6.5 grendel going to last or die off?

Status
Not open for further replies.

longdayjake

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
2,930
Location
Genesee, ID
6.5 grendel seems to me to be a much better round than the 6.8 round. However the 6.8 is much more popular right now. Is the 6.5 destined to die off or is it pretty safe? Also, if you have a 6.5 grendel I would like to know what you think of it.
 
Search function will turn up a multitude of threads on the topic.

I think the general consensus is that neither Grendel or 6.8SPC is ever likely to be a wildly popular caliber, but they're both pretty well entrenched at the "boutique" level. Neither is likely to fade away any time soon.
 
6mm Winchester

A .243 Winchester surpasses all ballistics of anything within its realm, fatter or skinnier. Every bulletin and new magazine displays a new 6mm bullet of superior benefits. Bonded bullets are the major advance in 6mm fare currently. Hornady and Swift cannot be wrong in their newest offerings. Why put so much expectation and effort into a .243 caliber high performance bullet, if it didn't work amazingly well? I plan to test them all! To date the 90grain Swift Scirocco II remains the bullet to die from. cliffy
 
243 won't fit through an AR mag well.

If you go up to cartridges based on the 308 (or the 308 itself if you do an actual apples-to-apples comparison with Grendel, rather than M80FMJ versus high end performance bullets for Grendel) and such, there's lots that will outperform Grendel.
 
The only way either would ever become popular is if NATO dropped the 5.56. The reason .223 and .308 are everywhere is because both are main cartridges in NATO's arsenal. Surplus ammo used to be widely available. Given the nearly fifty years of the 5.56 use, and the nearly sixty years of .308 use, plenty of rifles were developed for them on the civilian market. Hence why so many non-contracted ammunition manufacturers started making their own versions of the .223 and .308.

Now however, the world if a different place. Everywhere you look governments and scared, delusional anti-gun parties have sprung up with this radical idea that by infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens, your protecting them. Its strange, they're logic is along the lines of "if its dangerous, ban it". Heck, Britain recently started confiscating certain bladed items, weapon or otherwise, and even created the term "assault knife".

For a new round to come onto the marketplace would take a drastic change in the world. NATO would have to have a crisis that demanded improved ballistics over the 5.56. Then, governments around the world would have to use the brains they were born with and realize that the only way to fight crime is just that, FIGHT it. Don't ban the gun that the drug-cartel used, fight the cartel! Do not restrict the rights of sane, law-abiding citizens, instead place laws that restrict criminally insane persons and unlawful persons! If all this happened, you'd see the 6.5 or 6.8, cheap and plentiful.

But, we live in a world where people prefer to just watch their MTV and VH1 and pretend that nothing is wrong. Then when something does go wrong and MTV breaks for its 15 minute news, all these half-wits who half-paid attention only hear "gun" and "death". They don't listen or care about anything else, only what they saw in their tunnel vision.
 
Ok, I have to ask. What is so good about the grendel? Why is the grendel >>> SPC?

6.5 grendel is better because:
1. Much better range.
2. Many more bullet choices.
3. More accurate (past 300 yards)
4. Maintains velocity better.
5. Shoots flatter.
6. Gives a reason to reload (expensive)
7. Looks cooler.
 
A .243 Winchester surpasses all ballistics of anything within its realm, fatter or skinnier. Every bulletin and new magazine displays a new 6mm bullet of superior benefits. Bonded bullets are the major advance in 6mm fare currently. Hornady and Swift cannot be wrong in their newest offerings. Why put so much expectation and effort into a .243 caliber high performance bullet, if it didn't work amazingly well? I plan to test them all! To date the 90grain Swift Scirocco II remains the bullet to die from. cliffy

Umm... I don't get it? I am not asking about .243. And personally I can't stand them.
 
The 6.5 ballistics seem impressive at first but the ballistics numbers most used are based upon a 24" bbl. When you consider the military is using the M4 with only a 14.5" bbl. The way I see it the 6.8 SPC will perform much better out of the shorter bbl at the most common engagement ranges of 0-500 meters while the 6.5 would beat it hands down out of a longer bbl past those ranges the military and myself don't see the need. Obvioulsy the solder with the M4 isn't often asked to make 600+ meter shots. In conclusion the 6.5 is impressive but won't perform out of a short bbl the 6.8mm SPC IMO is a better round for the AR-15 platform.
 
If Bill Alexander doesn't relax his licensing in order to get more rifle ammo and reloading offerings avalible the 6.5grendel is in serious jeopardy of becoming the next .41ae

And yes touting the 600m + ballistic superiority of a cartridge when your rifle has a 16.5" bbl and a dot optic is dumb
 
If Bill Alexander doesn't relax his licensing in order to get more rifle ammo and reloading offerings available the 6.5grendel is in serious jeopardy of becoming the next .41ae
This has been my objection all along. For some reason, nobody seems to listen to me so much. :) There's a local guy who's been trying to sell his Baby Eagle with the 9mm and 41AE barrels locally for several years now. So far - no takers. Go figure....
6.5 grendel seems to me to be a much better round than the 6.8 round. However the 6.8 is much more popular right now. Is the 6.5 destined to die off or is it pretty safe
The 6.8 SPC became a hit with the guys who were into AR15s and wanted a social uses/hunting round with more thump than 5.56 NATO for which they could also get hi-caps and such. With the advent of the (now actually working *and* shipping) 7.62x39 AR hi-caps from C-Products, there is probably some increased competition again between 7.62x39 and 6.8 SPC for that market. (Having said that, I believe that the 6.8 SPC will always be more reliable in an AR platform in terms of feeding, since its small amount of body taper that makes it work more consistently in an AR-style straight magwell. The 7.62x39's biggest driver is the low cost and high availability of its ammo.)

The 6.5 Grendel was a hit with the folk that wanted to shoot LD with an AR15 platform. It serves that market well as a chambering, but (as noted above) less so from a product-in-the-pipeline perspective. What I find interesting is that every time I look around at the LD intermediate chambering market, I see yet another LD boutique intermediate round being touted as 'the BESTEST EVAR!'.

Given the two parallel scenarios, my guess is that 6.8SPC has longer market legs than 6.5 Grendel, since it serves a broader audience. The 6.8 SPC target market seems to be more 'price and availability and reliability' sensitive, while the 6.5 Grendel market is more performance-sensitive and seems to be perpetually grazing for a 'better' intermediate LD chambering.

But only time will tell, and I could very well be full of it. :)
 
Last edited:
krochus and rbernie, i've said pretty much the same thing for years.

i opened my big mouth in this thread back in '05 (w/o contributing much :) ) and bill alexander responded by proxy. the newer folks here might find it interesting, if brief, reading

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=139151


edit to add: bill alexander and jdjones are on the same page in my book: nice work fellas, but you'll not see a dime of my money going to any proprietary cartridges.
 
you don't have to buy brass from starline, you can get it from wolf. you know, for your 600+ yrd shooting where wolf and the grendel really shine.
 
I put in a purchase today from J&T distributors. The price was right and the worst that could happen is I hate it and sell it for a bunch more than I bought it for. I think I will love it though. I bought a 20" Anyone out there in THR land have one?
 
Horsesoldier, what do you think about this notion (as some have espoused) that regardless of paper external ballistics, the 6.8 spc (for whatever reason) seems to have far superior actual terminal ballistic effects somehow (based on gelatin testing) - buy into that?
 
Unless Alexander Arms allows other AR15 makers to chamber guns in Grendel, it wont last. Even if they would just let Remington or Savage chamber some bolt-actions in the caliber, it would result in a huge boost in popularity. And letting more ammo companies sell Grendel couldnt hurt.

In that other thread, Alexander Arms' proxy listed several other gunmakers, but none of them whom I would consider "major". A bunch of small, specialty gunmakers wont have the market impact that one or two of the giants could have.
 
regardless of paper external ballistics, the 6.8 spc (for whatever reason) seems to have far superior actual terminal ballistic effects somehow (based on gelatin testing) - buy into that?
I ain't Horsesoldier, but I'll offer my opinion.

Given their reasonably complementary bullet diameters and their similar velocities for a given bullet weight (inside of ranges in which the bullet actually possesses sufficient energy to be useful), any terminal ballistics differences between the two chamberings will be largely dictated by bullet construction itself. One cannot be dramatically superior in terminal effects over the other if the playing field is leveled, i.e. both use the same type of bullet.

If anything, the 6.5 Grendel might have a potential edge in terminal ballistics due to its greater retained energy at longer ranges. But you'd have to be shooting pretty far past 300 yards for that gap to expose itself.
 
They'll be popular among the elite and match shooting types, but to the rest of the shooting world, nothing is going to trounce .223 until someone can find something better AND cost-effective. Considering how exclusive Grendel is, I don't see how they'll get the cost-effectiveness down anytime soon.
 
At the risk of vearing slightly off topic a bit, where does the .300 whisper fall in these comparisons? I'm a newbie on the topic, but the ability to form whisper brass from .223 brass, potentially use the same bullets as used in reloading for the Garand & to use standard AR-15 magazines are attractive features to me even without going the suppressor route ...

Nick
 
The .300 whisper is the ballistic twin to the 7.62x39 with a smaller case and .308" (vs .311, but you *can* load the 'x39 with .308"ers) bullet. IIRC, it also burns less powder.
 
Horsesoldier, what do you think about this notion (as some have espoused) that regardless of paper external ballistics, the 6.8 spc (for whatever reason) seems to have far superior actual terminal ballistic effects somehow (based on gelatin testing) - buy into that?

The argument that Grendel's bullet shape makes it more stable when transitioning into tissue (or at least gelatin) has (I think) been demonstrated in testing, which would impair its terminal ballistics -- at least with FMJ sort of military legal loadings. I'm not sure if there's as much difference if you start looking at comparable non-FMJ loads.

Of course, neither round really has much of a track record to speak of for "street" use. 6.8SPC apparently performed well during its combat trial, but I haven't seen any open source detailed forensic information floating around. 6.5 Grendel has even less said about it. Both seem to do the job well enough on the occasional deer and other game people on this forum and other internet gun sites post information about.

For a practical, real-world combat range sort of gun, my vote would be 6.8SPC over Grendel, but that's just my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top