Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

[Wannashootit]

Heading home from the range last weekend...after being extremely impressed with the performance of his newly built Grendel, my son asked why that round could/would not replace the 5.56 as the standard military round. Nothing more than a barrel change to the M4. I told him weight (ammo) might be a consideration, but beyond that, no good answer. Superior to the 5.56 ballistics, but so is the 6.5 SPC and that one went nowhere as well.

Any reasons other than "political" that a troop would not rather have his mags filled with 120 grains of Grendel, as opposed to 63 grains of 5.56? I thought the terminal ballistics of the Grendel were pretty impressive...

 

[Powder_Burns]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

Can't link the ammo for belt-fed guns, bolts and magazines would have to be replaced as well. Its not a NATO cartridge and the logistics of supplying the new cartridge as well as the conversion parts needed is more expensive than what the projected returns would be.

 

[Natty Bumpo]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

Grendel was designed as a precision, long range cartridge that would fit in the AR15 platform. Something that could reach out beyond the normal range of the 5.56.

I wouldn't say the 6.8SPC has gone "nowhere". It's number 2 in AR15 rifle sales and well ahead of 6.5Grendel/.264LBC (and well behind 5.56 rifles). Lots of rifle manufacturers chamber rifles in 6.8 and several ammo companies load it. 6.8 was designed by the army as a short to medium range combat round. Serves a different purpose than the Grendel. Doesn't make it better; just different.

Don't know why the military clings to 5.56. Weight is a consideration, but the military often brings up the difficulty and cost of completely replacing the 5.56. I'm not saying they should completely abandon the 5.56, but they managed to go from .45-70 to .30-40 Krag, to .30-03 Springfield, to .30-06 Sprgfld, to 7.62X51mm to 5.56X45mm (excuse me if I skipped one or two primary, infantry cartridges). Not sure why it was doable then but next to impossible now. Could probably do it all for less than the cost of a couple stealth bombers.

 

[22_250]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

Plus its probably " too deadly" in terms of terminal ballistics and the geneva convention would not allow it in combat... since they already frown upon the use of hollowpoints.....

 

[Sid Post]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

There is a huge investment in the existing calibers. Converting an entire nation to a new caliber is a fundamentally different thing then selling that old 30-30 lever gun for a new bolt action.

Then you have all the global implications and expenses of getting a new round adopted by NATO. Heck, look at what the British ran into when they wanted a mid-range caliber when they moved away from their "FAL" .308 battle rifles.

The HK vs. FN caliber debate is still being argued at NATO for PDW's.

 

[Wannashootit]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

I understand the hardware investment. But given that it's a simple as a barrel change and new mags for any weapon (far as I can guess, except linked ammo) using the 5.56, cost would be minimal, and there would be zero training required as the weapon system itself doesn't change.

The subject is beyond my pay grade. But, I would have to say that I can think of no circumstance where I would rather have a 5.56 than the 6.5 Grendel for self-defense- or offense...

 

[Glock30]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

Because some billionaire owns the 5.56 factory and probably puts alot of people into office. This same billionaire also dosnt give a poo about re tooling his factory for better ballistics for the guys in the field.

 

[bowstryder]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

Actually, Bill kind of let the Grendel wallow a bit with his royalties and non-licensing. That was at the time the 6.8 took off so the spot light shifted. They are considering new cartridges as of right now but I think heavier .22 bullets will end up being the "band-aid"
As far as the grendel. I waited 13 months to get one together and when I finally started shooting it I thought it was the greatest "little" caliber out! When I finally got to stretch it's legs I realized I wanted a bigger hammer so I sold it, but I will get another one soon. lol

 

[Ballista One]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Powder Burns</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can't link the ammo for belt-fed guns, bolts and magazines would have to be replaced as well. Its not a NATO cartridge and the logistics of supplying the new cartridge as well as the conversion parts needed is more expensive than what the projected returns would be. </div></div>

Bingo...

Not to mention 5.56 X 45 has killed more humans than smallpox. The 6.5 has its place, just not in combat weapons.

 

[El Wray]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

<span style="color: #666600"><span style="font-weight: bold">Check out the "6.5 Grendel AR15..." thread here.</span></span>

 

[Glock30]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Not to mention 5.56 X 45 has killed more humans than smallpox. The 6.5 has its place, just not in combat weapons. </div></div>

X2

 

[upjeeper]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid Post</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a huge investment in the existing calibers. Converting an entire nation to a new caliber is a fundamentally different thing then selling that old 30-30 lever gun for a new bolt action.

Then you have all the global implications and expenses of getting a new round adopted by NATO. Heck, look at what the British ran into when they wanted a mid-range caliber when they moved away from their "FAL" .308 battle rifles.

The HK vs. FN caliber debate is still being argued at NATO for PDW's.

</div></div>

good point here. only reason i haven't gotten my own 6.5 or 6.8 is that i already have about 6 calibers, really trying to pair down. but damn if the spec's are impressive...
(yes, i realize the OP was talking "troops", not individuals)

 

[Hawk45]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

I would bet cost over everything else. The military is heavily invested in 5.56 and 7.62 from ammo to guns and accessories. It is also time proven which is very important if you are carrying on in the line of duty. If it works, why change at a massive cost? It may not be as effective as something else, but there will always be "something better". If it's not broke, why pay to fix it?

 

[FCS]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

Well, it is a bit more then just a barrel change.

Barrel, bolt, and magazine must be changed out to go from 223 to 6.5 Grendel.

223 brass is 15 to 20 cents each, 6.5 Grendel is 65 cents (subsidized by AA for Lapua brass) or 90ish cents for Lapua headstamped brass. Hornady is 64-64 cents also. Wolf ammo with brass case and boxer primer runs a large pocket and IMHO isn't worth reloading.

I like my 6.5 Grendel but most of the quoted #s are with a 28" barreled bolt rifle, drop it down to 20" or 16" AR platform and performance drops a bit.

Know my 24" bolt rifle with 130 JLKs at 2650 fps will knock over steel targets to 750, my 21" AR with 120s not so much.

95 V-max out of my AR @ 2960 fps is devestating round for varmints but there is more recoil then 223. Full auto a 223 is going to be much easier to keep on target then 6.5 Grendel.

Converting SAW to 6.5G, not sure how complicated that would be or even if possible.

Plenty of reasons (engineering, logistics, cost) that prevents going 6.5G IMHO.

 

[Bedlam]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

Most soldiers have no need for a round that can shoot far beyond the typical 5.56. Generally combat distance is much, much shorter.

Also, the ability to shoot that far is hampered by lack of practice and equipment. Most soldiers are not long distance sharpshooters and aren't equipped with bipods, good glass, etc.

 

[phideaux]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shootingaces</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Plus its probably " too deadly" in terms of terminal ballistics and the <span style="color: #FF0000">geneva convention </span>would not allow it in combat... since they already frown upon the use of hollowpoints..... </div></div>

Hague Convention

 

[hunter_usmc]

Re: Why "not" the 6.5 Grendel?

The 5.56 has several things going for it, It is lighter then the Grendel and 6.8 combat troops can carry more rounds with less fatigue,they can put more of them in cargo containers of the same size, low recoil is a plus(lets face it not all US troops like recoil) now i am not saying the other rounds have allot of recoil but it is easier to get a quick followup shot with the 5.56 over the Grendel and 6.8spc. Now long range performance! Every Marine is trained with the 5.56 out to 500 meters on a man sized target how much further do you need or can see in a combat zone with weak optics at best.