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

[Sam Adams]

BigG

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.

That is truly doubtful. More correct would be that nothing has come along that is so technically superior that it would induce the Fed.gov to cough up the dollars necessary to replace the M16 family (including the M249). This inertia is exactly the thing that prevented the M1 Garand from using a .276 cartridge that Garand himself thought superior to the .30-06. Inertia is a bureaucratic specialty, as well as one of their imperitives - innovation means risk, and bureacraps are against that sort of thing (no matter what the opportunities involved).

Again, there's no need to scrap the M-16 as a whole - all of the lowers could be saved and used, and the mags could even be retrofitted (though it would probably be better to sell them to the public after 9/13/04 for enough money to replace them with new Grendel mags). There's no need to re-educate millions of soldiers, reservists and NG on a different weapons type, thereby saving on costs, because the Grendel (and the 6.8 SPC) were specifically designed to be retrofitted as uppers in order to save on money.

As far as the superiority of the M-16 family is concerned, I have questions about the combat effectiveness of a rifle that "****$ where it eats." We've been lucky to avoid conflicts in the past 40 years where the great mass of our front line soldiers don't have the chance to clean their rifles regularly - if we did, the malfunction rate would likely be higher. Volumes have been written on this subject by people that know this and other actions far better than I do, and you should look them up.

Anyhow, despite my desire for a change in caliber and my dissing of the current rifle, I do own a civilian version. I, however, wouldn't use it first if I faced combat - I have other rifles better suited for that purpose, which shoot larger cartridges and haven't ever had reliability problems.

 

[BigG]

I have questions about the combat effectiveness of a rifle that "****$ where it eats."

Sam, I suspect that this objection covers up that you just plain object to the M16 system, but what do I know?

I know the objection does not bother me after the thing has been in the inventory for forty years. At the time that objection was valid they were using recycled cannon powder and deacidifying it with calcium carbonate, to make Olin ball powder - a requirement of the shiny seaters at (guess where) the Pentagon. Those idiots could a wet dream.

 

[Gewehr98]

Ya know, that ain't a bad idea!

I'm sure EAA could import something...

Seeing that the AK family, based on the 7.62x39, would easily accept the 6.5 Grendel or 6.5 PPC, since they're so close in dimensions. A Valmet, R4, or Galil, using standard AK mags, firing the above rounds, would probably be an easy conversion. Hmmm....

 

[Sam Adams]

BigG

I don't just object to the M-16 system, as I think that my posts have made clear: I'm FOR replacing the upper with one that can handle a larger and more effective cartridge - that's keeping the same gas system. I also currently HAVE (and spent some fairly serious dollars for) a Bushie AR. The gun is, without any doubt, inherently accurate. But it isn't perfect.

Criticizing certain aspects of a rifle don't make it a bad rifle, it only suggests that there's room for improvement. Some of the improvement can be in the form of a more effective cartridge, and some of it requires a new rifle. BigG, we replaced the '03 Springfield, the legendary Garand and the M-14. These were all fine (or better) battle implements in their day, but technology passed them by and they were replaced. The M-16 won't be forever, either, not unless an asteroid destroys civilization or the Messiah comes and eliminates war. There are already superior products on the market but - as I said earlier - bureaucratic inertia has prevented any substantial change to date. You may be right that the rifle won't be replaced anytime soon, but that doesn't mean that such a decision would be the best for our troops.

I wish that you could try to understand that my advocacy of changing to the 6.5 Grendel (or even the 6.8 SPC) is actually an effort to see the basic M-16/AR-15 platform stay alive a bit longer. With such a change the rifle will be far more effective. Without it, the desire and pressure to scrap the whole platform will be greater.

 

[fix]

I think you guys are debating an issue that has already been decided. As far as I know, there is no plan to make the 6.8SPC general issue. It is a specialized cartridge designed for specialized applications. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but, with all due respect, I would ask you to qualify your statements with credentials that prove that you actually know what you're talking about.

 

[MrAcheson]

Inertia is a bureaucratic specialty, as well as one of their imperitives - innovation means risk, and bureacraps are against that sort of thing (no matter what the opportunities involved).

Spoken like someone who has never had to make these sorts of decisions. The issue here is not "innovation means risk." This issue is innovation means COST. If something is better and costs them nothing then a beaucrat will gladly switch to it. This is never the case however since nothing is ever free. So the question is "is this better enough to justify a change from what we have." You can bet some pencil pusher has done the math to see if it is.

I think the M16A1 with M193 was perfectly OK, but what do I know?

Yup, my thoughts exactly. Just accept that the 5.56 is never going to be a great penetrator and a great wounder at the same time. The physics don't work out. So use the one thats a good killer.

Personally I like what I read about 6.5 grendel and I hope it gets a fair try-out against 6.8 spc. Its too good of a round to succumb to "not invented here"-ism.

 

[TX65]

A few 6.5 Grendel clarifications regarding magazines.

The standard magazine available for sale right now is a 10 rounder in compliance with Federal Laws.

In the same length as a 5.56 NATO 20 round magazine, a 6.5 Grendel magazine can hold 18 rounds.

In the same length as a 5.56 NATO 30 round magazine, a 6.5 Grendel magazine can hold 25 rounds.

By making the magazine slightly longer then a 5.56 NATO 30 magazine, a 6.5 Grendel magazine can hold 28 rounds or 30 rounds depending on the amount length added.

The magazine body for the 6.5 Grendel is different then a 5.56 NATO magazine. 5.56 NATO magazines require vertical ribs to space the cartridges for proper double stacks. The 6.5 Grendel perfectly double stacks without the ribs.

Depending on legal developments this September, higher capacity magazine solutions for the civilian market are being considered.

Trivia - The parent case of the 6.5 Grendel is the 6mm PPC USA... Unless there is some obscure cartridge I am forgeting, the PPC is the only cartridge with "USA" in the name.

 

[Gewehr98]

Before anybody gets excited about converting AR-15/M16 mags to accept 6.5 Grendel...

Just a little reminder. Until the AWB sunsets later this September, a detachable magazine greater than 10 rounds capacity, when modified to work in a different rifle or different chambering, must be able to function in the original rifle it was intended for after the modifications. Somewhere in the TX65 posting history, he mentions that AR-15/M16 mags, as modified to feed the 6.5 Grendel, won't necessarily feed .223 Rem/5.56mm NATO rounds afterwards. Again, could be a moot point come this September.

 

[TX65]

Since the AR15 was made by Colt in 7.62x39 prior to the 1994 AWB, the best magazine to use would be a 7.62x39 magazine. As Geweher has said, if you tweak a magazine, it must continue to work in the rifle it was manufactuered for,,, in this case,,, the AR15.

The changing or unchanging legal environment in September will determine whether a complete high capacity magazine or conversion body is made available for sale. Price would be about the same for either.

 

[Zak Smith]

6.8SPC FAQ, see my .signature:

 

[wella]

it's not at all anemic with a good softpoint

and please dont give a load about the "genevy convention. The Geneva Protocols said exactly nothing about rifle bullets. the Hague convention did, after ww1, but we never signed it. The Geneva Accords only apply to "signatory nations" in "declared wars". We aint declared a war since 1941,l and we never will again. They can't enough Congress people to be that ignorant anymore. So it doesn't matter what sort of bullets we use against 3 rd worlders.

 

[Tony Williams]

It might not matter legally if the USA ignores the Hague Convention, but I doubt that the politicians would welcome the publicity - using bullets which have been banned as inhumane by all other nations?

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

[BigG]

Sam Adams: I am not against progress. What I am against is trying to take something perfectly good as it is and make it all things to all people.

Like I said, the M16 as originally designed for the 223 was adequate and far ahead of anything else at the time. The straight magazine well is a design flaw. That's why the 30 round mag is essentially two straight halves joined at an angle.

What I would like to see is a quantum leap in design, just as the M16 was in the late 50s. Make a rugged modular gun that weighs 7 lbs and fires a decent powered round and stop listening to people complaining about the recoil and the target shooters wanting sub moa accuracy and dainty sights. Remember controllable full auto is still a primary concern of the military, at least I believe it is so no 308s, etc.

Even an AK-pattern gun can be adapted to a multitude of cartridges. My Valmet could be chambered in 30/06 as far as the bolt travels. Also the ergonomic challenges of the typical AK type could be easily fixed by designers. What we need is new thinking not some bandaid fix like we keep trying to apply to the M16.

The 223 works its magic with HIGH VELOCITY. Give up that attribute and you have a truly weak-kneed weapon. The military has CASTRATED the M16 by modifying it. It is not such a bad solution as originally conceived and built.

 

[Newton]

Given a choice, I would be more than happy to carry a 5.56mm weapon, even the M16A2, but it would have to have the full length barrel.

I think a lot of the problem associated with this rifle/ammo combination can be laid at the door of competition shooters. You see enough of them post here, and you know the kind of thing:

"Woohoo, just shot a 0.48" group with Black Hills at 100 yards with my new Bushie"

"Try Hornady match, you should see your groups come down to 0.46""

The demands for greater stabilization and long range accuracy are not appropriate for a round that was designed to kill things.

An early report from Special Forces usage of the 5.56mm in Vietnam recounted a 3 shot burst fired at an approaching VC sapper, the first round severed his arm above the elbow and turned him sideways, the second blew a fist sized hole in his side, and the third removed most (if not all) of his head. This was with the original barrel length and the original round.

A hot loaded 55 grain round with a nice thin jacket fired out of a 20 inch barrel is a very effective combination. This would also satisfy my other priorities, which, in order of importance would be:

1. Being able to carry lots and lots of ammo.
2. Being able to carry lots and lots of ammo.
3. Being able to carry lots and lots of ammo.

There has also been some very promising results shown by using super heavy bullets in the 100 grain range out of the M4 carbines. Even though they lose even more velocity as a result of being so heavy, they fracture much more easily because of their length.

I hope we leave the 6.5 and 6.8 on the drawing board, if you want something heavier and more effective than 5.56mm just carry a 7.62mm, but don't come running to my foxhole when you run out of ammo.

Just my 2c


Newton

 

[MrAcheson]

We aint declared a war since 1941 and we never will again.

A congressional authorization of force is a declaration of war. It just doesn't say "we declare war." Not sure if this is true in international law, but it is very true in US law.

 

[wella]

u guys just dont want to face reality

Since ww2, the troops have always averaged MANY hundreds of shots fired for every hit that they get (and yes, I am talking about rifle rounds, not belt fed included). They THINK that they hit, when they didn't. They think that they got solid hits, when all they did was crease the guy. Vets can all tell you of cases where the 308, 3006, 8x57, 7.7 ball ammo failed, too, with solid chest hits. that's what ball ammo is good for, ya know. Wounding. If you want kills, mix softpoints in with the ball.

All the bitching in the world aint changing the facts of reality. The guys have to hump that rifle and ammo, and it accounts for less than 10% of the casulties. So lightwt, compactness, and low cost (of ammo, at least) are major factors. No, the M16 and 223 are not going to be surpassed, because the only thing that's significantly better, some sort of energy weapon, aint feaible, and never will be cheap enough to waste on cannon fodder. That's what infantry always was, and all will ever be.

 

[wella]

where you been, man? Wej're using

hp 223's in Afghanistan and Iraq, right NOW, and nobody gives a crap. Compared to napalm, mines, etc, what's a damned softpoint? Sheesh. At least it doesn't lay around maiming kids 20 years after the war is over, like mines, or create birth defects, like Agent Orange and depleted uranium.

 

[Tony Williams]

An early report from Special Forces usage of the 5.56mm in Vietnam recounted a 3 shot burst fired at an approaching VC sapper, the first round severed his arm above the elbow and turned him sideways, the second blew a fist sized hole in his side, and the third removed most (if not all) of his head. This was with the original barrel length and the original round.

This was reported when Colt was trying hard to market the gun. Official tests were subsequently carried out in the USA, which completely failed to replicate anything like these effects. Draw your own conclusions.

hp 223's in Afghanistan and Iraq, right NOW, and nobody gives a crap.

The JAG has considered these bullets and has determined that as they are not designed to expand - and will not usually do so - they are legal. The 'hollow-point' is very small and simply results from wrapping the jacket around the base in the interests of greater accuracy.

Since ww2, the troops have always averaged MANY hundreds of shots fired for every hit that they get (and yes, I am talking about rifle rounds, not belt fed included). They THINK that they hit, when they didn't.

True. But in the reported case I mentioned, the Iraqi was examined after he was (eventually) killed with a .45, and was found to have suffered seven solid body hits with 5.56mm.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

[MrAcheson]

But in the reported case I mentioned, the Iraqi was examined after he was (eventually) killed with a .45, and was found to have suffered seven solid body hits with 5.56mm.

Yes because those 7 body hits didn't contribute to his demise, it was the single big bore .45 that did it...

 

[Sam Adams]

Can everyone please chill out a little bit?

Look, let's all settle the debate about 5.56 mm in the following way: It is NEITHER:

1) The master of all rounds, able to fell a charging rhino by grazing its left ear; nor

2) The most ineffective round ever devised, not able to kill even a baby cat at point blank range with a shot directly to the temple.

The fact is that it is a small caliber round, firing a bullet that's fairly low in weight (compared to military bullets from any time before Viet Nam) at fairly high velocities (again, compared to the older rounds). Sometimes this produces good effects (for the shooter, that is) , though usually at fairly short ranges where the extra velocity helps. Some of this effect is due to the light construction of the bullet, which causes it to fragment fairly easily (esp. at those higher velocities). On the other hand, sometimes the high velocity simply drives a .224 cal. hole through the meaty part of someone's body without hitting a major blood vessel, and thus produces no disabling wound. Sometimes the round hits a bone or vital area, but without enough energy to disable/kill the enemy. In short, sometimes it is effective, sometimes it isn't - just like every other round ever used in warfare. All rounds, this one being no exception, involve some compromises.

The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the reduced weight of the round (and, therefore, reduced effectiveness ON AVERAGE) is a good trade-off for the larger number of rounds per pound of pack load. If it is a good trade-off, is it the BEST one? I and others have suggested that that traditional (and half beaten-to-death) 5.56 vs. 7.62/.30-06 debate can be settled by more or less splitting the difference, as in a round in the mid-6 mm range (and, in our current discussion, this means either the 6.5 Grendel or the 6.8 SPC). Either of these rounds offers more hitting power than the 5.56, while allowing a soldier to carry more rounds than the .30 cal. class of rounds. Several of the heavier bullets fired by the 6.5 Grendel, in particular, have the added benefit of a very high BC, which aids accuracy at long ranges, thereby allowing some higher probability of disabling hits out beyond the effective range of the M16 (to say nothing of the effective range of the shorter-barreled M-4).

That's it: there's no need for any of us to get overly emotional or to get personal (and I'm NOT accusing anyone of that - but some here are getting close, and I'd like us to take "The High Road"). This is a simple question of mathematics and the science of ballistics...that, and a judgement call about whether more rounds of a less effective caliber is better in the present era of conflict (with all that this implies) than the opposite.

 

[JShirley]

Vewwy, vewwy, twue. Thanks.

Also close to my own feelings. Yes, I know most enemy KIA are not due to our rifle fire, but I'd like to be able to carry more rounds for less weight penalty. (When you consider, that in light units, even 11B rifle guys may also have to carry a round or three of mortar "tootsy rolls", you can see how lighter rifle rounds= good.)

Still, if a considerably more able round can be found with minimal size, weight, and recoil addition, this just makes good sense. It makes even more sense if we can use this single round to replace two rounds currently in service.

John

 

[Sam Adams]

Still, if a considerably more able round can be found with minimal size, weight, and recoil addition, this just makes good sense. It makes even more sense if we can use this single round to replace two rounds currently in service.

Thank you - I do believe that this single paragraph sums up the whole reason why there is even a debate.

 

[Grendelizer]

I feel a little foolish because I don't have much new to add, I only want to say amen to:

Sam Adams for: "The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the reduced weight of the round (and, therefore, reduced effectiveness ON AVERAGE) is a good trade-off for the larger number of rounds per pound of pack load."

The ONE THING I can say in defense of the 5.56 is the testimony of a Marine who personally told me that being able to carry more rounds saved their lives and prevented them from being overrun in some battle in the Vietnam hill country fights. (He also bitterly complained about the deaths caused by the defective M16 at the time, so go figure.)

And to JShirley for: "Still, if a considerably more able round can be found with minimal size, weight, and recoil addition, this just makes good sense. It makes even more sense if we can use this single round to replace two rounds currently in service."

All I can say to both you gentlemen is: Well-analyzed, well-reasoned, and well-put.

I suppose I could add that if the 6.5 Grendel replaced both the 5.56 and 7.62, it would be interesting to see the total net ammo weight gain or loss for the whole squad or platoon per the same number of rounds.

TX65, I could have sworn you posted somewhere the per round weight of the Grendel, let's say the 123gr cartridge. And does anybody have figures on the per round weights of the 5.56 and 7.62? And, of course, how many rounds is a basic load for each? Then we can make the calculations.

John

 

[JShirley]

Typical infantry load is 210 rounds loaded in mags.

 

[Tony Williams]

Yes because those 7 body hits didn't contribute to his demise, it was the single big bore .45 that did it...

I think that you rather missed the point. It wasn't what eventually killed him that mattered - no-one has ever questioned that the 5.56mm can kill people (why should it not? The .22LR has killed tens of thousands). The issue is the probability of quickly disabling the enemy. That particular Iraqi sustained seven body hits AND THEN carried on fighting, killing two US soldiers, before he was finally stopped by a .45. I don't doubt he would eventually have succumbed to his 5.56mm wounds anyway, but he was taking far too long about it.

I agree entirely with Sam and John - they sum up the issues very well.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum