Posted on 10/23/2019 3:03:45 PM PDT by jazusamo
The 6.5 Grendel has better long range ballistics.
Where did I say it was? If it was 6.8 SPC, I would have said they would be, not maybe. There’s not enough info out there yet on this new 6.8 round.
They are slow as crap and everyone is laughing at them.
In the end Stoner will still win. The criticism is silly.
The IAR system is a confirmation of Stoner’s designs. What do you mean? Even 300 black’s superior suppression quality is still being used through Stoner systems.
I’d bet on a hybrid but fixed cased round (mild steel case head, metal or poly body, [probably brass/aluminum],dual purpose bullet [a la M855A1/M80 EPR bullet] and an updated progressive powder charge) over either a telescoped or caseless round.
The former works and is a logical next step up, the latter two have never shown much in terms of reliability and ballistic performance (internal, external and terminal) despite nearly 60-70 years of trying.
My gut says the AR platform will be with us for another 20 years, if not longer.
If I recall the problem with the early M16s wasn’t a design issue it was Kennedy’s wunderkids cutting corners and nixing the chrome lining. I guess they figured in their total lack of knowledge that saving a few bucks in a war they warned to stay out of was more important than the lives of American soldiers.
But it shoots light to medium weight for caliber bullets with rather middle of the road BC at geriatric velocities ( bettering the 556 by BC only, and then with longer than desired bbl lengths ( what does a 120 grn Grendel do from a 14.5 inch carbine?), eats up mag space badly, is oversize case body wise resulting in bare minimum structure in the breech of an AR15 platform.
Otherwise, the Grendel is a decent AR15 round, loaded to moderate pressures shooting light for caliber bullets.... the best part is the fact that it is a .264 diameter bullet.
Indeed, the /M16 was designed with IMR powders, like IMR 4895, but the ammo makers got approval to use ball powders (coated with calcium carbonate for burn rate control but really dirty and more erosive to the bore) which caused the failures in the field. Chrome lining and Forward assist were added in the end, the M16A1.
It was a Colonel in the Army Bureau of Ordnance who mandated the wrong powder and refused to have the bores chromed. He didn’t want the 16 and did everything he could to undermine it. He should have been tried for murder and hanged. Of course he never received the slightest penalty. REMFs take care of each other.
6.5 creed in an AR-10 platform with a full auto selector switch would do it.
The IAR doesn’t have the stupid Stoner gas system on it. Firing suppressed with the AR’s standard gas system is godawful.
I built a 6.5 Grendel. Nice rifle. I like it a lot but I don’t go to battle. My rifle is very serviceable, but I don’t serve in combat. The original design of the Gerand was a .277 round. Army said all ammo out there is .30 caliber. They adapted it I have a M1 Gerand a great rifle but I am so prejudice for it. Get the troops the best, what ever it turns out to be. IMO
It’s piston, which is boner worthy, but it’s still 5.56.
That took forever!
I would also point out that even Stoner never used that stupid gas system again - his subsequent rifle designs used piston. So even Stoner evidently thought that it was a bad idea later.
I hate direct inpingement, but it’s a lie to say it doesn’t work.
Compare it to Marine speed load drills.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t7tfPQAJwM
It’s not that slow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.