Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

6.5 Grendel

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 6.5 Grendel

    As some of you probably know both NATO cartridges (7.62x51mm, 5.56x45mm) have had somewhat of a strange adoption, here a (shabby) summary from some sources:

    After WW2 the US backed the powerful 7.62x51mm while the British supported their newly developed lighter .280 (7x43mm), eventually NATO adopted the 7.62x51mm. However although able to do lot's of damage over considerable range the 7.62x51mm proved to be too powerful to fire accurately automatically when shouldered and less ammo could be carried because of it's size. Furthermore the larger diameter did not only provide but also require more energy to penetrate armor and weapons generally were larger and heavier.

    In the jungle Vietnam the range advantages of the 7.62x51mm weren't that important however the drawbacks, shouldered auto fire and ammo and weapon weight, were. In came the NATO 5.56x45mm, much more ammo could be carried and automatic fire was much more accurate due to less recoil. However recently there seem to be reports coming from the front that the 5.56x45mm lacks damage inflicting ability and range.

    There have been some alternatives resembling the .280 British with recently the 6.8 Remington (6.8x43mm) and 6.5 Grendel (6.5x39mm). Especially the Grendel looks very interesting, it's able to deliver at least as much energy over range as the 7.62x51, more easily penetrating armor due to the smaller diameter, a flatter trajectory and with only slightly more recoil than the 5.56x45. Criticism could be it is neither flesh nor fish, not having the stopping power of 7.62x51 (debatable) nor the low ammo weight and recoil of the 5.56x45. Furthermore there's always the logistics argument, although would that be a good reason to supply your soldier with less than optimal ammo for close to 60 years?

    Anyone care to share some real life views/experience on this, just lot's of marketing nonsense or perhaps any truth to the matter?

    http://www.65grendel.com/65g_arammo.htm

  • #2
    Re: 6.5 Grendel

    I have some experience in real life of the difference between the 7.62 Nato and the 5.56 Nato since the rifles i use in the military is the Licenced AK5 http://world.guns.ru/assault/as35-e.htm (FMC) and AK4 http://world.guns.ru/assault/as12-e.htm (G3) and the AKM/AK-47 7.62x39.

    The way i see it is the 5.56 Nato is better in the ranges 50-200 meters beyond that i feel the round losses some of its power. On the other hand the 7.62 Nato has the greater recoil but has the stopping power on greater ranges. So the use of different ammunition is depending on mission. Then we have the 7.62x39 It has the weight of a 7.62 nato in the bullet but less grain so it still has greater stopping power than a 5.56 in most cases but less than a 7.62 Nato.

    Then comes the effect of a bullet entering the object ( I could wright Subject) where the wobbling effect comes into play and the amount of damage the bullet does inside the object.

    In the army we used large blocks of soap 1m2 to demonstrate the effects of different bullets.
    The 9 mm Luger for example spreads its power and disintegrates inside the block while the 7.62 Nato passes the block with ease, the 5.56 Nato starts to wobble and creates great internal damage. The big change comes when the body armor is placed between the block and the shooter. The 9 mm bounces of the Armor, the 5.56 gets stuck in the armor but the 7.62 takes the armor fiber along into the block where it creates a huge mess of armor fiber bullet shrapnel.

    I will extrapolate further but i just ran out of time. :D

    "I'm gonna shove the lawbook somewhere where the sun don't shine on him.
    Then he can truly say that he knows how it feels when the laws are used effectively"

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 6.5 Grendel

      The search for better ammunition is allways on and i feel that they still havent found a good enugh ammunition to take the places of the existing ones. There are some new SMG ammunitions like the 5.7x28mm for the P90 and the 4.6x30mm For the MP7
      But for the Assault rifles the current ammunition types are adacvate for the current needs IMO and ans some experts say the problem with more different amunitions is the Logistics, and so the debate continues.

      "I'm gonna shove the lawbook somewhere where the sun don't shine on him.
      Then he can truly say that he knows how it feels when the laws are used effectively"

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 6.5 Grendel

        Originally posted by Protoman-swe View Post
        I have some experience in real life of the difference between the 7.62 Nato and the 5.56 Nato since the rifles i use in the military is the Licenced AK5 http://world.guns.ru/assault/as35-e.htm (FMC) and AK4 http://world.guns.ru/assault/as12-e.htm (G3) and the AKM/AK-47 7.62x39.

        The way i see it is the 5.56 Nato is better in the ranges 50-200 meters beyond that i feel the round losses some of its power.
        Yup, which can be less than ideal with even shorter barrelled M4's or in theathers like Afghanistan.

        Originally posted by Protoman-swe View Post
        On the other hand the 7.62 Nato has the greater recoil but has the stopping power on greater ranges.
        That's the thing with the Grendel design, is uses a heavy (compared to 5.56) long aerodynamically efficient bullet that is shot at lower speed providing very low energy loss in flight and thus optimizing the recoil to power over range balance. It not only delivers more energy at all ranges than the 5.56, but even more than the 7.62 at longer ones while weighing much less and having much less recoil from moderate muzzle velocities.

        Originally posted by Protoman-swe View Post
        So the use of different ammunition is depending on mission. Then we have the 7.62x39 It has the weight of a 7.62 nato in the bullet but less grain so it still has greater stopping power than a 5.56 in most cases but less than a 7.62 Nato.

        Then comes the effect of a bullet entering the object ( I could wright Subject) where the wobbling effect comes into play and the amount of damage the bullet does inside the object.
        Yes, think it also depends on how far back the weight is placed in the bullet, but it's a gaming forum so let's not go to deep into that.

        Originally posted by Protoman-swe View Post
        In the army we used large blocks of soap 1m2 to demonstrate the effects of different bullets.
        The 9 mm Luger for example spreads its power and disintegrates inside the block while the 7.62 Nato passes the block with ease, the 5.56 Nato starts to wobble and creates great internal damage. The big change comes when the body armor is placed between the block and the shooter. The 9 mm bounces of the Armor, the 5.56 gets stuck in the armor but the 7.62 takes the armor fiber along into the block where it creates a huge mess of armor fiber bullet shrapnel.
        Although at extreme ranges the diameter and energy loss in flight of the 7.62 might cause it to not penetrate as well. This is where a very accurate smaller diameter more efficient bullet shines, but not something that is needed that often.

        Originally posted by Protoman-swe View Post
        The search for better ammunition is allways on and i feel that they still havent found a good enugh ammunition to take the places of the existing ones. There are some new SMG ammunitions like the 5.7x28mm for the P90 and the 4.6x30mm For the MP7
        But for the Assault rifles the current ammunition types are adacvate for the current needs IMO and ans some experts say the problem with more different amunitions is the Logistics, and so the debate continues.
        Yes it is, IF (big if) current ammunition is inferior than what it realistically can be, I think the logistics argument is not good enough to keep using inferior ammo for decades. That's the reason for this topic, I don't really fancy the quite miserable effects bullets have, I just want our NATO troops to have nothing else than the best suitable ammunition.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 6.5 Grendel

          Sorry I shouldn't have said NATO troops as I didn't mean to exclude Swedes or Australians etc.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 6.5 Grendel

            Thanks for the link Taxi, i am a member of that forum actually, Its a Swedish historian and military history forum. :) The discussion was about if the Swedish army is looking at the Grendel,

            The point with the Grendel ammunition is that as i said the current ammunition types is adecvate for the closest years to come, The change to new ammunitions will probably be stage vise, the switch from 5.56 to a new ammunition will come but there must be a greater change in performance for it to be cost efficient to develop a new weapon system for the army to change what is already in rotation. The socom may have a greater need for more special tasks so there is no doubt that the weapons firing grenden ammunition will be out in the Special forces around the would in a couple of years but IF it will come to the regular armies is a different story.

            Then comes the soldiers opinion, the soldiers that complain about the current ammunition is mostly the Special forces that have special assignment but the regular troops in the field are for the most part pretty happy with the performance with the current ammunition types, the most problem that comes in the fields are weapon related and not ammunition related, (If you don't count casings getting stuck in the weapon as a Ammunition problem)

            But since this is more of a ammunition Performance discussion i must say that im skeptic of the Grendel. I have nothing against the experimentation in the ammunition field but right when a weapon system with the ammunition to go with it is fully assimilated into the armed forces there will always be a new and exciting weapon or ammunition that will make it obsolete.

            All we have to do is look at the 7.62x39 AKM ammunition that is still one of the most used ammunition types in the world used both in Assault rifles and Support weapons. The reason for the success of this ammunition for more than 50 years is the weapon that is Cheep so the higher ups like it its easy to use and reliable so the end users like it. To not get us into the eternal M16 vs AKM discussion that never lead anywhere i end it there.
            There is still developments of weapons that use the 7.62x39 and the ammunition is still going strong. While the eastern blocks right now is starting to reform there arsenal and is looking at other ammunition types the 7.62x39 will still be seen in the armies for a long time to come.

            On the case of experimental ammunition.
            The reason that the H&K G11 never got to the production line was the expenses of getting a new cartridge out on the market together with the problems in the testing where moist could ruin the ammunition. The Grendel don't have these problems since it basically is a old idea in a new package with utilizing of better technologies that is available to make a end product that is not so bad. But its been done before and the end result is the same, its to big of a problem to adopt a entirely new caliber where all the current weapons will be obsolete or be reconfigurated and re barreled for it to be economically possible. There are other testings being done where you change the bullet to different types and the bullets mostly used in .50 cal sniper rifles are one and the 7.62 nato sniper bullets are also often one of these successfull tries where you change the composition of the bullet to accommodate the future needs.

            Man i didnt plan on such a long post O_0

            damn you Taxi why arent you a Suporting member, i wanted to give you rep for this thread. :D

            "I'm gonna shove the lawbook somewhere where the sun don't shine on him.
            Then he can truly say that he knows how it feels when the laws are used effectively"

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 6.5 Grendel

              Originally posted by Protoman-swe View Post
              Thanks for the link Taxi, i am a member of that forum actually, Its a Swedish historian and military history forum. :)
              Cool (you don't happen to know Paradox interactive as well?)

              Originally posted by Protoman-swe View Post
              The discussion was about if the Swedish army is looking at the Grendel,
              Yeah figured as much, I can read Danish a bit, but Swedish is a bridge too far. ;)

              Originally posted by Protoman-swe View Post
              The point with the Grendel ammunition is that as i said the current ammunition types is adecvate for the closest years to come, The change to new ammunitions will probably be stage vise, the switch from 5.56 to a new ammunition will come but there must be a greater change in performance for it to be cost efficient to develop a new weapon system for the army to change what is already in rotation.
              Thing is, imo there ain't gonna be a significantly greater change in performance than a Grendel like round gives unless you gonna go caseless or other futuristic stuff. So basically it would mean that we could be stuck with 5.56 for a very long time.

              Originally posted by Protoman-swe View Post
              The socom may have a greater need for more special tasks so there is no doubt that the weapons firing grenden ammunition will be out in the Special forces around the would in a couple of years but IF it will come to the regular armies is a different story.
              I've read the US SF have been sporadically testing Grendel already more than a year ago, don't know about other forces.

              Originally posted by Protoman-swe View Post
              Then comes the soldiers opinion, the soldiers that complain about the current ammunition is mostly the Special forces that have special assignment but the regular troops in the field are for the most part pretty happy with the performance with the current ammunition types, the most problem that comes in the fields are weapon related and not ammunition related, (If you don't count casings getting stuck in the weapon as a Ammunition problem)
              Well could imagine that regular infantry patrols in Afghanistan confronted with OMF with old Russian body armor or foreign fighters with sniper rifles, would be quite happy with a round that is more accurate, more powerful, better penetrating over long range.

              Originally posted by Protoman-swe View Post
              But since this is more of a ammunition Performance discussion i must say that im skeptic of the Grendel. I have nothing against the experimentation in the ammunition field but right when a weapon system with the ammunition to go with it is fully assimilated into the armed forces there will always be a new and exciting weapon or ammunition that will make it obsolete.
              Hmm, not so sure, I think a Grendel like round does what should've been done decades ago. The current NATO cartridges never used the potential of the used technology. After switching to a Grendel like round there won't be any significant improvements that would make it obsolete when using current technology.

              Originally posted by Protoman-swe View Post
              All we have to do is look at the 7.62x39 AKM ammunition that is still one of the most used ammunition types in the world used both in Assault rifles and Support weapons. The reason for the success of this ammunition for more than 50 years is the weapon that is Cheep so the higher ups like it its easy to use and reliable so the end users like it. To not get us into the eternal M16 vs AKM discussion that never lead anywhere i end it there.
              There is still developments of weapons that use the 7.62x39 and the ammunition is still going strong. While the eastern blocks right now is starting to reform there arsenal and is looking at other ammunition types the 7.62x39 will still be seen in the armies for a long time to come.
              Well they way understand it is the AK's are reliable partly because of their tolerances. If you tighten up the tolerance to increase accuracy reliability will suffer (no expert so correct me if I'm wrong here).

              Originally posted by Protoman-swe View Post
              On the case of experimental ammunition.
              The reason that the H&K G11 never got to the production line was the expenses of getting a new cartridge out on the market together with the problems in the testing where moist could ruin the ammunition. The Grendel don't have these problems since it basically is a old idea in a new package with utilizing of better technologies that is available to make a end product that is not so bad. But its been done before and the end result is the same, its to big of a problem to adopt a entirely new caliber where all the current weapons will be obsolete or be reconfigurated and re barreled for it to be economically possible. There are other testings being done where you change the bullet to different types and the bullets mostly used in .50 cal sniper rifles are one and the 7.62 nato sniper bullets are also often one of these successfull tries where you change the composition of the bullet to accommodate the future needs.
              But would that still be true if you would keep using it for say the next 20-40 years? In short term yes all those changes are not very economically attractive, but over such a long period it shouldn't be a problem. Guess it depends how fast a major shift in weapon technology is expected.

              Originally posted by Protoman-swe View Post
              Man i didnt plan on such a long post O_0
              Hey I asked for informed opinions so I'm all ear.

              Originally posted by Protoman-swe View Post
              damn you Taxi why arent you a Suporting member, i wanted to give you rep for this thread. :D
              The gameplay I like is hard to find within the time schedule that fits me. Although I highly appreciate BIS for make games like ArmA, I also really dislike the fact they didn't design missions and an integrated admin, CoC and VOIP structure to make tactical TvT a valid option on much more servers. If ArmA2 does offer that functionality and frequent tactical TvT would become an plausible option for TG, I'd probably become an SM. For now I try to support TG in other ways.

              Comment

              Connect

              Collapse

              TeamSpeak 3 Server

              Collapse

              Advertisement

              Collapse

              Twitter Feed

              Collapse

              Working...
              X