6.5 Grendel tryout

The place to discuss ammunition, reloading, ballistics, loads, and chamberings.
Rich Jordan
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:04 am

6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by Rich Jordan »

A confluence of a cooler weekend, no work scheduled, and the recent arrival of 160 rounds of brass cased ammo means I may finally get to test the LaRue UU 6.5G rifle on Sunday. This will be indoor but at 75 yards; the range won't allow steel case (much less steel jacketed) ammo and all I had until recently was 200 rounds of Wolf. There has not been a hint of Grendel ammo locally at retail since before I jumped into the 'new caliber' deep end of the pool last November.

So I get to spend $1.50 or $1.75 per shot for S&B FMJ ammo unless I can get some loads built on Saturday. Have to wait for an outdoor range try to try the Wolf that cost $0.60/round (prices were already escalating but had not peaked).

Whee! I definitely need to make time to reload; I have components to make at least 1K rounds with various bullets to try. Just picked up 1k 90gr jhps and I have at least 500 123gr FMJs

Any pet 6.5 Grendel loads here?

If the range wasn't so expensive per hour I'd do two hours and also take the 6.5CM that somehow got past the no new caliber rule last year :?

They both need testing and sighting in...
User avatar
Combat Controller
Site Admin
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:03 am

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by Combat Controller »

I used to have one and gave it up as too hard to manage. Now the .MIL looks like they might go the 6.5 route (finally) I might look at it again. Let me see what loads I worked up 11 years ago or so...
Winner of the prestigious Автомат Калашникова образца 1947 года award for excellence in rural travel.
User avatar
HTRN
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:05 am

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by HTRN »

Combat Controller wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:24 pmNow the .MIL looks like they might go the 6.5 route
It will be never happen. In fact its high probable that .223/5.56 will be with us for as long as we use conventional metallic cases and solid propellants.

It boils down to too much changeover cost for too little performance improvement. The infantry, outside of urban fighting, have become the mop up for ea of the US military.
HTRN, I would tell you that you are an evil fucker, but you probably get that a lot ~ Netpackrat

Describing what HTRN does as "antics" is like describing the wreck of the Titanic as "a minor boating incident" ~ First Shirt
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by Vonz90 »

HTRN wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 3:50 pm
Combat Controller wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:24 pmNow the .MIL looks like they might go the 6.5 route
It will be never happen. In fact its high probable that .223/5.56 will be with us for as long as we use conventional metallic cases and solid propellants.

It boils down to too much changeover cost for too little performance improvement. The infantry, outside of urban fighting, have become the mop up for ea of the US military.
I am not so sure, what is driving the potential change is the advancement and ubiquity of body armor. They want something with a higher momentum baseline to penetrate current armor at longer ranges and penetrate next generation body armor at all. The don't want to give up weight or rounds carried to do it though.

Personal guess will be a 6.5mm round from a telescoping polymer case, but who knows. If it fits in STANAG magazines, maybe just a rebarrel on the M4/M16 so logistics cost is manageable.
User avatar
Combat Controller
Site Admin
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:03 am

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by Combat Controller »

That and Afghanistan has schooled us we need to go longer ranges with more impact. But then again we always fight the last war...
Winner of the prestigious Автомат Калашникова образца 1947 года award for excellence in rural travel.
User avatar
HTRN
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:05 am

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by HTRN »

Combat Controller wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:20 am That and Afghanistan has schooled us we need to go longer ranges with more impact. But then again we always fight the last war...
Except the beancounters will always point out that the biggest inflictor of casualties has been Artillery and now Airpower. Which adds greatly to warfighting capability - buying a half dozen strike aircraft/a pair of heavy bombers/a single new Arleigh Burke class, or replacing our entire small arms inventory and ammunition supply?

It's not gonna happen. You may see elite units upgrading to AR-10 based platforms in 6.5 Creedmoor, but general line infantry? Not gonna happen, especially with the current administration, war winding down, and shrinking defense budgets.

Honestly, I think expanding networking and having more heavy mortar teams makes more sense - too far for .223? Flatten it with 81mm.
HTRN, I would tell you that you are an evil fucker, but you probably get that a lot ~ Netpackrat

Describing what HTRN does as "antics" is like describing the wreck of the Titanic as "a minor boating incident" ~ First Shirt
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by Vonz90 »

HTRN wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:58 pm
Combat Controller wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:20 am That and Afghanistan has schooled us we need to go longer ranges with more impact. But then again we always fight the last war...
Except the beancounters will always point out that the biggest inflictor of casualties has been Artillery and now Airpower. Which adds greatly to warfighting capability - buying a half dozen strike aircraft/a pair of heavy bombers/a single new Arleigh Burke class, or replacing our entire small arms inventory and ammunition supply?

It's not gonna happen. You may see elite units upgrading to AR-10 based platforms in 6.5 Creedmoor, but general line infantry? Not gonna happen, especially with the current administration, war winding down, and shrinking defense budgets.

Honestly, I think expanding networking and having more heavy mortar teams makes more sense - too far for .223? Flatten it with 81mm.
It will probably still be from an M4/16 platform. So the costs will not be what you seem to think. But as body armor gets better we will get to the point where .556 is not effective beyond point blank range and they will need something with more penetration. At that point there will be no question of good enough vs better, it will be a question of we need something that works at all.
User avatar
HTRN
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:05 am

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by HTRN »

Vonz90 wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:39 am It will probably still be from an M4/16 platform. So the costs will not be what you seem to think. But as body armor gets better we will get to the point where .556 is not effective beyond point blank range and they will need something with more penetration. At that point there will be no question of good enough vs better, it will be a question of we need something that works at all.
There is no cartridge that will fit in an AR-15 that will enhance lethality vs current armor piercing 556 to any significant degree. Increase the range of legality, sure, but considering that the only way to guarantee penetration when m193 is used is to either be far enough away, or to be wearing level 4 armor.There is no way in hell that they'll adopt the Grendel, because it wasn't dreamed up by some DARPA think tank.

You want something thats going to reliably stop Eddie insurgent and his buddies when they're wearing level 3 ceramic armor 500 yards away, you're gonna have to move up to the AR-10 platform, probably move to some flavor of 6.5mm, develop an AP round for it, and, oh fix the training of of infantry in US ground forces to engage them, because they're not learning that shit in basic.

Or they can do what they've been doing for the last 20 years - call in a drone strike or mortar barrage.

But requip the "tail" of the US warfighting capacity, to the time of a couple of billion dollars?! Not gonna happen.

They can't even come up with a viable plan and finding to replace the godawful M249(really, they should just buy a bunch of Ultimaxs), and you think the army is going to start spending money, on rifles?
HTRN, I would tell you that you are an evil fucker, but you probably get that a lot ~ Netpackrat

Describing what HTRN does as "antics" is like describing the wreck of the Titanic as "a minor boating incident" ~ First Shirt
User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13841
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by Netpackrat »

HTRN, I think you are maybe looking at this the wrong way. In the past when the subject of switching away from 5.56 has come up, the most that would have been possible was an incremental improvement in effectiveness, and you would have been right. But against modern armor, we're looking at more of a pass/fail scenario. All of your points on what weapons actually kill the majority of enemy fighters, become meaningless when compared to the political suicide of being perceived by the public as arming our soldiers with weapons that demonstrably do not work.

All it will really take is for the media to conduct and publicize their own tests of issue 5.56 against modern armor, and the public outcry will all but force the military to finally upgrade their standard caliber. Whether or not the solution ends up being as practical a weapon as what they have now won't even matter so much compared to the need to be doing something. Eventually it's going to happen because there are easy ratings to be had there by ginning up some good old fashioned public outrage which will actually be somewhat justified for once.
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati

"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by Vonz90 »

HTRN wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 7:20 am
Vonz90 wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:39 am It will probably still be from an M4/16 platform. So the costs will not be what you seem to think. But as body armor gets better we will get to the point where .556 is not effective beyond point blank range and they will need something with more penetration. At that point there will be no question of good enough vs better, it will be a question of we need something that works at all.
There is no cartridge that will fit in an AR-15 that will enhance lethality vs current armor piercing 556 to any significant degree. Increase the range of legality, sure, but considering that the only way to guarantee penetration when m193 is used is to either be far enough away, or to be wearing level 4 armor.There is no way in hell that they'll adopt the Grendel, because it wasn't dreamed up by some DARPA think tank.

You want something thats going to reliably stop Eddie insurgent and his buddies when they're wearing level 3 ceramic armor 500 yards away, you're gonna have to move up to the AR-10 platform, probably move to some flavor of 6.5mm, develop an AP round for it, and, oh fix the training of of infantry in US ground forces to engage them, because they're not learning that shit in basic.
You missed a couple of my points. Next generation armor, it will not be a question of the .556 round not getting through body armor at 500 yards, it will be an issue at 50 yards. That is what they are planning on.

As I said, they do not want to give up rounds or add weight, thus all of the work on telescoping case ammo for small rounds. 15% smaller for same power also means 15% more power at the same size. The 6.5mm round they are working on is about the size of a 6.8 SPC but hotter (so I have read).

There is a reason so many companies are looking at this now, the .mil is telling them they want it.

https://www.military.com/kitup/2016/09/ ... rbine.html
Post Reply