6.5 Grendel
Guys,
I've been reading some info on the 6.5 Grendel and am kind of puzzled as to the reality of it. I am under the understanding that a 6.5G is a 6.5PPC with the shoulder moved slightly forward and blown out just a tad (.007?). I already understand the ballistic advantage of the 6.5 caliber, however:
The point to this is there are some amazing ballistics from this round using a 144 gr. bullet. So amazing in fact, according to one author,(A U.S. Army officer), that the round is superior in ballistics to the 7.62X51 NATO using a 147 FMJ bullet. I don't think it is true but would like someone with experience with the 6.5G to verify.
What kind of velocities are you really getting with it and what kind of drops/windages are you actually experiencing on a long range trial? My best information tells me that this round produces about 400 fps slower than the 6.5X55 Swede. Any input appreciated.
We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>
I've been reading some info on the 6.5 Grendel and am kind of puzzled as to the reality of it. I am under the understanding that a 6.5G is a 6.5PPC with the shoulder moved slightly forward and blown out just a tad (.007?). I already understand the ballistic advantage of the 6.5 caliber, however:
The point to this is there are some amazing ballistics from this round using a 144 gr. bullet. So amazing in fact, according to one author,(A U.S. Army officer), that the round is superior in ballistics to the 7.62X51 NATO using a 147 FMJ bullet. I don't think it is true but would like someone with experience with the 6.5G to verify.
What kind of velocities are you really getting with it and what kind of drops/windages are you actually experiencing on a long range trial? My best information tells me that this round produces about 400 fps slower than the 6.5X55 Swede. Any input appreciated.
We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>
0
-
solidpoint2,
I agree with your opinion of the close range terminal effect of the 6.5. Who cares...it has plenty of up close power.
I don't think it is important to try to duplicate ballistics of any round currently in service. New recruits can be taught that relatively easy. The simple fact is that throughout it's range the 6.5 has very consistent ballistics. And the longer it goes it remains more consistent than does all but one .30 cal out there(240 gr.).
I need to reiterate also that I'm not a big fan of the AR-15 platform. I prefer the M14/M1A type action. I have fired enough of them to say I feel they are more reliable and easier to clear when something does jam than the AR-15 platform. Even though "Army tests" completely disagree with that statement.
JUST MY OPINION but I would like to see a lightweight M1A type action with a short/medium power 6.5 round chambering. Using good ballistics instead of brute power to put a bullet downrange accurately and with lethality.
I recently spoke with a newly departed from active duty former Marine who served in Iraq and had friends in Afghanistan. He spoke about the 6.8 saying it's doing all the users could hpe for. In one instance a 6.8 bullet(115gr. FMJBT) penetrated two AK magazines and still attained a kill at just beyond 300m. So, even if the Grendel is not going to get accepted (cross your fingers) something at least is making a better showing than the 5.56 currently in use.
Thanks for your input solidpoint2.
We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>0 -
I had the same reaction to matching ballistics as you did, until Arne reminded me that as much as 30% of the cost of the weapon is now invested in sights such as the Trijicon ACOG, and that sight is seems to be adjustable for 5.56 or 7.62 ballistics, so Arne set out to match it.
I especially agree with your point though were MGs are concerned, as they tend to be aimed by tracers, so the ballistic match is not as important.
BTW, this is rather controversial on the 65Grendel sight, but it is possible to create a 71mm OAL Grendel bullet to feed Grendel-based ammo through a FNL MK-48 or 7.62 SCAR-H by extending the bullet and seating it high in the Grendel case to give it the same OAL (71mm) as the 7.62x51. As a bonus we could reclaim the vacated casing space for more powder.
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Kneubuehl.PDF
It looks like a very pointy bullet would work, as the limit on bullet size would have a case + bullet length of 83mm. We should be able to get a good seat then and still have a 5-6 calibers long bullet. This would be the same approach as the 77 grain M262 where the case and caliber are the same but the bullet is extra long and therefore needs a special barrel.
The ballistics on such an extreme VLD round, with minimum seating to maximize the powder charge, should approach that of a .338 Lapua mag - with a lot less recoil and bullet weight. For helicopter door guns and GAU miniguns the reduced recoil, weight and extremely flat ballistics would be a godsent. The new polymer cases would also save weight and improve the case to bullet sea.
This would also make an excellent sniper round for bolt guns. More to the point, it would allow the DOD to make good use of an awful lot of things sized for the current 7.62x51's 71mm OAL.
Doctrine, the last refuge of the unimaginative!0 -
Solidpoint2,
The last paragraph concerning replacement of all things 7.62 wasn't quite where I was going with this thread...I am more in favor of replacing all things 5.56mm....with something closer in power to the 7.62 than the 5.56 but in about the same package as a 5.56. If a cartridge came up that would replace both then excellent.
My initial question: Is the ballistically superior 6.5 going to provide as much power as the various authors say it will in a Grendel case? Answer: I believe it provides enough power at each given range as needed. This case meets practically all the criteria of a mid-power cartridge provided it can do what the experts say it can.
The Trijicon sights, or any other bullet drop compenstated scope will never be right on....they always have a variable that takes it off. Sighting in in given conditions is always crucial with reference sights not absolute sights.
What you are talking about seating the bullets way out is interesting. It would be the way to go for many cartridges, more capacity, better accuracy...but again it would need to be kept in the AR15 family Thanks for the input a
We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
33 comments