Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50
  1. #21
    jabezkin is offline Stainless
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    littlestown,pa
    Posts
    1,732

    Post

    Seldom do people write poorly about their own product. How much difference does that mean on the real world. If you put a punkinball like that in the other rounds what would the results be. A 147 in a 308 is not the round of choise.
    Have the round fit the need by range energy and shooter.

    A 44 mag close up on a hog is one thing, at 100 yards by some, at 200 by few.

    Hunt mean hogs close with a 223 by few, but a chuck at 200 yards, by most who try.

    We are trying to make up a round to fit all needs.

    Civil War Union: 194 different calibers
    Have the right gun for the shooter, but do you want to trust your life to the 6.5 at 1000yds.

    Heck, I'm building a 257x 50, both rimmed and rimmless.

  2. #22
    WILLEO6709's Avatar
    WILLEO6709 is offline Diamond
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    WAPELLO, IA USA
    Posts
    4,857

    Post

    any shoulder fired 308 automatic is a handful,t he M14, FAL, M60, etc. Fully automatic fire is not the norm in combat, unless you are guarding the ammo dump..... The grendel does have a following and it does suit a purpose. Its VLD bullets have a following in the long range match shooters and I believe the Army Marksmanship unit has some. It is by no means a weapon issued in theater at this point. The Grendel ammo availability is its biggest weakness right now.

  3. #23
    Dtech is offline Aluminum
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    N. MN
    Posts
    153

    Post

    I'm building .243, .25 and 6.5 WSSM upper-receivers for the AR-15. The 6.5 WSSM waxes the Grendel by far, but it's not going to be a NATO round either. There is a lot more to "what" is going to be a NATO round than what the bullet has for energy at 1000 yards.

  4. #24
    detroitmachinery is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    143

    Post

    What I meant by a handful is that the 5.5 lb M-16 would be hard to keep steady with .308 NATO. You would need a fully automatic rifle for clearing rooms, but I prefer a M4 12 gauge shotgun. The M14-10 lbs,FAL-10 lbs,M60-23 lbs are much heavier weapons than M-16. I personally like the .308 round, but it is 25% heavier than the 6.5 which means that you could carry allot more rounds for the same weight. Plus you would need to add about 2 lb more weight to the M-16 to handle the beefier barrel, and action. I personally would prefer a M14 in .308 it packs allot more punch, but for urban combat a lighter and shorter weapon is allot easier to maneuver. For long range sniping .300 mag, .50 cal, or .416 Barrett depending on range. The .416 has even better long range accuracy than the .50 cal. Either way dead is dead. All three of those rounds will annihilate the BG's. No one weapon is perfect for every job, but we can all agree that the 5.56 is too underpowered.

  5. #25
    GGaskill is offline Stainless
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Chino [Flats], Ca SSR, USA
    Posts
    1,621

    Post

    If we could replace the spray and pray mentality with the one shot, one kill mentality, ammunition weight would cease to be important.

    By the way, I prefer grenades for room clearing.

  6. #26
    jabezkin is offline Stainless
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    littlestown,pa
    Posts
    1,732

    Post

    Yeah, I have an ex-wife also.

  7. #27
    Dtech is offline Aluminum
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    N. MN
    Posts
    153

    Post

    Quote GGasKill: "If we could replace the spray and pray mentality with the one shot, one kill mentality, ammunition weight would cease to be important."

    That is exactly what the commission that was looking into the 6.8 SPC found in the end. They basically found that there were a lot more NG troops on the ground than ever in the past. The NG troops, for the most part, were not the marksman that their Marine counterparts were. They found that the Marines that were putting the 5.56 bullet where it belonged, the BG went down and stayed down. Dead is dead.....

    There is no limit to "how much" or "how big" you can go.

  8. #28
    GGaskill is offline Stainless
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Chino [Flats], Ca SSR, USA
    Posts
    1,621

    Post

    It is my understanding that the Marines spend a lot more time and effort in markmanship training than does the Army, NG or otherwise. I know that in my day (1968), Army markmanship targets were the Trainfire silhouettes, not round bullseyes. The problem with them was that a hit anywhere was considered success (like modern steel silhouette shooting.) They even seemed to be susceptible to rock spray from hits in the ground in front of the target. So there was no differentiation between minor wound and disabling or fatal wound hits. They sped the process since no one had to go down range to examine the targets but blurred the results.

    Too many bean counters and movie makers driving the process.

  9. #29
    detroitmachinery is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    143

    Post

    The Marines are excellent marksmen, but these drugged up sob's don't go down with one shot with 5.56, unless you hit them in the melon. Grenades are defiantly effective for clear rooms, but you have to be careful that you don't detonate a stash of RPG's or other explosives.

  10. #30
    gunpartsguy is offline Plastic
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    So California
    Posts
    10

    Post

    I don't know why this topic keeps coming up. I guess it's fun for the armchair commandos.

    The thing to keep in mind about the M16 and the 5.56x45mm round is that it wasn't designed to hit targets at 1000 yards. It was designed to engage targets at up to 400 yards, because extensive studies of WW2 engagements decided that most combat took place at less than 400 yards. It was designed to give the foot soldier lots of ammo, and lots of firepower for close range "chance" engagements.

    The inception of the 62gr SS109 projectile was brought in when the M249 joined the fray. The SS109 projectile was an attempt to give the squad automatic an effective range up to 800 meters. In the SAW (M249) and in standard length M16 barrels the SS109 projectile excels. But when you start using it in really short 14.5" barrels, it's performance starts to suffer. The main reason for the adoption of the SS109 in the M16 was to keep commonality in ammunition between the two platforms.

    The primary advantage of the 5.56 cartridge is that it's fast, and lightweight. This means it delivers a lot of energy to the target, and allows you to carry more ammunition. However, the down side is you lose range and some of the punch.

    While the loss in range was decided to be acceptable for the platform, there is always a desire for more punch. And to an extent this can be recovered through the use of other bullet designs. (Frangible, Ballistic Tip, monometal etc depends on application)

    While the 6.5 grendel is one vendors answer to a perceived problem. But to draw a direct comparison
    between it and the 5.56 is comparing apples to oranges. The 6.5 grendel is functionally a wildcat cartridge. The 5.56 is a carbine cartridge.

    While it is argued that the 5.56 doesn't have the knock down power required. There are a lot of dead bad guys who would disagree. In my assessment the problems with the 5.56 can be address primarily by designing bullets which are better suited. I normally shoot 52gr BTHP, and 45gr frangible. It is very rare that I'm pushing this beyond 300 yards. If I'm pushing it farther than that, I have a .308 to take me out to 1000 yards, and a .300 win mag which will go even farther than that.

    Use the cartridge that works best for your application, it is well known (if you read any hunting article about it) that no single cartridge does everything!

  11. #31
    jabezkin is offline Stainless
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    littlestown,pa
    Posts
    1,732

    Post

    Very nicely put.

  12. #32
    detroitmachinery is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    143

    Post

    This guy sums it up best. This is a very short read, and he points out some very good facts. http://www.65grendel.com/65g_unifiedmilitaryround.htm

  13. #33
    jabezkin is offline Stainless
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    littlestown,pa
    Posts
    1,732

    Post

    He says"I,me, assumption, if, more study."... Distill it down to "It would be nice if."

    And as a 1000 yd weapon, I thought we weren't gonna' do that, But he says so.

    It slices, it dices, it even makes jullian fries!

    One size does not fit all in weapony.

  14. #34
    detroitmachinery is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    143

    Post

    I disagree with him with regard to the .308 nato. The 6.5 is too small to do the work of a large caliber round. There is no perfect round for every situation. You always need make compromises in stopping power vs. bullet weight. But if you could have a decent chance, of hitting what you aim at from 1000 yards, and still have at least 1000+ fps velocity at that range, with a 144 gr slug, what's the down side?

    "I accept the assumption that 99% of infantry firefights take place within 500 meters, and probably 85% take place within 300 meters. I still want a realistic long-range capability."

    The .308 is a better hard target buster than the 6.5, so I would not be willing to have a one size fits all, especially in vehicle mounted machine guns. Plus 6.5G has a short fat case that would not feed as good in a full auto belt feed machine gun.

    I think that a 6.8 necked down to a 6.5 could be a good compromise round. The .308 is here to stay for a long time to come.

    OT: .50 BMG pistol

  15. #35
    jabezkin is offline Stainless
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    littlestown,pa
    Posts
    1,732

    Post

    50 BMG pistol, 15 years ago, after he built a 458 on on a XP-100. Good thing all the powder can't burn in a short barrel.

  16. #36
    USMCPOP is offline Titanium
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Midlothian, Virginia
    Posts
    2,610

    Post

    I was wondering why the 6.8 SPC ended up with a larger bullet rather than something in 6.5 with a better B.C.

  17. #37
    northman is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    9

    Post

    Look at the new 6.5x47 lapua round. Based on the 308 case. That should be the new standard!!

    123 grain bullet with a BC of .547 driven at 2700-2800fps in a 20"ish barrel.


    You can find information about it here: http://www.6mmbr.com/index.html

  18. #38
    Yankee Metallic's Avatar
    Yankee Metallic is offline Hot Rolled
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sierra Nevada Mountains - Motherlode, CA USA
    Posts
    544

    Post

    This is a long response for all of the arm-chair commando's, but it may be worth reading if you are interested in this continuing debate.

    northman
    Look at the new 6.5x47 lapua round. Based on the 308 case. That should be the new standard!!
    123 grain bullet with a BC of .547 driven at 2700-2800fps in a 20"ish barrel.
    Why should that be the new standard for a military round? Just because of the high BC?
    There is so much more than a high BC that makes a military round good. The 123 grain AK47, SKS cartridge has a BC in the mid .3__'s and is ballistically similar to the .30-30 cartridge. However that AK (7.62 X 39 mm) cartridge has killed more people in the world than any other round. Although their is an arguement that 100 million of the AK's have been produced in all variants.
    The main issue on military rounds is to impart energy from a reasonably accurate bullet into the target. That 6.5mm BR, 123 grain bullet, while from an accurate cartridge combination, has the same speed as a 7.62 X 51mm NATO (effectively the .308) but the 6.5 has a limited ability to impart enough muzzle energy / killing, stopping power onto a human target. The sectional density of the 6.5 BR would be better than the AK round because it is just as heavy but carries its weight behind a smaller diameter nose giving it better penetration, but it is still a lightweight bullet for combat. I'll admit I know a little about BR shooting, BUT a lot about military/tactical cartridges.
    BR cartridges are meticulously loaded, into meticulously measured and weighed cases, shot out of massaged and tricked bolt guns that rarely even resemble mass produced bolt guns due to barrel contour, applied weights, shaved bolts, featherweight triggers etc.. The BR, and other wildcat cartridges, are generally fragile due to their shallow seating depths, and especially so in the case of the 6.5 mm BR. Cartridge durability comes into play when it is banged around in a metal/polymer magazine with 19 or 29 of the others already packed into it. It must withstand being dropped, variations in weather, water immersion, and recoil of the weapon. The seating depth is important for this fact in that the rough treatment of the round does not affect the seating depth so much that it fails to load or fire in an auto-loading assault rifle.
    While the description from the link you provided states, "Despite its small size, the 6BR offers better ballistics than a .308 Win, though the 6.5 BR burns 33% less powder and produces 55% less recoil. (6BR with 105gr compared to .308 with 175gr.)"
    Better ballistics than what? In a higher BC? Since hollow point bullets are restricted in some warfare (Hague), you need a light bullet at high speed that will fragment (Not the tumbling myth since all medium caliber / medium velocity bullets tend to yaw in flesh) or a heavy bullet to put that target down. Tests have proven that light 'ball' rounds forced into conditions that exceed their engineered velocity (decreased velocity at target due to extended range or shortened barrel length) will simply leave a hole with a limited wound profile (permanent & temporary wound cavities). That is the problem they are having in Iraq right now with the light 55 - 77 grain bullets from the M16/M4's. The 5.56 mm bullet is having a limited effect on human tissue because the longer ranges are scrubbing off the velocity needed for that bullet to fragment, and even to penetrate layers of clothing. They are simply leaving .22 cal holes in the body.
    The existing 7.62 X 51 mm (.308) cartridge in the 168 gr. bullet weight has a BC in the high .4__'s and it still carries a high wound profile to a person at extended & point blank ranges. The M1 & M14 , although heavy, were ballistically and field-proven to be a much better battle rifle due to the cartridge it shot (.30-06 & .308). The combination weapon + cartridge capabilities were just beyond the average soldiers marksmanship ability, with the Special Op's and snipers being trained to use it to it's highest potential.
    A 6.5 bullet is essentially a .243 caliber. WOuld you rather go to war with a .30-06 / .308 or the .243 realizing how many enemy casualties were handed down by the .30-06 in WWI (M1903A Springfield)& WWII (M1 Garand)?
    BR shooters have minutes to shoot one round from a highly specialized bolt action rifle. That IS NOT combat. I doubt the gasses produced from the 6.5 would even cycle an autoloader, and I strongly doubt the bullet seat configuration would even feed in an auto-loader.
    The 7.62 X 51 was extensively tested for military use in the 50's for American and NATO countries. That cartridge is so versatile it can be used in a variety of weapons of our miltary. It is used in the M1, M14, M60 machine gun, M240 light machine gun and in the accurized sniper rifles (whether they be bolt or gas operated) M40 SWS (Remington 700), M21 SWS (Accurized M14),M24 SWS (Remington 700), AR-10 (Larger AR-15 Platform), SR25 (Larger AR-15 Platform), and multi-barrelled mini-guns, not to mention the similar weapons of our NATO allies. It is interchangeable with all of the NATO countries in the event of a world war and the need to get your ammo from your neighbor (although in different bullet weights 147 grain usually).
    So it goes to show that one NATO country cannot just "willy-Nilly" change a cartridge in their main battle weapons just because it is accurate and seems to be the next best thing.
    Many people don't know that the modern M16 / M4 battle rifle was originally designed to shoot the 7.62 X 51 mm cartridge. It was emasculated by W. McNamara and the Gubment because they wanted a battle rifle that was lighter and could carry more rounds to increase, "...expected casualties per combat load."
    I know the 7.62 X51 mm & .308 inside & out since I handload them for extreme accuracy and have shot them professionally for over 20 years. I can load it to be just as accurate as the 6.5 BR within the BR's capabilities at 600 meters, and then surpass the BR's capabilities out to 900 & 1000 yards and still put more energy on target creating a more effective wound profile.
    On a side note, if you want a heavy ground- soldier combat round, then look at the AR-10 (TU) .300 short Action Ultra Mag (SAUM) that shoots a 190 grain bullet at 2900 fps, and has a BC of .533 out of an auto-loader! The cartridge is basically a fattened, unbanded, .308. I have one that proves itself every time at 900, 1000, & even 1200 yards when I do my part with my handloads and even factory Remington cartridges when you can find them.
    Feel free to fire back at me...
    {Edited for clarification}

    [ 07-07-2007, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Yankee Metallic ]

  19. #39
    peterh5322's Avatar
    peterh5322 is online now Diamond
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Monterey Bay, California
    Posts
    10,090

    Post

    "... emasculated by W. McNamara ..."

    Who also ordered the tooling for the SR-71 to be destroyed.

  20. #40
    detroitmachinery is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    143

    Post

    The AK in 7.62 is a formidable weapon, at typical combat range. But if you are in a long range gun battle, wouldn't you prefer a large caliber than 5.56? You can launch 6.5 mm 123 grain bullets at 2600 fps, with no appreciable affect in recoil, barrel wear, or combat load. To upgrade the current M4 or M16 to a 6.5 would not take that much modification. I think the whole design is a bit out dated, and way to sensitive to dirt. But the M14 is a bit to long, and heavy for close quarters action. Even the M4's 6.6 lbs loaded weight is considered to heavy. In a poll 55% soldiers requested the firearm be made lighter. So how do you balance rifle weight and stopping power? My answer to that question is an intermediate size round with a 6.5 mm in a 123-144 grain bullet, with a 2450-2600 fps velocity.

    The most important aspect of any rifle is the ability to hit what your aiming at. All the power in world is useless, if you can't put lead on the target. Most solders are using iron sights, or red dot sights. No one is going to be taking 1000 meter shots with that setup anyway. This is not intended to be a sniper round. I don't think that a .308 or .300 short mag is an ideal cartridge for light weight carbine style assault rifle. The 6.8 SPC necked down to a 6.5 would probably have similar performance to the 6.5 Grendel. Has anyone tried this combination? I don't like the proportions of the 6.5 Grendel, for an auto feeder. The 6.8 resembles a .308 so it should have decent feeding. The 0.3 mm difference makes a huge difference in drag, and probably makes little difference in stopping power. That's what lead me to chose a 6.5 mm as the best compromise round. The case dimensions can be changed, and still have the same velocity.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •