Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge

[Tony Williams]

The Kel-Tec RFB firing the NATO 7.62x51 round has been out for Two years. It is fully abidexturous, using a similar ejection system to the FS2000 pushing cases out of the front of the rifle.

I am aware of that one. It is an interesting gun but is essentially a commercial rather than military product, and has so far had no military use. I suspect that it would have difficulty in passing the kind of stringent testing-to-destruction which military weapons have to survive.

[LRRPF52]

For those that haven't picked one up yet, the LMT 16" MRP in 7.62 is a little beast of a "carbine". It is so fricken heavy, I couldn't believe it, but this is due to the large diameter of the barrel that is pinched by the monolithic upper receiver. It is way over-kill in barrel weight, rivaling even a bull-barreled 24" LR-308.

14.5" barrels in the AR15/M4 family are plenty, as long as US or similarly-loaded M855 and M193 are used. You have plenty of velocity in that configuration, so there is no need for the common infantry rifleman to have a 20" barrel. The 5.56 maintains a velocity over 2600fps well over 100m, and any 7.62 loading has dropped velocity significantly as well once past 100m, so they all make little holes in people at distances past 150m for sure.

The 7.62 M80- does have some clear wind-drift advantages over 5.56, but it would be a big mistake to outfit everyone with one.

The statement that my argument is baseless sine M1 Garands and M1919's used the same ammo in WWII needs to go away and quick. It is based on the assumption that we conducted effective close quarters battle with Garands for room-clearing in WWII that would pass off as a viable solution today, and we all know that dog don't hunt.

Think fratricide, overkill, no real follow-up shot capability in comparison to AK's, over-pressure in the room. You guys need to go into a room and shoot across the calibers, starting with 5.56, 7.62x39, and 7.62 NATO to see what I'm talking about if you haven't already. There is already enough stress, uncertainty, and fast-paced movement in CQB, in that adding a large-bore assault rifle into the room or even within alleys causes more disorientation in an environment where the ability to focus is extremely important.

Leave 5.56 carbines alone, augment them with a maneuverable SAW in a better caliber, without the mag-length restrictions, and the 6.5mm becomes the answer. A lot of these guys that are feeling under-gunned in the half-kilometer are in that position because their SAW gunners are burdened down trying to get the pig up into a position to shoot, and the insane weight and bulk works exponentially against you when you're trying to convince yourself that you need to put your head up into the fight. A 10-12lb SAW would work wonders in solving this problem, and riflemen could get back to their secondary roles in such scenarios of providing local security to the flanks, and calling distance, direction, and disposition to the SAW gunners and DMRs, as well as 203's.

[Tony Williams]

14.5" barrels in the AR15/M4 family are plenty, as long as US or similarly-loaded M855 and M193 are used. You have plenty of velocity in that configuration, so there is no need for the common infantry rifleman to have a 20" barrel.

Sorry, but I can't resist this:

"Tell that to the Marines!"

[LRRPF52]

Sorry, but I can't resist this:

"Tell that to the Marines!"

I don't need to, as the #1 go-to individual service rifle in MARSOC is not rifle at all, but a 14.5" SOPMOD Block II M4A1 with rifle-length handguard, along with 10.25" barreled CQBR's, augmented with Mk11's in 7.62 for the DMR's if they're not using a 5.56 carbine or SPR for that role, which is quite common. They are also playing a very active role in all the theaters of conflicts burning right now, to include the crackistan.

The effective range to maneuverability ratio of the 20" M16A2/4 compared to the 14.5" M4 doesn't justify fielding of the M16, especially to dismounts. There is little practical advantage that might be realized on certain shots the guys might encounter, versus the length and weight penalty they will always encounter, which is why units that have the choice dropped M16's like a bad habit long ago.

The top-level decisions of the Marines and enforcing stupid ideas on their conventional units is a leadership problem again, as evidenced by the rigging of the IAR trials to favor the HK, when the troops expressed most satisfaction with the Ultimax, which is a no-brainer if you are familiar with it. But Ultimax doesn't have big HK pull in D.C., so Joe tentpeg will again take it in the rear per SOP.

The adoption of the AR15 is a logical anomaly in the US history of small arms procurement, which had a lot to do with its reception by Special Operations, its brutal wound effects witnessed and documented during Project AGILE, and influence from a President with actual military experience who learned that Army Ordnance Corps had rigged tests to make the M14 come out on top (and still failed at that). We have the documents where the directive was given to conduct the tests, as long as the M14 was shown to be the winner. These guys are corrupt to the core, especially when you start peeling back the scabs of the contractor-senior officer-Pentagon love triangle. Don't ever expect a weapon to be selected based upon its merits, may I present to you the following examples:

M14
M60
M249
M9
M24

The AR15/5.56 is a rare success story in the history of US Small Arms Procurement, which is why it has trucked on for longer than any other service rifle, and not only in the US, but its still-growing dominance around the world.

[stanc]

The statement that my argument is baseless sine M1 Garands and M1919's used the same ammo in WWII needs to go away and quick.

It is based on the assumption that we conducted effective close quarters battle with Garands for room-clearing in WWII that would pass off as a viable solution today...

Actually, my comment that two different loadings for carbine and LMG are not necessary is based on the observation that one common loading was used in WWII, and the assumption that what's been done before, can be done again.

Leave 5.56 carbines alone, augment them with a maneuverable SAW in a better caliber, without the mag-length restrictions, and the 6.5mm becomes the answer.

There are a couple of problems with that idea:

a. 6.5 is certainly one possible answer, but without comparative test data, I don't know how anyone can claim it is the answer.

b. That approach requires the adoption of a third caliber, which is not supported by history. A three-caliber system was rejected by the US Army in the early 1970s, and AFAIK, no other army in the world has chosen to use one.

"A Soldier must be able to engage the threat he’s faced with – whether it’s at eight meters or 800." ~PEO Report

The logical extension of the above statement is the replacement of 5.56 NATO with a more powerful, intermediate cartridge.

[LRRPF52]

Ain't no way they're going to get even 50% of infantry soldiers to successfully engage man-sized targets at 800m with an individual service rifle or carbine with even a high probability of a 2nd-round hit. Do these PEO gurus know what they're asking for? Clearly they don't. The M4 and M16 can already lob rounds at an 800m area target no problem, but if we're talking about making 1st or 2nd-round hits with a service rifle, most of your B4 qualified guys would have a tough time doing that with an M24 in 7.62 with match ammunition and a 10x scope.

These guys are asking for totally unrealistic performance in the field from entry-level soldiers with little marksmanship training, and are doing it with a tool-based approach. 800m is .300WM and up territory for 1st-round hit. A .260 Rem or 6.5x47 Lapua can do it easily with a trained shooter who knows how to estimate the range and adjust for the conditions, but Joe tentpeg will not be doing it, especially with a carbine or rifle that he will then enter and clear a room or alley with. This is insane. Yes, I can and have run my .260 AR10 in close-in stages and then punched out to distance with it, but the weight penalty, barrel life, and load limitations are all in the over-kill side of the equation for most of the work an Infantryman will do.

Think about supporting tasks after you have walked across the kill zone at night doing an ambush, where compactness and lightweight really come into play. You get called out to search bodies, collect equipment, maybe perform first aid on an EPW, etc. WWII soldiers didn't have AT4's, combat lifesaver bags, and armor strapped to them. They still got it done with a heavier rifle than necessary because they were tough and determined, as future infantrymen will be of they get saddled with some overweight albatross, but we shouldn't advocate it.

We're basically asking for .260 Rem performance at distance, with 5.56 performance at close range, within the weight parameters of an M4, with a barrel life of the 7.62 NATO, with the recoil comparable to 5.56, and a comparable load capacity of the 5.56. We're a little closer to that than we were in the 1930's, but not just there yet.

Our focus again should be on replacing 7.62 NATO, which is a major uphill battle due to commonality across vehicle-mounted MG's.

[stanc]

Our focus again should be on replacing 7.62 NATO, which is a major uphill battle due to commonality across vehicle-mounted MG's.

I think that approach has the least chance of success.

Because there is no perceived need to reduce the weight of vehicle-mounted 7.62 MGs or ammo, and considering the cost to refit all of the armored vehicles, helicopters, etc, it undoubtedly means that 7.62 would be kept for those platforms.

To also retain 5.56 for carbines means that any attempt to replace 7.62 for infantry use would require adding a third caliber to the system. As I've noted before, there has been historical opposition to having a 3-caliber system, not only in the US Army, but worldwide.

Taking those facts into consideration, it looks to me like the only feasible way to get an intermediate-caliber LMG is by replacing 5.56 NATO.

[LRRPF52]

5.56 ain't broke, and is gathering more and more users as we speak. NATO will not want to dump the caliber, and all the units that have a say will demand to keep theirs. With budgets the way they are currently, who knows what will happen...

Has anyone heard any more about the Russkies using Grendel? A guy I ran into at the Gun Show recently who works for one of the largest machine shops in the firearms industry was talking like it was a done deal. I have yet to hear that from reliable sources.

[stanc]

5.56 ain't broke...

A lot of people disagree, including the Royal Marines.

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...#post16604

[COLOR="red"]ETA: Even you think 5.56 is broke as an LMG caliber.

Nobody thinks 7.62 is broke. I've seen no complaints about 7.62 performance, but plenty of criticisms about 5.56 performance.

Since there is widespread agreement that 5.56 performance is sorely lacking in one respect or another, but general satisfaction with 7.62 capabilities, doesn't it make more sense to focus on replacing 5.56?[/COLOR]

NATO will not want to dump the caliber...

Not important. Where the US leads, NATO will follow.

Has anyone heard any more about the Russkies using Grendel?

You mean the Russian military? I haven't heard that they were, but I did wonder if they might have an interest in the cartridge that helped prompt Barnaul and Izhmash to get involved.

[LRRPF52]

The Royal Marines I know love 5.56, and wish they would be issued Colt Commandos. If you know the selection process, Royal Marines are the guys that feed the SBS its bodies, and guess what their #1 go-to service weapon is....my broken record speech on Colt Commando variants again....surprise surprise. They also comment on how certain units in the US actually shoot much better than them, and have been modelling their marksmanship programs after that unit, even though that unit was modeled after the SAS.

The anecdotal reports from guys who don't know how to shoot, and want a new caliber mean very little to me. "If I woulda had a _______...." then what? Like I said, every 5.56 injury or death I've seen has been impressive, to say the least. You have to argue with thousands upon thousands of seasoned shooters in their mid-to-late 30's who have been stacking bodies with 5.56 carbines for most of their adult lives, against the pleadings of a few of entry-level soldiers and maybe 2nd-termers who aren't gun guys and can't shoot to the standards that they will need to in order to make whatever new caliber they want hit their targets anyway. A lot of guys, even in the SF community had a hard time hearing that from within their own ranks, but that was what they needed to hear.

5.56 as an LMG round for squad support cuts the mustard to most of the distances a squad will be tasked with, but an optimized LMG specific cartridge that could replace both the 7.62 and linked 5.56 would be the ticket for enhancing ground-pounder's capabilities, if offered in a 12lb max LMG weight. We have to get SAW/LMG gunners as maneuverable as possible, not make riflemen more burdened. Increasing the rifleman's and grenadier's loads while reducing their ammo capacity is the wrong direction to go in force structure at those levels.

[stanc]

The anecdotal reports from guys who don't know how to shoot, and want a new caliber mean very little to me. Like I said, every 5.56 injury or death I've seen has been impressive, to say the least. You have to argue with thousands upon thousands of seasoned shooters in their mid-to-late 30's who have been stacking bodies with 5.56 carbines for most of their adult lives, against the pleadings of a few of entry-level soldiers and maybe 2nd-termers who aren't gun guys and can't shoot to the standards that they will need to in order to make whatever new caliber they want hit their targets anyway.

I'm pretty sure that Steve Holland was neither entry-level nor 2nd-termer when he undertook the development of 6.8 SPC because he thought 5.56 was inadequate. As for the countless others who've criticized 5.56, I don't pretend to know how many were gun guys, or how much experience they had. All I know is that I've seen many complaints about 5.56 performance, but none about 7.62 in that regard.

5.56 as an LMG round for squad support cuts the mustard to most of the distances a squad will be tasked with, but an optimized LMG specific cartridge that could replace both the 7.62 and linked 5.56 would be the ticket for enhancing ground-pounder's capabilities, if offered in a 12lb max LMG weight. We have to get SAW/LMG gunners as maneuverable as possible, not make riflemen more burdened. Increasing the rifleman's and grenadier's loads while reducing their ammo capacity is the wrong direction to go in force structure at those levels.

I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree. I just think it'd be impossible to get a third caliber adopted by the US/NATO.

When you take into account the general satisfaction with 7.62 performance, and combine that with the certainty that vehicle-mounted MMG's and Gatling guns will remain chambered for 7.62, it just seems to me that it's a losing proposition to argue for replacing 7.62 with an intermediate round.

As I see it, if they won't add a third caliber to the system, and they won't replace 7.62, the only feasible option left to get an intermediate round for LMGs is to replace 5.56 (even though that would mean giving up the advantages that you like about the smaller cartridge for use in carbines).

Or do you know of another alternative?

[Tony Williams]

Ain't no way they're going to get even 50% of infantry soldiers to successfully engage man-sized targets at 800m with an individual service rifle or carbine with even a high probability of a 2nd-round hit. Do these PEO gurus know what they're asking for? Clearly they don't. The M4 and M16 can already lob rounds at an 800m area target no problem, but if we're talking about making 1st or 2nd-round hits with a service rifle, most of your B4 qualified guys would have a tough time doing that with an M24 in 7.62 with match ammunition and a 10x scope.

I think you've missed the point of the advanced scopes they're working on. These include a laser rangefinder, a ballistic computer, and various sensors to tell whether the rifle is pointing up or downhill, or whether it's being held absolutely upright. They will even measure air pressure and any crosswinds (the trickiest part). So the soldier will not have to be a marksman to hit a target at 800m - he will just have to learn to hold the rifle steady (on a bipod, obviously, at that range), put the aiming mark on the target, press the lase button, then re-aim as the aiming mark moves to show him exactly where to aim. The only traditional shooting skill required will be to stop breathing for a couple of seconds and squeeze the trigger very carefully rather than pull it.

[Tony Williams]

When you take into account the general satisfaction with 7.62 performance, and combine that with the certainty that vehicle-mounted MMG's and Gatling guns will remain chambered for 7.62, it just seems to me that it's a losing proposition to argue for replacing 7.62 with an intermediate round.

As I see it, if they won't add a third caliber to the system, and they won't replace 7.62, the only feasible option left to get an intermediate round for LMGs is to replace 5.56 (even though that would mean giving up the advantages that you like about the smaller cartridge for use in carbines).

Or do you know of another alternative?

Neither the US or UK army are willing to admit officially that the 5.56mm has any lethality issues within its effective range, but they accept that it's not suitable for long-range fire so needs to be supplemented by 7.62mm. This is a problem for dismounted troops - especially carrying MG ammo - because 7.62mm ammo weighs twice as much as 5.56mm and the troops are already carrying far too much stuff. Furthermore, for the sections to be carrying two calibres rather than one is also a disadvantage - they can't exchange ammo, and it means that only those armed with 7.62mm can engage at long range.

So the main selling points for a new cartridge will IMO be to replace 7.62mm in portable guns for dismounted infantry while saving a substantial amount of weight, and to standardise on one calibre for such troops.

7.62mm would remain in use for a long time in vehicle mounts, but that doesn't matter since they have their own ammo supply line. 5.56mm would probably hang on in more of a PDW role in lightweight carbines in non-infantry units. But the idea is that the line infantry would only carry weapons in the new calibre.

[JASmith]

...These include a laser rangefinder, a ballistic computer, and various sensors to tell whether the rifle is pointing up or downhill, or whether it's being held absolutely upright. They will even measure air pressure and any crosswinds (the trickiest part). So the soldier will not have to be a marksman to hit a target at 800m - he will just have to learn to hold the rifle steady (on a bipod, obviously, at that range), put the aiming mark on the target, press the lase button, then re-aim as the aiming mark moves to show him exactly where to aim. The only traditional shooting skill required will be to stop breathing for a couple of seconds and squeeze the trigger very carefully rather than pull it.

Tony,

I concur with all the above except the part about not having to be a marksman. It is all too easy for us folks who have been shooting for more than a half-century to forget what it takes to become effective at shooting even at 100 yards.

The problem is that "Joe Tentpeg" needs 1000 - 2000 rounds downrange to develop his basic skills to where he can effectively use the scope yo describe. That shooting needs to be a mix of supervised known and unknown distance and surprise targets plus a number of informal sessions "Joe Tentpeg" might get to shoot 600 - 800 during his entire initial active duty commitment and those shots are almost always taken under rather controlled conditions.

Further, marksmanship in the military field also requires significant skills in identifying targets that the average Joe won't develop.

Bottom line, the scopes you describe are likely to be a very important addition to the tools used by the sharpshooter or designated marksman. Remember also that users of the scope will be obliged to carry an extra 1-2 lbs on his rifle. Those scopes are big and heavy in their current incarnation. So the DM might be a little less effective in a room or alley, but likely more effective in covering his team from longer distance threats.

Take the new-fangled scopes to the next level, however, where the squad or team leader can designate the aimpoint in the shooters scope, then "average Joe" may be able to employ more effective suppressive fire.

The trade will be whether the new scope would justify the added cost, weight and reliability hits.

Cheers,
Joe

[Tony Williams]

The scope size, weight and cost can all be expected to fall over the years, as happens to everything electronic. So at first it will be for snipers, then for sharpshooters, then for all infantrymen (as happened with optical scope sights). The benefits will certainly justify their use, particularly since the army wants to build in combined starlight/thermal imaging technology for night fighting.

You are right about the need for training, but I suspect that this can be supplemented by "virtual ranges" on which soldiers can practice. These are already used in some form, I believe.

Just thinking off the cuff, here, but since what the soldier will see is a video image, I'm sure it would be possible to plug in a training session module which would run all sorts of scenarios through the scope's eyepiece, giving the soldier practice in identifying targets and in shooting skills, with sensors to determine whether his shot would have hit the right target. So they could practice anytime, anywhere. I'm sure the vast video game industry could come up with something toot sweet, as they say.

[LRRPF52]

Tony, I was involved with the testing of the Land Warrior System starting as early as 1997 in 25th ID, as well as a more matured system for testing in the 82nd in 2000-2001, and have been following the latest electro-optical aiming and ballistic solution developments closely. While there are some significant advantages to these developments, we don't have a system that will compensate for wind factors downrange, as that would require use of assets allocated for higher priorities than watching trees blowing in the wind to give a correct wind deflection solution to Joe Tentpeg and his super blaster.

The wind reading at the shooter's location is only one factor into wind-deflection if you're talking about shooting past 300m in speeds over 10mph, so until you get satellites to provide real-time wind readings based on conditions throughout the bullet's flight path, if there are any indicators (which are few and far between in the Middle East), you need a well-trained team to get a 2nd-round hit at 800m in realistic wind conditions.

Just as relying on GPS for your primary navigation solution is an absolute mistake without an understanding of map-reading, compass use, terrain association, pace count, etc., relying on technology for a firing solution without an underlying experience base with intermediate range shooting (that is only taught in sniper training currently) is a mistake.

Also, with the nature of a high-stress engagement where the Pashtun fighters have purposely initiated a far ambush outside the effective range of even optimistic effective ranges for the 7.62 NATO, no shoulder-fired weapon other than the M107 and maybe a .338 LM will begin to even touch them at the ranges they like to initiate at. These engagements are usually resolved with CAS, mortars, or artillery.

[JASmith]

Regarding Virtual Ranges, the few advertisement clips I've seen suggest that they exist and are very useful for practicing team shooting procedures from hasty, but nonetheless static, positions. They do not appear to have evolved to where things that affect required aimpoint adjustments needed to account for range, wind and slope.

That, too, will evolve. I have what I believe is rudimentary knowledge of image generation using trajectories affected by wind and slope. Hence I am very sure the impediment is not technology, but a perceived need and confidence that the enhanced range training will make enough of a difference.

[JASmith]

...Also, with the nature of a high-stress engagement where the Pashtun fighters have purposely initiated a far ambush outside the effective range of even optimistic effective ranges for the 7.62 NATO, no shoulder-fired weapon other than the M107 and maybe a .338 LM will begin to even touch them at the ranges they like to initiate at. These engagements are usually resolved with CAS, mortars, or artillery.

You've identified a missing element in taking this discussion to useful insight.

The reality is that, most of the time, the fire team has a lot of combined arms resources available. There are very few times when even SF teams are truly isolated and are obliged to rely only on what they could personally carry to the fight.

I cut my teeth in a world where unguided weapons delivered by air and arty could be put within 1 km of friendlies day in and day out. Strafing, napalm and some CBUs could, in ideal conditions, be put within 10-15yards of friendlies. I also know how fickle this support can be, so I do not suggest we assume that drones, Apaches, A-10s, Fi16s and B52s will always be close enough or be allowed to give the support soon enough to matter.

Further, we haven't yet discussed what team-organic assets are currently available -- grenade launchers and mortars for example, and their impact on how much range is really needed for the infantry rifle/carbine. As Tony suggests, we also need to project at least a little into the future to forecast what might have been added in this category by the time any new cartridge we discuss might be fielded.

I think that the 20-25 mm grenade launcher supplementing or supplanting the 40mm might make a big difference in perceptions of what long range ability the average infantry soldier needs in his or her personal weapon.

How does that square with your understanding of available equipment?

[LRRPF52]

The fact is that no rifleman has any fantasies about effectively engaging targets at 800m+. 500m is a stretch, especially under fire. That is the territory of DMR's, SAW's and M240's right now. The problem is that M240's and SAWs are difficult to get into action because of their weight and bulk, compounded by the disparity in fatigue the gunners experience in relation to riflemen carrying M4's...so when contact happens, the guys with the lightest blasters are the most able to assess the situation, maneuver into the best positions, which are more likely to be at the forward edge of friendly troops, while the guys burdened down with SAW's are suckin' wind trying to find a good position to get into a shooting solution.

Weight and bulk are the biggest enemies with small arms, other than the M4 and SPR.

203's and similarly re-packaged GL's are limited to 400m effective range, and most grenadiers can't make hits under stress much past 200m. The first thing to be removed are the new Star Trek scanner aiming devices that are supposed to compensate for wind, and have laser range finders and the sorts of firing solutions mentioned by Tony, but they are simply too bulky for any self-respecting soldier to hump around and get caught on stuff, with the insane amount of top weight that makes them totally impractical.

[stanc]

The problem is that M240's and SAWs are difficult to get into action because of their weight and bulk, compounded by the disparity in fatigue the gunners experience in relation to riflemen carrying M4's...so when contact happens, the guys with the lightest blasters are the most able to assess the situation, maneuver into the best positions, which are more likely to be at the forward edge of friendly troops...

Doesn't it then make sense to give them long range capability? As has been seen in combat video, riflemen are going to shoot back at those distant targets, anyway. I doubt that would change, even if your hypothetical, 12-pound, 6.5 Grendel Magnum LMG was developed and fielded.