The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Tactical Rifle & Carbine => Topic started by: USSA-1 on October 23, 2007, 08:02:09 AM
-
Time to take a stand.....for the military's next standard cartridge!
Are you a 6.8spc or a 6.5 Grendel fan? Defend you choice, then assume a good cover position and HOLD THE LINE!
My choice?....Well I'm invoking moderator priviledge and will hold my opinion for a bit. I don't want to beat down one side too fast! ;D
Gentlemen, you may commence firing!
Erik
-
I have been reading all the blogs and articles on this question and it seems that neither will be adopted in any great amount by the military. Cost of change over and politics may keep either of these rounds from being used except by SF or other covert outfits. If the ok is given for HP rounds in the 5.56 to be used and or the implementation of the 762 upper (both the nato and the 762x39) I dont see it happening. I will try to post some threads by people who have inside info on this when I get home, but the internet NAZI has those sites blocked at work. Excellent topic Eric.
-
.308
-
I really do not believe that they are going to change, no matter how much noise we make.
Ok, now from my little world... I believe that they are fine with the current offering. What they need is a change in the type of bullet that they are using for the correct application. Of course that gets into barriers and so forth. Suffice to say that a steel core doesn't make a good anti-personnel round, and a good anti-personnel round (fragmenting), doesn't do well on barriers. That of course is in the current 5.56 loading.
For the intermediate cartridge, the 6.5 probably fits the best, but I do not know how it does on barriers. I personally like the 6.5 better, and it does do well at barriers in a regular loading similar to the .308. It also has good long range capability staying over sonic at 1000m.
Muddy e'nuf for ya.. :)
-Bidah
-
I'd like to see a ballistics comparison chart of the 5.56, 6.8, 6.5, .308 and 30-06.
-
http://www.65grendel.com/graphics/grendelballistics.pdf
Ballistics tables for the 5.56, 6.8, 6.5 Grendel (3 loads), 7.62 NATO (2 loads)
The 6.5 is the best cartridge thus far designed. The 6.5 123gr has better penetration than an 7.62 NATO 150gr AP round. I myself would go for a 90gr flat based bullet for standard infantry use, with the 123gr round for SOCOM and Airborne use and 144gr for machinegun use.
The 90gr round provides the best terminal effect at close range as well as reducing the weight of the ammo load and reducing costs.
The 123gr rounds would provide somewhat less terminal performance but provide superior range to even the 150gr 7.62 NATO.
Airborne and Special operations actions often occur in isolation and therefore special weapons support is unavailable. Airborne operations as far back as Crete and as recent as Operation Brightstar '84, Operation Just Cause and Operation Enduring Freedom, clearly demonstrated the need for units engaged in Airborne operations to possess the ability to engage targets at ranges longer than those expected in standard infantry operations. The limited use of this round will keep costs to a minimum.
The 144gr round will provide the highest penetration at all ranges as well as extended ranges up to 1500 meters. The additional cost of this load would be offset by the added capabilities of the round.
-
The only .308 round is 175 grains with MUCH more energy and not much more drop. I would like to see a comparison of equivalent rounds for weight and energy.
-
I don't think they will change either. Cost too much money. But, I hope they do so .223 ammo cost would go waaaaay down and I could stock up!
-
I doubt the change will happen anytime in the near future either...the logistics of an ammunition change are too much at this point. My guess is that tweaks to the 5.56 will continue with heavier bullets and more efficient powders.
That said, if my choices for new cartridges were the 6.8 and 6.5, I'd choose the 6.5 Grendel. The ballistic differences are negligible between the two under 250 to 300 yards. 6.5 shines after that with better BC and SD. The only advantages to the 6.8 ythat I've seen articulated are 1) Remington is behind the 6.8 (that advantage goes away if Uncle Sugar gets involved) and 2) I believe the 6.8 case had a slightly more tapered profile, making it slightly more reliable in full auto feeding.
While I love my 308s, the time for that cartridge as a general issue one is passed. It if great for specific purposes though.
The only other contender I've seen that makes send is the 6x45...basically a 5.56 cartridge blown out to a 6mm bullet. The advantages of slightly easier logistic changeover and slightly better ballistics than the 5.56 really don't add up to a completely compelling switch though.
-
Let's stay on topic. I think we can all agree that it will take a long time to change to any new caliber. The military industrial complex only has one operational small arms munitions factory (compared to 12 during WWII) and it can't keep up with demand. It's going to take years to get new facilities up and running and build up enough new caliber ammunition for general issue. It needs to happen and in all reality, it should already be well along, but for whatever reason, no new factories are coming on-line anytime soon. So I, like you, don't forsee any new calibers anytime soon.
If you want to start a "What's the best cartridge thread" then please do. It would be another good thread, but let's focus on just these two calibers for right know.
So far, Warhawke has made the best and most complete argument for the 6.5 fans. Where are all my 6.8 fans??
Erik
-
http://www.65grendel.com/graphics/grendelballistics.pdf Here are the ballistics.
-
Defense review http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=600
-
All you ever want to know about the 6.5 Grendel http://www.65grendel.com/65g_65and68.htm
-
I've always liked the 7.62x 39. maybe its just me and .30 cals. I know with a 120 something grain bullet they go about 2400 ft per second. which would deliver a energy in the 1450 ft/lb range. which is better then the standard 5.56
I'm sure they could redesign something simlar to that cartage that would be very deadly and still keep the recoil down.
-
I hear you TAb I have both , and when the wolf comes to the door Im grabbin the AK and the .45.
-
The only .308 round is 175 grains with MUCH more energy and not much more drop. I would like to see a comparison of equivalent rounds for weight and energy.
Dude, if you are referring to the Grendel chart, check the second column on the right, it has the 147gr 7.62 ballistics right next to the 144gr 6.5, thats about as close as you will get between the rounds in apples to apples comparison.
-
Go Large!! .50BMG with a depleted uranium projectile!! ;D
-
My vote is for the grendle. And its not only for the ballistics but for the people who developed it. IMHO I like it better for a combat rifle and the ballistics, bigger is better . I will never have to rely on it , too old to fight , But I would feel good about putting it in the young hands. Which ever is chosen I know a dedicated soldier will field it . And we must remember its not the size of the rifle in the fight but the fight in the soldier who carrys it.
-
The 6.8 seems to have a good case for hard use, but Grendel has better ballistics.
Does the Grendel have enough case-taper to prevent stuck-cases or case-head seperations with dirty ammo in rough conditions?
Look at the .416 Rigby case or the 7.62x39 case, and you'll see overcompensation in this area. On the other hand, straight-walled cases just cause problems in the long run. How does the Grendel stack up in this regard?
-KBS
-
There was a third option, though I can't remember what the cartridge was called, but it was esentially a 5.56 cartridge opened up to accept a larger/heavier bullet-I believe about the size of a 6.5mm +/-
The advantage was it would accept the same sized MG belt links, loaders, stripper clips, magazines, same capacity, relative internal parts bolt dimensions with esentially just a change of the barrel, and lobbed a heavier bullet with alleged better balistics than the 5.56-though no where near the Grendel and a bit below the 6.8...
I personally can't see the military going away from the 5.56, or the 7.62-just possibly taking steps to improve the ballistics of the round in shorter barreled weapons.
-
Well, seems it's time for me to offer up my thoughts (since I started this!)
My vote is for the 6.8 SPC. At this point, the 6.8 seems to have the edge on terminal ballistics and intermediate barrier penetration (I say seems, because I'm not sure the terminal aspects of the 6.5 Grendel have been fully explored), and this is the main reason for it's development in the first place. The 6.8 was chosen over all other bullet calibers after a battery of tests concluded that it was the best "show stopper." This included a 6.5 caliber version which already enjoys an outstanding reputation as a deep penetrating, hunting round. Additionally, military conversion to the 6.8 is much more easily accomplished than with the 6.5 Grendel. With a barrel and bolt swap, the 6.8 will work in the linking system for the M249 SAW's, the 6.5 will not. An entire new link and feed tray system is required which effectively kills any "conversion." The M249 would have to be redesigned from the ground up. We've already seen how difficult it is to get one weapons system replaced. Switching calibers to one that requires a conversion and one that requires a complete redesign just does not seem feasible.
While I agree that the 6.5 Grendel does have better ballistics and most likely better long range accuracy, respectfully, that was never the issue. The issue wasn't with our troops not having the accuracy to hit a threat, they were hitting them quite successfully. The issue was that it was taking multiple hits to anchor the bad guys to mother earth. I think the ballistic advantage held by the 6.5 is dubious at best. Modern Warfare is currently undergoing a revolution. With the possible exception of China, there is no military in the world that can stand against the US and go toe-to-toe. The last two gulf wars have clearly demonstrated that reality. This current war also demonstrates how to effectively fight the US and that means conducting a guerilla style war in an urban environment. In this type of combat environment, battles are measured in feet not yards, and the vast majority of fights are under 300 meters (funny how the Russians figured this out in 1945.) At these distances, there is no practical ballistic advantage between the two calibers, but there is a terminal advantage and it belongs to the 6.8 SPC.
At this point you may ask, "Then why not just convert back to the 7.62?" This is most certainly a valid question and I would submit that there are two reasons for not making a 7.62 the standard issue round. First is a warfare doctrine issue. The first object of manuever warfare requires that fire superiority be established. Fire superiority is established through volume supressive firepower. This also means large quantities of ammunition are expended. That ammunition must be carried by the troops. Assuming the same loadout for a 5.56, 6.8, and 7.62, there would only be a slight increase in weight going from a 5.56 to a 6.8. Stepping all the way up to a 7.62 would be quite a substantial increase in weight, not only in the weight of the ammunition, but also the weight of the extra magazines to carry the additional ammunition as 20 round magazines are pretty much standard when it comes to the 7.62 caliber. I don't think the additional weight and performance is enough of an advantage compared to the 6.8 when considering the fighting doctrine of modern manuever warfare to justify standard issue. Second is the training and ability aspect. The 7.62 is a more difficult round to shoot rapidly and accurately due to it's increased recoil when compared to the 5.56 or the 6.8. Most line troops do not get near enough skills based firearms training. The marksmanship our troops are displaying in combat is the best it's ever been. Good combat optics are no doubt playing a strong part, but I also think our troops are getting better overall training. I would surmise that a switch over to the 7.62, without the additional training required to maintain the current level of proficiency would result in degraded individual marksmanship skills and I don't see any training trends that would indicate a willingness to increase training. Quite the opposite, most training is being streamlined to get the new troops into the pipeline quicker.
Based on terminal performance, ease of conversion, manuver warfare doctrine, and training requirements, I would vote for the 6.8 SPC to be the next general issue combat round.
Erik
-
As of now I am a 6.5 fan. Most of the info I"ve seen and researched keeps pointing that it is the better choice as of now. Down the road I might be swayed. But, for now I would take the accuracy of the 6.5. That's just me though.
-
Erik, with your training, insight, and expertise, I would have to agree with your assessment. Since I look at it from my point of view, and that means open space living out in the sticks, I believe the 6.5 looks better.. :P
Now to get me some dough to build up a 6.8 to try it out.
-Bidah
-
Why not just go to the 25 WSSM at 85 grain? Bullet is already around and COL is close (maybe just a barrel head space adjustment) and twice the muzzle energy as the 223.
-
Why not just go to the 25 WSSM at 85 grain? Bullet is already around and COL is close (maybe just a barrel head space adjustment) and twice the muzzle energy as the 223.
The WSSM's have a huge case diameter (.555 inches vs. .376 for the 5.56) which makes them a big problem with large capacity magazines to say nothing of chambering something like the M-16 in it. The high pressure is going to burn up the throat in a ten thousand rounds or so, which is fine for a hunter, but military weapons need maximum service life.
A big problem with these kinds of discussions is the fact that most people don't realize the kind of issues you have with a military weapons. You are not talking about buying a few dozen weapon and a few thousand rounds of ammo, but MILLIONS of weapons and BILLIONS of rounds, to say nothing about spare parts, cleaning kits, tools, magazines etc. Also, lives depend on these things, you and me we might get along fine with a certain weapon or ammo, but the military has to find the best combination of weapon, ammo, ect. at a price that allows us to also buy the tanks and carriers and a million other pieces of equipment the military needs.
In reality, the military needs to start examining everything it does and develop a comprehensive plan for our total military. Today we have 5 services and many sub-services (Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Air Force, SOCOM, SEAL's, Airborne, etc.) all trying to do their own thing, fighting for resources and getting in each others way. Instead we need to figure out what our military is for , develop a comprehensive plan to do it and allocate resources based on it. Our current lack of any kind of comprehensive plan is why we have more supercarriers than we need and way too few transport ships, cutting edge fighter planes and 50 year old transport planes, super tanks and unarmored HUMMER's (and the HMMWV was a POS to begin with, I could tell you stories, but that is another post).
Of course, the problem is that we have TRILLIONS of dollars invested in the military today and we cannot just throw it all out and start over. The military also has a huge 40+ year multi-billion investment in the M-16, which is why we will not just throw it out and start over without some really compelling reason. Even changing the round to something like the 6.8, which needs minimal alteration to work, is a huge decision, and one likely to be dismissed as fiscally inefficient. I think we are stuck with the M-16/5.56mm combo until somebody comes out with something truly revolutionary which can replace it, like directed energy weapons or railguns or something. Not that this should keep us from discussion and debate on the matter.
-
Thanks for the answer, Warhawke. I really did not know that it would "burn" out barrels so quickly. Now I know why the need for a new cartridge instead of some of the allready in production types.
Again, Thanks!
-
Bidah,
I'm with you. If I were in Montana, I would go with the 6.5 or a 260 rem (DPMS). There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of "urban" concerns for you based on the pictures you've posted.
One day, I hope to join you in some of that wide open country.
Warhawke,
Outstanding observations and quite correct....unfortunately.
Erik
-
Erik, you are welcome. Just be prepared for snow and cold temps. We do have "urban" areas, I just try to not go there.. :) Our closest neighbor is 1/2 mile away, and growing up the closest was 5 miles and not road between us..
Warhawke, that is a pretty good assessment of the current state of things, and cartridges such as the WSSM's.
I am still on the fence on the whole 6.8/6.5 thing, but leaning towards the 6.8 at this time. If nothing else it is fun to research..
-Bidah
-
If I had to choose between a 5.56 and a 6,8 it would be the 6.8 hands down. The advantage of the 6.5 Grendel is you can load it to optimize performance for the range you expect to use it at. A 6.5 flat-based bullet between 90 and 110 grains in the 2700 to 2900 fps range should be every bit the equal of the 6.8 Rem in terminal performance in the 0 to 500 meter envelope, with better hard-target penetration. The problem with the 6.8 is that the limited case capacity means that you cannot load the heavier bullets required for long range use. Also, the 6.8mm round requires bullets of 160 grains or so to achieve ballistic coefficients above .5, while the 6.5 only needs 140 grains for that. The reason I like the 7mm-08 is that you could load a 168 grains VLD bullet to 2600fps and get much better performance at long ranges that you can with a 7.62 NATO, which needs close to a 190 grain bullet to get the BC over .5.
-
Once again Warhawke, I believe that you are spot on with what you are saying. The 6.8 and 6.5 were designed with different needs in mind. I personally like the looks of the 6.5 from the BC's that you mentioned, but then the 6.8 has it's place too, and I already have my other needs met. Although I like the 6.5, I am not so sure I would see it replacing my .308 stuff anytime soon, even though I believe, at least on paper, that it is as good or better in that 600 meter range.
-Bidah
-
6.8 for me.
The Grendel, while a big improvement, was merely designed to be better than the 5.56.
The 6.8, on the other hand, was developed by those with boots in the sand, so to speak, to provide the proper balance between distance, accuracy, and performance necessary for combat.
Bidah (I think) was right about the Grendel having more load variety, but that's not how combat loads work. You don't get to stop and think about which load to use based on the situation. You have A load (produced in the billions) by lowest bidder.
For reloaders, the 6.5 is top dog. For ground pounders, though, the 6.8 appears best.
Of course, that's just my free opinion and I always promise to deliver what you pay for.
-
6.8 for me.
Barrett 468 / Chambered in the 6.8 SPC
-
I am jumping into the 6.8 bandwagon,
I am currently in the process of getting the
pcs together to build one (ar15) but
I would also like to play with the idea in the
700 platform. for Shitz and giggles..
but if really want to reach out and touch one
then I would place a bet on the cheytac 408
Not just from a movie point of view but from
reading and future weapons episodes..