Two bullets with a long standing history of taking out many people. Both employed by the military and even civilians but which of these rounds will reign supreme? It's all up to you.

Do a search. There's a hundred threads on this. And it is Apples to Oranges.

7.62 NATO is a battle rifle, sniper, and support weapon round. It's best for suppressing fire or long range engagements. It is limited by increased weight and recoil. The 5.56 is an assault rifle round best used for short to medium range engagements.

6.5 Grendel. Best of both worlds and more capable than 6.8SPC

In theory, Mike. There are, as of yet, no battlefield testimonies about it's effectiveness. Frankly, I have trouble believing that, with as much as the DoD likes to waste the taxpayers' money, they wouldn't be looking into this wonder bullet if it was all it's cracked up to be. The whole "More power, range, and accuracy than a 7.62 match grade round with the weight, size and recoil of a 5.56." I've even heard some BS about it matching the .300 Winchester Magnum and even the .338 Lapua! Come on now! Physics just don't allow that with our current technology.

Every time some concept or wildcat round comes out, every writer of Guns & Ammo and Soldier of Fortune will consider it the greatest advancement in small arms since the flintlock. Every time the military passes on one of these wonder rounds they gave up the round that could have been used for the next two hundred years. 1890s, the 6mm round that the Navy experimented with, the .276 Petersen, the .280 British, the 6mm SAW, 4.6mm caseless, 7.62x45 Czech...the list goes on. Were some superior rounds, or at least better compromises overlooked and/or rejected by overly conservative military leaders? I don't doubt it. Could the .276 have been a better round for the Garand and continued to be used to this day? Maybe, and the same thing goes for the .280 British. But then again, maybe not.

Like anything, this is a case of, "the grass is always greener on the other side."

I can agree to an extent. Particularly with the matching .300WM or .338 Lapua. I shoot a Lapua and trust me 6.5 aint there.

Much of the *****ing about 5.56 came from the use of M4s for the Special Ops community, they can affort a different weapons system if they really want it. We didn;t really like the M4 which is why our fiorces using the M16 platform, though now boought from Canada, uses the 20" barrel versions mostly. After all the 5.56 is fine out of a 20" barrel.

But there is plenty going for the 6.5 Grendel. Hunting results show solid kills on animals equivalent to human size so I don't think killing power is really an issue. Also, accuracy is proven out of 16 through 24 inch barrels.

The biggest thing holding it back is Bill Alexander and his licensing demands.

In the meantime i'm quite happy with 7.62/.308. Control is fine and i've never needed burst fire with this bullet. One shot does it.

The issue with the 7.62 is the weight. 100 7.62=300 5.56.

The main problem, according to most of the people on SOCNET, is the M855. The tungsten penetrator won't fragment with the rest of the bullet and over penetrates unarmored combatants. It also loses velocity too fast and is too affected by barrel length changes. However, the 77gr Mk262 has shown great performance, holds velocity longer, and creates a more devastating wound.

Could the U.S. military adopt the 6.5 or 6.8 for the next assault rifle round? Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell. However, due to the licensing issues w/ Alexander, don't count on the 6.5. If anything it'll be the 6.8.

I think reality is that the Us general forces will remain with .223 and use the 77grain. Maybe even revert to the 55 which made a tremendous wound.

Special Ops will play with new weaopns and toys and may go a different route.

I agree. I am questioning the effectivness of the SS109 Green Tip in this war.

Maybe they should consider the 6.5-284 Norma. Google it. Fantastic accuracy and penetration. I’m having a long range competitive rifle built
On a Remington M721 action, it'll be chambered for 6.5-284 Norma. If required it could be used for other “requirements” if necessary.

IC2: You're talking about going back to a full sized battle rifle cartridge...if that were the case, they might as well go with the 7.62.

Mike: The 55gr does make a big wound, but it only has about the effective range of the M855, and it's a bit less accurate. The 77gr has better range and accuracy and will completely tear up a bad guy.

All 5.56s suffer from lack of penetration against hard barriers compared to most of the standard battle and assault rifle rounds, but it's (usually) a better man stopper according to most BTDTs and a couple million dead bad guys. According to a guy who is really in the know at SOCNET though, the 6.8 has been drastically improved and may be on the verge of getting a second look. It has the soft tissue disruption and similar ballistics the 5.56 and the penetration of a 7.62x39. "The perfect round?" no, there is none. Better than both rounds? Possibly. A better choice for the troops in the field? Can't say, don't have the experience, and I haven't seen the 6.8 against anything except gelatin and water jugs. The next official issue round? Time will tell.

I take no side in this issue except this: The troops should have the round(s) that is/are best suited for them to get their job done safely, whether it be 5.56, 6.5, 6.8, or 7.62.

It all really comes down to hit placement as to effectiveness. Yes, the 5.56 doesn't have penetration of building materials etc either, even with the green tip M855 Ball.
Although for battle accuracy the M16A2/A4 and M855 ball round is the best combination for accuracy of any service rifle to date. To bad the Army doesn't train to put it to it's full use, as does the USMC. This entire armchair back and forth is only good for discussion fodder. No more no less. And I concur with the weight argument. 30 lbs of ammo equates to more ammunition for 5.56 as apposed to 7.62. But the 7.62 is a better penetrater and pretty much puts them down for good. No matter what, you can’t have the best of both worlds.

It all boils down to, “Hits Count”... It Always has, It Always will.

the problem with the 5.56 is if you do not hit bone or center mass, the round can pass through. A 7.62 is the M-14's round, which i think is the best battle rifle ever made. Now that they have toyed with it, some are being re-made with polymers. A good compromise would be the 6.8 or 6.5 Grendel. Having a lite M-14, with a shortened barrel and a foregrip, you can get a couple accurate bursts from it. A 5.56 JHP will do more damage when it hits. I think i would rather have the Barret 468.

The problem is, a JHP is not land warfare legal.

quote:

Originally posted by M14_Loyalist:
The problem is, a JHP is not land warfare legal.

Technically..it's a hollowpoint that is purposely designed to expand and increase damage, that is not allowed.

172gr Sierra Matchking are used by US snipers and DM's. They are a hollowpoint by manufacture. They do not expand, nor are designed to do so. World Court has deemed them compatible with the Hague and Geneva's.

quote:

Originally posted by STARSnBARS:
172gr Sierra Matchking are used by US snipers and DM's.

That's the 175 grain Sierra. The bullet it replaced was a 173 grain (nominal weight - it varied by over a grain in some batches) FMJBT.

quote:

They are a hollowpoint by manufacture. They do not expand, nor are designed to do so. World Court has deemed them compatible with the Hague and Geneva's.

More important than the World Court's ruling or or the Hague Conventions, the US military's Judge Advocate General's branches have all signed off on similar opinions. The distinction is very important - the US was never a signatory to the 1868 St. Petersburg Convention, and I'm not sure we signed the 1899 Hague convention either. Even though we usually observe the terms of both, we are not legally obligated to do so. See http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html for more discussion on this subject.

Other .30 caliber projectiles meeting the criteria for OTM (Open Tipped Match) include Sierra's 168 (used in M852 match ammo) and 190 (used in US military .300 Winchester Magnum sniper ammo) grain projectiles. In 5.56mm, Hornady's 75 and Sierra's 77 grain projectiles are authorized for use in Mk 262 ammo.

As far as I know, Alexander Arms has eased up licensing issues to speed along manufacturing (6.5 Grendel, .50 Beowulf). I received my .50 Beowulf last year, and a full case plus two boxes of ammo for it. I have .223, .308 rifles, and as you all agree - those rounds have different ballistics and different purposes.

well, why don't we just compromise and make the move to 6.8? there are a lot of small manufacturers who have come up with really good assault rifles, its just that they are not BIG companies. Barret makes a 6.8, there is a company that was featured on "Weaponology", i cannot recall the name, but it made wat looked to be a reliable 6.8...finally the Masada, which is said to be able to fire 5.56 or 7.62, just pull some pins out and change a few things, and there ya go. I don't understand how it works though, i did read the mag well fits several different types. If I was involved in the process, i would give the 416 a good look. I bet Hk could make it in 6.8

The Masada can be retooled to fire any round that is the approximate overall length of the 5.56x45, 7.62x39, 6.8x43, 5.45x39, 6.5 Grendel. It looks like its a promising weapons system. The "quick-change" barrel is nice, but it does have the nagging issue of having to re-zero optics every time you switched barrel lengths or calibers. With the AR, you want to switch bbl length or caliber? Pop the pins, take off the upper with the optic still attached and zeroed, and put another upper with an attached and zeroed upper of its own. This is not to say that AR is a "better" system or vise versa, and for a professional, it probably doesn't matter all that much. In a case with two quality rifles, or any number, whether it's an AR (416 and LWRC included), Sig 550 series, G36, Masada, etc, if one has the option, it comes down to preference.

RHINO: In response to your comment about HK making a 416 in 6.8: It would be a cinch, just take a 416 upper, switch out the bolt head and barrel. If the military were to go 6.8, they'd do that in a heartbeat for a contract. Even if they don't, don't count out a 6.8 HK416 for LE.

Yeah, Hk has really been trying hard for a contract. I think the 6.8 is the way to go. If thats wat the military wants, Hk will make one that will be ok . They are trying hard to develop a sidearm too. A .45 w/ 12 rounds, built by Hk, would be nice. They do make great firearms.

I like the 1911s myself. Para Ordinance has been making hi cap 1911s for awhile, and most other companies manufacturing that do 1911s, such as Springfield and I believe Wilson. At any rate, they'd both (USP and 1911) be great.