6.5 Grendel vs. .243 Winchester - hmmm

Status
Not open for further replies.
MAKster said:
The whole purpose of the 6.5 grendel is to shoot it out of a standard AR lower. You sure cannot do that with a 243 so I don't really see the purpose of comparing the two. If you are looking at bolt actions there isn't much reason to look at 6.5 grendel , 6.8 SPC, 300 BLK or any of the other rounds designed to shoot out of a standard AR lower.
Click to expand...

Yup...this is it. The AR platform is the only platform so we need cartridges with cool names that will feed in this one horse.

This is the ONLY...as in ONLY reason it exists.
 
Has anyone else noticed the number of new mini-length bolt actions available on the market? If folks weren't interested in buying bolt actions in 2.3" cartridges, companies wouldn't spend the development, marketing, inventory, or logistics costs to produce these rifles. As I said above in this thread, sometimes enough is enough, and "more enough" is just more.
 
I've had a mental shift in my head of how I think about effectiveness of cartridges over the years. I used to buy into ft lbs of energy and all that until I started to analyse the actual ballistics to target of some of the critters I've shot or seen shot. Case in point my father in law shot a nice whitetail buck crossing the tote road going to one of our stands years ago. Typically our shooting is 150 yards or less exclusively because that's all we have for visibility due to brush, but this day the buck happened to wander out on one of our few spots that has long line of sight and stood broadside. He shot it with the same thing he has shot a couple hundred other deer with, a 270 loaded with federal 150 grain round nose soft points. We ranged the distance at 425 yards. He guessed the hold over, fired the shot and the deer dropped dead on the spot. He said the deer crumpled and he and my brother in law just saw a puff of hair blowing off in the wind. The bullet did exit and it did expand as evidenced by the exit wound. He was not surprised at all because years ago he shot a mule deer in wyoming with the same load at 400 yards, and it also was dead right there.

Now if you ask most knowledgeable people if a 270 Winchester is suitable for killing a deer at 425 yards they would probably say "yes, if you do your part", and if you had said 200-300 yard certainly everyone would say yes its suitable. But if you do the ballistics math on that load, that round nose bullet with a .261 BC gives the following velocities

muzzle = 2800
100 yds = 2458
200 yds = 2142
300 yds = 1850
400 yds = 1587
425 yds = 1526 fps

Now if you were to come to me and say I want to hunt deer with a gun that shoots a 150 grain .277" bullet at 1850 fps, I would say no you need something more powerful than that, but evidently I would have been wrong, at least for that specific bullet. From my observations of shooting deer and yotes and studying the after effects I've come to my own personal conclusion that whether you shoot them at 30 yards or 300 yards with a particular combination, the effects and lethality don't seem to be that different, assuming you still have enough velocity to get expansion. So to me I don't really think the impact velocity matters that much. Extra velocity just buys more range before the bullet falls below the threshold where it will expand. I've kind of set my personal threshold of what I feel is effective for small calibers on deer size game to be at least a 120 grain bullet at above 2000 fps impact speed. So you just need enough muzzle velocity to ensure that impact speed at the range you intend to hunt. I don't personally believe that more impact velocity will actually help much if at all.

So in that contex if you compare something like a 6.5 grendel, a 6.5 creedmoor, and a 6.5-06, using the same 120-130ish grain bullet, the bigger cartridges are just gaining you a couple hundred more yards of effective range. But if all of them are inside say 200 yards, I don't think there is going to be much difference in effectiveness. I think if you want better terminal effect than what they offer you need to up the caliber and bullet weight. Even if you do though, you'll mainly just be gaining the ability to penetrate on bigger tougher game and bigger exit wounds for better blood trailing. An animal can only take so much killing.
 
What I see as the best choice for hunting is the biggest and fastest caliber one enjoys shooting. I am not afraid of killing a deer too much.

If that is 6.5 Grendel, that is just fine. It looks more than sufficient for killing a deer.

I chose .223 Remington (strictly forbidden for deer hunting here) for a target rifle primarily because it is less expensive to shoot, but I also see a benefit in less recoil now that I shoot it often: I am slowly correcting a few bad habits, like exaggerated stiffness with bigger calibers and lack of seriousness on my part with .22 LR.

I currently hunt with a .50 caliber muzzleloader (100 grain Triple Seven under 295 grain powerbelt, gentle push), have hunted and will hunt again with a .270 Winchester (pinchy, no recoil pad on that one) and will also hunt with a .30-06 Springfield (fair push, but quite gentle due to good recoil pad) and a 30-30 Winchester (funny punch, no recoil pad). I am comfortable with all of those to hunt, but not sure I would get enough range time if I only had one rifle in .270 or .30-06. Maybe, but I am not sure.

I firmly believe the number of shots fired during the year does count in the end when we finally see the deer.

Now, looking at all this from the standpoint of general easiness, availability of ammunition and number of rifles to choose from, in this comparison, I think I would be choosing the .243 Winchester, while not saying it is any better than 6.5 Grendel on deer within 150 yards. It is just that I saw the Henry single shot is available in .243, common over here, and find it absolutely desirable. I have not seen any 6.5 Grendel in the stores where I buy ammunition. We are in no AR country here.

Good enough, better and best do not limit to ballistics; there is more to choosing a caliber for hunting than its ballistic capability.
 
Frostbite said:
What I see as the best choice for hunting is the biggest and fastest caliber one enjoys shooting. I am not afraid of killing a deer too much.

If that is 6.5 Grendel, that is just fine. It looks more than sufficient for killing a deer.

I chose .223 Remington (strictly forbidden for deer hunting here) for a target rifle primarily because it is less expensive to shoot, but I also see a benefit in less recoil now that I shoot it often: I am slowly correcting a few bad habits, like exaggerated stiffness with bigger calibers and lack of seriousness on my part with .22 LR.

I currently hunt with a .50 caliber muzzleloader (100 grain Triple Seven under 295 grain powerbelt, gentle push), have hunted and will hunt again with a .270 Winchester (pinchy, no recoil pad on that one) and will also hunt with a .30-06 Springfield (fair push, but quite gentle due to good recoil pad) and a 30-30 Winchester (funny punch, no recoil pad). I am comfortable with all of those to hunt, but not sure I would get enough range time if I only had one rifle in .270 or .30-06. Maybe, but I am not sure.

I firmly believe the number of shots fired during the year does count in the end when we finally see the deer.

Now, looking at all this from the standpoint of general easiness, availability of ammunition and number of rifles to choose from, in this comparison, I think I would be choosing the .243 Winchester, while not saying it is any better than 6.5 Grendel on deer within 150 yards. It is just that I saw the Henry single shot is available in .243, common over here, and find it absolutely desirable. I have not seen any 6.5 Grendel in the stores where I buy ammunition. We are in no AR country here.

Good enough, better and best do not limit to ballistics; there is more to choosing a caliber for hunting than its ballistic capability.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you on the bullet size part. The biggest challenge where I hunt is that you need to get a good blood trail in order to actually find the deer. It’s all willow sloughs with 4ft tall grass and criss crossed with trails so if you lung shoot a deer and they go 150 yards through that with no blood trail you’ll never find them. My favorite cartridge for that reason is my 444 marlin loaded to shoulder bruiser level. Blood trails are phenomenal with that. I like 30-06 as well for a great balance between heavy bullet weight and recoill. My favorite rifle platform to hunt with as of this year is my 7.62x39 AR15 just due to handyness and being weatherproof but I’d like some more bullet weight than the 125gr accubonds I used so I’m looking at building a 450 bushmaster or 358 yeti upper for swamp/woods hunting. If I wasn’t in such thick terrain I’d have full confidence in what I have now though.
 
someguy2800 said:
I've had a mental shift in my head of how I think about effectiveness of cartridges over the years. I used to buy into ft lbs of energy and all that until I started to analyse the actual ballistics to target of some of the critters I've shot or seen shot. Case in point my father in law shot a nice whitetail buck crossing the tote road going to one of our stands years ago. Typically our shooting is 150 yards or less exclusively because that's all we have for visibility due to brush, but this day the buck happened to wander out on one of our few spots that has long line of sight and stood broadside. He shot it with the same thing he has shot a couple hundred other deer with, a 270 loaded with federal 150 grain round nose soft points. We ranged the distance at 425 yards. He guessed the hold over, fired the shot and the deer dropped dead on the spot. He said the deer crumpled and he and my brother in law just saw a puff of hair blowing off in the wind. The bullet did exit and it did expand as evidenced by the exit wound. He was not surprised at all because years ago he shot a mule deer in wyoming with the same load at 400 yards, and it also was dead right there.

Now if you ask most knowledgeable people if a 270 Winchester is suitable for killing a deer at 425 yards they would probably say "yes, if you do your part", and if you had said 200-300 yard certainly everyone would say yes its suitable. But if you do the ballistics math on that load, that round nose bullet with a .261 BC gives the following velocities

muzzle = 2800
100 yds = 2458
200 yds = 2142
300 yds = 1850
400 yds = 1587
425 yds = 1526 fps

Now if you were to come to me and say I want to hunt deer with a gun that shoots a 150 grain .277" bullet at 1850 fps, I would say no you need something more powerful than that, but evidently I would have been wrong, at least for that specific bullet. From my observations of shooting deer and yotes and studying the after effects I've come to my own personal conclusion that whether you shoot them at 30 yards or 300 yards with a particular combination, the effects and lethality don't seem to be that different, assuming you still have enough velocity to get expansion. So to me I don't really think the impact velocity matters that much. Extra velocity just buys more range before the bullet falls below the threshold where it will expand. I've kind of set my personal threshold of what I feel is effective for small calibers on deer size game to be at least a 120 grain bullet at above 2000 fps impact speed. So you just need enough muzzle velocity to ensure that impact speed at the range you intend to hunt. I don't personally believe that more impact velocity will actually help much if at all.

So in that contex if you compare something like a 6.5 grendel, a 6.5 creedmoor, and a 6.5-06, using the same 120-130ish grain bullet, the bigger cartridges are just gaining you a couple hundred more yards of effective range. But if all of them are inside say 200 yards, I don't think there is going to be much difference in effectiveness. I think if you want better terminal effect than what they offer you need to up the caliber and bullet weight. Even if you do though, you'll mainly just be gaining the ability to penetrate on bigger tougher game and bigger exit wounds for better blood trailing. An animal can only take so much killing.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
Varminterror said:
Has anyone else noticed the number of new mini-length bolt actions available on the market? If folks weren't interested in buying bolt actions in 2.3" cartridges, companies wouldn't spend the development, marketing, inventory, or logistics costs to produce these rifles. As I said above in this thread, sometimes enough is enough, and "more enough" is just more.
Click to expand...

Or the cartridges exist for the ar so might as well make a real gun use it.

Companies unlike some people are not stupid
 
So after reading all of this I'm wondering why anyone would opt for a Grendel in a bolt rifle?

I know, shorter action and I've hefted a Grendel Howa Mini. Nice light little rig. I have a Mini .223. But really, all the Grendel is, is a cartridge for the AR crowd because a 243 won't fit.

If we ever get a ban on "the most popular rifle in the world" the Grendel will become a reloaders cartridge.:( It's barely on the radar now.
 
Last edited:
I like a Grendel in a mini bolt action like the CZ or Howa. I agree the Grendel came into being because it would fit the AR-15 action, but to better understand that, we'd have to look at why the AR-15 action came into being in the first place. The Sturmgewehr and it's intermediate cartridge (a cut-down 8mm Mauser) was engendered by the concept of 7.9mm Kurz, and just as well it was the genesis of the 7.62x39 and the 5.56. It's lower recoil was more controllable than full-size battle rounds in full-auto, and it allowed more rounds to be carried while meeting the ballistic requirements that submachine guns could not, while the shorter action still allowed for a more compact rifle. This might seem to be remedial and some might wonder why this has anything to do with deer hunting or target shooting with bolt-action rifles. It's really simple:

The Grendel is the most effective, all-purpose long-range intermediate cartridge for which a dedicated rifle is made.

Some people complain that the Grendel's only purpose is to fit the AR-15. The way I see it, the AR-15 and the mini bolt-actions are made to fit the Grendel (and other intermediate cartridges). History will show the rifles were made for the intermediate cartridges, not the other way around. Instead of a chicken-and-egg argument, let's notice how other short cartridges do not have rifles made just for them. There are a lot of rifles chambered for .308-derivatives that use the same long-actions chambered for .30-03 derivatives because the difference isn't significant enough that there is much to be gained from a shorter action. Consider also the fantastic 270WSM -- ballistically better than the .270 mainstay in every way and with a case suitable for a significantly shorter action. But popular rifles like the Tikka T3x chamber it in the same action as the .270. No wonder it's practically dead. How many other new-fangled cartridges that are short and stout for the greatest efficiency will get an action made specifically to take advantage of their unique characteristics? And how many will just get chambered in the standard actions that already exist?

The Grendel has the caliber, the bullet weight, and the ballistics to serve all the purposes traditionally fulfilled by everything from .223 to .308 and it has rifles with actions that aren't the slightest bit longer than necessary because it wasn't just dropped into a one-size-fits-all platform. Among the other mini-action intermediate cartridges, it is not the best at everything, but it is the most adaptable. The .224 Valkyrie might stay supersonic to longer ranges. It's better when 1300 yards is needed and not just 1100, but it's not well suited for medium game. The .30 caliber subsonics might have better terminal ballistics, but a subsonic Grendel is still more powerful than a .22LR and when loaded to higher velocities the Grendel doesn't slow, drop, and yaw the way a transonic .30 does. I can't think of anyway the Grendel isn't superior to the 7.62x39. It doesn't thump with heavy bullets the way the .45's do, but those can't even begin to compete at 1000 yards the way the Grendel can.

Most people will only consider the Grendel for an MSR. I see it fitting in the bolt-action as an all-purpose round that's second to none. It could be used for varmints, but it starts to shine on predators, it's better than the .357, and .30-30, and gives nothing up in the real world to the .243 for deer, antelope, and black bear. It's not ideal but could be made to work for elk and moose with good shot placement. There's no gun better for moose that is also well-suited to Coyotes, and not all of us get to hunt elk and moose very regularly. The only game in North America I wouldn't be willing to hunt with it is Grizz, and it's not a bear-defense cartridge, but then what is that can also shoot bobcat and fox? And if hunting is not your thing, the Grendel's accurate out to 1000 yards or more with the 6.5mm projectiles that are in the dead-center of the precision and tactical games. And for civil defense, it fits in high capacity magazines for your AR.
 
Last edited:
They have 3 kinds of it at my local fleet supply store. The last time I was there they also had no less than 13 different kinds of 6.5 creedmoor, but nonetheless ammo is not a problem.
 
I wouldn't argue that point. As much acclaim as I can give it, I don't argue it's obscurity or doubt that it will die out. I don't think it is worse off than something like the WSM's, but like them, I suppose it's already seen its peak. I wouldn't say it's "trendy" like the 6.5 Creedmoor. If it was, it would probably have a better chance of long-term survival. There's certainly no argument that the .243 was built on a more solid foundation to begin with. The Grendel's relationship to the 7.62x39 is twice or three-times removed, whereas the .243 is just a necked 7.62x51, only once-removed from the main battle round of half the world's nations.

The Grendel will never be as cheap as the .223/5.56 and so it won't replace it in most AR's because the AR is primarily a high-volume platform. And in the bolt guns, it will remain obscure because people will prefer smaller, faster, cheaper cartridges for varmints and target shooting, and they'll prefer the guns they already have for deer and big game. I can't think of any deer or big game cartridge that has come along in 50 years and become popular in a stand-out way. What's it going to do that .30-30 and .270 don't do already?

On the other hand, the market and modern production methods won't limit us to a few standardized cartridges and chamberings. As production continues to modernize, I expect we'll see even more "new" cartridges and none of them will become any kind of standard. Being based on a standard "parent" case will also be less meaningful. Whether you're ordering brass or loaded cartridges, the only difference from one to the next will be in software.
 
There is an entire world of short little cartridges with impressive capabilities. None are hugely popular, but out of HUNDREDS or even thousands of different cartridges, no more than about 25 rifle cartridges really are.

Little rounds like 6ppc, 6 BR, 221 fireball, 17 Mach IV, 6x45, 25x45, etc etc all fit an incredibly fun niche of capability which just terribly popular.

These small cases are fantastic in mini actions, fantastic in specialty pistols, even fantastic in full size bolt guns. There’s an entire class of cartridges which only exist (really) in specialty pistols as well - look at stuff like the 7-30 waters or 375 JDJ, none are popular, but they’ve been around for decades.

I’ve never understood the foolish compulsion to base my cartridge line up on Walmart’s shelves. Guys are missing out on hundreds of wonderfully capable cartridges, simply because their granddaddy didn’t own one, or they can’t buy it at the same store as their mayonnaise and tube socks...
 
Varminterror said:
There is an entire world of short little cartridges with impressive capabilities. None are hugely popular, but out of HUNDREDS or even thousands of different cartridges, no more than about 25 rifle cartridges really are.

Little rounds like 6ppc, 6 BR, 221 fireball, 17 Mach IV, 6x45, 25x45, etc etc all fit an incredibly fun niche of capability which just terribly popular.

These small cases are fantastic in mini actions, fantastic in specialty pistols, even fantastic in full size bolt guns. There’s an entire class of cartridges which only exist (really) in specialty pistols as well - look at stuff like the 7-30 waters or 375 JDJ, none are popular, but they’ve been around for decades.

I’ve never understood the foolish compulsion to base my cartridge line up on Walmart’s shelves. Guys are missing out on hundreds of wonderfully capable cartridges, simply because their granddaddy didn’t own one, or they can’t buy it at the same store as their mayonnaise and tube socks...
Click to expand...

I happen to love Mayo (bestfoods, thanks), tube socks, AND small cartridges:D. Not because they do anything better than my larger ones (besides fit in certain actions), but just because they are neat.

I've owned or do own
7x30
6x47
6.5Grendel
7.62x39
300Aac (the only one I'm not thrilled with)
.458 Socom

My want list is probably 3x that.

And I'm always considering bolt guns, or single shots, to chamber them in, even if I dont actually build anything.

I've gotten everything I need to hunt anything I'm every likely to, at any reasonable range, so now it's just tinkering, and experimenting.
The little guys are just plain FUN, for that.
 
someguy2800 said:
What about the ones that don’t already have guns for big game?
Click to expand...

There are all the big game guns sold over the last 50 years out there, most of which are hardly broken in. Selling big game guns is mostly appealing to fantasy and collectors. I live in the US where access to guns for large portions of the population is more widespread than anywhere in the world. Lifelong hunters are estimated to make up less than 5% of the US population. Most of the lifelong hunters I speak to can count the big game they've bagged with their fingers. For most US hunters, African game is just a fantasy. Moose, Elk and Grizzly are once-or-twice-in-a-lifetime shots for all but the most hardcore of that 5%, and increasingly that tiny segment of big game hunters will choose archery because indeed they are more dedicated to hunting than just buying fantasy guns.

So the idea of a new cartridge becoming popular based on a big game purpose is a dubious proposition. Even if all the existing big game guns sold in the last 50 years were locked up somehow, the volume of big game hunting driving gun sales wouldn't be enough to make a new chambering popular. Now medium game like deer and predators could sell a lot of guns, but it has already and those .30-30's, .270's, and just about every other cartridge from .357 through .35 Whelen will kill deer just fine. How is anything new and different going to be more appealing? More efficient? Because of the really high powder costs in deer hunting? Higher B.C.? So hunters can clobber them at 1300 yards? More energy to kill 'em more deader? Lighter, heavier? I can't really think of anything that hasn't already been done for 75 years or more.

Now I'm not saying that the new fangled stuff isn't great. Just that there isn't one of them that has a chance of becoming "the next big thing," especially based on big game hunting prowess. The 6.5 Creedmoor is the closest thing to the "next big thing" we've seen in a long time, and more people resent it than anything else because it's hardly any different than 12 or more other .264 cartridges, some of which have been around for over 100 years.
 
labnoti said:
There are all the big game guns sold over the last 50 years out there, most of which are hardly broken in. Selling big game guns is mostly appealing to fantasy and collectors. I live in the US where access to guns for large portions of the population is more widespread than anywhere in the world. Lifelong hunters are estimated to make up less than 5% of the US population. Most of the lifelong hunters I speak to can count the big game they've bagged with their fingers. For most US hunters, African game is just a fantasy. Moose, Elk and Grizzly are once-or-twice-in-a-lifetime shots for all but the most hardcore of that 5%, and increasingly that tiny segment of big game hunters will choose archery because indeed they are more dedicated to hunting than just buying fantasy guns.

So the idea of a new cartridge becoming popular based on a big game purpose is a dubious proposition. Even if all the existing big game guns sold in the last 50 years were locked up somehow, the volume of big game hunting driving gun sales wouldn't be enough to make a new chambering popular. Now medium game like deer and predators could sell a lot of guns, but it has already and those .30-30's, .270's, and just about every other cartridge from .357 through .35 Whelen will kill deer just fine. How is anything new and different going to be more appealing? More efficient? Because of the really high powder costs in deer hunting? Higher B.C.? So hunters can clobber them at 1300 yards? More energy to kill 'em more deader? Lighter, heavier? I can't really think of anything that hasn't already been done for 75 years or more.

Now I'm not saying that the new fangled stuff isn't great. Just that there isn't one of them that has a chance of becoming "the next big thing," especially based on big game hunting prowess. The 6.5 Creedmoor is the closest thing to the "next big thing" we've seen in a long time, and more people resent it than anything else because it's hardly any different than 12 or more other .264 cartridges, some of which have been around for over 100 years.
Click to expand...

I don’t know, ask the many many people using 6.5 Grendel’s for deer/hog hunting :)

What I’m getting at is every year there are tens of thousands of new young shooters getting into shooting sports and hunting, and they don’t necessarily already have a Winchester model 70 already. For a high percentage of people now their first and favorite rifle is now AR15’s. So for those young people the proposition of taking their favorite rifle and clipping on a new upper in a suitable caliber to go deer or hog hunting is very appealing.

So no, people are not all going to sell their 30/06’s for AR’s and mini bolt actions. It’s the new shooters coming in that it will be popular with. Take a look at your local gun shop and I bet there are more AR15’s on the shelf than bolt actions. So no, the 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 spc, 450 bushmaster, and other intermediate cartridges are not going to shrivel up and die. They will continue to gain market share as new shooters come in and older shooters hang up there gear. It took decades and decades for the 270, 30-06, 7mm rem, 243, ect, to gain the market share they have now.

I for one and happy with it, if hunting with a black rifle gets kids interested that’s great. I for one have always been a traditional bolt action and single shot guy but I tried hunting with my 7.63x39 AR15 this year and found it to be a great hunting platform for a number of reasons.
 
Last edited:
@someguy2800

Exactly, new shooters have grown up seldomly seeing a 1911, 1903a3, M1 Garand, M14/M1a, M1 carbine, Thompson, or even hunting rifles with nice figured wood.

Due to this limited exposure they aren’t going to understand the history behind such firearms until they get excited with what is in modern culture (ie. Glocks, polymer stocked rifles, AR’s, Keltecs, etc.) and start getting the firearm bug and learning. They also are going to gravitate towards cartridges that are commonly found in those modern culture firearms (ie. all the AR cartridges and whatever is the hot topic cartridge of the current day-6.5 CM) as the 308 is out of date and what grandpa hunts with, not just dad for this generation but they are nearly two generations removed from some of the common rifle cartridges.

We can diminish all these cartridges and their lack of perceived or actual advantages , but as was said in another thread by @CoalTrain49 ”There is no explanation for it. It exists, like oatmeal and the universe.” we don’t have to understand it and we certainly don’t have to buy them, but there are a great many people who understand them themselves and are buying them despite what the “seasoned” firearm owners think about them.

And @someguy2800 said it best, “if hunting with a black rifle gets kids interested in [in our hobbies] than great.” Last time I checked the more people in this country with guns and a desire to use them the harder it’ll be for them to legislate against them.
 
As long as new shooters are becoming new hunters I'm happy. And if they need an ar15 for that, that's cool too. I for one have heard a lot of gunshop talk from the younger crowd looking for rifles asking "why such a little cartridge in such a big gun?" And if you show them a mini action in the grendel, or 7.62x39 it makes sense to them, especially when they look at ammo prices. A lot of these younger shooters didn't have dad or grandpa teaching them, and a lot don't even know what a Winchester model 70 or a Remington 700 is! So to each his own, and thank God for all the options we have today...
 
<*(((>< said:
@someguy2800

Exactly, new shooters have grown up seldomly seeing a 1911, 1903a3, M1 Garand, M14/M1a, M1 carbine, Thompson, or even hunting rifles with nice figured wood.

Due to this limited exposure they aren’t going to understand the history behind such firearms until they get excited with what is in modern culture (ie. Glocks, polymer stocked rifles, AR’s, Keltecs, etc.) and start getting the firearm bug and learning. They also are going to gravitate towards cartridges that are commonly found in those modern culture firearms (ie. all the AR cartridges and whatever is the hot topic cartridge of the current day-6.5 CM) as the 308 is out of date and what grandpa hunts with, not just dad for this generation but they are nearly two generations removed from some of the common rifle cartridges.

We can diminish all these cartridges and their lack of perceived or actual advantages , but as was said in another thread by @CoalTrain49 ”There is no explanation for it. It exists, like oatmeal and the universe.” we don’t have to understand it and we certainly don’t have to buy them, but there are a great many people who understand them themselves and are buying them despite what the “seasoned” firearm owners think about them.

And @someguy2800 said it best, “if hunting with a black rifle gets kids interested in [in our hobbies] than great.” Last time I checked the more people in this country with guns and a desire to use them the harder it’ll be for them to legislate against them.
Click to expand...

I’m tebuilding an engine for a you friend as sort of a pay it forward gesture and him and his friend were in my shop last week and I gave them a tour of my gun safe. Thy are about 22 and 30 and the only guns I had they were familiar with were the ar15’s. Old bolt action military rifles, lever guns, handi rifles, and especially my contender pistol were fascinating and exotic to them. They thought my 30-40 Krag was from WW2 and were stunned to learn guns like that were made in the 1800’s.
 
someguy2800 said:
I don’t know, ask the many many people using 6.5 Grendel’s for deer/hog hunting :)

What I’m getting at is every year there are tens of thousands of new young shooters getting into shooting sports and hunting, and they don’t necessarily already have a Winchester model 70 already.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue with that at all. Just bought a Grendel for kids' first deer gun, and all-purpose rifle. It's bolt action, but the next one could very well be an AR upper since I've also just bought all the reloading gear for Grendel. But I still don't expect Grendel to become popular for any of the reasons I heaped acclaim on it. I think it will be one of a dozen AR and mini-action cartridges and that in 15 years time it will be mostly unheard of like it is today. But I will certainly enjoy it in the mean time.
 
<*(((>< said:
new shooters have grown up seldomly seeing a 1911, 1903a3, M1 Garand, M14/M1a, M1 carbine, Thompson, or even hunting rifles with nice figured wood.
Click to expand...

My dad and his brothers learned to hunt with a .30-06 Garand. When my youngest uncle was still alive, he used to joke at least two of them had to hunt together - grandpa said in case they got lost, but in reality because it took two of them to carry the rifle. He also told stories of his great grandpa who made fun of their dad because the Garand did nothing his old Enfield couldn’t do, except weigh more. And then further chide him when he bought a .30-06 bolt gun to shed weight, because it cost more money to buy another rifle when his first one wasn’t right for the job, and he should have just got a .30-03 like he and his dad - their grandad. My grandpa used to tell me as a kid about how he hated the Garand when he had to retrain on it, since he had started on an enfield, But he grew accustomed to it and learned to love it as time went on.

Naturally we have all heard the various stories of LEO’s who resisted changing to autos when they became available, and further officers who resisted polymer guns when they hit the market.

So what I think is seen are two things: 1) people buying first, buy new things. 2) people who have already bought, don’t like change unless they are forced into it. Not so revolutionary of thinking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
6.5 Grendel, vs 243
2 3
Replies
52
Views
4K
Double Naught Spy
Double Naught Spy
J
  • Locked
6.8 SPC vs 6.5 Grendel, does it even matter?
Replies
18
Views
3K
xerxesthecat
X
I
  • Locked
6.5 Grendel vs. 6.5 Creedmoor
2
Replies
25
Views
7K
oldfortyfiveauto
O
G
  • Locked
6.5 Grendel and 260 Rem, a Perfect Pair
Replies
10
Views
2K
rayatphonix
R
L
  • Locked
Deer rifle for 12-13 YO, 6.5 Grendel?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
144
Views
10K
HOWARD J
H
Back
Top