Does the 6.5 grendel have the potential to replace the 5.56 for the military?

[BluntForceTrauma]

Without suitable 6.5 weapons to demo the capabilities, how does anyone hope to interest the military?

Bill now and again does interesting prototype projectiles for interesting people. And these ain't no warmed-over hunting-type, 90-grain Gold Dots. . . . Anyway, you know how the military is. But those who want to know are exploring it.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because certain projects are not trumpeted or darkly hinted at on the forums like The Other Intermediate Cartridge that nothing is happening behind the scenes. Oops! Am I now guilty of "darkly hinting" at such activities? You pushed me to it! I'm probably just making it up to generate marketing hype, anyway.

[ah1whiskey]

i'm pretty sure you could build a belt fed 6.5 fairly easy using the com block links for the 7.62x39 , too bad all the cheap communist war relics are pretty much dried up.

the soviet era 7.62x39 was used on a lot of commie belt fed machine guns --

i suspect a new round is in the works with a lot of new arms to go with it-- i just hope it ain't some case-less ammo involved--

you know that neat little micro minigun can use a feed chute without links of any kind-- imagine 4 of um in a quad mount-- ?? make a nice ISIS burner fired from a scout chopper or a hummer--lol

[stanc]

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because certain projects are not trumpeted or darkly hinted at on the forums like The Other Intermediate Cartridge that nothing is happening behind the scenes. Oops! Am I now guilty of "darkly hinting" at such activities?

Not that I can tell. You didn't say that anything actually is happening behind the scenes, let alone give even the faintest hint as to what projects are underway (if something really is being worked on).

So..........mistake or not, I'll have to continue to think nothing is happening, until given evidence to the contrary.

[stanc]

i'm pretty sure you could build a belt fed 6.5 fairly easy using the com block links for the 7.62x39

I'm equally sure that could be done. See: http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...1#post9998

The problem is, the US Armed Forces only use disintegrating links, and neither the M13 (7.62) nor the M27 (5.56) links fit the 6.5 Grendel case properly.


Because of the Grendel case dimensions, it'll be necessary to design a new link specifically for the 6.5 cartridge. If it's doable, I expect it would look less like the M13/M27 design (above), and more like this one developed for 9x19.

i suspect a new round is in the works with a lot of new arms to go with it-- i just hope it ain't some case-less ammo involved--

I dunno if there are "a lot of new arms" in the works, but a new carbine is reportedly being developed to fire new 6.5mm polymer cased-telescoped ammo (CTA), with a 6.5 CTA LMG being considered for possible future development.

[JASmith]

BFT makes an excellent point.

We've also been through this discussion a few times already.

Bottom line, those who have been in the R&D business know all too well the difficulties of moving a new idea from the "light bulb" stage to an actual proven product. The challenge is far more difficult when we talk about military RDt&E because of the added layers of political decisions. Premature speculation, hints and announcements only serve to hinder or kill what might otherwise truly be an outstanding development if allowed to mature.

Bill A. is to be soundly congratulated for his success in getting the Grendel to where it is. Yes, the commercial side could be helped if folks could hint that the cartridge is being given a serious look for military applications. Those hints, however, might be enough to keep the correct military acquisition decision from being made because noise levels from uninvolved parties gets to be too high.

We don't need to demand, for example, that things like belt links be made in order to show the cartridge can be brought into active service. The examples Stanc displayed show that they truly are only modest extensions to current design and production practice. The effort needed to make them happen will only be a part of the decision and budgeting process.

It is enough for us to seriously explore the sporting side and to chew the military application bone on occasion.

I, for one, enjoy both discussions but prefer to avoid open speculation about whether the acquisition may be serious.

[stanc]

Bottom line, those who have been in the R&D business know all too well the difficulties of moving a new idea from the "light bulb" stage to an actual proven product. The challenge is far more difficult when we talk about military RDt&E because of the added layers of political decisions.

We're not talking about military RDT&E. We're talking about what can be done by the private sector to try to attract the interest of the military.

Premature speculation, hints and announcements only serve to hinder or kill what might otherwise truly be an outstanding development if allowed to mature.

Nonsense. Companies -- especially gun makers -- often release information about new developments long before the products are mature.

Bill A. is to be soundly congratulated for his success in getting the Grendel to where it is. Yes, the commercial side could be helped if folks could hint that the cartridge is being given a serious look for military applications.

Helping "the commercial side" is not the subject of the discussion.

We don't need to demand, for example, that things like belt links be made in order to show the cartridge can be brought into active service.

In order to show that the cartridge actually is viable for military use, links do need to be developed and proven to give reliable functioning in a belt-fed machine gun.

It is enough for us to seriously explore the sporting side and to chew the military application bone on occasion.

It may be enough for you. However, some of "us" are primarily interested in the military potential.

I, for one, enjoy both discussions but prefer to avoid open speculation about whether the acquisition may be serious.

You may do as you wish. I prefer the free and open exchange of ideas and information.

In any case, I'm not interested in speculation.

What I'm talking about is determining if 6.5 Grendel truly is capable of replacing both NATO rounds (or in the case of Paul's proposal, replacing just 7.62), then -- if it meets the requirements -- doing what we can to convince the military to seriously consider it.

Some examples:

Gary Roberts gave an NDIA presentation touting the 6.8 SPC (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf). Why have there been no NDIA presentations on 6.5 Grendel?

The M249 has been converted to fire 6.8 SPC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Pq4_XdA-k). Why is there no M249 in 6.5 Grendel? Or at least a 6.5 Grendel IAR?

I've done what I could to "pitch" the idea of 6.5 Grendel for military use (http://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/be...ndel-65mm/), but I think there is still much more that could be done.

[JASmith]

We're not talking about military RDT&E...

The military will need to use the product. Therefore it will be part of the military Research, Development, Test and Evaluation effort.

In order to show that the cartridge actually is viable for military use, links do need to be developed and proven to give reliable functioning in a belt-fed machine gun.

This continued hammering at the link non-issue only serves to give the impression that a straightforward but expensive engineering development can't be done.

What I'm talking about is determining if 6.5 Grendel truly is capable of replacing both NATO rounds (or in the case of Paul's proposal, replacing just 7.62)

Self evident in both cases but with a slight tactical logistics disadvantage compared to the 5.56 and a significsnt logistics advantage compared to the 7.62 NATO.

[stanc]

The military will need to use the product. Therefore it will be part of the military Research, Development, Test and Evaluation effort.

It would only become part of military RDT&E after the military becomes sufficiently interested in it. Until then, it is not a military RDT&E endeavor.

This continued hammering at the link non-issue only serves to give the impression that a straightforward but expensive engineering development can't be done.

Anyone who reaches that conclusion has either poor English comprehension or poor reasoning ability. I didn't say it can't be done. I said that until it is done, the capability cannot be demonstrated.

Self evident in both cases...

Oh, really? And just where are the gel tests and barrier penetration tests that show terminal performance of 6.5 Grendel matches 7.62 NATO? How does the trajectory of 6.5 Grendel FMJ compare to that of 7.62 M80 Ball? How does visibility of 6.5 Grendel Tracer compare to that of 7.62 M62 Tracer? How does the armor penetration of 6.5 Grendel AP compare to that of 7.62 M993 AP?

Nope. There's far too much data missing to be able to declare the issue "self evident."

[stanc]

Self evident in both cases but with a slight tactical logistics disadvantage compared to the 5.56 and a significsnt logistics advantage compared to the 7.62 NATO.

Wrong. It's a significant logistical disadvantage compared to 5.56 NATO. Otherwise Paul wouldn't be opposed to replacing 5.56 with 6.5 Grendel.

[ah1whiskey]

like everything it going to be a trade off if you go for 5.56 and 7.62nato.

i suspect the DOD would need to develop military ammo for the 6.5 to get it up to 7.62x51 standards same goes with the links. it shouldn't be no biggie for industry to make 6.5 links.


the 6.5G although promising , i seriously doubt the DOD will adopt it simply because the m-16 series is long over due for replacement and the 6.5G was made for the limitations of m-16 mag-well.

the 6.5 although very good don't really offer enough to go into service to replace the 7.62 nato by itself.

it would have to be a package deal -- you DRM rifles, assault rifles, shorties, and LMGs would all have to adopt the round for the economy of scale required.

since your going to need new mags, and links anyway-- why not go with a all new round that don't have to fit the m-16 mag-well? that why i don't think the DOD is all that serious about the 6.5g 6.8 and all the other improved m-16 rounds--

although a 6.5G firing micro-minigun would be a very impressive sight -- minigun firepower in a micro weight--lol

i do think the 6.5G is pointing the way for future systems , highly efficient, good power and barrier penetration , long effective range and reasonable recoil and report-- all of which can be very valuable in military arms--

[stanc]

i suspect the DOD would need to develop military ammo for the 6.5 to get it up to 7.62x51 standards

Don't know what you mean by "get it up to 7.62x51 standards," but there is no doubt that 6.5 Grendel military loads would have to be developed: Ball, Tracer, AP, Blank, etc.

same goes with the links. it shouldn't be no biggie for industry to make 6.5 links.

<sigh> Again, no one has claimed that 6.5 links can't be made. What I'm saying is that, if you want to demonstrate (instead of just making theoretical arguments) that 6.5 G can replace 7.62 NATO, you need to have a belt-fed 6.5 LMG and linked ammo for it.

Currently there are no 6.5 links -- and therefore no linked 6.5 ammo -- and no 6.5 machine gun, so there is no way to show that 6.5 Grendel actually is good enough to replace 7.62 NATO.

the 6.5 although very good don't really offer enough to go into service to replace the 7.62 nato by itself.

it would have to be a package deal -- you DRM rifles, assault rifles, shorties, and LMGs would all have to adopt the round for the economy of scale required.

I'm sure that if 6.5 Grendel were to be adopted, it would be used for all of those weapons. I don't see it being adopted solely for LMG (or LMG and DMR) use.

since your going to need new mags, and links anyway-- why not go with a all new round that don't have to fit the m-16 mag-well?

i do think the 6.5G is pointing the way for future systems , highly efficient, good power and barrier penetration , long effective range and reasonable recoil and report-- all of which can be very valuable in military arms--

That's what a number of people are thinking. Cris Murray, with the 7mm UIAC; the USAMU, with the .264 USA; HK/Lapua, with a 6.5x40-something (variously described as 6.5x43 and 6.5x45).

[Buck2732]

However they need to keep up or get the hell out of the way. They and their hague declaration can pound sand. We shouldn't be lowering our standards to accommodate their ignorance.

Would you care to rephrase that... You guys squashed the 280/30...

[Buck2732]

New Zealand SAS has been using Colt Commandos and M4's for many decades. Same with Australian SASR, British SBS, SAS, Danes, Norwegians, French LRRPS are using them, most of the Eastern European nations dumped their garbage AK's in favor of M4's. I lost track of everybody that's using them.

I cant speak for the other nations but the bog standard L85A2 is a hell of a lot heaver than any thing in the AR range. Which counts a lot when you are humping a great weight fast.

L85A2 4.98kg (with loaded magazine and optical sight)
Demarco C8 2.7 kg empty w/o magazine 3.2 kgloaded with 30 rounds

[stanc]

However they need to keep up or get the hell out of the way. They and their hague declaration can pound sand. We shouldn't be lowering our standards to accommodate their ignorance.

Would you care to rephrase that... You guys squashed the 280/30...

How about this for rephrasing: You guys should've told the US to pound sand, and stuck with your decision to adopt the .280/30 and EM2.

[Buck2732]

How about this for rephrasing: You guys should've told the US to pound sand, and stuck with your decision to adopt the .280/30 and EM2.

We were until Sir WS Churchill came back in to power then he scrapped it insisting we change to 7.62x51 to follow NATO and you guys... How did that turn out..

[stanc]

We where until Sir WS Churchill came back in to power then he scrapped it insisting we change to 7.62x51 to follow NATO and you guys... How did that turn out..

Quite well, actually.

7.62x51 has been a pretty decent GPMG cartridge. More importantly, its drawbacks as a rifle round, together with the shortcomings of the M14, helped lead to development and adoption of 5.56x45 and the M16. All of which eventually resulted in creation of 6.5 Grendel.

If the US had adopted the 7x43 British and the FAL, as some people wish had occurred, there might never have been any motivation to develop the 5.56 cartridge and the AR15 rifle. No 5.56 NATO and no AR15, means no 6.5 Grendel. :eek:

[joker31]

First of all, cant believe this thread is still around. Funny thing about the Grendel, I was talking to colleagues the other day at an agency that works to track certain trends in Small arms and it looks like the Ratnik report was released and the Russians may be picking up the Grendel, at least on a certain level. I never thought that this little cartridge would amount to much outside of a few guys here and there hunting and target shooting. Evidently K-Concern had a few examples that they entered into the competition back in 2012, one of which was a AK-12 (Heavy) in 6.5Grendel. I was asked by someone in the publication business if I heard anything about it and at the time I had heard a few things here and there but only thought it was Russian "Dream Sequencing" because everyone knows they dont have the money for research right now and they are sitting on a mountain of AKM's that they cant do anything with. I'm not sure if they are going to keep them for domestic use (Makes most sense) or if they plan on using them in expeditionary deployments. From what I hear, the powers that need to be impressed were quite impressed. I guess its great to get all of their work done for them by Americans and HAD to be a big selling point.

[stanc]

Funny thing about the Grendel, I was talking to colleagues the other day at an agency that works to track certain trends in Small arms and it looks like the Ratnik report was released and the Russians may be picking up the Grendel, at least on a certain level. Evidently K-Concern had a few examples that they entered into the competition back in 2012, one of which was a AK-12 (Heavy) in 6.5Grendel.

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...Grendelski

[longshooter67]

I don't think we'll see a change in caliber in our lifetime. The Grendel is great, I also like my SPC. If you look at the current program to update the M-9 as an example you'll see just how broken the system for small arms procurement is. Even the top brass are disgusted with the whole process. I'm a 24yr vet and I've used a lot of different arms in that time frame and witnessed some great improvement in the weapon systems we have. My take is that unless all our allies come to some kind of concensus in a weird meeting of the minds that actually produces some kind of common sense approach, we'll never see a change. First off, the gov't won't adopt an existing cartridge because of the narcissistic attitudes among the procurement civilian contractors the control the process. The 06, 5.56x45, 7.62x51 were all created even though there were cartridges widely available that performed similarly. The 300 savage and the 222 rem mag come to mind. Not invented here mentality comes into play. Secondly, contracts are sent out and builders of arms and ammo produce test beds to submit. In today's shaky economics here and abroad not many are going to invest the tens of millions to retool? The govt would have to fork out billions of advance monies to the contract award winners. Unlikely. Thirdly, the govt sets a parameter for what they want and select the tool that meets the requirements for the best price. You never get the absolute best tool, you get something in the middle. The tool will do some things great, a lot of things pretty good and a few things marginally. Small arms are not on the highest priority list anymore. We don't do massive battles from foxholes, or regiments charging the trenches. We have satellite battles of hit and run engagement. A soldiers weapon has to be able to do CQB in the mornings, midrange battles at lunch with a few longer distance engagements for supper. None of which its ideally suited for but does all OK. The aimpoint most soldiers carry can't take advantage of the grendels extra reach anyway. Bigger glass doesnt help the CQB guy either. NAVSPECWarfare has used the grendel, a friend in the business is who got me interested in it in the first place. He swore by its effectiveness. So you may see it in the hands of specialists, but as a general issue weapon, no way. What we'll probably see is improved platforms and ammo advancements coming out of Aberdeen or crane.

[LR1955]

I don't think we'll see a change in caliber in our lifetime. The Grendel is great, I also like my SPC. If you look at the current program to update the M-9 as an example you'll see just how broken the system for small arms procurement is. Even the top brass are disgusted with the whole process. I'm a 24yr vet and I've used a lot of different arms in that time frame and witnessed some great improvement in the weapon systems we have. My take is that unless all our allies come to some kind of concensus in a weird meeting of the minds that actually produces some kind of common sense approach, we'll never see a change. First off, the gov't won't adopt an existing cartridge because of the narcissistic attitudes among the procurement civilian contractors the control the process. The 06, 5.56x45, 7.62x51 were all created even though there were cartridges widely available that performed similarly. The 300 savage and the 222 rem mag come to mind. Not invented here mentality comes into play. Secondly, contracts are sent out and builders of arms and ammo produce test beds to submit. In today's shaky economics here and abroad not many are going to invest the tens of millions to retool? The govt would have to fork out billions of advance monies to the contract award winners. Unlikely. Thirdly, the govt sets a parameter for what they want and select the tool that meets the requirements for the best price. You never get the absolute best tool, you get something in the middle. The tool will do some things great, a lot of things pretty good and a few things marginally. Small arms are not on the highest priority list anymore. We don't do massive battles from foxholes, or regiments charging the trenches. We have satellite battles of hit and run engagement. A soldiers weapon has to be able to do CQB in the mornings, midrange battles at lunch with a few longer distance engagements for supper. None of which its ideally suited for but does all OK. The aimpoint most soldiers carry can't take advantage of the grendels extra reach anyway. Bigger glass doesnt help the CQB guy either. NAVSPECWarfare has used the grendel, a friend in the business is who got me interested in it in the first place. He swore by its effectiveness. So you may see it in the hands of specialists, but as a general issue weapon, no way. What we'll probably see is improved platforms and ammo advancements coming out of Aberdeen or crane.

Pretty much on the money. I never saw the 'narcissistic attitude' thing among the RDTE people or the civilians. If anything, many civilian companies want nothing to do with the governmental RTDE system because the government can terminate any contract at any time without having to provide a reason. And the government is not keen on seed money. In fact, the govt won't in most cases give companies money to develop the item. It has become too risky for any but the most capital wealthy of companies to get involved with the hardware side of govt contracting.

I wouldn't short change the M-68 sight. It is far more effective than any of the iron sight systems that have been issued. In fact, my opinion is that it is the only thing issued to guys in the last forty years that has actually improved lethality with the carbine or service rifle. More so than with any of the ACOG types of low power optics. For non mil guys, I mean accurate sustained fire at practical ranges (to 500 meters). Past that and you really need a magnified optic to see things.

I honestly don't see a difference between the Grendel any of the various 'specialty' CQB rounds such as the 6.8 for CQB to around 300.

Agree that most likely improved platforms and ammo.

LR55