warpedskydiver 0 #1 February 13, 2006 Check this out and it works in all current 5.56mm platforms Oh and anyone who has the connections... tell the bereaucrats who decide on this please! and be persistant our guys deserve all the help we can give, this will result in lives saved! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #2 February 13, 2006 had a problem this morning uploading sorry for the delay...heres the ballistics chart Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites IanHarrop 41 #3 February 13, 2006 QuoteCheck this out and it works in all current 5.56mm platforms Oh and anyone who has the connections... tell the bereaucrats who decide on this please! and be persistant our guys deserve all the help we can give, this will result in lives saved! Not sure what we're supposed to check out.... What is the replacement?"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #4 February 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteCheck this out and it works in all current 5.56mm platforms Oh and anyone who has the connections... tell the bereaucrats who decide on this please! and be persistant our guys deserve all the help we can give, this will result in lives saved! Not sure what we're supposed to check out.... What is the replacement? see the ballistic chart I uploaded Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ripcord4 0 #5 February 13, 2006 The 6.8 Remington may have enough of a head start in the 5.56 replacement race the Grendl may not be able to catch up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #6 February 13, 2006 yep the bean counters will no doubt fuck this up like everything else however the grendel is also a replacement for the 7.62x51mm (.308win ) which the 6.8SPC cannot do Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ripcord4 0 #7 February 14, 2006 Quoteyep the bean counters will no doubt fuck this up like everything else however the grendel is also a replacement for the 7.62x51mm (.308win ) which the 6.8SPC cannot do It's got some way to go to replace the 7.62! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #8 February 14, 2006 where do you get that from it's nearly identical except it shoots flatter and in fact outperforms it the 6.5 grendel is capable of penetrating armored glass @ 800m with non armor piercing ammo it also has a longer MER and higher velocities. please re-read the charts you need to compare apples and apples so use 123gr 6.5 and 147gr 7.62 as a comparison if you use 144gr 6.5 use 175gr 7.62 etc this data has been verified in the field don't confuse diameter with effectivess remember that it isn't just mass that counts but the fact that a slightly smaller mass that doesn't tend to slow down will result in higher downrange performance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #9 February 14, 2006 there is a slight difference that is negligable however when using 144gr the terminal effects are nearly equal you would no longer need multiple calibers so the net effect is the M60E3 is no longer needed and the FN Minimi/M249 SAW becomes actaully more effective and uses the same mags as a M4 also lighter ammo means more of it. the best part of all is that the weapons while still as effective if not more effective are lighter in weight in the M249SAW vs. M60E3 matchup the SAW is way more reliable and weighs nearly 10lbs less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Binkus 0 #10 February 14, 2006 something else to consider, Your chart shows the stats for a 5.56mm round in 77grn. the standard issued round for US troops in the M855 round and weights 64 or 65 grains. I dont have the ballistic tables but soilders will actually be shooting a flater round but with less energy at further distances than what the cart listed for 5.56. There is a 77 grn (AA53) rnd issued to troops but its hard to find in your typical units. All that being said it will be some time before any current weapons systems are replaced, despite the rumors and testing being conducted. Just my two cents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #11 February 14, 2006 Quote something else to consider, Your chart shows the stats for a 5.56mm round in 77grn. the standard issued round for US troops in the M855 round and weights 64 or 65 grains. I dont have the ballistic tables but soilders will actually be shooting a flater round but with less energy at further distances than what the cart listed for 5.56. There is a 77 grn (AA53) rnd issued to troops but its hard to find in your typical units. All that being said it will be some time before any current weapons systems are replaced, despite the rumors and testing being conducted. Just my two cents. you will have to excuse me as I didn't make the chart that's from a MIL source at radway arsenal M855 = 62grain and yes it has less retained energy downrange than 77gr 5.56 although the 62gr M855 ball ammo shoots a bit flatter...regardless both have little terminal effect which is the entire point... weapons systems will only require that a current 5.56mm platform be upgraded with a new upper(M16 variants) or rebarreled and a new bolt to accommodate the ammo the ease of use and re-supply of troops will be greatly enhanced as a result it just sucks that we use so many different types of ammo I guess things way back in WW2 had the best idea... all small arms had the 30-06 (M1 Garand, 30cal. belt feds, M1903/17, BAR, or 45cal if you dont count that weak ass 30carbine which was god awful and had trouble pentrating heavy winter garments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ripcord4 0 #12 February 14, 2006 weapons systems will only require that a current 5.56mm platform be upgraded with a new upper(M16 variants) or rebarreled and a new bolt to accommodate the ammo _________________________________________________ Only require a new upper or rebarreling? Do you know how many millions of dollars that would "only" be? Don't get me wrong - I don't care for the 5,56mm - I was raised up on the M1 Garand - but no systems are going to be replaced anytime soon, especially with the war going on. I agree with standardizing all rifle/mg ammo, but remember the 5.56mm is a NATO standard round an we would have to convince our "Allies" to move to the same cartridge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #13 February 14, 2006 Agreed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites blewaway5 0 #14 February 16, 2006 Something else to consider here...I deal with this for a living building ammo for uncle sam, by the way. From everything I've learned there's a reason 5.56 is used. They actually wanted a round that didn't have a bunch of range and too terribly much penetration due to the changing nature of war, you know, urban combat, risk of friendly fire casualties after penetration, fun stuff like that. Another strike against a change any time soon is the issue of cost. It costs a boatload to make over a billion rounds/year, and it would cost even more to re-tool to make a different round. Anyway, that's my two cents. Truman Sparks for President Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #15 February 16, 2006 good points there, and I think it always goes full circle and comes back to the bean counters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites blewaway5 0 #16 February 16, 2006 That's the bottom line for sure. Case in point, I work on machines that were built in 1942. Gotta love the government's budget. Truman Sparks for President Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
warpedskydiver 0 #2 February 13, 2006 had a problem this morning uploading sorry for the delay...heres the ballistics chart Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 41 #3 February 13, 2006 QuoteCheck this out and it works in all current 5.56mm platforms Oh and anyone who has the connections... tell the bereaucrats who decide on this please! and be persistant our guys deserve all the help we can give, this will result in lives saved! Not sure what we're supposed to check out.... What is the replacement?"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #4 February 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteCheck this out and it works in all current 5.56mm platforms Oh and anyone who has the connections... tell the bereaucrats who decide on this please! and be persistant our guys deserve all the help we can give, this will result in lives saved! Not sure what we're supposed to check out.... What is the replacement? see the ballistic chart I uploaded Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ripcord4 0 #5 February 13, 2006 The 6.8 Remington may have enough of a head start in the 5.56 replacement race the Grendl may not be able to catch up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #6 February 13, 2006 yep the bean counters will no doubt fuck this up like everything else however the grendel is also a replacement for the 7.62x51mm (.308win ) which the 6.8SPC cannot do Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ripcord4 0 #7 February 14, 2006 Quoteyep the bean counters will no doubt fuck this up like everything else however the grendel is also a replacement for the 7.62x51mm (.308win ) which the 6.8SPC cannot do It's got some way to go to replace the 7.62! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #8 February 14, 2006 where do you get that from it's nearly identical except it shoots flatter and in fact outperforms it the 6.5 grendel is capable of penetrating armored glass @ 800m with non armor piercing ammo it also has a longer MER and higher velocities. please re-read the charts you need to compare apples and apples so use 123gr 6.5 and 147gr 7.62 as a comparison if you use 144gr 6.5 use 175gr 7.62 etc this data has been verified in the field don't confuse diameter with effectivess remember that it isn't just mass that counts but the fact that a slightly smaller mass that doesn't tend to slow down will result in higher downrange performance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #9 February 14, 2006 there is a slight difference that is negligable however when using 144gr the terminal effects are nearly equal you would no longer need multiple calibers so the net effect is the M60E3 is no longer needed and the FN Minimi/M249 SAW becomes actaully more effective and uses the same mags as a M4 also lighter ammo means more of it. the best part of all is that the weapons while still as effective if not more effective are lighter in weight in the M249SAW vs. M60E3 matchup the SAW is way more reliable and weighs nearly 10lbs less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Binkus 0 #10 February 14, 2006 something else to consider, Your chart shows the stats for a 5.56mm round in 77grn. the standard issued round for US troops in the M855 round and weights 64 or 65 grains. I dont have the ballistic tables but soilders will actually be shooting a flater round but with less energy at further distances than what the cart listed for 5.56. There is a 77 grn (AA53) rnd issued to troops but its hard to find in your typical units. All that being said it will be some time before any current weapons systems are replaced, despite the rumors and testing being conducted. Just my two cents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #11 February 14, 2006 Quote something else to consider, Your chart shows the stats for a 5.56mm round in 77grn. the standard issued round for US troops in the M855 round and weights 64 or 65 grains. I dont have the ballistic tables but soilders will actually be shooting a flater round but with less energy at further distances than what the cart listed for 5.56. There is a 77 grn (AA53) rnd issued to troops but its hard to find in your typical units. All that being said it will be some time before any current weapons systems are replaced, despite the rumors and testing being conducted. Just my two cents. you will have to excuse me as I didn't make the chart that's from a MIL source at radway arsenal M855 = 62grain and yes it has less retained energy downrange than 77gr 5.56 although the 62gr M855 ball ammo shoots a bit flatter...regardless both have little terminal effect which is the entire point... weapons systems will only require that a current 5.56mm platform be upgraded with a new upper(M16 variants) or rebarreled and a new bolt to accommodate the ammo the ease of use and re-supply of troops will be greatly enhanced as a result it just sucks that we use so many different types of ammo I guess things way back in WW2 had the best idea... all small arms had the 30-06 (M1 Garand, 30cal. belt feds, M1903/17, BAR, or 45cal if you dont count that weak ass 30carbine which was god awful and had trouble pentrating heavy winter garments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ripcord4 0 #12 February 14, 2006 weapons systems will only require that a current 5.56mm platform be upgraded with a new upper(M16 variants) or rebarreled and a new bolt to accommodate the ammo _________________________________________________ Only require a new upper or rebarreling? Do you know how many millions of dollars that would "only" be? Don't get me wrong - I don't care for the 5,56mm - I was raised up on the M1 Garand - but no systems are going to be replaced anytime soon, especially with the war going on. I agree with standardizing all rifle/mg ammo, but remember the 5.56mm is a NATO standard round an we would have to convince our "Allies" to move to the same cartridge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #13 February 14, 2006 Agreed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blewaway5 0 #14 February 16, 2006 Something else to consider here...I deal with this for a living building ammo for uncle sam, by the way. From everything I've learned there's a reason 5.56 is used. They actually wanted a round that didn't have a bunch of range and too terribly much penetration due to the changing nature of war, you know, urban combat, risk of friendly fire casualties after penetration, fun stuff like that. Another strike against a change any time soon is the issue of cost. It costs a boatload to make over a billion rounds/year, and it would cost even more to re-tool to make a different round. Anyway, that's my two cents. Truman Sparks for President Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #15 February 16, 2006 good points there, and I think it always goes full circle and comes back to the bean counters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blewaway5 0 #16 February 16, 2006 That's the bottom line for sure. Case in point, I work on machines that were built in 1942. Gotta love the government's budget. Truman Sparks for President Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
