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

[stanc]

i suspect the DOD would need to develop military ammo for the 6.5 to get it up to 7.62x51 standards

Don't know what you mean by "get it up to 7.62x51 standards," but there is no doubt that 6.5 Grendel military loads would have to be developed: Ball, Tracer, AP, Blank, etc.

same goes with the links. it shouldn't be no biggie for industry to make 6.5 links.

<sigh> Again, no one has claimed that 6.5 links can't be made. What I'm saying is that, if you want to demonstrate (instead of just making theoretical arguments) that 6.5 G can replace 7.62 NATO, you need to have a belt-fed 6.5 LMG and linked ammo for it.

Currently there are no 6.5 links -- and therefore no linked 6.5 ammo -- and no 6.5 machine gun, so there is no way to show that 6.5 Grendel actually is good enough to replace 7.62 NATO.

the 6.5 although very good don't really offer enough to go into service to replace the 7.62 nato by itself.

it would have to be a package deal -- you DRM rifles, assault rifles, shorties, and LMGs would all have to adopt the round for the economy of scale required.

I'm sure that if 6.5 Grendel were to be adopted, it would be used for all of those weapons. I don't see it being adopted solely for LMG (or LMG and DMR) use.

since your going to need new mags, and links anyway-- why not go with a all new round that don't have to fit the m-16 mag-well?

i do think the 6.5G is pointing the way for future systems , highly efficient, good power and barrier penetration , long effective range and reasonable recoil and report-- all of which can be very valuable in military arms--

That's what a number of people are thinking. Cris Murray, with the 7mm UIAC; the USAMU, with the .264 USA; HK/Lapua, with a 6.5x40-something (variously described as 6.5x43 and 6.5x45).