http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/2004/03/65mm_grendel_ak.html

6.5mm Grendel vs. Rem. 6.8mm SPC

Tue 17 MAR 04. www.65grendel.com.

Bill Alexander (Alexander Arms - Radford, VA), working with Arne Brennan (CompetitionShootingSports.com - Houston, TX -- see his comments below); developed the 6.5mm Grendel cartridge with a claimed effective range of 1000-1200 yds* using a 123gr bullet. It can be fired in a standard-sized AR action rifle, and stagger-loaded in a standard-sized AR magazine [I'm still looking for how many rounds a mag can hold.]

Where's the advantage?

The main advantage the 6.5 Grendel has over the highly hoopla'd Remington 6.8 SPC, I'd guess, is the fact that it's shorter case leaves room for longer, more streamlined bullets which have much higher BCs.  While the 6.8 SPC case probably holds more powder [according to a comment by Arne Brennan, it does not], the lower BC of its bullet causes it to lose momentum more rapidly. Another advantage is the 26in. barrel. Some gun magazine needs to do a head-to-head range comparison, using M4-length barrels (since that's what the troops prefer and the Marines and Army seem to be headed in the direction of short barrels).  In a barrel that length, some of the powder of both rounds will be wasted burning outside the barrel, displaying the firer's position to the enemy (except to the extent it can be hidden with a flash suppressor), and not helping the bullet move downrange rapidly.

Here's a video of the firing of the "26 Grendal" [an AR chambered for 6.5mm Grendel] at the May 2003 Shootout at Blackwater , where it was introduced, with Bill Alexander doing the talking.

Here's the 6.5mm Grendel next to the standard .223 round, and in hand:

The new short magnum rounds are inherently more likely to develop stove pipe jams in semi-auto feed. To me, this round looks like it might be more likely than the current .223 or the new Remington 6.8mm SPC to have such problems.  The developer says it does not. I'd like to see independent tests.

By using a stubby case; the 6.5mm Grendel can use long bullets with much higher BCs than the traditional 5.56mm round and the highly hyped new Remington 6.8mm SPC, resulting in (claimed) superior ballistics, despite the smaller case capacity. Bill Alexander, the developer, says:

"The 123-grain Lapua Scenar with a ballistic coefficient of .547 launched at modest 2600 fps muzzle velocity delivers outstanding long range performance out to 1200 yards. Accuracy levels were impressive with test rifles forming single digit groups at 1,000 yards and at 600 yards, tennis ball sized targets are easy prey with a scope adjustment of only 14 MOA with a 200-yard zero.

In ballistic gelatin tests, the Lapua 108-grain Scenar launched at a muzzle velocity of 2750 fps penetrated 22" of gelatin with a .43" diameter and 64% weight retention at a distance of 300 yards. As a more casual test, the Lapua 108-grain bullet consistently sliced through 4" pine posts at 900 yards.

Lapua produces 6.5mm Scenar 100 match bullets and 6.5mm Grendel brass

In the interest of game hunting, the 120-grain Nosler Ballistic tip at a 2600 fps muzzle velocity was tested in ballistic gelatin. This bullet penetrated 18" and expanded to .51" diameter with 75% weight retention at a distance of 300 yards."

Few things in firearms are actually invented starting with a white sheet of paper anymore, and that's certainly the case with the 6.5mm Grendel.  It's basically a necked up 6mm PPC , a very accurate round popular with benchrest competitors, which was developed by Dr. Louis Palmisano and Ferris Pindell (the PPC guys) and based on the 220 Russian case, which is a variation of the 7.62 x 39mm (M43) Soviet military cartridge. Rifles were first chambered for the 6mm PPC back in 1975. 

Alexander Arms contracted with Lapua of Finland to produce the brass (which costs $38/100). Lapua engineers lengthened the shoulder and shortened the neck to finalize the specs.  Cartridges

are reasonable at $20/20:

Here are the 6.5 Grendel (left) and the 6 PPC (right) cases, side-by-side:

photo from top link

Here are Bill Alexander's own words on how he came to the design specs of the 6.5mm Grendel:

"The 6.5 Grendel is an evolution of the 6.5mm PPC optimized to seat 107- to 130-grain match bullets at an overall loaded cartridge length of 2.255 inches. Case length was kept to 39mm or 1.505 inches as in the original PPC. Studies found that using a slightly longer case would lead to seating bullets deep in the case and would at the very minimum limit the bullets usable to only a few offerings. The case body is perfect in length to stabilize the cartridge in the magazine and prevent tipping without having to resort to special and normally jam-prone followers. In addition, the case diameter is the maximum dimensions that allow a double column feed."

You'll find much more information at the site linked above, including this interesting and informative article on the historical worldwide search for the optimum service cartridge , written by Anthony G. Williams.

A number of 6.5mm cartridges have been wildcatted and manufactured over the years, and used by various armies as well as for competition shooting and hunting. Most have cases far too long for an AR action.

The Alexander Arms site only says the "26 Grendel" (its name for the rifle which fires the 6.5mm Grendel) is "under development," which leads one to wonder why rifle introduced last May is not yet ready to be purchased. [I'll have to research that and edit this post when I find out.]

If benchrest competition is your game, for $1295 you can buy a "National Match" rifle (in black, blue, or red), built by Medesha Firearms Ltd of Mesa, AZ.

The military group which worked with Remington to develop the 6.8mm SPC reportedly looked at bullets from 6mm to 7mm, and found the 6.8mm optimum, for reasons not yet fully disclosed. They may not have looked at a short, fat round with longer bullets having higher BCs.

My friends all have Remington 6.8 SPCs. I must make amends.

If you're looking for a more potent and accurate AR (and don't have to worry about lugging lots ammo around and emptying a mag under fire), you might consider the "26 Grendel" rifle firing the 6.5mm Grendel cartridge (assuming it becomes available for sale soon).  You should be able to shoot further and more accurately than your friends with rifles firing the 6.8mm SPC, if what we know about the ballistics of the two new rounds is anything close to correct.

Why the name "Grendel," you ask? Grendel is the name of a mythical beast, a vicious monster, from the epic poem Beowulf.  Bill Alexander has apparently adopted that theme. His potent short range, big lead lobber, the .50 Beowulf, was recently covered in another ACE post.  Get it to impress your friends if you'll be firing on ranges of 300 yds or less. It packs the biggest case you can cram into an AR mag, and lobs up to 385gr bullets at up to 2200fps. It also has a very authoritative sound.

Alexander Arms has not yet provided ballistics data, but Arne Brennan (the competition shooter from Houston, TX who had already developed a 6.5mm PPC wildcat when he found out Bill Alexander was working on a similar cartridge) has developed a chart which compares the

ballistics of the 6.5mm Grendal to the .556 and the 7.62. Bill Alexander says the bullet does not go subsonic until 1400 yds.

UPDATE: Read the 25 MAR 04 comments of Arne Brennan (who was developing a similar 6.5mm wildcat when he found Bill Alexander was developing the 6.5mm Grendal - see first paragraph) for further information and clarification. Thanks to Arne for stopping by and providing that.

*1000-1200 yds seems a bit optimistic for effective range, given the velocity and weight of the round, but that is the developer's claim.  It depends on your definition of "effective range" (See the continuation). By virtue of the high BC bullets, the Grendel is still supersonic out to 1000-1200 yds. But, for military purposes, with the exception of sniping, enemy combatants are rarely engaged at anything close to 1000 yds, so there's no sense quibbling over it.

-----

Standard ACE disclaimer: I make no claims to be a firearm expert, but I do have a sizable armory and considerable experience; and I do thorough internet research and provide links, which can save you same time.  Corrections/additions via comments are appreciated. Pls. include links. You are, of course, free to ignore my opinions, which are in italics, disagree with them, or add your own.

Here's what Arne (aka "TX65") said about effective range on a forum:

"In long range target shooting, the maximum effective range is generally considered the maximum distance where the bullet is still supersonic before dropping to a subsonic speed which is what the range numbers you discovered refer to. In the hunting world, the maximum effective range is considered the point when velocity has reduced to 2,000 fps to facilitate a quick ethical kill and proper expansion of a hunting bullet. The military maximum effective range calculation has to do with the retained terminal energy reaching a specificed threshold. I seem to remember that this threshold was in the area of 500-550 ft lbs."

On the www.longrangehunting.com forum on 04APR04, he said:

The 6.5 Grendel is best described as an improved version of the 6.5 PPC. The 6.5 PPC was created by Dr. Lou Palmisano (Dr. PPC) in the early 1980's as an expansion of the cartridge family created by Palmisano and Ferris Pindell in the mid-1970's. In 1998, I began working with the cartridge and succesfully built an AR15 in 6.5 PPC. Alexander Arms and I began working together in 2002 and the result of the effort is the 6.5 Grendel.

My original 6.5 PPC endeavor used off the shelf .223 and 7.62x39 parts and this required individual tuning of magazines for proper functioning. As the project progressed, key components such as barrel extensions, bolts and magazines were engineered to take the cartridge from a one off custom machine to a reliable production offering for anyone. The 6.5 Grendel is complete solution and rifles, uppers, magazines, ammo, brass and reloading dies exist and are

available for order right now. Bullet choices include a wide range of offerings from 90-130s grain from Speer, Sierra, Hornady, Swift, Barnes, Nosler, Lapua and Norma.

While, the 6.5 Grendel does not bear the PPC name, Dr. Lou Palmisano and Ferris Pindell both have come out and given their full support to the project. In fact. Dr. Palmisano was at the SHOT show in Feb 04 to visably show his support for the 6.5 Grendel.

Wednesday, 17 March 2004 at 01:55 in Weapons & Firearms | Permalink

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Comments

Nice article,,,, in answer to some of your questions,

- The 6.5 Grendel, although a 4mm shorter case, actually has 1.5 grains greater powder capacity then the 6.8 Rem SPC based on measuring capacity of a sample 6.8 Rem SPC provided by Remington Arms, Inc and a production 6.5 Grendel case. This increased capacity is the result of a .024 larger case diameter and the construction of the case.

- The 6.5 Grendel civilian market magazines hold 10 rounds, but 25 round magazines (same external dimensions as a GI 30 Round 5.56 mag) exist as well, although only for military or law enforcement agencies. Both magazines provide for a perfect double stack and use a standard GI "green" 5.56 follower.

- Feeding of the 6.5 Grendel is as reliable as the 5.56 NATO cartridge since the 6.5 Grendel uses a barrel extension with the proper feed ramp angles and feed lip contours for the cartridge case.

- The ballistics are quite simple,,,, 6.5mm 123 grain OTM bullet with .547 BC vs. 6.8mm 115 grain OTM bullet with .340 BC. As you have observed, the 6.5mm bullet will retain velocity, shooting flatter and arrive on target with greater energy even when fired at a lower velocity. The dimensions of the 6.5 Grendel case allows for use of such bullets within the confines of the AR15 / M16 magazine. The ballistic chart you link to actually compares all rounds in 24 inch barrels.

- As an interesting comparision, the 6.5 Grendel with a 123 grain Lapua OTM launched at a modest 2650 fps is comparable to a 7.62 NATO with a 175 Sierra OTM launched at 2600 fps. While the 7.62 NATO does have greater energy do to greater bullet mass, it also has twice the recoil and 50% greater ammunition weight then the 6.5 Grendel. Of course, the 7.62 NATO will not work in the AR15 / M16 either.

The 6.5 Grendel is available for sale right now with rifles, uppers, magazine, ammo, brass and reloading dies beginning to ship in early April.

Again, thanks for your article, feel free to email if you have any questions.

Posted by: Arne Brennan | Thursday, 25 March 2004 at 14:21

Thanks so much for the information, Arne. Nothing beats getting information from an insider. Looks like a winner, technically speaking, but the 6.8 SPC is getting a lot more hype, as you know, and might win the marketing war. Hopefully, both can be successful.

Posted by: ACE | Thursday, 25 March 2004 at 15:28

Seems like we need a shootout between the grendel and the spc. As we all know the short/fat case with modern powers is a winner, but will it work in an M249. It also depends on the philosophy of the military. Do they want to teach soldiers (not warfighters) to shoot, or are they content to stay with spray and pray. Personally, having been brought up on the .303 Lee Enfield, I should like to hit what I shoot at out to about 600 yards with iron sights. I should also like to get away from a piece of crap that dumps its gasses back into the action through an uncleanable tube. How about a Robinson or an FNC?

Posted by: Malcolm McGregor | Monday, 05 April 2004 at 17:48

With all due respect to Arne's comments above, one inescapable fact is that, in a military rifle, magazine capacity matters, and the SPC will always have a better magazine capacity than the Grendel, given equal dimension magazines, because of the slightly smaller outside diameter of the SPC's case. This may only be a couple rounds in a full-size magazine, but two extra rounds, when the effective difference between the two rounds for the average rifleman in nil, means the SPC wins...

Posted by: Mic Tennifer | Tuesday, 13 April 2004 at 01:19

According to the inventor, it seems that this new 6.5mm Grendel is more accurate and has better ballistic coeficient than the 6.8mmSPC, but how it performs in a short barreled weapon, let´s say a 16" barrel?

Posted by: Carlos Barahona | Tuesday, 13 April 2004 at 13:20

Malcolm, the 6.5 Grendal has a longer effective range than the 6.8 SPC, since it can have more streamlined bullets with better BCs. Whether that is signficant in combat depends upon the type of fighting and terrain. Iraq MOUT, no, Afghanistan hills, yes.

Carlos, like you, I'd like to see these carridges go head-to-head in rifles which differ only in the chamber. Some rifle magazine should run that test for us.

Posted by: ACE | Tuesday, 13 April 2004 at 14:25

Always good to read commentary,,

ACE is correct, 6.5mm bullets have superior BC's to .270 bullets in the 100-144 grain weight range. The net result is higher retained velocity as well as energy and better trajectory and wind deflection.

The 6.5 Grendel was engineered to allow for a wide range of bullets from 90 grains - 144 grains in magazine length loads. In tests with the Lapua 108, 123 and 144, these bullets achieve velocities in the 6.5 Grendel that deliver performance similar to 7.62 NATO M852 and 7.62 NATO M80, but do so in a more compact, light weight cartridge. (if you would like a ballistic chart of these comparisons, feel free to email me.) When you look at this capability, a 6.5 Grendel with a Lapua 123 OTM or Lapua 144 FMJBT would give M60 7.62 NATO M80 ball performance in the lighter weight M249 platform.

The 6.5 Grendel works very well in 12 to 16 inch barrels. In 2003, a 16 inch 6.5 Grendel prototype rifle was fired on the 900 yard range at Fort Knox with four different shooters achieving a group average of 6.5 inch groups with 123 grain bullets.

The difference in case diameter between the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC is .024" or twenty four thousandths of an inch. For those without a caliper handy,,, thats the thickness of 6 sheets of 20 lb photo copy paper.

In equal length magazines, the effective capacity can be the same. The 28 round PRI magazines are slightly longer then standard 5.56 NATO 30 round magazines. I believe they arrived at a length that is the maximum that would fit within current military web gear.

We would positively support a side by side evaluation of the two cartridges including a full series of terminal ballistics tests beyond bare gelatin blocks. Specificaly, each cartridge's capability in a wide ranging battlefield scenario including intermediate barriers in an urban environment and targets equipped with latest protective equipment employed in the modern battlefield.

Posted by: Arne | Wednesday, 14 April 2004 at 10:31

Hey Arne,

If you can persuade someone to run those tests how about an Urban Sniper test for Law Enforcement alongside? I'd love to see how the Grendel works in the new Australian M10 Lee Enfield from Tristar Sporting Arms. Looks like the M10 uses an AK47 magazine so even less trouble.

Posted by: Malcolm McGregor | Friday, 16 April 2004 at 19:26

The 6.5 Grendel excels wonderfully in almost every catagory. Who can fathom why the military might be favoring the 6.8 SPC? Perhaps because the 6.8 has a very slight energy advantage from 0-100 yds? Or maybe they may supppse its slightly larger diameter could give it superior stopping power? In any case, to me the 6.5 Grendel seems the very ultimate round for the assault rifle and light, squad level machine gun (M249). One slight improvement would elevate it

perhaps to perfection: If the system could be made to stabalize a projectile with the Russian AK74 bullet's hollow nosed, FMJ design, the Grendel bullet would tumble inside soft targets, its letality would be absolutely wicked, and it would seemingly have it all!

Posted by: Wordmhan | Tuesday, 04 May 2004 at 05:23

Wordmhan,

Regarding a M240 / M249 application -

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.

All of this is meaningless if a 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 fpsEnergy 917 Ft. LbsTrajectory - 45.73 inchesWind 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 MVOn Target Energy - 6.8 SPC requires 3,300 fps MVOn Target Trajectory - 6.8 SPC requires 2,875 fps MVOn 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 MVOn Target Energy - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,475 fps MVOn Target Trajectory - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,550 fps MVOn 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.

Posted by: Arne | Friday, 07 May 2004 at 15:14

But Arne, I don't think any of that matters, this 500-meter stuff, for the 6.8 SPC. They don't have any ammunition, apparently, to do that job. At least that was the excuse they gave this week at the Blackwater event. What was supposed to be a 'shootout' between Grendel and the 6.8 SPC turned out a forfeit by the Barrett boys. The Grendel punched through 1.6" armored glass, and the Barrett folks refused to try it. I understand they used the excuse that they "don't have the right ammunittion". Uh huh.

Then the Grendels saw over 200 rounds fired at 500 meters by 20 different shooters; again, the Barrett people declined to let their new 6.8 SPC weapon be tried at 500 meters because they lacked the right ammunition...

That's just it: the 6.8 SPC is just not the right ammunition!

Posted by: DavidZ | Sunday, 09 May 2004 at 19:47

For those concerned about the Grendel's performance in short-barreled rifles, in a recent issue of the excellent magazine Special Weapons for Police and Military, they ran side by side comparisons of almost all of the contenders for new assault rifle rounds including the 6.8, a couple of 6 mm's, the 6.5 Grendel and some others. They tested them all in 20 in. and 14.5 in. barrels. In terms of retained energy, the Grendel excelled over everything else HANDS DOWN!

My concern continues to be lethality. I'm not sure that retained energy is always the last word in stopping power. Though I have little doubt that the Grendel is far superior to everything else and ought to be our next all-round military small arms cartridge, I still say that the Russians got it right with their AK74 bullet. Reportedly, the empty space under the FMJ nose collapses on contact and sends the thing spinning wildly in soft tissue thus creating unbelievable wounds and stopping power far disproportionate to the round's weight, size, and retained energy. Add this kind of terminal effect to all of the other superior Grendel traits and you have the ultimate small arms round. Perhaps no one wants to speak to openly about over achievement in the wound ballistics department, but it was the .223's shortcomings in this area that got this whole dialog going in the first place.

Posted by: Wordmhan | Tuesday, 25 May 2004 at 04:06

Wordmhan,The problem is that fragmenting bullets are against the Hague Convention, and thin FMJs which easily fail are against the spirit of the rules. The 5.56mm does this also. I've seen photos of 4-5 little pieces of jagged lead dug out of targets. Currently, the .308 round most terrorists use in the AK-47 does not fragment. If we ignore the rules, or decide they don't apply to terrorists, the bad guys may return the favor, leaving to more casualities and nastier wounds on our side. I think this is way we don't want this kind of information as front page news.

It seems strange to talk of rules of warfare, whereby it is OK to blow a guy to bits with a grenade, but if you shoot him, the result should be a clean hole, but they've been developed over the centuries. Maybe it's time to declare them obsolete, like the rule that troops should line up in rows across a field from each other, but we have to remember the result goes both ways.

Once we abandon the rules, I have some ideas re. hollow-point bullets with clean glass shards embedded in the lead. Surgeons can't even find them.

Posted by: ACE | Tuesday, 25 May 2004 at 07:42

They finally recognized that the 223 is a military defeatsniper

Posted by: Manny | Tuesday, 25 May 2004 at 11:35

The Hague convention does not mention fragmenting bullets. It forbids bullets which cause unnecessary pain and suffering. At the time of the Hague convention this was understood to mean jacketed bullets with an exposed lead tip like that made by the British-Indian Dum-Dum arsenal. The German designed pointed (Spitzer) bullets that came out soon after have a jacket over the front, but turn to expose the open soft lead tail. All modern bullets do that, and it is called "latent dum-dum" The M-16 round fragments when it hits flesh faster than 2650 or so feet per second, because of the weakness in the jacket for the cannelure. The German 7.62mmX51 NATO round does the same thing because of the very thin jacket. The US 7.62 round does not

fragment, because the jacket is thick. All the above rounds which do not have exposed lead tip meet the criteria of the Hague Convention, to include the US 7.62mm sniper rounds that have what appears to be a hollow tip. Although it looks like a hollowtip, it does not act like one.

Posted by: Don M | Thursday, 03 June 2004 at 18:53

Arne, from what I have read, 6.8mm SPC was NEVER intended for ranges past 300-400 meters. The people who asked for the round to be developed did not feel the need for that range.

Special Forces tends to go with .308 or .50BMG at those kind of ranges. It also appears that the Grendal requires new magazines, while 6.8mm can be used in 5.56 mags by changing the followers and slight bending of the feed lips. The 6.8mm was designed to increase the lethality of the M4/16 at moderate ranges (up to 300m) at minimal cost.

Posted by: Eric Sivula | Sunday, 06 June 2004 at 13:41

Eric,

Yes, the 6.8 SPC was developed with sub-300m performance improvements over the 5.56 NATO 62 grain load.

The 6.8 SPC does require new magazines. There was internet rumor run wild that it only required a follower and feed lip bending, but that has been shown to false as people have tried to stuff 6.8 rounds in .223 magazines. The issue has to do with the vertical ribbing on .223 magazines which act as spacers for the diameter of the .223 case for reliabe double stacking. If you try to put a larger diameter cartridge case in a .223 magazine you will not get optimal capacity and rounds will have a tendancy to pop out after loading the magazine with 5-7 rounds.

From a standpoint of conversion, both the 6.8 and 6.5 Grendel require the extact same parts to be changed- IE.. Cost will be the same.

Posted by: Arne | Tuesday, 08 June 2004 at 22:05

In regard to all those 5.56 rounds we would have to throw away if we switched to Grendel or 6.8... this is from Financial Times online... FT.com

US asks private sector to ease bullet shortage By Christopher Bowe in New York Published: May 26 2004 22:00 | Last Updated: May 26 2004 22:00

Even in the age of unmanned aerial vehicles, satellite-guided bombs and night-vision goggles, the US army cannot fight a war without its most basic necessity: bullets.

And with more troops in Iraq, more intense combat than expected and the need for almost every

soldier from frontline infantryman to rearguard logistician to be prepared for an ambush, the army suddenly finds itself in a bullet crunch.

According to a requisition last week by the Army Field Support Command, the service will need 300m to 500m more bullets a year for at least five years, or more than 1.5m a year for combat and training. And because the single army-owned, small-calibre ammunition factory in Lake City, Missouri, can produce only 1.2m bullets annually, the army is suddenly scrambling to get private defence contractors to help fill the gap.

The bullet problem has its roots in a Pentagon effort to restock its depleted war materiel reserve. But it has been exacerbated by the ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, where rearguard and supply units have been thinly-stretched throughout the countryside, occasionally without active duty combat soldiers to protect them.

The army's formal solicitation acknowledges that its current m anufacturing abilities have been all but exhausted. "Increasing military contingencies have created a situation where the capability to produce small calibre ammunition through conventional methods has been fully exercised," it said.

Specifically, the army is looking for 300m more bullets annually, potentially rising to 500m a year.

Alliant Techsystems, which runs the army-owned factory in Lake City, is in talks with the military about remedying the bullet production shortage, insisting it could expand output by 200m to 300m a year.

General Dynamics, the US defence contractor which submitted its proposed solution on Tuesday, said it had pulled together several small bullet suppliers - including Winchester, a unit of Olin Corporation; Israel Military Industries; and Canada's SNC Technologies - to meet the army's gap.

"We're using so much ammunition in Iraq there isn't enough capacity around," said Eric Hugel, a defence industry analyst at Sephens Inc. "They have to go internationally."

Posted by: solidpoint | Thursday, 17 June 2004 at 07:58

Yes, solidpoint, well after writing this post, I wrote a post linking to that article, showing there would not be a problem of obsolete cartridges, as there would have been had the M1 been chambered for .276 Pedersen instead of .30-06.

BTW, please don't copy and paste complete articles in your comments. That's a copyright violation Just paste the link. I'll have to edit your comment to just include the most relevant paragraph.

Posted by: ACE | Thursday, 17 June 2004 at 08:55

Thank you everyone for excellent insights and information. I would like to make a few observations based on what I have read here and elsewhere.

First, as I have posted, there seems to be a shortage of all ammo right now so the prospect of any ammo going to waste is non-existent.

Second, I have read the official after-action reports taken from US Army units just after the fall of Baghdad and ( I can’t find the story back, sorry ) either the 101 or 82nd Airborne deployed to Iraq with M-14s for their superior range. While the M4 got great reviews in general, in spite of this there was general agreement that range was not adequate with the M4.

Third, for point defense purposes the lack of sustained fire offered by water-cooled MGs has been widely lamented. It occurs to me that the Grendel’s smaller powder charge creates less heat, and therefore if a heavier MG such as the M240 were chambered for Grendel, initial bursts could be longer, sustained bursts could be longer, and resting/cooling intervals could be shortened. All of these factors result in a superior weapon system. This is in addition to the advantages of lighter weight to maneuver units and logistical support operations.

Forth, One should expect that shorted and larger cased ammo would produce better results in shorter barreled weapons as the distance from the primer to the last of the powder charge is reduced implying a more thorough powder charge burn. In addition, it has been my observation that cases that have very high shoulder angles produce higher chamber pressures given the same amount of powder. This may be due to the fluid dynamics of burning gasses which may tend to hit the shoulders and “bounce”, producing a “ringing” effect which tends to trap hot gasses long enough to improve the burning of the last of the powder. I see at least one post here indicates that whatever the mechanism, the Grendel does in fact provide superior performance in short barrels.

Fifth, The correct weapons package for any mission depends on the nature of the mission and the environment that one expects to be operating in. While the USAF has developed dozens of new bomb munitions in the last 10 years in recognition of this, the US Army seems reluctant to acknowledge this in its procurement practices. While the Grendel projectile’s length provides a superior BC and induces it to tumble better in CQB applications, there needs to be a recognition that one weapon system will not and cannot be optimal in all situations. While bullpup designs will minimize the barrel length debate, range, rate of fire, knock-down, lethality, and effectiveness in defilade situations still requires flexibility. It appears to me that these issues were studied exhaustively in the development of the OCSW and led to the development of a weapons system too expensive to field. Therefore, the cost of added logistics should be considered against the expense of weapons that reduce logistical costs only by incurring tremendous system and ammunition costs.

Sixth, It is worth keeping in mind that an advantage that a weapon system may enjoy today may be worth little if that advantage is easily defeated by counter measures. In the case of the OCSW for example, trenches that are covered at regular intervals could largely erase the advantage that an air-bursting munition would provide. The case for the OCSW seems to rely heavily on this advantage. Greatly to its credit, the Grendel round seems to offer great flexibility in grain weight and velocity. With higher ballistic coefficients, one effectively gets something for nothing.

Finally, as the British experience with the M80, and our own recent experience with the M9 demonstrate, even trivial issues such as safeties and magazine springs can result in a weapon system failure. It is therefore best to go slowly in deploying new weapons systems so that bugs can be worked out in limited production quantities rather than on massive scales. We seem to be enthralled with the ability of computers to add all sorts of weapons systems capabilities – perhaps we should remember the most basic one, the quartermaster’s order form. Simply allowing combatants to bring weapons of their own choosing from a limited length list would provide a quick remedy to many procurement problems.

Posted by: solidpoint | Thursday, 17 June 2004 at 09:26

Here is the after-action report on operation Iraqi Freedom.

Njoy!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/oif_lessons_peo.doc

Posted by: solidpoint | Thursday, 17 June 2004 at 11:17

I wish to thank Arne for his help as a sounding board on the issue of heat generation and its affect on the fire rates of machine guns.

A correction first. The weapon I was referring to in my last post was the SA80, not the M80.

While many here and in other forums have been interested in the M249 chambered for the Grendel round, which definitely has merit, I was curious as to the effect a lighter round would have on the sustained and burst fire rates of the M240 which is chambered for the 7.62x51 round.

It appears that the 7.62 has 45 grains of powder and the Grendel 29 grains. If we ignore for the moment all other factors - which will in fact strengthen the case – we should assume that the 100rpm sustained and 200rpm rapid fire rates would improve to 155 and 310 rounds per minute respectively. Required barrel changes would also be greatly reduced, especially if heavier barrels were used in a partial weight tradeoff with lighter ammo. With a full cyclical rate of 650-900rpm this would yield a machine gun with a burst rate of almost half the full cyclical rate.

Barrel changes and cooling rests take the weapon out of the fight, and are pauses that your opponent quickly learns to time. The primary target for fire support weapons, such as machine guns, is the enemy’s fire support weapons. You are therefore in a rate-of-fire battle in many circumstances where your enemy will try to exploit your fire gaps to engage you, move troops forward, or retreat.

The M240 is uniquely qualified to leverage these rate-of-fire gains as it is the most reliable machine gun ever produced. Because of this we could expect to actually realize the theoretical gains whereas less reliable weapons would incur frequent stoppages due to systems failures

unrelated to caliber. (I would be a bit concerned about the M249 SAW in this regard as the Grendel would represent “over-chambering”. Other factors might mitigate this as we will see.)

Before I move on I would like to point out that a mix of 7.62 and Grendel chambered M240s would force the enemy to assume the maximum capabilities of each gun or face destruction. When in doubt it is best to assume the worst. Therefore, the added fire rate of the Grendels would have to be assumed for the 7.62 and the added close range knockdown power of the 7.62 would have to be assumed for the Grendel. In truth, using 147 grain 7.62 and 144 grain Grendel loads, the ballistics are almost identical with the Grendel having the long range advantage due to an amazing .587 ballistics coefficient.

With regard to accuracy, at every range, and nearly every grain weight, the Grendel has superior windage and energy retention. In addition, one must assume that the much lower recoil forces would make for a more accurate and controllable weapon, particularly when fired from a bipod. If bipod operation in Grendel proved as accurate as tripod operation of the 7.62 this would be a tremendous savings in weight. Added to the weight savings of the ammunition it would tend to make the M240 more of an individual weapon than a crew served weapon, especially under stressful maneuver conditions such as rapid advance or retreat. The primary reason heavy machine guns have fallen out of favor, except for point defense, is their weight prevents them from keeping up with the rest of the unit in maneuver operations.

Beyond the heat generated by the propellant, heat is also generated by mechanical friction. This friction is a function of the action of the gun and the metal on metal friction of the bullet as it travels down the barrel. To demonstrate this point, imagine a barrel so long that the bullet would travel in it so long it would end up falling out of the end of the barrel like a pea rolling off of a table. In this case it is clear that ALL of the energy supplied by the powder has been dissipated as heat due to friction. Higher velocity bullets have more friction and therefore produce more heat. The beauty of the Grendel round is it gets its gains not through high velocities – quite the contrary – but through its very high BC and its consequent ability to carry its energy well downrange. Again, the Grendel is superior to the 5.56, 6.8SPC, and 7.62. Lower velocities and therefore lower friction has the expected affect of reducing barrel wear, barrel heating, and barrel change rates in the bargain.

Arne has also pointed out that the Grendel produces much lower chamber pressures than the 5.56. The production 6.5 Grendel loads are in 47,000-49,000 PSI range. Most 5.56 NATO loads are in the 55,000-60,000 PSI range. Less pressure equals less mechanical stress, less wear, better longevity and better reliability.

Finally, one of the design features of the Grendel is its ability to accommodate a broad range of projectiles and bullet weights. This is due almost entirely to the length of the bullet, and is unmatched by any other design currently being contemplated. The potential for future development of specialized rounds, such as a SLAP round, seems far superior to other calibers.

My initial interest in the M240 chambered in Grendel was a comment read elsewhere lamenting the demise of water-cooled weapons, such as the Vickers machine gun, which provide the almost continuous fire needed for defending a point against sustained attacks in depth. Somewhat to my

surprise, what emerges from marrying the M240 and the Grendel round in my mind is a vastly superior weapon system which superior range, rates of fire, weight, accuracy, flexibility, and system longevity. Let’s hope FNL will take an interest in this development and offer a truly remarkable weapon to the US Army.

Posted by: solidpoint | Friday, 25 June 2004 at 23:00

It's great for the fans of the old 6.5 Swede to see others appreciate the caliber and the long list of attributes which make it balanced, efficient and sensible.

Much talked about is the unusually high BC. The other 'secret' of the old Swede and other 6.5's not discussed, is the unusually high sectional density. You would need a 175 grain .308 to equal the SD of a 129 grain 6.5, a big factor in penetration. A 195 grain .30 caliber matches the SD of a 140 grain 6.5 bullet. While the energy of a 150 grain .308 is greater, the ability of 144 grain 6.5 Grendel approaching or exceeding the SD of a 200 grain .30 caliber bullet, the Grendel's ability to punch through cider block should be greater than a 150 grain .308.

The 6.5 is deadly. Because the BC is already high, and a machine gun might not require as flat a trajectory as the Grendel offers, try a sturdier constructed bullet, use a round nose for improved weight retention. As apart of considering the terminal ballistics, this would improve SD and provide yet even greater penetration. Unfortunately,I have no idea how that would feed through a machine gun.

Posted by: Erick | Thursday, 08 July 2004 at 01:58

Arna and Wormahn,

Your above arguement is the best that I have sen in my days regarding whats makes a bullet a good fit for the military. For civilian applications, we shoudln't even be discussing either, there are better more specialized bullets for those proctical purposes. My position in the Army is one that puts me in a position to try out new weapons and equipment in diferent situations to see if upgrades are to be a serios consideration.

One change that I have noticed is the amount of rounds infantry carry has decreased greatly. In Vietnam, the average soldier carried 200 rounds 5.56mm. In Desert Storm, it was upped to 300 due to the "million man" army scare. Afganistan SpecOps carry far more due to long treks into the mountains (400+) rounds, but the basic Army grunt carries only on average 120 rounds due to the massive intergration of fire control, air to ground support and (one note you both mentioned) increased emhesis on accuracy, primarily due to city fighting and the worry of civilian causualties.

What it boils down to is this, weight is LESS (not extinct though) of an issue. Jamming is the largest issue. That will be the M-16's downfall. That and because most operations have their rifles scoped (at least 1x), accuracy is the also the issue. And finding that in a mass produced 'military' rifle that sees its share of mud is the largest goal. The AK-47 had that down pat. I've

seen troops gladly take the '47 over the M-16 in Iraq because of this and the numerous sandstorms here.

Can the bullets perform well under pressure, or are they (their accuracy and hitting power) thrown off my bad weather and jamming issues.

The military will not dwindle their soldiers down to anything less than a 30 round clip, Vietnam taught us that, but I can see longer magazines happening coming into play as well.

The XM-8 thats being tested is a fine example to use. Besides its size, larger than the M-4, its works well at being adaptive. If its chambered for the 6.5 Grendal or 6.8 SPC, can it do the following:

(1) Hit a mellon target at 300 yards day or night with a 20 mph crosbreeze;

(2) Switch to tri-burst or full auto and not encure much more recoil than the M-16A3;

(3) Not jam in a military rifle in more than 1 out of 1000 rounds;

and (4) do all of the above at 100+ even after the most basic and mud/sand ridden of obstacle courses with a 2" MOA.

Tell me which round works the best using those simple criteria, and you then have yourself a bullet that will rally the gov't, and even more importantly the troops.

Thank you.

Posted by: Court | Thursday, 15 July 2004 at 16:44

I'd love to see the 6.5 Grendel adopted by the Military. 6.8 SPC doesn't seem to offer much advantage other than increased stopping power over the 5.56.

We would have to start small with making such a far reaching change but it would be worth the effort.

The military usually wants as multipurpose as possible items. The 6.5 Grendel could replace the capabilities of both 7.62 and 5.56 systems. A much better selection of one item to replace two than the new compromised camoflauge uniform the Army will go to next year.

You have strong hitting capability and the round can be used effectively at the 300-400m ranges the 6.8 was designed for as well as some of the longer ranges experienced in the desert and mountainous environments.

Capacity is THE SAME AS the 6.8 SPC but less than the 5.56. If capacity were everything, then we should stay with the 5.56 or switch to 22lr!

Basic math tells us this is a good round due to BC. Apparently some independent tests have been performed and support the theoretical advantages of the 6.5 Grendel.

I hope the commercial marketing machine doesn't push the 6.8 SPC on us without admitting an honest comparison with the 6.5 Grendel.

This is one soldier who supports a change from 5.56 and giving the 6.5 Grendel a fair shake in being a possible replacement.

Posted by: Autobahndriver | Friday, 16 July 2004 at 09:09

On May 4, 2004 05:23 AM Wordmhan wrote about the 6.5 Grendel: "One slight improvement would elevate it perhaps to perfection: If the system could be made to stabilize a projectile with the Russian AK74 bullet's hollow nosed, FMJ design, the Grendel bullet would tumble inside soft targets, its lethality would be absolutely wicked, and it would seemingly have it all!"

Wordmhan, the Lapua Scenar match bullets have a hollow nose similar to what you suggest. Of course, the Scenar was conceived as a match bullet and not a military bullet and the hollow nose is to help distribute the weight for accuracy, but it's possible it can serve the purpose of an increased-wounding mechanism. I can't say for sure that it would, but further testing would bear that out.

For a quick picture of a sectioned Lapua Scenar bullet, the best I can do is refer you to a PDF file from a guy's firearms catalog website. See here http://www.eabco.com/Catalog_EABCO.html and download the PDF of catalog page 9.

John

------------------------6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body

Posted by: Grendelizer | Friday, 16 July 2004 at 13:48

The 6.5 Grendel is great all around. Accuracy is outstanding! A definite replacement for the 7.62 NATO and the possiblity to have one round instead of two (7.62 and 5.56 vs. only 6.5 Grendel)

One change that would be made if adopting by the military would be bullet design for the 6.5 Grendel. The military would require a cannilure, a tracer round, and possibly an AP round.

Right now the 6.5 Grendel commercial ammo comes with either match bullets or expanding hunting bullets - neither fragments well with their heavy cases.

With the long bullets being used in the 6.5 Grendel, a bullet can be made very unstable when it enters soft tissue - rearward weight bias.

I think a bullet designed for the military in 6.5mm for the Grendel cartridge could have a steel penetrator forward core and lead rear core (a la SS109). This would increase the already great penetration in hard targets and create a weight imbalance that would cause quick tumbling in soft tissue (a la SS109).

A final step would be to place a cannelure on the bullet (as with all US military rounds). The cannelure creates a thinner portion of the jacket that enables fragmentation when tumbling. The military purpose for the cannilure is to prevent the bullet from moving in the case when handled roughly by GIs.

Posted by: Autobahndriver | Tuesday, 10 August 2004 at 04:22

It seems to me that both the 6.8mm SPC cartridge and the 6.5mm Grendel are half-measures.

If the 5.56x45mm is not enough, then there's not sufficient difference, to my way of thinking, between it and either the SPC or the Grendel to justify a change, particularly with the advent of the Navy / USMC Mk 262 Mod 0 round in 5.56x45mm.

In the Grendel round's favor is the fact that it is based on the 5.56x45mm case and can be used with unaltered M16 magazines and unaltered SAW links, but I am still unconvinced of the need for it to even exist.

Go back to the 7.62x51mm for general issue. We already have a rifle built for it--the M14. As an added bonus, one can deliver a decisive buttstroke with the M14 without worrying about whether the buttstock will fracture at the receiver. Clever bullet design can improve upon M80 Ball's performance in living flesh; I submit that a 180-grain flatbase spitzer, without a boattail, with a mild steel jacket of the thinnest material practicable, with a thin copper wash and a cannelure that's cut almost completely through the jacket, would tumble and fragment in soft tissue more reliably than M80 ball does. Ballistic coefficient ought to be between 0.400 and 0.500, maybe higher. Launch it at 2600 feet per second from an M14 and it'll shoot flat and hit hard, without costing significantly more to manufacture than M80 Ball. A dual-core design like that used in .303 British Mk VIIz Ball or 5.56x45mm M855 Ball might be more effective, or not, but would certainly cost far more.

Alternately, make the new Navy / USMC Mk 262 Mod 0 5.56x45mm round the new standard for all services. The 77-grain Nosler match bullet tumbles more readily and more reliably in soft tissue than anything else I've ever seen or heard of, as well as having more retained kinetic energy and therefore somewhat better penetration against hard barriers than M193 or M855 Ball, particularly at ranges greater than 200 meters.

Posted by: Major Bloodnok | Sunday, 03 October 2004 at 21:18

Ok I'm sold on the 6.5 Grendel. Darn exciting stuff. I started researching this topic because I was so excited about the 6.8 SPC, but that was before reading all of your great posts. This is Sony Betamax vs VHS all over again, but lets hope Beta wins this time.

I have never killed a man, thank God, but I have killed and seen killed many man sized deer and the .223 Rem is insufficient. The .30s are wonderful, but they are heavy and fat, and I can understand why the infantryman wants more cartridges with him when all hell breaks loose, so either way we are moving in the right direction. For killing deer or for killing taliban the 6.5 grendel looks like the right tool for the job.

Posted by: Weasel | Tuesday, 09 November 2004 at 23:18

Apparently, there is testing being done on the 6.5 Grendel with a belt fed system.

See the second picture down at www.65grendel.com

A little more info is available on their forum.

Posted by: Autobahndriver | Wednesday, 24 November 2004 at 04:31

It seems to me that the debate over the 6.5/6.8 could go on forever. As an active duty service member with combat and competitive marksmanship experience I would certainly say that a larger caliber bullet is the way to go. The retained energy and higher ballistic coefficients and velocity at whatever range are what kills! 75,77 and 80 grain .223's are great for targets, but they must be loaded individualy in the chamber in some cases. When you are returning fire or initiating fire this is certainly unacceptable. In the case of Afghanistan what we saw was that many of the bad guys were using old soviet body armor and the 62 grainer would not penetrate it. What is needed is a heavier bullet that will penetrate body or thin vehicle armor and still deliver a one shot kill, not a bullet that tumbles excessively. A bullet that retains most of its weight and forward momentum will penetrate better than on which mushrooms and rapidly veers off course. This is why we use bullets that have thick metal jackets. In all of the mentioned comments I would definately say that the 6.5 is the way to go- especially if the military adapted its machine guns to fire this caliber as well as its infantry rifles, further more this would minimize the logistics of supplying and hauling several types of ammo my our infantry or support forces.

Posted by: Darron Todd | Tuesday, 28 December 2004 at 13:27

okay,my two cents. Could it be they prefer the 6.8 SPC because it has almost the same ballistic arc of a 5.56, and therefore they do not need to retrain for new cartridge capabillities? I for one would want a cartridge that would do the most "bang for the buck" but military training is based on repitition. Our guys on the ground are expecting a specific point of aim because of their training. It becomes habit and muscle memory ...almost instinctual. Switching to a cartridge with a flatter trajectory changes the point of impact at different ranges with the same sight picture and firing position. Of course I am making some assumptions, and guesses here, having never served in the military, but as a self proclamed "south Texas Gun Nut" who has fired a great many firearms, I have found that when going from my "Old faithful" (a 27 year old HK91A2) to something like an AR15 or an AK series, I have to fight to keep from expecting as much out of the 5.56 and 7.62x39 as I do the 7.62NATO just from habit.

Posted by: Coolhand77 | Tuesday, 11 January 2005 at 12:43

There have been some interesting developments I have become aware of recently regarding very high BC bullets. Google LM 105 and pick the \snafu\ links.

First, there has been some interesting innovation in using "driving bands" machined into the rear of the projectile to reduce the force needed to move the bullet down the barrel to 20-25% or normal. Because of this change the bullet can vacate the first 5-10mm of the bullet case very quickly, and proceed down the barrel. In doing so it more quickly increases the volume the powder has to burn in - which allows for faster powders without increasing barrel pressures and with the expected increase in muzzle velocity.

To use projectiles with "driving bands", as are common for artillery ammo, and keep from sheering them with the very high twist rates needed for long projectiles, one must use a barrel with a progressive twist. There are companies, including Wather, that currently make such barrels. The point being that one cannot use banded bullets without also using progressive twist barrels.

I have also discovered that one can make a projectile very long, and therefore give it a very high BC, provided it is spun fast enough to maintain gyroscopic stability. To get optimal spin rates we have to get in the range of 7:1 twist for 6.5 diameter bullets.

Lutz Moeller's LM-105 projectile is a whopping 6.5 calibers ( the length is 6.5 times the diameter ) but it gives his .338 Lapua Magnum bullet a BC of about .95.

I submit that the 6.5 is perfectly capable of matching the performance of the 7.62 x 51, at a tremendous weight savings, recoil reduction, and range. The most important dimension to improve on to increase the probability of hit is windage, not elevation, although both are better with higher BC bullets. A long, high BC 7.62 caliber bullet would be far to heavy of a bullet for anti-personnel use, and would not work in current actions either. I suspect a 150 grain 6.5 bullet with a tungsten penetrator and a BC of .7 or better is possible, even though tungsten is much lighter than lead or copper. Using driving bands and faster powder perhaps 2600fps are possible without exceeding the pressure restrictions of military rifles. As a bonus, driving bands greatly reduce fouling and barrel etching by sealing the gasses better and greatly reducing the contact area between barrel and projectile. The high twist rates needed are already needed for the smaller diameter 5.56 77 grain bullet - 7.5:1 by what I have read. As body and vehicle armor improves, and becomes widely used over the next few years, we are going to have to deploy better bullets or lose a very important arms race.

With the Airforce shooting $300-800,000 dollar missiles I think it is ridiculous to argue over the cost of replacing small arms. If we replaced every small arm in our inventory it would be a drop in the bucket in the DOD's budget for even a single year. As a practical matter, many of the small arms are being quickly used up in Iraq and will have to be replaced anyway. The lack of adequate ammo and therefore the fallacy of the "waste" of getting rid of existing inventories has already been documented.

As for the choice of weapon for the Grendel, the M249 SAW was originally developed for a 6mm round, so the Grendel would be well within its reach. Since machineguns are sighted using tracer fire, the change is ballistics from 5.56 or 7.62 should be close to a moot point. The new MK-48 SAW is a 7.62 NATO up-chambering of the ordinary MK-46/M249 SAW, so obviously the design can be up-calibered without a great deal of redesign or engineering. The US Army seems to suffer from a plague of NIH, but even their pigheadedness may not be able to stand up to changing battlefield realities.

Finally, some here have maintained that an Army should never change weapons during a conflict. I would remind those people that the Germans in WW-II developed and fielded one of the best, if not THE best machine guns ever made in the transition from the MG-34 to the MG-42. Having studied the MG-42 extensively, I feel it is an outrage we don't swallow our pride and just buy the gun from the Germans, who do still field it. It takes 3 M240s to match the firing rate of a single MG-42, and barrel changes can be accomplished in 5-8 seconds. I guess the reason we don't buy it is because there are still veterans around who have nightmares about facing German MG-42s in WW-II. Maybe we will soon be able to make rational decisions as those memories fade away.

Posted by: solidpoint | Saturday, 22 January 2005 at 23:06

Just as a side note, the machinegun used as the "Smart gun" In Aliens was a modified MG-42 on a Steady-Cam Harness.

Posted by: Coolhand77 | Wednesday, 26 January 2005 at 12:43

IIRC, the "Smart Gun"/MG42 in the Aliens movie also used a drum magazine.

Posted by: Sam | Thursday, 27 January 2005 at 06:15

The MG42 and MG3 use a belt box which is shaped like a drum.

Posted by: Daniel E. Watters | Thursday, 27 January 2005 at 12:50

I was just wondering what a halotip looks like and wanted to know why its so special

Posted by: Seymour | Thursday, 27 January 2005 at 19:43

Seems to me that with the 6.5 Grendel in two or three flavors and a weapon with two barrels (perhaps 14" and 20") you could pretty much have it all. Use a butt-heavy, steel-tipped 100-grain bullet with faster powder for higher short-barrel velocity, perfect for greatly increased lethality over shorter distances against unarmored targets, but still have increased performance against armor. Perfect arrangement for deploying from vehicles or for MOUT. For foot-mobile or open country warfare you have a longer barrel (with a different sight system) and a heavier bullet for greater retained energy; the heavier bullet could also be used if body armor suddenly becomes an issue, and would deliver more punch from light machine guns or squad automatic weapons. The difference in trajectory shouldn't be a problem, since in CQB (MOUT, jungle, etc.) trajectory

doesn't come into play. An M240 with a heavier receiver and deep-fluted barrel should be almost immune to overheating within 100 or 200 rounds of sustained fire.

I'd also like to point out that lots of folks make good gas-cylinder uppers for the M16/M4 FOW. There's no reason the M16/M4 can't be made as reliable as that space troopers thingy. (Although why the US military doesn't adopt that Belgian front-ejecting bullpup escapes me...)

Posted by: Mike Whitfield | Sunday, 30 January 2005 at 22:25

I wanted to correct an error I made in assuming tungsten is lighter than lead or copper. It is in fact heavier than uranium. This explains why the Navy replaced their 20mm DU shells in the Phalanx system with tungsten core shells.

http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_metals.htm

This means that a SLAP round with a tungsten core automatically IMPROVES the BC of any bullet, all other things being equall. I would expect long 6.5 Grendel SLAP rounds to be in the .85 - .90 BC range as a result. I am not sure about cost. The Nazis were never able to field much SLAP because of the shortage of tungsten.

Imagine an MG-42 chambered in .338 Lapua with SLAP rounds with a BC > 1.0 tearing into/clean-thru enemy armor at say 1000 yards(the max range of an RPG btw). About half the weight and heat of a .50BMG, lighter gun, less recoil, subsonic to over 1,500 yards, and off-the-shelf .5MOA sniper rifles for blowing "dead-enders" out of Mosque towers - far better than the .50BMG. The US Navy paid for the research and development of the .338, its about time they put it to good use.

Posted by: solidpoint | Wednesday, 02 February 2005 at 16:52

After reading all of the above and the Grendels' trying to persuade every one to believe theirs is better. No one has ever mentioned what the 6.8 could do with bullets other than the 115gr. The Grendels' claim all the high B.C.s of thier foriegn Lapua bullets. What about all the different bullets available for the 6.8 which is a .270cal(.277)? The 6.8spc should be able to shoot a 130gr. boat tail with a high B.C. almost as fast as the Grendel, in eaqual barrel lenghts, or how bout a 140 gr with a B.C. of near .500. The 6.8spc is just as good a cartridge as the Grendel so please lets stop bashing around an excellent cartridge design and see which one comes out on top.

Posted by: Capt Schofield | Saturday, 05 February 2005 at 04:05

Capt, I'm not on one side or the other, but my understanding is the longer case of the 6.8 limits the bullets which can be loaded for it so the cartridge still fits in an standard AR magazine. Therefore, the more streamlined, higher BC bullets cannot be loaded for the 6.8, at least not for use using existing AR lowers. The inability to fire such bullets gives the 6.8 an inherent disadvantage vs. the 6.5 in terms of long-range shooting. On the other hand, the 6.8's larger case capacity and larger bullet diameter gives it the advantage at shorter ranges where most combat shots are fired in MOUT fights like Iraq. Each cartridge has its pros and cons. If the military can

only practically supply one round to the majority of regular troops, I'm thinking the 6.8 is the better of the two. For sniping, hunting, or target shooting, I'd prefer the 6.5, given only these two choices.

Posted by: ACE | Saturday, 05 February 2005 at 07:29

Actually, ACE, everything I've been reading lately (army literature) has been saying that the magazines will have to be changed for the 6.8 to work. The grooves in the sides are too deep, and the "lips" at the top of the magazine will have to be "re-formed" to achieve the proper feeding functionality. I still say we need to go to 8mm or so. If I've got to put somebody down, I want it to leave a saucer diameter exit wound.

Posted by: Chad | Monday, 07 February 2005 at 13:29

Good to see healthy debate about the soldier's tool of trade.

My belief in this in this day and age minimum firepower for maximum effect is the key. A small increase in weight (6.5, 6.8 vs 5.56) and the great potential increase in range and leathality is a very minor trade off for getting the right tool for the job. My cynical opinion is this however: As long as the hallowed bean counter, pencil pushers are in charge the needs of the users will be secondary to the cost.

I would greatly love to increase my stand off range and hitting power. I would greatly love to throw the Australian Army issue F88 Austeyr into a lake and carry a Milspec M1A1 Scout. The weight and size of it make it a little more unweildy than the F88 Austeyr however the M1A1 scout as used by ariel feral animal control shooters firing in excess of 30k rounds per year 1-2 shots per kill just keeps on plugging.

If a clear winner between 6.5 - 6.8 is determined and enters service in the next 5 years I'll stand f*?king. And so will wait with baited breath for the bean counters and boffins to make a call one way or the other. I will continue to lug my overweight, lead chucker that doesn't like getting wet over hilland dale and pray I never have to go to war.

The happy Aussie sergeant

Posted by: Fordy | Sunday, 29 May 2005 at 19:58

I forgot to mention I really enjoyed the healthy debate in this forum. There are some really interesting posts here. I just hope the people that matter actually read them.

P.S. for all the faulty of the Steyr at leat you can clean the gas system. Even if it does get Hyrdostatic lock up in heavy rain.

Posted by: Fordy | Sunday, 29 May 2005 at 20:05

ACE states above that the 6.8 SPC has greater case capacity than the Grendel - Incorrect.

The 6.5 Grendel has 2gr greater case capacity than the 6.8 SPC. (a very small difference but the Grendel can hold more!)

In the end it comes down to energy delivered at range and the 6.5 Grendel bests the 6.8 SPC at all ranges except RIGHT at the MUZZLE. The bullet diameter differences are almost negligable - bullet design will make the difference in terminal ballistics and the 6.5 Grendel can load a larger variety of bullet lengths opening up more variety for bullet design.

Posted by: reginhild | Wednesday, 22 June 2005 at 05:34

My take here.

Posted by: Fz | Thursday, 23 June 2005 at 00:56

Just read the latest "comparison article". I really wish people would do an apples to apples comparison instead of using prototype ammo performance vs established production ammo performance. Not to mention using two different types of projectile. Yah, I know the standard 6.5 is 123 grain and the 6.8 is 115 grain, I just want them to test hardball to hardball, OTM to OTM, and ballistic tip to ballistic tip.

Also, I know its been said before, but we need to remeber that the 6.8 case length precludes the use of higher ballistic coefficiant bullets, not because of any failing of the rifle or magazine or feeding, but because they WON'T FIT IN THE AR15 MAGAZINE WELL. Sure, you can stretch it, or use an AR10 Mag well, but then you are changing over to an AR10, not upgrading the AR15.

Nuff ranting.

Posted by: Coolhand77 | Friday, 24 June 2005 at 11:31

We just don't need a head-to-head comparison of these two cartridges. They are two entirely different beasts designed for two entirely different purposes. Therefore, an "apples to apples" comparison - using rilfes with the same barrel length, etc. - just doesn't make sense here.

The 6.8 SPC was designed to be a practical combat cartridge for use by the standard infantryman. The sole reason it was brought into existence was to offer faster incapacitation against bad guys than does our current 62gr. SS109 round (especially when launched from a short M4 barrel). This was deemed most important at extremely close range (CQB) where our boys need to put the bad guys down instantly to avoid catching return fire. The 6.8 never promised to be a 1200 yard cartridge (in fact, I don't think that distances past 300-400 yards ever came into the discussion) - it was simply designed to give our current infantry rifle more authority at normal (to close) combat distances. For development, 6.8 SPC rifles featured standard barrel lengths and used standard-grade ammunition. The terms "match", "match-grade", "benchrest" and the like just didn't come into the picture during the process. Clearly, the 6.8 SPC was designed for use by our grunts and would probably serve them quite well.

The 6.5 Grendel, on the other hand, is a special-purpose round that was developed to enable the M16 platform to fill the sharpshooter/sniper role (or at least to accurately shoot very far). This is true despite whatever Bill Alexander may say. You have to look past the semantics of the issue and consider the developmental process of the cartridge, its goals, and the final product (both rifle and cartridge). The name of the game here was long-range accuracy right from the start. Alexander's weapon uses a (long) 26" barrel and a necked-up benchrest cartridge to foster the ability to accurately engage targets out to 1200 yards. The actual cartridge that was used for development employed (match-grade) Lapua brass and an expensive Scenar match bullet with a BC of .547 - hardly the ammunition one would normally use to test a battle rifle. I'm sure his barrels are match grade as well, and you can see from his video that he is using a rile scoped with a high-end Leupold for testing - not an EOTech or a Trijicon (or anything similar). Alexander developed a sharpshooter/sniper system based on the M16 whether he wants to admit it or not (and it seems like it is a very good one). But the 6.5 Grendel was not designed with the average infantryman in mind, and it will therefore never be our main infantry cartridge.

Posted by: Bowen45 | Wednesday, 20 July 2005 at 11:30

I agree with you in part Bowen, but you are missing the point. If (yes I know, big if there) you get the same or similar performance to the 6.8 SPC out of a 6.5 Grendel with similar specs (similar bullet weight, similar barrel length, similar sights) in an M4 configuration, and the 6.5 can ALSO be used as a DMR, then you reduce the logistics of having two different types of ammo, be it 55-65 grain 5.56 for ARs and 77 grain for the DMR, or 5.56 in the ARs and 7.62 in the DMR. The 6.8 SPC was not designed for the DMR role, this is true, but if the Grendel can fill the AR/CQB role as well as the 6.8 AND fill the DMR role (and SAW role) then it will make a better general purpose round than the 6.8 SPC (Special purpose cartridge).

Posted by: Coolhand77 | Wednesday, 20 July 2005 at 12:44

Don't get me wrong - I understand the point; I just respectfully disagree with it. I see this entire exercise as basically trying to stretch either of these 2 cartridges to fill roles for which they were not designed - all in the name of logistics simplification. This is a dangerous goal, and it's also one that I do not believe offers any real advantages.

Say we did select one of these two cartridges to fill the DMR (to correct my terminology) role and the AR/CQB and SAW role. Our designated marksmen would still be issued different, match-type loads regardless of caliber (we can all agree that we do still want this, right?) Yes, yes, I know - in a pinch our snipers/designated marksmen could then use standard loads, etc. etc. While this looks good on paper, how often will it really come into play? Hence, I believe that any perceived logistical advantage is a bust anyway.

The tradeoff doesn't seem (at all) worth it anyway. We need to give our long-range guys the best caliber modern technology has to offer for that purpose, with the highest BC match bullet coming out of a long match barrel, etc. And we need to give our grunts the best possible load for their work, with no compromise. Our armed forces kick ass, and one of the reasons is that, as a first world country, we are able to provide the right tools for each job. Lets keep it that way.

Anyway, it doesn't seem like Remington is interested in designing a match load for the 6.8 that can (possibly) compete with the 6.5 for 1000-yard shooting (and I really don't think they ever will because this just wasn't ever a goal for them). And it doesn't seem to me that Alexander has even considered trying out his cartridge using a standard bullet in an M4 role. And, realistically speaking, do any of us ever really expect to see a belt of short, fat, 6.5 Grendels hanging out of a SAW?

Posted by: Bowen45 | Friday, 22 July 2005 at 11:01

Actually there was a story a while back that the M107 gunners ran out of match loads so they were snagging ammo from the Ma' Duce belts. Its happened, it will probably happen again.

Some fans of the Grendel are already working on the SAW problem. They have already passed off some prototype info and hardware to the guys at FN USA as of the NRA con this year in Houston.

Posted by: Coolhand77 | Friday, 22 July 2005 at 11:56

I recall random reading from last year that the 6.8 SPC FMJ would fragment after penetrating 5" of bad guy. No such measurement was known for the 6.5 Grendel, but it was thought to be not as good as the 6.8. Note that in Somalia, the 'Skinnies' had a torso about 7-8" thin; and a certain common round used by the U.S. forces went right through the Skinnies without fragmenting...disasterous we all know.

Has the 6.5 grendel fragmentation measurement been better established yet?

p.s. Where's ACE?

Posted by: Sam | Saturday, 23 July 2005 at 14:52

The talk about the 6.8 versus the 6.5 Grendel might as well cease. The 6.8 has been rejected.

Posted by: John L. Schmeidler | Sunday, 24 July 2005 at 07:56

Really??? What is your source?

Posted by: Coolhand77 | Tuesday, 26 July 2005 at 23:14

i have read the article in the guns and ammo specialy adition AR issue

the 6.5 seems like a good round an exelent round if you ask me

as far as it out perfoming the 6.8 well in the magazine they said that their isnt a company thats actually manufactures 6.8`s they were all prototypes or somthing just pre made bullets that they threw together or somthing

but in the article it said that the 6.5mm grendel doesnt dop as far big time as the 6.8 and that it goesa a little faster

as for my source of course guns and ammo

im sure they have a link on their web page to find it

- AR-15 owner for 6 years josh knoxville

Posted by: josh knoxville | Thursday, 22 December 2005 at 04:39

A very good write up on the 6.5mm Grendel........I am a 6.5mm fan of the 6.5mm for the military .....why not just neck down the 6.8 SPC to 6.5mm?

Posted by: Daniel Curry | Monday, 13 February 2006 at 10:14

5th SF take note

Posted by: Daniel Curry | Monday, 13 February 2006 at 10:53

Daniel,

They have already tried that. In fact, it was supposedly favored for its external ballistics. However, the choice of projectiles was limited by the length of the case vis-a-vis the overall cartridge length. Added to this was the requirement that any projectile tested had to be manufactured in the US. From this small pool, none of the 6.5mm projectiles selected for testing offered the terminal performance desired versus the 6.8mm and 7mm SPC. (The experimental 7mm SPC was rejected because of its comparatively poor external ballistics.)

The 6.5mm Grendel isn't hampered by either of these restrictions, and we should soon find out whther the expanded choice of projectiles will offer increased terminal performance over the experimental 6.5mm SPC.

Posted by: Daniel E. Watters | Monday, 13 February 2006 at 14:11

It is funny to see people praise this article and commentary as debate. Basically, considering both what has been said and the fact that Arne Brennan was one of the first to post a comment here, this is a 6.5 Grendel stroke-job. I agree that an apples to apples comparison would be necessary and I agree that an apples to apples comparison is not possible for the reasons brought up by Bowen and Mr. Watters.

Coolhand Bowen's question was "how often will that come into play?" You didn't answer that with your comment. I say this, because the answer is very very rarely. So, I agree that logistical costs would decrease in the long run due to common tooling in ammo production the fact that seperate "match" loads will be made for the DMs still remains a valid point. I agree with you that

sacrificing specificity in tool application for logistical simplification benefits politicians(high level officers included) more than the individual grunt, and I will always side with the person doing the dying rather than the one who gets praise/recognition for streamlining a budget.

Posted by: Mike | Thursday, 16 February 2006 at 22:33

could you explain "stove piping" and what may cause a bullet to do this?

Posted by: Philip Dow | Sunday, 23 April 2006 at 11:51

I was just wondering , what typ of poder are they useing in the 6.5 grendel , with 123gr bullets . thanks AL

Posted by: al | Wednesday, 17 May 2006 at 18:32

To answer your question, Al, I browsed around the Grendel sites and found the 6.5 Grendel is loaded with 30 grains of BL-C(2) spherical (ball) rifle powder (commonly referred to as simply BLC2)

http://www.outdoorsuperstore.com/store/products/productDisplay~HODGDON~SPHERICAL+RIFLE+POWDER+BLC-2~productID~316978.htm

I found the answer on this Grendel FAQ page:

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

Posted by: ACE | Wednesday, 17 May 2006 at 23:32

I may have missed it but I didn't see any mention of J.D. Jones' 6.5mm MPC which looks like a helluva assault weapon cartridge, as opposed to the combination sniper/ elk/ laser arguement I'm seeing.

Posted by: Ken Ruland | Wednesday, 05 July 2006 at 08:33

Ken,

If you'd have entered "6.5 MPC" in the search block in the right column, you'd have found this A-C-E post on the 6.5 MPC:

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/2006/07/65_mpc.html

Don't think it was around when this post was written.

Posted by: ACE | Wednesday, 05 July 2006 at 09:18

Did anyone ever test linked grendel rounds? The feedway of a machinegun is quite a bit longer and gives a rougher ride.

Posted by: Jan Passant | Saturday, 07 October 2006 at 16:47

Jan, doing a search, I find people suggesting a 6.5 grendal belt-feed machine gun, but I don't see any which actually exist.

Posted by: ACE | Monday, 09 October 2006 at 10:16

As far as I know (being a member of the 65grendel.com site) the belt fed grendel is still in the theoretical stage, though the prototype mockup links and shells have been presented to the FN guys at a SHOT show (IIRC around 2 years ago). Who knows. One of the guys is making noises about adapting the MG42 action to it. We shall see.

Posted by: coolhand77 | Monday, 09 October 2006 at 12:46

understandable the grendel is a good round; but why would you change amo type in "midwar". it is hard to believe that the army our services has only one armory!?!and can not keep up with "demand and supply". if that is the case why would going to 6.5mm grendel help supply?

i have done some reading and i like it better than the 6.8mm spc. i was looking to buy a .308 but found the 6.8mm about a year ago and now i see the 6.5mm if i wait a year what might come along?

some thing between a 6.5mm and a .308 is what i would like to see. the flat trajectory of the 6.5mm with the stopping power of a .308;it would make a great hunting rifle like Remington did with the 6.8mm to make it popular. that needs to occure with the 6.5mm and i bet it would win more support.

let the "people" use it, try it, kick it around, and grow to like it; marketing smartly.

Posted by: phil | Wednesday, 11 October 2006 at 00:31

What range do you want that hitting power at? Past 300 yards the M80 7.62x51 round holds on to less energy than the 6.5 Grendel. At 1000 yards the grendel is still supersonic. Between 0 adn 300 yards the 7.62x51 still has an edge in energy, but not by much, and past 25-50 yards the grendel actually passes the 6.8 SPC in energy retention and velocity. ALL THREE ROUNDS HAVE MORE ENERGY AT 100 YARDS THAN THE 5.56 DOES AT THE MUZZLE. That is the important fact to note. When there is talk of a belt fed MG in Grendel, we arn't talking replacing the 7.62x51 GPMG family, we are talking replacing the 5.56 with a longer range, heavier hitting round without having to reduce the carried ammo load as much as would have to be done with the 7.62 NATO round. That would be the M16/M4 and M249 using a round that would allow them to reach out to M240 ranges AND still put enough energy on target to ensure

the bullet penetrates and tumbles like its supposed to, without the weight, recoil, and blast associated with the larger 7.62 NATO round.

Okay, once again, rant off, nomex on.

Posted by: coolhand77 | Wednesday, 11 October 2006 at 10:40

both 25 to 50 and at 300+ yards.

thank you very much for educating me!!please excuse my ignorance.

Posted by: phil | Wednesday, 11 October 2006 at 21:37

Just trying to help. For more information (than you probably want) check out 65grendel.com.

Posted by: coolhand77 | Thursday, 12 October 2006 at 10:37

The arguement between the 6.5 and the 6.8 is not an uncommon one. Anytime before a major war involving firearms, there has always been an arguement amongst gun/bullet makers alike as to why "their" bullet is better.

And unless you test the bullets yourself, don;t expect to get an unbiased review of teh ballistics. Any sharpshooter knows that outta the box bullets usually have a 2-5% difference between shots. And in this case, thats pretty much all the difference there is.

Yes, the 6.5 bullet does have a longer neck helping it get more accurate distance like an arrow over the 6.8 spc, but really...any sniper is gonna use a 7mm or .300 for those distances. We're talking no more than 300 yeards with these bullets.

Now while the 6.5 is a little skinnier, the makeup of the bullet "stubbiness" creates for higher recoil where the 6.8 is more controlable.

More than ballistics make for a good military round. Hell, the US almost went with a .264 variant for WWII and could have got 10 rounds to the internal magazine, but the .30 makers sold their bullet with knockdown power and accuracy.

It's all about how you sell your product. I'd say if you can;t decide between the two...then don't. Stick with the 5.56 as it'll be around for quite a while and it'll continued to be made.

Remember whats important in a military, close to midrange combat round, and that will determine what chambers the next combat rifle.

Posted by: Adam | Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 16:58

I will have to research your comment about the fatter case meaning less controllable recoil...I doubt that is true. I'm not arguing that the 6.8 is a decent CQB to midrange round. My contention is that even out of a 14.5 inch barrel, a 123 grain (standard load, same weight as the stock 7.62x39 combat round) retains around 500 ft/lbs of energy at 800 yards, and remains supersonic to about that distance as well. What this means is it shoots flatter, gets there faster, and retains more energy at ALL ranges except witnin 25 yards where the 6.8 has it beat by a VERY narrow margin. Ballistics (physics) doesn't lie.

What does this mean to the boots on the ground? Means that while you can engage CQB targets just about as effectively as with the 6.8 (both cartridges are better than the 5.56 IMHO) it also gives you better reach in more open country like Afgahnistan (where guys have found the 5.56 lacking in range and power, and the 6.8 wouldn't be much better at those ranges.)

I'm not talking about doing away with larger rounds for long range duty, I am saying give ALL our soldiers the capability to reach as far as they can and still have a viable short to medium range platform.

Posted by: coolhand77 | Wednesday, 21 February 2007 at 09:55