US shouldchange ammo and weapon

[Saigaczech 9]

Yup, too much technology, like adding cost to equipment will solve all problems. It would take just one EMP device to short out a divisions electronics and render it useless. I figure since most modern US fighters are fly by wire it would only take one or two suborbital nukes in the upper atmosphere to ground the US Air Force for good. A buddy of mine worked at Kirkland on the EMP hardening research there and in his opinion there is no way to build a Faraday cage big enough to protect a plane sufficiently and keep it flying. Also, the more miniturized a circuit gets the less EMP it takes to fry it. In the end ground sloggers still rely on the same basics as they did 100 years ago. Too bad most decision makers in the Pentagon are too far removed from the front to see that and are enamoured with technology and large sticker prices. They also do not have to hump all the gear all over hell and back.

 

I noticed that there are new types of shock/pressure induced injuries being diagnosed too. It seems that the armor the infantry wears allows survival in cases that would have been fatal a decade ago. This is allowing the effects of pressure/shock based neurological damage to be seen. I am not sure if it would not be better to let the the soldier die then to have those sort of long term disabilities. Besides the logistical drain on the economy for decades to come, in care for the long term wounded, there is the question as to the quality of life these people experience after. I am not willing to answer that question as it has deep ethical and philosophical implications. All that is certain is that the economy will be affected by the latest war for decades to come in care for the wounded.

 

Maybe war was more human when the weapons would just kill. I think the shift came about due to the thinking that enemy logistics and morale would be more highly affected with use of weapons that just wound. It takes one person to bury corpses but many more to care for wounded. It may be logistically sound at first but now the long term impact on both sides has to be considered. How many disabled vets can we afford?

 

Sorry if I seem cold and mean. It is meant as an intellectual question. I believe in rendering all possible aid to those who sacrificed so much for their country, but there are also limits of practicality. The government has shown it's disregard for the well being of the vets in the recent findings at vet hospitals and care facilities. After all, no congressmen are at the front and how long has it been since a national leader has fought? Middle ages maybe? All I know is that the federal budget is not limitless and that there are limits as to how much debt the nation can incur. We wil be paying for th elatest war for a long, long time.

[Saigaczech 9]

Sorry for the tread hijack, just got long winded. Yes, we need new weapons that are field reliable, easily maintained and with more punch then a glorified .22. I think a gas piston is probably the way to go along with a larger bore, around 7mm. Also the basics of marksmanship need to be re-emphasized, I am sure a lot of failures to stop are due to peripheral hits not into vital zones.

[GPalmer 1]

Good point Paladin. I guess we would be better off committing to either of those two rounds as opposed to limiting our options based on what's already out there. Isn't the refitting of the AR 5.56 platform into 6.8 supposed to be doable?

It's definitely doable but it would take a huge benefit to make it happen because of the lgistical nightmare during the change over. So far, it doesn't seem like anyone is making a push for it to happen. Luckily, my personal logistics are pretty easy to accomodate since I don't have a .223 so the impact of the changeover is minimal.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

6.5 Grendel? Fine! anything but .223.

 

Paladin mentioned that the 6.5 fit the x39 bolt? hrm... oh the possibilities.

 

But then again, I think my .45ACP fits my x39 bolt as well. Has anyone rechambered an x39 for 6.5 grendel?

[cma g21 3]

I will say that the 6.5 Grendel is based on the 6ppc which is derived from the .220 swift, which is in turn based on the .220 Russian which was derived from...wait for it.....yes the 7.62x39!!

 

I thought the .220 Swift was based on the 6mm Lee Navy case.

 

Also, wasn't the Swift introduced in 1935 (about a decade before the 7.62x39)?

[Paladin 37]

Good point Paladin. I guess we would be better off committing to either of those two rounds as opposed to limiting our options based on what's already out there. Isn't the refitting of the AR 5.56 platform into 6.8 supposed to be doable?

 

There are AR uppers already available in both 6.8spc and 6.5 Grendel. The people behind both new calibers specifically are pushing for military contracts and so made them readily adaptable to the existing AR platform. It's a barrel and bolt change. Of course, you still have the direct impingement system and tight tolerances. But it's makes it less painful for NATO to re-equip.

 

6.5 Grendel? Fine! anything but .223.

 

Paladin mentioned that the 6.5 fit the x39 bolt? hrm... oh the possibilities.

 

But then again, I think my .45ACP fits my x39 bolt as well. Has anyone rechambered an x39 for 6.5 grendel?

 

To my knowledge no one has, until now. I am working with Will at Red Jacket on it. I have already sent him the spec's to look at, (he says this looks like it's going to work) ordered my barrel, and am working on the mag issue. The 6.5G fit's some of my AK mags, Will said they fit certain ones of his. I also have a 6.5G specific mag sitting in front of me (got here today) and a Galil /AR mag adapter coming. I'll make the mags work one way or another.

 

 

I will say that the 6.5 Grendel is based on the 6ppc which is derived from the .220 swift, which is in turn based on the .220 Russian which was derived from...wait for it.....yes the 7.62x39!!

 

I thought the .220 Swift was based on the 6mm Lee Navy case.

 

Also, wasn't the Swift introduced in 1935 (about a decade before the 7.62x39)?

 

You are correct, I slid one too many .220's in there. (shouldn't drink and type) I have been researching so many calibers and talking to so many people that I popped a fuse on that one.

It's 6.5 Grendel based on 6mm ppc which is based on the .220 Russian which is a necked down 7.62x39. And that is why they fit my existing bolt. Will says it looks like, at most, a slight contouring of the extractor profile.

[buckandaquarterquarterstaff 5]

If you're going to go to a 6.5mm cartridge, I'd make it 260 remington is a gas piston platform.

[Paladin 37]

If you're going to go to a 6.5mm cartridge, I'd make it 260 remington is a gas piston platform.

 

I'm not sure I follow what your saying Buck. The 260 rem is a necked down 308 IIRC. I know it's a great cartridge from what I've read.

 

The 6.5 Grendel is based on the 7.62x39 so fits my Saiga's bolt. Wolf has a 123gr loaded for it at the same price point as .308, and is coming out 110gr FMJ in steel case that will be even cheaper.

 

There's a slew of domestic factory loads for the 6.5G, from a 90gr TNT that virtually explodes when it hits flesh to 140gr. for larger game. There's documented groups in the 6-9" range at 900 yards! with the Grendel and it has better penetration than my beloved x39. All with the same recoil.

 

I believe there is more loadings available at a better price point than the 260 rem., and I give up nothing going with the 6.5G. Unless you know something I don't? It's too late now anyway, I've ordered my barrel.

Edited December 26, 2007 by Paladin

[JK-47 33]

a complete ammo and weapon redesign is a fantasy. What appeals about 6.8 and 6.5 is the idea you can just rebarrel uppers or slap new uppers on existing m-16 lowers and use the same magazines, muscle memory and training. Thats a bit more practical, then in good time one can move to piston or otherise improved uppers and finnaly to a whole new platform. The truth is there is no media scandal about our current small arms being fielded, so don't expect any change at all.

[buckandaquarterquarterstaff 5]

I may have mispoke, I meant in a gas piston platform, not is a gas piston platform. The 260 rem would fit my saiga 308's bolt ;-)

 

The reasons you like the 6.5 grendel are essentially the same reasons I like the 260 remington. In the grendel a 120 grain bullet can do around 2600 FPS, in the 260 remington the same bullet is travelling at 2900 FPS. Said differently, the 260 remmington can push the 142 BTSP (.580bc) the slightly faster than a 123 grain BTSP (.542bc) pushed by the grendel. A fair bit of difference that would play out well down range, and make a difference on cover.

 

The reason I like the 260 remington is that using such high BC bullets it could be a single platform for sniper guns as well as autos. Unless physics proves otherwise, they must both have about the same amount of propellant and weight to get relatively similar weight bullets going at about the same ballpark velocities. Carrying one vs the other would be a toss up. The thinner 260 case would potentially have an edge in feeding. Both would have issues with full auto mode as tossing the larger bullets would lead to more muzzle rize and recoil than the current 223.

 

In either case, there are a bunch of adaptable platforms to base new rifles on with minimal changes (the 308 bolt face and mags for 260 rem, and the 223 or x39's for the grendel). I could see a FAL based 260 being quite a good choice. Don't get me wrong, I see the grendel as a step up from the 223. However, the 223 still has advantages over both the 260 rem and the grendel in certain ways, but not on the whole in my opinion.

[patriot 7,197]

...don't forget caseless designs are still being toyed with.

[Paladin 37]

Good points Buck & Patriot. The 260 is a great cartridge and the caseless designs may be what we go to next. The fact that the 6.8 & 6.5 can be retrofitted to AR platforms leads me to believe one or the other will be adopted by SF units. But due to the expense involved in equipping all of NATO with them that won't happen until they develop something that's a revolutionary step forward instead of a evolutionary step up.

[RedFalconBill 0]

Both GunnyR and Palidin make goods points, but you need to understand something about procurement. Everything that DoD buys has a code and there is a hierarchy of codes, based on cost and perceived need.

 

Rifles and Carbines (M-16A4's and M-4's) are, in the lexicon of the DoD, more important than paper clips, less important than toilet paper.

 

The only people who really care about what weapons our soldiers use are the soldiers who actually use them, which means only the Combat Arms Personnel really care about any of this.

 

Combat Service Support Units will use what the line dogs do and Serivce Support will use whatever they are issued, and will still bitch about it and not clean it correctly.

[RedFalconBill 0]

Sorry for the tread hijack, just got long winded. Yes, we need new weapons that are field reliable, easily maintained and with more punch then a glorified .22. I think a gas piston is probably the way to go along with a larger bore, around 7mm. Also the basics of marksmanship need to be re-emphasized, I am sure a lot of failures to stop are due to peripheral hits not into vital zones.

 

The M-16A2/A4 and M-4 are field reliable and easy to maintain. There are issues with them, as any system is likely to have, but to state this is not being accurate.

 

Gas Piston? Please....

 

Maybe if you are going to have a VCQB carbine, a la Mk18, I can see the gas piston's usefulness. Also if you use a suppressor, a piston will make a shorter (12" to 14.5") carbine more user friendly when clean up is done, but if you are talking about a 18" barrel assault rifle w/o sound suppressor, it would not make that much of a difference.

 

You are missing the point, you could spend BILLIONS of dollars on marksmanship and still see very little in return for you dollars spent. This is why the M68 CCO has been such a godsend. See the dot, be the dot, shoot the dot.

 

As for changing calibers, well IMO, we went too small 50 years ago when the CONARC rifle spec were made, but then we have what we have. The issue we have is that the velocity of the rounds fired out of the M-4 Carbines reduces the fragmentation threshold of M-855 ammo to 60-90 yards.

Edited December 27, 2007 by RedFalconBill

[topmaul 42]

If I had a vote it would be to go with the Grendal right now, and have the DOD buy out Alexander Arms there by owning the round period. I like it because it fits in existing lowers and is great of long distance. I see two problems with the M-16 platform. First is the round too weak, second is the weapon itself too finiky. We have to slove one problem at a time so let's concentrate on the round first, 6.5 Grendal would be my choice because of it's long range usefullness and punch it packs. We may not always be fighting in the places we are now and being able to use a long range weapon could prove useful.

 

All we really need to do as a staged re-capitalization of our rifle would be first choose a caliber, say Grendal then replace bolts, and barrels, upon a unit's return to the stateside, the unit would shift from 5.56 to Grendel, this would allow plenty of time to train and re-equip before the next deployment.

[buckandaquarterquarterstaff 5]

Putting a gas piston on the current platform won't really help much since the tolerances are too tight and it would only add further complexity without much gain in the ever more important desert.

[RedFalconBill 0]

Putting a gas piston on the current platform won't really help much since the tolerances are too tight and it would only add further complexity without much gain in the ever more important desert.

 

It is not the tolerances, but the clearances that you speak of. As long as the debris is kept flowing, it's fine. This is one of the reasons why we developed a new lubrication protocol after Operation Desert Shield/Storm.

 

The main issue the has plauged the M-16 series of rifles have been its poorly executed 30 round magazine design. Because the original mag well was straight, when they could not design a continuious curve magazine, they just said eff-it and did the best they could with what they had.

 

Aside from proper lubrication, IMO the M-16/M-4 will benefit from:

* Ensuring that your springs (magazine, buffer, extractor, and ejector) are in good working order. If in doubt, replace.

* Use of the H&K 30 round magazine. (I REALLY like the Magpul P-Mag, but the jury is still out)

* If you cannot get the H&K magazines, then rebuild the one's you do have with Magpul's Self Leveling Magazine Followers and new springs.

 

Just my thoughts, YMMV.

[ASSASSIN 1]

I believe the generic AR platform to be an accurate one, i would be willing to rely on one for range use in .223, i have a problem with its design though.............it worries me that if you happen to get a case partially extract and bind then the gun can not be opened as the bolt assembely passes into the butt to act on the return spring, if stuck far enough back this renders the weapon useless. Ok i know there is a bolt foreward assist but from what i have heard it is almost useless in action. The brits designed a .280 calliber before the .223 was adopted and it showed good ballistics (despite some negative reports) so why not chamber a rifle like the G36 in .280 and you got a good reliable and accurate rifle with a harder hitting round that you can still carry more of???

 

assassin

[lammy 1]

Nobody touched on the sig 556 A fair AR/AK mix. I'm getting ready to order one.

[RedFalconBill 0]

I believe the generic AR platform to be an accurate one, i would be willing to rely on one for range use in .223, i have a problem with its design though.............it worries me that if you happen to get a case partially extract and bind then the gun can not be opened as the bolt assembely passes into the butt to act on the return spring, if stuck far enough back this renders the weapon useless. Ok i know there is a bolt foreward assist but from what i have heard it is almost useless in action. The brits designed a .280 calliber before the .223 was adopted and it showed good ballistics (despite some negative reports) so why not chamber a rifle like the G36 in .280 and you got a good reliable and accurate rifle with a harder hitting round that you can still carry more of???

 

assassin

 

The G36 is only so-so and the XM-8 is a joke. To me, if we are going to replace something is should be measurably qualitatively better, not just because today is Friday, so lets change.

 

The FA is not useless, but if you have to hit it more then 3 or 4 times, you are in world of sh*t, and the FA is NOT going to save you from the Zombies.

 

I have only had the type of malfunction you describe with the M-200 Blank ammo, because the BFA came undone at the muzzle. To remove this case, you would have to pound the buttstock on the ground while pulling down on the charging handle to lock the bolt back. Really not that much different then kick starting an AK that has the same issue. Though you could always remove the reciever cover on the AK to 'get at the parts' more easily.

 

Again, the easiest way for any AR-series rifle/carbine to improve reliability would be to replace the springs every 3,000 to 5,000 rounds, unless you go spend real money and buy the CS springs.

 

As to the .280 EM-2 round, it was a good idea, but was squashed by Big Army in the 1950's. We are not going to go back.

 

To me the two Carcano rounds, 6.5x52 and 7.35x52, are much closer to what the avg Grunt has needed in the 20th, and now, 21st, Centuries, then any of the ones we have used, be it the .303 Brit, 7.62x54R, 7.92x57, .30-06, 7.62x51. 7.65x53, 7.7x58, et al.

 

The point of this is moot, because Big Army is not going to change over to any new cartridge any time soon.

[RedFalconBill 0]

Nobody touched on the sig 556 A fair AR/AK mix. I'm getting ready to order one.

 

The Swiss made SIG 551 and 552 Commando have had the pi** beaten out of them in AFG by many European PMG's.

 

Verdict??

 

Not bad, but they get worn out quickly.

 

Don't think the US made version would be any better.

 

The RobArms XCR intrigues me. Can't swing the cash for this right now, though.

[roadblock1983 0]

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?n...le&sid=1011

 

Ill take mine in 6.5 .....please?

[RedFalconBill 0]

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?n...le&sid=1011

 

Ill take mine in 6.5 .....please?

 

Now THAT would be a great VCQB carbine with a 12" barrel in 6.8.

 

Sorry, in barrels that short, the 6.8 is a better round than the 6.5.

 

10" to 12.5" Barrels - Advantage 6.8

14" to 14.5" Barrels - Six of one, Half dozen of the other.

14.5" to 16" Barrels - Slight Advantage, 6.5

Barrels 18" and over - Advantage 6.5

[Paladin 37]

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?n...le&sid=1011

 

Ill take mine in 6.5 .....please?

 

Now THAT would be a great VCQB carbine with a 12" barrel in 6.8.

 

Sorry, in barrels that short, the 6.8 is a better round than the 6.5.

 

10" to 12.5" Barrels - Advantage 6.8

14" to 14.5" Barrels - Six of one, Half dozen of the other.

14.5" to 16" Barrels - Slight Advantage, 6.5

Barrels 18" and over - Advantage 6.5

 

From the ballistic studies I've read I agree with your chart.

I would give the 6.5 better than "Slight Advantage" at the 16" length because it gives up only "Slight Advantage" at CQB but provides "Significant Advantage" at 300yds+

 

While the majority of combat happens at shorter range, the ability to handle the short plays AND be still be able to go deep makes it "distinct Advantage".

 

But that's just me being anal.

[roadblock1983 0]

Sorry I was wishing for it in a 14.5 in barrel to get a good ballance between compactness and quick handling and balistics. It still be huge step up on the M4 in 5.56mm

[RedFalconBill 0]

From the ballistic studies I've read I agree with your chart.

I would give the 6.5 better than "Slight Advantage" at the 16" length because it gives up only "Slight Advantage" at CQB but provides "Significant Advantage" at 300yds+

 

While the majority of combat happens at shorter range, the ability to handle the short plays AND be still be able to go deep makes it "distinct Advantage".

 

But that's just me being anal.

 

Your post made me go back and plug the numbers. I am using the 2,100 fps fragmentation limitation with both Sierra MK and the Hornady BTHP bullets (only in Factory Loaded Ammo)

 

12" Barrelled 6.8 = MV of 2,370 +/- 30 fps = 100 meter Frgamentation Range (SSA 115 Sierra MK)

3.0" Low @ 200m / 1.3" Drift w/ 10 mph wind @ 200m

12" Barrelled 6.5 = MV of 2,220 +/- 25 fps = 70 meter Fragmentation Range (BH 123 Sierra MK)

3.3" Low @ 200m / 0.9" Drift w/ 10 mph wind @ 200m

 

14.5" Barrelled 6.8 = MV of 2,460 +/- 30 fps = 127 meter Frgamentation Range (SSA 115 Sierra MK)

2.3" Low @ 200m / 1.0" Drift w/ 10 mph wind @ 200m

14.5" Barrelled 6.5 = MV of 2,380 +/- 25 fps = 160 meter Fragmentation Range (BH 123 Sierra MK)

2.0" Low @ 200m / 0.6" Drift w/ 10 mph wind @ 200m

 

16" Barrelled 6.8 = MV of 2,520 +/- 30 fps = 148 meter Frgamentation Range (SSA 115 Sierra MK)

1.9" Low @ 200m / 0.8" Drift w/ 10 mph wind @ 200m

16" Barrelled 6.5 = MV of 2,470 +/- 25 fps = 209 meter Fragmentation Range (BH 123 Sierra MK)

1.4" Low @ 200m / 0.4" Drift w/ 10 mph wind @ 200m

 

18" Barrelled 6.8 = MV of 2,580 +/- 30 fps = 168 meter Frgamentation Range (SSA 115 Sierra MK)

1.5" Low @ 200m / 0.7" Drift w/ 10 mph wind @ 200m

18" Barrelled 6.5 = MV of 2,510 +/- 25 fps = 233 meter Fragmentation Range (BH 123 Sierra MK)

1.2" Low @ 200m / 0.4" Drift w/ 10 mph wind @ 200m

 

Looks like you are more correct then I am on this point.

 

Still want some real quality magazines for the 6.5 Grendel, though.

 

Maybe someone can Beta test the 6.8 PRI magazines in the Grendel and give some feed back?

[Paladin 37]

Have you had a chance to try the C Products mag? I have one on my desk in front of me but I haven't built my rifle yet. I will say it's extremely stiff. Loading 20 rounds in it by hand has not been possible. I have it half loaded and pick it up and work the shells in and out to loosen it up. It may need some smoothing on the interior and feed lips.

 

I have a AK Pro-Mag that seems to fit the 6.5G shells nicely. Of course feeding may well be another matter.

 

My barrel from Pac-Nor is due in a few weeks, it's tough waiting for it.

[RedFalconBill 0]

Have you had a chance to try the C Products mag? I have one on my desk in front of me but I haven't built my rifle yet. I will say it's extremely stiff. Loading 20 rounds in it by hand has not been possible. I have it half loaded and pick it up and work the shells in and out to loosen it up. It may need some smoothing on the interior and feed lips.

 

I have a AK Pro-Mag that seems to fit the 6.5G shells nicely. Of course feeding may well be another matter.

 

My barrel from Pac-Nor is due in a few weeks, it's tough waiting for it.

 

Errr, how can I say this....my Grendel is a Contender. I do not have any issues with magazines.

 

But I refer you to this:

 

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread....hlight=products

 

Pull quote from Dr. Gary Roberts on ARFcom.

 

"...We use the 30 rd Barrett 6.8 mm mags, as well as PRI 6.8 mm mags (NOTE: when we want to practice malfunction drills, we reach for our CP mags as they suck)."

[Paladin 37]

Thanks for the link, I've been exploring Grendel.com when time allows, but didn't see this thread. You would think that C products would have done some serious testing before releasing the mags.

 

Perhaps I'll buy the 6.8 mags and see how they work, seems sort of weird that you can use 6.8 mags to run 6.5 but can't use 6.5 mags!?

[RedFalconBill 0]

Thanks for the link, I've been exploring Grendel.com when time allows, but didn't see this thread. You would think that C products would have done some serious testing before releasing the mags.

 

Perhaps I'll buy the 6.8 mags and see how they work, seems sort of weird that you can use 6.8 mags to run 6.5 but can't use 6.5 mags!?

 

I think that CProducts is not forming their feed lips correctly for either of the 6.X calibers and are not heat treating them correctly.

 

There are threads in the ARFcom Archive about how to tweak the magazine lips of the 6.X magazines from CProducts. Now there have been issues with the PRI's as well, but these are fewer and PRI has been much better responding to their customers needs.

 

Since the Grendel is seen as a 'Sporting' cartridge, i.e. not Military, there has not really been the...how can I say this, the 'push' to fix the issues stemming from the magazines.

 

Not to worry though. Bill A. has heard the magazine complaints and has attempted to address these issues.

 

We shall see. 2008 awaits.