6.5/6.8 in the military-outcome of .223?

[N3rday]

If either 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC replace .223 as the standard in our military, do you think the majority of AR-15s will still be .223, or will the prices of the new round drop drastically because of the military use/high demand and put that new round ahead of .223?
Just wondering. I know the .223 will still be there simply because of its low recoil and flat ballistics, but I was just wondering what kind of impact the Grendel/SPC would have on the civilian market.

 

[Grendelizer]

I've thought about that. We all want cheap ammo. How long after the 5.56 was adopted did it take for prices to go down for civilians on the .223, and how long after that for really CHEEP surplus ammo to hit the market? If the military adopted a new round today, and assuming NATO also adopted it, wouldn't it still take a number of years (20?) before civilians see really cheap surplus ammo?

John

 

[DMK]

It's pure supply and demand.

Supply: If the DOD starts buying rifles in one of the new rounds in large numbers, there will be a lot of the rounds made. That will bring manufacturing costs down. We may also see some surplus from rounds that don't quite meet milspec, but are fine to shoot so get sold on the civilian market (like XM193 5.56).

Demand: Folks will start seeing the military rifles and hearing about their performance. Iwannacoolguntoo will kick in. Since lots of folks want rifles like the ones the big boys play with that will mean a lot more rifles in the same caliber will be sold.

Also, the nice thing about ARs is their modularity. Current 5.56 caliber ARs can be converted to the new calibers by just swapping uppers. Since current AR owners won't have to lay out as much cash or arrange for FFL transfers, they may be more likely to buy into the new caliber.

IMO, the major thing holding these calibers up is functional magazines. Once the issues are straightened out and high capacity mags become availble, sales will be brisk.

 

[MrAcheson]

Maybe, 5.56/.223 may still have some advantages for certain things though. For instance some gun games may be better with a .223 since it is less recoilful.

 

[BigG]

And why would the US consider switching calibers after it finally got most of the free world to use 5.56? Or is this just a "what if?" thread? Thanks!

 

[Tony Williams]

And why would the US consider switching calibers after it finally got most of the free world to use 5.56?

Why not? After all, they adopted the 5.56mm only a few years after forcing all of NATO (much of which was very unwilling) to adopt the 7.62x51...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

[Sam Adams]

And why would the US consider switching calibers after it finally got most of the free world to use 5.56?

Maybe because it is a terribly anemic round. There are many reports of our soldiers in Jihadistan having to punch secondary and tertiary (or more) holes in the enemy in order to get them to stay down. This is not acceptable - and since 7.62 or .30-06 is considered to be too heavy, there are a great many people looking into a viable alternative that weighs less than the prior cartridges and hits harder than the 5.56. See http://www.65grendel.com/ for some information on the 6.5mm Grendel round and
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77366 for a good thread on the subject of the 6.5 Grendel vs. the 6.8 SPC.

 

[BigG]

Anemic 5.56 round

Oh, I see. It's a wishful "what if" thread.

 

[Sam Adams]

Oh, I see. It's a wishful "what if" thread.

I didn't start the thread, but I wouldn't characterize it that way. Do some reading, starting with the THR thread that I referenced - there's a lot of good information there, and many good links. The 6.8 SPC is being tested by many of our SF troops, and the 6.5 Grendel is going to be demonstrated next month in front of some of our military who have serious input into the small arms decision-making process. These rounds are being discussed (along with others and modifications to the 5.56 like using heavier bullets) because of problems with the current 5.56 being used in the short-barreled M-4. The "claim to fame" of the 5.56 compared to the .308/7.62 was higher velocity and the extra wounding capabilities of the round (i.e. hydrostatic shock and tumbling) that resulted from the lighter bullet/extra velocity. Chopping the barrel by 4" cut the velocity, thereby eliminating a lot of the "advantage" (if it really existed). Penetrating power is far reduced in the 5.56, and would be substantially enhanced in the long & narrow 6.5 mm bullets that the Grendel would use. Both it and the 6.8 would have substantially higher energy at ALL ranges vs. the 5.56.

Again, having to shoot your opponent 2, 3, 4 or more times to drop him is very disconcerting, to say nothing of dangerous. The richest and most technologically-advanced nation on the planet ought to be able to provide its soldiers with 1st round knockdown power, even if that means dropping a round that we have vast stockpiles of, and the matter IS being considered. Damn, we made that mistake in the '30's when MacArthur made Garand change what became the M-1 from a superior .276 cal. round to the .30-06, simply because we had vast stocks of .30-06 and he didn't want to waste them. Oh, BTW, the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC are .264 cal. and .277 cal., respectively. Physics doesn't change, nor the construction of the human body. What would have been very effective 70 years ago will still be effective.

 

[Onslaught]

Again, having to shoot your opponent 2, 3, 4 or more times to drop him is very disconcerting, to say nothing of dangerous.

Come on now... have you not read the OTHER posts both here and on AR15.com from soldiers returning from "over there" who've said that these same people get shot multiple times with the 7.62 NATO and still shoot back. The stories are probably quite true about the 5.56, but just as true about the 7.62, the .50, etc.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for a bigger round, but to say that the multiple hit issue is limited to the poodle shooter is not true. If it happens with the 7.62, then the same thing will most certainly happen with the 6.8, 6.5, or whatever.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Doesn't that make you wonder about the 2.7mm round for the FN-P90? Is it really everything it is touted to be or have we allowed clevering marketing to dupe us.

 

[Warbow]

4v50 Gary said:

Doesn't that make you wonder about the 2.7mm round for the FN-P90? Is it really everything it is touted to be or have we allowed clevering marketing to dupe us.

That'd be 5.7(x28)mm.

 

[N3rday]

Isn't 5.7 armor piercing though? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[artherd]

Maybe because it is a terribly anemic round.

 

[Grendelizer]

Sam Adams speaks truly when he says: "Physics doesn't change, nor the construction of the human body. What would have been very effective 70 years ago will still be effective."

We should always keep this in mind when analyzing any cartridge.

And Onslaught reminds us of a truth: "Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for a bigger round, but to say that the multiple hit issue is limited to the poodle shooter is not true. If it happens with the 7.62, then the same thing will most certainly happen with the 6.8, 6.5, or whatever."

I mentioned elsewhere that a G.I. on Guadalcanal complained he had to shoot a Banzai-charging Jap with six rounds of .30-06 from his M1 to drop him.

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF ADRENALINE!

And we know from hunting that even if the heart is destroyed, it can take a while for the oxygen to "drain" from the system via blood loss and a "dead" animal can run quite a ways in a few seconds. Likewise, a mortally wounded enemy, a "dead man walking" can still squeeze off quite a few rounds before he drops, whether his heart was destroyed by a 5.56 or .50 cal.

So, in one sense, a 6.5 bullet is a 6.5 bullet. It's not suddenly magic because it's put into a military round. It's effects are well-understood from the hunting fields. But if terminal effects are somewhat unpredictable because human reactions to being shot are unpredictable, there are some things we can predict.

We can predict ballistics and trajectories, which help in actually hitting the target. We can predict penetration potential, based on physics. And finally, all else being equal, a bigger bullet will create more permanent damage, leading to greater blood loss and quicker death.

Even if there's anecdotal evidence that bullet size can't always predict incapacitation, I'm sure that if you studied it statistically, the .50 cal, over the long haul, leads to faster incapacitation than the 5.56.

Conclusion? For shoulder arms, get the biggest bullet that has no more recoil than the average recruit can handle. Get the biggest bullet that has the trajectory you desire. Get the biggest bullet that meets your penetration specifications. Get the biggest bullet that fits in the most compact package to get your best ammo load weight and weapon size.

Cartridge design is always an exercise in compromises, but my theory is always get the biggest bullet you can, within your design constraints. It's not going to guarantee 100% one-shot kills, but the odds will be in your favor.

John

 

[BigG]

Physics don't change. So true. If a bigger bullet is wanted for the M16 series, why not go with the proven russian 7.62x39? All this talk about interim sized bullets is a lot of horsehockey given the design constraints of the AR15 with its magazine well, etc. It's like trying to compare Babe Ruth's record with Barry Bonds, strictly academic hot stove jaw jacking.

 

[Sam Adams]

Onslaught and Artherd

Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for a bigger round, but to say that the multiple hit issue is limited to the poodle shooter is not true. If it happens with the 7.62, then the same thing will most certainly happen with the 6.8, 6.5, or whatever.

I'm sure that every small arms caliber, up to and including .50, has had cases of needing multiple hits to put an enemy down...but I'd bet that the numbers are far higher as the caliber goes down. There's no such thing as a magic bullet that will ensure 1-shot kills every time. You are always dealing with the law of averages, and the inevitable conflict between the point of view that says you want to carry the most effective round possible vs. the view that says that you want to carry the most rounds possible of a less effective round. There are, of course, many other factors involved. However, all things considered, if I were in the front lines I'd rather have 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC than any 5.56mm round. As to 6.5 vs. 6.8, it seems that the 6.5 holds its own under 300 yards and outshines at longer ranges.

Artherd - your comment is, to say the least, not very informative. Obviously, you disagree with me, which is certainly your right. However, if I had to choose which round to be shot with between 5.56 mm and either the 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC, I'd be less upset (though still majorly so) about the 5.56 mm. No one wants to get shot with ANY round, even a .22 Short from a Derringer fired 100 yards away...but again this is about the law of averages. The 5.56 mm, esp. when fired from the short-barreled M-4, is a fairly anemic cartridge when compared to either of the other 2 discussed, let alone the 7.62 mm/.308 class. Shooting a heavier bullet with a larger diameter at slightly reduced velocities vs. a cartridge with the opposite characteristics will result in a higher percentage of 1-hit stops (whether they be KIAs or those incapacitated beyond the ability to fight any longer). The vast majority of studies back my view.

 

[BigG]

The 5.56 mm, esp. when fired from the short-barreled M-4, is a fairly anemic cartridge...

A classic example of fixing something until it's broke, imho. First they fattened up the rifle, then they "fixed" the ammo and sped up the twist, then they fattened up the rifle more, then the chopped the barrel length. I think the M16A1 with M193 was perfectly OK, but what do I know?

 

[JShirley]

I don't know, but I'm surprised at you.

I know you know that the 7.62x39mm may start out with a bit more energy, but that it sheds energy much faster than 5.56x45mm, and consequently, has much more limited effective range.

John

 

[BigG]

JShirley: Give all the dissatisfaction with .223 from some posters I think 7.62x39 is as good as anyother thing based on a scaled up 223 to some other caliber. The M16 has a small mag well and won't hold big ctgs. Surely a good 30 caliber bullet could be loaded in the 7.62X39 to give it a bit more range. Makes as much sense to me. YMMV

 

[JShirley]

If we can produce both a better round (more power and range, very small increase in size, weight, and recoil) and a better rifle system, it seems to make sense, to me.

Sticking with the M16 family when one could go with a better design seems pretty silly, especially on a national level.

John

 

[Sam Adams]

BigG

The OAL of the 6.5 Grendel is exactly the same as the 5.56mm cartridge fired in the M16/AR15 series. This was done purposely so that the round could be used with existing lowers. Check out http://www.65grendel.com/ for more facts. As for the mags, you can either use the 10-rounders being sold by Alexander Arms, modify an existing 20-rounder to hold 18 or modify a 30-rounder to hold 25. I believe that the modifications involve a slight widening of the mag body, but not to the extent that they wouldn't fit in any M16/AR15 mag well. Hopefully, if the AWB expires in September, new 6.5 Grendel mags in normal capacities will be available.

BTW, I am NOT in any way connected with Alexander Arms, nor do I or will I benefit in any way from the sale of any product related to the 6.5 Grendel. I post this because I like the ballistics, and I'd like to see our soldiers armed with ammo that shoots heavier and fatter bullets with better long-range accuracy. It also wouldn't be a bad thing for the cost of the uppers and associated equipment if the armed forces adopted this cartridge - many more manufacturers would get involved (under license, of course), and prices would drop to much more reasonable levels.

 

[BigG]

Samuel Adams: I like your beer!

Now about the M16 and reconfiguring to another caliber: Your view is noted and I say more power to you. Imho, the M16 was designed around the 222 Special which became known as the 223/5.56mm. Rather than futz around with upscaling the gun. This has already been done. In fact it preceded the AR15--tge AR10 -- However, the world was not ready for that weapon which is basically a larger AR15 chambered in 7.62 NATO. Ooh it kicks too hard and weighs too much seem to be the complaints.

I think we are stuck with the M16 for a good while but I could be wrong. I would prefer somebody coming up with something tailored to fit the suitable round (whatever that is) rather than cutting and pasting the M16 to fit the new round but that's just me. Personally, if I were king, I would revert to a M16A1 with the 55 gr 1:12: twist and damn the complaints we are not trying to please a bunch of prima donnas - or are we?

In summing up, there is no magick sword or bullet. It takes a soldier to put the killing shot in place. Even artillery leaves some survivors but it hits a lot harder than small arms.

Something said about the US form of govt could also be applied to the M16: It's the worst imaginable - except for all the others. In other words, nothing has come since the M16A1 that has been technically superior. Sorry, but that's the juice.

 

[JShirley]

I'm sure EAA could import something...

 

[BigG]

I'm sure EAA could import something...

Yes, and maybe they could import a libertarian presidential candidate. Meanwhile, I aint holding my breath.