In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
6.8 SPC VS. 6.5 Grendel
mrcaz
Member Posts: 38 ✭✭
I have seen by some postings that the 6.8 spc has some detractors it appears that is basicaly a .223 necked up to .270 or am I wrong? How does it compare to the 6.5 grendel and what is the base case for it?[?]
Comments
I'll second what 5mmgunguy has said. The 6.8 is the 30 Rem shortened and necked down to take a .277 dia bullet.
The 6.5 Grendel is the 6mm PPC necked up to 6.5mm and the shoulders are blown out just a bit more and forward. The shoulders being moved forward is to help with capacity without increasing length. The base of the 6.5 is .440 and the base of the 6.8 is .420. The 6.5 Grendel has the same capacity while remaining slightly shorter. That allows it to handle longer, better BC bullets. The other detractor of the 6.8 is that no one really makes high BC bullets for it. In time that may change as some are starting to do that. In a longer barrel both rounds can produce healthy velocities. In shorter barrels both rounds tend to suffer. They both work well for point blank to 200 yds. But beyond that they both suffer from natural drop of slow starting rounds. My issue with that is I would prefer a round that is flat shooting out to 300 yds. Meaning a point blank zero for a man size target.
The 6.5 Grendel has the advantage in the long run though in that it has bullets in 6.5mm that have great BC's and over distance don't lose velocity as much as the .277 bullets do. Therefore not having so much drop. The 6.5 even exceeds the abilities of the .308/7.62 NATO past 600 yds. But it certainly loses out out to 300+ yds. where the 7.62 will hold a point blank zero.
Cartridges like rifles, barrelmakers, stockmakers, scopes, bolt handles and anything else that comes to the market new goes through a process that is cyclical in nature. There is the exuberance of the newest and best, then the testing phase where we all shoot it or use it and then we have the reality phase where we all come to grips with the real world analysis as opposed to what the advertising copy states. This is a consistent cycle that gets repeated frequently. The circle is coming around, that's all.
I'm not condemning the world of advertising or the copywriters. Ask yourself if you would buy a product that was advertised as being the same as an existing product or being just O.K. or even mediocre in reality. Probably not.
Here is an illustration of the cases and another that shows seating depth:
6.5 Grendel_6.8SPC
6.8SPC_6.5 Grendel
The sectioned cases are a little misleading since the bullets aren't really comparable in design but you get the idea. There is a slight difference between the empty case capacities but when comparable bullets are seated to magazine length, there is no meaningful difference.
As with most ideas, there is no one best solution to every situation. It's usually a case of compromise. The folks that are disappointed once again by the compromises are usually the most vocal and let it be known through the accessibility of the Internet.
Best.
I think nononsense brought up a very good point about marketability of either round. Why would the normal joe go out and buy either knowing the velocity isn't going to be what a .270 Win or .260 Rem could be. If put into the civilian mindset the mediocre velocities seem pretty lame. But if put into strictly the military mindset where both rounds had their foundations, both rounds make a ton of sense. I haven't necessarily played that factor up in my posts as maybe I should have. I'm glad to see that something is being considered over the 5.56 that we have stuck by over the years.
Many have felt that that the 5.56 mm does not have the knockdown power required on a battlefield. I feel that way too. What many military analysts have found though, is not only does the 30-06 have too much knock-down power, so does the .308...realisticly speaking. Other factors such as weight come into play too. Having plenty of knockdown power doesn't come in handy when you need more rounds, but can't carry them.
So, the bottom line is our boys are needing a round that has more knockdown than the 5.56. It needs to be way lighter than the 7.62 so they can carry it. Oh and one last thing, it has to have a flat trajectory out to as far as the average soldier will shoot. That's so he doesn't have to change the way he aims. When I was in, the Army considered 300m the outer limits of combat range but the rifle could shoot to 460m effectively. Now, it's 300 and 800. Even though the Army full well knows shots past 100m have a low probability of hitting.
The bottom line with these two cartridges is that they are both the closest compromise two different entities came up with to meet all the necessary requirements for a military cartridge. Enough hitting power but not too much weight...or recoil. It shoots flat enough to have one aim-point as far as a normal soldier can reasonably shoot. But can, with the right bullets hit a long ways off if a firearm is accurized to do that. Both will do a good job on game to reasonable ranges. With the right bullets that can be extended.
As far as some are concerned, the "lackluster" performance of the rounds kills interest. I think that is misplaced. Either of the rounds is an improvement over the 5.56. Even with the so-called "sub-par" real world performance. I think both rounds have limitations for use as sporting rounds. But, I think they could serve a very useful purpose to the military.
EDIT:
notpars,
I don't check the Stag Arms website out very much, if hardly all, but that is the first time I've heard of either the 6.8 SPC or the 6.5 Grendel being called a barrel burner. For all intents and purposes I would think that would be an extreme plus for both rounds as they don't have the powder capacity nor do they fling bullets down the barrel at hyperspeeds.
mrcaz,
One more note here about the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel. I have gone back and forth on what I want to buy next, and I've personally come to the conclusion I want a 6.5 Grendel in an AR. The case is short enough to handle a variety of bullets and still function well in a standard length magazine. Whereas the the 6.8 is not as versatile. It is limited to a 115 gr. bullet for normal seating. Anything heavier has to be seated too deep to really do any good. The ballistics aren't as 'hot' as a .260 Rem or any of the other newer competition oriented rounds but it still gets out and does the job as needed. I'm simply personally interested to see that it can do the job I would expect it can. After some research and a couple of in person demonstrations I've decided I want to work with it and see what I can do with it.
Edit:{again}
If you are looking at either on of those they are pretty much for "short range, HIGH knockdown capability ". Each could be used in a short AR platform for home defense if that was your need for buying on. Beyond 100 yds though the drop off would be terrible.
The 6.5 Grendel is a proprietary and Licensed cartridge. That means that Alexander Arms decides who can chamber for the cartridge and how much the license to do so will cost.
Evidently, Stag Arms chose not to pay for the privilege, so rather than state as much, they use the disclaimer that the Grendel burns out barrels faster. The 6.8 SPC case capacity is 34 grains of water. The Grendel case hold about 35 grains of water. When comparable bullets are seated to magazine length the case capacities are separated by less than one grain difference. So, if this one grain makes such a huge, barrel burning difference, so be it. Personally, I think it's BS.
Best.
mrcaz,
If this goes to 10 posts and gets locked before you have a satisfying answer to your second part, please feel free to start another thread.
Best.