6.5 Grendel vs. .243 Winchester - hmmm

[<*(((><]

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.

Yup

 

[Mosin Bubba]

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.

To be honest, the 30-06 pretty much singlehandedly solved the "intermediate game" problem in America a century ago. It shoots literally point-and-shoot laser flat out to 200 yards, hold a few inches high and you're on at 300, it's got MORE than enough power to wallop pretty much any animal smaller than a moose, and the weight/kick is tolerable for pretty much any male over 15. It's basically everything you need for a hunting rifle caliber, and all we've been doing since it's been introduced is coloring in the margins.

And I'm not even an 30-06 fan. I hunt with a 243. But I'm not going to act like they do anything an '06 doesn't, except I can find a rifle that's about 1lb lighter in 243. If you switched out my 243 for an '06, it wouldn't change a single thing about how I hunt: that's pretty much the definition of redundancy.

 

[Varminterror]

“When I was in grade school, the spillway valves at (insert your local state reservoir dam) weren’t working so they sent divers down to do repairs, and they came back up saying they would never go back down, because there were catfish blocking the spillway inlet big enough to swallow them whole!!”

Yawn... let’s not let ourselves get carried away in whimsy too quickly...

So much about those statements about the 30-06 above belie a lack of experience with the round, and are nothing more than fish tales passed down among hunters. I wouldn’t call a 30-06 a 200yrds laser, and only holding a couple inches for 300 just isn’t true, even with the new and improved bullets on the market. A 100yrd zero is a ~10” hold at 300, and a 200yrds zero is about 7”... and that’s even considering RELATIVELY modern bullets with mid .4G1 BC’s, not the original blunted spirepoints and round noses of its inception. A guy should be holding a couple inches at 200 with a 100yrd zero, not 300, and holding a BUNCH of inches at 300 no matter what.

Then, on the contrary, to call it an Intermediate game cartridge good for anything smaller than moose? Again, this is belying the statements as lore, not expereince. I’ve not taken moose with a .30-06c but I have taken bison, and it’s plenty good medicine for 1500lb+ animals, moose included. I’ve also taken coyotes, antelope, Black Bear, mulies and whitetails, and hogs with it - it’s in obvious excess for anything short of 400yrds on deer and hogs, and an absolute axe to kill a fly for coyotes and 75lb antelope. Holding the 30-06 as an intermediate, CXP2 and smaller cartridge is a VERY dated mentality, decades behind the times for its real capacity.

More than enough power is still enough, so it earned a reputation of success for a lot of North American game, but a sledge hammer has never been the right tool for framing homes.

My first rifle was a .30-06 which I still use regularly, with over a hundred game tags punched to its credit, and countless coyotes, hogs, Fox, squirrels, rabbits, badgers, etc. In high school and college, I bought into that whole “one rifle for North America” thing, and ran rampant with it. I took it to TX on a free range whitetail hunt and almost didn’t have any meat to bring home after punching through both shoulders of my 140” greyhound. If any “margin was colored” since the inception of the 30-06, it has been the realization that it really doesn’t take that much to kill a <200lb animal, even at long ranges. And really doesn’t even take that much to kill much, much larger animals, even at long ranges.

 

[<*(((><]

A teenager at my church growing up caught on video by his dad taking a bull moose at 30-40 yards with a 30-30. Hit the moose in the chest and it crumpled under its own weight right there on video. There’s lots of overlap in rifle cartridges, which is fine by me, makes things interesting.

I’m with @Varminterror 30-06 is should be more than enough for moose. There’s been plenty of 30-06’s used in Africa.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

Yawn... let’s not let ourselves get carried away in whimsy too quickly...

So much about those statements about the 30-06 above belie a lack of experience with the round, and are nothing more than fish tales passed down among hunters. I wouldn’t call a 30-06 a 200yrds laser, and only holding a couple inches for 300 just isn’t true, even with the new and improved bullets on the market. A 100yrd zero is a ~10” hold at 300, and a 200yrds zero is about 7”... and that’s even considering RELATIVELY modern bullets with mid .4G1 BC’s, not the original blunted spirepoints and round noses of its inception. A guy should be holding a couple inches at 200 with a 100yrd zero, not 300, and holding a BUNCH of inches at 300 no matter what.

My Browning BAR .270 I shoot (velocity/ballistics at short range are close enough to '06). is zeroed for 200. I think the trajectory for that is 2" high at 100, and like you said, it's about 7 inches low at 300.

I've taken it out in the desert to check the zero on it and make sure I'm still "in shape" with it. I put down a couple milk jugs on a hillside at roughly 200 yards (exact distance unknown), and make sure I can hit them with one shot from a field position. At that distance, I never worry about holds, I just point and shoot. For the longer shots, I hold the crosshair a hair above the cap and still blow them up. 1st round hits are easy, and this is from standing with a 1970s Leupold (was originally my grandfather's rifle) that I don't think has ever been taken off 6x since Carter was president.

If a deer comes around, same deal. I'm just going to put the crosshairs where I want to shoot at 200 and a couple inches high at 300. Drop really isn't an issue.

The 30-06's trajectory doesn't seem as anything exceptional today - it's the kind of performance we expect from a bottleneck round - but compare it to the guys back in the day with 30-30s and 45-70s and 44-40s, and the '06 was an absolute game changer. It's the difference between having a drop measured in inches and a drop measured in feet, and it made any questions about killing power a moot point. In that sense, everything we've been doing since is just reinventing the wheel. We're now worrying about whether a bullet drops 5" at 300 yards or 7", whereas previous cartridges like the 45-70 would drop about five feet over that same distance. It's a huge step in functionality that just hasn't been equalled since, and everything else bigger, smaller, or in between is just a slightly more optimized way of accomplishing a task the '06 is already capable of.

I get the argument about the '06 being overkill - like I said, I hunt with a 243. It puts deer down at 200 yards easily. I have no problems with it. But 30-06s do the same thing, and from my experience, the meat damage isn't really worse either. I could take or leave either one and it wouldn't bother me either way. I guess that's the point I'm aiming for - not some Cooper-esque rant about how the 30-06 is God's gift to man, but more how arguing about hunting cartridges in general is kind of stupid because they're all so functionally equivalent. Ironically, even posting something that might suggest "the '06 is great!" brought one of those arguments up.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

A teenager at my church growing up caught on video by his dad taking a bull moose at 30-40 yards with a 30-30. Hit the moose in the chest and it crumpled under its own weight right there on video. There’s lots of overlap in rifle cartridges, which is fine by me, makes things interesting.

I’m with @Varminterror 30-06 is should be more than enough for moose. There’s been plenty of 30-06’s used in Africa.

Guess we're in different necks of the woods then - where I'm at, moose ranges are usually around to 8-10x that. I am in a state with a lot of moose and I don't think I've heard of anyone bagging one under 100.

For that kind of range, I bet an '06 would work, but I'd feel more comfortable with a 7mm Mag.

 

[<*(((><]

Im not saying that experience is normal by any means but I got to think that a 30-06 on a moose at 200-300 yards is going to be adequate just like the 30-30 was at the 30-40 yard range on the video. It seems that since the advent of magnums all the old hunting rounds are anemic.

 

[Goosey]

It seems that since the advent of magnums all the old hunting rounds are anemic.

Yup...

 

[CoalTrain49]

To be honest, the 30-06 pretty much singlehandedly solved the "intermediate game" problem in America a century ago. It shoots literally point-and-shoot laser flat out to 200 yards, hold a few inches high and you're on at 300, it's got MORE than enough power to wallop pretty much any animal smaller than a moose, and the weight/kick is tolerable for pretty much any male over 15. It's basically everything you need for a hunting rifle caliber, and all we've been doing since it's been introduced is coloring in the margins.

And I'm not even an 30-06 fan. I hunt with a 243. But I'm not going to act like they do anything an '06 doesn't, except I can find a rifle that's about 1lb lighter in 243. If you switched out my 243 for an '06, it wouldn't change a single thing about how I hunt: that's pretty much the definition of redundancy.

I'll have to agree with that. There are still plenty of rifle manufacturers that chamber their rifles for 06 even tho the 308 Win. has mostly replaced it as the go to 30 cal. But even with that the 308 isn't really much different than the 06 performance wise, just a shorter case. If you have an 06 there really wouldn't be any reason to run out and buy a 308 or even a Creedmoor to hunt with.

If a person were to sight in his 06 3.5" high at 100 yards the maximum point blank range for that cartridge is 290 yards with an 8'' target. Near zero is 20 yards and far zero is 246 yards. I know, I read that we now have LRP hunting going on at 800 yards but I don't think that's all that common except on the internet. 90% of the hunters I see tuning up before hunting season can't shoot 1 moa at 200 yards so 800 would be out of the question for them.

I read an account of US troops killing Pancho Villa's men at 700 yards with their 06 service rifles. That was in 1916. One of the best known US snipers, Carlos Hathcock used a 30-06.

The point of all this is the 243 came into use in 1955. Nothing much has changed in 63 years.

 

[Varminterror]

If you have an 06 there really wouldn't be any reason to run out and buy a 308 or even a Creedmoor to hunt with.

If you want to cut your recoil substantially, spend less on bullets and powder... there’s two reasons...

 

[CoalTrain49]

If you want to cut your recoil substantially, spend less on bullets and powder... there’s two reasons...

I can see the recoil part but powder and bullets? I would be willing to bet that most hunters don't reload. If you're talking about benchrest shooters powder is about the same and so are bullets. .264 bullets are going to be a little more expensive because 30 cal bullets probably out sell them 5 to 1.

I don't think BR shooters are eating beans because they can't afford powder and bullets. At least the ones I know aren't.

 

[Varminterror]

@CoalTrain49 while you are speculating, some of us actually live and breath it. I know I spend 2-3¢ more per bullet for 30 cal 178’s and 168’s for 308 and 30-06 than I do for 140 6.5’s - 5-10% more expensive bullets, a dime per bullet more than my 105 and 108 6mm’s. I also know I put over 40% more powder into my .30-06 cases than I put into my 6.5 creed cases. Instead of ~165 rounds per pound, I only get ~115, so that $30 can or $240 jug doesn’t go nearly as far.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

@CoalTrain49 while you are speculating, some of us actually live and breath it. I know I spend 2-3¢ more per bullet for 30 cal 178’s and 168’s for 308 and 30-06 than I do for 140 6.5’s - 5-10% more expensive bullets, a dime per bullet more than my 105 and 108 6mm’s. I also know I put over 40% more powder into my .30-06 cases than I put into my 6.5 creed cases. Instead of ~165 rounds per pound, I only get ~115, so that $30 can or $240 jug doesn’t go nearly as far.

Talking about powder and bullet costs isn't really germane to hunting, that's a volume benchrest shooting thing, and so worrying about 2 cents per bullet is starting to head off topic. The majority of hunters are buying a couple boxes of factory ammo per decade, and they aren't worried about component costs because they're not handloading.

 

[CoalTrain49]

@CoalTrain49 while you are speculating, some of us actually live and breath it. I know I spend 2-3¢ more per bullet for 30 cal 178’s and 168’s for 308 and 30-06 than I do for 140 6.5’s - 5-10% more expensive bullets, a dime per bullet more than my 105 and 108 6mm’s. I also know I put over 40% more powder into my .30-06 cases than I put into my 6.5 creed cases. Instead of ~165 rounds per pound, I only get ~115, so that $30 can or $240 jug doesn’t go nearly as far.

I don't see it.

Bullets are pretty much a personal preference so no point in discussing that.

A normal load for 06 is 50 grains. A normal load for 308 (the cartridge that basically replaced the 06) is about 40 grains as is the Creedmoor. So the powder isn't an issue between 308 and Creedmoor and only about 0.04/rd between the 06 and the Creedmoor. My experience has been that a benchrest shooter isn't going to choose a cartridge based on case capacity. They're looking for performance at the range they intend to shoot. If case capacity was a concern they would all be shooting a 6mm PPC. It isn't exactly a poor man's sport.

Back to the 243 vs Grendel. The Grendel has no advantage in a bolt rifle. I can see if you want to consolidate to a single cartridge for several types of rifles to save some money the Grendel would be a good choice. I'm sure a lot of people have done that. I did that with .223/5.56. I don't hunt anymore and I don't shoot past 300 so it was a no brainer. Same powder, same primers, same dies, same cases for semi-auto and bolt. Probably have to use different bullets depending on application. GTG.

 

[someguy2800]

Back to the 243 vs Grendel. The Grendel has no advantage in a bolt rifle. I can see if you want to consolidate to a single cartridge for several types of rifles to save some money the Grendel would be a good choice. I'm sure a lot of people have done that. I did that with .223/5.56. I don't hunt anymore and I don't shoot past 300 so it was a no brainer. Same powder, same primers, same dies, same cases for semi-auto and bolt. Probably have to use different bullets depending on application. GTG.

Advantage is smaller lighter rifle with less recoil and muzzle blast for similar on game effectiveness. Those differences aren't that important to me in a bolt rifle, so I would personally choose a compact 20" 6.5 creedmore for my uses if I was looking for a small handy bolt action for hunting, but I can understand why it would be appealing to others. I will be strongly considering one for my daughter when she gets to about 10 years old.

 

[Varminterror]

The Grendel has no advantage in a bolt rifle.

This is the ironic mindset... because it largely has no disadvantages either, and it can be argued the .243win has no significant advantages either. Folks continually try to prove their favored round is better by providing evidence they are similar...

 

[CoalTrain49]

This is the ironic mindset... because it largely has no disadvantages either, and it can be argued the .243win has no significant advantages either. Folks continually try to prove their favored round is better by providing evidence they are similar...

I'm not sure anyone made the claim either was "better". Just that for some applications there is no real advantage to the newer cartridge. Cartridge sales would support that.

 

[LoonWulf]

because it largely has no disadvantages either, and it can be argued the .243win has no significant advantages either

This is my general feeling as well.
Again, the 6.5G won't replace the .243, but if offers excellent performance on game (especially for you guys that don't like big holes), at ....let's call them "average" hunting distances.
It can also be had in a smaller, lighter rifle (on average), and will kick and blast you less.

 

[old heeler]

The parent case of 6.5 Grendel is 220 russian case same as 6 ppc You be lot close to 6.5 Grendel velocity use that or 6BR.

http://www.6mmar.com/

 

[Newtosavage]

Why don't we see more people asking for .308 in a long action? Anyone ever ask themselves that question?

Asked another way, if the .308 was available in either long or short actions, for popular rifles like the Remington 700, the Savage 10, the Winchester 70, etc., what % of people would choose the long action version?

Answer: probably not many.

And this is the reason for the mini action. Because why haul around more rifle than you need to do the job? I don't see the point. If I can get it done just as well with a 6.5 Grendel in a 6.5# (total) Howa Mini that shoots 3" groups at 300 yards, then heck yea I'm going to use it.

From the five animals I've shot so far (deer, pigs and yotes) I have not seen one ounce of difference in killing power between the 6.5 Grendel and anything I previously used on that class of game. In fact, if anything (small sample size, I know) they have gone down faster. But the season is young and I have more sampling to do yet.

 

[LoonWulf]

I have not seen one ounce of difference in killing power between the 6.5 Grendel and anything I previously used on that class of game

My experience with the grendel hasn't been perfect, but I really dislike it when stuff tries to run away. On goats they we're bang flops, the axis deer I shot I put a couple rounds in each to keep them in place.

In each case the first round was lethal, but since the animal wasn't disabled, and there wasn't enough velocity to help with system shock they immediately tried to bolt.

Also the only deer I've lost in the last 10-15 years was hit twice with the .243, both shots on the run but I'm fairly sure they were lethal rounds. They failed to keep the fairly large buck from bailing into a valley I couldn't access.

 

[CoalTrain49]

And this is the reason for the mini action. Because why haul around more rifle than you need to do the job? I don't see the point. If I can get it done just as well with a 6.5 Grendel in a 6.5# (total) Howa Mini that shoots 3" groups at 300 yards, then heck yea I'm going to use it.

The weight savings is in that $50 Hogue hollow stock. I have a Mini and if I were to keep it I would spend another $200 and get a decent stock, which I probably won't. I bought it on a close out at cabelas for $235. My 1500 stock has already been upgraded.

 

[labnoti]

More than enough power is still enough, so it earned a reputation of success for a lot of North American game, but a sledge hammer has never been the right tool for framing homes.

I have one of those Winchester belted magnums from the 1950's, back when people were thinking that if the .30-06 was enough for any game in North America, more was even better. I've never hunted with it. All my experience hunting CXP2 game has been in archery. When I went to look for a rifle chambering that would work well for that purpose, I found the Grendel. I'll know after I get some experience with it shooting deer and antelope whether I'd take it if I ever pull a resident elk tag. Otherwise, I've got that old belted magnum if I ever decide to go out of state for Bison. But for 99% of what I can imagine doing for real, Grendel.

 

[cdb1]

Why don't we see more people asking for .308 in a long action? Anyone ever ask themselves that question?

Asked another way, if the .308 was available in either long or short actions, for popular rifles like the Remington 700, the Savage 10, the Winchester 70, etc., what % of people would choose the long action version?

Lots of people shooting .308 in a long action-Tikka comes to mind and I know there are a few others. I don’t care if a rifle is LA or SA and weight differential isn’t enough for me to notice.

I had no interest in the Grendel for a long time, then for around a year was mildly interested, now I’m back to not being interested.

Whether it’s strictly psychological or there is truth to it, the Grendel is a tweener in my mind. Will get the job done in many scenarios but is not outstanding in any. Since I don’t target shoot, the max distance I shoot animals is 300 yards and 90% of my shots are under 200 yards, the only advantage I can see for myself with a Grendel for the shooting I do is lower recoil and I am somewhat recoil averse. But one or two shots from my 6.5x55, .270, .243 or 30-30 isn’t cumulative enough to bother me recoil wise.

The Grendel fills a niche for some people I’m sure but it doesn’t for everyone.

 

[someguy2800]

I'm sure people are tired of me fawning over it but this year I made my mind up it would be interesting to use my AR for one of my 4 deer tags about three weeks before the season. I mulled over cartridge choices and was about to order some parts to build a 450 bushmaster, but I just couldn't justify that since I already have a 444 and 45-70. I finally decided to just load a suitable bullet for the 7.62x39 upper I already have and go with it. I worked up a load using the new CFE BLK powder with a 125 gr Nosler accubond which delivered 2620 fps from my 16" upper. It worked out great and I found I really, really enjoyed hunting with the AR. Its very very handy in the brush and getting in and out of stands due to its compact size. Fast to load and unload when going on the 4 wheeler. My finger fits in the trigger guard with gloves on, the safety, bolt release, side charging handle, and mag release are all easier to manipulate with gloves on than any of my other rifles. I took a doe with a pistol on opening day, a decent buck with the AR the next day, and then the weather blew in. It was sleeting and snowing the whole rest of the season, so even though I planned to swap it out for another rifle for the rest of the hunt, I just kept using the AR because its the most weatherproof rifle I have and frankly I wanted to.







So for me the choice of an intermediate cartridge was driven by my desire to use a certain gun rather than the caliber. It killed them just as fast as I've come to expect anything else too but exit wounds were mild in size. This loaded with .366bc accubonds and a 6.5 grendel are near as makes no difference the same ballistically inside 2 or 300 yards, so if this works I'm certain a 6.5 grendel would be equally effective. I would like the ability to shoot a heavier bullet personally just due to our local conditions so for next season I am building an AR10 in 308, and when they become available again I'm going to build a 358 yeti upper for the AR15. I'll keep whichever I decide I like better, or maybe both.