Does the 6.5 grendel have the potential to replace the 5.56 for the military?

[stanc]

Bottom line, those who have been in the R&D business know all too well the difficulties of moving a new idea from the "light bulb" stage to an actual proven product. The challenge is far more difficult when we talk about military RDt&E because of the added layers of political decisions.

We're not talking about military RDT&E. We're talking about what can be done by the private sector to try to attract the interest of the military.

Premature speculation, hints and announcements only serve to hinder or kill what might otherwise truly be an outstanding development if allowed to mature.

Nonsense. Companies -- especially gun makers -- often release information about new developments long before the products are mature.

Bill A. is to be soundly congratulated for his success in getting the Grendel to where it is. Yes, the commercial side could be helped if folks could hint that the cartridge is being given a serious look for military applications.

Helping "the commercial side" is not the subject of the discussion.

We don't need to demand, for example, that things like belt links be made in order to show the cartridge can be brought into active service.

In order to show that the cartridge actually is viable for military use, links do need to be developed and proven to give reliable functioning in a belt-fed machine gun.

It is enough for us to seriously explore the sporting side and to chew the military application bone on occasion.

It may be enough for you. However, some of "us" are primarily interested in the military potential.

I, for one, enjoy both discussions but prefer to avoid open speculation about whether the acquisition may be serious.

You may do as you wish. I prefer the free and open exchange of ideas and information.

In any case, I'm not interested in speculation.

What I'm talking about is determining if 6.5 Grendel truly is capable of replacing both NATO rounds (or in the case of Paul's proposal, replacing just 7.62), then -- if it meets the requirements -- doing what we can to convince the military to seriously consider it.

Some examples:

Gary Roberts gave an NDIA presentation touting the 6.8 SPC (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf). Why have there been no NDIA presentations on 6.5 Grendel?

The M249 has been converted to fire 6.8 SPC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Pq4_XdA-k). Why is there no M249 in 6.5 Grendel? Or at least a 6.5 Grendel IAR?

I've done what I could to "pitch" the idea of 6.5 Grendel for military use (http://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/be...ndel-65mm/), but I think there is still much more that could be done.