6.5 Grendel tryout

The place to discuss ammunition, reloading, ballistics, loads, and chamberings.
User avatar
randy
Posts: 8257
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: EM79VQ

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by randy »

Netpackrat wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:51 am All it will really take is for the media to conduct and publicize their own tests of issue 5.56 against modern armor....
Which is not likely to happen until the next time there is an (R) in the Whitehouse
...even before I read MHI, my response to seeing a poster for the stars of the latest Twilight movies was "I see 2 targets and a collaborator".
User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13841
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by Netpackrat »

randy wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:38 pm
Netpackrat wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:51 am All it will really take is for the media to conduct and publicize their own tests of issue 5.56 against modern armor....
Which is not likely to happen until the next time there is an (R) in the Whitehouse
I wouldn't bet one way or the other. The ratings are there for the taking, and they are as much in the business to make money as to push their agenda.
Vonz90 wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:36 pm 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.
Not really even next generation armor. Level III+ aka "special threat" plates are designed specifically to stop 5.56, and it is more or less becoming the de facto standard, at least in the US. M855A1 is going to penetrate some 3+ armor but there you are talking about a round that is really pushing the limit of what is possible from 5.56 without much regard for the longevity of the rifle.
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
HTRN
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:05 am

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by HTRN »

What I see as most likely happening is the military going back to 20" barrels. Remember, velocity is key with armor penetration, and ss109 loses almost 200 ft/sec vs M4barrel length(14.5")
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
Precision
Posts: 5186
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:01 pm

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by Precision »

HTRN wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:13 pm What I see as most likely happening is the military going back to 20" barrels. Remember, velocity is key with armor penetration, and ss109 loses almost 200 ft/sec vs M4barrel length(14.5")
They should at least go back to 18" barrels for the 5.56 and perhaps look at more complete powder burn at 16-18" lengths.

Velocity and slim bullet profile. All things being equal (and even giving the fatter bullet a heavier weight) a 5.56 traveling at 3200 fps will penetrate better than a 6.5 or 308 at 3200 fps because the force is concentrated in a much smaller area. Things like penetrating tips and the like obviously help. And it is almost never the case with velocity being equal with a fatter / heavier bulletin comparison to a lighter thinner one.

My Level IV / IIIA plus (can't remember which) are easily defeated by 5.56 at 25-50 yards. Ice pick hole. I tested one for another reason and did not know that would happen. oops. Barely dented by a 308 at the same distance. Both FMJ and +/- 3200 fps and +/- 2600 fps respectively (IIRC on the velocities)

If I did my math correctly,
the 5.56 is 0.394" sq
the 6.5 is 0.547" sq
the 308 is 0.745" sq
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
My little part of the blogosphere. http://blogletitburn.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by Vonz90 »

One thing that is feasible with a 6.5 or 7.62 caliber is using a sabot with a tungsten or similar penetrator. Could sort of do it with a 5.56 I suppose but the penetrator would end up very small.
User avatar
HTRN
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:05 am

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by HTRN »

Vonz90 wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:37 am One thing that is feasible with a 6.5 or 7.62 caliber is using a sabot with a tungsten or similar penetrator.
Cough, Remington Accelerator, Cough ;) :ugeek:
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 »

Vonz90 wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:37 am One thing that is feasible with a 6.5 or 7.62 caliber is using a sabot with a tungsten or similar penetrator. Could sort of do it with a 5.56 I suppose but the penetrator would end up very small.
When they make something like that, are they using tungsten carbide, regular old tungsten, or something else? Asking for a friend.
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 »

Netpackrat wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:05 pm
Vonz90 wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:37 am One thing that is feasible with a 6.5 or 7.62 caliber is using a sabot with a tungsten or similar penetrator. Could sort of do it with a 5.56 I suppose but the penetrator would end up very small.
When they make something like that, are they using tungsten carbide, regular old tungsten, or something else? Asking for a friend.
I don't know, I understand the theory and all and have used them (the 20mm Vulcan on CIWS used DU penetrators with sabots).

The theory is in would want something as dense and as hard as possible. Reduce the diameter via the sabot and the total weight vs a full size shot and you can get higher velocity from the same pressures, but this would imply the total weight should be less than the total weight of the standard shot (probably not fot the 20mm as it was designed around DU application; I think that was an 11mm penetrator or something like that).

We were nominally switching to a non DU round when I left active duty, but we never actually had any on board so I do not know what it looked like.

I would think carbide steel would work, if it had some tungsten or similar to bump up the density that would be a plus. Unfortunately I think the BAFT takes a dim view of making things like that.
User avatar
blackeagle603
Posts: 9712
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:13 am

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by blackeagle603 »

I get it we're all gunnuts but seems like more talk of deploying
a) more packable personal 'splodey stuff than can go down range as well
b) personal/squad level drones (sensors as well as ordnance capable) and
c) drone countermeasures
might be called for.

FIled under: Horseshows and hand grenades
"The Guncounter: More fun than a barrel of tattooed knife-fighting chain-smoking monkey butlers with drinking problems and excessive gambling debts!"

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;" Justice Story
User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13841
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: 6.5 Grendel tryout

Post by Netpackrat »

Vonz90 wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:41 pm Unfortunately I think the BAFT takes a dim view of making things like that.
Yes, they do.
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
Post Reply