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.

6.5 Grendel

sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,453 ✭✭✭
Guys,

I've been reading some info on the 6.5 Grendel and am kind of puzzled as to the reality of it. I am under the understanding that a 6.5G is a 6.5PPC with the shoulder moved slightly forward and blown out just a tad (.007?). I already understand the ballistic advantage of the 6.5 caliber, however:

The point to this is there are some amazing ballistics from this round using a 144 gr. bullet. So amazing in fact, according to one author,(A U.S. Army officer), that the round is superior in ballistics to the 7.62X51 NATO using a 147 FMJ bullet. I don't think it is true but would like someone with experience with the 6.5G to verify.
What kind of velocities are you really getting with it and what kind of drops/windages are you actually experiencing on a long range trial? My best information tells me that this round produces about 400 fps slower than the 6.5X55 Swede. Any input appreciated.

We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>

Comments

  • JustCJustC Member Posts: 16,056 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I can't see the 144gr anything working all that well. (lapua FMJBT) A respected loader on another board is a huge fan of the swede, and even with a match tube and trued action could not get the same satisfaction as with the 140gr Berger, sierra SMK, hornady a-max, lapua scenar 139gr, etc. The 144's were the worst of the bunch.

    as far as a PPC case pushing a 6.5mm pill in the 140gr range is gonna peter out pretty quick. I can't see it outdoing the 308win on anything but paper. YMMV

    why chase the game when the bullet can get em from here?....
    Got Balistics?
  • nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,928 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I did some real serious looking at this combination a number of years ago as did thousands of target shooters, I'm sure. Some of us fooled around with this for a while and then it just sort of drifted away like so many other ideas.

    But with the return of the 6.5 Grendal, with all the hubbub, a few of us looked at it again recently. Using his design factors and loading parameters, we made up 3 barrels; 22", 24" and 26" for testing (LW #1300). We used the throat length of 2.255" first then we set the barrels back a bit and used the 2.455" second for heavier bullets.

    Results?

    Good cartridge, very accurate when the firearm and loads were up to it. The best bullets made all the difference in the accuracy because most of the other variables were the same or at least similar.

    Comparison?

    His justification was that it outperformed the M14 with the 7.62 Nato cartridge when fired at ranges up to 600 yards, except for remaining energy (duh).

    Interesting enough is that the M14 has a standard 22" barrel while his test bed AR15 had a 26" barrel. He tries to use a comparison between bullets using the 30 cal. 147 gr. FMJBT (440 BC) and the 6.5 cal. Lapua 144 gr. FMJBT (625 BC) but the data generated is based on the 123 gr. Lapua and the 130 gr. Norma Match, both 6.5 caliber. The military ball ammunition was held to the pressure level suited to the M14 not to the top levels achievable with a bolt action. The other plus points were that the cartridge was lighter than 7.62 and used less powder per shot, both real positive talking points with the military. It can be fired from the Colt 7.62x39 platform and magazines. This practice has been used by the advertising trade so much that they developed a phrase to identify it:

    "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B*** S***!"

    Our data lined up with the designer's when we compared apples to apples using the 130 Norma Match bullets. I did test it against my 6.5x55 (29" barrel) and used retromath (tech term...) to figure the velocities back to a 26" barrel. There were minor discrepancies but there are always a few. The Swede wins in all catagories when the variables are the same. I don't think that he accomplishes much as far as his parameters are concerned, except that it could be a fine target cartridge.

    Would I take it into battle? No, I don't think so. I'm a basic kind of guy, I want to send our soldiers out with the best gear available minus all the computer crap and other wasted weight. We need to think like our forefathers did when they battled the British, sneaky and stealthy, not like the Brits did and we are doing now. Give them a great cartridge, a greater battle rifle with superb training and let's get on with it. Editorial phase off... sorry.

    Targets, yes. Battle rifle, no. I still like the 7.62 Nato as a battle round.

    600 yard drops and windage (approx) w/300 yard zero:

    6.5 Grendal = 64" drop/ 24" wind./1800 fps/948 ft-lbs. (130 Norma Match)

    6.5 x 55 = 48" drop/ 20" wind./ 2100 fps/ 1300 ft-lbs. (130 Norma Match)

    .308 Win. = 55" drop/ 26" wind./ 1900 fps/ 1233 ft-lbs. (155 gr. Lapua Match)

    Loads set for 58,000 psi., winds at a gentle 5-10 mph. approx.

    I'm sorry if this is long but it is all distilled down from about 80 pages of notes.
  • haroldchrismeyerharoldchrismeyer Member Posts: 2,213
    edited November -1
    I have to ask the question.. Why??? There are plenty of cartridges that will do very close to the same job, and most of them don't require special brass, dies, etc. Just chamber it in .243 and save all the expense. Sorry, I just don't understand some of the reasoning behind some of these new things, other than to spend money on research. If you really need a long distance rifle, issue the troops the M14. Or claim some of the Garands the CMP has.
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,453 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thanks, for the replies all!

    You all went where I was going with this question. I too am in large favor of bringing back the 7.62 as a standard round. I wasn't too sure the statistics given could have come from a 144 gr. bullet from a Grendel case. or even possibly a 123 or 130 gr bullet.
    The Ordnance board, however, has felt that it is too much weight to carry and recovery time after shots is too long(7.62 NATO). I disagree with the latter citing a lot of the features used today to eliminate recoil, i.e.muzzle brakes and buffer systems, and the former citing the ammunition reserve will be kept on motorized support.
    5th GRP SF and someone started working the 6.8 SPC(outside army channels, the only way to get things done) and have found 'moderate' success with it. It wouldn't be my personal choice, but I think it has a good advantage over the .223 as a combat round. The writer of the 6.5 Grendel article(thesis , actually) expounds on the virtues of it giving more energy downrange @ 600 yds than the 7.62. I very much disagreed with that and wrote this post to find firsthand who had dealt with the 6.5 Grendel for verification of velocities measured. I appreciate the accuracy notes also.

    My thanks to you all. -Todd

    We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>
  • JustCJustC Member Posts: 16,056 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    if they had any sense, they would look hard at the 6.5mm bore, but in the 308 case (also known as the 260 rem). Faster follow up shots, and with a good magazine length, they could feed reliably, the 140gr class of pills and wail on the enemy at long range with HIGH BC and great penetration. But I guess the 7.62 will do in the mean time.

    I would like to use a black rifle chambered with a 20" 1:8 tube in 260rem[;)] Talk about a battle rifle[}:)]

    why chase the game when the bullet can get em from here?....
    Got Balistics?
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,453 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    JustC

    I'm with you on that one. I would prefer also to go back to a Garand/M14 style receiver. Less jamming and easier to unjam when they do. Use light composites for a stock and you have about the same weight rifle as the M16A2. They can be made to be accurate out to 1K. with some serious work for sniper/marksman support. It would only entail a new barrel for the M40/M24 series rifles to get extreme long distance accuracy too. It would also work well in a short barrel SOT style weapon with a lot more knockdown at close range than the .223. I've suggested all this to a retired CSM who sits on the Ballistics board at Ft. Benning. He told me lots of things are under consideration...that may be one of them.
    I still didn't think the 6.5 Grendel had the power to produce near the velocities stated in the authors thesis. I understand wanting to step up from the .223 and acknowledging the 7.62 does have the drawbacks stated by the Army(weight/recoverability). But, going to a round that doesn't really have power is just another bandaid fix. The 260 Rem. would be a good fix.
    Again, it would entail one round for everyone and all the flavor of being in the military would go away. Anyways, all, thanks again for the replies.

    Apr. 29,2005 -0235

    Nononsense,

    Thanks much on the spreadsheet! It's a great comparison on what the 6.5 can do in the air.
    Since you are more familiar with the 6.5 how close would the 108 and 123 gr. Scenars be to a military FMJ bullet(BC-wise)? A relative projection in your opinion. The 144 I assume would be usable for military purposes, or at least very close?
    Getting back to the "apples to apples" in your earlier post what would you think the loss conversion might be if the Grendel was used in a gas operated weapon with a 20" barrel(of good efficiency)?
    These figures are a good case for the Grendel provided it could match up relatively close in a gas-operated weapon. Not like anything we say on this forum will change U.S. Army Ordnances opinion of what our soldiers need to shoot.

    One more question before you get a chance to reply. What is the weight of the Grendel case? If somewhere near 130 grs. we have a true wight saving measure over the 7.62. Also from above is the 'retro-math is already done and these are gas operation velocities?

    We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>
  • nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,928 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Here is a comparison between all of the cartridges that we've discussed:

    http://www.65grendel.com/graphics/grendelballistics.pdf
  • nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,928 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Todd,

    I'm really on the run right now but I will post again late this afternoon with that information. Sorry...

    Best.
  • dclocodcloco Member Posts: 2,967
    edited November -1
    The 6.5/.264 caliber is an odd round.

    Nobody, has REALLY pushed the potential of this caliber where it could or should be. Some have tried - 6.5 Grendel, 264 mag, etc, etc....

    But LOOK at the bullet! The bugger is nearly a INCH long....so...you have a slender, aerodynamic shape, that has mass (measured in HOW the bullet will react on impact)....and compare this to your favorite caliber.

    Personally, I believe, a 264 bullet, pushed to 3100/3200 FPS, in 143-146 grains would be the answer to most, if not all, of the needs requested. Versatile, accurate, able to load in an autoloader, etc, etc.

    Combine this with a muzzle brake.....medicine for any 250+ pound critter (2 or 4 legged).

    Remember...applying math to ANY of the calibers might get us close, but something like this needs to be built and tested.
  • hedgehopper62hedgehopper62 Member Posts: 636 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I had carried 30 carbine,m16 and shot expert with both not much of a stopping power weapon,i just aquired a 1949 FN sniper version in 7mm
    i have never handled a nicer shooting weapon.would like to see it in the 6.5 on a 308 case what a supper military weapon just cant beat old browning's design.tks hedge
  • nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,928 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The 'loss conversion' using any of the three bullets below will amount to about 25 FPS/inch. The variable here is the barrel since velocities can be different barrel to barrel. I've had 2 barrels from the same run of steel vary by 70 FPS with all other factors being the same. But in the long run on average, the velocity loss is usually about 25 FPS/inch.

    BC will vary with velocity and altitude:

    108 Lapua Scenar = 478 BC

    123 Lapua Scenar = 547 BC

    144 Lapua FMJBT = 625 BC

    I haven't found the time to work with gas guns much since most of what I do involves the need for a more stable test bed which is a bolt gun. The AR type platforms don't lose that much velocity to bolt guns due to the design of the gas system. I tested an AR-10T (.308) against a same length barrel bolt gun and both performed with great similarity. I was even impressed with the accuracy of the AR-10T. It should be just fine to compare same length barrels in general terms. Like I state above, the barrels themselves can produce more velocity variability.

    My Grendal cases are made from an older batch of Sako 6PPC brass and a random selection of 10 pieces unprimed weighed 109 grains each.

    I just got in so this is maybe a little shorter than it should be. If you need some more info just post it up.

    Best.
  • JustCJustC Member Posts: 16,056 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    nononsense, It is funny how BC is rated by the companies these days. I have been forming the cases this week for my 6.5x55AI with 140gr a-max and SST pills. They rated the BC of the 140gr a-max at .550 from the company, but I can't even begin to feel that one. I figure it more at .600 and higher as even forming brass with sub max loads in the parent caliber, I still wasted a tenderloin tonight at ~300yds while holding dead on with a 1" high 100yd zero. I should have been lower!! I clicked nothing into the glass and held mid deer. I did no chrono work because of forming cases, but guessed with the nosler 140 partition in the manual showing ~2650 from a lilja 23" 8 twist with this 50.2gr load of RL22 and I was only using a 26" 8 twist and guessed a MV at 2700fps for my drop chart (much energy used to blow out the brass???). I would give todays slick pills some more BC than advertised, but I am not set up to prove it. I have also gotten much higher trajectory than the inserted factory BC with the 162gr a-max in the 7mm rem mag.

    why chase the game when the bullet can get em from here?....
    Got Balistics?
  • nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,928 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Justin,

    Man, don't do that! Wasting a tenderloin! Ouch! Makes my mouth water, thinking about a good tenderloin on the grill. I might have to get in the freezer and dig around... should be one or two in there somewhere...

    Yes, BC's have turned into a real buggaboo for shooters these days. Companies have been very inconsistant with the numbers over the last few years, although I haven't had any real problems with Hornady usually. Bergers have to be adjusted and I run hot and cold with Lapua as in I check all of them but I only have to adjust some of them.

    For the AMAX, my notes read 0.615 BC in most instances except up here at 5500 ft. I adjust up a bit. Your load, again according to more notes, seems to be in the neighborhood of (+,-) 2900 fps. But the Re-22 can have enough lot group variations to make you want to tear your hair out. There will be some differentiation because of the case expanding into the AI shape and size but I think you're running right up there in the velocity department. That would account for the high shot. Wash that back through your external program and see what the chart says.

    I'm testing all bullets for longer ranges at 0-100 yds and 0-300 yds through my Oehler 43 just to be sure. Let me know what you find out.

    Best.
  • hardtymshardtyms Member Posts: 140 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think shooting times February issue has a big article on the 6.5 Grendel

    Load on Sunday shoot all week!!!
  • JustCJustC Member Posts: 16,056 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    nononsense,..I hope to utilize the chrono this next time across the box, as the cases will be formed and I can get an idea of what I will dealing with in the AI cases. I was figuring the BC at .6oo +/- if I were to have guessed, and your data puts them pretty much in that park. These things sre long snd slick with a fine tip on them. I have been really enjoying them.

    I will be VERY HAPPY if I can manage a .600+ BC at 2900fps. That load, even in this short 26" tube oughta get me out to 1000yds pretty supersonic[:p] Glad I decided not to sell the guys rig to somebody else and bought it for me when I got interested in this chambering. She went sub .5moa for 2 groups at 45.0 and 45.2gr during forming. If that is any indication of things to come.......[8D]

    You don't have any data for the BC of the 30cal 216gr Clinch River do you? I'm humping them at 3200fps and they are screwing down into tiny holes at 100yds.

    why chase the game when the bullet can get em from here?....
    Got Balistics?
  • JustCJustC Member Posts: 16,056 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    nononsense,..I hope to utilize the chrono this next time across the box, as the cases will be formed and I can get an idea of what I will dealing with in the AI cases. I was figuring the BC at .6oo +/- if I were to have guessed, and your data puts them pretty much in that park. These things sre long snd slick with a fine tip on them. I have been really enjoying them.

    I will be VERY HAPPY if I can manage a .600+ BC at 2900fps. That load, even in this short 26" tube oughta get me out to 1000yds pretty supersonic[:p] Glad I decided not to sell the guys rig to somebody else and bought it for me when I got interested in this chambering. She went sub .5moa for 2 groups at 45.0 and 45.2gr during forming. If that is any indication of things to come.......[8D]

    You don't have any data for the BC of the 30cal 216gr Clinch River do you? I'm humping them at 3200fps and they are screwing down into tiny holes at 100yds.

    why chase the game when the bullet can get em from here?....
    Got Balistics?
  • nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,928 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Justin,

    Unfortunately, I don't have any information about the 30 cal. 216 gr. Clinch River bullet. I have a couple of the other BC's for bullets that he makes but for some reason there are several of us west of the Mississippi that cannot get the Clinch River bullets to test let alone shoot for a season. I have been trying to get various calibers and weights for more than 3 years with NO success at all. I get excuses about lost e-mails, lost sales memos, not ready yet and every other reason but never any bullets. I have given up and I shoot any other bullets except Greg's. I thought that it was just me but I have since heard from a 1/2 dozen others with the same problem. I don't lose sleep over it because a good shooter can overcome a minor improvement by a single type of bullet. I like the bullets that I shoot now and my accuracy is as good as anyone's in the same tier. Besides that, I can get the bullets I need at anytime and virtually anywhere without dealing with someone that doesn't care about customers. End of rant...

    A couple of us have been re-working the 6.5 ideas that have been floating around for the last 15 years or so. When we track the loads, cases and bullets getting shot, we see a trend in case capacity and velocity occurring almost across the board. The folks shooting the 6.5x284 are cutting back on their velocities and the case is being underloaded with respect to its volume. Since most of us like to shoot full cases, we're checking alternative.

    I have never been a real fan of minimal velocity cartridges for long range shooting although I have tried several just for the heck of it. So I started looking for a case with about the right capacity to accomplish the velocities being touted for the highest degree of accuracy. Energy/velocity/capacity with the powders currently available points to the 6.5x55 Swede in the original form, long military throat and all. Gross capacity is 55 grains of H2O and with the bullets seated out, I am getting between 2875 FPS and 3050 FPS depending on which powder and which bullet. All from a Gary Schneider 28" barrel and at reasonable pressure. It's very comfortable to shoot but I don't recommend it for everyone, though.

    Here is a photo comparison of the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel in section. The Grendel is shown at 2.255" seating not the longer. I thought it was a good one to post here.

    261589.jpg
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,453 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Nononsense,

    That is a tremendous weight savings! About 1 pound per 100 rds. The powder load would be reduced by 2/5ths also and if we were to go to a 120-130 gr. bullet there would be another weight savings. Believe me it means a lot on a long range patrol. Although as stated earlier rarely does anyone go past some form of mechanical support that carries a lot more ammunition.
    I have only begun to start looking at the 6.5 myself. I went straight to the 7mm as I saw a better ballistic advantage to it. My target rifle is 7X57 that can shoot sub 1" groups @300. It isn't set up like a bench rest rifle though. But again I have to be careful not to get up in the weights where there are no savings.
    I haven't really liked the loading in 6.8SPC so far. First I heard it was a 115 gr. pushed to 3k then 2800, now 2600. I did hear that the 2600 was from a 13-14" SOT barrel. More maneuverable inside a building. The idea is supposed to do away with multiple type firearms on special operations..one round fits everybody. That is never going to really happen. Every operation someone has something new that they have to try. Thanks again for the data and ideas.

    We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>
  • JustCJustC Member Posts: 16,056 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    nononsense,..if I make the quantico matches at all this year, especially the nationals,..would you like me to pick you up some clinch river pills in any size?? I bought mine right from Greg as he always has a table full of pills and broughton barrel blanks, or was it border blanks? anywho, he is there with a table full of goodies. I think I payed $30 per hundred 216's. I REALLY would like to try the 147gr 6.5mm in the 6.5x55AI and the 6,5-06AI Both 8 twist. Rich Desimone set the IBS world record with the 147gr pills. Rich is a super nice guy and even let me check out the IOR Valdada (virgin in the market at that point) on his rifle. He told me to click and mess with it and do whatever, just set it back to his zero when I was done. That is the kind of shooter that makes this sport what it is.

    What 6.5 pills are you favoring? I have the 139gr lapua scenars that I am anxious to try, but I will work my load with SMK's, a-max, and bergers first, then jump to the clinch river pills after the charge range is right. The 140gr a-max was GREAT even during fireforming. No matter what anybody says, the SST and the a-max ARE NOT the same pill. I have yet to get consistency from the SST. The NBT blows it away every time in equal weights.

    why chase the game when the bullet can get em from here?....
    Got Balistics?
  • nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,928 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Justin,

    Thank you very much for the offer but I will pass. Nothing against Greg but I'm doing fine without them. It's very kind of you to even offer, though, I appreciate it. Nothing better than a group of shooters watching out for each other...

    He usually carries the Border Barrels that are cut rifled.

    I don't know Rich D. personally but we've traded e-mails a couple of times. Nice guy and pretty helpful to shooters over on Benchrest Central. The C.R 147's should be just right in the 6.5x55 AI. Per our conversation about the case capacity issue, I thought that you would enjoy reading this thread:

    http://www.benchrest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23019

    I usually have most of the manufacturers products for 22, 6mm, 6.5, 7mm and 30 cal. on my bench as well as a bunch of the custom makers. I'm waiting on some newer product from Norma right now and I will have an order in with Randy Robinette for some BIB's in 30 cal. There is a custom project in the back of my mind and I've found a bullet maker that will look at the drawings and at least consider it. Then there's a custom maker over in Germany that makes mono-metal bullets in the high performance bracket so I guess that I'll have to get some of those also. Gerard is too hard to get product from in SA so I'll try someone else. It's too bad because the bullets I did get to shoot were superb.

    In the order that I'm shooting right now it's Lapua (all 3 weights), Berger and the AMAX. Unusual but the AccuBonds are shooting like a house on fire in one of the 7mm's at 600 and over. Stand 50 of those up on your bench at a 1,000 match and wait for the stares...

    Best.


    sandwarrior,

    I agree about the weight savings as I mentioned before. I also agree about the 'one cartridge for all', it just won't work. It never has, we have too many widely varied missions to settle for just one cartridge. But I don't have any answers for that one. Natec has a solution to weight and brass conservation but I haven't been in touch recently to hear much about what's going on with that beyond a conversation at SHOTShow. http://www.natec-us.com/

    The 6.8 SPC is interesting but I don't see it in the future for the military but I've been wrong before. I don't have a use for it.

    That pendulum effect is coming back into play again with rifle weights. I've been using the big and heavy for quite awhile and now it's time to come down in weight and see if I can still hold onto the accuracy from the heavier rifles. Sporter weight intrigues me in some ways and definitely when I have to hump all that stuff for any distance. Unknown distance (tactical) competitions are tough on the body and the equipment when you aren't used to doing it every day... So lighter and stiffer rifles are on the menu.

    Great thread, thanks for getting it going and keeping us informed.

    Best.
  • JustCJustC Member Posts: 16,056 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    thanks for that info,..I'll work charges with lesser quality pills (money issue and I already have them anyway) and then jump to the Lapua, berger and make final tweeks.

    Did you hear that Jimmy Knox is going to retire and the family won't be continuing to make the JLK's? I wonder ifin he would sell me his equipment? I bet I am the 1000th person to ask, so it is doubtfull I'll ever be the new JLK guy[:(]

    What has your experience been with Cartaruccio's? JLK's?

    why chase the game when the bullet can get em from here?....
    Got Balistics?
  • nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,928 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Justin,

    That's sad news about Jimmy, he's a great bullet maker. Bob Cauterucio wants to retire also. Maybe we should pool our resources and buy both of them with the stipulation of 3 months training from each maker? Man, what a time that would be!

    I've shot both maker's bullets and I use more JLK's than I do Cauterucio's. My hyper-velocity .22 caliber is a 6.5 twist just for the JLK 90's, but it will also shoot his 80's and 75's. It's fun to shoot 1,000 yards with a 22 caliber, I like swimming against the current. His 210 VLD's are my choice for a wildcat .300 I'm working with as well.

    Best.
  • JustCJustC Member Posts: 16,056 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I may just make a call to them and see what the deal is. If they have not picked someone to sell to yet, I can make a pretty convincing argument for us[;)] Oh yeah, then following the circuits will be A WRITEOFF!!!!!!!![:p][:D]

    why chase the game when the bullet can get em from here?....
    Got Balistics?
  • reginhildreginhild Member Posts: 6 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by sandwarrior
    Guys,

    I've been reading some info on the 6.5 Grendel and am kind of puzzled as to the reality of it. I am under the understanding that a 6.5G is a 6.5PPC with the shoulder moved slightly forward and blown out just a tad (.007?). I already understand the ballistic advantage of the 6.5 caliber, however:

    The point to this is there are some amazing ballistics from this round using a 144 gr. bullet. So amazing in fact, according to one author,(A U.S. Army officer), that the round is superior in ballistics to the 7.62X51 NATO using a 147 FMJ bullet. I don't think it is true but would like someone with experience with the 6.5G to verify.
    What kind of velocities are you really getting with it and what kind of drops/windages are you actually experiencing on a long range trial? My best information tells me that this round produces about 400 fps slower than the 6.5X55 Swede. Any input appreciated.

    We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>


    The article you mention above states that the 6.5G retains more energy than the 7.62 NATO at 600meters.

    Apparently true: Looking at ballistic comparisons the 6.5G has less energy at shorter ranges then passes the 7.62 NATO in energy retained after 600meters. Just a simple case of pushing a higher BC bullet (retains velocity better).

    The 6.5G won't outdo the 7.62NATO at short range but can deliver more energy on target at longer ranges - either way not much difference in energy - the big advantage is 1/2 the recoil and weight reduction while keeping close to the same energy at intermediate ranges.
  • reginhildreginhild Member Posts: 6 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    PS: "Better Ballistics" is a simple case of which bullet has a higher BC unless you are talking about terminal ballistics.

    Take a 7.67mm round at 147gr and reduce it's weight only slightly to 144gr while reducing it's diameter to 6.5mm and you have a bullet that has a much higher BC.
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,453 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    reginhild,

    Terminal ballistics is the one thing all whoo-hooers always forget to mention. I personally believe the 7.62 will 'transfer' more energy to the target than will a 6.5mm(knockdown power). Something we sorely need in our military weapon of choice. However, the military has deemed it too hard to shoot for the average person.
    I do readily admit though that if the 6.5 is enough power to do the job and if it flies better would be a better choice to step up to from the .223, which has a terrible reputation for using two and three rounds to do a job that other rounds rquire only one.

    Thanks for your input

    We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>
  • reginhildreginhild Member Posts: 6 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    sandwarrior,

    I agree with the knockdown power statement. Bullet weight, velocity, frontal area, and design all play a role in terminal ballistics.

    The 7.62 has the advantage in frontal area + energy at short to medium ranges. Weights are almost exactly the same. Bullet design is a non issue as you can load a huge variety of bullets.

    The 6.5 advantage is more velocity at long range and 50% of the recoil. With the higher velocity and higher BC you also get less wind drift and less drop. Makes an excellent long range cartridge (6mm PPC competition shooters are switching to 6.5 Grendel) as well as improving on the 5.56.

    Question is: For long range combat use would you rather have a 6.5 Grendel or a 7.62 NATO? The Grendel delivers more energy at long range although with a slightly smaller frontal area. Does the higher velocity/energy trade off well for the slightly larger frontal area? How does wind drift, bullet drop, recoil reduction, weight of ammo play into your consideration?
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,453 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    reginhild,

    Answer to question: I personally like the 7.62. However other nations have used the 6.5 and the 7mm with success. I would certainly prefer any of them to the 5.56. The issue of trying to get the military to come to some median decision on a round will take forever. The 5.56 is inadequate as a combat round and military experts say (somewhat rightfully)that the 7.62 has a slough of shortcomings itself, i.e. weight and recoverability. Each time a dicovery is made with proof to back it, politics steps in and waters it down until it fails.
    In every combat theatre there is the need to reduce weight on the troops that actually have to go on the ground and take the land. they need to shoot a rifle they can easily handle that shoots well. The rifle should be capable of effectively engaging mass troops at 1000 yds. Many rounds have been looked at and none have been given hardly a nod. The 6.8SPC that started to take hold has now been nuetered to the point it won't keep a foothold. A "one round fits all" won't work in the specialty world but would work in the regular military. And for the money end it would take about the cost of one AF/Navy fighter to revamp the entire military to a more effective round....and rifle.

    Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

    We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>
  • reginhildreginhild Member Posts: 6 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Good article at www.gunblast.com

    http://www.gunblast.com/AlexanderArms_65Grendel.htm

    The gunblast guys tested the Grendel with factory and handloads and picked up 3 deer. Shot 1/3rd MOA groups at 300 yards with handloads!
  • solidpoint2solidpoint2 Member Posts: 2 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Recent efforts to exactly match the ballistics of the 7.62x51 by the developers of the Grendel have focused on the 120 grain FMJBT and are scary close - including a scant difference of 75 ft lbs of energy at long range.

    The terminal effects of the Grendel at shorter range will NOT match the 7.62x51 - AND WHO CARES!!! The 7.62 has always been overpowered for close range work, as it will pass clean thru a human body, and is on the other hand too large a diameter to carry energy downrange well. When we face opponents with body armor the diameter question will become more important.

    Since the total weapon weight is to some extent a function of the weight and energy of the round it fires, picking an optimal bullet can have further savings in the weight infantry have to bear. In addition, for sustained MG fire, given the demise of water-cooled MGs, for determined defense of a position the M240 could double its sustained fire rate if rechambered for the Grendel - or require the weapon have many fewer barrel changes which take the gun out of operation at intervals that are predictable enough for the enemy to exploit to an advantage.

    As others here have pointed out, there are other configurations that would produce the same ballistics as the Grendel, however, it has some advantages in being at an optimal caliber, having a short squat case that allows great flexibility in loads, and is about the greatest amount of recoil that can be managed by the average soldier.

    The current "crisis" in Afghanistan's Kunar province demonstrates once again that in many circumstances infantry still have to carry their loads, and any cartridge under consideration should take this into account.

    It's sad that the Brits had this all figured out in the late 1950s and the US shouted them down. My guess is if the SCAR or some other platform were offered in 5.56, Grendel, 7.62x39 and 7.62x51 and troops were allowed to select the load for the mission of the day/week/month/theater this issue would get resolved greatly in the Grendel's favor. It looks to me that Bill and Arne have got it just right and the Grendel looks to be a very near perfect anti-personnel round for automatic rifles.
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,453 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    solidpoint2,

    I agree with your opinion of the close range terminal effect of the 6.5. Who cares...it has plenty of up close power.
    I don't think it is important to try to duplicate ballistics of any round currently in service. New recruits can be taught that relatively easy. The simple fact is that throughout it's range the 6.5 has very consistent ballistics. And the longer it goes it remains more consistent than does all but one .30 cal out there(240 gr.).
    I need to reiterate also that I'm not a big fan of the AR-15 platform. I prefer the M14/M1A type action. I have fired enough of them to say I feel they are more reliable and easier to clear when something does jam than the AR-15 platform. Even though "Army tests" completely disagree with that statement.
    JUST MY OPINION but I would like to see a lightweight M1A type action with a short/medium power 6.5 round chambering. Using good ballistics instead of brute power to put a bullet downrange accurately and with lethality.

    I recently spoke with a newly departed from active duty former Marine who served in Iraq and had friends in Afghanistan. He spoke about the 6.8 saying it's doing all the users could hpe for. In one instance a 6.8 bullet(115gr. FMJBT) penetrated two AK magazines and still attained a kill at just beyond 300m. So, even if the Grendel is not going to get accepted (cross your fingers) something at least is making a better showing than the 5.56 currently in use.
    Thanks for your input solidpoint2.

    We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>
  • solidpoint2solidpoint2 Member Posts: 2 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I had the same reaction to matching ballistics as you did, until Arne reminded me that as much as 30% of the cost of the weapon is now invested in sights such as the Trijicon ACOG, and that sight is seems to be adjustable for 5.56 or 7.62 ballistics, so Arne set out to match it.

    I especially agree with your point though were MGs are concerned, as they tend to be aimed by tracers, so the ballistic match is not as important.

    BTW, this is rather controversial on the 65Grendel sight, but it is possible to create a 71mm OAL Grendel bullet to feed Grendel-based ammo through a FNL MK-48 or 7.62 SCAR-H by extending the bullet and seating it high in the Grendel case to give it the same OAL (71mm) as the 7.62x51. As a bonus we could reclaim the vacated casing space for more powder.

    http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Kneubuehl.PDF

    It looks like a very pointy bullet would work, as the limit on bullet size would have a case + bullet length of 83mm. We should be able to get a good seat then and still have a 5-6 calibers long bullet. This would be the same approach as the 77 grain M262 where the case and caliber are the same but the bullet is extra long and therefore needs a special barrel.

    The ballistics on such an extreme VLD round, with minimum seating to maximize the powder charge, should approach that of a .338 Lapua mag - with a lot less recoil and bullet weight. For helicopter door guns and GAU miniguns the reduced recoil, weight and extremely flat ballistics would be a godsent. The new polymer cases would also save weight and improve the case to bullet sea.

    This would also make an excellent sniper round for bolt guns. More to the point, it would allow the DOD to make good use of an awful lot of things sized for the current 7.62x51's 71mm OAL.

    Doctrine, the last refuge of the unimaginative!
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,453 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Solidpoint2,

    The last paragraph concerning replacement of all things 7.62 wasn't quite where I was going with this thread...I am more in favor of replacing all things 5.56mm....with something closer in power to the 7.62 than the 5.56 but in about the same package as a 5.56. If a cartridge came up that would replace both then excellent.

    My initial question: Is the ballistically superior 6.5 going to provide as much power as the various authors say it will in a Grendel case? Answer: I believe it provides enough power at each given range as needed. This case meets practically all the criteria of a mid-power cartridge provided it can do what the experts say it can.
    The Trijicon sights, or any other bullet drop compenstated scope will never be right on....they always have a variable that takes it off. Sighting in in given conditions is always crucial with reference sights not absolute sights.

    What you are talking about seating the bullets way out is interesting. It would be the way to go for many cartridges, more capacity, better accuracy...but again it would need to be kept in the AR15 family Thanks for the input a

    We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>
Sign In or Register to comment.