When they compared it the the M16 they left something out. The M16 was never a one shot one kill weapon. It was a one shot 3 out of the fight weapon. It was designed to wound and take more out of the battle by having to evacuate the wounded.

The comparison was an apple to oranges comparison.

quote:

When they compared it the the M16 they left something out. The M16 was never a one shot one kill weapon. It was a one shot 3 out of the fight weapon. It was designed to wound and take more out of the battle by having to evacuate the wounded.

Laser, I hate to say this, but you sir are wrong. No weapon to my knowledge has ever been designed to wound and not kill.

Now let us look at the facts.

Max average engagement range during the last three, no make that four conflicts, three hundred meters. Minimum average engagement range during the last four conflicts, 35m.

Average overall engagement range during the last two conflicts, 85m.

How do the external ballistics of the 6.5 help us in regards to a standard issue service rifle?

Well there is the term used over and over again on the show. "KNOCK DOWN POWER."

This is a false term. I am sure Nurse can explain it better than I. But KE does not directly relate to wounding the target. Anyone with an ounce of understanding of terminal ballistics knows this. So once again, I say the following.

The 6.5 and 6.8 do NOT fragment as the 5.56 does in the body. The bullet is made too well, and made from rich materials (this does not mean gold or silver or what not, it means made from finly cast coper and lead), so it does not impress me when it comes to killing the target. Now the 6.8, while you suffer from more recoil, and slightly heavier weight, is made from poor metals. It actually fragments easier (yeah I have to reverse my stance on this, I learned a few things about it lately, those humble enough will constantly learn.)

Shooting a metal target does not demonstrate killing ability. Hell, I can knock down a knock down target with 9x19 at a hundred yards, that does not mean it will KILL better than 5.56.

Now, did anyone notice that all the 5.56 hits on the knock down target were low of center, and both the 7.62x39 and 6.5 were high of center? If you did not notice this then you do not belong in this discussion, Leave now, we do not need your idiocy here.

While both the 6.5 and 7.62 will deliver more KE than the 5.56, that does not equate to more killing power. The knock down targets (are supposed to) be set to five pounds. The 5.56 will deliver this at that range.

I am not saying that 5.56 is the end all to rounds, it can be improved upon, but this show should not define how you judge a weapon system or a round that is being used.

On to Armor penetration. Level IV stops 5.45, 5.56, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, and 7.62x54AP DEAD COLD. Follow on shots may penetrate, but getting a double tap in a one inch group is amazing even amongst the best tactical shooters.

Weight, 5.56 beats all of the above.

Now onto the rubber boat segment. While I will not get into specifics, we have been uparmoring our boats for five and some odd years. What we have is lighter (did you notice how they were not able to get the boat up on plane when they were extracting? Yeah think about it) and provides the same protection (but is not mechanical).

It is true that boats have fallen my the wayside since Iraq and Afghan. But they are still there. This "Float Armor" is yet another Dragon Skin.

Any questions?

Well I have a long post coming up, but we all know Ivy will never get it posted.

In short, there is no such thing as knock down power. The 5.56 was not designed to wound, it was designed to kill. Look at the shot placements on the steel targets. Did you notice that the hits from the 5.56 were placed low of center, and the others were high? Think about it. Better external ballistics do not really help us because of common engagment ranges (my post that was flagged explains this in detail).

The rubber boat thing. Yeah we have been uparmoring our boats since I was a Lance Corporal, and it is lighter. Think of the whole Dragon Skin idiocy.

While I enjoy this show. I was not at all surprised.

You beat me to it TYPICAL. As far back as the 5.56 / 6.8 " knockdown " comparison the same exact thing took place. All 5.56 shots were at the 6 to 7 0'clock low position, way low. The other competitors were generally at the 1 to 2 0'clock high. The difference in leverage required to knock it down is easier the higher you hit it. The difference was in the 6 to 9 inch range between the 5.56 and the other rounds. The fact that Mack is an ex SEAL I think he knows exactly where he was shooting. Looks like a slightly tilted test.

The 6.8 was designed around an OTM bullet that yawed quicker and fragmented like 5.56. Except the bullet is twice as big, so it throws twice as many fragments. Also the heavier bullet will punch through intermediate barriers like walls are plate glass better than any 5.56mm could. With the right bullet the 6.5 Grendel should do the same.

I think the 6mm SAW cartridge developed by the Army in the 1960s comes into competition, too. Bottom line is, they are all about 25-30% heavier than 5.56, and you can fit fewer rounds in a magazine. That probably means reducing the rifleman's basic load from 210 rd to about 170, the SAW gunner from 600 rd to less than 500, and who carries just a basic load?

6.5 vs 6.8 is a new can of worms. The 6.8 SPC was designed to meet a SOCOM requirement to get the most lethality possible from the M4 inside 300m. The 6.5 Grendel was a commercial design to extend the range of the M16 platform.
The 6.8 works well with short barreled carbines. The 6.5 really needs a rifle-length barrel to reach its potential.
The 6.5 with the right bullet is awesome at long ranges. There are some loads that can outperform 7.62 NATO at 800m+.

Which is better? They each have strengths.

Good points Bob. Now I would not be so critical of the 6.5 if it were marketed correctly. But it is not. If they were trying to push for it to be a new intermediate sniping round, then I could say ok cool. But in standard issue service rifles? Not so much a good round.

And hey she actually got my flagged post up. Good job Ivy, your on the ball today.

quote:

The 6.5 and 6.8 do NOT fragment as the 5.56 does in the body.

Sorry, I should have proof read my flagged post before I posted it. The above should have said the 6.5 and 7.62 do Not, etc. My bad.

The 6.5 Grendal and the 6.8 SPC were designed to do 2 different things. I won't re-hash what others have posted, but either would be an upgrade to the 5.56...but has associated sacrifices that come with it.

I watched the show last night and have a question to ask. Why did they make the 6.5 Grendal when the M14 exists? I’m asking this because Mac seemed to be talking about the focus of the Grendal being accuracy and the ability to shoot a large round. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but the M14 is accurate, so accurate that they based the M21 off of it, and if fires a 7.62x51mm NATO round, which I’m assuming has good killing ability since it’s also used in a sniper rifle. I realize that the Grendal fired some sort of weird looking round that supposedly increased its aerodynamics, but I didn’t see it with a sniper scope on. Anyways, I’m really trying to ask a question, not criticize, so if I’m wrong then please correct me, I’m always happy to learn new info

The military adopted the 7.62mm NATO initially because they are highly conservative and the powers that be wanted a .30 caliber round.

The 6.5 Grendal was designed to be a long range cartridge. Because of it's high ballistic coefficient, it retains it's velocity longer and delivers more energy at longer ranges than the 7.62mm. On top of that, the Grendel is also lighter (more bullets) and has less recoil (more accurate) than the 7.62mm.