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

[Jeff White]

Grendelizer asked;

(By the way, how can a civilian like myself access that info?)

Do a search for the Reimer DIgital Library. Almost all of the Army Field Manuals are there. Most of them are unrestricted and anyone can view and download them.

How many rounds of 7.62 does the rifle platoon carry for those two M240s?

That varies by unit. The manual will tell you that the basic load is 800 rounds per gun. But that is not enough to sustain them in a fight for very long. 800-1200 rounds of 7.62 is pretty much all the machine gun crew can carry by themselves. Most units will spread the additional 7.62 out through the other members of the platoon. The book will also tell you that 210 rounds should be the basic load for the M16/M4. In reality many units have carried up to 400 rounds per man, plus a couple of frag grenades, claymore mines, machine gun ammo, maybe a mortar round or two. The load pretty much boils down to ammunition, water and mission essential equipment. It's very easy to deploy carrying 90-120 pounds depending on your duty postition. The amount of ammunition carried will also vary by the unit's mission and how long they can expect before resupply.

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?

I'm not certain what you're asking here. Are you asking if the weight would come down if you just had one caliber of ammunition?

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! ;-)

You are correct, it would simplify logistics. But, has anyone adapted the M240 to shoot the 6.5? There is a lot that goes into making gas operated weapons function properly, especially machine guns. What modifications would you have to make to the M240 so it functions with 6.5? Do you know? Does anyone? Seemingly simple things like links for a disintegrating link belt can be complicated. Is the 6.5 the equal of 7.62? What compromises would you have to make to the tracer round to get enough tracer compound in it to get a 6-800 meter tracer burn out? Do you know? Does anyone?

What is 6.5's ballistics when fired indirectly? I know I said volly rifle fire ceased to be a viable tactic in 1918, however we still employ machine guns in the indirect fire mode at times.

How about mass production? One of the problems they had fielding the M16 was that none of the commercial manufacturers was able to produce M193 5.56 ammo in consistant lots using IMR 4475 powder. The technology at the time wouldn't permit the powder to be consistant enough lot to lot and then they switched to ball powder and look at the problems that caused.

So, do you think it's still an economical switch once you start looking at all the potential costs of going down that road?

TX65 said;

Of course, as Jeff Smith has said

Ah the mysterious SGT Smith even follows me around online . Seriously, I must have had a double most of my time in the Army. The number of times I had people approach me in places like the PX or NCO Club and mistake me for SGT Smith were too numerous to be a coincidence.

Jeff

 

[TX65]

Sorry About That Jeff

Oh, a M249 project is already underway on the 6.5 G

 

[Tony Williams]

I think that part of the problem in this informative discussion is that there are several different agendas running.

First: how desirable is it to have a more effective assault rifle round than the 5.56mm, for use at up to 300m (or maybe 600m in a long-barrel SAW)?

Second: if it is, could such a cartridge also replace the 7.62x51 as well as the 5.56x45?

Third: if so, what would be the best cartridge design?

Fourth: what would be the consequences of a new cartridge in terms of weapons needed?

On the first count, while there is no such thing as a 'magic bullet' which will drop a man every time, there does seem to be evidence that the 5.56mm is light on effectiveness. This may not be an issue in a conventional 'hot' war in which other weapons than the rifle inflict most of the injuries, but many of the current conflicts seem to involve a heavy reliance on small arms. For me, the hardest evidence is that SOCOM are evidently not satisfied otherwise they wouldn't have sponsored the development of the 6.8x43. The simple statistics of bullet weight and frontal area show that the 6.8mm should inflict a wound 50% bigger than the best 5.56mm loading (apparently backed up by gel tests), which seems like a worthwhile improvement.

On the second count, the main advantage of the 7.62x51 is range - but how much range is needed? Despite the cartridge's theoretical ballistic range of several thousand metres, I note that the US gunships rated the 7.62mm Minigun as effective from up to 1,000m altitude, equivalent to a slant range of 1,400m (at which range the Minigun group size was 10m) - and that has the advantage of shooting steeply downhill. The British Army rates the 7.62x51 as an 800m sniper cartridge. What is the maximum range at which a 7.62mm machine gunner would expect to engage the enemy? Is it more than 800m? If so, how much more and how often? It would seem that a less powerful (and heavy) cartridge than the 7.62x51 would be able to reach out to such distances, since the British Army rates the long-barrel 5.56mm LSW as effective out to 600m.

Which cartridge would be best to replace both the 5.56mm and 7.62mm? Using the British Army yardsticks, the 6.8x43 could probably be classified as a 700+m cartridge as its ballistics are closer to the 7.62 than the 62 grain 5.56mm used in the LSW. Would this be enough? If not, then the 6.5mm Grendel would obviously reach further - easily as far as the 7.62mm. Either cartridge would be significantly lighter than the 7.62mm, helping to compensate for the extra weight over the 5.56mm, so a unit normally carrying both 5.56mm and 7.62mm weapons may end up with a similar ammo load overall if all of their weapons were 6.5/6.8mm.

So if you have a new cartridge (6.5mm, 6.8mm or something similar), what what be the effect in terms of weapon requirements?

- The standard rifle would obviously be a simple conversion of whatever 5.56mm rifle grabs you (that is an entirely separate argument which I don't want to get into here!).

- A long-barrel version with a bipod and a good scope would make a useful 'sharpshooter' rifle, able to make good use of the extra range over the 5.56mm and also replacing those M14 derivatives still in service.

- An LMG would obviously be based on the 5.56mm MG of your choice.

- But that then raises the question of the GPMG. If you have an M249 class 6.5/6.8mm MG, do you also need a heavier M240 class gun in the same calibre? Or would a heavy/long barrel version of the M249 suffice? I don't know the answer to that and would be interested to hear from the machine-gunning fraternity.

Finally, what is the chance of any of this happening? Negligible to zero, I would say, from what I know of the inertia and arbitrariness of large organisations, but there is still a very small glimmer of hope...I say this for two reasons. First, that the US Army seems seriously interested in the possibility of adopting the XM8, which will involve procuring new guns, magazines and accessories anyway. This has been criticised as too much trouble for too little benefit, but if a more effective cartridge were adopted at the same time it would deal with that argument as well as involving only a bit of extra disruption. Secondly, I understand that the M249s are wearing out and will also need replacing soon. So, this is a rare window of opportunity; if the adoption of a new cartridge doesn't happen now, we will be stuck with 5.56 and 7.62 until Phasers are perfected!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

[444]

"...the US Army seems seriously interested in the possibility of adopting the XM8"

Here is another issue. On the one hand we are told that the 5.56mm cartridge is ineffective and needs to be replaced. Then we read about them wanting to buy a new carbine that uses the 5.56mm cartridge out of an even shorter barrel.

 

[Zak Smith]

re: TX65 & Mags,

The data we have so far indicates that 6.8SPC does NOT work in most 5.56 M16 magazines. I haven't seen any data either way on the HK M16 mags reviewed in S.W.A.T. last year.

However, the new 5.56mm steel M16 magazines from PRI hold 33 rounds of 5.56 and 28 rounds of 6.8SPC and feed both reliably. In some sense, you could say they "use the same mags."

 

[Grendelizer]

Ammo Weight Comparisons

I’ve done a simplified calculation to see if unifying on the 6.5 Grendel would have the same overall weight as the current mixture of 5.56 and 7.62 within a rifle platoon.

First, the data:
--- one pound equals 7000 grains
--- one round of 5.56 M855 weighs 182 grains
--- one round of 6.5 Grendel weighs 265 grains
--- one round of 7.62 M80 weighs 386 grains
--- an M249 SAW weighs 15.6 pounds
--- an M240B medium machine gun weighs 27.6 pounds
--- an infantryman’s basic load of 5.56 is 210 rounds
--- an M240B machine gunner’s basic load of 7.62 is 800 rounds
--- there are two M240Bs per platoon

OK, now that we all have exactly the same data on the table, we can still manage to come to wildly different conclusions! As someone has said, in the end, it’s still a judgment call.

Let’s say a typical platoon has 40 guys, two of whom have M240s. So 38 guys x 210 rounds of 5.56 x 182 grains per round divided by 7000 grains to convert back to pounds gives us 207.5 pounds of 5.56 ammo carried by the platoon. And 2 guys x 800 rounds of 7.62 x 386 / 7000 = 88.2 pounds. 207.8 lbs of 5.56 plus 88.2 lbs of 7.62 equals 295.7 lbs of total ammo carried by the mixed platoon.

And for the platoon unified on 6.5 Grendel we get: 38 guys x 210 plus 2 guys x 800 for a total of 9580 rounds of 6.5 G. 9580 x 265 gr per / 7000 = 362.7 lbs of total ammo carried by the unified platoon. However, the unified platoon replaces their 27.6 lb M240Bs with 15.6 lb M249 SAWs and saves 12 lbs per gun for 24 lbs total. 362.7 lbs ammo less 24 lbs gun weight totals 338.7 lbs. And 338.7 lbs divided by 40 guys equals an average of 8.5 lbs ammo per guy.

The mixed platoon averages 7.4 lbs ammo per guy, and so the unified platoon has a weight penalty of about one pound per guy. Now, I still have to shower and get to work, so I’ll save getting into the judgment call of whether the extra pound is “worth it†because the 6.5 Grendel overall is “more effective†and thus needs fewer rounds to both penetrate cover and incapacitate the enemy. My guess is that with a round recoiling about as much as the Russian 7.62x39 there would be slightly less “spraying and praying†than with 5.56.

Well, anyway, there you have it. I don’t even know how many guys are really in a platoon, the above is just an example. If the platoon actually carries more 7.62, then the results skew in favor of the 6.5 Grendel and the per man average differs even less.

If you have better info and know the exact numbers of guys in a platoon and the actual number of mixed rounds carried, then you can do your own calculations, but please release your info to the rest of us.

In the end, it’s just an armchair exercise for a military buff and a taxpayer, which I suppose lends a certain seriousness to it. I no more want my tax money to go for a $600 toilet seat than I want it to continue to go for an inferior cartridge system. I just hope there are people in the military who are paying attention.

John

 

[JShirley]

NO WAY the platoon is only going to carry 800 rds/gun for its most effective integral weapon!

Call it a minimum of 2,000 more rounds.

My philosophy of war has long been based on a guerrilla approach. The size of the cartridge is not much of an issue; if it is more powerful than a .22 LR, it's fine. If I am operating somewhere with no logistics support, and no fire support, I want to be able to carry as many rounds for as little weight penalty as possible, theoretically equalling more holes in opposing forces, or at least, a lot more harrassment.

OTOH, as the member of a typical military unit, from the "godview", I want my troopies to be able to carry as much ammo as possible...while acknowledging that most kills will not be performed with rifle ammo. I personally would like to see a new cartridge, which is based on these thoughts: (1) it's time to replace the M16; (2) a single round to replace 2 rounds is A Very Good Thing; (3) since many more rounds are fired from support weapons than rifles, a round lighter than 7.62 but heavier than 5.56 will ultimately save on the weight our poor, overtaxed grunts hump.

Marching through thick brush while carrying the equivalent of your 14-year old brother on your back for miles is just about the worst thing in the world.

John

 

[TX65]

If you take an M240 with 2,000 rounds of 7.62 NATO M80 you have a total weight of 137.9 lbs excluding the weight of the links.

If you take an M249 in 6.5 Grendel 144 FMJBT (which would only be 3 grains less in projectile weight then the 7.62 M80), at the same weight of 137.9 lbs, you would have 3,100 rounds of ammunition (55% increase in rounds) or you could reduce the load to 94.5 lbs carrying 2,000 rounds of 6.5 Grendel 144 FMJBT for a weight reduction of 31.5%. Again excluding the weight of the links.

If you wanted to reduce the projectile weight to 123 grains in the 6.5 Grendel, you would increase the number of rounds to 3,231 (62% increase in rounds) in the same weight package as the M240 with 2,000 rounds or further reduce the total package weight to 91.3 lbs with 2,000 rounds (33.8% reduction in weight). Again excluding the weight of the links.

Reducing the projectile weight to 108 grains in the 6.5 Grendel, you would increase the number of rounds to 3,424 (71.2% increase in rounds) in the same weight package as the M240 with 2,000 rounds or further reduce the total package weight to 87.0 lbs with 2,000 rounds (37% reduction in weight). Again excluding the weight of the links.

If high volume or ultra light weight is the goal, drop again to 100 grains (.444BC) in the 6.5 Grendel, and increase the number of rounds to 3,537 (76.8% increase in rounds) in the same weight package as the M240 with 2,000 rounds or further reduce the total package weight to 84.7 lbs with 2,000 rounds (38.6% reduction in weight). Again excluding the weight of the links.

In summary, you can increase the amount of ammo or decrease the weight and be using a cartridge that will also operate in an M16 or similar confined platform (visions of XM8, Steyer AUG, etc)

Looking back in history,,, a one cartridge system was the norm until the M16 / 5.56 came along

30-06 - 1903 Springfield, M1 Garand, Browning BAR and Browning 30 MG

7.62 NATO - M14, M60, and Minigun (although the minigun is not an infantry weapon)

All of this is meaningless if the cartridge and projectile cannot deliver performance equal to the 7.62 NATO M80, so lets compare.

The 7.62 NATO M80 at muzzle velocity of 2700 fps will deliver the following at 500 Meters with a 300 Meter Zero:

Velocity 1676 fps
Energy 917 Ft. Lbs
Trajectory - 45.73 inches
Wind Deflection 29.03 inches

Running the numbers for the 6.8 SPC 115 OTM (.340 BC) and the 6.5 Grendel 123 OTM (.547 BC), lets see what muzzle velocity each would require to achieve the same levels of performance in each area.

6.8 SPC 115 OTM to equal 7.62 NATO M80 (MV 2700 fps) at 500 meters

On Target Velocity - 6.8 SPC requires 3,000 fps MV
On Target Energy - 6.8 SPC requires 3,300 fps MV
On Target Trajectory - 6.8 SPC requires 2,875 fps MV
On Target Wind Deflection - 6.8 SPC requires 3,250 fps MV

As reference, Remington reports the muzzle velocity of the 6.8 SPC at 2800 fps from a 24 inch barrel.

6.5 Grendel 123 OTM to equal 7.62 NATO M80 (MV 2700 fps) at 500 meters

On Target Velocity - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,450 fps MV
On Target Energy - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,475 fps MV
On Target Trajectory - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,550 fps MV
On Target Wind Deflection - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,200 fps MV

As reference, the factory 6.5 Grendel load has a muzzle velocity of 2675 fps from a 24 inch barrel.

 

[Grendelizer]

Dang, TX65! Those calculations got me excited all over again! I'm gonna need another cold shower!

And remember, folks, if you discount the larger frontal area, the 6.5 Grendel is an improvement over M80 in every other category besides (shoots flatter and with less wind drift and thus less dispersion, high sectional-density for penetration, less recoil). So you can get, what, a 62% increase in rounds carried for the same weight in a MORE effective cartridge?

If I've ever seen a win-win situation, that's it.

John

 

[TX65]

6.5 Grendel @ BLACKWATER

On May 6 & 7, the 6.5 Grendel took part in a special event at the Blackwater Training Center in North Carolina.

In the armored glass challenge, the 6.5 Grendel was first to the line firing a Lapua 144 FMJBT from a 18.5 inch barrel and defeated 1.6 inch armored glass.

The event progressed with a 24 inch barrel 6.5 Grendel on the 500-yard range shooting at 12x18 inch silhouettes and 10-inch diameter steel gongs. With over 200 shots fired by 20 shooters, there were only 2 misses on the 10-inch gongs.

What could have been a showdown between the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 Remington SPC did not happen as the company showing 6.8 Remington SPC rifles declined to shoot at the armored glass or shoot at 500 yards with the 6.8 Remington SPC.

A complete article and video clips will be coming soon from Armed Forces Journal International. Typically, highlights can be found at DefenseReview.com

 

[Jeff White]

Grendelizer, TX65,
You seem to have missed the part of my post where I said that the book solution on what ammo was carried was pretty much universally ignored. If you read the AARs from OIF you'll find that loads of 12-14 magazines for the M16 and M4 were common. Units coming into theater were advised to bring in as many magazines as they could get a hold of. I would recommend that you make your computations on a load of 400 rounds per soldier.

And I'm afraid that I'm going to have to question this very closely:

My guess is that with a round recoiling about as much as the Russian 7.62x39 there would be slightly less “spraying and praying†than with 5.56.

How much spraying and praying do you think goes on? What's the difference between spraying and praying and suppressive fire? Do you know? This is my biggest gripe when hobbyists try to involve themselves into something they know nothing about, like Infantry combat. The truth of the matter is that a large amount of small arms ammunition is expended in suppressive fire to keep the enemys head down so that another element can maneuver on them and get a clean shot. You see the enemy doesn't just pop up like an "F" silhouette on the field fire range very often. They like to hide and not expose much of themselves, just like we do. I taught the squad combat drill upon making contact like this:

Squad takes fire
1. Return fire and take cover (simultaniuosly)
2. Attempt to gain fire superiority
If you've gained fire superioroity then
3. Fire team in contact fixes the enemy in place by fire
4. The other team maneuvers in a flank attack to destroy the enemy
If you can't gain fire superiority
3. Report back to higher and either withdraw or wait for assistance.

When you try to gain fire superiority you put out an high volume of fire. This isn't spray and pray it's a legitimate tactic. and the adoption of a more powerful round that recoils about as much as the Russian 7.62x39 isn't going to change that. We're still going to expend ammunition at the same rate.

There are a few instances where we will doctrinally put out the maximum volume of fire. When making unexpected contact, when we need to put the enemy's head down when we withdraw, when intitating an ambush and when firing final protective fires in the defense. No new round is going to change those tactics. We'll still need to carry the same amount of ammunition. So using your figuers a 400 round load of M855 weighs 10.4 pounds per rifleman and 400 rounds of 6.5 G weighs 15.14 pounds. So we've added just over 5 pounds to the load of our soldier. What do you suggest we take away from our poor overburdened grunt to make up for the 5 pounds?

If we can't take any equipment away, what mode of transport do you suggest we add to our rifle company's MTOE so that we can keep the squads in front resupplied when necessary?

Now you may suggest that we made it through WWII with a basic load of 80-120 rounds of M2 .30 caliber per man. But you have to remember that our opponents were armed mostly with bolt action rifles. Our opponents now are most likely armed with some AK variant. So going back to semi auto only would not be an option. How would we gain fire superiority over people armed with automatic weapons with semi auto weapons fire? Aimed fire you say....Aimed at what? I must ask. Like it or not there are times where volume of fire wins the day, or at least turns the tide and allows you to maneuver into a position where you can place aimed fire on the enemy.

TX65,
You advocate chaning bullet weights on the 6.5 G. Are you telling me that when you said this:

If high volume or ultra light weight is the goal, drop again to 100 grains (.444BC) in the 6.5 Grendel, and increase the number of rounds to 3,537 (76.8% increase in rounds) in the same weight package as the M240 with 2,000 rounds or further reduce the total package weight to 84.7 lbs with 2,000 rounds (38.6% reduction in weight). Again excluding the weight of the links.

That changing the bullet weights will have no effect on max effective range and terminal effects? Are you saying that 6.5G is superior to M80 with any bullet weight? If you are, I must say I find that hard to believe.

Regarding this:

On May 6 & 7, the 6.5 Grendel took part in a special event at the Blackwater Training Center in North Carolina.

In the armored glass challenge, the 6.5 Grendel was first to the line firing a Lapua 144 FMJBT from a 16 inch barrel and defeated 1.6 inch armored glass.

Define defeated. I assume you mean the round penetrated the glass. But did enough of it penetrate to have decent terminal effects on a target behind the glass? Was it accurate enough to even hit a target behind the glass or did it deflect?

The event progressed with a 24 inch barrel 6.5 Grendel on the 500-yard range shooting at 12x18 inch silhouettes and 10-inch diameter steel gongs. With over 200 shots fired by 20 shooters, there were only 2 misses.

What could have been a showdown between the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 Remington SPC did not happen as the company showing 6.8 Remington SPC rifles declined to shoot at the armored glass or shoot at 500 yards with the 6.8 Remington SPC.

And do you think that the 6.8 SPC systems having 18 inch barrels vs. the 6.5G's 24 inch barrel might have had something to do with that? How does 6.5 G perform out of a 18 inch barrel at 500 yards? Surely you're not suggesting that we go to 24 inch barrels on all our weapons? There is no way we're going to a bigger weapon. Units are complaining that the 40" OAL M16A4s are too long.

Could you post some figures on the 6.5 G that are fired from platforms comparible to what we use now in size?

Jeff

 

[TX65]

Jeff,

I merely presented a wide variety of OTM bullet weight options for the 6.5mm, I am not advocating one bullet weight over another just versatility and the ramifications of the options. For complete equality, I would use the 123 or 144 in the 6.5mm.

I posted as reference the muzzle velocity for factory ammo fired from a 24 inch barrel since that is what Remington quotes the 6.8 SPC on. From a 16 inch barrel, the 6.5 Grendel can achieve 2550 fps with the 123 OTM.

Regarding the Blackwater Shoot Off,,,the shooting events are determined by the organizers and every attendee is made aware of the various events. On the armored glass challenge, the purpose is step up and give it a try on various levels of armored glass. The 6.5 Grendel stepped up to the test first with an off the shelf bullet and succeeded on the 1.6 inch thick glass, the 6.8 SPC people declined to shoot saying their 115 grain bullet was unsuitable and walked away.

In the Blackwater test, the opportunity exists to demonstrate different models, hence the change to 24 inches which active duty snipers enjoyed shooting. The choice was entirely appropriate since other guns on the 500 yard line included the 408 Chey Tec, various 50 BMG's and .308 bolt action rifles. Had the company representing the 6.8 SPC felt competitive and asked that the 6.5 Grendel be shot with a 16 inch barrel at 500 yards to see a head to head comparison, no problem since a 16 inch barrel 6.5 Grendel was available for just such a purpose. However, they made no such request, and again claimed their bullets were unsuitable for that distance and went to the 50 yard range.

In all honesty, it was hoped that the shooting would go out to 1,000 yards, but range conditions (construction) did not permit shooting beyond 500 yards.

As far as shooting short barrel 6.5 Grendel's at long range,,, yes, the 6.5 Grendel has been shot at 900 yards from a 16 inch barrel by 4 different shooters averaging 6.5" groups at Fort Knox.

 

[Grendelizer]

Jeff, I’m taking your recommendation and reworking my computations based on a “load of 400 rounds per soldier.â€

Mixed Platoon, 5.56 and 7.62
--- 38 guys with 400 of 5.56 at 182gr ea. divided by 7000 equals 395.2, or 10.4 pounds of ammo per guy.
--- 2 gunners with 2000 of 7.62 at 386 / 7000 = 220.6, or 110.3 lbs per machine gunner.
--- Mixed platoon total ammo weight is 615.8 lbs
--- Assuming the machine gunners don’t carry all 110.3 lbs of their own ammo, and not knowing how the platoon will divide it up, I average the platoon’s total load by dividing 615.8 by 40 guys and get 15.4 lbs each.

Unified Platoon, 6.5 Grendel
I won’t bore you with the details, so will give the short form:
--- 38 with 400 of 6.5 at 265 / 7000 = 575.4 / 38 = 15.14 each rifleman
--- 2 with 2000 of 6.5 at 265 / 7000 = 151.4 / 2 = 75.7 each gunner
--- Unified total is 726.8 minus 24 for replacing M240s gives 702.8 lbs
--- Average is 17.6 each

Results: Grendel platoon bears weight penalty of average of 2.2 lbs per guy.

Jeff asks: “What do you suggest we take away from our poor overburdened grunt to make up for the 5 pounds?†I think you ask this somewhat rhetorically, but I will address it. My answer is to give all 40 guys 400 rounds of 6.5 G, even the two machine gunners, and then divide the remaining load of 3,200 MG rounds among all 40, for an average load of 17.6 lbs each. (Obviously, it wouldn’t actually be practical to divide it evenly, but we have to simplify things for this discussion; of course, some will have mortar rounds, grenades, claymores, rockets, etc., and some will carry the extra MG ammo.) Anyway, on average we are now dealing with a 2.2-lb penalty and not a 5-lb penalty.

So how will I deal with the extra 2.2 lbs? I don’t know. But just because I’m a civilian, doesn’t mean I’m totally disqualified from discussing these things. Some football commentators have never been pro quarterbacks, and yet that doesn’t disqualify them from giving informed opinions about the game. I’ve never personally known the terror of combat, the sights, the sounds, the smells. But the basic principles aren’t so complicated that I could never understand them. Besides, you know that I both willingly admit my ignorance when necessary, and also that I’m eager to be instructed where I lack.

So, can I now be allowed to bring up my “more effective†per round argument? Fewer rounds to penetrate cover, fewer rounds to incapacitate? Does that confidence help make up for the extra weight?

Can I bring up a fire-discipline argument? We all remember the TV footage from Hue in 1968, where the Marine raises his M16 above his head and blindly fires off a magazine over a wall. And haven’t sergeants forever been telling their guys to conserve their ammo? Is there no point at which suppressive fire becomes wasteful? If you knew you had no resupply, would you truly rely on unlimited suppressive fire? And if you do have resupply, are you going to insist each guy carry the maximum amount of ammo? If you knew you had resupply, could we say each rifleman carries 275 rounds of 6.5 G for 10.4 lbs each, to equal the 5.56 weight?

Can I bring up a "you don't always need to carry 400 rounds argument"? I hadn’t considered how we did it in WW2, but if we carried only 100 rounds per, that shows there is some flexibility in the basic load, even for heavy-duty combat. (And our opponents weren’t only bolt-actions, their purpose was to defend the real reapers, the MG42s. ;-)

Anyway, I could go on, but I get the feeling that wouldn’t be productive. For some reason, I get the feeling that no matter what I say you’ll resist. Are you saying that you’re satisfied that we’ve reached the zenith of infantry tactics using the current mix of 5.56 and 7.62? That the basic principle is having the maximum amount of ammo?

If that’s the case, I could go to the the extreme and suggest that your principle would justify using boatloads of .22 LR, but you’d know I wasn’t serious. But then, seriously, wouldn’t your principle justify dumping the 7.62 and gaining 9,400 rounds of 5.56 to replace the 7.62 ammo and M240s? But then you’d say, “But we can’t dump the 7.62!†I’d say, “Why not?†You’d say, “Well, sometimes we need the range.†I’d say, “Hmmm.†“We need the retained energy.âUh-huh.†“We need a bigger bullet.†“Oh, really?†“We need the increased penetration.†And I’d say, “You need the 6.5 Grendel!â€

John

 

[Jeff White]

Grendelizer,
I would love to see more effective ammunition. I do want to be certain that we're not making a bad trade off of combat effectiveness for a round that gives us not all that much more capability.

The thing is that no one in the big army feels a need for a different caliber weapon. I can go back and dig out a news report of the firefight in Afghanistan that started the 5th Special Forces Group down the road that led to the 6.8 SPC.

I'd love to see one caliber for rifles and machine guns. But I'm not willing ot give up anything to get it. Back in the early 90s the army floated the idea of going to all 5.56 in the rifle platoon. The M60s were on their last legs and someone got the bright idea that we could put the M249 on an M122 tripod and use it like a GP machine gun. There was a big outcry from the field and the idea was dropped.

Can I bring up a fire discipline argument? We all remember the TV footage from Hue in 1968, where the Marine raises his M16 above his head and blindly fires off a magazine over a wall. And haven’t sergeants forever been telling their guys to conserve their ammo? Is there no point at which suppressive fire becomes wasteful? If you knew you had no resupply, would you truly rely on unlimited suppressive fire? And if you do have resupply, are you going to insist each guy carry the maximum amount of ammo? If you knew you had resupply, could we say each rifleman carries 275 rounds of 6.5 G for 10.4 lbs each, to equal the 5.56 weight?

Sure the shots from Hue and a lot of other wars where people fired blindly over cover is a waste of ammunition. Sergeants don't just tell their guys to conserve ammo, they train their men in what rate of fire to use in a given situation. You drill those things relentlessly in training and it pays off in combat. My soldiers were allowed to sue automatic fire with their M16s only in these instances:
When trying to gain fire superiority when making chance contact with the enemy. The first magazine on auto then the max rate of fire on semi.

In the intial moments of an ambush when you needed to shock the enemy with overwhelming firepower.

When breaking contact and you needed to put the enemy's head down so you could run.

When firing a final protective fire in the defense.

In all other instances the firing was to be on semi automatic. Most units have rate and distribution of fire written into their SOPs.

You have to rely on suppressive fire to stay alive. Resupply doesn't figure into it. You worry about the engagement your in and resupply later. You have to be alive to use the resupply. There was a good article in Infantry Magazine several years ago written by a Vietnam vet on carrying realistic ammunition loads. 400 rounds was enough to get them through a very heavy engagement and still have enough left to sustain themselves until resupply.

I'm sorry if I let some of my frustration with peoples preconcived notions about what it's like to be a grunt get out of hand. There are a lot of people who throw spray and pray around who don't have a clue about what they're talking about and unlike you, aren't willing to listen. I meant no offense.

So, can I now be allowed to bring up my “more effective†per round argument? Fewer rounds to penetrate cover, fewer rounds to incapacitate? Does that confidence help make up for the extra weight?

That's really the argument here. Is it that much more effective? I have a modest library of military history and in a couple hours could come up with all kinds of examples of everything from .75 caliber balls out of Brown Bess muskets to .50 BMG failing to instantly incapacitate. I sometimes wonder if the current dissatisfaction with our current weapons isn't due more to the lack of institutional experience in Infantry combat. We really haven't been involved in combat like this on this scale since the 1960s. The current generation of soldiers has been conditoned by hollywood to believe that you shoot someone they should instantly fall over dead. To put it bluntly, I think we've forgot how hard it is to kill men.

Is 6.5 G going to penetrate cover that 5.56 won't? I'm pretty sure it does. But how much cover that you can penetrate with 6.5 G but not 5.56 is out there? I guess what I'm asking is look around outside and tell me what I can hide behind that protects me from 5.56 and won't from 6.5 G.

Are you saying that you’re satisfied that we’ve reached the zenith of infantry tactics using the current mix of 5.56 and 7.62? That the basic principle is having the maximum amount of ammo?

No, I'm not saying we've reached the zenith of Infantry tactics. What I'm saying is that a change to a new caliber isn't going to be a revolutionary enough change to get us to change our tactics to accomidate it. The rifleman's fight is still from point blank range out to 300 meters. Most small arms engagements still occur at 100 meters and closer. It's been that way since the advent of manuever warfare in WWII. Something like the XM29 would have been a big enough increase in capability that tactics would have changed around it.

Throughout the years tactics have changed as the equipment changed. But it always took a big change in equipment before tactics changed. Look at all the advances in small arms technology between the mid 1700s and the American Civil War. How many of them changed the tactics? None. It took the invention of the metallic cartridge and the repeating rifle before tactics changed. There wasn't another change in tactics until the advent of smokeless powder and the machine gun. The next small arm that changed the way we fought was the GP machine gun. Then the assault rifle at the end of WWII until it's real baptism of fire in Vietnam with AK47s and M16s. It's going to take an improvement along the lines of the electronic fused grenades of the ill fated XM29 to change tactics again.

The force modernization people in 5th SF didn't go into development of the 6.8 SPC as a general purpose cartridge. It was specifically designed to solve some problems they were having with CQB work.

Perhaps the 6.5 Grendel's place isn't in the hands of the rifleman, but would more appropriately be a round for our machine gunners? If it out performs M80 with less weight. I'm all for it. And I don't know any professional soldier who wouldn't be.

Jeff

 

[adad]

Warning: lay-person here... no military training whatsoever... just movies

I have been following the 6.5 Grendel and I have found this thread to be very enlightening and enjoyable. Thanks, all, for sharing your info and expertise! (Isn't THR great!?)

Jeff, that's an interesting idea you brought up at the end of your post: keep the 5.56 and replace the 7.62 for the machine gunners. Of course you don't get the advantages of simplifying the logistics by going to one round, but you do get to keep the lighter 5.56 which comprises the bulk of the ammo weight in a platoon.

Just curious... (probably a naive question, but what the heck -- here goes): if a platoon switched to 6.5 Gr for the MG's, given the lighter weight of the 6.5 Gr and therefore the ability to carry significantly more MG ammo, would you consider adding another machine gunner or two to a platoon...? Or is there just no tactical advantage to doing so? What about for certain more specialized missions?

(Okay, I'm in up to my eyeballs now, might as well go in all the way; here comes stupid question #2...): For some missions, would it make sense to arm a small number of the infantrymen in a platoon (say, five or six out of the 40) with longer barreled, 6.5 Gr rifles for more accurate fire (as needed) out to 1000 yards? Now that would be a "mixed" platoon!

An odd thought occurred to me. I really think that most men in a free country should own a semi-automatic rifle in the calibre used by the armed forces of his country. I think one of the reasons many don't own such a rifle (besides unconstitutional laws like those here in California banning "assault" rifles) is that the 5.56 is not a very good hunting round for anything larger than a coyote. I know the 5.56 can be used to kill deer, but so can the 22lr, which nobody (besides poachers) would recommend. Of course, many people own .308 rifles (and some are semi-autos), but I think a lot more people would (eventually) want to own a 6.5 Gr. semi-auto hunting/homeland-defense rifle (with 50% less recoil, I know I would!). Like I said, it was an off-the-wall thought...

 

[atek3]

I really think that every man in a free country should own a semi-automatic rifle in the calibre used by the armed forces in his country.

Why not a select-fire version, just like the real deal?


atek3

 

[Grendelizer]

Jeff, very thought-provoking, as usual. Seems like we can find some common ground in your statement:

"Perhaps the 6.5 Grendel's place isn't in the hands of the rifleman, but would more appropriately be a round for our machine gunners? If it out performs M80 with less weight. I'm all for it. And I don't know any professional soldier who wouldn't be."

It would be worth some tests, and the Blackwater results are certainly encouraging. TX65 wrote: "The 6.5 Grendel stepped up to the test first with an off the shelf bullet and succeeded on the 1.6 inch thick [bulletproof] glass."

I would think the Grendel has, at least, earned the right to go to the next step and be thoroughly wrung out by the military's standard battery of rigorous testing.

And to Adad: "I really think that every man in a free country should own a semi-automatic rifle in the calibre used by the armed forces in his country." I say, "Amen!"

And to Atek3: "Why not a select-fire version, just like the real deal?" I say, "Hallelujah!" But that's a whole 'nuther thread! ;-)

John

 

[adad]

atek3: <<Why not a select-fire version, just like the real deal?>>

I wouldn't mind a three-shot burst mode. However, given the current muddled thinking on the subject by most of our fellow countrymen, I don't think that will be happening any time soon. Darn shame, too.

 

[sumpnz]

switch, based on your way of thinking, most topics on this board, espically over at L&P would be a waste of bandwidth. People discuss this stuff because they're interested, and some (e.g. TX65) actually have a vested interest in the outcome, even if that interest is little more than personal pride rather than money.

 

[atek3]

AFJ videos up yet?

 

[JShirley]

Minor point, perhaps (or not): the Russians developed the assault rifle back in 1916, IIRC. It was not exploited because it was ahead of its time.

As far as FA fire, even in the infantry, we rarely trained to use it (at least from rifles and carbines). At close range, controlled pairs were SOP.

John

 

[Sam Adams]

Geez, 2 days without a post on this thread!

Does anyone have any more news on how the 6.5 Grendel performed at the Blackwater shoot? Any videos with links?

 

[Sam Adams]

Here's a new article, which talks about the 6.8 SPC as a possible cartridge for the M-8 rifle:

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=688cartridge.htm

FWIW, the article talks too much about the 30-30 and its relation to the 6.8. No mention of the Grendel.

 

[JWH]

The factual integrity of this article is somewhat suspect due to several errors of fact, which are easily verifiable by any of us.

First of all, he says: "The 30-30 is a rimless round first designed for lever action rifles." Wrong, the .30-30 is probably the most famous RIMMED round in America. Not to know this most basic of facts is . . . strange. I know what he's trying to say, that it's based on the rimless .30 Remington, and he did say that very thing a couple times, but to so thoroughly confuse the two makes me wonder if he knows what he's talking about.

Second, he compares the 6.8 to the 5.56 and 7.62: "The superior hitting power can be seen in comparing muzzle energy (1158 foot pounds for the 5.56mm bullet versus 1793 for the 6.8mm round.) At 500 meters it's 338 versus 600 foot pounds. This means that, out to about 600 meters, the 6.8mm round has about the same impact as the heavier 7.62mm round used in sniper rifles and medium machine-guns."

Third, he's got his history-of-assault-rifle facts dead wrong. He says: "During that war, the Germans developed the first modern assault rifle, the SG-44. This weapon looked a lot like the AK-47, and that was no accident." He means the AK-47 looks a lot like the Stg44, because the German rifle came FIRST!

The ballistics chart I've reference throughout this discussion ( http://www.65grendel.com/graphics/grendelballistics.pdf ) says that the 115gr 6.8 has 440 ft lbs. energy at 600 yds, but that the 147gr M80 has 745 ft lbs and the 175gr M118LR has 899 ft lbs. So how can he claim the "6.8mm round has about the same impact as the heavier 7.62mm round used in sniper rifles and medium machine-guns"? (At 600 yds, the 123gr 6.5 Grendel has 758 ft lbs and the 144gr 6.5 G has 831 ft lbs.)

Having said all that, is the 6.8 SPC better than 5.56? Oh, yeah! Would I rejoice if the military adopted it, if there were no 6.5 Grendel? Mostly. (Although I'm not impressed that the 6.8's penetration isn't much better than 5.56 77gr. Compare gel-block photos of 6.8 on Page 8 of the 6.8x43mm SPC thread in Terminal Effects Forum at http://www.tacticalforums.com with 5.56 gel block photos at the "Q. So are heavier rounds dead for self-defense purposes?" section at http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm#m193orm855 .)

But here we are, back in reality. The 6.5 Grendel trounced, by forfeit, the 6.8 SPC at Blackwater. It's a distant, distant second to the 6.5 Grendel.

My gut-instinct says this article has the "feel" of having been done by an amateur. His errors make me question his statement: "The 6.8mm SPC is under serious consideration as the cartridge for the new army assault rifle, the M-8." I'd sure like to know his sources and why he has such blatant errors.

John

 

[sumpnz]

What's the status of the Blackwater reports? Anyone have links? Videos?