6.5 Grendel Armor Piercing ammunition data/info...

[Tony Williams]

Question is, would such a long (really LONG!) projectile punch straight through flesh without yawing?

Depends on the weight distribution, I think (with the rifling probably also influencing it).

As Joe said, reversing the steel/aluminium positions on the first one would help this.

[stanc]

Depends on the weight distribution, I think...

I'd say that's pretty iffy, at best. But, we just don't know, nor can we find out, as it seems highly unlikely that gel tests were done with any of the CETME projectiles, since those experiments were done some 60 years ago.

So, we can add one more question to all of the other questions in these threads. Too many questions, and no way to get answers to many of them.

OTOH, there are some questions that could be answered by testing. Which, sadly, not even the most devout Grendel proponents seem willing (or able) to do...

[bwaites]

Testing, I'd be happy to do, doing it to meet the strict necessities to prove what is wanted to the right people is what creates the issue,,

[JASmith]

Right on!!!

[stanc]

Testing, I'd be happy to do, doing it to meet the strict necessities to prove what is wanted to the right people is what creates the issue,,

Isn't that putting the cart before the proverbial horse?

It seems to me that until some good test data is made public, how are the "right people" (or anyone else) going to become acquainted with 6.5 Grendel's performance and capabilities? :confused:

Individuals have been discussing and writing magazine articles about the theoretical superiority of 6.5 Grendel for half a dozen years. Isn't it time for somebody to actually demonstrate it?

[stanc]

Stan, I was just looking at one of M. Fackler's reports, and it looks like the 7.62 bullet was not the M80, but a 150 gr FMJ...

Just to tidy up a loose end -- since Fackler noted on the original drawing that it was 7.62 NATO 150gr, it probably was steel-core M59 Ball. That does weight at 150gr, and with a one-piece steel core, it wouldn't fragment.

[JASmith]

Thanks!

[stanc]

Moved to http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...1#post4524

[student28]

ST28:

I don't get it. The M-16 is a POS yet the Grendel is a 6.5mm M-16. Is the Grendel M-16 the same POS as the 5.56 M-16? If not, why? Grendel chambered M-16's push the pressure limits far more than the 5.56 models. I don't think there is anyone on this forum who has shot their Grendel for more than 1K rounds who hasn't sheared at least one bolt lug.

Talk about misfeeds due to gas problems, magazine problems, buffer problems -- there are probably ten pages of forum on how to get the CP magazines to function with the Grendel as well as pages of guys asking why their Grendel won't feed, extract, or eject. Way more problems than my experiences with the various issued M-16 series of rifles / carbines.

BTW what are you talking about concerning Colt vs Ruger?

LR1955

Ahah, here is some info...

After Action Reviews done by the Marines after the early phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom revealed that urban warfare scenarios made employment of the M16A2 difficult in some situations; Marines were picking up short AK-47s with collapsible butt-stocks, or scrounging pistols for use inside buildings.

Like its predecessor the M16, the M4 also has a reputation as an excellent weapon – if you can maintain it. Failure to maintain the weapon meticulously can lead to jams, especially in sandy or dusty environments.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-...rsy-03289/

[student28]

ST28:
BTW what are you talking about concerning Colt vs Ruger?

LR1955

-The politics that went into the decision to go with colt over the more durrable, reliable ruger. It was a scam that the government was involved with. Family ties with colt...

[JASmith]

...Like its predecessor the M16, the M4 also has a reputation as an excellent weapon – if you can maintain it. Failure to maintain the weapon meticulously can lead to jams, especially in sandy or dusty environments...

Some of us are overdue for a read or re-read of Pork Chop Hill by SLA Marshall.

When one contrasts their experiences using the M-1 Garand with the Iraqi Freedom weapons reliability discussions, the improvement in weapon maintainability becomes more evident. There are no weapons, not even knives or clubs, that will continue to function over time and in adverse conditions unless proper maintenance is applied.

The short book reveals several other insights that can help folks better understand how far we have traveled -- or not -- in doctrine, strategy, and tactics.

[stanc]

Some of us are overdue for a read or re-read of Pork Chop Hill by SLA Marshall.

When one contrasts their experiences using the M-1 Garand with the Iraqi Freedom weapons reliability discussions, the improvement in weapon maintainability becomes more evident.

Gee, in the movie, the M-1 rifles performed flawlessly.

However, there was one scene that stuck in my mind, where during a lull in the fighting Gregory Peck was brushing the dust out of his M-1 carbine receiver.

BTW, if maintainability has improved, what about durability? Wonder how well an M4 carbine or M16 rifle would hold up if used like the Garand seen from 0:39-0:42 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZgSd_j9We0 ?

There are no weapons, not even knives or clubs, that will continue to function over time and in adverse conditions unless proper maintenance is applied.

Uh, what is the prescribed maintenance for a club?

[pinzgauer]

This is worth a watch:

Daniel Defense Torture Test

I suspect many quality M4's would perform similarly.

[LRRPF52]

Some of us are overdue for a read or re-read of Pork Chop Hill by SLA Marshall.

Roger that. When one contrasts their experiences using the M-1 Garand with the Iraqi Freedom weapons reliability discussions, the improvement in weapon maintainability becomes more evident. There are no weapons, not even knives or clubs, that will continue to function over time and in adverse conditions unless proper maintenance is applied.

The short book reveals several other insights that can help folks better understand how far we have traveled -- or not -- in doctrine, strategy, and tactics.

There were some pretty horrendous reports about the M1 Garand when the Marines ran a series of battlefield suitability tests on it in comparison to the 1903 Springfield, stating the Garand's unacceptably-low reliability, sensitivity to beach sand in the action (still true of the Garand/M14/Mini-14), and an overall disdain for a semi-auto rifle's feasibility as a service rifle.

I have yet to see one single mechanical device with more than 2 articulating components that can hold up to the environmental extremes of Middle Eastern Sand Storms.

As far as the AR family needing meticulous cleaning, I would say otherwise. It really needs just a thick layer of great lubricant like Slip2000. You do not need to obsessively remove the carbon from the operating parts by any means, unless you run high volume with a suppressor. There's a great article on a BCM AR that they ran to over 31,000 rounds (3x the bolt life), and it ran almost 100%, save a misfire or two IIRC that was ammo-related. They only barely brushed off the caked carbon 2x throughout that process, and just kept lubing it with Slip2000.

You actually get a better gas seal, the more carbon builds on your gas rings, and I have yet to see a bolt that would not go into battery because of excessive carbon fouling. I've seen plenty of bolts not going into battery because of lack of lubrication...

LRRPF52

[stanc]

This is worth a watch:

Daniel Defense Torture Test

Alas, my poor ol' computer just can't handle HD videos, so I'll comment on the written summary.

"...to simulate a shrapnel blast. With the use of a 12 gauge shotgun, we will shoot the rifle with #8 Lead Bird Shot from 15 yards..."

Using #8 lead pellets seems a very inadequate simulation of shrapnel, which is far more likely to be composed of much larger pieces of steel.

"...drain any water that made it into the barrel and gas tube but holding the bolt to the rear. After a brief pause, we will chamber a round, and engage a steel target..."

Draining water from the weapon before shooting is hardly impressive. IIRC, I've seen at least one video of another (HK?) carbine being fired immediately upon removal from water.

[JASmith]

...Uh, what is the prescribed maintenance for a club?...

Linseed or other oil if it's wood and you want to keep it for awhile. A bone club would need some other kind of maintenance. Both will get brittle if allowed to dry excessively.

[pinzgauer]

I guess you need to see the video (you can select the non-HD version in the lower right of the video).... I'm pretty sure any of the M1/m14/mini families would not have fared as well. Discount the bird shot, but throw it out of a helicopter, out of a truck at speed, run it over the truck, hit it with explosives, etc.

I say that not to promote DD, as I think many quality AR's could handle what was shown as well or better than any of the vintage weapons. As can other rifles (HK comes to mind).

While the Garand & M14 deserves respect for many things, I'm not ready to stake my life on one compared to the other options!!!

But then again, for shooting paperstani's on the one way range (nobody shooting back), just about anything works!

[stanc]

I guess you need to see the video (you can select the non-HD version in the lower right of the video)...

Thanks, I was able to view the non-HD version. I was rather impressed by the jeep/helicopter drop tests and being run over by a jeep. However, was not very impressed by the water dunk, dirt bury (dirt doesn't seep into cracks like sand does), explosion blast and -- as noted earlier -- the bird shot.

I'm pretty sure any of the M1/m14/mini families would not have fared as well. Discount the bird shot, but throw it out of a helicopter, out of a truck at speed, run it over the truck, hit it with explosives, etc.

Well, the Mini-14 is not a military rifle, so it could hardly be expected to do well.

OTOH, the M14 did undergo -- and presumably passed -- pretty tough tests before entering service. I have to think a genuine G.I. M14 could do as well as the DD M4 in those demonstrations. (Might need to be fitted with a synthetic stock, though. Not sure if a wood stock could take some of the punishment.)

Definitely, cleaning and maintenance of the AR15/M16/M4 is generally easier than the M14, although the latter has better access to the chamber.

[LRRPF52]

OTOH, the M14 did undergo -- and presumably passed -- pretty tough tests before entering service. I have to think a genuine G.I. M14 could do as well as the DD M4 in those demonstrations. (Might need to be fitted with a synthetic stock, though. Not sure if a wood stock could take some of the punishment.)

Definitely, cleaning and maintenance of the AR15/M16/M4 is generally easier than the M14, although the latter has better access to the chamber.

The T44 (Springfield Armory entry prototype that became the M14), T48 (FAL), and AR-10 all did go through some pretty extensive testing. The AR-10 in particular was subjected to "extra" hardships by the test committee, to include sabotaging it..yet the AR-10 still out-performed the FAL and T44 in reliability, and especially accuracy. It was also noted that the shooters found the ergonomics on the AR-10 far superior to the FAL and T44, as well as the recoil characteristics.

Since the T44 was the Ordnance Corps' pet project, the "Not Invented Here" contestants were kicked to the curb. In my personal experiences with the M14, the reliability has been pretty bad as soon as granules of sand get into the action, which is very easy to do with an M14. The mags are also very sensitive to the larger granule sand particles, and things start to spiral downhill quick with it when you get the sand all over. Same is true with any other action, but the AR family keeps large granule sand out much better than most that I have dealt with.

While I have an aficionado/nostalgia relationship with the M14, I'm not a big proponent of it as a service rifle. I doubt an M14 would run after a basic sand immersion test. Armorer-level maintenance for it is a nightmare, and requires true gunsmithing skills from a dedicated and talented gun enthusiast. A soldier who barely passed the ASVAB can replace parts on the AR family with very little training, and no filing, tuning, unitizing, machining, drilling, etc.

LRRPF52

[pangris]

Ahhh, the search for AP 6.5.

If I could get some, I'd get rid of the 308s...