03-12-2011, 01:38 AM
Joe:
Here is a problem with the conditions. You are using data based off of a 123 Lapua Scenar match grade bullet in comparison with M-80. Two different animals with huge differences in quality and particularly cost. This is the major flaw in the Grendel argument. I think Lapua quotes a G-1 BC (yes, I know it isn't the right BC to use but it suffices) of somewhere around .54 I think. And that is real questionable. Certainly, such a bullet shot at 2650 will match M-80. Reduce it to a rational ball round and then things change real fast.
I believe a ball round of 6.5 G that can give any sort of reasonable velocity given current powder technology will probably be in the 110 grain range and its BC will be the same as M-80 most likely. It may be higher but I bet it won't be high enough to show statistical significance. And I doubt you will get that 110 grain bullet to leave a barrel as fast as a round of M-80 given the same barrel length. Even if it does, the HITS formula changes due to the lighter bullet.
So, the debate in terms of effective range needs to reflect the reality of a Grendel "ball" cartridge fired at what ever velocity one can get from the specific barrel length with the constant being about 30 grains of powder.
So far, I tend to agree with RFB and my view has always been that the Army can design a bullet for the 5.56 that is more lethal on humans if the Army wants to. And it is doing so and the bullet will probably give a higher degree of lethality than the issued 855. I bet the old 193 has a higher lethality potential than the 855.
A question though. Why the 1100 meter lethality range? I mean, what is the rationale for that distance?
LR55
Here is a problem with the conditions. You are using data based off of a 123 Lapua Scenar match grade bullet in comparison with M-80. Two different animals with huge differences in quality and particularly cost. This is the major flaw in the Grendel argument. I think Lapua quotes a G-1 BC (yes, I know it isn't the right BC to use but it suffices) of somewhere around .54 I think. And that is real questionable. Certainly, such a bullet shot at 2650 will match M-80. Reduce it to a rational ball round and then things change real fast.
I believe a ball round of 6.5 G that can give any sort of reasonable velocity given current powder technology will probably be in the 110 grain range and its BC will be the same as M-80 most likely. It may be higher but I bet it won't be high enough to show statistical significance. And I doubt you will get that 110 grain bullet to leave a barrel as fast as a round of M-80 given the same barrel length. Even if it does, the HITS formula changes due to the lighter bullet.
So, the debate in terms of effective range needs to reflect the reality of a Grendel "ball" cartridge fired at what ever velocity one can get from the specific barrel length with the constant being about 30 grains of powder.
So far, I tend to agree with RFB and my view has always been that the Army can design a bullet for the 5.56 that is more lethal on humans if the Army wants to. And it is doing so and the bullet will probably give a higher degree of lethality than the issued 855. I bet the old 193 has a higher lethality potential than the 855.
A question though. Why the 1100 meter lethality range? I mean, what is the rationale for that distance?
LR55