Our military adopting the Grendel?

[bwaites]

I have multiple Grendels, but I recommend a 5.56 upper to new shooters as their first AR. The reason is simple: Ammo is cheap and that means more practice, and not just at the range. Cleaning, maintaining, practicing are all cheaper and done more often under those circumstances. Once they are comfortable with the AR, then moving to a Grendel makes sense, especially if they are going to reload.

Each of my married children is in the process of acquiring an AR in 5.56. They can shoot my Grendels whenever, but they NEED a 5.56. The chance that any of them will need the extended range of the 6.5 is so low as to be non-existent at the present time. They don't hunt anything but coyotes, so the benefit of the Grendel in game hunting situations is also non-existent.

So how does this relate to the military?....Pinzgauer did a great job pointing out the differences between two battlefields and the 5.56. My children are like the guys in Iraq, where short range needs trump long range needs. Being able to carry more rounds is more important than being able to reach out. In 'stan, there is certainly a need for longer reach, and the Grendel provides some of that, but I'm not sure the logistical nightmare of introducing another caliber would outweigh the REAL benefits, not the PERCEIVED benefits, of having a longer reaching caliber.

Ideally, our guys could be mission specific, and say..."This will be all urban warfare, having lots more 5.56 ammo is better than being able to reach out, so I'll take 5.56 with a short barrel." The next patrol might be out in the boonies, and they could say, "I'll swap my 5.56 upper for a Grendel upper, carry 30 fewer rounds, but recognize that my shots will all be longer."

Unfortunately, it ain't going to happen that way except for a very few special ops type folks.

There is no IDEAL solution, at least until we have caseless ammo, and even then, it probably won't be ideal!