6.5mm Grendel

[Mikey]

Is this going to be our new military round?  I read the latest Shotgun Blues article on this cartridge and it sounds pretty favorable.  Wouldn't take anything more than a new 'upper' for the M16s but I'm wondering if someone else won't reshape the case dimentions to come up with the same velocities in a smaller case than the one it was developed from.

This new cartridge is based on the 7mmPPC necked to 6.5mm and fires a 120 grain bullet at 2500'/sec (?).  Similar ballistics to the 6.5 Swede and the 260 Remington.  It should work well enough so we don't hear more of those horror stories about the 5.56 not working effectively on hostiles.  My only question is whether the average soldier will lose magazine capacity with that big case?  

I'm also wondering why, if the overall length on this is the same as the Russian 5.45x39mm round, someone just didn't neck down the 7.62x39 case for the 6.5mm bullet?  Would velocity have suffered that much and if so, by what amount?  Would that have made a difference on the battlefield if the 120 grain 6.5 slug traveled at only 2400'/sec instead of 2500'/sec.  It does report nice accuracy.  

I dunno, a fat case like that with a narrow bullet may develop problems - whatchaya'll think?  Mikey.

[.45 COLT]

What I think is, we should quit jerkin' around and go back to the 7.62 NATO.

[nfmMike]

I agree whole heartedly with .45 Colt. The round has been in production forever (almost) and there are already military firearms chambered for it, and there is already a company that makes the M/AR 16/15 in that caliber. How hard does this have to be? Why re-invent the wheel? Oh, it's only taxpayer money anyway.

Let's not go there, right?

[Mikey]

nfmmike:  You're probably right.  Why spend on something that may not be the equal or better than what we already have.  I have always favored the 7.62 NATO round over the 5.56 but don't know if the AR/M 15-16 platform will hold up to continued use with that heavier round.

They had the AR-10 or 18 when I was in the service - it was an M-16 in the 308/7.62 NATO caliber but we never saw it in combat.  Many of us preferred the AK for its heavier bullet, it seemed to work better than the 55 grainer we were shooting.

As a former foot soldier I wouldn't have a problem having to gear up for heavier basic loads if I knew the ammo I was carrying would be  'knock'em down from the start effective'.  The heavier rounds are capable of that but you have to keep the 'grunt' in mind when you advocate changes in ammunition and capabilities.  I remember the M60s cookin' off when we were facing massive assaults and how they would literally 'clear' their field of fire, so I know the 7.62 NATO is effective.  

It also would not bother me to re-design the 7.62x39 AK round to a true mini-308 for better accuracy and long range carry as it could still be fielded in an AK or even M-16 form.  The only problem with using heavier loads that carry farther and more effectively than the 5.56 is that with battle sights we are still limited to 450 meters.  It seems as though there is still room for an intermediate cartridge with better capabilities than the 5.56 yet still light enough so the average foot soldier doesn't stroke out carrying a basic load.  I dunno, whatcha think?  Mikey.

[hillbill]

my question is this? we know the 7.62 is more effective at both long and close range. we know the ak design is more reliable than the ar design. why not build a higher quality ak version in 7.62x39 or even .308 or even a new cartridge. with a slightly longer barrel, better sights and slightly better stock design. oh wait, has this question been asked before?

[hillbill]

oh! last shot bolt hold open feature also!