3 ms·

> The smaller bullet is the point. A 7.62mm bullet is overkill if you're aiming at a person less than half a kilometer away. Some time ago there was some drama

by jabl 8y ago

> The smaller bullet is the point. A 7.62mm bullet is overkill if you're aiming at a person less than half a kilometer away. Some time ago there was some drama wrt 5.56 being too ineffective, as well as having poor ballistics at longer ranges, and there were a bunch of intermediate calibers designed such as 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel. Did anything ever come out of this (or, was it always just an internet gun nut dream?), or was the 855A1 improvement enough that the headache and cost of a caliber change was discarded?

ranger207 8y ago
The new round has much better terminal ballistics, and better stability at range. It's better, but not perfect for the ranges of Afghanistan. Hopefully we won't have to worry about that for much longer. The Army is still looking at a larger caliber for their Next Generation Squad Weapon program, and that experimental round may wind up being lighter weight as well due to its polymer casing.
PeanutNore 8y ago
The US military currently has one or more requests out there for companies to submit 6.8mm rifles for trials, so it could potentially still happen. Also, according to Wikipedia, Serbia is adopting a rifle in 6.5 Grendel as its primary service rifle. I don't see the US moving towards 6.5 Grendel, except on the civilian market - I took a deer with a 6.5 Grendel last year, and my cousin has taken several as well as a black bear.
jki275 8y ago
Mostly resolved using heavier bullet weights. There are a bunch of different bullets out there (MK262 is the standard as I recall), and I think the 6.5/6.8 are unlikely to be adopted as supply chain logistics says to remain with 5.56.
azernik 8y ago
Part of the issue is that those assumptions of relatively short ranges were reached in an environment of actual fighting in jungle environments in Vietnam, and prospective fighting in built-up or forested environments in Europe. In arid regions, battle rifles with their longer ranges and lower volume of fire are arguably a better tradeoff. See, for example, the use of early-20th-century British battle rifles by the Taliban (https://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/taliban-gun-lockers-the-rifles-of-rural-ghazni-province/ https://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/taliban-gun-locke...), resulting from terrain like the title photo at (https://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/a-firsthand-look-at-firefights-in-marja/ https://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/a-firsthand-look-...) (Their use is deterred by other factors, namely ammunition availability and concealability.)

by jabl 8y ago

ranger207 8y ago

The new round has much better terminal ballistics, and better stability at range. It's better, but not perfect for the ranges of Afghanistan. Hopefully we won't have to worry about that for much longer. The Army is still looking at a larger caliber for their Next Generation Squad Weapon program, and that experimental round may wind up being lighter weight as well due to its polymer casing.

PeanutNore 8y ago

The US military currently has one or more requests out there for companies to submit 6.8mm rifles for trials, so it could potentially still happen. Also, according to Wikipedia, Serbia is adopting a rifle in 6.5 Grendel as its primary service rifle. I don't see the US moving towards 6.5 Grendel, except on the civilian market - I took a deer with a 6.5 Grendel last year, and my cousin has taken several as well as a black bear.

jki275 8y ago

Mostly resolved using heavier bullet weights. There are a bunch of different bullets out there (MK262 is the standard as I recall), and I think the 6.5/6.8 are unlikely to be adopted as supply chain logistics says to remain with 5.56.

azernik 8y ago

Part of the issue is that those assumptions of relatively short ranges were reached in an environment of actual fighting in jungle environments in Vietnam, and prospective fighting in built-up or forested environments in Europe. In arid regions, battle rifles with their longer ranges and lower volume of fire are arguably a better tradeoff. See, for example, the use of early-20th-century British battle rifles by the Taliban (https://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/taliban-gun-lockers-the-rifles-of-rural-ghazni-province/ https://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/taliban-gun-locke...), resulting from terrain like the title photo at (https://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/a-firsthand-look-at-firefights-in-marja/ https://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/a-firsthand-look-...) (Their use is deterred by other factors, namely ammunition availability and concealability.)