As it will be for any bullet, especially one that has as little powder as a small rifle cartridge.
Which is why there are no 1,000m sniper rifles in 5.56 or 5.45 or 7.62 x 39mm calibre.
The idea is that the Grendel is extremely *flexible*, and with modular rifle set ups, it could go from DMR to assault rifle to actual sniper rifle etc. It would also be a great round for "special forces" because of that.
No it isn't extremely flexible. It was designed to be used in the M16 type family which seriously limits its length and the size of the projectile that can be used with the round.
Not being able to use the heavier projectiles limits its performance... it could certainly replace the assault rifles and possibly the LMG like the negev and minimi, but not a real machine gun.
GarryB, you of all people should know that armed forces are moving to modular, caliber-switching rifles increasingly more often.
The Grendel could replace the 5.56, but not the 7.62 x 51mm... it just can't handle the heavy bullet weights.
Obviously! A piston round cannot reach those ranges, and won't be able to unless you stuff a friggin' pound of grain in the casing! They have terrible aerodynamic-properties, becuase they are built for close-quarters shooting!
A 30 cal rifle bullet is subsonic at about 600-800m depending on the particular round... most will travel 3-5km at subsonic speed... what makes you think a pistol round wont travel 600m?
Those who need it... Oh, I don't know, maybe a DMR or sniper?
In the Russian Army they already have the SVD... why would they use another cartridge?
You still don't understand? The idea is that it is an extremely flexible round, and even at shorter ranges it will be more accurate and powerful than a 5.56 or 7.62.
Which would be important if either of the in use cartridges (5.45 and 5.56 BTW) were not good enough... which is not true.
That is complete bull GarryB, and you should know it... All it takes is a few minutes of research, and one could find that 6.x rounds are the most accurate naturally, hence their wide-spread use in competition! This is what the pros use for reference;
At ranges of 1km or less... for longer range shooting calibres like 338 and 416 and 12.7mm are mostly used...
What cost? All they have to do, is slowly move from their current calibers to the Grendel, it really doesn't get much easier or cheaper! Rifles can easily be chambered for the Grendel.
I will repeat.. Grendel is not a good replacement for a 7.62 x 51mm... it simply can't take the heavier bullets needed for effective use at longer ranges.
Don't forget that most DMR's are based off of assault rifles and their round, so a shared accurate round between an AR/AK/whatever and a DMR is a big advantage.
Most DMRs I know of are 30 cal for extra range. Having the same round for DMR and Assault Rifle is like having the same round for MG as for Assault rifle... that hasn't worked and the Russians have gone to PKP in 30 cal and if the west has any brains it will do the same.
the extra weight of the PKP is worth the extra power and range.
The 5.56 (223) has the same problem, except that it has a more aerodynamic bullet.
No it doesn't.
The 223 has a stupid short little stubby bullet that has a poor aerodynamic shape.
the 5,45 has a much longer projectile... just hold them side by side and you can see it.
DMR = any small caliber rifle that sits between an assault rifle and *actual* sniper rifle. - Can your clear up the rest of the first part? I'm sorry, but it didn't make any sense (to myself).
DMRs are almost always larger calibre rifles with extended range and power over the calibres of the issued standard rifles (which are generally assault rifles).
DMRs didn't exist in WWII because they simply weren't needed.
With the widespread introduction of the assault rifle using a reduced power round however their adoption into the infantry was pioneered by the Soviets. The SVD was a DMR before there was a word for it in the west and was issued to every platoon as well as real snipers in the GRU.
Plus the Grendel is more powerful. - 300 meters is great, the ability to hit a thousand is even better...
Soldiers in Afghanistan can't hit targets at 200m WTF are you thinking about 1km shots for?
You probably couldn't even see a human target at 1km with iron sights... let alone identify them...
he Grendel could easily replace the 7.62/5.56 and 7.62x54/308 in one cartridge. It combines the power of the AK round, the velocity of 5.56, the long-distance range of the 7.62, and accuracy of any 6.5 round (almost*).
Wrong. The Grendel needs a very long barrel or very heavy bullets from a shorter barrel to get performance comparable to the 7.62.
If you do a search on this forum the propellent makers in Russia are working on new propellents to increase muzzle velocities by up to 30%. For the 5.45mm that means the potential for heavier projectiles and higher muzzle velocities and it already has a better aerodynamic shape than the Grendel.
hen this already existed with 7.62x39mm for Assault Rifle/DMR/Sniper Rifle and LMG.
The weapon families is something different from a DMR... the latter is just to extend the range of some soldiers in the unit... making them use the light calibre used in assault rifles defeats the purpose of the DMR who is supposed to provide long range accurate fire.
Going with 6.5mm over 5.56 on Assault Rifles is a good idea, going with 6.5mm over 7.62x51mm for Sniper Rifles is a stupid idea.
To be honest, when it comes to sniper rifles, the x54 isn't really that great anyway.
You mean like the 30 06 and 7.62 x 51mm are rubbish now too?
For trying to stretch out, one would need a 338 etc.
If you can't see targets at more than 1,000m then a 338 is bigger, heavier, and vastly more expensive... (6 thousand dollars for an SVD vs 20 thousand dollars for a SV-338).
* Also agreed, but I meant that it doesn't really sacrifice much for accuracy like a traditional sniper rifle. - As in, it is a flexible semi-auto design, much like a medium-range rifle (I'll call it that for your sake).
A battle rifle is big, heavy, powerful and long ranged.
An assault rifle is an attempt to combine the range and power of a battle rifle to ranges on the battlefield where it is needed... ie out to 300m max, while at the same time being light and portable enough and have the capacity to fire full auto to have the close range firepower of a sub machine gun.
* They are technically anti-material rifles.
They were anti tank rifles that became anti material rifles when tanks got too hard.
The Grendel (or similar) should replace current assault rifle rounds.
The advantages it brings are not relevant to the soldiers... and the political cost of adding a new NATO cartridge is simply not worth it.
they have two rifle cartridges... if 223 is not good enough use 7.62.
Grendel can't take the heavier bullet weights it would need to properly replace the 7.62mm rounds except with very long barrels... US soldiers voted with their feet dropping the M16 with its 20 inch barrel for the M4 with a shorter barrel... I doubt they would embrace a 26 inch barrel LMG.
It has everything to do with a bullets performance, which is what we've been talking about this whole time.
You are fixating on calibre and ignoring bullet weight... BTW at heavier bullet weights 338 and 416 become the best most aerodynamic calibres...
Compared to the 5.45, the Grendel has way more power, is more accurate, and doesn't add much recoil...
What does that mean?
there is no such thing as an accurate round... rounds are either consistent or inconsistent.
Which 5.45mm round specifically are you talking about?
there are even underwater 5.45mm rounds...