The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 25, 2012, 10:32 PM   #26
CTS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: NE Georgia
Posts: 1,070
Quote:
THE OP DIDN'T ASK ABOUT THE 6.8.
Conversations evolve.
CTS is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 10:38 PM   #27
Achilles11B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2010
Posts: 595
Ok, we've established that both the .308 and the 6.5G are good rounds at distance. I use the term 'distance' as a generic term, generally between, let's call it, 400-600 yards. Someone will yell at me for that, and I'm ok with that.

Perhaps it could come down to price, but if we go down that route, we have the following conundrum:

6.5G uses AR-15 lowers and components. AR-15 parts are generally more common and lower-priced in comparison with .308 parts. But...

6.5G barrels aren't exactly common, and only a few manufacturers are producing them, so maybe the cost advantage of AR-15 parts is offset by the barrel price come build time.

Oh, and Tirod...bring me the 14.5" .50 BMG 'carbine'. I'll throw a red-dot on it and we'll hit the range. I'm pretty sure a 30-round mag would be about five feet long, but I'll deal.
__________________
Good equipment will never be a substitute for good training.
Achilles11B is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 10:38 PM   #28
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,790
Quote:
THE OP DIDN'T ASK ABOUT THE 6.8.
So noted (again)
The M118-loaded 7.62NATO in an M-14 cleans all clocks.
There endeth the lesson.

except.... it's also heavier, more unwieldly in a barfight, climbs out of control on auto fire (even 3 round bursts -- ask how I know), the gun & ammunition weighs a ton when carried with all the other 110+ lbs of gear/armor in the mountains of Afghanistan, and it's currently logistically unsustainable as a main battle rifle.

The current battle rifle is just great in a bar fight and just about all the other aspects mentioned above... except... it it runs out of gas right at the range the bad guys are choosing to engage our troops. (Ask how I know)

So it's not unnatural that the argument would devolve to options that cut through to the middle ground.

As to the Grendel being limited to being a "great paper puncher," is there some experience that could be posted here?
mehavey is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 10:47 PM   #29
Achilles11B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2010
Posts: 595
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/6.5_Grendel

That was the best I could find regarding the 6.5G's terminal ballistics. I'm sure it's a great paper-puncher, but I imagine it would perform in combat as well. I'm just going off of internet research here, so take it with a grain of salt.
__________________
Good equipment will never be a substitute for good training.
Achilles11B is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 11:38 PM   #30
arentol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2011
Posts: 230
Simple answer to OP's specific points in his question... Yes, 6.5 Grendel have a flattery trajectory and is more accurate. However, .308 is flat enough and accurate enough for any purpose you are likely to need to use it for out of an AR platform. It is also a larger, heavier, and more powerful cartridge with all the benefits that provides for hunting, combat, and defensive use.

So basically if your goal is target shooting, get the Grendel. If you goal is almost any other use, general use, or mixed use, then .308 is just way more versatile..... And of course a fair bit cheaper to shoot too, and if you intend to shoot much at all ammo savings will quickly exceed hundreds of dollars of extra up-front costs.
arentol is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 01:55 AM   #31
TimW77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2008
Posts: 230
6.5 Grendel vs. 6.8 SPC

"Also, as for barrels being comparatively priced, show me. I haven't found a good high quality 6.5G for under $450 or so when a good high quality 6.8 barrel will sell for around $250."

"slappy", are you "conveniently" forgetting the PM I sent to you and the PM you sent to me in response the day BEFORE you wrote this?

In case you have, what I wrote was "I was just on the Alexander Arms website looking for their "Billet Upper" for my 28" barrels and the lowest priced barrel I noticed was just $260... MidwayUSA prices started at $279.99."

TEN dollars difference is hardly the $200 difference you wrongly repeated a day LATER!!!


"I have looked at many charts, they always seem to want to compare 6.5G 123gr bullet to 6.8 110gr bullets but I still say that they are so similar up to 400 yards that you can't tell the difference. If I am missing something, somebody show me where I am wrong."

All you have to do is look at "mehavey's" Post #20.

As I said out to "normal hunting ranges" there is not much difference. As this chart shows at 300 yards which I consider to be "normal hunting distance" there is maybe 2" LESS drop for the Grendel.

At 400 yards the Grendel has 8" LESS drop.

At 500 yards the Grendel has 28" LESS drop.

If you and "Jimro" can't see that or think those are "about the same" or "there is not much difference" between them then both of you will just have to live in your imaginary world of magic!


"It would also be nice to see the two with the same weight bullets."

The only fair way of comparing these cartridges is by getting your data from the SAME, RELIABLE source and not "picking and choosing" loads to make your favorite look better and the other worse.

I'm NOT in the habit of spoon-feeding answers to people and this subject has been brought up several times recently on this forum.

Do a SEARCH for yourself to find previous posts comparing the SAME bullet weights (or very close) from the SAME, RELIABLE source and with similar barrel lengths.

The only SAME, RELIABLE source that I know of shows the 6.5 Grendel superior to the 6.8 even with a 1.5" SHORTER barrel!!!

T.
TimW77 is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 09:56 AM   #32
CTS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: NE Georgia
Posts: 1,070
Quote:
"slappy", are you "conveniently" forgetting the PM I sent to you and the PM you sent to me in response the day BEFORE you wrote this?
Nothing convenient about forgetting but when you rely on pain meds to get thru the day sometimes it just happens that way, but I did forget until after I posted that last night. I am concerned that AA doesn't say who manufactures their barrels though. I have no way of knowing how they compare to the the ones we discussed. Also neither AA or the AR Stoner (not sure of quality there either) barrels on Midway come with a target crown, only threaded muzzles and I have no use for a flash suppressor on a hunting or target rifle.
Quote:
The only fair way of comparing these cartridges is by getting your data from the SAME, RELIABLE source and not "picking and choosing" loads to make your favorite look better and the other worse.
Didn't pick and choose, I don't have the barrel we discussed so at this point, I don't have a dog in this fight. I posted the information I could find. There is not very much ballistics info out there for either cartridge that I can find and everywhere you do find an actual comparison it it just like I said, comparing 6.5 123gr against 6.8 110gr which doesn't help me much. I posted three different charts of the closest bullet weights I could and I as far as velocity/energy, I still don't see what all the fuss is about.
As mehavey said about his own charts, the 110gr 6.8SPC cleaned the 90gr 6.5G's clock and the 120gr 6.5G cleaned the 110gr 6.8SPC's clock. I have yet to see any fair comparisons of identical bullet weights and barrel lengths. If the information is available I don't know where to find it.
As I said in our conversation the other night, my main use is hunting, with some target shooting but not likely farther than 200yds since that is as far as my personal range goes and I am not likely to go where I have to pay to shoot.
Quote:
At 400 yards the Grendel has 8" LESS drop.

At 500 yards the Grendel has 28" LESS drop.

If you and "Jimro" can't see that or think those are "about the same" or "there is not much difference" between them then both of you will just have to live in your imaginary world of magic!
Again, that is not a fair comparison with equal weight bullets and equal length barrels. Not wanting to pick and choose, that doesn't mean so much.

Last edited by CTS; January 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM.
CTS is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 10:16 AM   #33
tirod
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,163
Conversations may evolve, but going off topic and introducing something not asked about isn't.

I built a 6.8, but in the process of researching it over two years, the one thing that stood out were all the fanboys of another cartridge intruding into conversations and insisting their's was the only answer. It didn't help the OP whatsoever, it just diverted the topic and they become flamefests of ego.

As for the 6.5G, it got it's creds shooting and earning the 600m record which it held for some years. I question the background of a 6.5 fan who doesn't know this. After all, it was developed by the creator of the PPC cartridge, all of which were designed to garner long distance precision shooting records - on and in paper.

Let's get back to the topic, which is really about 6.5G being "as good as" .308. Again, study the ballistics - and use a jaded eye, because most of the data out there isn't directly comparable. Some judicious thinking is involved, loads can't be identical, and barrel lenghts alone are usually out of the norm. 26" isn't common in gun racks.

The significant difference is that a 123gr bullet propelled by less than 30gr of powder cannot and will not perform equally with a 162gr bullet pushed by 50gr. Ballistic coefficients in the respective bullets are about equal, so the bigger heavier bullet will retain more energy longer.

It's been the basic thesis of some 6.5G enthusiasts to beat the drum that their chosen One Bullet To Rule Them All can replace the .308. Somewhat silly when the originator and developers never promised it.
tirod is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 10:44 AM   #34
CTS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: NE Georgia
Posts: 1,070
Post #5
Quote:
Does anyone sell a 6.5 in the typical 6.8 price range?
This is what got me started talking about the 6.8SPC. My mistake for not realizing that it wasn't the OP who asked the question. At any rate, if anyone is interested, I called Alexander Arms, they make their own barrels but the guy on the phone couldn't even tell me what grade of stainless steel they were made from, and they all come with threaded muzzle. I have no way of knowing about the quality of this barrel since I don't know anyone who owns one. I am looking for a 20" barrel and that is priced at $320 compared to the Bison Armory barrel at $200. AA doesn't offer any kind of coating and they don't offer a package deal with gas block and tube as Bison does, so they are still a pretty fair distance apart on price as I originally said.

Last edited by CTS; January 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM.
CTS is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 11:18 AM   #35
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,790
Quote:
It's been the basic thesis of some 6.5G enthusiasts to beat the drum that their
chosen On-Bullet-To-Rule-Them All can replace the .308.
No.

It does not replace the 308Win/7.62NATO for what the cartridge can do
...and that it not what Grendel aficionados espouse.

What they do suggest is that if some cartridge is to replace the 5.56
-- and have as many of the ballistic advantages of the 308 as possible
while still maintaining the dogface hump/logistical advantages of the
AR/M-x platform -- then the Grendel fills that bill.

Last edited by mehavey; January 26, 2012 at 11:25 AM.
mehavey is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 12:01 PM   #36
JASmith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2009
Posts: 152
Having spent a fair bit of time contemplating the merits of the Grendel, and writing about it in this and other fora as well as on my own website, I am reasonably sure that arguing the military merits of this cartridge is a fun sport. Problem is that political and, perhaps, a few technical & logistics arguments make the sport more like that of debating on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We get insight from the exercise that may be useful for this and other discussions, some of which may actually pan out in the form of production hardware.

Mehavy's trajectory plots are very useful and make the strong argument that there is not enough difference in performance between the Grendel and other cartridges optimized for deer-hunting to make a difference under 250 yards. The animal is as dead either way, adequate blood trails can be expected, and the crosshairs center in the vital zone will generally make the hit absent shooter error or bizarre conditions. The 30-30 with proper bullets and zero, 257 Roberts, .243 Winchester, the .308 Winchester, the 6.8 SPC and a bunch of other cartridges have this characteristic. The Grendel and the SPC stand out because they are cartridges designed to operate on the AR15 platform.

The thing that differentiates the Grendel from the SPC for hunting and target shooting is that it does indeed have the reach to be effective over the longer ranges for both hunting and target shooting. In fact the Grendel is reported to be very effective in target shooting at the 600 yard range.
__________________
Nevermore...
http://shootersnotes.com
JASmith is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 01:01 PM   #37
tobnpr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 2,857
Quote:
6.5G barrels aren't exactly common, and only a few manufacturers are producing them, so maybe the cost advantage of AR-15 parts is offset by the barrel price come build time.
6.5 Grendel barrels from Midway, AR-Stoner (ER Shaw), for $300 (I snapped one up on last summer for less) produces sub-moa results in our build.

Is it a bit more than some .223 barrels? Probably, but not by much.

Expect the prices to come down since the SAAMI standardization as the round becomes much more popular. There's just no reason for it not to go gangbusters now that AA is out of the loop.

Quote:
What they do suggest is that if some cartridge is to replace the 5.56
-- and have as many of the ballistic advantages of the 308 as possible
while still maintaining the dogface hump/logistical advantages of the
AR/M-x platform -- then the Grendel fills that bill.
Yep.
Since we've finally decided to deal with the two-hour drive each way to shoot long range target(100 and 200M just wasn't a challenge anymore), the 6.5 was the obvious choice. IF we end up deciding to hunt medium game, it'll fit that bill perfectly as well. We don't "plink", and I handload, so there is absolutely no reason I would build a .223 AR anymore, because it doesn't fit our shooting "hobby".

Everyone is different, there is no "one size fits all".

Last edited by tobnpr; January 26, 2012 at 01:09 PM.
tobnpr is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 02:12 PM   #38
CTS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: NE Georgia
Posts: 1,070
A few questions about that barrel from Midway: http://www.midwayusa.com/product/586...tainless-steel

First, where does it say it is E.R. Shaw. Second, if it is a Shaw barrel, why is it $100 dollars more than this barrel that I know is E.R. Shaw? http://bisonarmory.com/18-recon-6-8m...nless-mid-gas/
or this one: http://bisonarmory.com/18-spr-6-8mm-stainless/
CTS is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 04:19 PM   #39
thesheepdog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2010
Location: DFW Texas
Posts: 1,991
Quote:
The only SAME, RELIABLE source that I know of shows the 6.5 Grendel superior to the 6.8 even with a 1.5" SHORTER barrel!!!
I used to own a Grendel (I won't explain why I sold it), but I was getting 2600+ FPS with an 18" barrel and 120gr AMAX's.
__________________
Krav Maga/Judo
Qualified Rifleman/Marksmanship Instructor/Lic. Medic
"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit" Romans 8:1
thesheepdog is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 06:12 PM   #40
TimW77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2008
Posts: 230
Sorry tirod, 6.5G vs. 6.8 SPC again

Slappy said, "It would also be nice to see the two with the same weight bullets." and "I have yet to see any fair comparisons of identical bullet weights and barrel lengths. If the information is available I don't know where to find it."

Again and again and again...

I'm NOT in the habit of spoon-feeding answers to people and this subject has been brought up several times recently on this forum.

Do a SEARCH FOR YOURSELF to find previous posts comparing the SAME bullet weights (or very close) from the SAME, RELIABLE source and with similar barrel lengths.


"... I called Alexander Arms, they make their own barrels but the guy on the phone couldn't even tell me what grade of stainless steel they were made from..."

Honestly, would you have had a clue what he was talking about if he had told you what grade steel?


"It's been the basic thesis of some 6.5G enthusiasts to beat the drum that their chosen On-Bullet-To-Rule-Them All can replace the .308."

Neither "mehavey" OR I mentioned this!

Per "mehavey", "It does not replace the 308Win/7.62NATO for what the cartridge can do ...and that it not what Grendel aficionados espouse."


"...I am reasonably sure that arguing the military merits of this cartridge is a fun sport."

Once again... Neither "mehavey" OR I mentioned this!


"Mehavy's trajectory plots are very useful and make the strong argument that there is not enough difference in performance between the Grendel and other cartridges optimized for deer-hunting to make a difference under 250 yards."

You totally missed the point... "slappy" and "jimro" said there is not much difference between the 6.5G and 6.8 SCP "out to 400 or 500 yards".

Mehavey's chart CLEARLY shows there is a large difference at 400 yards and a HUGE difference at 500 yards.

And, there is no point going beyond 500 yards, the 6.8 SPC is a joke!!!


"The thing that differentiates the Grendel from the SPC for hunting and target shooting is that it does indeed have the reach to be effective over the longer ranges for both hunting and target shooting. In fact the Grendel is reported to be very effective in target shooting at the 600 yard range."

Here, you hit the point... The 6.8 IS an adequate cartridge at normal hunting ranges. The 6.5 Grendel IS ALSO an adequate cartridge at normal hunting ranges AND FAR MORE. It is more than adequate for all uses at ranges where the 6.8 is useless. The 6.5 Grendel is a multi-use "all" range cartridge also.

Buy the 6.8 for hunting ranges and another cartridge for "other" uses or just buy a 6.5 Grendel for all uses.


"6.5G barrels aren't exactly common, and only a few manufacturers are producing them, so maybe the cost advantage of AR-15 parts is offset by the barrel price come build time."

Just how much EXPERIENCE do you have buying 6.5 Grendel barrels? I'd bet NONE.

With that "wealth of experience" how do you come up with your facts and prices?

With TWO Grendels already built and TWO Grendel barrels "in hand" for additional builds, I have never EXPERIENCED problems buying a Grendel barrel.


"Expect the prices to come down since the SAAMI standardization as the round becomes much more popular. There's just no reason for it not to go gangbusters now that AA is out of the loop."

Hope you are correct here!

T.

Last edited by TimW77; January 26, 2012 at 06:34 PM.
TimW77 is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 06:24 PM   #41
tobnpr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 2,857
Quote:
Second, if it is a Shaw barrel, why is it $100 dollars more than this barrel that I know is E.R. Shaw? http://bisonarmory.com/18-recon-6-8m...nless-mid-gas/
Maybe the fact that it includes the bolt that is headspaced to the barrel has something to do with it.
tobnpr is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 08:12 PM   #42
Achilles11B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2010
Posts: 595
Read my post again. When does 'few manufacturers' equal 'problems buying one'? I said 6.5 G barrels weren't as common as .308-chambered ones.
__________________
Good equipment will never be a substitute for good training.
Achilles11B is offline  
Old January 26, 2012, 08:27 PM   #43
CTS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: NE Georgia
Posts: 1,070
Quote:
I'm NOT in the habit of spoon-feeding answers to people and this subject has been brought up several times recently on this forum.
No one asked you too.
Quote:
Honestly, would you have had a clue what he was talking about if he had told you what grade steel?
Actually I would "have a clue" and, that really wasn't the point anyway. I find it hard to have much faith in a "barrel maker" who can't tell me what kind of steel the barrel is made of.
Everything you quoted after that didn't come from me. I really have nothing more to discuss on this subject. You have your "wisdom and experience" on the subject and I am some dummy who doesn't know how to read a ballistics chart or understand anything about barrel steel. Lets just leave it at that.

Topnbr, yes, I forgot that the Bison Armory barrels don't include the price of the bolt. It is an extra $60 I believe. I ordered them together so I was thinking it was included in that price.

Last edited by CTS; January 26, 2012 at 08:34 PM.
CTS is offline  
Old January 27, 2012, 03:29 PM   #44
tirod
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,163
Quote:
What they do suggest is that if some cartridge is to replace the 5.56
-- and have as many of the ballistic advantages of the 308 as possible
while still maintaining the dogface hump/logistical advantages of the
AR/M-x platform -- then the Grendel fills that bill.
I would say the title of this specific thread is exactly the evidence that is right under our nose - the 6.5G fans have created a concept that it can replace the .308. That's exactly what the OP is talking about.

As for the Grendel filling the bill to replace the 5.56 and emulate the .308 in the process, it goes right back to a bullet with 20gr less mass and 20gr less powder doing it - which is physically impossible. What the general public keeps focusing on is fps and accuracy, where the military is looking for controllable power. Completely different thing. They don't need to bother with making the 5.56 do more, they already turned down the 6.8 which is 40% more powerful and even paid for it's development. Not what they needed because they have other weapons in inventory, in the field, and much more deadly in delivering power. Most of those are crew served.

That's what's wrong with the myopic perspective of caliber debates, as most of the participants are taking it at face value the single shooter needs to deliver the power. It's a classic misunderstanding generally brought up by those who aren't trained in firepower management on the battlefield. They aren't Infantry, and they sure aren't command level trained.

No clue what it's really about. "Gunner, troops in the open, 450m, fire at my tracers!" and another 100 round belt of .308, .50BMG, or a burst of 40mm goes there.

Don't need no stinkin' leetle 6mm's. It's really a question the Army didn't ask and could frankly care less about.
tirod is offline  
Old January 27, 2012, 04:53 PM   #45
tobnpr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 2,857
I didn't see anything in that post that suggested anything about military applications.

Far as I'm concerned, the 6.5 Grendel HAS replaced the .223/5.56 for me in the AR-15 platform.
I see no advantage, from any perspective, for me to own that caliber over the 6.5.

None.

For those that like to plink with cheaper ammo, that would not be the case.
tobnpr is offline  
Old January 27, 2012, 07:00 PM   #46
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tirod
No clue what it's really about.
You're going to have a very hard time coherently explaining that to YoungSon, late of the 3/75th Rangers, two tours in Iraq, two in Afghanistan, and now going back for a fifth all-expense-paid trip to the sandbox.

We're all (well, some of us) are very familiar w/ mad-minute-fill-the air-with-smoking-lead theory. But the single shooter matters big time -- no less than the single shooter is the basic element of the larger fire team. Even more so because a basic tactic of the Taliban was--and is-- to engage us at 450 yards, knowing that we will have to move in to hit him in the immediate term --and catching us in an intervening trap set in defilade.

I say again: This was, and remains, a favorite tactic and is a specifically-learned response to the limitations of our current main battle rifle. Any lightweight thing we can do to improve standoff response for the individual dogface infantryman in that critical time before heavy weapons, artillery and/or air support can be brought to bear saves good lives and kills bad people.

Last edited by mehavey; January 27, 2012 at 07:13 PM.
mehavey is offline  
Old January 27, 2012, 07:56 PM   #47
JASmith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2009
Posts: 152
I start these questions with some trepidation, since the military application topic generates a fair bit of steam among many of the participants, but these comments are useful for future discussions in other threads and forums.
Quote:
...a basic tactic of the Taliban was--and is-- to engage us at 450 yards, knowing that we will have to move in to hit him in the immediate term --and catching us in an intervening trap set in defilade...
Let's see, 450 yards is about the same thing as 400 meters. How well documented is this tactic as opposed to 300 meters or 600 meters?

I know that the Mk 262 is developing a good reputation for precision engagements at this and longer ranges in the hands of well-trained designated marksmen. What evidence do we have the the 5.56 M855A1 has filled in this performance gap for the individual rifleman?

Quote:
...Any lightweight thing we can do to improve standoff response for the individual dogface infantryman in that critical time before heavy weapons, artillery and/or air support can be brought to bear saves good lives and kills bad people...
My job during Vietnam was bringing air and occasionally artillery support to folks on the ground. I know from that experience that getting air and artillery can be a long and frustrating endeavor. In spite of, or because of, the introduction of modern communications and precision ordnance, the time delay hasn't changed all that much.

Getting air or arty is a lot more difficult and time consuming than getting your personal firearm into action. Further, even in today's precision engagement world, moving ordnance in closer than a half-kilometer is fraught with danger, so the more the squad or patrol can bring to the fight for this intermediate distance, the better their chances.

Unfortunately, we have not seen enough discussion about the assets a patrol can and does carry in addition to their rifles. The answer may be in lighter, more effective grenade launchers, lightweight rockets, and so on instead of marginal improvements in individual rifle effectiveness.
__________________
Nevermore...
http://shootersnotes.com
JASmith is offline  
Old January 27, 2012, 08:44 PM   #48
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,790
Quote:
...400 meters. How well documented is this tactic as opposed to 300 meters or 600 meters?
Hard experience--wherein YoungSon experienced/had to overcome it multiple times.
He was quite specific and spoke of it repeatedly. (And as FiST Team leader, he was
the one that had to deal with it while his company was getting shot up.)

Quote:
I know that the Mk 262 is developing a good reputation for precision engagements at this and longer ranges...
Here is the comparison of the improved M262 against (the likes of) the Grendel.
Mk262 ballistics courtesy of the manufacturer/Black Hills
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?p=7868737



I cannot speak to the field performance of the newer solid penetrator/M855A1 except to
say there is a great deal of back & forth discussion of it in the Graduate forums,
and to offer this briefing...
http://usarmorment.com/pdf/M855A1.pdf

...noting the "Green" aspect as the touted headliner. That it also penetrates well out
to 300+ yards seems an added benefit--incredibly so. (Think what a 6.5 could do with this bullet design)

Last edited by mehavey; January 27, 2012 at 09:36 PM.
mehavey is offline  
Old January 27, 2012, 09:24 PM   #49
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 1,976
Quote:
You're going to have a very hard time coherently explaining that to YoungSon, late of the 3/75th Rangers, two tours in Iraq, two in Afghanistan, and now going back for a fifth all-expense-paid trip to the sandbox.

We're all (well, some of us) are very familiar w/ mad-minute-fill-the air-with-smoking-lead theory. But the single shooter matters big time -- no less than the single shooter is the basic element of the larger fire team. Even more so because a basic tactic of the Taliban was--and is-- to engage us at 450 yards, knowing that we will have to move in to hit him in the immediate term --and catching us in an intervening trap set in defilade.

I say again: This was, and remains, a favorite tactic and is a specifically-learned response to the limitations of our current main battle rifle. Any lightweight thing we can do to improve standoff response for the individual dogface infantryman in that critical time before heavy weapons, artillery and/or air support can be brought to bear saves good lives and kills bad people.
Keep in mind that the same genius that came up with the notion that you don't have to aim, the statistics say you just throw more lead at them and statistically you will kill more of them, also came up with the "most engagements are under 300 meters".

51% can be most, which leaves 49% (potentially) that are not.

And arty and heavier MG fire is not there for the day in day out foot patrol (on call reserved for the big pushes and the small guys have to survive or deal with what they have until they get support which as mentioned can be a long time coming and to often too long or never as its too late).

Beauty of the 6.5 is it opens up the world in the same platform as the M series guns and no downside.

Military ammo is not hunting ammo, its penetration oriented, and if you can poke a hole in them at 600 yards, they are probably out of the fight killed or not. A lot will then die of festering wounds.

Will we get there, we can hope.
RC20 is offline  
Old January 28, 2012, 12:08 PM   #50
mpd61
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2009
Location: Central Mass
Posts: 348
THE OP DIDN'T ASK ABOUT THE 6.8.

Conversations evolve, but Tirod seemingly can't.....
mpd61 is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
.308 , 6.5 grendel , ar-15

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15720 seconds with 8 queries