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

[stanc]

I don't think we'll see a change in caliber in our lifetime. The Grendel is great, I also like my SPC. If you look at the current program to update the M-9 as an example you'll see just how broken the system for small arms procurement is. Even the top brass are disgusted with the whole process. I'm a 24yr vet and I've used a lot of different arms in that time frame and witnessed some great improvement in the weapon systems we have. My take is that unless all our allies come to some kind of concensus in a weird meeting of the minds that actually produces some kind of common sense approach, we'll never see a change. First off, the gov't won't adopt an existing cartridge because of the narcissistic attitudes among the procurement civilian contractors the control the process. The 06, 5.56x45, 7.62x51 were all created even though there were cartridges widely available that performed similarly. The 300 savage and the 222 rem mag come to mind.

Bad examples to make your point.

Development of what became 7.62x51 actually began with .300 Savage, but it had insufficient powder capacity to achieve the desired muzzle velocity.

And .222 Rem Mag did not exist at the time 5.56x45 was created. IIRC, .222 Rem Mag is a commercial version of the .224 Springfield, which was developed by the Armory to compete with 5.56x45.

The 7.65x53 Mauser was a previously existing round which would arguably have been superior to 7.62x51, but there was no comparable off-the-shelf cartridge for 5.56x45.

Not invented here mentality comes into play. Secondly, contracts are sent out and builders of arms and ammo produce test beds to submit. In today's shaky economics here and abroad not many are going to invest the tens of millions to retool? The govt would have to fork out billions of advance monies to the contract award winners. Unlikely. Thirdly, the govt sets a parameter for what they want and select the tool that meets the requirements for the best price. You never get the absolute best tool, you get something in the middle. The tool will do some things great, a lot of things pretty good and a few things marginally. Small arms are not on the highest priority list anymore. We don't do massive battles from foxholes, or regiments charging the trenches. We have satellite battles of hit and run engagement. A soldiers weapon has to be able to do CQB in the mornings, midrange battles at lunch with a few longer distance engagements for supper. None of which its ideally suited for but does all OK. The aimpoint most soldiers carry can't take advantage of the grendels extra reach anyway. Bigger glass doesnt help the CQB guy either. NAVSPECWarfare has used the grendel, a friend in the business is who got me interested in it in the first place. He swore by its effectiveness. So you may see it in the hands of specialists, but as a general issue weapon, no way. What we'll probably see is improved platforms and ammo advancements coming out of Aberdeen or crane.

I agree with much of what you say. If the Army were to go for a new, onventional cartridge, I think it's far more likely to be something like the AMU's .264 USA, than 6.5 Grendel.