Topic Dead

[tarosean]

I disagree with your premise because defending yourself at 300 yards with your SBR as a civilian in the United States is so incredibly unlikely as to be basically a fantasy.

Esp with over 80% of our population living in Urban settings.

 

[MechaDragon]

But get your Grendel and you do you. It’s not a bad cartridge. Plenty of people use it and like it. I don’t but I don’t expect people to care I don’t.

Think Im gonna hold off.

Wanna see how popular 6mm ARC gets and where the price of ammo ends up.

They are so ballistically similar that basically - whichever one has more readily available ammunition that is less expensive wins in my book just so I can get more practice with the cartridge.

Unfortunately that means my plans for an SBR build are now on hiatus. So Ill focus on picking up a PCC for now.

Funny how @Mk-211 and @Varminterror believes that research isn't worth squat when most engineers who develop the cartridges have never been in war either.

But ya know, can't help someone who isn't even capable of building their own PC. Technology just out-paces these old folks it would seem.

Oh well, can't really blame them for it. Reading words and understanding their point or context without the other person present in person is essentially impossible.

And while I understand that most GunTubers just like to entertain I clearly have pointed out many along the way who do actual shooting in actual outdoor conditions to show actual performance, some of them even being ex-military but hey you were the one who advocated for experience in a warzone, while simultaneously discounting what those ex-military personnel have to say.

Whatever, not my problem. Hypocrisy is a funny thing tho...

 

[Varminterror]

Funny how @Mk-211 believes that research isn't worth squat when most engineers who develop the cartridges have never been in war either.

We’ve actually touched the guns before writing prose about them, making claims and recommendations, and we’ve actually conducted firsthand the science to evaluate proxy testing methodologies used to evaluate performance.

Don’t count yourself among developmental engineers just because you read a Wikipedia page…

 

[MechaDragon]

We’ve actually touched the guns before writing prose about them, making claims and recommendations, and we’ve actually conducted firsthand the science to evaluate proxy testing methodologies used to evaluate performance.

Don’t count yourself among developmental engineers just because you read a Wikipedia page…

Oh well isn't it funny how you all agreed that 6.5G is a very capable all-round cartridge. Hmmm, seems dedicated research really does produce results whether you like to admit it or not.

Paul Harrell would be disappointed in you, and so am I.

As if its one wikipedia page. Ive been researching 5-6 cartridges for literal days with everything from articles written by hunters to ex-military personnel advising to learning from the actual engineers about a given product(s) such as reading Hornady articles regarding 6mm ARC and their test results.

Combine that kind of research with research out in the field from real independent testers some of which are hunters while others are ex-military and some just hardcore firearms enthusiasts who have lots of money and can't test what they want.

Put all of it together after days and days and dozens upon dozens of hours of research and put it all together and you can pretty much draw a logical conclusion. Its not difficult, just time consuming.

 

[Varminterror]

I bet anyone could hit steel at 500 yards with a 6.5 Grendel SBR after some practice.

I’ve trained dozens of shooters in long range marksmanship in the last 25yrs - it’s a safe bet that putting big targets at mid ranges is attainable for almost anyone. But I’d bet you’d need more practice than most.

 

[MechaDragon]

I’ve trained dozens of shooters in long range marksmanship in the last 25yrs - it’s a safe bet that putting big targets at mid ranges is attainable for almost anyone. But I’d bet you’d need more practice than most.

Ive hit 500, not with Grendel no, never shot the round. 556 - yes, 308 - yes. Unfortunately those are the only two cartridges Ive ever shot that are even capable of accuracy at such range.

Eh, I guess I could have attempted with the AK, but I just assumed there was no chance. Not the most accurate thing out there after all.

While Im no military marksman, I know how to handle a gun, thank you very much. Oh and some of my friends who owned the rifles that I was allowed to shoot were actually ex-military and helped me out with my technique.

One example - his name is Timothy, unfortunately don't know his division or anything like that but he was stationed in Okanawa, Japan and then was deployed to Syria whenever that whole chemical weapons thing happened.

Should give you a rough estimate of my age. We were in the same graduation class after all. I do know his branch was the Marines. He joined because his grandfather was a Marine. All-around good guy.

Edit: Sorry meant Syria, not Serbia. The Syrian Chemical Weapons attack on their own citizens - thats what Timothy was involved in.

 

[tarosean]

9mm perfectly acceptable for home defense, especially from a PCC that can push it accurately out to 100 yards with plenty of repeated hits with fairly rapid fire, see

I don't have a 100yrd foyer, I guess I am just a poor Texan.

 

[westernrover]

Oh but wait wasn't the 1911 originally 45 cal only? So how about specifically 9mm semi-auto handguns?

Browning designed several automatics for Colt more than a decade before the M1911. The pistol that became the M1911 was originally chambered in a 9mm cartridge that we call the 38 ACP or 38 Super today. Back then it was known as the 9x23 SR (semi-rimmed) or the 38 ACP.

Most people were convinced 9mm's or 38's were good. Take note that these are the same caliber. The 9mm are 0.356 inches and the 38's are 0.357 inches -- a thousandth of an inch difference. This caliber goes all the way back to the 1851 Colt Navy. Maybe it goes back farther. I don't know all the trivia, but the reason I mention the 1851 Colt Navy is because it was an incredibly influential side-arm. Unlike the enormous saddle-mounted cavalry revolvers, it was truly a side-arm. There were pocket revolvers for CCW in the mid 19th century, but the 1851 was a serious combat-proven weapon and a man was well-armed with one or two whether he had a horse to carry them or not.

Later, in 1873, Colt chambered their cartridge revolver (the most iconic Colt Single Action Army) in 45 Colt basically because of Army-logic. The 45 Colt would be replaced by the 38 Colt in 1892, again because Army. Complaints about performance in the Phillipine-American War (1899-1902) resulted in the Army going back to 45. You'll notice a theme here that will be repeated several times. The Army adopts a "better" technology. It's tested by war. People complain. The Army goes back, but not always for the better. Eventually they move forward again, and along the way there are always people that aren't satisfied, and always people ready to make money selling the next thing.

The 45 Colt wouldn't fit in an automatic, so the Army and Browning developed the 45 ACP, more or less duplicating the ballistics in a shorter cartridge using smokeless propellant instead of gunpowder (what we call "black powder"). Then Browning was tasked with changing his handgun design to fit the 45 ACP and the result was the M1911. That went for a while before it was replaced with another 38 cartridge, the 9x19mm which had originated even earlier (most people say it was 1901, but the parent case goes back farther). The US Army did this primarily to adopt the NATO standard, but also no doubt because of magazine capacity.

You should see the parallels in rifle cartridges. I'll only go back as far as the .30-06. It worked fine and some thought the 7.62x51 was the ideal optimization for a box-magazine fed update to the M1 Garand, the M-14. But others saw a revolutionary leap in technology with an intermediate cartridge, for which the 5.56x45 was chosen. There is no doubt this was a profound technological change. But wars happened and some people complained. Were the criticisms valid? Did they warrant some tweaking or was the only solution to adopt a completely different chambering? Has the M855A1 resolved the problems? Would the 6.5 Grendel resolve the problems with 5.56x45? Will the 277 Fury? Were the problems with it real or imagined?

You seem to be pretty sure there must be something wrong with it and that 6.5 Grendel is the solution, even though you have never shot it. Maybe you should get a job for the Army.

EDIT: NVM I googled it. Mauser C92 circa 1896. Wow, did not realize 9mm semi autos were that old.

Thats just so odd, why were our police still using 38 special into the 80's? I can understand 357 Mag revolvers thats a powerful round close to the power of 10mm Auto, but why the 38 special? 9mm must have been expensive as hell back then to just completely dismiss a semi auto over a 38 special revolver.

Oh well, at least some opted for 44 Mag here and there.

We see a similar development with law-enforcement standards that have also long been influential to citizen carry practices in the US. Again, the 1851 Colt Navy (a 38 caliber revolver) was popular with law enforcement in the US. With the advent of cartridge revolvers, law enforcement adopted 38 caliber cartridges (among others, because certainly their practices weren't as uniform as the Federal army). Law enforcement never had the complaints the Army did around 1900 because they never fought Maori warriors. US law enforcement wouldn't encounter anything resembling bullet-resistance until the 1930's with the popularization of cars, bootlegging, and body armor. Cartridges like the 38 Long Colt, 38 S&W, and the 38 Special were popular (and so were some 32's) with the police. It was in the 30's that S&W introduced the 357 Magnum to address concerns about penetrating car bodies and make-shift body armor used by organized crime. Really, it was mostly a marketing thing because a perceived need was created by sensationalized media and Colt stood ready to fill the need with the 38 "Super" (really nothing other than the 38 ACP which Browning had designed in 1900.)

Here's why the 357 Magnum worked: Revolver cartridges like the 38 Special originated when gunpowder was used. These cases provided a large volume for gunpowder and operated at low pressures. Double-base (nitrocellulose and nitrglycerine) smokless propellants did not need such large case volumes because they operated at much higher pressures. Hence the 9mm Luger has a much smaller case. This was essential to fit it into the grip of pistols like the Luger P08. Revolver cartridges like the 38 Special also adopted double-based smokeless propellants, but they did not need to shrink their case volume because the cartridges were held in the cylinder, not the grip. So they just operated at lower pressure. The 38 Special was and is at least as effective as the 9x19mm when it is used well. 38 Special should have a 6" barrel, from which its ballistics can be superior to 9x19mm from the 4" barrel typical for pistols chambered therein. 38 Special should also have a superior bullet design owing to the fact it does not require to function on a feed ramp. While the 158-grain lead round-nose can hardly be expected to perform better than a 9mm round-nose FMJ, there were few other options for the 9mm until more recent decades where the 9mm hollowpoints have struggled at times. The 38 had very effective cast lead bullets going back 100 years and today enjoys the same bullet tech of any modern cartridge.

Toward the end of the 1920's, as performance demands increased, the revolver cases were begun to be loaded with larger charges of double-based smokeless propellants, first by handloaders, and then by the factories. The 38/44 was nothing but a 38 Special loaded to higher pressures (a little bit lower than that of 38 Super or 9mm Luger). With its much larger case volume, it produced higher velocities than either and with heavier bullets. S&W could take the pressures even higher but before they did that, they lengthened the case slightly to achieve two things: first, to prevent the high-pressure cartridges being loaded in weak, old 38 caliber handguns from the gunpowder era, and second to gain even more performance. The result was the 357 Magnum. It operated at the same pressure as the 38 Super or 9mm Luger, but with a much larger case volume inherited from its gunpowder (black powder) heritage. The 357 Magnum staved off the possibility of US law enforcement adopting the Colt automatic pistol (1911) to acquire the 38 Super's performance. It allowed law enforcement to maintain the revolver as the standard side arm.

Why US police adhered to revolvers through most of the 20th century is interesting, and also unique to America. I can only summarize it briefly enough by explaining that they weren't willing to give up two critical criteria. The first is that the gun could be operated without manipulating a safety that with only minimal training would be liable to operator errors resulting in the gun being on safe when it was needed to fire, or the gun being off safe when firing was least desired. The gun could be carried with a loaded chamber and no manual of arms would be required other than pulling the trigger. There would be no need manipulate a safety or to chamber a round if the gun were to be carried with an empty chamber in lieu of a safety. The second is that the gun would have a long and heavy double-action trigger that would work toward ensuring that only the most deliberate shots were taken, minimizing accidental discharges.

I mentioned that these things were unique to the US. Elsewhere in the world it was not like this, but consider how it must have been. In some places, law enforcement officers were compelled to carry their automatics with empty chambers (referred to as "Condition 3," "Israeli Carry," and popularized by William Fairbairn in the 1940's after he had served as the chief of the Shanghai Municipal Police in the 1930's and implemented this practice there in China. This practice sucked for the people that were compelled to go around wearing a uniform in lawless places with an empty gun. Was their safety marginalized because they were only China men and Sikhs? Consider the alternative: law enforcement officers in other places went around with single-action triggers and minimal training. If a Russian or German citizen in the 1930's was unintentionally killed by a careless, negligent, poorly-trained officer of those states mishandling a single-action trigger, so what? Who cared? Were they going to sue the Gestapo? I think the US adherence to revolvers was a result of it uniquely caring about both its officers and citizens. Unfortunately, there was also dogma in the practice and a dogmatic adherence to point-shooting and a reluctance to adopt moon-clips or even speed-loaders wore on officer safety. By the 1980's, it had become apparent that carrying revolvers was no longer tenable for law enforcement. For the individual citizen, the revolver remains uniquely well-suited.

Consider what it is that US law enforcement has adopted. The Glock-style action was introduced around 1986. What was unique about it? It offered the same manual of arms as a revolver -- no manual safety, just pull the trigger. It should be clear that Glock didn't invent this action or the polymer frame and law enforcement agencies were slow to adopt Glock because they were an unfamiliar vendor. Instead, S&W and Sig DA/SA pistols (evolved from the Walther P-38's action) were adopted first. These offered the double-action pull on the first shot, negating the need for a manual safety, but subsequent shots offered a single-action trigger (a benefit for some, detriment for others, while others just lamented it wasn't consistent one way or the other). The consistent, long, striker-fired action of Glock-style pistols was eventually adopted because it was supposed to offer the benefits of the revolver's double-action, but be easier to shoot, have a higher capacity, and reload faster. There's no doubt it has a higher capacity. It doesn't really reload faster than moon-clips, but it's still fair to say it needs reloading less often. The real questions are whether it can offer the same benefits as the revolver and be easier to shoot. Some people have a hard time with a double-action revolver trigger. They find it too long and hard. But that's what makes it safe. When the pistol's trigger and reset is made lighter and shorter and ever lighter and shorter to make it easier and faster to shoot in gun games and tactical LARPing, it loses its safety. The polymer guns have just kept getting lighter, which also doesn't make them easier to shoot, just more comfortable to carry.

 

[someguy2800]

Go shoot a 150 lb animal with a 9mm handgun and your 6.5 grendel and you will see for yourself the difference between a handgun round and a rifle round. I've done that and so have others in here trying to talk to you from a base of real world experience.

A 12.5" SBR 6.5 grendel would be a great fun rifle and I hope you buy one and go enjoy it and report back to us what you like about it and don't like about it after shooting a couple thousand rounds.

 

[someguy2800]

Paul Harrell would be disappointed in you, and so am I.

Paul Harrell owns guns and actually shoots them. He doesn't collect test data from random sources and regurgitate them based on no experience. Less talk, more do. Good luck with your endeavors.

 

[MechaDragon]

@westernrover Interesting history lesson, I do actually enjoy the occasional history channel piece on war and weapons and that was indeed an interesting read. Thanks for that .

@someguy2800 Oh absolutely there is a massive difference, I never would claim otherwise.

But that wasn't really the point. The point was simply - the 9mm cartridge has served thousands upon thousands of Americans in defense situations without fail - well unless the bad guy gets a hit first. But that is not a failure of the weapon.

And of course hunting is a much different activity than defense. In a defensive situation I am simply looking to incapacitate, not kill. I will not cause the loss of human life on purpose, EVER.

So as long as the bad guy drops to the ground and drops his weapon so I can take control of it, then my 9mm cartridge has done its job. Doesn't need to be anything more, or anything less.

I don't have a 100yrd foyer, I guess I am just a poor Texan.

No worries, I live in the city. My yard is maybe 10 yards long and Im right off a main, busy street. Another reason why my rifle must be discreet. People around here can have a tendency to freak out if you walk outside with a massive rifle case in your hands.

Not that I care too much, its my given right after all to have a rifle so they can screw off, but I think its a neat little bonus to a carry-anywhere SBR. It will just be sitting in a hiking-style backpack and nobody will have a clue.

Ive also set up a separate bag with 3-day survival setup should I get lost or whatever and I have left room for an SBR and some ammunition. Pretty neat little contingency setup.

While I await to see if the ammunition prices of 6.5G and 6mm ARC stabilize, I could carry the PCC to test out the setup and weight. Not that a Grizzly is going to give a damn if I pelt him with some tiny 9mm. Eh, maybe if I just dump the whole magazine - I might stop one then. 33 rounds of anything aught to hurt like hell.

Luckily on my hunting trips with the lady we have only even seen a bear once - certainly looked Grizzly but he was a long way off at dusk - hard to tell.

But he was pretty chillax, he didn't care at all that we were there. Its a good thing that most bears are pretty chill creatures if you leave them alone and there are no young around. Honestly Id rather not kill a bear if at all possible. I think they are pretty neat creatures and I would just rather not.

But after seeing him, and being well aware of what kind of damage they can do, you definitely need to be prepared if you are headed into their territory.

 

[MechaDragon]

Paul Harrell owns guns and actually shoots them. He doesn't collect test data from random sources and regurgitate them based on no experience. Less talk, more do. Good luck with your endeavors.

Paul Harrell also advocates for learning and properly researching before making a decision. Although I can agree that "Trying before Buying" is your best option. Unfortunately I am unable to do so with 6.5G or 6mm ARC but Ive shot an AK, can't be TOO different in the recoil department considering basically the same casing. Its just AK with way better ballistics really .

Thanks for the luck, Im sure I will enjoy it when the time rolls around.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

If you're charged by a grizzly and all you're carrying is the 6.5 G you should save the first round for yourself to save the bear some trouble! A pop-gun like that is inadequate for big bears. Around here if folks carry a sidearm in the woods it starts with a '4' (or they go larger) and few would consider a long gun below the power range of a 12ga or an ought-six (the latter being the bare minimum). I seriously doubt the 6.5 G has any advantage over the .556 or .300 Blackout for big bears. Although for sake of completeness I will concede that a guy in AK killed a grizzly with a Krinkov in 5.45, seems like he shot it two dozen times though. Still, survival is graded pass/fail!

I was once quite intrigued by the 6.5 Grendel but that curiosity fizzled when the cheap steel cased stuff went away. Ammo went from $.20/round to a buck a pop pretty much overnight. I can shoot 5.56 for considerably under half that price or shoot my .300 Blackout all day for $.60/round. IMO the 6.5 G is on life support, not a ton of love out there among manufacturers of rifles or ammo companies. Wish I'd have laid in a stash of the stuff when you could get if $200/case. But since I'm not a hunter, the .300 Blackout does everything I need a carbine to do, and I have a few in .556 for the many things it does well. I doubt any loading of the 6.5 G will stop a guy any quicker inside of 30 feet than a 110gr-125gr out of a .300 Blackout.

 

[MechaDragon]

If you're charged by a grizzly and all you're carrying is the 6.5 G you should save the first round for yourself to save the bear some trouble! A pop-gun like that is inadequate for big bears. Around here if folks carry a sidearm in the woods it starts with a '4' (or they go larger) and few would consider a long gun below the power range of a 12ga or an ought-six (the latter being the bare minimum). I seriously doubt the 6.5 G has any advantage over the .556 or .300 Blackout for big bears. Although for sake of completeness I will concede that a guy in AK killed a grizzly with a Krinkov in 5.45, seems like he shot it two dozen times though. Still, survival is graded pass/fail!

I was once quite intrigued by the 6.5 Grendel but that curiosity fizzled when the cheap steel cased stuff went away. Ammo went from $.20/round to a buck a pop pretty much overnight. I can shoot 5.56 for considerably under half that price or shoot my .300 Blackout all day for $.60/round. IMO the 6.5 G is on life support, not a ton of love out there among manufacturers of rifles or ammo companies. Wish I'd have laid in a stash of the stuff when you could get if $200/case. But since I'm not a hunter, the .300 Blackout does everything I need a carbine to do, and I have a few in .556 for the many things it does well. I doubt any loading of the 6.5 G will stop a guy any quicker inside of 30 feet than a 110gr-125gr out of a .300 Blackout.

Ya thats my biggest hangup with 6.5G and 6mm ARC as well - ammo cost. Its straight up rediculous, at a time when most ammo costs are down. 6mm ARC kinda makes since because its brand new but 6.5 Grendel doesn't have much of an excuse considering we make our AK rounds here in the states now thanks to the sanctions on Russia.

But why would you say 6.5G is inadequate for bear? How can that be? 10mm is the cartridge that most carry in a Handgun when venturing into bear territory.

Several Grizzly attacks are known to have survivors who used 10mm to save their own lives. Generally 7-8 rounds of 10mm will stop a Grizzly. So now Im here with way more powerful with a full-blown rifle round traveling at very high speeds. Surely it could take them down

 

[Phaedrus/69]

But why would you say 6.5G is inadequate for bear? How can that be? 10mm is the cartridge that most carry in a Handgun when venturing into bear territory.

Several Grizzly attacks are known to have survivors who used 10mm to save their own lives. Generally 7-8 rounds of 10mm will stop a Grizzly. So now Im here with way more powerful with a full-blown rifle round traveling at very high speeds. Surely it could take them down

There are few places to legally hunt Grizzlies but if you showed up to a hunt your guide would not let you hunt with a 6.5 G! It simply doesn't have enough penetration to stop a bear quickly with a frontal shot, and probably wouldn't reliably do the job with a head shot. The problem is that the bullets are simply too small to penetrate reliably. Setting aside your highly dubious assertion that the 10mm is the "most carried" sidearm for Grizzly defense, bear in mind (no pun intended) that it packs a 200gr hard cast bullet with a broad flat meplat that will stay oriented forward and penetrate several feet of tissue. A 90-100gr bullet from rifle will not perform the same even if it has much higher KE. I'd say the true "king of bear defense handguns" is the .44 Magnum. It's not "the best" whatever that is but it's old enough and widespread enough to have been used in this role extensively. Lots of keyboard kommandos tout the 10mm for bears but I can't think of a single verified case of it being used to stop a charging grizzly although it's probably happened. In general terms, handguns and rifles rely on different mechanisms to wound. But a 305gr hard cast from a .44 Mag will go completely through a 3' diameter round of larch wood and still go deep enough into the dirt that you can't even find it. That's now how most common rifle rounds behave, generally.

I don't hunt much anymore but for dangerous game the best rounds are, in order of best to worst, a big heavy bullet going fast, then a big heavy bullet going slow, then anything else.

FWIW, I live in Montana. If you live in a place where "bears" means black bears then yeah, the 6.5 G or a 9mm sidearm is probably enough.

 

[Hookeye]

OP
........ever killed a deer?

 

[Hookeye]

A real student of ballistics would not limit themselves to one rifle.

I remember the old gun mags where there were loads for small game to big game, for one cartridge. Example: 30-06.

Thought that concept ridiculous.

Sell plasma, buy a 2nd rifle

 

[Walkalong]

Enough bickering, enough pages, and enough reported posts from here, so we’re done

 

[Spats McGee]

Enough bickering, enough pages, and enough reported posts from here, so we’re done

Concur.