The case of 6.5 is too wide, so the number of the rounds is reduced in the magazine. Effective range of 1000 m is only actual with the match level sniper 6.5 Grendel rounds, not with a regular army round anyway. 1000 m range is in no way actual for an army carbine. It's more for the bolt action rifle, but they anyway have now specialized sniper rifle 6.5x284 mm Norma round:The 6.5 that is really incredible, having an effective range of 1000m, something that even older generations of 7.62mm had a problem achieving.
If the AK-47 can have 30 rounds with 7.62 than I don't see how the 6.5mm can't have 30 round magazines.The case of 6.5 is too wide, so the number of the rounds is reduced in the magazine. Effective range of 1000 m is only actual with the match level sniper 6.5 Grendel rounds, not with a regular army round anyway. 1000 m range is in no way actual for an army carbine. It's more for the bolt action rifle, but they anyway have now specialized sniper rifle 6.5x284 mm Norma round:
Ermm, that's actually a 6.5mm bullet pressed into a .284 Winchester case, ie a "6.5x55" (with a longer neck than standard 6.5x55 though). And Norma only standardized it, they didn't develop it.specialized sniper rifle 6.5x284 mm Norma round:
Coz I know only about 17 and 26 round mags for this caliber. Of course theoretically it could be even 45-rounds mag in whatever dimention.If the AK-47 can have 30 rounds with 7.62 than I don't see how the 6.5mm can't have 30 round magazines.
It could be even hand-made. 6.5-284 is much more potent than Grendel as a sniper round due to its bigger case. Grendel will never compete with it on 800+ yards distance.Ermm, that's actually a 6.5mm bullet pressed into a .284 Winchester case, ie a "6.5x55" (with a longer neck than standard 6.5x55 though). And Norma only standardized it, they didn't develop it.
Can anyone tell me why a standard assault rifle needs to be capable of effective fire at over 800 yards? Most engagement happen at less than 1/3rd that distance. As a requirement for a sniper weapon, then maybe, but as a direct replacement for the average grunt? Dreaming...Grendel will never compete with it on 800+ yards distance.
If so what Grendel's even needed for? All fire designations on the up to 500 yards 5.56 mm achieves as well. Stopping power? It's problem only for 5.56 steel cor bullets. For fragmented or soft point it isnt a problem. If you need an automatic fire on the distance you anyway need the big machinegun shit. Whether Grendel could be better than 7.62x51 for that purpose? I doubts.Can anyone tell me why a standard assault rifle needs to be capable of effective fire at over 800 yards? Most engagement happen at less than 1/3rd that distance. As a requirement for a sniper weapon, then maybe, but as a direct replacement for the average grunt? Dreaming...
Yes it could be modified to accept the 6.5 or 6.8. In fact any weapon in 5.56 could be modified for 6.5 or 6.8 by just changing the barrel and only the parts that actually touch the round. This can work for the HK416, SCAR, M4, M16, M249 etc...Does anyone know if the HK416 can take a 6.8 or 6.5 bulltet? I know its sorta out of place but it saves me starting a thread.
I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. The average range of a small arms firefight iwas (I think) 100m or so with very few engagements (as in accurate exchanges of rifle fire) occuring at distances further than 300m. Those stats were pre Afgahan/Iraq from many years back. If these stats are still valid, why do you need a round for a standard rifleman capable at ranges of more than 800m? Isn't that more the preserve of belt fed MMG's or snipers?If so what Grendel's even needed for? All fire designations on the up to 500 yards 5.56 mm achieves as well. Stopping power? It's problem only for 5.56 steel cor bullets. For fragmented or soft point it isnt a problem. If you need an automatic fire on the distance you anyway need the big machinegun shit. Whether Grendel could be better than 7.62x51 for that purpose? I doubts.
Before 15 years in Russia there was a research about turning to universal 6.0x49 mm caliber. despite good results on sniping, they decided to not go to it because overall low effect to cost ratio. This 6.0x49 round has even better ballistic than 6.5 Grendel, 1000+ ms velocity, but anyway...
My point is just the same: dont need.If these stats are still valid, why do you need a round for a standard rifleman capable at ranges of more than 800m?
Hi WaylanderMay I ask in which army you have been in the game for years?
I agree.That's always been an argument for me...studies show that the majority of infantry rifle engagements occur at distances of 250m or less. Why is so much effort being placed on having all of the rifles in an infantry section be capable of hitting upto these longer ranges? Why not have one or two dedicated sharp-shooters for those long range engagements and give the rest lightweight weapons that will get the job done for targets out to 300m?
I remember back in basic training, it was very difficult to hit the 300m targets (and that was in a training environment where you already knew where the target was going to pop-up from). I can only imagine doing this to a camouflaged target, with the stress of the battlefield and not even knowing exactly where the enemy is firing at you from.
-----JT-----
Hi Chino,I agree.
Of course, I trained in a tropical country where it is either heavy foliage or built up areas. For most troops, there would not be much of need to shoot beyond 300m unless the enemy is standing out in the open and waving a red flag.
BTW which country are you from?