salty
Member
The 115 gr. OTM in Remington case #34 CCI primer and 26.5 grains of Varget is a good starting load for those looking to break in a new barrel. Varget is very similar to H4895 and just a bit slower than H335.
6.8 Spc
- Thread starter TX65
- Start date
- Status
The comparison of a 6.5 bullet with a 6.8 with 0.200 lower BC is not a very equitable comparison. I'd also like to know the source of the 6.5 Grendel velocity. I've owned/own riflkes in both calibers, and Alexander Arms published velocities -- well, I don't know how they are getting them with safe pressures.
Alexander Arms is pretty good at publishing tests that are hevily slanted to show the superiority of 6.5 to rounds like the 308. Of course they compare a 0.600 + BC bukllet with US military M80 ball - hardly and apples to apples comparison. If you load the 308 with the 155gn Lapua Scenar with a muzzle velocity of 2800 fps, the Grendel doesn't look nearly as impressive.
If you compare 6.5 Grendel to 6.8 SPC using similar bullets (for example hunting bullets) the difference isn't that dramatic, and only starts to matter at about 300 yards. Try the search function, I've posted the data previously.
Certainly when looking at the rounds for hunting, the Lapua Scenar or even SMK are not suitable for hunting by any stretch of the imagination.
As far as comparing 6.5 to 243, they aren't even close in apples to apples comparisons. If one looks at the best 6.5 bulet, probably the 144gn Lapua Scenar with a BC of 0.636, vs the best 0.243 bullet, probably the Berger 115gn VLD with a BC of 0.595, here's how they stack up from a 24 inch barrel.
At the muzzle, the 243 is going 2838fps vs. the 6.5 Grendel with a muzzle velocity of 2345fps - almost 500 fps difference.
Muzzle energy is respectively 2051 and 1758 ft-lbs for 243 and 6.5
At 300 yards its 1697 vs 1439. 243 has dropped 20.7 inches vs 30.4 for 6.5 G
At 1000 yards the 6.5 Grendel has 862 ft-lbs of energy and has dropped 402 inches. At the same distance, the 243 has 1037 ft-lbs of energy and has dropped 272 inches.
Not even close.
While the 6.5 Grendel is undoubtably a very good intermediate round, some seem to imbue it with magical properties. In reality, if you do a fair comparison, it's just a very good intermediate round.
When you look at claimed ballistics, look very carefully to see what is being compared.
Alexander Arms is pretty good at publishing tests that are hevily slanted to show the superiority of 6.5 to rounds like the 308. Of course they compare a 0.600 + BC bukllet with US military M80 ball - hardly and apples to apples comparison. If you load the 308 with the 155gn Lapua Scenar with a muzzle velocity of 2800 fps, the Grendel doesn't look nearly as impressive.
If you compare 6.5 Grendel to 6.8 SPC using similar bullets (for example hunting bullets) the difference isn't that dramatic, and only starts to matter at about 300 yards. Try the search function, I've posted the data previously.
Certainly when looking at the rounds for hunting, the Lapua Scenar or even SMK are not suitable for hunting by any stretch of the imagination.
As far as comparing 6.5 to 243, they aren't even close in apples to apples comparisons. If one looks at the best 6.5 bulet, probably the 144gn Lapua Scenar with a BC of 0.636, vs the best 0.243 bullet, probably the Berger 115gn VLD with a BC of 0.595, here's how they stack up from a 24 inch barrel.
At the muzzle, the 243 is going 2838fps vs. the 6.5 Grendel with a muzzle velocity of 2345fps - almost 500 fps difference.
Muzzle energy is respectively 2051 and 1758 ft-lbs for 243 and 6.5
At 300 yards its 1697 vs 1439. 243 has dropped 20.7 inches vs 30.4 for 6.5 G
At 1000 yards the 6.5 Grendel has 862 ft-lbs of energy and has dropped 402 inches. At the same distance, the 243 has 1037 ft-lbs of energy and has dropped 272 inches.
Not even close.
While the 6.5 Grendel is undoubtably a very good intermediate round, some seem to imbue it with magical properties. In reality, if you do a fair comparison, it's just a very good intermediate round.
When you look at claimed ballistics, look very carefully to see what is being compared.
Last edited:
A very good post GunTech.
The 6.5 Grendel is high ballistic coefficient elogated target round that was only advertized as an alternative to the 5.56 NATO after it Bill Alexander saw that the 6.8 SPC was getting a lot of attention as a military cartridge replacement. So, out came the ballistic tables and with exaggerated data and apples to oranges comparisons. If you don't want to call it lying, it is certainly misleading.
The Firearms Institute tested the Grendel extensively and determined that it was inadequate "overall" as a military cartridge replacement for the 5.56. Several problems were cited such as the case shoulder and location which prevented it for being used in belt fed weapons, and made is less reliable in box magazines than the 5.56 or 6.8. However, the primary problem was in its terminal effects. With its elongated bullet profile it lacked the distal weight distribution necessary in a Hague compliant load to rapidly tumble in tissue which is necessary for shearing force to fragment. The target window for maximized terminal effects is 4" of penetration in which the bullet should reach is peak fragmentation. The 6.8 regularly begins its tumble cycle at 2" of penetration and reaches violent fragmentation at 4-5". The Grendel, with its elongated bullet, high stability due to even weight distribution, and high ballistic coefficient does not begin its tumble cycle until the 7" mark and does not fragment until it has reached 12-14" of penetration. That is THREE times the failure standard. Very similar results were displayed in the 6.5 Carcano which was used extensively in WWI. The bullet exited the body before it would tumble resulting in ice pick 6.5mm holes.
The only way to cause the Grendel to have a rapid tumble is to increase the weight of the bullet in the rear so that as the bullet loses spin stability it will turn over so that the heavier rear leads. You can do this by incorporating a hollow tip, but that is MUCH more expensive to manufacture and is not Hague Convention legal.
Another thing to consider is that in combat you are highly unlikely to engage an enemy effectely over 100 yards. The average distance for identifying friend or foe for someone with 20/20 vision is only 200 yards. The overwhelming majority of infantry combat of the 20th century and into the 21st century occured/occurs under 200 yards. Even in the trenches of WWI the average engagement range was under 200 yards. Combat is fast, confusing, involves cover, and no one stands still long enough for you to take careful aim unless you are a sniper. After that first shot, the game is on and rest assured that every foe in your field of vision is now behind cover and on the move. So, there is absoluted NO point in utilizing a cartridge that is maximized for ranges over 500m like the Grendel. Ranges over 500m are handled by special weapon teams like medium MGs, snipers, and company artillery.
You really won't encounter very many veterans that want a 800m weapon platform for general infantry combat use. Sure there are a few here and there, but the majority of them want a light weapon system maximized for ranges up to 200m.
If you are looking for a sporting cartridge, then the Grendel will work just fine. If you are wanting a service cartridge that hits harder than the 5.56, stick with the 6.8 SPC for ranges up to 300m and consider using 7.62 NATO for ranges beyond that.
The 6.5 Grendel is high ballistic coefficient elogated target round that was only advertized as an alternative to the 5.56 NATO after it Bill Alexander saw that the 6.8 SPC was getting a lot of attention as a military cartridge replacement. So, out came the ballistic tables and with exaggerated data and apples to oranges comparisons. If you don't want to call it lying, it is certainly misleading.
The Firearms Institute tested the Grendel extensively and determined that it was inadequate "overall" as a military cartridge replacement for the 5.56. Several problems were cited such as the case shoulder and location which prevented it for being used in belt fed weapons, and made is less reliable in box magazines than the 5.56 or 6.8. However, the primary problem was in its terminal effects. With its elongated bullet profile it lacked the distal weight distribution necessary in a Hague compliant load to rapidly tumble in tissue which is necessary for shearing force to fragment. The target window for maximized terminal effects is 4" of penetration in which the bullet should reach is peak fragmentation. The 6.8 regularly begins its tumble cycle at 2" of penetration and reaches violent fragmentation at 4-5". The Grendel, with its elongated bullet, high stability due to even weight distribution, and high ballistic coefficient does not begin its tumble cycle until the 7" mark and does not fragment until it has reached 12-14" of penetration. That is THREE times the failure standard. Very similar results were displayed in the 6.5 Carcano which was used extensively in WWI. The bullet exited the body before it would tumble resulting in ice pick 6.5mm holes.
The only way to cause the Grendel to have a rapid tumble is to increase the weight of the bullet in the rear so that as the bullet loses spin stability it will turn over so that the heavier rear leads. You can do this by incorporating a hollow tip, but that is MUCH more expensive to manufacture and is not Hague Convention legal.
Another thing to consider is that in combat you are highly unlikely to engage an enemy effectely over 100 yards. The average distance for identifying friend or foe for someone with 20/20 vision is only 200 yards. The overwhelming majority of infantry combat of the 20th century and into the 21st century occured/occurs under 200 yards. Even in the trenches of WWI the average engagement range was under 200 yards. Combat is fast, confusing, involves cover, and no one stands still long enough for you to take careful aim unless you are a sniper. After that first shot, the game is on and rest assured that every foe in your field of vision is now behind cover and on the move. So, there is absoluted NO point in utilizing a cartridge that is maximized for ranges over 500m like the Grendel. Ranges over 500m are handled by special weapon teams like medium MGs, snipers, and company artillery.
You really won't encounter very many veterans that want a 800m weapon platform for general infantry combat use. Sure there are a few here and there, but the majority of them want a light weapon system maximized for ranges up to 200m.
If you are looking for a sporting cartridge, then the Grendel will work just fine. If you are wanting a service cartridge that hits harder than the 5.56, stick with the 6.8 SPC for ranges up to 300m and consider using 7.62 NATO for ranges beyond that.
I found a good comparison for the 6.8 SPC...my beloved .257 Roberts. I had no idea the cartridges were so similar, though the 6.8 does win.
http://www.remington.com/products/a...ive_ballistics_results.aspx?data=PRC68R4*R257
http://www.remington.com/products/a...ive_ballistics_results.aspx?data=PRC68R4*R257
Tony Williams
Member
Or you can do what the British did with the .303" Mk VII Ball (the standard round in both world wars) and fill the front part of the jacket with light alloy rather than lead. Worked very well, apparently.
If you're just looking for a military assault rifle/LMG round, I agree that the 6.8mm looks fine. The advantage of the 6.5 (provided that you use a suitable, fast-tumbling bullet design) is that you can match the 6.8 in short-range effectiveness plus get close enough to the 7.62x51's long-range performance to replace that too - so you need only one family of weapons rather than two.
I accept that the case shape of the Grendel has been seriously constrained by the maximum length limit, and is not ideal for a military round. But when the next generation of small arms comes along, they will probably be using plastic cased or caseless telescoped ammo, and that will be the opportunity to consider one rifle/MG round with a calibre and ballistics similar to those of the Grendel.
AA published there comparison using a 24 inch barrel and velocities that could only be obtailed with very heavy - potentially dangerous - loads. While you can run pressures in excess of 62,000 PSI in a bolt gun, the AR-15/M16 is really limited to about 55,000 PSI. It's rather disengenuous to talk about the 6.5 Grendel in a 20 or 16 inch AR, and use figures from a 24 inch, high pressure bolt gun.
By contrast, most of the figures for the 6.8 were derived from 14.5 inch M4s and 16 inch bbl M16s and using FMJ ammunition - the same sort of condition one would encounter if the round was adopted for military use.
I am still waiting to see 6.5G performance with military type ball ammunition. I suspect the numbers will be rather disappointing.
6.5 Grendel is certainly a better round for target shooting, and has potention as a light hunting round as it outperforms 7.62x39 and weapons in that caliber can be easily converted.
But it is not a wonder round that can replace the 7.62x51. And I have yet to see 6.5 Grendel loaded in an factory firearm, or see ammunition on gun store shelves. By contrast, Ruger is now making the Mini-14 in 6.8, Remington offers a version of the 700, and ammo is on gunstore shelves.
By contrast, most of the figures for the 6.8 were derived from 14.5 inch M4s and 16 inch bbl M16s and using FMJ ammunition - the same sort of condition one would encounter if the round was adopted for military use.
I am still waiting to see 6.5G performance with military type ball ammunition. I suspect the numbers will be rather disappointing.
6.5 Grendel is certainly a better round for target shooting, and has potention as a light hunting round as it outperforms 7.62x39 and weapons in that caliber can be easily converted.
But it is not a wonder round that can replace the 7.62x51. And I have yet to see 6.5 Grendel loaded in an factory firearm, or see ammunition on gun store shelves. By contrast, Ruger is now making the Mini-14 in 6.8, Remington offers a version of the 700, and ammo is on gunstore shelves.
According to Fackler's work, the .303 begins its tumble cycle between 4-5" of penetration. It reaches its peak terminal effects at 10" of penetration which is more than double the failure window. The .303 is also shorter relative to the bullet diameter than the Grendel which gives it a heavier rear regardless of the bullet construction material used. Even if the Grendel used a light alloy such as aluminum, it would still not be enough to allow the Grendel to begin its tumble cycle within the 2-3" mark. The Grendel bullet is just too long.
As far as caseless ammo goes, I'll believe it when I see it. The metallic cartridge has too many advantages to it that would be lost if caseless propellant is used. The metallic cartridge acts as a heat sink which takes heat away from the weapon during ejection, it protects the propellant more effectively in a hot chamber, it is more durable, it keeps the propellant more protected from the elements, and it swells and seals the chamber from escaping gases during ignition. All of these advantages would be lost for only the advantage of weight reduction.......likely not going to happen.
The only caseless ammo I see becoming a success would be gauss technology which can yield between 2-4 times the velocity of modern gun powders.
Tony Williams
Member
Let me put it a different way - it is more likely to happen than the adoption of another metal-cased rifle/MG round. If the army were ever to propose a conventional replacement for the 5.56mm and/or 7.62mm (whether it's a 6.8mm, 6.5mm, whatever), they would never get it past the bean counters because they would never be able to show big enough advantages to justify the huge cost of a changeover.
The one thing which is likely to persuade the army that it's worth fighting for a new round would be if it also offered big weight advantages - that's why they started up the current LSAT programme, after all. And you won't get such weight advantages from conventional metal-cased ammo - you have to go to plastic cased (or, better, caseless) to get that. So IMO, it's either plastic-cased/caseless, or we're stuck with 5.56mm + 7.62mm until someone perfects the phaser...
+1 Tony,
Given how little impact the infantry rifle actually has on combat casulries, the bean counters don't even see the rifle as an imporatant weapon - although the infantryman certainly does.
It's worth looking back at the ACR program of the 1980s. While there were some interesting developments, including the caseless G11, no rifle fielded showed significant improvements over the currently issued weapon (M16).
While caseless ammunition is still in developement (and has been since the mid 1950s), the new focus is on smart munitions as used by the XM-25 and XM-307. These 'smart' bursting weapons show significant improvement in hit probability over current 'linear' weapon systems, and allow targeting personnel in built up areas who are indoors or behind cover. This will be a significant factor in future couter-insurgency operations, which are likely to be the type of wars of the future.
Such bursting weapons offer advantages even over electromagneticly directed projectiles and even directed energy weapons, which are still basically linear, point target weapons.
The reality is that we have reached a plateau in small arms development. There's really no where to take the projectile throwing rifle except incrimental improvements. The next 'big thing' is likely to be a new class of weapons firing smart projectiles.
ElectroThermal or electromechanical weapons may have a future if body armor becomes common, as the best current state of the art body armor can defeat most armor piercing rounds. ET and EM guns have the potential to deliver extreme velocities that may be required in order to defeat the body armor of the future.
Given how little impact the infantry rifle actually has on combat casulries, the bean counters don't even see the rifle as an imporatant weapon - although the infantryman certainly does.
It's worth looking back at the ACR program of the 1980s. While there were some interesting developments, including the caseless G11, no rifle fielded showed significant improvements over the currently issued weapon (M16).
While caseless ammunition is still in developement (and has been since the mid 1950s), the new focus is on smart munitions as used by the XM-25 and XM-307. These 'smart' bursting weapons show significant improvement in hit probability over current 'linear' weapon systems, and allow targeting personnel in built up areas who are indoors or behind cover. This will be a significant factor in future couter-insurgency operations, which are likely to be the type of wars of the future.
Such bursting weapons offer advantages even over electromagneticly directed projectiles and even directed energy weapons, which are still basically linear, point target weapons.
The reality is that we have reached a plateau in small arms development. There's really no where to take the projectile throwing rifle except incrimental improvements. The next 'big thing' is likely to be a new class of weapons firing smart projectiles.
ElectroThermal or electromechanical weapons may have a future if body armor becomes common, as the best current state of the art body armor can defeat most armor piercing rounds. ET and EM guns have the potential to deliver extreme velocities that may be required in order to defeat the body armor of the future.
now the part about the tumbling and fragmenting is completely untrue about the grendel. take a look at the SMK pics. the norma round didn't do very well, thats true, but don't make such sweeping statements.
if the grendel duplicates the .308 with match bullets, i don't know yet i just received my grendel only a little while ago and haven't had a chance to take it out to ranges longer than 100 yards.
and when did the Firearms Institute test the grendel? link or anyway to verify it? not accusing you of anything, i'm just curious because if they did then i would be very interested in reading the report.
if the grendel duplicates the .308 with match bullets, i don't know yet i just received my grendel only a little while ago and haven't had a chance to take it out to ranges longer than 100 yards.
and when did the Firearms Institute test the grendel? link or anyway to verify it? not accusing you of anything, i'm just curious because if they did then i would be very interested in reading the report.
Nope, don't have access to the report. Authorized personel like Gary Roberts who is a trusted member of the ballistics community does and he is willing to share some testing information.
The tumbling and fragmentation aspect of ANY bullet is governed by the law of physics. If you are referring to the testing pics I've seen using green dye, I have not seen any credible confirmation as to whether those tests were even done using standardized FBI protocals with tight controls on gel temperature and proper calibration. I have not seen anyone from the ballistics community sign off on the validity of those tests and they are not to be trusted.
If the Grendel had such great terminal effects in Hague compliant form, why hasn't AA does their own standardized testing and published the results. In fact, I have not see any reference from AA regarding terminal effects testing......probably because they know that it will make the Grendel look bad.
The tumbling and fragmentation aspect of ANY bullet is governed by the law of physics. If you are referring to the testing pics I've seen using green dye, I have not seen any credible confirmation as to whether those tests were even done using standardized FBI protocals with tight controls on gel temperature and proper calibration. I have not seen anyone from the ballistics community sign off on the validity of those tests and they are not to be trusted.
If the Grendel had such great terminal effects in Hague compliant form, why hasn't AA does their own standardized testing and published the results. In fact, I have not see any reference from AA regarding terminal effects testing......probably because they know that it will make the Grendel look bad.
I have no dog in this fight.
Here are the tests of the 123 grain Matchking Grendel load that Speer conducted, judge for yourself.
That's Speer the bullet manufacturer BTW.
Note that the 123 gr SMK is an open tipped match bullet. Just like the 6.8 SPC uses. The 77 gr SMK is also used in the Mk262 load for the 5.56, JAG and Hague approved.
Here are the tests of the 123 grain Matchking Grendel load that Speer conducted, judge for yourself.
That's Speer the bullet manufacturer BTW.
Note that the 123 gr SMK is an open tipped match bullet. Just like the 6.8 SPC uses. The 77 gr SMK is also used in the Mk262 load for the 5.56, JAG and Hague approved.
Attachments
If it is indeed Speer, then yes they are credible. However, if you look at the peak terminal damage it is at 7", that is still almost TWICE the failure rate of the target window of 4". The 6.8 is capable of reaching maximum terminal effects at 4", the 5.56 usually at 5", and the 7.62 NATO at 5".
So, why exactly is there bragging about this?
So, why exactly is there bragging about this?
those bullets can be classified as "open tip match" bullets, i thought they let that slide since there are reports of the sierra 77 gr being used in the current conflicts. not sure if that is true or not but if it is, then i would think the 6.5 OTM bullets would be legal too...
all the gel that i've seen that's been shot by 6.8 spc have also been with an OTM or a hunting bullet, like the Grendel. there are probably other tests out there that i am not aware of, if so, enlighten me
all the gel that i've seen that's been shot by 6.8 spc have also been with an OTM or a hunting bullet, like the Grendel. there are probably other tests out there that i am not aware of, if so, enlighten me
Both cases hold about 35 grains water. Loaded to the same pressure and from the same barrel length they both reach just above 2600 fps with their 115-120 grain bullets. Bill Alexander is adamant about keeping pressures below 50,000 PSI in the Grendel.
The 6.8SPC 110 VMAX BC goes .370, the Hornady 115 OTM .34.
The 6.5G 123 SMKs BC is .510. This and the larger bullet choice is the only advantage here.
I agree that the 6.8 SPCs Hornady OTM bullet is oh so slightly better for defence. SMKs usually have a bit slower yaw cycle than Hornadys. The new Berger 120 gr 6.5mm OTM bullet might frag faster than the SMK with it's thinner J4 jacket. They market it as a hunting bullet on par with Ballistic Tips.
Still The 123 SMK is very impressive and I fear that we might be making too much of the difference. Apparently so does Gary Roberts as here is his quote on the 123 SMK load.
"Just in case anyone missed it, I will repeat myself: It appears that both 6.5 mm Grendel and 6.8 mm SPC offer similar outstanding terminal performance in 14.5-16” barrels that is FAR superior to any 5.56 mm loads. I'll be very happy with either one."
For the sake of comparison here are some of my favorite pics from Gary Roberts site.
Make mine a .308 but I'd feel confident holding either a 6.5 or 6.8.
Edit: The 6.8 SPC bullet in the first test photo is not the JAG approved OTM. Also note that Gary calls it an AMAX bullet. I've always laughed at this as any reloader can tell you that Hornady only makes a 110 VMAX. Apparently it's ok to shoot a bad guy with a tipped target bullet but not a tipped varmint bullet. See how both sides of the 6.8/6.5 debate shade things thier way a bit?
The 6.8SPC 110 VMAX BC goes .370, the Hornady 115 OTM .34.
The 6.5G 123 SMKs BC is .510. This and the larger bullet choice is the only advantage here.
I agree that the 6.8 SPCs Hornady OTM bullet is oh so slightly better for defence. SMKs usually have a bit slower yaw cycle than Hornadys. The new Berger 120 gr 6.5mm OTM bullet might frag faster than the SMK with it's thinner J4 jacket. They market it as a hunting bullet on par with Ballistic Tips.
Still The 123 SMK is very impressive and I fear that we might be making too much of the difference. Apparently so does Gary Roberts as here is his quote on the 123 SMK load.
"Just in case anyone missed it, I will repeat myself: It appears that both 6.5 mm Grendel and 6.8 mm SPC offer similar outstanding terminal performance in 14.5-16” barrels that is FAR superior to any 5.56 mm loads. I'll be very happy with either one."
For the sake of comparison here are some of my favorite pics from Gary Roberts site.
Make mine a .308 but I'd feel confident holding either a 6.5 or 6.8.
Edit: The 6.8 SPC bullet in the first test photo is not the JAG approved OTM. Also note that Gary calls it an AMAX bullet. I've always laughed at this as any reloader can tell you that Hornady only makes a 110 VMAX. Apparently it's ok to shoot a bad guy with a tipped target bullet but not a tipped varmint bullet. See how both sides of the 6.8/6.5 debate shade things thier way a bit?
Attachments
Last edited:
HorseSoldier
Member
Mk 262 5.56mm ammunition and M118LR 7.62x51 ammunition are both OTM. The legal justification for the use of either is that the format is employed for superior accuracy in sniping weapons, not to cause undue suffering or to enhance lethality, etc., which would violate the Hague convetions, etc etc etc. Using the same logic, 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 Rem SPC would be just as legal in OTM format.
There are some things that I don't agree with Doc on. Such as the theory that the 7x46mm is the ultimate assault rifle cartridge, or that the Grendel is in the same realm as the 6.8 for common combat ranges. Roberts is highly credible and has the credentials to back them up, but like everything else in life not all experts agree with each other 100%. The Firearms Institute is the merging of many minds(not just Roberts) and their conclusions were as I stated earlier. If 3+4=7, and you are wanting the answer of 4, you don't ignore the fact that 3+4=7 and say that it is just as good as equaling 4. The standards were set, and the Grendel didn't come close enough to beat out the 6.8, the 5.56, or the 7.62 NATO in terminal effects.
The only criteria I can fathom that Roberts was talking about was barrier penetration were the 6.8 and Grendel are pretty much equal. In that regard, yes they are both indeed equal and BOTH are better alternatives to the 5.56. I suggest that you ask Roberts again what he meant by that. Terminal effects, barrier penetration, or both.
Funderb
Member
Harry turtle:
Does that cartridge look as humourous to you as it does to me?
It makes me laugh.
but seriously, a cart. that shape has got to run into a feeding problem fairly often.
Does that cartridge look as humourous to you as it does to me?
It makes me laugh.
but seriously, a cart. that shape has got to run into a feeding problem fairly often.
I am alson not convinced that 7x46 is the ultimate caliber. Looking at the numbers, it looks like too much recoil for burst or automatic fire, and as far as penetration, the 6.5 bullets look to have the edge on pentration.
The biggest issue with the 6.5 is the lack of a good FMJ bullet. There's no reason why a well designed bullet with a deep canneleur and thin kacjet wouldn't perform similarly to M193 or M855 in tissue. My general complaints about 6.5 Grendel have to do with the lack of body taper and the steep shoulder. As long as you are stuffing a round into an M16 magazine, you aren't going to have huge gains over 5.56 without compromise somewhere else.
If you look at 6.8 and 6.5 Grendel with comparable bullets (i.e. similar weight and BC), there really isn't that much difference. 6.5 has a slight advantage, but it also has a slightly larger case. 6.5 Grendel does have more flexibility sinch it can be loaded with bullets from 80gn up throu 144gn, whereas the 6.8 only has a few bullets can be used, basically limited to 115gn or less.
The comparison of 6.5 Grendel to rounds like the 6.5 Carcano or 6.5 Mannlicher-Schoenauer are really Germain because the latter two used round nosed bullets which don't upset do to the uniform mass distribution. All modern spitzer type bullets have the center of gravity to the rear of the center of aerodynamic pressure, which cause non-expanding type bullets to flip over and go tail first through tissue.
The biggest strike against 6.5 Grendel is the lack of factory rifles, as well as the lack of ammunition. Now that Ruger has added 6.8 to the Mini-14 line, there's a chance for 6.8 to pick up a little steam. That is not to say that 6.8 has any real ballistic advantage over 6.5 Grendel - in fact the reverse is true. But Alexander Arms erred in trying to make 6.5 Grendel a propreitary round rather than submitting it to SAAMI.
Both round have a real potential outside of the custom AR-15, if only someone will manufacture an appropriately sized rifle. There's no point in a Model 700 or Model 7 in 6.8 when the same rifle can be chambered in 243 or 260. But a small rifle like the CZ-527 or Remington 799 in eithjer caliber would make a superb rifle for a youth, woman, or anyone who wants a super light rifle.
If CZ were to offer the 527 in either caliber, fitted with a synthetic stock and weighing around 5-5.5 pounds, I bet they could sell a few (and it would be easy to do).
The biggest issue with the 6.5 is the lack of a good FMJ bullet. There's no reason why a well designed bullet with a deep canneleur and thin kacjet wouldn't perform similarly to M193 or M855 in tissue. My general complaints about 6.5 Grendel have to do with the lack of body taper and the steep shoulder. As long as you are stuffing a round into an M16 magazine, you aren't going to have huge gains over 5.56 without compromise somewhere else.
If you look at 6.8 and 6.5 Grendel with comparable bullets (i.e. similar weight and BC), there really isn't that much difference. 6.5 has a slight advantage, but it also has a slightly larger case. 6.5 Grendel does have more flexibility sinch it can be loaded with bullets from 80gn up throu 144gn, whereas the 6.8 only has a few bullets can be used, basically limited to 115gn or less.
The comparison of 6.5 Grendel to rounds like the 6.5 Carcano or 6.5 Mannlicher-Schoenauer are really Germain because the latter two used round nosed bullets which don't upset do to the uniform mass distribution. All modern spitzer type bullets have the center of gravity to the rear of the center of aerodynamic pressure, which cause non-expanding type bullets to flip over and go tail first through tissue.
The biggest strike against 6.5 Grendel is the lack of factory rifles, as well as the lack of ammunition. Now that Ruger has added 6.8 to the Mini-14 line, there's a chance for 6.8 to pick up a little steam. That is not to say that 6.8 has any real ballistic advantage over 6.5 Grendel - in fact the reverse is true. But Alexander Arms erred in trying to make 6.5 Grendel a propreitary round rather than submitting it to SAAMI.
Both round have a real potential outside of the custom AR-15, if only someone will manufacture an appropriately sized rifle. There's no point in a Model 700 or Model 7 in 6.8 when the same rifle can be chambered in 243 or 260. But a small rifle like the CZ-527 or Remington 799 in eithjer caliber would make a superb rifle for a youth, woman, or anyone who wants a super light rifle.
If CZ were to offer the 527 in either caliber, fitted with a synthetic stock and weighing around 5-5.5 pounds, I bet they could sell a few (and it would be easy to do).
About 20 minutes of a degree on the 308. The Grendel is around 16 minutes of a degrees, IIRC. Compare that to the (in)famous 7.62x39 with its 1.5 degree case taper and 16 degree shoulder. The design of the M43 probably plays a big part in the AK's reliability.
I just read that Hornady is coming out with a 120 gr AMAX bullet that looks ready made for the 6.5G. Remember that the 155 AMAX is the best performer for the .308 and the 110 VMAX in 6.8SPC.
Tipped bullets are often the best soft tissue performers. For the 6.5G we have the 95 gr VMAX, the 100 gr Ballistic Tip, the 120 Ballistic Tip(which is a bit fragile for deer hunting even at 6.5G velocities) and the new 120 AMAX.
For barrior penetration premiums and bonded bullets work well. In 6.5mm there is the 100 Partition, 125 Partition, 120 TSX, 130 Interbond, 130 Accubond, 130 Scirocco, and the 140 Partition.
Both cartridges appear to be civilian only at least in the near time frame and the 6.5G has a huge advantage in civilian bullets. Bullet construction isn't voodoo anymore. I doubt that there will be a too-long-of-neck problem in gel tests using a tipped bullet in the 6.5G.
Tipped bullets are often the best soft tissue performers. For the 6.5G we have the 95 gr VMAX, the 100 gr Ballistic Tip, the 120 Ballistic Tip(which is a bit fragile for deer hunting even at 6.5G velocities) and the new 120 AMAX.
For barrior penetration premiums and bonded bullets work well. In 6.5mm there is the 100 Partition, 125 Partition, 120 TSX, 130 Interbond, 130 Accubond, 130 Scirocco, and the 140 Partition.
Both cartridges appear to be civilian only at least in the near time frame and the 6.5G has a huge advantage in civilian bullets. Bullet construction isn't voodoo anymore. I doubt that there will be a too-long-of-neck problem in gel tests using a tipped bullet in the 6.5G.
24kshooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 141
I view the 6.8 as a replacement for my 7.62 x 39 's as a primary CQB defense rifle and as an alternative to my 5.56 Nato for walk around (16" carbine) varmit hunting. The more I shoot the round the more I enjoys it's multipurpose role. Easy to shoot and reload for. The 6.5 Grendel IMO is outstanding as a long range varmit, bench or mid range big game cartridge but is in a different catagory than the mid-power role traditionally filled by the X 39.
- Status
Similar threads
