07-27-2011, 04:47 AM
The way I look at it is that the 6.5 Grendel represents the upper range of the amount of recoil I'd allow for a general-purpose infantry rifle for average recruits. More powder, heavier bullets gets one something, of course, but that increase in capability must be tempered by usability. For example, we all agree full-auto 7.62 NATO is largely unusable for most troops. So, we must go smaller, and how much smaller is a matter of conjecture. I suppose the recoil of a heavier cartridge could be mitigated by newer recoil-management technologies, such as "constant recoil" (which I strenuously advocate).
I really think that for the something like 90% of engagements under 300 meters (averaging all the conflicts of the past 100 years) the 6.5 Grendel is perfectly reasonable, and how felicitous that its long-range trajectory, for the other 10%, is very comfortably within the parameters set by existing cartridges that have served us so well for many years.
The constraints of the existing AR magazine were serendipitous. It forced the development of a cartridge that maximized performance in a quite compact cartridge. By happy accident of those constraints, it's my opinion that an optimum cartridge was developed, even had we the benefit of a blank slate and unlimited resources. The trick never was getting superior performance from a larger case size, it was getting superior performance from a smaller case size.
I want a 6.5 Grendel with a 110gr T3 steel-tipped projectile (analogous to M855A1) for all man-portable infantry weapons. Much to LRRPF52's chagrin, this combines an LMG and an MMG into one weapon. (Try, perhaps, a scaled down MG42, akin to the Spanish CETME Ameli. The design is supposedly fundamentally sound and very reliable, although the mass-produced versions were fraught with jamming). For vehicle-borne weapons, when an M2 .50 cal. is too much, we need a .338 Lapua Magnum-class GPMG.
For the large majority of situations, I don't see what humping a 7.62 GPMG is gonna do that a 65G MG can't do. Neither is gonna be optimal for chewing through adobe walls. And without shot placement, neither, in my opinion, is gonna be deadlier than the other in soft tissue. In terms of pure capability, the 7.62N is probably "better," but in the bigger picture and in light of the slight overlap in capability the 65G provides, the weight and bulk of this capability is unnecessary for a man-portable weapon.
Of course, I largely defer to LRRPF52's military experience and his obviously thorough musings on the subject to shoot down my ravings, the wet dreams of a complete amateur civvie military buff. My opinions make rock-solid sense to me at this point, but I try to hold them humbly, and offer them to, perhaps, a new audience as food for thought.
John
I really think that for the something like 90% of engagements under 300 meters (averaging all the conflicts of the past 100 years) the 6.5 Grendel is perfectly reasonable, and how felicitous that its long-range trajectory, for the other 10%, is very comfortably within the parameters set by existing cartridges that have served us so well for many years.
The constraints of the existing AR magazine were serendipitous. It forced the development of a cartridge that maximized performance in a quite compact cartridge. By happy accident of those constraints, it's my opinion that an optimum cartridge was developed, even had we the benefit of a blank slate and unlimited resources. The trick never was getting superior performance from a larger case size, it was getting superior performance from a smaller case size.
I want a 6.5 Grendel with a 110gr T3 steel-tipped projectile (analogous to M855A1) for all man-portable infantry weapons. Much to LRRPF52's chagrin, this combines an LMG and an MMG into one weapon. (Try, perhaps, a scaled down MG42, akin to the Spanish CETME Ameli. The design is supposedly fundamentally sound and very reliable, although the mass-produced versions were fraught with jamming). For vehicle-borne weapons, when an M2 .50 cal. is too much, we need a .338 Lapua Magnum-class GPMG.
For the large majority of situations, I don't see what humping a 7.62 GPMG is gonna do that a 65G MG can't do. Neither is gonna be optimal for chewing through adobe walls. And without shot placement, neither, in my opinion, is gonna be deadlier than the other in soft tissue. In terms of pure capability, the 7.62N is probably "better," but in the bigger picture and in light of the slight overlap in capability the 65G provides, the weight and bulk of this capability is unnecessary for a man-portable weapon.
Of course, I largely defer to LRRPF52's military experience and his obviously thorough musings on the subject to shoot down my ravings, the wet dreams of a complete amateur civvie military buff. My opinions make rock-solid sense to me at this point, but I try to hold them humbly, and offer them to, perhaps, a new audience as food for thought.
John