6.5 grendel bullets

[atek3]

supposing (as unlikely as it is) the 6.5 grendel was adopted as the new cartridge of the armed services. What bullet do you think they'd adopt as the 'service' load. Every bullet since (correct me if I'm wrong) the adoption of the ~150 gr. FMJBT in 30-06 has been FMJBT. Who besides lapua, an expensive and foreign bullet maker makes a .264" FMJBT bullet that would give a loaded 6.5 grendel an OAL of sub-2.25". If no bullet like that exists, are there any bullets commercially availible that would have similar light cover penetration like an FMJBT?
As a followup I heard sierra was initially reluctant to do a cannalure run of the 77gr smk. Supposing the military didn't touch 6.5 grendel, how many bullets would have to be preordered before they'd do a run of the smk 107 gr. w/ cannalure would you guess?


thanks,
atek3

 

[TX65]

Atek,

The Lapua bullets actually have a similar retail cost to Nosler Ballistic Tips (about 12 cents per bullet) While a European company, Lapua is part of NAMMO and is a US DOD supplier. Remember that FN, Beretta and H&K are all European companies.

What bullets???

While the Lapua 144 FMJBT is currently available and has been for 25+ years. You would probably see a FMJBT bullet in the 115-125 grain weight range. Norma currently makes a 120 grain FMJ with a .428 BC, but you would see an improvement in BC taking it to a FMJBT design. Add a cannulure to crimp the bullet, crimp the primer and seal it up. Either way, the FMJ and FMJBT have the benefit of not raising any legal issue under compliance with the Hague Convention.

You can also make application of bullets like the Lapua 100,108 & 123 Scenar and the Sierra 107 MatchKing under the same JAG decisions that accept use of the Sierra Matchking 77 grain, 168 grain and 175 grain.

Here is a photo of one of the first 6.5 Grendel's in customer's hands.

 

[Badger Arms]

There are FMJBT's and there are FMJBT's. Two bullets of the same configuration are not the same bullet. Gene Stoner designed the first .223 cartridge by, IIRC, scaling down an artillery shell and then shortening the scaled down bullet a bit to make 55gr, which was the goal. Later, a better bullet was designed which was ballistically optimized. This better bullet flew better and therefore improved long-range energy and flattened the trajectory.

Well, the ARMY would have none of it. They were convinced that the old bullet was just fine.

Earlier, 30-06 ammo was designed with a flat base. When it was found that a boat-tail resulted in much greater range, they desiened one. After producing some, the Army cried foul. It seems that their shooting ranges were only rated for the old stuff. When you fired the better ammo, it went too far and poked holes in buildings, vehicles, etc. So, again in infinite ARMY wisdom and fassion, they redesigned the bullet to the neutered flat-based M2 ball we all know and love. Leave it to the ARMY to reject the better design. Hmmmm, the M14 was inferior to the FAL, the M16 was inferior to the Stoner 63.

 

[JShirley]

Hm. Be great if the AR - 180B was available in 6.5mm.

John

 

[Grump]

Nobody but you is asking me, but my vote goes for the slightly lighter bullets of 100-110 gr. By the time you get those extreme BCs, the velocity is down so much that the trajectory is little better (or is it worse?) than M80 Ball. There is enough of an improvement over that benchmark with the lighter bullets, while keeping trajectories flatter for better first-round hit probability.

It would also be easier to fit a long-shank tracer into the case with enough powder to make velocity if you're not using 130+ grain bullets.

The military is also wise to choose a better-performing round that uses a bit less of the strategic metal called copper. Lead ain't a scarce/expensive item like unto copper, is it? Still, using less lead can be a good thing for cost & supply line considerations.

 

[TX65]

Grump,

Very good post and thoughts.

The following are some equalibrium calculations between the 6.5 Grendel and 7.62 NATO M80.

6.5 Grendel 108 OTM to equal 7.62 NATO M80 (MV 2700 fps) at 500 meters

On Target Velocity - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,575 fps MV
On Target Energy - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,900 fps MV
On Target Trajectory - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,625 fps MV
On Target Wind Deflection - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,475 fps MV

6.5 Grendel 123 OTM to equal 7.62 NATO M80 (MV 2700 fps) at 500 meters

On Target Velocity - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,450 fps MV
On Target Energy - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,475 fps MV
On Target Trajectory - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,550 fps MV
On Target Wind Deflection - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,200 fps MV

6.5 Grendel 144 FMJBT to equal 7.62 NATO M80 (MV 2700 fps) at 500 meters

On Target Velocity - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,375 fps MV
On Target Energy - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,400 fps MV
On Target Trajectory - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,525 fps MV
On Target Wind Deflection - 6.5 Grendel requires 2,075 fps MV

Conclusions, in all areas except energy with the 108 OTM at 500 meters, equalibrium with the 7.62mm M80 can be achieved with all three 6.5mm bullets at less MV in a more compact and lighter weight package. The ideal choice would be determined by the performance level desired below 500 meters

My thoughts for consideration would be

108 OTM at 2650 fps and give up some energy, or
123 OTM at 2600 fps, or
144 FMJBT at 2525 fps