New caliber for assault rifles

[csfmann]

What do you think about the "new" 6,5 mm grendel for future rifles? It's so close to the .280 british cartridge of the end of the forties
According to this ballistic table is far superior to the wimpy 5,56x45 and the too powerful 7,62x51.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/65G_144_123_129_120_90.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/280british.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/AssaultRifleCartridgeComparisonChart.PNG

[Manc]

I guess it can be a good compromise. Realistically though, nearly every army has got rifles chambered for, and ammo (lots of it!), either in 5,56 or (fewer and fewer) 7,62.
Can't see a 6,5 fielded in the near future.

[Vandervahn]

I read several times that it is unsuitable for beltfed weapons due to its shoulder angle. If true that would be a big hindrance for adoption as principal infantry cartridge.

[csfmann]

I read several times that it is unsuitable for beltfed weapons due to its shoulder angle. If true that would be a big hindrance for adoption as principal infantry cartridge.
That would be a great problem!

[PhillyMobster]

I think I started a pretty ignorant thread about this like four years ago when I was young and exceedingly stupid. Next to multicam and the RMM, this might be the most painfully rehashed topic on this site. :roll:

[csfmann]

I think I started a pretty ignorant thread about this like four years ago when I was young and exceedingly stupid. Next to multicam and the RMM, this might be the most painfully rehashed topic on this site. :roll:
don't worry that's happened four years ago! For sure it'll be repeated in the next future. This is a forum where people share own ideas ect. What I'm thinking is that we europeans were pushed to coice the caliber by american point of view and it was always a wrong choice. the best caliber in WWII was 7,98 kurz or swedish 6,5.
we are just sharing ideas.

[Laconian]

Have we developed a need for a new cartridge? What advantage of adopting a new cartridge (and a weapon system to deliver it) is there than keeping what we have when the supply chain is supporting it and there haven't been that many stories I've heard of about the complete inefficeincy of the 5.56. To do so will caost a boatload of money that right now, isn't there. And the 7.62 x 51 is too powerful a cartridge? I'm not sure what that means when it comes to putting holes in people.

The 6.5 Grendel seems like a good round. Is it some sort of miraculous solution to the ballistic woes of the world's militaries? I don't think so.

[HVU]

nvm..............

[vajt]

Check out this month's (Dec 2009) issue of Special Weapons for Military & Police magazine. They speak about the 6.5mm and 6.8mm rounds. Basically the 6.8mm is a quick fix to a more powerful 5.56mm round that doesn't require much modification of 5.56mm rifle. The 6.5mm round is more powerful, offering a round lighter than the 7.62mm but almost just as capable, but requires greater level of modifications.

-----JT-----

[James]

This might have been worth talking about 50 years ago, but now I think we just need to wait for man portable lasers.

[KillerBD]

Have we developed a need for a new cartridge? What advantage of adopting a new cartridge (and a weapon system to deliver it) is there than keeping what we have when the supply chain is supporting it and there haven't been that many stories I've heard of about the complete inefficeincy of the 5.56. To do so will caost a boatload of money that right now, isn't there. And the 7.62 x 51 is too powerful a cartridge? I'm not sure what that means when it comes to putting holes in people.

The 6.5 Grendel seems like a good round. Is it some sort of miraculous solution to the ballistic woes of the world's militaries? I don't think so.

It's called propaganda. Of course the company trying to sell their 6.5 Grendel, isn't going to show the data of a superior round, already in service (the 7.62x51mm NATO). That would make them fail.


As for the 'too powerful' comment, yea okay :roll: :backhand:


just my 2 cents.

[Zarak]

This might have been worth talking about 50 years ago, but now I think we just need to wait for man portable lasers.

That's pretty much it. The time of conventional ammunition is coming to an end, 5.56/7.65 will hold us over until it can be replaced with something not marginally better but many times better. Whether that is some form of laser, caseless ammunition, or whatever I do not know.

[Arnie100]

I think we just need to wait for man portable lasers.

Don't you mean phasers?? Besides, I doubt the military's gonna adopt any of these new rounds anytime soon...too many 5.56mm and 7.62mm Nato rounds in the inventory. They're just going to use new ammo like that 5.56mm "optimized" round that was designed to increase lethality in carbines like the M-4.

[csfmann]

Thanks lads for your replies, I've achieved my goal to hear about your point of view. I don't think nato is going to change caliber, too expensive. But every new rifle has a prototype chambered also for 6,8 or 6,5. for sure in next future SF will use a different caliber, they already have new ones for PDW. (MP7 and P90). The learned lessons in Af.stan taught that 5,56 has reached its limit and 7,62 is a powerful caliber but chambered in cumbersome and heavy weapons. SF operators are looking for a new caliber.
Thanks again

[csfmann]

It's called propaganda. Of course the company trying to sell their 6.5 Grendel, isn't going to show the data of a superior round, already in service (the 7.62x51mm NATO). That would make them fail.


As for the 'too powerful' comment, yea okay :roll: :backhand:


just my 2 cents.
Sure do they needs to sell a new caliber? I don't think so, my opinion about "too powerful" 7,62 is referred as AR weapon, it is ok for a mg or a sniper rifle. The comparative table exclude that caliber just because is no more considered. At the end of WWII the new caliber were 7,98 k and experimental .280. US pushed for their Winchester .308, and after few years the canged their minds with Remington .223. Both wrong calibers for an AR, and that it's not just my opinion. Soldier are asking for new caliber and new weapons
I'm 47 I know what does it mean to carry a 5,2 kg just as weapon instead of a 2,7 for a M4!
Have you ever tried?

[oldsoak]

IMHO there is such a thing as an intermediate round - one which will give good results out to realistic combat ranges - after which you use a different round. 7.62 is great for the section marksman and MG for fire out to 800-900m. For an average shot like myself, its performance is lost at range. I'd do just as well with a 5.56 NATO. Even with optics, I dont suppose my marksmanship would improve with rounds pinging off the rocks around me while I'm hanging out my arse after legging it from cover to cover. For those that argue that the 5.56 does not cut it close in, the answer may lie in going to a 7.62x39 type round be that Grendel or whatever for the average grunt and keeping 7.62x51 for designated marksmen who can use the round to its limits.

[Mackie]

Weight? How many in the mag? I guess 30% less ammo.
Firefights where light infantry units ran out of ammo are reality.

[Sarig]

I'm contemplating writing the Norwegian Minister of Defence inquiring why we are not using the 6.5x55 - a norwegian round - but some shoddy 5.56 and 7.62 stuff.

Wonder if 6.5x55 is belt-feedable actually...

[3rdMillhouse]

Wimpy 5.56? Remminds me of the time when I was shot 4 times in the face by an M4.

[csfmann]

Wimpy 5.56? Remminds me of the time when I was shot 4 times in the face by an M4.
That was not a funny day!
However look at youtube the comparison between 5,56 and 5,45

[oldsoak]

5.56 from a M16A2 or SA80 will knock a bloke over at 600m or more - if it hits the right place - we're talking shot placement here. However, getting that CNS hit at that range when all hell is breaking loose takes some. My arguement is that a high powered round is great for a good shot, but possibly a waste of ammo in my trembling hands at any range over 300m in combat. It will take the Pope, the Archbishop, the good Lord and the chief rabbi to get me sticking my noggin up for more than necessary ! In terms of effect, the 5.56 or 7.62x39/Grendel/.280 would fare no worse than a full powered .30 Bejasus in the hands of the average squaddie. The advantage the lighter rounds bring is more bangs per kilo and therefore longer sustainability in a firefight. just my 2c.

[flanker7]

Carrying around a G3 for more than a decade, I'd love to trade it for a 5,56 in most cases. More because of the lighter ammo( =more ammo).
But, I haven't been in a war situation so I can't judge from oldsoak's point of view, but I trust his opinion in this case

[Greek soldier]

Problem with the 7.62x51 is not only the weight but also the heavy recoil, especially on full-auto.

G3 + full-auto = not a good idea.

[Arnie100]

^^Isn't that the same with most 7.62 Nato rifles and the reason why most armies kept them only on semi-auto?

[Greek soldier]

Generally speaking yes. The "old school" steel rifles were and still are uncontrollable on full-auto.

However, I don't know how's the situation today with i.e the SCAR-H and the HK417.

[oldsoak]

Its more to do with ammo consumption. In the days of my youth, we were issued with 4 mags of 20 rounds for the SLR ( FN FAL ) in the Signals. Infantry had minimum of 6 mags plus a load of link for the GPMG and whatever else they could carry. On an auto FN FAL, 80 rounds is enough for about 10 seconds firing. On semi, you'd have about 4 minutes worth of aimed shots before you'd have to duck down and start trying to reload your empties. It was not much of an advance from the 2x50 round .303 bandoleers you got issued with in ww2. Nowadays, the average infantryman carries at least 12x30 rd mags on him and people are still running out firing on semi auto. The fear was that a fully auto weapon would encourage wasting ammunition and as the best you vould hope for in central europe was re-supply every other day, they didnt want to encourage wasteage.

- greek soldier beat me to it ! :-)

[csfmann]

Its more to do with ammo consumption. In the days of my youth, we were issued with 4 mags of 20 rounds for the SLR ( FN FAL ) in the Signals. Infantry had minimum of 6 mags plus a load of link for the GPMG and whatever else they could carry. On an auto FN FAL, 80 rounds is enough for about 10 seconds firing. On semi, you'd have about 4 minutes worth of aimed shots before you'd have to duck down and start trying to reload your empties. It was not much of an advance from the 2x50 round .303 bandoleers you got issued with in ww2. Nowadays, the average infantryman carries at least 12x30 rd mags on him and people are still running out firing on semi auto. The fear was that a fully auto weapon would encourage wasting ammunition and as the best you vould hope for in central europe was re-supply every other day, they didnt want to encourage wasteage.

- greek soldier beat me to it ! :-)
that's true, in bad situation soldier are ****e to spray insted of shooting. It worth their life

[dobrodan]

I'm contemplating writing the Norwegian Minister of Defence inquiring why we are not using the 6.5x55 - a norwegian round - but some shoddy 5.56 and 7.62 stuff.

Wonder if 6.5x55 is belt-feedable actually...

Well, 6.5x55 is available in several flavors, including Norwegian and Swedish, with minor differences, but are not necessarily interchangeable because of different pressures.

Also, the FN MAG was available in 6.5x55 Swedish, and Sweden was the first international customer. Thes weapons were later rebuilt to 7.62x51 NATO, but will fire 6.5 with a few parts changes.

[Sarig]

Well, 6.5x55 is available in several flavors, including Norwegian and Swedish, with minor differences, but are not necessarily interchangeable because of different pressures.

Also, the FN MAG was available in 6.5x55 Swedish, and Sweden was the first international customer. Thes weapons were later rebuilt to 7.62x51 NATO, but will fire 6.5 with a few parts changes.

For old weapons, yes. Essentially it's only called 6.5x55 Swedish in some places because of the abundance of swedish mausers, and ammunitions manufactorers wanting to make it clear that their ammunition were intended for these. Modern ammunition is at far higher pressures than either the swedish mauser or krag variety and should not be fired in either.

Didn't know that about the FN MAG though, that's quite interesting. As far as I know it hasn't been used at all in Norway in the military since the Krag was phased out of military use.

[appslapp]

I think that you only change the barrel on the m240/fnmag..I shoot the fmmag/ksp 58 with 6.5x55 in 1987, but just one time...then i never saw that stuff anymore.

[Karaahmetoglu]

Generally speaking yes. The "old school" steel rifles were and still are uncontrollable on full-auto.

However, I don't know how's the situation today with i.e the SCAR-H and the HK417.


Actually with compensators the Recoil even on old 7.62 rifles (FN FAL in this example), can be lowered drastically, the FN Fal is towards the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qChgml10fy4

[TheSteve]

He emptied the magazine with the FAL in one hand . . . thats absurd.

[csfmann]

This is the old prototype for a new caliber, it was intended for a saw in early seventies by the Department of the Army. The caliber was 6x45mm
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/lawcarts.jpg

[D.E. Watters]

I read several times that it is unsuitable for beltfed weapons due to its shoulder angle. If true that would be a big hindrance for adoption as principal infantry cartridge.

The 7.5x55mm Swiss cartridge case has a 30.5 degree shoulder, and that has a long history of use in belt-fed and magazine-fed automatic weapons. The talk about belt link suitability is also overstated. The Russians, Finns, and Czechs all figured out how to make 7.62x39mm belt-fed machineguns nearly a half-century ago. While it has less taper than the 5.56x45mm, the Grendel case is actually more tapered than the 7.62x51mm. How many people complain about feed and extraction issues in quality 7.62mm NATO weapons?

[flanker7]

A forward grip will also do wonders for the 7,62NATO contolability, but the issue of weight remains...

[wild_wild_wes]

I'm gathering components for a 6.5 Grendel build:

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k132/pseudonominus/GrendelM51.jpg

I predict epic win

[Greek soldier]

Actually with compensators the Recoil even on old 7.62 rifles (FN FAL in this example), can be lowered drastically, the FN Fal is towards the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qChgml10fy4

Well, such things are not for sale in Greece and if they were, only for the Armed Forces' officers. Possession of such hardware from civilians is a no-no.

[ego docui history]

Actually with compensators the Recoil even on old 7.62 rifles (FN FAL in this example), can be lowered drastically, the FN Fal is towards the end.
Very interesting but I still want to find the man that can tame my Nagant's recoil. I'd buy them a beer. By tame I mean more than just put track shoes on the mule that is kicking me.
Also, firing an FAL pistol style is insane.

[Karaahmetoglu]

Very interesting but I still want to find the man that can tame my Nagant's recoil. I'd buy them a beer. By tame I mean more than just put track shoes on the mule that is kicking me.
Also, firing an FAL pistol style is insane.

I am actually more interested in someone doing this to a M14 EBR. If they could lower a FAL's recoil so it could be fired with one hand, then they can do it for the M14 as well.