Our military adopting the Grendel?

[LR1955]

The book the Falkland war was written by a on sight journalist. The SAS were disgusted with what they then called the 5.56 Armalite rifle. The 5.56 bullet is so small that it literally disintegrates upon impact on a windshield. Try stopping a determined suicide bomber driving towards you with a 5.56 weapon. I'll take a Grendel any day.The 6.8 was developed because of the 5.56 short comings.Yes there are other heavier weapons that could be used but why handicap our soldiers when there is a better cartridge to be had. Afghanistan has has proven the need for a more effective long range caliber. The Grendel is more effective at all ranges. Yes training, logistics, barrel life mag capacity, etc. are important but for the argument of this subject the Grendel is a better trade off in almost every account. The 5.56 will kill you dead with good shot placement , but for long range, short range, barrier penetration, terminal effects in a AR- type platform the Grendel rules. The 5.56 is slightly lighter and a little better mag capacity. That's it. The Russians wanted to increase their range and accuracy more than anything else when they developed the 5.45. This they did with a cartridge that uses less powder,less recoil and more reliable terminal performance than the 5.56.This is why we have been pulling out old M-14's in the war on terror because they needed a harder hitting rifle at longer ranges. The 5.56 is considered a superior police weapon because it will not over penetrate when entering a building.I don't think it matters what I or anyone else thinks in this forum when it comes to what the military will do. But don't tell me the military always chooses the best rifle or caliber for its soldiers.That could take up another long discussion.Use what you like and so will I.The Russians developed the AL-107 assault rifle which proved to be superior to the AK-74 and the AN-94 but they couldn't afford it.

Montana:

I take it you have tested the Grendel against car windshields and intermediate barriers?

Or perhaps you have taken say, 30 average trained riflemen and conducted a series of tests to determine hit and kill probabilities at 'long range' given a service grade Grendel carbine firing a ball round of some sort (not a very expensive match grade bullet), verses the M-4 and the various issued 5.56 rounds?

The EBR issue is another one. Your reasons are pretty much the formal ones used to resurrect that extremely difficult to maintain and failure prone design. There was more to it than that, though. It was resurrected because the debate between a 5.56 and 7.62 battle rifle hasn't died and in this case, those who can't give up the .30 caliber won. In practical terms, it is pretty much a failure as the original M-14 and for the same reasons.

I am not even sure if the Brits in the Falklands were using the old M-193 or the then new M-855. Probably the older M-193 given the time frame. If so, they were using a round of 5.56 that is no longer in service.

And certainly, like this forum, there are guys who think bigger is better and guys who don't. I can buy into each argument to a degree but one thing for sure is that nothing is absolute. Some cartridges have a greater ability to do one thing but in return you have a lesser ability to do something else. There is no median and never will be. Why? This discussion / argument is living proof why there will never be agreement.

LR1955