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

[TX65]

As a news item,

This Thursday and Friday (May 7 & 8), the annual Armed Forces Journal event will occur at Blackwater. Production 6.5 Grendel rifles using production 6.5 Grendel ammunition will be there and shooting out to a distance of 1,000 yards.

 

[Richardson]

mortars, grenades, rock launchers, mines, and so on, regardless of the cost to the taxpayer. The rifle just doesn't hack it worth a hoot, and hasn't for nearly a century now. Just because you are hung up on the idea of being a "rifleman" doesn't change the facts of combat. Wnen everything is "let rip" the rifle accounts for less than 5% of the casulties. It accounted for almost NONE, in the Gulf war, for instance.

So maybe they'd prefer pea-shooters..... They're lighter than a pistol, and the ammunition is VERY light.... and they don't need a .22lr conversion kit or a suppressor - talk about quiet.!!!

Richardson

 

[TX65]

The most complex element of conversion to a new cartridge will be the inclusion of the new ammunition in the logistics system. During peacetime, this can be accomplished with relative ease, but during a period of conflict, this is when the logitics people earn their pay.

From a solider's perspective, conversion would involve swapping one upper assembly for another and making use of a new magazine (which are replaced all the time).

Old .223 upper assemblies can either be scrapped, placed into storage, transferred to law enforcement or converted to 22LR assemblies for training use.

It is important to remember that rifles go through inspection and overhaul all the time. These overhauls often include replacing barrels and bolts with expense of these overhauls already in the budget.

 

[Grendelizer]

BigG wrote: "I think everybody is giving their OPINION."

When the U.S. military decides on a new cartridge, it will be based on their OPINION, which will be no more valid than yours or mine, given access to the same test data (assuming we're somewhat well-informed on the issues).

I think this discussion, if you read the whole thing, has generated quite a bit of fact to back up opinions. We've based a lot of comparisons of the 6.8 and the 6.5 on a ballistics table ( http://www.65grendel.com/graphics/grendelballistics.pdf ), which you may dispute, but it's as factual as we have so far. We've got hard numbers on the comparative ammo weights. People have given anecdotal evidence of combat incidents.

Sure, it's opinion, as much as a judge takes a look at the evidence and witnesses as presented and makes a judgment. It's opinion, but I think we're all trying to be well-grounded in fact and well-reasoned. I think it's too much to expect a thunderous voice from heaven giving us the definitive answer.

You can argue that your criteria are different, but if you want a multipurpose military cartridge for assault rifles, LMGs, and light snipers from 0-1000 yards in an AR form factor, I'm convinced as I am about any cartridge that the 6.5 Grendel is the answer.

John

 

[fix]

Perhaps they should learn how to make effective shots

You go tell them that.

 

[BigG]

Grendelizer, I know this is close to your heart. I work within the labyrinth of the govt and some of the decision making is familiar to me.

The US Military as a whole will not decide on a cartridge. Somebody will recommend to a decision maker a cartridge or more likely a weapon with a new cartridge and the decision maker will approve or disapprove. There is no real criteria that we can set forth here as to why the decision maker will approve or disapprove the recommendations of the board, panel, or whatever. What is driving the decision is solely within the purview of the decision maker and he can rationalize it however he wants within reason. In other words, it has to sound plausible. But that's about it.

There is also the veto power such as when Doug MacArthur as Chief of Staff vetoed changeover from .30 USG to .276 Pederson.

The idea that the military is going to get something optimal is about as far from the truth as I can think of. That has hardly ever been the case unless a happy accident occurred. They will get something that fits a set of criteria written by people who are insulated from public scrutiny. There is also the matter of political chicanery that can rear its ugly head. Look how we got the Beretta. Do you think that was the optimal pistol if you could choose any one in the world?

When you take into account the different missions of the various small arms I find it highly unlikely that a one size fits all cartridge will be found or adopted. YMMV

 

[Grendelizer]

Here's a bit of news, relevant to the 6.8 vs 6.5 debate.

Pat Rogers, a Gunsite firearms instructor and apparently well-known and respected within the firearms community, responded to a guy in the Marine Corps section of Tactical Forums regarding the 6.8 SPC: "The Marine Corps has no interest in this caliber at this time, and I strongly doubt that there ever will be."

First of all, I don't think he speaks officially for the Corps, but he does seem well-connected. Second, I'm not saying they're interested in the 6.5 Grendel, either, but whether or not the 6.5 Grendel is adopted, it stands on its own merits with great performance and a wide range of bullets from 90- to 144-grains from many different manufacturers. Can we say the same for the 6.8 SPC with either a 110- or 115-grain bullet?

John

 

[Grendelizer]

BigG wrote: "The idea that the military is going to get something optimal is about as far from the truth as I can think of."

BigG, I know what you're saying about the military bureaucracy, but doesn't that just drive you nuts? Why not, just for a change, adopt something great and do it right the first time?

What if we just adopted the 6.5 Grendel? Would it kill us? We could still complain about it: "Well, maybe we should try a cartridge that gets less penetration. Or maybe the Grendel shoots too flat, can't we have something that makes aiming a little more challenging like we used to have? Can't we have something that drifts a bit more in wind? Can't we get a cartridge that's a little smaller, so we can wound our enemies less? And why can't we get a cartridge that retains less energy? Or one that doesn't have such great ballistic coefficients? Or one that doesn't give us such a wide range of bullet choices, all feeding from the magazine?" I'm sure that, even if we adopted the 6.5 Grendel, we could still find ways to complain about it!

John

 

[BigG]

but doesn't that just drive you nuts?

Oh, yeah, bud!

Just think if Lincoln would have adopted the Spencer repeater back in 1861 when he shot in in the White House yard. That was ahead of everything else in that day. But the army got Springfield rifled muskets and plain old muskets.

One thing about a one-size-fits-all cartridge is that the role of weapons makes that difficult to impossible.

The Machine Gun is used at long ranges and a bullet optimized for rifle shooting will peter out before it makes it to the target in an MG. Think about aircraft and antiaircraft applications. Remember, they use the same ammo as the ground pounders.

Hatcher checked out the MG with 150gr .30 ball and found the range was a thousand or so yards light. They adopted 172 gr and got another 12 - 1500 yards with the MG.

I would really like to see what a firearms designer in the vein of John Browning or Eugene Stoner woudl come up with today. The M16 is going on 50.

I personally think it's still the best I've seen but what would a genius do today knowing what we know?

 

[Grendelizer]

BigG, I wouldn't say I'm advocating the 6.5 Grendel as a one-size-fits-all, but I will say it's a "one-size-fits-pretty-dang-much-all" from a shoulder-fired small-arms cartridge.

You wrote: "Hatcher checked out the MG with 150gr .30 ball and found the range was a thousand or so yards light. They adopted 172gr and got another 1200-1500 yards with the MG."

The beauty of the 6.5 Grendel is that it has A LOT of mission flexibility built in. You want a close-in zapper with light recoil on full-auto? We've got 90- to 108-grain bullets. You want 1000 or even 1200-yard machine gun performance? We've got 123- to 144-grainers. And they all are INTERCHANGEABLE in the same weapon because they're all magazine-length rounds!

I definitely say let the 6.5 Grendel replace both the 5.56 and the 7.62. But there's still room for something like the .338 Lapua for heavy-duty sniping and the .50 cal for heavy machine-gunning.

John

 

[Tony Williams]

One thing about a one-size-fits-all cartridge is that the role of weapons makes that difficult to impossible.

That really all depends on the roles of the weapons. When was the last time anyone seriously tried shooting at over 1,000m with a 7.62mm MG, or shooting at aircraft? A .50 BMG is really the minimum stick for such tasks, and we're not aiming to to replace that!

I am always open to correction by those with more knowledge than myself, but my understanding is that virtually all small arms shooting nowadays is at ranges of well under 1,000m, specialised weapons like .338 or .50 rifles excepted. There is no problem in devising a assault rifle cartridge which can perform adequately in an MG out to that distance. We've been discussing them at great length!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

[TX65]

I would tend to concur with Tony's comments.

If you were to define ranges of fire, my thoughts would be

Zone I - 0-300 meters
Zone II - 300-500 meters
Zone III - 500-800 meters
Zone IV - 800-1500 meters
Zone V - 1500 + meters

If we look at Zone I, the 5.56 NATO 77 Grain, I think more then fills the need. Will the 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel offer improvement in this zone? Yes, but mere fact of higher projectile weight.

Looking at Zone II, the 5.56 NATO, 77 Grain has entered the zone of questionable effectivness. Again, the 6.8 SPC does better by virtue of heavier bullet weight, but given similar ballistic coefficients of both bullets, it must be launched within a defined velocity window (equal or lower to a point) to maintain its advantage. The 6.5 Grendel, by virtue of the higher ballistic coefficient bullets of similar weight to the 6.8 SPC, has the advantage in this Zone.

Stepping to Zone III, the 5.56 NATO is beyond it's capability other then maybe harrassing fire. Even at the advertised level of 2800 fps for the 6.8 SPC, my own long range shooting experience tells me that a .340 BC is not the best choice for this range of fire. The 6.5 Grendel was designed to run in this range and the ballistics of bullets lets it perform. On a scoped M16, the 6.5 Grendel would be a solution for designated marksmen. On a M16A2-A4 when using iron sights or non-magnified sight, aimed area fire would be reasonable and achievable with the 6.5 Grendel and the projectiles would be far more effective then 5.56 or 6.8 bullets due to higher retained velocity and energy.

In Zone IV, my own personal preference would be the .338 Lapua Magnum for precision shooting. While the 6.5 Grendel will run to 1,000 yards supersonic and can take aimed shots, but for this total range zone, the 6.5 Grendel would be best for area fire and it can do this in a M249 like platform.

In Zone V, this is the land of the 50 BMG and even the 338 Lapua Magnum.

As someone else says, just my 2 cents.

Edited to add,,, not one penny of US Government money has been spent on the development of the 6.5 Grendel. In addition, the 6.5 Grendel rifles and ammunition presented to the government are production models that are the same being shipped to civilians. The government may choose to configure rifles and ammo to meet specific needs, but they will have a production model to work from, not a prototype.

 

[444]

TX65
Interesting post.
Personally I would say that with standard issue military ball ammo, the 5.56 is at it's peak performance inside of 200 yards. Again, my opinion only, at 300 the round is beyond it's effective range: not that it won't kill at that range, but the effect of tumbling and fragmentation are gone more often than not. However, according to everything I am reading, the vast majority of firefights our military is participating in are at less than 50 yards. On these internet boards we get a lot of discussion about long range accuracy and effectiveness. Personally, I don't think this is a real big issue. For one thing, the soldier has to have the skill to hit the target at "long range". Then you get into actual combat conditions. Odds are the enemy soldier isn't just standing still out in the open facing you and you have the opportunity to assume a good solid shooting position etc. It is far more likely that the enemy is moving, some or most of his body is either concealed or covered, you are in fear of incoming fire and you are firing quickly from an unstable position. and this doesn't even take into account the skll level of the soldier doing the shooting. None of this lends itself to precision long range accuracy. Of course snipers are another matter. My point is that our standard issue rifle and cartridge need to reflect the majority of situations it is going to be used in. In this case, that is close range. Spending a lot of time and money trying to come up with a rifle/ cartridge for issue to the average ground pounder that greatly inproves cartridge performance at 500 yards and beyond is a waste.

To repeat what I said in an earlier post, you can compare these cartridges on paper and say, this gives you 20% greater this and 50% greater that, but the question is, will this actually prove to be more effective in the field ? This was the point I was trying to make with hunting cartridges. We read about how this new cartidge is infinitely superior on paper, but will the elk or deer be able to tell the difference ? Will the average hunter be able to utilze these advantages in the field ?

 

[BigG]

Machineguns in air to air and air to ground work at 4,000 or more yards. Remember, miniguns are 308. Helicopter M60 Ds are also .308.

The machinegun doctrine in WWII was a lot longer range than 1,000 yards with interlocking fire zones for ground support IIRC.

YMMV but you can't carry various ammo bullet weights - the same ammo goes in everything or your logistics gets out of control.

 

[Jeff White]

I have noted a distinct lack of Infantry experience in this thread. John Shirley is the only person posting that I know has any experience.

Grendelizer, since you asked, the breakdown of weapons in a J-series MTOE rifle platoon is 2 M240 machine guns, 6 M249 squad automatic weapons, the rest are armed with wither M16s or M4s, six of which would have M203 grenade launchers attached.

The program focused on terminal performance. Several 5.56 loads along with the 6.5 were tested. The 6.8 SPC was judged the best.

What kind of terminal effects data do you have on the 6.5? What does it do in bare gelatin?, how about through PAGST armor, interior walls and auto glass? Do you have penetration depths and permantent cavity size? The 6.8x43 SPC is probably the first small arms round the military developed using terminal effects as the main criteria for adoption.

The truth of the matter is that just like Pat said about the Marines, the Army has no interest in any other caliber besides 5.56mm. I understand that SOCOM was told that they would have to pursue the program on their own and that will most likely prove too expensive and hard for them to support logistically. So 6.8, 6.5 it doesn't really matter, I don't think we'll see wither one as issue.

Jeff

 

[TX65]

Jeff,

Referencing testing of 6.5 caliber and the 6.8 being found to be superior. In my conversations with Dr. Gary Roberts, he told me that the testing was based on use of the SPC 43mm case and confinement to a maximum cartridge length of 2.255" dictacted by the M16 magazine. Given these parameters, the testing of 6.5mm and 6mm bullets was limited to those that would permit a maximum bullet exposure of 14mm thereby eliminating from the tests bullets like the Lapua 108, 123 and 144 for example. In addition, the testing was such that Hornady and Sierra bullets were the only bullet makers tested which in 6.5mm would have only included the Sierra 100 grain HP and Hornady 95 VMAX and 100 grain SP.

In summary, the conclusions of the 6.8 SPC developers was limited by the rifle and the cartridge case dimensions.

As far as ballistics tests on 6.5 bullets out of the 6.5 Grendel, those were performed by Dr. Steve Burke, a surgeon and former member of the IWBA. Bill Alexander highlights some of those tests in an article posted at http://www.65grendel.com. On such test had the Lapua 108 penetrate 22 inches on calibrated bare 10% gelatin at 300 yards with a 69 grain retained weight. In addition, tests have been performed on body armor, but those tests are not going to be released to the public and such tests should never be released to the public.

As far as the world seeing it all, tomorrow and Friday at Blackwater, military personnel will get to see and shoot the production 6.5 Grendel.

 

[fix]

In summary, the conclusions of the 6.8 SPC developers was limited by the rifle and the cartridge case dimensions.

I apologize in advance for this, but I just hafta say...

Well, duh!

 

[Jeff White]

TX65 said;

In summary, the conclusions of the 6.8 SPC developers was limited by the rifle and the cartridge case dimensions.

Makes sense since the program was designed to utilize existing M16s and M4A1s. I think that is the 6.5 has better performance in loadings that are too long to fit in the M16 magazine, then you'd be developing a new rifle, not an upper receiver conversion.

I've got the data on the 6.8 from Gary Roberts, but I don't have anything on 6.5 terminal effects.

Like I said, I don't see any change from 5.56. The FY 05 budget has 173 million for 5.56mm ammo of all types. We'll most likely stick with 5.56 just because we have so much invested in it.

Jeff

 

[TX65]

Jeff,

To use the 43mm SPC case in 6.5mm or 6mm, you are correct that a new rifle would need to be designed.

In contrast, the 6.5 Grendel was designed around a 39mm case length which allows a maximum bullet exposure of 17mm. This design allows use of 6.5mm bullets up to 144 grains within the confines of the M16 magazine and rifle. The 6.5 Grendel requires a different upper and magazine, just like the 6.8 SPC.

 

[Grendelizer]

444 wrote: "Then you get into actual combat conditions. Odds are the enemy soldier isn't just standing still out in the open facing you . . . , etc."

444, you make excellent, excellent points. I can't imagine anyone with infantry experience disagreeing with you.

I do disagree, however, with your conclusion where you say: "Spending a lot of time and money trying to come up with a rifle/ cartridge for issue to the average ground pounder that greatly inproves cartridge performance at 500 yards and beyond is a waste."

I still say any cartridge can give close-in performance, and if you can throw in the extra range at no extra penalty, so much the better. The reason something like the 6.5 Grendel is better, even if you don't shoot long-range, is that physics say its high sectional-density bullet will penetrate cover better in order to get at the enemy, close range or not. Jeff White asks for more penetration data. So do I. I do know that Blackwater starts tomorrow and the 6.5 Grendel will be demonstrated. Hopefully, we'll get some good info out of that.

If I was developing a cartridge for only short-range infantry engagements, I'd create something in a bigger caliber, maybe 9mm or 10mm, and make it as heavy as possible. But I'd have to play with the balance of bullet weight and velocity in order to keep recoil manageable. I suppose it'd be something like the 9mm x 39 that the Russians developed for their silenced sniping rifle.

Still, all things considered, I can't get away from the fact that the Grendel is a very well-balanced solution.

John

 

[Jeff White]

Grendelizer,
When 444 made this conclusion:

"Spending a lot of time and money trying to come up with a rifle/ cartridge for issue to the average ground pounder that greatly inproves cartridge performance at 500 yards and beyond is a waste."

He was 100% correct. The rifleman's world is 300 meters and closer. AARs from OEF and OIF are still proving this. We have other weapons in our inventory that allow us to engage to engage targets farther away. Interestingly enough this was the case in WWII when most of the combatants were armed with so called full power rifle rounds like US M2 .30 caliber, 7.92 mm and .303. Long range rifle volley fire ceased to be a vialbe tactic in 1918. Average engagement range is 300 meters and closer with the majority of engagments being 100 meters and closer. It was true in WWII and it's still true. Have there been fights where long range rifle fire made a difference? Yes. Are they frequent enough to justify changing our doctrine and equipment? No. We already cover the long range small arms engagement with M240s and squad designated marksmen.

You said;

I still say any cartridge can give close-in performance, and if you can throw in the extra range at no extra penalty, so much the better.

The problem is, there is the extra penalty of weight. You admitted it yourself in an earlier post. Weight is everything to an Infantryman. While you don't think the weight difference is much, in reality it is. It will cut the number of rounds the individual Infantryman can carry. This will increase the logistics load all the back through the communications zone to CONUS. What's at issue here is not that that 6.5 or 6.8 being a better performer then 5.56, but if it's that much better a performer to make it worth the added cost. Ulitmately it will mean more trucks in a battalion support platoon, more trucks in transprotation companies and more space on ships.

The military will look at all those factors when they decide on what to do. As long as we continue to get adequate results with 5.56 don't look for a change. And yes we can argue for days about what adequate results are, but anyone with a modest library of military history can provide plenty of examples of every cartridge ever fired in anger failing to immediately stop.

Jeff

 

[MrAcheson]

I still say any cartridge can give close-in performance, and if you can throw in the extra range at no extra penalty, so much the better.

No such thing as getting more for free. Jeff has already covered this.

If I was going to do something about 5.56 effectiveness, I'd go back to an easier-tumbling more-damaging cartridge in rifles and stick the green stick "ice pick" ammo in the heavier weapons like the SAW. The idea that rounds are going to penetrate cover and keep going in anything like a predictable path is bunk anyway. Doesn't matter what the bullet weight is, everything deflects. But thats me and I don't make doctrine.

 

[Grendelizer]

Jeff, I appreciate your level-headedness in your most recent reply and I can generally agree. And, also, thank you for the info on the "breakdown of weapons in a J-series MTOE rifle platoon is 2 M240 machine guns." (By the way, how can a civilian like myself access that info?)

Let me ask a further question. How many rounds of 7.62 does the rifle platoon carry for those two M240s? I read somewhere that each paratroop in a stick was required to drop with 1,000 rounds of 7.62 for their unit's M60s, but that can't be right for non-airborne. Anyway, if all the 7.62 in a platoon is replaced with 6.5 Grendel, how does that affect the total weight of the platoon's ammo load, even if weight would be increased over the 5.56? Does it balance out?

Obviously, you're very good at looking at the big picture: that is, overall weight burden, logistics complications, overall cost to switch, etc. So I'd like to address those concerns, but to further analyze the weight issue, we need that M240 ammo load data.

Regarding logistics: Wouldn't replacing both 5.56 and 7.62 actually simplify logistics, once a changeover is fully implemented? Yes, it would. And that simplification would also save money that could then be spent on other projects, such as the XM8. Ha! Just kidding! I know how you feel about the XM8! ;-)

John

 

[TheDutchman]

The 6.5 Grendel is a good round I would love to have it as a bolt gun to shoot deer and varmints. Ballistic are awesome with good range and equal with the 7.62mm . However the 6.8mm SPC is a good round for the Ar platform. The fact is the 6.8mm SPC is more suited for the Ar platform the the 6.5 Grendal. The reason is both the 6.8mm SPC and the Ar where develop for a intermediate to mid range not long range , the Ar platform was not meant or designed to shoot 800 yards shots . I admire some of passion with the past post referring to the 6.5 Grendel with its long range capability, and how it is a superior round then the 6.8mm SPC. If I was a grunt and not a sniper I would set back call on the radio for a marker and fire for effect at 800 yards. Performance is good to have in a cartridge but we already have a 7.62,what are the needs for another one. The 6.8mm SPC was design to out perform the 7.62x39 it does , the point of aim of the 6.8mm SPC is around 300 yard like the 5.56mm ,the same clips can be used and will required little training for the military to adjust and most likely to be field . The military is not going to adopt a bottle neck cartridge due to feeding issues that could arise or full battle field cartridge for the average GI Joe to field in combat. There are some people think they should , that up to personal opinion. Now I will not take a away from the 6.5 Grendel that’s one mean round and I want one in a bolt gun, but for a Ar platform the 6.8mm SPC looks really good.

 

[TX65]

The 6.8 SPC does NOT use the same clips as the 5.56 NATO,,, it requires new manufacture magazines. I refer to you Zak Smith's 6.8 SPC FAQ page that he has put together (link is posted earlier in this thread). There is also a discussion on lightfighter tactical which is linked to in Zak Smith's 6.8 FAQ page showing the results of putting 6.8 SPC rounds in a 5.56 magazine.

The military does use bottle necked cartridges (5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO, 300 Win Mag, 338 Lapua, 50 BMG). As well, the 6.8 SPC is a bottle necked cartridge.

On one hand, this has been a discussion of cartridge cases,,,but in reality it is discussion of caliber's. .277 vs 6.5mm. If both cartridges feed in the M16, then it comes down to which projectiles give superior performance. From a standpoint of external ballistics, the 6.5 dominates over the .277 in the same weight range. The only declaration of .277 performance is based on one bullet (Hornady 115 OTM), which may not even be legal for military use under international law, and how it performs on gelatin blocks. Yes, the 6.8 developers tested some 6.5 bullets, but by their own admission, did not explore many.

Of course, as Jeff White has said, it is doubtful that the US military will change from the 5.56 NATO on a large scale. The 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel have the most opportunity for use in specialized applications. The range of those applications to be determined by the capabilities of the cartridge and caliber.