Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge

[stanc]

This is the key point of a debate still in progress after months (possibly years) of discussions.

What has not been done is live-fire testing to test the theory (or assertions depending on mindset). For this, we would need at least FMJ bullets in an appropriate weight category...

The Lapua 144 gr FMJ bullet is too long and too heavy for the Grendel. Their 100 grain offering is a round nose. I suspect the reason we haven't heard much said about the Norma 120 gr FMJ (Specifically called out as "6.5 Grendel" on the MidwayUSA website) is that it is too new for folks to play with much.

Actually, the Norma bullet has been around for awhile. Several years ago, Alexander did a gel test of the Norma FMJ, and the wound channel looked close to, but not quite as good as, that of 7.62 FMJ. I think that's the main reason why no further testing has been done with it; those who might do such testing would rather wait until a better bullet is available.

Some of us are reluctant to push testing with bullets we know are not representative of those that would be used for cat.

Meanwhile, year after year goes by...

BTW, "cat"?

[warped]

Stan the links to make Grendel feed a belt fed weapon are not a difficult task, the key is who would be footing the bill.

Do you realize how much money would be laid out for dies alone?

There is virtually nothing that cannot be solved if given financial resources.

I already asked several experts about the dies and links, they all said it is not even a tough job, but to do it on speculation would leave someone homeless.

Unless you think someone with 50years of making dies for stamped metal parts which are far more advanced is not understanding the problem.

[stanc]

Stan the links to make Grendel feed a belt fed weapon are not a difficult task, the key is who would be footing the bill.

Do you realize how much money would be laid out for dies alone?

Nope, I have no idea what it'd cost. How much?

There is virtually nothing that cannot be solved if given financial resources.

I already asked several experts about the dies and links, they all said it is not even a tough job, but to do it on speculation would leave someone homeless.

Unless you think someone with 50years of making dies for stamped metal parts which are far more advanced is not understanding the problem.

I'm sure they understand the problem. But, until somebody actually makes it a reality, it remains no more than a theory.

Same for a 6.5 ball projectile with a BC equal to that of a Scenar. It's easy for Grendel advocates to say "I think it can be done." But, to paraphrase the line from a Tom Cruise movie, I have to say "Show me the proof!"

[stanc]

...Those are the two most critical items relevant to 6.5 Grendel's potential for use as a military cartridge...

Mindless repetition of this point does nothing to move the process forward.

a. It's not mindless. It's quite conscious.

b. Ignoring the issues does even less to "move the process forward."

c. Apparently you think continuing to send insults my way is somehow going to produce positive results...

[JASmith]

a....Ignoring the issues does even less to "move the process forward."...

We are all aware of and share your concerns on this topic.

You have posted this position at least twenty times since the forum came back online. At some point the repetition does seem mindless, because nothing new is being posted.

I will repeat, store the concerns and bring them up when resources are available to address the concerns.

In the meantime, can we get off the stuck record?

[LRRPF52]

I wouldn't have interpreted an insult from Warped's post. At the end of the day, I think everyone would agree that we want the same thing...the development of the best tools for those who use them. Keeping that in mind, I don't see any new links being made for any of the new cartridges that have emerged over the past decade, which has a lot to do with the fact that there isn't any military solicitation for a new set of links for these cartridges. Have we already discussed the possibility of using RPD links for the Grendel? Same parent cartridge (7.62x39)...

[stanc]

I wouldn't have interpreted an insult from Warped's post.

I didn't. It was Joe who used "mindless" in referring to what I wrote.

Have we already discussed the possibility of using RPD links for the Grendel? Same parent cartridge (7.62x39)...

RPD belts is what I had in mind for possible use of 6.5 Grendel light machine guns by the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, and Hungary. IIRC, those countries use 7.62x54R GPMGs, with non-disintegrating belts. That should mean their military culture would be accepting of a new LMG fed by an RPD belt (suitably redesigned for the 6.5 Grendel cartridge case taper, of course).

It's also what I was thinking when I posted:
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...1#post6872

[stanc]

We are all aware of and share your concerns on this topic.

In the meantime, can we get off the stuck record?

That probably depends on whether or not we can get off the other stuck record. You know, the one that keeps repeating the old song about how a 6.5 Grendel LMG can give performance equal to that of a 7.62 MMG, even though there's no test data to prove it and there's no certainty that links can be developed for it.

If that record keeps being replayed, I can't guarantee mine won't also.

[JASmith]

...the one that keeps repeating the old song about how a 6.5 Grendel LMG can give performance equal to that of a 7.62 MMG, even though there's no test data to prove it and there's no certainty that links can be developed for it...

The most recent breath of fresh air is the observation by LRRPF52 that some East European countries might develop an interest in the cartridge. Let's help him pursue that notion and see where it takes us.

So, in that spirit, consider where our discussions seem to have stagnated:

in this business Good Enough frequently trumps Equal To or Better Than because the issues are extraordinarily complex, even before the political and social consequences are brought into play.

Others have told us that the link problem will almost certainly be solved once the resources are made available. Continuing to harp on that and the testing topics suggests that your audience has the wherewithal to demonstrate new link designs and to do the kinds of testing the government either conducts in-house or funds contractors to do.

We, even as a collective body, would be hard-pressed to define and execute unsolicited testing that would be viewed as credible, even if we could somehow get the funds from non-government sources.

Further, I recall an admonition from Bill Alexander that some of the testing advocated can easily be counterproductive. I have indicated in prior posts that my own experience validates Bill's concerns.

Warped has told us that building dies for making links will cost a lot. I know enough to accept his conclusion as credible.

Support for this design and testing will happen when (or if) the current mix is shown to be inadequate or that somehow the Grendel is vastly superior to the current mix. Alternatively, political pressures of the kind LRRPF52 may have uncovered may drive the interest in an alternative cartridge.

I am also guilty of repeating in multiple different times with several different choices of words that we are not attempting to equal the performance of the 7.62X51 in all categories for either the rifle and the machine gun.

So, let's get on with the discussion and address something new in the "Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge" theme.

[Tony Williams]

My take on the performance requirements is this:

1. Both US and UK armies officially see the 5.56mm as having adequate performance up to 400m.

2. Both US and UK armies see the 7.62mm M80 as providing adequate performance for the 400-800m range bracket (in rifles) and 1,000+m in GPMGs.

Therefore, to justify its existence any new round merely has to provide comparable hit probability and target effects to 7.62mm M80 over the 400-1,000m range bracket (while saving as much weight as possible), with superior barrier penetration and terminal effects than 5.56mm over 0-400m being a nice bonus.

The key concern of both armies where dismounted infantry is concerned is weight - so it's the lighter replacement for 7.62mm which is the main selling point, with the various other advantages of a single-calibre solution adding to the argument.

[stanc]

The most recent breath of fresh air is the observation by LRRPF52 that some East European countries might develop an interest in the cartridge. Let's help him pursue that notion and see where it takes us.

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...rendel-LMG

Others have told us that the link problem will almost certainly be solved once the resources are made available.

In the absence of evidence which supports that claim, I'm going to have to remain skeptical. However, I'll drop the question of disintegrating link design if we're going to concentrate on the notion of possible Eastern European use of 6.5 Grendel, since AFAIK (and I hope LRRPF52 will confirm) they utilize non-disintegrating links.

Continuing to harp on that and the testing topics suggests that your audience has the wherewithal to demonstrate new link designs and to do the kinds of testing the government either conducts in-house or funds contractors to do.

WARNING: Stuck Record Ahead. As I've said many times, in order to demonstrate relative performance of 6.5 Grendel and 7.62x51 (or in the case of E. Europe, 7.62x54R), we do NOT have to do testing to the same standards as the government employs.

Less formal testing can prove that 6.5 G is as capable as proponents have long asserted, or show that the reality doesn't live up to the theory.

We, even as a collective body, would be hard-pressed to define and execute unsolicited testing that would be viewed as credible, even if we could somehow get the funds from non-government sources.

Oh, baloney. Even if you wish to think we are too simpleminded to devise credible tests, FBI and military tests can be followed.

Further, I recall an admonition from Bill Alexander that some of the testing advocated can easily be counterproductive. I have indicated in prior posts that my own experience validates Bill's concerns.

Argh! That's an excuse to sit on our hands and do nothing, except more talk, talk, talk. Blah, blah, blah. We've been discussing these questions since 2005. If we follow what you and Bill want, we'll still be discussing them in 2025. It's time to stop talking and start testing.

[stanc]

Okay. What do we do? My suggestion: Buy an RPD and convert it to 6.5 Grendel, then put it up against a vz59 or PKM.

Although a more modest first step would be fiscally prudent: Buy an RPD belt and see how well (or poorly) 6.5 Grendel rounds fit in it.

A couple years ago I attempted to do this, but CA law prohibits possession of more than ten links, and I couldn't find anyone with an RPD belt who was willing to cut off a 10-link section.

[Variable]

Sorry in advance for OT, but Jaywalker just rang my bell.LOL

Speaking as a penetrator (in my B-52 role), I was delighted to have Short Range Attack Missiles and Air-Launched Cruise Missiles, both for mission capability and for cluttering up radar returns.

Arggh!!! Flashbacks!!!LOL. I didn't know there were SAC folk here. A BUFF driver? Ever come through Andersen? My first tour was 43rd Bombardment. SRAMs and big 'ole silver suppositories! LOL. I left SAC to TAC, but SAC taught me how to live for the rest of my life!!!

Peace is Our Profession...
Mwuuhahahahahaa!

[stanc]

...in 6.5 Grendel.

[video=youtube;dQiU_82HKpk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQiU_82HKpk[/video]

[stanc]

Arggh!!! Flashbacks!!!LOL. I didn't know there were SAC folk here.

SAC was my first PCS after learning B-52 repair at Shitnute.

I recall I was thrilled (if a bit puzzled) to be assigned to P-47s.

Then I got to Lincoln and discovered it was actually B-47s...

[Variable]

SAC was my first PCS after learning B-52 repair at Shitnute.

I recall I was thrilled (if a bit puzzled) to be assigned to P-47s.

Then I got to Lincoln and discovered it was actually B-47s...

You sound like me heading to Guam with a PACAF flash on my beret and then finding out only after I got there that I was actually in SAC. Talk about a shocker!:eek: Everyone at Lackland had been telling me how laid back PACAF was, and how easy I'd have it there. I stepped into the gauntlet without even having a clue!

B-47? Bwaaahahahaha! At least the "BUFF"s are still flying. Now I feel young again! Thanks!LOL

[Jaywalker]

I dropped BUFFs just as quickly as I could, figuring I'd rather guard a missile hole in North Dakota than set butt in another BUFF. I switched to the Air National guard and learned the reconnaissance F-4 world, the RF-4C as a WSO. At least B-47 flights were shorter so the pain was less...until you got to those planned one-way flights, I guess. Though, there were times I hoped the BUFF engines would flame out or even burn so we could land.

By the way, they did on occasion, and the single seat pilots got quite a charge when we declare an In-Flight Emergency with an inop engine - they called it the "Dreaded Seven Engine Approach!"

[Variable]

I dropped BUFFs just as quickly as I could, figuring I'd rather guard a missile hole in North Dakota than set butt in another BUFF. I switched to the Air National guard and learned the reconnaissance F-4 world, the RF-4C as a WSO. At least B-47 flights were shorter so the pain was less...until you got to those planned one-way flights, I guess. Though, there were times I hoped the BUFF engines would flame out or even burn so we could land.

By the way, they did on occasion, and the single seat pilots got quite a charge when we declare an In-Flight Emergency with an inop engine - they called it the "Dreaded Seven Engine Approach!"

Heh heh, I love the old BUFFs. I'll never forget the first elephant walk I saw. I rotated between alert sentry and the WSA, and they had an elephant walk while I was outside on a SRT patrol by the WSA. We watched the Alert BUFFs quick start, role out of the alert area to the hammerhead, and then TAKE OFF!!!!!.................. What we didn't know was that there were other non-alert BUFFs behind a slight rise we couldn't see at that end. THOSE were the ones that took off. The whole WSA and about half the base went apesh!# on that one. It was a real cool trick they played on everybody, and really made you think. We always wanted to be sentry on "the day", hoping you guys would take us along to have a rifle on board if you ever really went. At 18 I never thought to wonder how we'd get back down, but we figured it would have been a heck of a ride if they ever actually had.

I did get to ride on the CINCLANT bird at Langley. That was cool. Not near as exciting as a one way trip on a BUFF would have been though.:eek:

[JASmith]

...Not near as exciting as a one way trip on a BUFF would have been though.:eek:

After seeing all the SAR going on in Vietnam, I kind of wondered why the AF survival manuals stressed so many long term survival practices. Same for the survival rifles that went with the kits.

Took years for for me to finally realize that the world the crews were being prepared for was one where there would be few cities and staying alive would likely be a subsistence game lasting a lifetime...

[Variable]

Yep, atom tans for everybody!