6.5 Grendel vs. 6.8 SPC vs 223 for first AR


PDA






mpstan
March 2, 2009, 04:43 AM
I've read about these rounds until I want to throw up. Lots of writing has been done over the past 4 years....... what are people thinking now? Grendel uppers seem so uncommon and expensive, yet I'm wanting one because I already handload a 6.5 Swede round and I have lots of bullets. And it sounds like a great round for the same reason as the Swede. The 6.8 seems more widely available esp. on Gunbroker and there are actually complete rifles on the market in this caliber. More market share I'm guessing.

What's a newbie to do?

Insights on where we are with the Grendel and the 6.8 in the market these days?

thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "6.5 Grendel vs. 6.8 SPC vs 223 for first AR" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
darkknight
March 2, 2009, 04:52 AM
Get A 5.56. Its a standard caliber it'll be cheaper to reload, Their is also more componets available for reloading.

C-grunt
March 2, 2009, 05:02 AM
Theres nothing wrong with the 5.56. If you want more range, the heavy match rounds will definitely reach out past 500 yards fairly easy.

But since you already reload, get which ever you like. If you want to hunt deer and the like, the 6.8 or the Grendel would be better than the 5.56 obviously.

sgtdevildog
March 2, 2009, 07:57 AM
and I ended up going with the 6.8. I don't reload and wanted the potential to hunt (along with a bit more oomph). I'm awaiting the arrival of my LWRC
M6A2 as we speak. It was kind of an impulse buy - now I'm trying to figure out optics. Good luck with your search.

lej
March 2, 2009, 11:22 AM
There was a heap of hype a few years back when these rounds first appeared (6.5 grendel and 6.8spc). My understanding was that the military was looking at transitioning from the 5.56 and these two cartridges were the front runners. The longer ranges of some engagements in the middle east had highlighted the short comings in the terminal performance of the 5.56 round ie its fragmentation range. From what i know about the subject (which isn't a whole lot) the grendel is a ballistically better round both at close and long range and there are a hell of alot of 6.5mm bullets around which i thought would make it more versitile. Having said that the 6.8spc seems to be a bit more popular now in the civilian market with a few major AR companys (maybe they know something we dont) now producing rifles in that calibre. Maybe alexander arms have some hold/ copywrite over the grendel cartridge stopping others from chambering it at this time???.. could be a mistake in the long run if this is the case. I personnally prefer the 6.5mm projectile and it high BC, based on what i know id be voting for the grendel.
I have no idea if the military are still even looking at changing anymore, given the exit plans for the middle east and the global financial down turn (ie going to a new cartridge across all service rifles/ squad support weapon would cost a bucket load and then some)
If anyone out there knows the answers id be interested to hear

gvnwst
March 2, 2009, 11:30 AM
I would go with a standard 5.56 upper, then if you have to have more power and range, get the grendel. (IIRC) The SPC has around the same drop and external ballistics as a 77gr 5.56, while the grendel has a bit less, and you can get some VERY accurate uppers for it.

The reason for there being more SPC uppers anf rifles i think has something to do with the fact that remington was behind it, and I have heard that AA has some form of legal control over who makes grendel rifles? And no one wants to pay the royalties or something.

Big_E
March 2, 2009, 12:19 PM
My friends and I like to bash the .22 round :neener:

Although I know it is pretty decent with the whole fragmentation thingy, but once you get out of that range or start shooting at an enemy behind cover then the effectivness of the round starts to diminsh greatly. (From what I've heard)

If you do plan to use it for SHTF reasons I would say go with 6.8spc. I was a Grendel lover for awhile until I started realizing about AA's control over the round. My friend has a Bushmaster 6.8 and he loves it I would say its more effective at closer ranges then a Grendel but not by much (both with kill an enemy), But out to longer ranges Grendel dominates (except I believe a longer barrel is better for a grendel, so a shorter barrel = 6.8, longer = grendel)

MJR007
March 2, 2009, 07:22 PM
What do you want to put holes in - paper, fur, or table meat?

gvnwst
March 2, 2009, 07:24 PM
What do you want to put holes in - paper, fur, or table meat?

The grendel does it all! 90gr tnt bullets for fur, 129gr SST for meat, and 123gr SMKs for paper.:neener:

UnTainted
March 2, 2009, 07:44 PM
I was seriously considering purchasing another ar, but branching out in caliber beyond the 5.56, specifically one in 6.8 or 6.5, and while I was doing my research (and it was over some time, in my opinion almost long enough for me to be confident that my decision will please me), I was ensnared away by that siren, the ar-10 (cause of the 7.62). Had that not happened, I had decided on

the 6.8.

My reasoning:

I want a short barreled weapon (12" or so) size and weight close to the ar-15 but range closer to 300-400 yards for the type of bullet performance I wanted. The 6.8 performs best in the short barrel. I don't see why I wouldn't want a 6.5 with a 24" barrel for hunting and long range superiority, though! That'd be sweeeet. This 6.8 I want, though, would be for people.

I have nothing against the 5.56, though. Love her too! :D

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
March 2, 2009, 07:49 PM
Depends on what other rifles you have, and what other rifles, including ARs, that you're PLANNING to get after this one. Also depends on your ammo budget.

lej
March 2, 2009, 10:49 PM
I also heard that the 6.5mm creedmore was going to be chambered in a number of service match rifles (cant remember where) its ballistics leave both the above rounds in the dust

Zak Smith
March 2, 2009, 10:53 PM
For a fist AR-15, the answer is 223/556 without a doubt. It's cheaper to shoot and training is more important than any other consideration. You can always get a special purpose upper for a different caliber if you have an actual need.

gvnwst
March 2, 2009, 11:00 PM
I also heard that the 6.5mm creedmore was going to be chambered in a number of service match rifles (cant remember where) its ballistics leave both the above rounds in the dust

The 6.5 creedmoor is a AR-10 cartridge, not AR-15. It is very similar to the .260 remingtom and 6.5x47 lapua.

FlyinBryan
March 2, 2009, 11:14 PM
first ar should be a .223/5.56

HorseSoldier
March 3, 2009, 12:25 AM
Another +1 on getting a first AR in 5.56mm -- ammo and most everything else caliber specific is going to be cheaper and you'll have plenty of rifle.

Really, the only reason you'd absolutely need 6.8SPC or Grendel would be if you're wanting to hunt with an AR and your state won't allow .223 for whatever game you're partial to. ("Need" and "want" being different, of course, and "want" being completely legitimate :) ).

gga357
March 7, 2009, 01:59 AM
I am in the same boat. Well 5.56 vs 6.8.

Moose458
March 7, 2009, 10:14 AM
I thought about getting the 6.5 (I also like and reload the 6.5 Swede) or 6.8, until I looked up what it would cost to reload a 1000 rounds. But my thinking was for a SHTF type rifle. If you only want to reload a 100 or so rounds at a time, then either one would be GTG. Magazines are also much more costly and not as plentiful. Anyway that is why I opted for the 5.56.

If you enjoyed reading about "6.5 Grendel vs. 6.8 SPC vs 223 for first AR" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!