Our military adopting the Grendel?

[JASmith]

Once again you are mis-stating (or have failed to comprehend) what I wrote.

I said that the US, UK, and other Armies use one bullet type and weight for general purpose, standard issue ammo.

5.56 Mk262, like 7.62 M118LR sniper ammo, is a special purpose, limited issue round.

Do armies use special purpose loads, with bullets of various types and weights? Yes, certainly, but it's limited issue, for specific mission requirements.

Do they use more than one bullet type or weight for general purpose ammo for infantry rifle/carbine and SAW/LMG? No.

Others have made the same or similar statements, Stan. Some of them have been less clear than yours, and some have been as clear. I am very sure that I and most other readers have interpreted them the same way.

You are indeed correct, the facts are that the preponderance of ammunition is of a single type as you indicate. The facts of history, as I understand them, also tell us that multiple types of ammunition coexist.

This is true independent of a logistician's desire to keep his trails as simple as possible.

Trying to ask ONE cartridge and load to do all of the infantry missions is a recipe for a clumsy result.

So, to borrow your words, we can reasonably expect that the "5.56 Mk262, like 7.62 M118LR sniper ammo, is a special purpose, limited issue round" sets an example of similar expectations should a Grendel ammunition type become available. An example would be a 95 - 100 gr bullet for the assault rifle and a 123 gr special purpose, limited issue round for snipers.

What bullet would be used for the LMG will only be determined through operational analysis supported by appropriate testing.

[stanc]

Would a Grendel hurt my feelings, not really. I think it would be a great distance carbine in that AOR, but would every riflemen experience real benefits that could be realized at distance, while not sacrificing the close-in lead shower that 5.56 demonstrates when traveling over 2600fps. In other words, is it worth shedding the tissue-destroying capabilities where riflemen carry the brunt of the fight at close range within 100m, like in mud hut villages, alleys, culverts, ditches, etc., just to compete into the territory of LMG's and GPMG's?

Can you be sure that 6.5 Grendel carbines would lose the tissue-destroying capabilities? After all, there has been no development (let alone testing) of 6.5 ball ammo.

I have been very clear about where my proponency for the Grendel is for a military cartridge, and that is as a new Mulit-role Light Machinegun cartridge that could potentially displace 7.62 NATO for dismounted soldiers, provided we can demonstrate that it meets operational requirements currently being met by belt-fed 7.62 weapons...

How do we demonstrate it? What are you doing in that regard?

[LRRPF52]

To match the 5.56 tissue-destroying effects with the Grendel, we have to drop to a much lower bullet weight/BC, and therefore lose the long-range benefits of the cartridge if we approach it from a standard construction bullet. The 5.56, even out of 14.5" carbines, smokes along at over 2900fps with light-jacketed bullets that come apart violently at over 2600fps. The 5.56 achieves horrendous hydrostatic tissue displacement often due to 2 factors: high velocity, and bullet construction.

If an expensive bullet with multiple sections like the Mk318 Mod 0 can provide catastrophic tissue destruction at lower velocities, it remains to be seen, but will those bullets still provide the longer range BC of 120gr class .264 projectiles? This is why I day leave 5.56 in it's natural evolution, and look at LMG's/GPMG's.

[stanc]

If an expensive bullet with multiple sections like the Mk318 Mod 0 can provide catastrophic tissue destruction at lower velocities, it remains to be seen, but will those bullets still provide the longer range BC of 120gr class .264 projectiles?

It seems unlikely.

This is why I day leave 5.56 in it's natural evolution, and look at LMG's/GPMG's.

Do you have any plans for achieving that, or for demonstrating that a 6.5 LMG can do the job?

[stanc]

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?

Now that sounds like an excellent test to evaluate whether or not 6.5 Grendel can truly give riflemen the long range capability touted by Grendel proponents.

And LR1955 is probably the ideal person to conduct it.

[BluntForceTrauma]

I would suggest reading Plaster's recent interviews with snipers from different walks of life in the military, especially since they all favored the M4/Mk262 platform over all others.

LR, the interesting question is "why" they favored the M4/Mk262. I'd then wonder if the 65G would also have a similar rationale.

Regarding magazine capacity. When I'm King of the Army, I'll make 30-round 65G mags that are, what, one half-inch longer than standard? 65G mags are custom items anyway, so when you're redesigning the ribs, etc., throw in a little extra length. No longer fits in standard 5.56 pouches? A trade-off that is not insurmountable.

I'd echo the Chinese 5.8x42 program and look first at the feasibility of a standard and "heavy" 65G loading. Just because most armies don't currently do it that way, doesn't mean I'd automatically rule it out. I'm not that necessarily that impressed with the current way most armies do things, at any rate.

John

[stanc]

LR, the interesting question is "why" they favored the M4/Mk262. I'd then wonder if the 65G would also have a similar rationale.

Ya mean, like longer range and better terminal effect?

Regarding magazine capacity. When I'm King of the Army, I'll make 30-round 65G mags that are, what, one half-inch longer than standard?

Actually, it'd be a full inch (or maybe a tad more) longer, judging by the difference between Barrett 30-rd mags for 6.8 SPC and "standard" 25-rd mags.

No longer fits in standard 5.56 pouches? A trade-off that is not insurmountable.

Sure, Grendel-specific mag pouches could be fielded. But, a major drawback is the weight penalty.

• 5.56 -- 7x30 rds in mags = 7.5 lbs
  
• 6.5 --- 7x30 rds in mags = 10.7 lbs
  

That's a 43% heavier carry load.

I'd echo the Chinese 5.8x42 program and look first at the feasibility of a standard and "heavy" 65G loading.

It should certainly be feasible from a manufacturing standpoint. Since they currently load two different type bullets in Ball ammo and Tracer ammo, I see no reason to think they couldn't also produce two different weight Ball rounds.

Just because most armies don't currently do it that way, doesn't mean I'd automatically rule it out.

However, it's the armies' leadership opinion that counts, and they've shown no inclination to have two different weight ball loads, let alone a third caliber for LMG use.

Now, that's not to say either concept shouldn't be advocated and developed. I'm just saying that the odds of getting either idea implemented are close to zero, according to historical norms.

(That being said, history also tells us that such institutional bias can be changed. Reference the Stryker program: prior to 1999 the Army was steadfastly opposed to wheeled armored infantry vehicles. Then a new Chief of Staff was appointed, and he pushed through the 8-wheeled vehicle to adoption and fielding. So such things are possible, given the right circumstances.)

[pinzgauer]

Never served, no 1st hand experience in any of the sand boxes. But from talking with people who did, reading, and yes, even documentaries, it appears that views on 5.56 as the universal service cartridge will vary depending on where you served and the scenario.

The following are sweeping generalizations that I've observed:
- OIF/Iraq- Mostly CQB, shorter ranges, lot's of vehicular carry, etc. M4 rules.

- A'stan & others- Many, many more longer range situations. Much more hardened sites, shooting at 200 yards plus. Overall many more longer range situations even when patrolling. More reports of issues with M4's and stopping power.

Sweeping generalization, but appears to hold true for the majority. (though there is more data/info on Iraq than A'stan just due to relative numbers).

And the reports vary accordingly. Mostly in carry rifles, but also to a certain extent precision rifle/designated marksman scenarios. They love 5.56 (and M4) in Iraq. Not so much in A'stan.

I can only project my personal experience onto that. If I'm engaging at 100 yards or greater, I'd rather have grendel in the same carbine as it's just easier to shoot more accurately. Hump it around a bit, and I'd probably grumble about the extra weight for the same combat load. But with almost identical carbines in 5.56 & grendel, open sights, the grendel is easier to hit with at longer ranges. (100m and up)

Add a scope, 20" barrel, etc, and the difference is greater. Not that 5.56 can't shoot well at longer ranges, it just is more finicky about which ammo it can do it with, etc.

Which may not be a fair comparison. We don't shoot "ball" in grendel, we are essentially shooting match ammo, or reload equiv.

All that said, I like Grendel due to it's higher energy at range, accuracy, it's easy to shoot well, even in carbines. It would be my go-to carbine at home.

But I will always keep a 5.56 upper on hand simply for ammo availability reasons. When I went on an aid mission into the Katrina disaster zone, I had a 5.56 & combat load & reload stashed. And if I had to do it again, I'd still take 5.56 as it would do what I needed. While with Grendel there would be virtually no chance of a resupply should things go bad. We had no idea what we'd find, or how long we'd be there. Turned out it stayed buried, was a non-issue. In many aspects, this is "Rule 1- Have a gun". One with ammo trumps one without.

Back to US military combat- I have zero expectation or belief that they will ever move from 5.56 / 7.62 ammo to an intermediate. Just too much inertia. This does not mean that 5.56 is perfect in all scenarios, I'm pretty sure for some the folks in A'stan would rather have a 7.62 service rifle all other things being equal. (Watch Restrepo sometime). I know in that scenario, I'd rather have a G3 than an M4. But they are not having to ruck it, and they have 7.62 ammo at hand.

[JASmith]

Pinzgauer,

Very nice summary!

[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!

[LRRPF52]

Taken from scenes from "The Ultimate Sniper II" Video, by John Plaster, where he spends time on the range with a former Vietnam Vet, Peder Lund, Jim Gilliliand Airborne Ranger/Sniper vet of Iraq, Canadian Sniper Rob Furlong who was a sniper in Afghanistan, and Steve Reichert, a USMC Sniper vet of Iraq. Here's an excerpt"

Plaster: "You used a 5.56mm suppressed rifle a lot, didn't you? It almost became your favorite weapon."

"It did," Gilliland agreed. "We used a 5.56 M4 a lot. I used ACOG sights, a suppressor, two-stage trigger, and Black Hills 77gr M262 ammo. It was a very, very lethal and effective cartridge. We were taking 750-yard, first-round incapacitation shots with it. It was pretty devastating, as the terminal ballistics of that round were very impressive. It rivaled, in some cases, the .308."

"The 5.56 is very effective," Furlong agreed. "Any round is effective if you place it properly. If you put that round where you want it, it will work."

Now these are of course well-trained snipers who have a lot of trigger-time and time behind a spotting scope, whereas the Infantry rifleman does not have any training on wind-doping, spotting for his buddies, trajectories, corrections, ballistics tables, etc. He is also using the M855, which is not anywhere near as accurate as the Mk262, as mass-produced and accurate rarely go together.

I see more of a training solution to this problem, and as you identify and propose solutions to the training avenue, other areas of deficiencies in professionalism and competencies arise, presenting an institutional wall of resistance that now is not just focused on marksmanship, but the organization as a whole. A Grendel will not solve these problems, only exacerbate them, due to the increased logistical constraints the system would have to absorb, as well as the marksmanship losses that would likely occur with weapons that break positions more with their increased recoil, as the Army and Air Force saw when running range tests with entry-level servicemen with the M14 versus AR15, even though the Grendel recoils less than an M14.

The Grendel as an LMG cartridge presents none of these problems, as it mainly lightens the load, while providing the possibility of comparable downrange performance of the 7.62, if not exceeding it in certain areas.

[Irishman]

fact is the 6.5 and 6.8 is being used in country for evaluation purposes, the special forces are the very people that came up with the 6.8 spc to replace the 5.56 as it is marginal at best, also it has been tweeked since vietnam we have gone from 55 to 77 gr bullets trying to find something that is a one shot stopper without it being a head shot, this is all because of the complaints from soldiers, one issue is the rounds used are ball and only punches small holes that closes up after passing thru unless it is a close range shot where the velosity is hypersonic to cause the round to fragment, and or give the shock effect on the internal organs, it is a great close quarters weapon, but not a great marksman weapon, the military is looking for both and thats why they are looking at the 6.5 and 6.8, the problem with a change during a war is logistics and politics but if they build it, it will come.

[bwaites]

Taken from scenes from "The Ultimate Sniper II" Video, by John Plaster, where he spends time on the range with a former Vietnam Vet, Peder Lund, Jim Gilliliand Airborne Ranger/Sniper vet of Iraq, Canadian Sniper Rob Furlong who was a sniper in Afghanistan, and Steve Reichert, a USMC Sniper vet of Iraq. Here's an excerpt"

Plaster: "You used a 5.56mm suppressed rifle a lot, didn't you? It almost became your favorite weapon."

"It did," Gilliland agreed. "We used a 5.56 M4 a lot. I used ACOG sights, a suppressor, two-stage trigger, and Black Hills 77gr M262 ammo. It was a very, very lethal and effective cartridge. We were taking 750-yard, first-round incapacitation shots with it. It was pretty devastating, as the terminal ballistics of that round were very impressive. It rivaled, in some cases, the .308."

"The 5.56 is very effective," Furlong agreed. "Any round is effective if you place it properly. If you put that round where you want it, it will work."

Now these are of course well-trained snipers who have a lot of trigger-time and time behind a spotting scope, whereas the Infantry rifleman does not have any training on wind-doping, spotting for his buddies, trajectories, corrections, ballistics tables, etc. He is also using the M855, which is not anywhere near as accurate as the Mk262, as mass-produced and accurate rarely go together.

I see more of a training solution to this problem, and as you identify and propose solutions to the training avenue, other areas of deficiencies in professionalism and competencies arise, presenting an institutional wall of resistance that now is not just focused on marksmanship, but the organization as a whole. A Grendel will not solve these problems, only exacerbate them, due to the increased logistical constraints the system would have to absorb, as well as the marksmanship losses that would likely occur with weapons that break positions more with their increased recoil, as the Army and Air Force saw when running range tests with entry-level servicemen with the M14 versus AR15, even though the Grendel recoils less than an M14.

The Grendel as an LMG cartridge presents none of these problems, as it mainly lightens the load, while providing the possibility of comparable downrange performance of the 7.62, if not exceeding it in certain areas.

Interesting. I would like to see those videos. They are a bit spendy, but Christmas is coming!

[sgt_murf]

Never served, no 1st hand experience in any of the sand boxes. But from talking with people who did, reading, and yes, even documentaries, it appears that views on 5.56 as the universal service cartridge will vary depending on where you served and the scenario.

The following are sweeping generalizations that I've observed:
- OIF/Iraq- Mostly CQB, shorter ranges, lot's of vehicular carry, etc. M4 rules.

- A'stan & others- Many, many more longer range situations. Much more hardened sites, shooting at 200 yards plus. Overall many more longer range situations even when patrolling. More reports of issues with M4's and stopping power.

Sweeping generalization, but appears to hold true for the majority. (though there is more data/info on Iraq than A'stan just due to relative numbers).

And the reports vary accordingly. Mostly in carry rifles, but also to a certain extent precision rifle/designated marksman scenarios. They love 5.56 (and M4) in Iraq. Not so much in A'stan.

I can only project my personal experience onto that. If I'm engaging at 100 yards or greater, I'd rather have grendel in the same carbine as it's just easier to shoot more accurately. Hump it around a bit, and I'd probably grumble about the extra weight for the same combat load. But with almost identical carbines in 5.56 & grendel, open sights, the grendel is easier to hit with at longer ranges. (100m and up)

Add a scope, 20" barrel, etc, and the difference is greater. Not that 5.56 can't shoot well at longer ranges, it just is more finicky about which ammo it can do it with, etc.

Which may not be a fair comparison. We don't shoot "ball" in grendel, we are essentially shooting match ammo, or reload equiv.

All that said, I like Grendel due to it's higher energy at range, accuracy, it's easy to shoot well, even in carbines. It would be my go-to carbine at home.

But I will always keep a 5.56 upper on hand simply for ammo availability reasons. When I went on an aid mission into the Katrina disaster zone, I had a 5.56 & combat load & reload stashed. And if I had to do it again, I'd still take 5.56 as it would do what I needed. While with Grendel there would be virtually no chance of a resupply should things go bad. We had no idea what we'd find, or how long we'd be there. Turned out it stayed buried, was a non-issue. In many aspects, this is "Rule 1- Have a gun". One with ammo trumps one without.

Back to US military combat- I have zero expectation or belief that they will ever move from 5.56 / 7.62 ammo to an intermediate. Just too much inertia. This does not mean that 5.56 is perfect in all scenarios, I'm pretty sure for some the folks in A'stan would rather have a 7.62 service rifle all other things being equal. (Watch Restrepo sometime). I know in that scenario, I'd rather have a G3 than an M4. But they are not having to ruck it, and they have 7.62 ammo at hand.

Pin,
well stated and In my simple opinion you hit it on the head with the differances. The scope comment threw me off because I was thinking scope? the standard Soldier does not get a scope (mental picture is Leupold 6-24X with target knobs or night force)
then (LIGHT BULB) that you are referring to the M68 /ACOG / etc which in my opinion is not a scope.

And really Lets all just be perfectly honest if SHTF here is the States and it was every man for himself -- my go tos would be calibered in 1. 223/5.56,-- 2. 30-06 absolutely tons of those calibers on the shelves to pilliage and utilize. The 30-06 would be the long gun, .223/5.56 the work horse. Simple math based on availability, not that the Grendel is my last choice, or it's bad cartridge that cannot perform both roles I believe it can. But Wal-mart or Dicks does not carry it, not close to Alexandria Virginia, and I don't see that in the scenerio that I will be able to throw everything that I need to reload the Grendel in a ruck and haul butt.

[LRRPF52]

fact is the 6.5 and 6.8 is being used in country for evaluation purposes, the special forces are the very people that came up with the 6.8 spc to replace the 5.56 as it is marginal at best, also it has been tweeked since vietnam we have gone from 55 to 77 gr bullets trying to find something that is a one shot stopper without it being a head shot, this is all because of the complaints from soldiers, one issue is the rounds used are ball and only punches small holes that closes up after passing thru unless it is a close range shot where the velosity is hypersonic to cause the round to fragment, and or give the shock effect on the internal organs, it is a great close quarters weapon, but not a great marksman weapon, the military is looking for both and thats why they are looking at the 6.5 and 6.8, the problem with a change during a war is logistics and politics but if they build it, it will come.

I think it's important to distinguish that basically one guy in 5th Group pushed the development of the 6.8 SPC, with help later from a few guys in AMU, while the majority of guys in that community and another favored, and continue to favor 5.56 NATO. I assisted one of them personally with his 6.8, to a very marginal degree, but well before anyone had heard of the cartridge. The point is that there never was, nor never has been a Special Forces-wide support or impetus for the 6.8, and that connection was thrown around with much exaggeration in the marketing of the 6.8, with a lot of success in the civilian sector.

Running the ballistics side-by-side, with M855 .304 G1 BC against a hypothetical 6.5mm 120gr FMJ with an optimistic .500 BC, at 2600 fps, we see that the Grendel retains all kinds of energy, but doesn't provide that 2600 fps threshold past contact distances for CQB, while the M4 does to 100m, and the M16A2 & SPR keep a 62gr past 2600fps to about 150yds. I suspect we would see a lot of holes punched through people in the distances where 5.56 usually produces hydrostatic blast effects, if a Grendel carbine was used to replace 5.56, with more recoil for less follow-up shot capability where it is crucial: CQB.

However, as an LMG cartridge, it would reduce soldier load significantly if it displaced GPMG's, while increasing the maneuverability and efficiency of not only dismounts, but the entire logistics chain regarding pallets, ammo cans, etc.

[sgt_murf]

............ but not a great marksman weapon,..... .

REALLLLY, That must be why the Army Marksmanship Unit went away from the matched out tricked out reworked accurized M14, to the ineffective M16A2 with a 1-7 twist and cleaned the clock of the Marines/ Navy/ AirForce and everyone else whom was there in the national matches matches at ranges up to 600 yards. BTW the Marines came back with a vengence the following year with M-16 A2s (twisted at 1-9).

Nothing personal just if ya can't hit it or have the ammo to hit it with, the next cry is "FIX BAYONETS" , they don't cover that well these days (most times the Bayonets don't get issued even in theather) or do much sustainment training.

[LRRPF52]

Those service rifles are not standard barrels, triggers, or much anything else on the rifle really. Everything is tricked, but the dominance of the AR15 platform is simply a testament to superior inherent accuracy in the AR15, versus the nightmare to achieve consistent accuracy over the life of a National Match M14. Running the 69gr match bullets fast out of floated AR15's has dominated those 600yd matches for a while now. The single-loaded VLD's in the AR dominate at the further distances in service rifle as well, but neither of these disciplines has much to do at all with Joe tentpeg and his M4.

Joe tentpeg has a rack-grade trigger with tool marks in the opposite direction of trigger sear-engagement articulation, M855 ammo with significant variances in the assembly of components, a barrel of unknown round-count, trapped between the handguard cap, Knight's RAS, and slip ring assembly, with at least 3 accessories attached to the RAS/barrel. With such a configuration, you will not be successfully engaging targets in field conditions past 300m with much success. On a clear, sunny day, it's hard enough to get 50% of a unit to hit 36/40 pop-up targets that don't hide, run, or peek their heads out from behind walls, on a range that goes out to 300m. Issuing a Grendel to this population will result in less success, not more, without fundamental shifts in military training and professionalism in the NCO and Officer Corps, and the current climate being pushed on the military seems to be focused on other matters totally unlrelated to combat.

While names change for different NCOPD courses, and the words "Battle" & "Warfighter" are thrown around as if their mere mention equates real changes, the same practices of promoting incompetent, unqualified personnel to key positions dominates the military, alienating the true warrior class, who often opt to get out after 4 years of circus games, and their hands tied while on deployment.

[sgt_murf]

Those service rifles are not standard barrels, triggers, or much anything else on the rifle really. Everything is tricked, but the dominance of the AR15 platform is simply a testament to superior inherent accuracy in the AR15, versus the nightmare to achieve consistent accuracy over the life of a National Match M14. Running the 69gr match bullets fast out of floated AR15's has dominated those 600yd matches for a while now. The single-loaded VLD's in the AR dominate at the further distances in service rifle as well, but neither of these disciplines has much to do at all with Joe tentpeg and his M4.

Joe tentpeg has a rack-grade trigger with tool marks in the opposite direction of trigger sear-engagement articulation, M855 ammo with significant variances in the assembly of components, a barrel of unknown round-count, trapped between the handguard cap, Knight's RAS, and slip ring assembly, with at least 3 accessories attached to the RAS/barrel. With such a configuration, you will not be successfully engaging targets in field conditions past 300m with much success. On a clear, sunny day, it's hard enough to get 50% of a unit to hit 36/40 pop-up targets that don't hide, run, or peek their heads out from behind walls, on a range that goes out to 300m. Issuing a Grendel to this population will result in less success, not more, without fundamental shifts in military training and professionalism in the NCO and Officer Corps, and the current climate being pushed on the military seems to be focused on other matters totally unlrelated to combat.

While names change for different NCOPD courses, and the words "Battle" & "Warfighter" are thrown around as if their mere mention equates real changes, the same practices of promoting incompetent, unqualified personnel to key positions dominates the military, alienating the true warrior class, who often opt to get out after 4 years of circus games, and their hands tied while on deployment.

NOT true in A (AMU/CMP) LEG MATCH (baby leg)---- ISSUE RACK weapons ONLY!!!!! go to All Army you get the weapon from the Basic Training unit that is in down time at Benning and use ONLY m855 or AA33 which ever is available thought you would remember that LR, Perry is when ya float the barrel, Triggers MUST remain STANDARD no less than 4.5 LBs (IIRC maybe 4 have to look at the rulebook again), Sightt may be Pinned /worked over hooded with smaller aperture, weights applied in the buttstock and the floated handguard beneath the plastic, Sling points changed to prevent muscling the barrel over. Besides we are ALL doing apples and oranges everone here pretty much has a floated barrel, tricked triggers, scopes mounted, Loctited barrel extenstions, and every trick that the AMU uses comparing to RAck Grades in theater calibered in 5.56mm. Sorry to disagree a bit just my view point, other here will TOTALLY disagree with my view.

[Mutt]

You are talking about how much better the 5.56 is than the 6.5 grendel. But, every instance you site is not of the basic grunt. You are talking sniper (scoped), and Special Forces with tricked out weapons. You are talking about the 1% .... and the privleged 1% at that. The discussion is about adopting the 6.5 for general purpose .... for the grunts to use. If they issued the grendel to everyone, there wouldn't be any logistic issues.

I know a race car driver that really likes original volkswagon bugs. Just because he likes that car, doesn't make it the best, fastest or most reliable.

[stanc]

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.

That's why I had been calling for testing all those years.

We have little or no hard data to say that 6.5 Grendel does (or does not) provide REAL improvement. What we have is more in the nature of BELIEF that it does, a belief which I think is based primarily on early (and unrealistic) comparisons of 6.5 w/Scenar match bullet vs 5.56 and 7.62 Ball.

BTW, should testing demonstrate real advantages to use of 6.5 Grendel, I doubt that it would cause a logistical nightmare. Some extra work for the logisticians, certainly, but no nightmare. Back in 1941, they introduced another caliber (.30 Carbine), and the system managed to absorb it quite well. Same with introduction of 7.62x51 in the 1950s, and 5.56x45 in the 1960s.