Ammo calibres for Russian Army rifles

Werewolf wrote:

par far wrote:Just wanted to know, which is round is the best out of those three, Which one would be the best on the battlefield? Rank them.

Only two of those round have same purpose that would be 7.62 x 39mm and 5.45 x 39mm but the 9 x 39mm is a special silenced round because it was designed to be subsonic to be used on rifles like VSS,VSK94 and ASVAL.

The 7.62x39mm is a superb round ballistically speaking and was kept to a similiar balance like the german 7.92x 33mm of the STG-44 a hard hitting round but with enough velocity for combat relevant distances.
The 5.45 x 39mm came as an inferiority complex to "copy" the NATO 5.56mm which has a completley different doctrine and the Soviets did not know it. The doctrine of the 5.56mm was not to kill the enemy soldiers but favorably to wound them this would lead to the situation that enemy soldiers had to carry him or to treat his wounds in battle, binding them to the injured and keeping them away from fighting and in such manner reducing the fighting capability and destroy the enemy forces logistically. The Sovets did not know the doctrine behind it and were very disappointed with the innitial 5.45 x 39mm and had to find solutions, so they created the bullet with steel core, air gap at the nose and center of weight at the bottom of the projectile, through this design the bullet starts to thumble as soon as the airgap at the tip of the bullet gets squashed and enhances its lethality by yawing inside the body, the steel core assures that it has some capabilities to pierce common body armors. The bullet turned out to be effecient but still lacks punching power of 7.62x39mm. The NATO uses some bullets of 5.56x45mm in same design as the 7N22 so it yaws inside the body, but since years it gets reported as an ineffecient round from Afghanistan and all NATO countries and they slowly trying to get decisions done to implement the 6.5x39mm Grendel round to replace the 5.56mm. The Grendel 6.5x39mm is very similiar to the russian 7.62x39mm has only little bit lower performance in ballistical wounds but through the higher propellant compared to bullet and its shape it flies further.

I would go for almost every situation with 7.62x39mm, it was used and is still in use for urban snipers killing soldiers with AKs with scopes. It has by far higher stopping power than a 5.56mm.

Thank you for all the good information Werewolf, I did not know that the Soviets did not know about the doctrine behind 5.56 nato. I read that the 5.56 nato was not very good in Afghanistan and that the US had to buy 100,000 AK-47(or AKM Rifles) in the 7.62 and they really liked the 7.62(you can search this up if you like). I don't know much about the 6.53mm, other than it was made in US, how do the 6.5x39mm compare with 7.62x39mm?

Out of those three choices; the 7.62...

The 5.45 (223) is a great, very accurate round, but it is generally weak and isn't sufficient against advanced body armor. - That is the reason US forces are dropping it.

The 7.62, while not as accurate, has much more stopping power without adding much more recoil. It isn't the best round ever, but it works...

The 9x39 can't be compared to these other rounds, because it is subsonic. - Less accurate at long ranges and less stopping power... However, it is very quiet, has little recoil, and it accurate at short ranges.

So, the 5.45 should be left to smaller assault rifles, the 7.39 larger ones, and the 9x39 should be used quite rifles (like it is now).

Being honest, none of these rounds are very *great*... If I had to chose a single round in combat (every kind if I had only one chose), it would be the 6.5 mm Grendel. - Very accurate at both short and long ranges, as much if not more stopping power than the 7.62, and it has not much more recoil than the 5.45. Of course it isn't subsonic, but that is for very specialized purposes only.

Just wanted to know, which is round is the best out of those three, Which one would be the best on the battlefield? Rank them.

What is best?

All will kill.

Each has features that give it advantages and disadvantages.

The 5.45mm is the current standard Russian rifle and LMG round. It is flat shooting and accurate and effective on human targets.

Being a small high velocity round it can be deflected when hitting objects between the shooter and the target.

The 5.45 x 39mm came as an inferiority complex to "copy" the NATO 5.56mm which has a completley different doctrine and the Soviets did not know it.

the Soviets were experimenting with small calibre bullets before WWII.

the first assault rifle... the Federov Avtomat was a 6.5mm calibre weapon that had performance figures very similar to the 7.62 x 39mm. A 140 grain bullet moving at about 650m/s from the avtomats short barrel. Federov also developed a few rimmless cartridges before WWI in 6.5mm calibre with a 150 grain bullet moving at 850m/s it could have replaced the 7.62 x 54mm... but the Arisaka rifle had been purchased in large numbers along with its 6.5mm ammo so they went with that.

The doctrine of the 5.56mm was not to kill the enemy soldiers but favorably to wound them this would lead to the situation that enemy soldiers had to carry him or to treat his wounds in battle, binding them to the injured and keeping them away from fighting and in such manner reducing the fighting capability and destroy the enemy forces logistically.

that is a myth... the 5.56mm round was designed to fragment and dump all its energy into the target unlike the larger heavier rounds that tended to punch a small hole through and continue for hundreds of metres.

the 5.56mm was all about making automatic weapons lighter and more portable and easier to fire and allow the soldier to carry rather more ammo than with the older larger calibre rounds.

No soldier in combat will aim to wound an enemy that is shooting at him and his mates.

The Sovets did not know the doctrine behind it and were very disappointed with the innitial 5.45 x 39mm and had to find solutions, so they created the bullet with steel core, air gap at the nose and center of weight at the bottom of the projectile, through this design the bullet starts to thumble as soon as the airgap at the tip of the bullet gets squashed and enhances its lethality by yawing inside the body, the steel core assures that it has some capabilities to pierce common body armors.

Don't know where you heard that but it is not true either.

the 5.45mm round was designed from the outset to be an unstable projectile.

It was designed by a woman and she optimised the design for lethality in flesh.

The steel core is not for penetration... most Soviet military ball ammo has a mild steel core.

The design with the hollow tip shifts the centre of gravity back making it tail heavy.

the gyroscopic stabilisation from the weapons rifling keeps it point forward till impact but the rear centre of gravity makes it want to tumble.

What makes it tumble on impact is the small lead content behind the air pocket that moves forward on impact. Normally internal weight moving forward would improve stability, but because it does not move uniformly it assists in initiating the tumble. All bullets tumble, but most travel point forward for a bit before they start to tumble. the lead component in the 5.45mm means it tends to tumble on impact.

results were excellent from the start.

In comparison the 5.56mm like other bullets will travel point forward for 10cm or so through flesh before it starts to tumble. When it reaches 90 degrees the bending forces will split a 5.56mm round if it is travelling fast enough... ie within 120m with a 20 inch barrel (ie M16 or SA-80) but with shorter barrels the bullet doesn't travel fast enough to tumble and fragment... they still tumble but they don't fragment... by the time they fragment they often have left the target body.

Small light bullets are easily deflected including by bones.

The bullet turned out to be effecient but still lacks punching power of 7.62x39mm.

The 7.62 x 39mm is heavier, less accurate, but will penetrate more to reach a target... when it hits a target it will do less damage despite the larger entry wound.

The 9x39 is a more expensive round that is ideal for special forces or those who want to remain quiet.

With a 250 grain slug it hits hard but has less range than the above cartridges.

I don't know much about the 6.53mm, other than it was made in US, how do the 6.5x39mm compare with 7.62x39mm?

Smaller more aerodynamic projectile of similar weight retains velocity better extending effective range.

Overall the 7.62x39mm the case of this round was used several times for designing of rounds for sports shooting with good results in accuracy like 6mm PPC and 6.5mm PPC.

The civilian sporting version of the 7.62 x 39mm called the Russian .220 was used as the basis for the best 300m bench rest calibres available... ie 6mm PPC and 6.5mm PPC.

The 5.45 (223) is a great, very accurate round, but it is generally weak and isn't sufficient against advanced body armor. - That is the reason US forces are dropping it.

The 5.45mm has a range of armour piercing bullet options... advanced body armour will be a problem for any intermediate calibre.

Being honest, none of these rounds are very *great*...

What does great mean in a cartridge?

The 5.45mm seems to be accurate and lethal enough... the Soviets had no problem in Afghanistan with it... the afghans called it the poisoned bullet...

I agree that the heavier bullets seem to be more effective... the original 7.62 x 39mm calibre bullet was 122-123 grain while the current ammo is a 154 grain bullet with the extra weight giving it more punch.

If you look at an AKM you will see the aiming scale goes from an optimistic 800m down to 100m and then it has a lowest position that is set for 300m.

The lowest setting is the battlefield setting.

A term that is often misused is point blank range.

Unfortunately it has been corrupted to the point where today it means very close range... range so close it is not possible to miss the target because they are so close and fill your field of view.

The original meaning of point blank is the range at which the sights are pointing at the centre of chest but the bullet impact will still hit the target.

If you set up a rifle barrel to be perfectly horizontal a bullet leaving the muzzle fired from the gun and that same projectile dropped from muzzle height would hit the ground at the same time because they fall at the same rate.

to extend the range of the rifle to hit the chest area of a target at 300m say, you have to align the barrel and sights so that the barrel is tilted upwards so the bullet is lofted towards the target and falls to the same altitude as the targets chest at 300m range from the muzzle.

the trajectory of the 7.62 x 39mm projectile means that for a normal standing target with the weapon zeroed to the 300m battle sight setting the bullet is not lofted above the height of the average mans head.

This means with the iron sights set to the battle setting of 300m you can aim centre chest of the target and no matter how close they are you should still hit them... if they are very close you will hit them in the head. The bullet will start out level with your shoulder and will climb up to near the top of the targets head and then the impact point will get lower and lower until you get to 300m where the impact point will be centre chest.

Obviously you can tell how close the target is so someone appears 100m away you might aim at the groin area to compensate because you know because the target is closer than where you zeroed your rifle to it is going to hit high.

A target that is 300m or 400m away you might want to aim for the head as at that range the trajectory starts to get steep.

I have read an internet expert claim that a 7.62 x 39mm round is inaccurate because the bullet drop at 400m is 49 inches... yes, he was American.

The amusing thing is that same American claimed the 7.62 x 51mm NATO round was very accurate out to 1,000m... which is amusing because at that range bullet drop is over 10 metres.

But then when has bullet drop had anything to do with accuracy....

a 7.62 will destroy the brick and still travel 

not even a 7,62x54

GarryB wrote:

Being honest, none of these rounds are very *great*...

What does great mean in a cartridge?

The 5.45mm seems to be accurate and lethal enough... the Soviets had no problem in Afghanistan with it... the afghans called it the poisoned bullet...

Being a shooter (albeit on and off), a great cartridge is one that is not only well-rounded, but excellent at most points... Like the 6.5 Grendel; It is accurate out to about 1000 yards, carries energy better at distance (meaning it will have more power than the 7.62 at far distances), has equal or superior stopping power, doesn't have a lot of recoil, and isn't very large etc. It really is a "great" round... Not to say that  the 7.62 isn't a "good" round though.

GarryB wrote:The amusing thing is that same American claimed the 7.62 x 51mm NATO round was very accurate out to 1,000m... which is amusing because at that range bullet drop is over 10 metres.

But then when has bullet drop had anything to do with accuracy....

The 7.62 *isn't* what one would call a very accurate round (that being said GarryB, it depends on the manufacturer more than anything)... At shorter distances it is great, but not so when stretching it out. The 270. is far more accurate and superior IMHO.

Bullet drop has everything to do with accuracy... More bullet drop indicates more drag and less velocity in the round, both of which directly mess with a rounds accuracy... Plus, on a flat range, a round that drops will eventually hit the ground.

Being a shooter (albeit on and off), a great cartridge is one that is not only well-rounded, but excellent at most points... Like the 6.5 Grendel; It is accurate out to about 1000 yards, carries energy better at distance (meaning it will have more power than the 7.62 at far distances), has equal or superior stopping power, doesn't have a lot of recoil, and isn't very large etc. It really is a "great" round... Not to say that the 7.62 isn't a "good" round though.

Being a shooter, when was the last time you went shooting and saw a target that was 1000 yards away and thought... I wish I had a more powerful rifle with me so I could shoot that...

Having the capacity to hit a target at 1,000 yards does not mean it is useful to a soldier that will never even see a target at that range let alone get the chance to shoot at it.

the Grendel is largely untested... I remember military books from the 1980s that thought the SA80 was wonderful and could hit targets on the range reliably out to 600m or more. In real combat however lethality means hitting a target at more than 200m is simply not good enough if you are hitting with the effect of a .22lr.

The 7.62 *isn't* what one would call a very accurate round (that being said GarryB, it depends on the manufacturer more than anything)... At shorter distances it is great, but not so when stretching it out. The 270. is far more accurate and superior IMHO.

The 9 x 19mm round is useless at 600m range shots too... do you think that is a handicap?

Should the design of the 9 x 19mm be changed to allow 600m+ range shots to be taken?

Most of the time an assault rifle will be used at less than 100m. Sometimes it will be used to 250-300m. An average soldier simply does not have the optics and the cooperative target for shooting at longer ranges... nor should a soldier be looking for targets at such distances... in Afghanistan combat could be over 700 or 800m because the Taliban knew the 223 simply can't reach that far while their Kalashnikovs could easily kill at that range. (PKMs I am referring to).

The 5.45mm rounds already have a more aerodynamic bullet shape and should already have better performance at long range than the short stubby 5.56mm.

Bullet drop has everything to do with accuracy... More bullet drop indicates more drag and less velocity in the round, both of which directly mess with a rounds accuracy... Plus, on a flat range, a round that drops will eventually hit the ground.

Bullet drop is compensated for in range estimation and is totally irrelevant to accuracy... as long as your range estimation is not too far off.

Most of the time an assault rifle will be used at less than 100m. Sometimes it will be used to 250-300m. An average soldier simply does not have the optics and the cooperative target for shooting at longer ranges

But does have comrade with BMP's 2A42  Actually, I don't think we need to mix sport shooting and military shooting. It's like a sportsman running on the Olimpic Games and a squad running on a battlefield

GarryB wrote:

Being a shooter (albeit on and off), a great cartridge is one that is not only well-rounded, but excellent at most points... Like the 6.5 Grendel; It is accurate out to about 1000 yards, carries energy better at distance (meaning it will have more power than the 7.62 at far distances), has equal or superior stopping power, doesn't have a lot of recoil, and isn't very large etc. It really is a "great" round... Not to say that  the 7.62 isn't a "good" round though.

Being a shooter, when was the last time you went shooting and saw a target that was 1000 yards away and thought... I wish I had a more powerful rifle with me so I could shoot that...

Having the capacity to hit a target at 1,000 yards does not mean it is useful to a soldier that will never even see a target at that range let alone get the chance to shoot at it.

the Grendel is largely untested... I remember military books from the 1980s that thought the SA80 was wonderful and could hit targets on the range reliably out to 600m or more. In real combat however lethality means hitting a target at more than 200m is simply not good enough if you are hitting with the effect of a .22lr.

The 7.62 *isn't* what one would call a very accurate round (that being said GarryB, it depends on the manufacturer more than anything)... At shorter distances it is great, but not so when stretching it out. The 270. is far more accurate and superior IMHO.

The 9 x 19mm round is useless at 600m range shots too... do you think that is a handicap?

Should the design of the 9 x 19mm be changed to allow 600m+ range shots to be taken?

Most of the time an assault rifle will be used at less than 100m. Sometimes it will be used to 250-300m. An average soldier simply does not have the optics and the cooperative target for shooting at longer ranges... nor should a soldier be looking for targets at such distances... in Afghanistan combat could be over 700 or 800m because the Taliban knew the 223 simply can't reach that far while their Kalashnikovs could easily kill at that range. (PKMs I am referring to).

The 5.45mm rounds already have a more aerodynamic bullet shape and should already have better performance at long range than the short stubby 5.56mm.

Bullet drop has everything to do with accuracy... More bullet drop indicates more drag and less velocity in the round, both of which directly mess with a rounds accuracy... Plus, on a flat range, a round that drops will eventually hit the ground.

Bullet drop is compensated for in range estimation and is totally irrelevant to accuracy... as long as your range estimation is not too far off.

I actually have thought that, but that is off-topic anyway...

Range is *still* very important, it allows the 6.5 Grendel to go from being a close-quarters combat round, to DMR and rifle round. It carriers energy better than a 308/7.62, so it would be a great cartridge to replace it. A shared round between different rifles is a huge advantage, and it is possible with the 6.5...

"Untested", really? Shooters have been shooting it for years now, with great results I'd like to add... I remember a marksmen (online) who was disappointed the Grendel couldn't fire 1,200 yards (it shot great at 1,000), if that means anything to you.... Thanks for further proving my point. The Grendel holds a lot of energy down range, and its aerodynamic properties only further that. 

Please don't turn this into a "ohhh, but this" fan-boy "war". Obviously the Parabellum isn't (and shouldn't) able to reach out that far, it is a pistol round! There would be no point, it would have no energy, terrible aerodynamics at range, never-mind it simply could never be shot accurately by anyone at that range... 

^^^^^^^^^^

The Grendel or any other long-range capable round allows them to reach out further, pushing combat farther out with em'. Why don't we see combat at 500 yards (for example)? - Maybe because our rifles and their rounds can't shoot  accurately, or with enough force, at those long distances. Plus, the 6.5 could be used as a DMR round (and a great one) to allow help from farther out. Obviously the PKM can shoot that distance, the round it fires is huge compared to the 5.45x45... The Grendel would allow troops to engage from those distances, with the right set up of course.

Yes, but they carry less power to boot. 6.5 mm (not only the Grendel) is by far the best caliber for assault rifle rounds. They are also one of the most aerodynamic and accurate, hence their wide-spread use in competition.

Bullet drop = lack of velocity and inertia = bad accuracy. It itself doesn't *do* much, but it *means* a lot.

Thanks for the information guys, I want to know does Russia make 6.5 Grendl? Is it made in Russia because it originated in the US.

Werewolf wrote:

par far wrote:Thanks for the information guys, I want to know does Russia make 6.5 Grendl? Is it made in Russia because it originated in the US.

The 6.5mm Grendel isn't even that common in the US and russians do not produce this round AFAIK. Not really much sense of producing a round that is quite similiar to the round they already produce for decades.

It has yet to really hit the market properly. Soon this will change, as the US armed forces and public are moving from the 5.56 to 6.x at blazing speed. I'd say the 6.5 isn't similar at all to the 7.62, but to each his own...

But does have comrade with BMP's 2A42 Very Happy Actually, I don't think we need to mix sport shooting and military shooting. It's like a sportsman running on the Olimpic Games and a squad running on a battlefield

Someone who gets it.... you can spend a small fortune on new rifles and new ammo to hit targets 2km away and train soldiers to sneak around the battlefield with such rifles and such ammo... or you can take something like Metis-M1 to hit targets 2km away with a missile with a HE warhead or HEAT warhead to take out armour or fortified position.

"Untested", really? Shooters have been shooting it for years now, with great results I'd like to add... I remember a marksmen (online) who was disappointed the Grendel couldn't fire 1,200 yards (it shot great at 1,000), if that means anything to you....

Bullet flight time to 1,000 yards will be ages... do you think a real target on a battlefield will wait for the bullet to arrive?

What is the point of arming grunts with calibres able to kill at 1,000 yrds when they can't hit targets at much shorter ranges?

There is no point in hitting targets at 1,000 yards if the bullet is not going to be lethal to a human being... that is what I mean by untested... take it off the sniper and give it to a soldier and see what he can do with it... if he never uses it at beyond 300m then tens of billions of dollars for new calibre weapons and of course ammo production... new magazines and accessories was for nothing.

Please don't turn this into a "ohhh, but this" fan-boy "war". Obviously the Parabellum isn't (and shouldn't) able to reach out that far, it is a pistol round!

So pistol rounds don't need to reach sniper ranges but assault rifle cartridges do.

All information collected from battlefields around the world to date suggest that most soldiers don't fire at targets more than 200m away because they rarely identify them as hostile at targets at longer range don't tend to stay out in the open long enough to be engaged anyway.

Add camouflage and cover and the chances of even seeing the target at 1,000 yards would make it pointless without a 10+ magnification scope... and how many soldiers will carry that?

Why don't we see combat at 500 yards (for example)? - Maybe because our rifles and their rounds can't shoot accurately, or with enough force, at those long distances.

The main rifle calibres of WWII had plenty of punch and power and accuracy at 500 yards... yet actual combat showed 200m or less was the engagement range except sniping.

Bullet drop = lack of velocity and inertia = bad accuracy. It itself doesn't *do* much, but it *means* a lot.

Heavier bullets actually retain velocity better than smaller lighter rounds.

The rounds the grendal uses are limited because they had to fit the M16 mechanism, which limits the weight of bullets it can use.

In comparison with the 5.56mm, the 5.45mm uses much longer much more aerodynamic bullets that are effective over a longer range.

Personally I think the cost of changing to the Grendel is a waste of money... light cheap and effective at moderate ranges 5.45mm does the job, while SVD and PKP offer reach when needed.

I want to know does Russia make 6.5 Grendl? Is it made in Russia because it originated in the US.

They will likely sell civilian weapons in the calibre, but the round is copyrighted and owned.

US armed forces and public are moving from the 5.45 to 6.x at blazing speed.

US doesn't use 5.45... they use 5.56.

I'd say the 6.5 isn't similar at all to the 7.62, but to each his own...

Saying Grendel is accurate to 1,000 yards is like saying the 7.62 x 54mm is effective to 2,000m from a PKM... might be true but not really relevant to the average soldier.

I sniper might be able to get a better result, but either round is very inferior to the 338 LM or large calibres.

GarryB wrote:

"Untested", really? Shooters have been shooting it for years now, with great results I'd like to add... I remember a marksmen (online) who was disappointed the Grendel couldn't fire 1,200 yards (it shot great at 1,000), if that means anything to you....

Bullet flight time to 1,000 yards will be ages... do you think a real target on a battlefield will wait for the bullet to arrive?

What is the point of arming grunts with calibres able to kill at 1,000 yrds when they can't hit targets at much shorter ranges?

There is no point in hitting targets at 1,000 yards if the bullet is not going to be lethal to a human being... that is what I mean by untested... take it off the sniper and give it to a soldier and see what he can do with it... if he never uses it at beyond 300m then tens of billions of dollars for new calibre weapons and of course ammo production... new magazines and accessories was for nothing.

Please don't turn this into a "ohhh, but this" fan-boy "war". Obviously the Parabellum isn't (and shouldn't) able to reach out that far, it is a pistol round!

So pistol rounds don't need to reach sniper ranges but assault rifle cartridges do.

All information collected from battlefields around the world to date suggest that most soldiers don't fire at targets more than 200m away because they rarely identify them as hostile at targets at longer range don't tend to stay out in the open long enough to be engaged anyway.

Add camouflage and cover and the chances of even seeing the target at 1,000 yards would make it pointless without a 10+ magnification scope... and how many soldiers will carry that?

Why don't we see combat at 500 yards (for example)? - Maybe because our rifles and their rounds can't shoot  accurately, or with enough force, at those long distances.

The main rifle calibres of WWII had plenty of punch and power and accuracy at 500 yards... yet actual combat showed 200m or less was the engagement range except sniping.

Bullet drop = lack of velocity and inertia = bad accuracy. It itself doesn't *do* much, but it *means* a lot.

Heavier bullets actually retain velocity better than smaller lighter rounds.

The rounds the grendal uses are limited because they had to fit the M16 mechanism, which limits the weight of bullets it can use.

In comparison with the 5.56mm, the 5.45mm uses much longer much more aerodynamic bullets that are effective over a longer range.

Personally I think the cost of changing to the Grendel is a waste of money... light cheap and effective at moderate ranges 5.45mm does the job, while SVD and PKP offer reach when needed.

US armed forces and public are moving from the 5.45 to 6.x at blazing speed.

US doesn't use 5.45... they use 5.56.

I'd say the 6.5 isn't similar at all to the 7.62, but to each his own...

Saying Grendel is accurate to 1,000 yards is like saying the 7.62 x 54mm is effective to 2,000m from a PKM... might be true but not really relevant to the average soldier.

I sniper might be able to get a better result, but either round is very inferior to the 338 LM or large calibres.

As it will be for any bullet, especially one that has as little powder as a small rifle cartridge. 

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.

Who said they'd be non-lethal at that range? It maintains *more energy than a 308 at range (7.62x51) and is more powerful than a 7.62x39 everywhere else*. In the right hands, it would be more than enough... GarryB, you of all people should know that armed forces are moving to modular, caliber-switching rifles increasingly more often. I wouldn't cost "tens of billions" to implement the Grendel, and round for round it would be little more expensive than a 5.56 in mass production. A standard M4 magazine can operate with the Grendel if I remember right...

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!

Like I said, one reason they don't engage from farther is becuase their systems and the round it fires cannot shoot that far consistently unless you are a "marksmen".

Those who need it... Oh, I don't know, maybe a DMR or sniper?

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. 


Yep, but aero-properties come into to play big time as well. 


They could easily just use a different gas system etc, they've been wanting to rid of the M4 for a while now. - Funny how they want to replace it with either the 6.5 or 6.8, wouldn't you say?


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;






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.

My bad, in all honesty I'm more used to civilian rounds.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

2x to what werewolf wrote. Most militaries have strict regimes for ammunitions groupings (sniper rifles included) up to 300 meters. For example Russian Federation Army states that average grouping shot out of SVD can't exceed 1.27 inches in vertical spread, US for now old M24 couldn't exceed 1.34 of an inch while polish requirment for Tantal rifle shot out of fixture ought to create 3 shot group inside 75 mm. circle. That of course does not tell anything about real achived accuracy .... especially in battle conditions. But coming back to the topic, for these three given cartridges I would choose 5.45x39 but if I had earlier 7.62x39 I would stay with it considering costs of transition. That happens to be policy of most armies so far.

Werewolf wrote:The point is accuracy does not matter because all rounds are accurate enough to hit human sized target on combat relevant distances. The 7.62x39mm is good for that and has alot of punching power and the combination is what matters. The high range capability is completley useless and does not matter as long you are not gonna planning to use one single unified round for varierity of weapons for sniper rifles, assault rifles, machineguns and what else you may want to use.

There are older pistols which use 7.62x25 or 7.63x25mm and similiar pistol calibres that can shoot up to 200 meter and have even marks on them to that ranges that does not mean they are used for such ranges because that renders them combat ineffecient for such ranges the lethality is already greatly reduced and submachine guns with longer barrels have already problems to reach such ranges.

There is a reason why we have Machineguns, Assault Rifles, Sniper Rifles, Submachineguns and Pistols to match specific situation and requirements with a plattform that does its job.

Tanks with APFSDS rounds can also reach dozens over dozens of km that makes them still not long range artillery sniper vehicles because that is useless.

Definitely isn't the #1 concern in a assault-rifle round, but that doesn't mean it isn't important... 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. The 7.62 isn't suitable for precise DMR or sniper rifle usage, at all... The 5.56 (223) has the same problem, except that it has a more aerodynamic bullet. While a single round isn't suitable for every kind of field firearm, it is nice to have at least one multi-use cartridge. Out of what you listed, the Grendel could be used in a lighter-weight sniper rifles, assault rifles, machine guns, and DMR's etc. It could even be used in a mini-carbine kind of firearm, though that would be a stretch.

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:The point is accuracy does not matter because all rounds are accurate enough to hit human sized target on combat relevant distances. The 7.62x39mm is good for that and has alot of punching power and the combination is what matters. The high range capability is completley useless and does not matter as long you are not gonna planning to use one single unified round for varierity of weapons for sniper rifles, assault rifles, machineguns and what else you may want to use.

There are older pistols which use 7.62x25 or 7.63x25mm and similiar pistol calibres that can shoot up to 200 meter and have even marks on them to that ranges that does not mean they are used for such ranges because that renders them combat ineffecient for such ranges the lethality is already greatly reduced and submachine guns with longer barrels have already problems to reach such ranges.

There is a reason why we have Machineguns, Assault Rifles, Sniper Rifles, Submachineguns and Pistols to match specific situation and requirements with a plattform that does its job.

Tanks with APFSDS rounds can also reach dozens over dozens of km that makes them still not long range artillery sniper vehicles because that is useless.

Definitely isn't the #1 concern in a assault-rifle round, but that doesn't mean it isn't important... 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. The 7.62 isn't suitable for precise DMR or sniper rifle usage, at all... The 5.56 (223) has the same problem, except that it has a more aerodynamic bullet. While a single round isn't suitable for every kind of field firearm, it is nice to have at least one multi-use cartridge.

The first thing is wrong, 7.62x39mm is used on semi automatic rifles like the SKS, today russia does not use semi automatic rifles in that calibre since they lack the punching power for the distances sniper rifles have to cover they use the SVD dragunow rifle and DMR i an US term and does not apply to anywhere since no other country is using such terminology and classification.

The round itself is accurate and is actually used by special forces along with 5.45mm. You will see several modernized AK-47/AK-103 in Speznas videos where they are participating in Chechnya,Dagestan or Ingushetia along with AK-74Ms. And yes 7.62x39mm is also very often used for Urban snipers in Iraq to kill US G.I.s and from the videos they are very effective on the up to 300 meters, killing with most of the time single rounds.




So can the 7.62x39mm and guess what it was used as such round for years, RPD (LMG), SKS (DMR/Sniper rifle), AK-47 (AR) of course it could be used but that does not mean that unification of every projectile is actually good for the combat effectiveness. You can use 7.62x39 or 6.5x39mm in all infantry rifles from AR to Sniper Rifle you will end up having a round that is to weak to be used effectively on enemy forces equipped with body armor, it might not be big issue for Assault  Rifles which engage usually on much shorter ranges but having a GPMG and Sniper Rifle with less firepower than the current 7.62x51/54r is indead not the best you can hope for. We still have a reason why military units have a varierity of calibres to match certain threats with sufficient firepower,accuracy and effective range.

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).

Never said they were inaccurate, but nowhere near the superior Grendel. Plus the Grendel is more powerful. - 300 meters is great, the ability to hit a thousand is even better...

" You can use 7.62x39 or 6.5x39mm" I disagree... The reason I've been advocating for the Grendel, is because it is better in just about every way... I'd try and keep the 7.62 away from distance (sniper) where it will start to show its flaws. What I've been saying for a while now, is that the Grendel (6.5x39 which is similar to the AK round) not only has more punch than a 7.62, but it carries energy much better than a 7.62x51 or x54 etc. It also has a higher velocity than both, and the 6.5 mm caliber's accuracy should allow it to be very competitive, if not superior, to those two rounds when it comes to "long-distance shooting" up to 1000 yards.  The 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*).

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:
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).

Again such classification does not exist in other countries except USA and forcing it upon NATO, but no one else classifies rifles in such catagories and that was the entire point of my first part that if you really go for such calibre then this already existed with 7.62x39mm for Assault Rifle/DMR/Sniper Rifle and LMG.

Mike E wrote:
Never said they were inaccurate, but nowhere near the superior Grendel. Plus the Grendel is more powerful. - 300 meters is great, the ability to hit a thousand is even better...

Again it does not matter how accurate 6.5 Grendel is suppossed to be, it just lacks the stopping power to be effectivley use on MGs and Sniper Rifles for such extented ranges as 400-800m there you will need 7.62x51/54R mm anyway.

Mike E wrote:
" You can use 7.62x39 or 6.5x39mm" I disagree... The reason I've been advocating for the Grendel, is because it is better in just about every way... I'd try and keep the 7.62 away from distance (sniper) where it will start to show its flaws.

So will the 6.5mm and even the much superior round to both the 6x49mm unified round would be showing flaws compared with 7.62x54mm, so using such small calibres on Sniper Rifles is not recommended and therefore not used, but having them on Assault Rifles would greatly increase effeciency.

Mike E wrote:
What I've been saying for a while now, is that the Grendel (6.5x39 which is similar to the AK round) not only has more punch than a 7.62, but it carries energy much better than a 7.62x51 or x54 etc. It also has a higher velocity than both, and the 6.5 mm caliber's accuracy should allow it to be very competitive, if not superior, to those two rounds when it comes to "long-distance shooting" up to 1000 yards.  The 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*).

The 6.5x39mm has hardly more punch then 7.62x39mm except if you compare it with old rounds that are from 1943 and only used in US and trying to compare with with a round created in 2003 is hardly a comperision worth. Newer rounds which exist in over a dozen varients have up to 800m/s and with average of 740-760m/s.
The Grendl can not and will not replace 7.62x54/51mm rounds, it was already reported with 7.62x54/51 rounds that they did show some weakness in manstopping power on such ranges as 1000m+, that is why bigger and more effecient calibres like .338 Lapua are more and more used or a direct jump to 12.7mm for such ranges.

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.

The classification, sure, but the idea (?), no... I'd almost be willing to say that the SVD is a large-caliber DMR kind of rifle. - It doesn't really sacrifice practicality for accuracy, much like a DMR. - I've been implying that the 7.62 isn't as good as the 6.5 at those roles... At short-range (assault rifles), the Grendel is more powerful, when it comes to machine-guns; it has less recoil making it more suitable for unmounted firing, and for large rifles; it is much more accurate at all ranges and carries more energy. 

Have you been reading my replys? The Grendel isn't meant to completely replace the larger calibers, just supplement them... It carries energy better at range than the 7.62x54, thanks to the 6.5 mm bullet. It's a rather powerful round, more so than the AK round. - That plus great energy and velocity retention and it should be rather close to the 7.62x54 at long ranges. To be honest, when it comes to sniper rifles, the x54 isn't really that great anyway. For trying to stretch out, one would need a 338 etc. It is very close in power to the x54, so there's that...

Once again, I can't really see what you are getting at...

Hardly, true, but not so when considering when it is a smaller round with considerably less recoil... I never said it should replace those rounds. but it should replace the 5.x rounds without question. 6.x rounds have the best ballistic properties, that is something you should agree with...