How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC)

[LRRPF52]

Thanks Stan. One thing that is really pinging with me from the article is the 1949 Qualification Course, and the old TO&E of a 12-man Rifle Squad with 2 Scouts and a Sharpshooter (DM), and how the capability was lost and forgotten until Afghanistan. I had been pushing for a DM in the 1990's, but I was way too low on the enlisted rank totem pole to be listened to. I even have TO&E proposals that I had drafted and diagrammed in the early 1990's with most personnel carrying Colt Model 727 Carbines, and DM's with free-floated M16's & SR-25's with optics.

I also suggested to my Brigade Commander in the 82nd that we build representative structures from the Pacific theater, Middle East, South/Central America, and Europe in Area J on Fort Bragg to train on, using Infantry as muscle with our Engineers as the brains, which would double as a cross-training opportunity to get to work with our slice elements. I also drafted a new qualification range arrangement that incorporated piles of rubble, damaged walls, and a whole separate system to address another aspect of combat that was only present on a certain MOUT site at Fort Knox at the time (Universal Studios was contracted to help build it.) I see that the barricades, rubble, and windows had been done before in 1949.

The prone and foxhole positions should be very minimal on the Rifle/Carbine Qualification Course.

[Trooper]

What advantage do you see in the 6.5x47?

I own all three, .260 Rem, 6.5x47 Lapua, and 6.5 Creedmoor and find the 6.5 Creedmoor to be superior, at least in my uses. If I drive the 6.5x47 to my Creedmoor performance, brass is short lived. I can buy factory loaded ammunition from Hornady in 6.5 Creedmoor that will produce .5 MOA accuracy at half the cost of Lapua factory loaded ammunition and I can buy Hornady Superformance ammunition that while not quite as accurate will obtain 150 fps more velocity. The brass is cheaper and of very high quality, you could argue that it isn't as high of quality as the Lapua which is available for both the .260 and the 6.5x47 but I can obtain the same accuracy and life with the Hornady bass as the Lapua brass. So, although I am fond of Lapua brass, in practical terms it offers no advantage.
But I must admit I'm potentially partial to the 6.5 Hornady and may see things from that slant. And the three cartridges are so close that any advantage is very hard to discover, that is unless you shoot factory ammo and the the .260 is a dog compared to the other two.

Bob

One other round is the 6.5 BRM by E.A. Brown It uses a .30-30 case thus is easy to reload. http://www.eabco.com/6.5_mm_cartridges.html

[appleseed-kdc]

Great stuff from Bob Stokes, as always. For people who don't yet know, Bob is a competition shooter.

You have to remember, the Grendel 6.5 was invented to fit the M16/AR15 magazine size.

If you limit the question to rounds that fit the magazine, then it is probably the best.

But if the question is about a future, best all round, for rifles and machine guns, then a totally new rifle at a similar, or slightly higher weight can be considered. We have a what 2 million military with reserves, At $2,000 a pop that is $4 billion. A drop in the ocean really in military budget terms of $700 billion.

That takes us back to weight, recoil, number of rounds carried, etc. but despite the M16 being 7.18lb. the M1 Garand, was around 10lb. so some perspective is required.

[JASmith]

If memory serves and I am not totally confused, the US Army has followed a path that suggests there will be no new mainstream cartridges until caseless ammunition is made feasible for military uses. Failing that, the holy grail will become electromotive or some other Star Wars launching technology.

Tony Williams has it right -- explore projectile diameter, mass, and velocity trades within the constraints of soldier-tolerant recoil levels, on target effectiveness and reasonable trajectories. He also gives special attention to keeping the recoil low enough that even the 5% by body mass solder can handle the rifle/carbine in full auto or burst mode.

One of the benefits of these and other explorations is that a nice data set will have been developed should one or more of the world's military services decide that it is time to move beyond 5.56/7.62 NATO and the more-or-less copycat items in other services.

[Guardsman26]

@JASmith

I don't caseless or cased-telescoped ammunition will proceed much further, especially as polymer versions of conventional rounds are proving capable of saving a comparable amount of weight. If you have a polymer version of the 5.56 mm M855A1 that weighs 8-9 grams instead of 12 grams. which fits all legacy weapons, which carries no risk in terms of weapon efficiency and reliability, then you can see which ammunition type is likely to be preferable.

I think LSAT is deeply impressive on many levels, but the cost of adopting versus polymer 5.56 mm seems very hard to justify. More to the point, if I was asked what I preferred to buy: 5.56 mm LSAT or 6.5 mm Grendel in existing brass case technology, there is no doubt what I would choose. Grendel all the way.

[JASmith]

I was also enthusiastic about polymer -- until I saw more about what happens with prolonged rapid or semi-auto fire.

I think case failure due to heat is tolerable as long as the materials and design are set so that the failure is easily cleared. Even brass will cook-off in a very hot chamber but other than the occasional unfortunate unintended target, the fired case usually can be readily cleared. Get the polymer to that level, even if the individual round is destroyed, and we might see polymer in military firearms.