Time to take a stand!

[USSA-1]

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!

Gentlemen, you may commence firing!

Erik

[2HOW]

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.

[Hazcat]

.308

[Bidah]

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

[DonWorsham]

I'd like to see a ballistics comparison chart of the 5.56, 6.8, 6.5, .308 and 30-06.

[Sponsor]

[warhawke]

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.   

[Hazcat]

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.

[gunman42782]

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!   

[kilopaparomeo]

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.

[USSA-1]

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