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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not enough time to do a thorough analysis and response, but here's a very detailed article which argues against the 5.56 and in favor of the 7.62, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htm ,which was interesting in and of itself, but I mention it here only because it's where I found the weights of the individual cartridges:

M855 with 62gr bullet weighs 182 grains
M80 with 147gr bullet weighs 386 grains

And 6.5 Grendel with 123gr bullet weighs ____ grains? [TX65! Please help!]

So a basic load of 5.56 totals 210 rounds at 186 grains each giving 38,220 grains. Divide that by 7000 (1 pound = 7000 grains) to give 5.46 pounds.

A basic load of 7.62 totals 210 rounds at 386 grains each giving 81,060 grains. Divide that by 7000 to give 11.58 pounds.

What I don't know is how the M240 MGs are assigned, versus the M16s and M249 SAWs. Certainly not one per squad. Who's up on current military organization, so we can get the total number of both 5.56 and 7.62 rounds in a given unit (squad? platoon? company?) which could theoretically be replaced by the 6.5 Grendel?

More analysis to come when we get 6.5 Grendel and weapons mix info.

John
 
6.5 Grendel with 123 Lapua Bullet = 265 Grains

6.5 Grendel 123 is 31.35% lighter then 7.62 NATO with 147 Grain Bullet
6.5 Grendel 144 is 26% lighter then 7.62 NATO with 147 Grain Bullet
 
All I can say is wow. I have spent the last 4 days on AR15.com to prepare for my first rifle build (actually, my first rifle PERIOD), and lo and behold this thread is still here. Must have asked the right question, eh?:D
 
Nasty can of worms, regarding JAG.

I want to know if we have feild-tested soft points, and if we havent, why? If they work, can we tell JAG that we WILL be using these?
Click to expand...

Private contractors and consultants have indeed tried out expanding ammo over there. There's some info online about a butt-shot Iraqi whose entire abdominal cavity was cleaned out by a new type of round. But he wasn't shot by a GI troop. It took a good bit of legal wrangling just to get M118 sniper ammo approved when loaded with Sierra's 168gr Hollow Point Boat Tail Match bullet.

SOCOM JAG has apparently approved the Winchester 230gr SXT round for use in their .45 ACP HK Mk23 pistols.

More here:

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html
 
Tag for self search.

I've been doing some research on this issue lately. Any other good links or sources of info would be appreciated.
 
Unless the plastic-cased stuff was much cheaper than brass-cased (similar to aluminum), then I'd personally prefer brass so that I could reload. Not only is reloading cheaper, but accuracy is improved.

Of course, if adopted by the military and it wants plastic, then that's what we'll get. I know that brass is and will continue to be available, but I'd prefer greater availability for brass, which will make things cheaper.

Also, plastic cases will make ANY round lighter, so any comparisons of plastic-cased Grendel ammo vs. brass-cased anything else wouldn't exactly be fair.
 
Shooters love to discuss ballistics and love to buy the newest design. It seems like very month, the gun magazines are touting the latest greatest cartridge. And, on paper they can justify their design as being revoluntionary. But most experienced riflemen realized long ago that in the field, the difference between these various cartridges doesn't amount to much, if anything. A good example would be the .300 Magnums. We have the .300 Winchester Magnum, the .300 Weatherby Magnum, the .300 H&H Magnum, the .300 Remington Ultra Magnum, the .300 Winchester Short Magnum................................... The question is, does any of these cartridges actually provide something that a shooter or hunter will benefit from ? Will a big game animal know the difference if shot with one cartridge or the other ? If one shoots flatter than another, is the shooter good enough to know the difference ? Or, are these cartriges designed primiarily just to sell another rifle ?
Along the same line, most of us have hunted at one time or another. We have seen game animals that didn't drop in their tracks from perfectly placed shots, and some have unfortunately seen that even with a large bore rifle shot placement is the key to achieving a quick kill. Even if we are using the lastest super cartridge, you still have to hit the animal in the vitals to achieve a quick kill. Just getting lead into the target isn't enough.
Over the years this has also been proven many, many times in military engagements. No cartridge has proven itself to guarentee 100%, one shot stops. During the two world wars, many people survived hits with rifles that are far bigger than what we are currently talking about: 8mm Mauser, 7.62x54R, 7.7 Jap, .30-06, .303 British..............
This brings us to our current discussion.
I have a hard time believing that by increasing bullet diamenter by a tiny fraction of an inch, and increasing bullet weight slightly, that we will now have a rifle that will make a huge difference in it's efffect on the enemy. Logic tells me this won't be the case. Even if the new cartridge is more effective, it will still require solid shots to the targets vitals to kill. It won't ensure one shot stops.
Personally, I see this as a waste of time.
 
444

You are correct that there is no guarantee that any particular shot will down a target, be it an animal or a human enemy. What we are dealing with is averages, especially regarding a military round. While the difference between the various .300 magnums may be reasonably small, the difference between something in the mid- or high- 6mm range on the one hand, and the 5.56 mm round on the other, are far from small. You are dealing with roughly a 20% increase in diameter, and also a rough doubling of the weight of the bullet that impacts the target. Any study of the effects of wound ballistics will show that either of these factors singly, let alone together, will have a significant impact on lethality or on the probability of a one-shot stop. Since we are dealing with averages, even a few percent increase will save hundreds or thousands of our soldiers over the years - hardly a slight difference, especially for those concerned.

As I and others have stated, there IS a balance between the average effectiveness of a round and issues of weight and recoil - otherwise we'd issue .50 cal. guns to everyone. While others may legitimately differ with me, I believe that either the 6.5 Grendel or the 6.8 SPC will be a substantial improvement over the 5.56mm cartridge that we use now, and that the improvement warrants the increase in weight and the marginally higher recoil. I personally favor the 6.5 Grendel, as the higher BC of its bullets offers better accuracy at longer ranges, but I'd be happier if the military switched to the 6.8 SPC vs. doing nothing.
 
I know the comparison isn't necessarily the best, but if a round is considered too "light" for deer hunting (which the .223 is), then its too "light" main military battle rifle IMHO. As mentioned before, just a slight up-grade provides a cartridge that would meet the "deer round" test. .223 can work, but a slightly more potent round is needed.
 
Sam, I guess we will just have to wait and see. To me, the difference between the two cartridges is just too little to make me believe that we will see some kind of dramatic difference. Yes the bullet is bigger in diameter (less than 1mm), and yes the bullet is heavier. But not by much.

"...if a round is considered too "light" for deer hunting (which the .223 is)... Considered by whom ?
Two good friends of mine are avid hunters. One has taken several antelope with the .223 Remington out of a T/C Encore. The other one has taken a number of mule deer with the .223 Remington in a bolt action Ruger. All were killed with a single shot. Both own many other rifles. I know the one that uses the Encore has rifles in .338 Win Mag and .45/70. But both prefer to use the .223, and it works for them. But, they KNOW they can make the hits, and they don't take wild shots.
Again, it all comes down to getting good hits into the vitals. The 5.56 Nato round is perfectly adequte with good hits. Nothing is adequate with periferal hits or misses.
So, the whole thing boils down to getting a cartridge that will stop someone with a bad hit (since the 5.56 will/has/does stop someone with a good hit). I don't think the 6.5 gives you the additonal oomp needed to stop people with bad hits.
 
A key point which seems to have been overlooked in recent posts is that the US Special Operations Command, whose soldiers surely have more experience in shooting people with the 5.56mm than anyone else, has been so dissatisfied with its performance that they sponsored the development of the 6.8x43 SPC, and according to some reports are enthusiastic about the improved performance which it provides. They are hardly 'internet commandos'!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
 
But they are presumably bright enough to recognise when the bad guys keep failing to fall over when shot, and to want to do something about that.

Your figures on casualties relate to hot wars when everything is let rip wthout restraint - SOCOM actions tend to be more of a small-arms affair. Come to that, the same can be said about Iraq now (Fallujah excepted...).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
 
Some recent naysayers are overlooking the fact that a combat cartridge, as opposed to one that seems "good enough" for hunting, needs to penetrate cover that the enemy is hiding behind: trees, bricks, cars, body armor, etc. A better military cartridge gives better penetration in the same AR package.

Also, a better military cartridge has better ballistics which reduce aiming errors on point targets and dispersion of LMG fire on area targets.

I understand that the differences in any small arms cartridge, relative to the size of a human or animal target, are slight. But the differences, relative to competing cartridges, are real and significant. If my job is to wring out the best performance from a stock car, and if simply swapping in a new, more powerful engine will give me the edge over the competition and enable me to win the race, then it makes sense to do it.

John

P.S. And please don't say our infantry is just cannon fodder, and that since they're going to be wasted anyway, they can put up with an inferior weapon, as long as it makes a loud noise. Infantry effectiveness is based on confidence; confidence in your cause, your leaders, your training, your buddies, your weapons. Try this extreme experiment to make a point: Issue troops with bows and arrows, and see how aggressive they are.

Our troops deserve every edge we can reasonably give them, and it will boost their confidence and effectiveness.
 
Last edited:
But they are presumably bright enough to recognise when the bad guys keep failing to fall over when shot, and to want to do something about that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they should learn how to make effective shots, instead of searching for a magic silver bullet that will drop a guy dead after it hits his big toe.

.223 or .270 Short, they're both not even .308, which has had it's share of failures to stop as well.

While I aplaud the idea of giving our boys in the field a tangibly supior advantage over those trying to kill them, I have to question wether the 6.8SPC is actually that, tangibly supior in all aspects, and supior enough to warrant introduction.

I refuse to blindly belive it is so, especially on the word of internet ballistics jockeys claiming the data that would support their claims is 'restricted to manufactuars' or 'propritary'.


Show me it's really 133% more effective, at only 10% of a weight penalty, and I'll stand up and take notice.

But if it's 2% more effective, and 80% of a weight penalty, then just give me more Mk 262 Mod 1.

If my job is to wring out the best performance from a stock car, and if simply swapping in a new, more powerful engine will give me the edge over the competition and enable me to win the race, then it makes sense to do it.
Click to expand...

Grendcelizer- to continue your metaphor, I would have to see timing data first that said the car was really power-limited. Putting a heavier 800hp big-block into a '69 Mustang with bias-plys and no LSD isn't going to make it lap Sears Point (a tight course) any faster.

It might make it slower.
 
Artherd wrote: "I would have to see timing data first."

Artherd, your point about wanting solid, repeatable, scientific data is well taken. I think we all want to base our opinions on the truth, and not on hype that can't be independently verified. Of course, not all of us have extensive testing facilities at our disposal, so at some point we're going to have to take someone's word for it. If everyone had to reinvent the wheel for himself, not only would civilization be lonely, but we'd still be in caves.

I realize marketers tend to enhance the facts. For example, it'll be interesting to see if handloaders can get the same velocities in the 6.8 SPC as advertized for factory loads, without dangerously high pressures.

We make our decisions and form our opinions on the best available data at the time, and most of us are open to change if new facts indicate otherwise. Some of us believe our opinions should be chiseled in rock and passed down to the rest of the world on stone tablets!

As you know, I'm "very interested" in the 6.5 Grendel from everything I've learned so far, but even I am waiting for more and more independent verification of the data. Then I might actually get excited about it. ;-^)

John
 
Perhaps they should learn how to make effective shots, instead of searching for a magic silver bullet that will drop a guy dead after it hits his big toe.
Click to expand...

Two Green Berets died in Iraq after being shot by an Iraqi who had already received seven solid body hits from 5.56mm Mk 262 rounds at a range of about 25 yards. The survivors counted the holes after he had been finished off with a .45. I'm sure they would have some appropriate response to your comment...

Of course there is no such thing as a magic bullet - even a .50 BMG won't necessarily drop everyone everytime. But if you were given a choice of two similar rifles, one which would drop the enemy with a well-placed shot 50% of the time and one only 30%, which would you prefer to trust your life to? Not incidentally, the difference between those figures represents the approximate difference in energy delivered to the target by the 6.8mm and the 5.56mm respectively.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
 
"....needs to penetrate cover that the enemy is hiding behind: trees, bricks, cars, body armor, etc. A better military cartridge gives better penetration in the same AR package."

And you think that by going from a 5.56mm to a 6.5mm or 6.8 mm we are going to be getting that kind of penetration ?

"Not incidentally, the difference between those figures represents the approximate difference in energy delivered to the target by the 6.8mm and the 5.56mm respectively."
The so called "energy delivered to the target" has no correlation to the percentage of the enemy that are going to drop from a single shot. If there was indeed a person who withstood 7 body shots from a 5.56 at less than 25 yards and continued on about his business, I submit that he would have done the same thing no matter what weapon you were using. It was one of these anomalies that will be repeated for many years to come similar to the many stories we have of Japanese solidiers soaking up .30-06 ammo during the second world war. I have seen persons shot with 5.56mm at ranges closer than 25 yards.It isn't pretty. I will agree that at ranges outside 200 meters, the 5.56 really starts to become anemic, but inside 25 yards, it is as good as anything.
 
Zak Smith posted on AR15.com his handloading work with the 6.8 SPC using the Hornady 110 grain VMAX in a 18 inch barrel MSTN upper.

""Velocities were less than the Remington preprod ammo, but pressure was also much less, judged by soot on the fired cases and primer condition. Couldn't fit enough VVN135 into the case to break 2500fps, but it was accurate. 2230 has more room, and I didn't get to max.""
 
Two Green Berets died in Iraq after being shot by an Iraqi who had already received seven solid body hits from 5.56mm Mk 262 rounds at a range of about 25 yards. The survivors counted the holes after he had been finished off with a .45. I'm sure they would have some appropriate response to your comment...
Click to expand...

Tony- While I mean no dishonor to those fine men, read "Marine Sniper" for Carlos Hathcock's account of a Fialure To Stop with something like 14 rounds of mixed .308 and .30-06. The guy was able to run several HUNDRED hards, finally droping to shot 15 or 16 or so.

But if you were given a choice of two similar rifles, one which would drop the enemy with a well-placed shot 50% of the time and one only 30%, which would you prefer to trust your life to?
Click to expand...

The only shot that is going to 'drop' a man instantly is a CNS (head/spine) shot. Any rifle bigger than .22LR will achive this penetration with very high reliability, IF one man make the shot (2" or so area for spinal cord.)

You really think 6.8 is going to be nearly twice as lethal as .223? I HIGHLY doubt that.

I would much rather see the adoption of controled-expansion (JHP/SP) ~70grain .223 rounds, than the whole change to a new caliber, for instance.


Grendelizer- They're both intresting rounds to be sure, esp the 6.5Grendel with the super-accurate high-BC bullets. I support your inquisitive attitude, and hopefully we'll see some exciting data soon :)
 
Other things being equal, and leaving aside CNS shots, the effectiveness of a military rifle bullet depends on the size of the wounds inflicted. The size of the wounds depends on three factors:

1. Bullet size and weight.

2. Bullet striking velocity.

3. Bullet design: how fast does it tumble, and does it fragment?

The 6.8mm has a bullet which weighs 50% more than the 77 grain Mk 262, and has 50% more frontal area. It also has 75% of the weight of a 7.62mm, and 80% of the frontal area.

The striking velocity of all three bullets would be fairly similar.

The Mk 262 and the 6.8mm normally tumble quickly and fragment out to all normal rifle distances. The 7.62mm tumbles slowly and doesn't fragment at all (unless you get the German ammo).

So to sum up, the damage inflicted by the 6.8mm is likely to be very close to that of the 7.62mm, and around 50% more than the best 5.56mm loading. Sounds to me to be an advantage worth having, without incurring the weight and recoil of the big 7.62mm.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
 
Gendelizer:
I think we all want to base our opinions on the truth, and not on hype that can't be independently verified.
Click to expand...

I think everybody is giving their OPINION, pro or contra and there has been very little objective truth set forth. Ford vs. Chevy, blond vs. brunette, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
An end to the 6.5 vs 6.8 debate.
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Sunray
S
A
  • Locked
Why haven't the 6.8 SPC/6.5 Grendel caught on?
Replies
20
Views
1K
rbernie
rbernie
S
  • Locked
6.5 MPC--Viable Alternative?
2
Replies
34
Views
14K
BusMaster007
BusMaster007
J
  • Locked
6.8 SPC vs 6.5 Grendel, does it even matter?
Replies
18
Views
3K
xerxesthecat
X
R
  • Locked
  • Poll
6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC Poll or .223
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
PedalBiker
P
Back
Top