FMJ yaw and upset performance

[JASmith]

Don't matter whether it's government or industry tests.

You ain't gonna see them until they decide it's time -- complaining won't do much to change that.

[stanc]

Don't matter whether it's government or industry tests.

You ain't gonna see them until they decide it's time...

But I want it [SIZE="5"]NOWWWWWW[/SIZE].

[JASmith]

I have the same want!

...and I feel your pain.

[LRRPF52]

[SIZE="6"]I want a purple Oompa Loompa and I want one NOW daddy![/SIZE]

[stanc]

Interesting how fast he was firing - not exactly precision sharpshooting!

When he initiated the ambush, his first two shots were more deliberate. Then, when the machine guns opened up, I guess he got a bit excited. Notice that after his first mag change, he forgot to chamber a round. :eek:

The Kiwis have bought the same gun only with a 20 inch barrel (instead of 16 inch) and with selective fire (rather than semi-auto).

Maybe they're planning to use it as an automatic rifle?

[BluntForceTrauma]

Stan, the thing is that first impressions are everything. For example, the simple conjecture and then internet rumor that 6.5 Grendel won't work in belt-feds has taken on an amazing life of it's own in the Wild West World of the internet. I regularly see 6.8 guys state something like, "So what if the 6.5 Grendel has better long-range ballistics, it's been Definitively Proven that it won't work in belt-fed machine guns."

Internal testing? Yes, obviously. Early and often. Public results of internal testing? No, given the nature of the internet rumor beast.

John

[stanc]

Sorry, John. I just don't buy it. AA published the gel test of the developmental version of the 123gr MatchKing, so I see no rational excuse to not do the same for a gel test that's done of the pre-production 110gr FMJ.

In the seemingly unlikely event that the bullet weight or shape changes as a result of the current testing, then any new gel test results would simply obsolete the old.

First impressions don't matter that much with gel tests. Tests are constantly re-done when changes are made to bullet designs.

As for the belt-feed issue, that's a whole different story. First, I never conjectured that 6.5 Grendel won't work in belt-feds. Other people misunderstood or intentionally distorted what I wrote.

But a gel test photo isn't subject to such errors. It unmistakeably shows onset of yaw, permanent cavity, etc.

[JASmith]

Stan,

We have had a lot of discussions about belt links for the Grendel. Regardless of your own perceptions, insisting that you "won't believe it until you see it" gives the impression that you do not believe it is possible to implement them.

This flavor of writing invites others to improperly use your own credibility when attempting to damn the Grendel.

I strongly subscribe to John's admonition: "Internal testing? Yes, obviously. Early and often. Public results of internal testing? No, given the nature of the internet rumor beast."

These issues are not new, and are among the primary drivers of governmental and industrial protection of information.

[Bill Alexander]

Testing yes, doing the work now. Public results, given the nature of the round as an economy entry I see this as an entirely futile effort.

There are considerably better projectile designs for the task of establishing baseline termianl behaviour

[stanc]

Stan, We have had a lot of discussions about belt links for the Grendel. Regardless of your own perceptions, insisting that you "won't believe it until you see it" gives the impression that you do not believe it is possible to implement them.

This flavor of writing invites others to improperly use your own credibility when attempting to damn the Grendel.

To repeat what I just told John, my observations on 6.5 Grendel belt feeding do not apply to gel test results. Other people can distort what I said about disintegrating links, but they can't look at a wound profile with a 3" neck and say it is actually a 7" neck.

And as I said, AA published the gel test of the developmental 123gr MatchKing -- it didn't hurt anything that they didn't wait for the production version to come out -- so I don't understand this opposition to publishing a gel test of the pre-production 110gr FMJ. I mean, WTFO? :confused:

[stanc]

Testing yes, doing the work now. Public results, given the nature of the round as an economy entry I see this as an entirely futile effort.

I don't see it as futile to provide information. Many of those who will shoot the FMJ ammo would like to know how it performs. If you are going to do gel testing anyway, why not make the results public (just as you have for a number of other loads)?

There are considerably better projectile designs for the task of establishing baseline termianl behaviour

Which are those?

[BluntForceTrauma]

First impressions don't matter that much with gel tests.

Au contraire! Again, in the grand laboratory of marketing cartridges on the internet, to which I've had a front-row seat lo these many years, I've seen this firsthand.

The 6.8 developed much of its reputation based on early gel test photos by Gary Roberts using a preproduction Hornady projectile with an "illegal" preformed cavity at excessive velocity. No amount of subsequent "facts" can ever serve to dissuade a significant percentage of 6.8 fans that their cartridge is not the deadliest man-stopper since the invention of the 155mm artillery shell.

First impressions, in regard to gel tests, are everything.

Stan, you're far to reasonable for your own good. You may be able to change your opinions based on subsequent data. The unwashed masses, generally, do not. It is with these that I would concern myself.

AA, ultimately, will do what they want. If I were advising them, and anybody else for that matter, I would never release preproduction data into a very competitive and unfriendly market.

John

[stanc]

Au contraire! Again, in the grand laboratory of marketing cartridges on the internet, to which I've had a front-row seat lo these many years, I've seen this firsthand.

The 6.8 developed much of its reputation based on early gel test photos by Gary Roberts using a preproduction Hornady projectile with an "illegal" preformed cavity at excessive velocity. No amount of subsequent "facts" can ever serve to dissuade a significant percentage of 6.8 fans that their cartridge is not the deadliest man-stopper since the invention of the 155mm artillery shell.

Okay, John -- I must admit, ya got me on that one! :p

AA, ultimately, will do what they want. If I were advising them, and anybody else for that matter, I would never release preproduction data into a very competitive and unfriendly market.

But didn't you do precisely that, when you posted the gel test of the pre-production 123gr SMK? And I don't know of any instance where that info has been used against 6.5 Grendel. Do you?

That's why I don't understand the objection to showing the gel test of the pre-production 110gr FMJ. Since you've been one of the staunchest advocates of 6.5 Grendel for military use, I'd have thought you would be right alongside me in wanting to see how a military-type load would perform.

[Tony Williams]

Maybe they're planning to use it as an automatic rifle?

I asked that question, but I was told no, the auto fire option is just a contingency in case they see targets close together (others have suggested it could also be useful in suppressing enemy fire while breaking contact).

[bwaites]

Okay, John -- I must admit, ya got me on that one! :p

But didn't you do precisely that, when you posted the gel test of the pre-production 123gr SMK? And I don't know of any instance where that info has been used against 6.5 Grendel. Do you?

That's why I don't understand the objection to showing the gel test of the pre-production 110gr FMJ. Since you've been one of the staunchest advocates of 6.5 Grendel for military use, I'd have thought you would be right alongside me in wanting to see how a military-type load would perform.

Three years or more ago, keeping the Grendel in the public mind was a big deal. New data in the 6.5 vs 6.8 war was being voraciously consumed and debated. The Grendel has matured, with a major manufacturer producing ammunition, Wolf now on the verge or producing another load to go with the MPT, and the release of the Grendel trademark.

Publishing pre-production testing makes little sense. Hunters have multiple commercial loads available now, target shooters have multiple commercial loads available and so this load is a very low cost plinking load which will happen to have a bullet that might have very typical military profile.

None of us really expect LE or military adoption based on this bullet, do we? If we did, it might make sense to release some testing information, but not under that situation.

[stanc]

Publishing pre-production testing makes little sense.

I disagree.

...this load is a very low cost plinking load with a bullet that was designed to have a very typical military profile.

Fixed it for ya.

None of us really expect LE or military adoption based on this bullet, do we?

No. But what it would do is give a much better indication of 6.5 Grendel's military potential than any other available load.

[JASmith]

Stan,

Stan, why are you trying to goad AA and Wolf into making a marketing blunder?

To be repetitive --
No ammunition manufacturer stands to gain by releasing pre-production tests. To do so would violate a long established tradition. The tradition results from too many folks having been burned by misuse of information that is not complete nor properly caveated.

[stanc]

Stan, why are you trying to goad AA and Wolf into making a marketing blunder?

First, I am asking that gel test pics be shown.

Second, why are you assuming it would be a blunder?

I view it just the opposite: as a good marketing move. Publishing gel test photos would serve to renew interest in the steel-cased round during the time between the announcement and delivery of the ammo.

As to why I'd like to see the gel tests, it's to have some hard data that would enable a better evaluation of 6.5 Grendel's military potential. To date we have almost exclusively theory, and virtually no test results.

To be repetitive --
No ammunition manufacturer stands to gain by releasing pre-production tests. To do so would violate a long established tradition.

Actually, AA released pics of the pre-production 123gr SMK gel test. It wasn't a "marketing blunder" and nobody used it against 6.5 Grendel.

And nobody here has given any logical reason to conclude that showing gel test photos of the pre-production 110gr FMJ would be any different.

[JASmith]

Stan,

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not shared by others. Further the interest in steel-cased ammunition is already very high, so there is little to be gained at this point beyond satisfying someone's curiosity.

I would also very much like to see the results of gel- and other tests. We have been told that that information will be released in due course. I can wait, however, because I am confident there will be no surprises when the data is released. You have enough experience in these things that you should also have a good understanding of what the tests will tell us.

Let's give folks space to do what they have decided needs to be done -- after all, it is their livelihood, not ours, at stake.

In the meantime, all the ranting about publishing tests only supports the view that someone is trying to hide bad news.

Is this what you want the world to think of the Grendel?

-Joe

[stanc]

...the interest in steel-cased ammunition is already very high, so there is little to be gained at this point beyond satisfying someone's curiosity.

Judging by discussions on arfcom and other forums, interest was very high right after the FMJ load was announced. Since then it's died down considerably, and will continue to decline until more news brings it back into the spotlight.

I would also very much like to see the results of gel- and other tests. We have been told that that information will be released in due course.

Told by whom? The one that counts is Bill Alexander, and in his recent post it sounds like he intends to not release the FMJ gel test, be it pre-production or production.

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...#post14155

I can wait, however, because I am confident there will be no surprises when the data is released. You have enough experience in these things that you should also have a good understanding of what the tests will tell us.

I expect the 6.5 FMJ to perform similar to 5.45 military ball:



But, that isn't the same as actually knowing how it performs.

Let's give folks space to do what they have decided needs to be done -- after all, it is their livelihood, not ours, at stake.

If I thought that publishing gel test photos had any probability of adverse impact on their livelihood, I wouldn't even consider requesting it. But there are a multitude of gel test pics that have been published on the internet and in magazines, and I've yet to hear of any negative effect on the manufacturers.

In the meantime, all the ranting about publishing tests only supports the view that someone is trying to hide bad news.

You have it backwards. It's not the request to publish that causes the view someone is trying to hide bad news. It's the refusal to publish.