6.8 SPC 6.5 Grendal

Status
Not open for further replies.
World scale scope doesn’t change much, typically. The US buys more guns than anywhere else each year, by a large margin.

I will say, I wasn’t surprised to see the 6.5 Grendel overtake the 6.8 SPC in market appeal in the last handful of years - but I WILL be very interested if .mil does adopt a .277” cartridge, what it will do for 6.8 SPC sales in the future.

Like I said previously I think the 6.5 Grendel really got a shot in the arm with the Creedmoor success. And it's a very good cartridge in itself. I just happen to like the 6.8 SPC II more, but IF the army does in fact adopt the .277" projectile, it will be a great service to all of us who shoot .277" projectiles as there will be a lot of advancement in bullet technology which will be huge. What I've read and heard is the military doesn't particularly like the wound channel / entrance wound size and terminal performance on the 6.5 projectiles, it seems most in .mil have resigned themselves it needs to be .277"; right or wrong; substantiated performance or not, that is what it seems their thinking is. The recent military trials operated under the assumption (and a good one I might add) that calibers ranging between 6.5mm - 7mm offer the best performance for an M4ish type weapon when weighing terminal performance and close quarters and distances out to 600 meters. A lot of this thinking was around with the .276 Pederson and .280 British, which didn't see the light of day due to the inventory of .30cal bullets from the 30-06 era.

Again, that is just what I've read in multiple accounts on the subject of .mil moving to an intermediate cartridge between the 5.56 and .308. It probably helped matters that the 6.8 SPC was developed as a run at being a military cartridge and the 6.5 Grendel a sporting cartridge, which is evident in their cartridge design (larger combustion chamber, shoulder angle, case taper, allowable magazine capacity, etc.).
 
Last edited:
Like I said previously I think the 6.5 Grendel really got a shot in the arm with the Creedmoor success. And it's a very good cartridge in itself. I just happen to like the 6.8 SPC II more, but IF the army does in fact adopt the .277" projectile, it will be a great service to all of us who shoot .277" projectiles as there will be a lot of advancement in bullet technology which will be huge. What I've read and heard is the military doesn't particularly like the wound channel / entrance wound size and terminal performance on the 6.5 projectiles, it seems most in .mil have resigned themselves it needs to be .277"; right or wrong; substantiated performance or not, that is what it seems their thinking is. The recent military trials operated under the assumption (and a good one I might add) that calibers ranging between 6.5mm - 7mm offer the best performance for an M4ish type weapon when weighing terminal performance and close quarters and distances out to 600 meters. A lot of this thinking was around with the .276 Pederson and .280 British, which didn't see the light of day due to the inventory of .30cal bullets from the 30-06 era.

Again, that is just what I've read in multiple accounts on the subject of .mil moving to an intermediate cartridge between the 5.56 and .308. It probably helped matters that the 6.8 SPC was developed as a run at being a military cartridge and the 6.5 Grendel a sporting cartridge, which is evident in their cartridge design (larger combustion chamber, shoulder angle, case taper, allowable magazine capacity, etc.).

I don't know about that. They might be using some new type of ammunition, who knows what it might look like? If it's using cased-telescoped ammo and loaded exclusively with armour-piercing and tracer bullets, we might not see much cross over into the civilian 0.277" realm... if anything at all.

Personally I don't believe their reasoning of 0.277" being necessary over 0.264"... 13/1000" is just too close to matter. But they had no reason to pick 0.264" over 0.277", either.
 
This has turned out to be a very interesting topic. The reason for my inquiry is because I got into AR-15's and while I'm really enjoying everything about my new D&D V5 it just won't cut the mustard in my neck of the woods for deer size game, it's illegal so I wanted an upper that I could use for that purpose. Chose the 6.8 over the Grendel because I've read of magazine and bolt problems plus ammo differences with the Grendel.
In addition where I hunt the woods and hills make shots over 200 yards practically nonexistent and I like bigger diameter bullets.
 
This has turned out to be a very interesting topic. The reason for my inquiry is because I got into AR-15's and while I'm really enjoying everything about my new D&D V5 it just won't cut the mustard in my neck of the woods for deer size game, it's illegal so I wanted an upper that I could use for that purpose. Chose the 6.8 over the Grendel because I've read of magazine and bolt problems plus ammo differences with the Grendel.
In addition where I hunt the woods and hills make shots over 200 yards practically nonexistent and I like bigger diameter bullets.
The 6.8 is an excellent choice for your wants and needs.
I do think a lot of 6.5s are bought for it's long range hype will never see long range shooting.
 
Newtosavage, I’ve got a Grendel I built from a CZ receiver. 120 gn Nosler BT’s with 8208 work very well for deer where I hunt. It’s really a fun rifle. Have you tried LVR with lighter bullets?
 
what do you think off the gamechanger, is it worth the cost?. where the deer lung shots, one looks just behind the shoulder the other looks farther back.
I consider the Gamechanger to be pretty affordable, considering the performance you get out of it. It shoots like a match bullet and hits like a bonded bullet. I haven't recovered one yet and I've dropped some pretty big pigs with that round now. I load them over 31 grains of LVR and it hits hard. The increase in recoil is also noticeable over 120's loaded over 8208.
 
Newtosavage, I’ve got a Grendel I built from a CZ receiver. 120 gn Nosler BT’s with 8208 work very well for deer where I hunt. It’s really a fun rifle. Have you tried LVR with lighter bullets?
I have a mental block against Nosler BT's. I'm not sure why. I just can't pay that much for a bullet that doesn't do anything an SST or ELD-M or those Gold Dot's do. And I don't trust the 120 BT's to penetrate although I am probably concerned with penetration more than I should be (hence the 130 Gamechangers). The Gold Dots did their job well. The top doe was hit a little further back than I wanted, plus she was standing at a very slight quartering to me position which put the exit a few inches further back. She ran a big circle about 150 yards and went down. The bottom doe was hit in the very back edge of the shoulder, clipping one shoulder and just missing the next. She went about 50 yards. Exit hole on both with the Gold Dots were right at 1" Exit holes with the Gamechangers tend to be 1/2"-3/4"

I'm still on the fence about whether the 6.5 Grendel is the right deer round for me. I've now shot three deer with mine, and all of them went further than I'm used to (average of 92 yards) and not one of them left a single drop of blood on the ground. I'm not used to that. When I shoot them with my 7mm-08 they either drop or don't go far at all, and there is always a great blood trail. That's with 139 SST's @ 2800 and 120 Sierra Pro Hunters at 3K. I'm thinking the Grendel just doesn't have enough hydrostatic shock or frontal area to put them down fast. Oddly enough, deer have gone down much quicker with my 7.62x39 and 123 SST's, which is why I say that. I know some folks are going to say "shoot them in the shoulder to anchor them" and they can do that if they want. I am not a shoulder shooter. Just give me a blood trail and I'll find my deer with both shoulders intact. ;)

I have two more doe tags to fill by Thursday and will be taking my 7mm-08 to compare, although I've shot quite a few deer with that rifle already so I kinda know what to expect. That top doe took me over an hour to find (heavy brush around the clearing), in the rain, and quite frankly I didn't appreciate that even though I did catch her a little back. I've shot several does in that same place with my 7mm-08 (trying to avoid hitting the shoulders) and they all went down immediately or only went 20-30 yards tops.

I feel like that Grendel cost me a nice buck this season, since I had one standing broadside at 250 yards late one afternoon but just couldn't make myself pull the trigger. On a deer that big, at that distance, I was wishing I had my Tikka 7mm-08. I would have taken the shot with that rifle in a second.

For now, I'm thinking the Grendel will get hog duty in the future, or as a backup deer rifle for a nephew or niece or (someday) grandkid. For whatever reason, most of the hogs I've shot were DRT, and all the deer have run off. Weird. If the pigs run off, I don't really care. If the deer run off, it's pretty annoying. Honestly, all three deer I've shot with the Grendel have gone further than most deer I shoot with my bow. And those bow-shot deer leave a blood trail a blind man could follow. The running with the Grendel wouldn't bother me if they left a blood trail. I'm used to that. But without one, no thanks. I'm getting too old to be searching around on my hands and knees for blood. Done that for 40 years now. LOL
 
Last edited:
Newtosavage, I’ve got a Grendel I built from a CZ receiver. 120 gn Nosler BT’s with 8208 work very well for deer where I hunt. It’s really a fun rifle. Have you tried LVR with lighter bullets?
I forgot to answer - I haven't tried LVR with the lighter bullets but I probably will. 8208 does great with the 120's. Very accurate. But the LVR might get me a little more speed. I keep trying the 120's over 8208 because I have 8 lbs. of it. It's what I use for my 7mm-08's and I actually bought the Grendel with the hopes of doubling up on the same powder. Then along comes the 130/LVR combo. LOL It's always something, right? :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top