.
1. There is as yet no proof, or even convincing evidence, that viable disintegrating links can be developed for 6.5 Grendel. (Although in the case of the aforementioned countries, that may not matter. If they are still using non-disintegrating links for their machine guns, such links ought to be easily redesigned for use with 6.5 G.)
2. There is still no test data to show that 6.5 ball is capable of delivering the same downrange performance as 7.62 ball.
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - JASmith - 08-27-2011
stanc Wrote:...There is still no test data to show that 6.5 ball is capable of delivering the same downrange performance as 7.62 ball.One might get the impression that the continuing repetition of this and the machine gun links assertions are arguments for abandoning interest in the Grendel.
We know that the Grendel will not equal the 7.62X51 NATO in all areas. We need only to equal the performance in some categories as a trade in favor of lighter cartridges and weapons. Other categories, e. g., lethality under 300 meters, can be significantly less than that of the 7.62X51 and still be good enough.
As far as machine gun links are concerned, we've had comments from folks with real experience in mechanical design indicating that the design challenge is solvable.
Put these worries into the list of things to check when resources are available. In the meantime, move on to new observations, complaints, or opportunities.
Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge - stanc - 08-27-2011
JASmith Wrote:One might get the impression that the continuing repetition of this and the machine gun links assertions are arguments for abandoning interest in the Grendel.Not at all. They are arguments for getting facts that support the claims of Grendel proponents.
Quote:We know that the Grendel will not equal the 7.62X51 NATO in all areas. We need only to equal the performance in some categories as a trade in favor of lighter cartridges and weapons.Perhaps so. However, where is the proof that 6.5 Grendel can equal 7.62 NATO Ball performance in any area?
Quote:As far as machine gun links are concerned, we've had comments from folks with real experience in mechanical design indicating that the design challenge is solvable.The trouble is, that is only their opinion. While it is to be respected, an opinion -- however educated it may be -- does not carry the same weight as proven fact.
Quote:Put these worries into the list of things to check when resources are available.Those are the two most critical items relevant to 6.5 Grendel's potential for use as a military cartridge, particularly in regard to LRRP's idea of replacing 7.62x51/7.62x54R in machine guns, and you want to ignore them??? It seems to me they should be at the top of the list. All else is of secondary importance.