A friend of mine thinks this round is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Am I missing something? Besides being an obscure and exspensive ammo to find, I do'nt see the point. What are the benefits of this ammo Vs., say, .308 or 5.56. He seems to think that this round will be the "Up and coming thing". I'm not trying to burst his bubble, Maybe I just need an education. Thanks in advance, for "Splainin' things to me".
6.5 Grendel
- Thread starter Armory
- Start date
- Status
Deanimator
Member
It's much more powerful than 5.56x45mm.
The bullets usually have a better BC than .308 and there's flatter trajectory with less recoil.
The bullets usually have a better BC than .308 and there's flatter trajectory with less recoil.
hammerklavier
Member
What's it supposed to be used for? Long range sniping out of an AR platform? There are many better 6.5mm calibers, like 260 and swede for instance, that can do the same or better job in an inherently more accurate (and less expensive) rifle.
The 6.5 Grendel was an attempt to get greater performance out of an AR lower rather that designing a new cartridge and rifle from the ground up. I doubt the military will adopt it because it won't work well in belt fed machine guns. Civilian adoption of the is being hurt by the lack of ammo availability (and its high price when it is available). The 6.5mm bullet does perform well due to its high ballistic coefficient.
longdayjake
Member
The 6.5 grendel is THE long range cartridge for the AR15 style weapon. Yes there are much better 6.5 mm cartridges but none of them will fit inside the ar15 mag well. I own a grendel and I like it quite a bit. Some folks prefer the 6.8 spcII because it has a higher initial velocity but for me the capability of the grendel to shoot heavier bullets at a much higher BC makes it the winner. The grendel can usually exceed the 6.8 spcII in energy at about 150-200 yards. The grendel does best with heavy bullets shot from barrels from 20-24" but will do just fine with light bullets and a 16" barrel. Here is some data to kind of show a comparison of the two.
a 110 grain bullet from a 6.8 going at 2600 fps with a bc of .32
Range Velocity Impact Drop ToF Energy Drift
0 2600 0 0 0 1651 0
25 2525 0.52 0.23 0.03 1557 0
50 2457 0.72 0.79 0.06 1475 0
75 2390 0.55 1.71 0.09 1395 0
100 2325 0 3.02 0.12 1320 0
125 2261 -0.96 4.73 0.16 1249 0
150 2197 -2.34 6.87 0.19 1179 0
175 2135 -4.18 9.46 0.23 1113 0
200 2073 -6.48 12.52 0.26 1050 0
225 2012 -9.31 16.1 0.3 989 0
250 1953 -12.66 20.21 0.34 932 0
275 1895 -16.59 24.89 0.37 877 0
300 1837 -21.12 30.18 0.42 824 0
325 1782 -26.31 36.12 0.46 776 0
350 1727 -32.17 42.74 0.5 729 0
375 1674 -38.77 50.09 0.54 684 0
400 1622 -46.14 58.22 0.59 643 0
425 1571 -54.35 67.18 0.64 603 0
450 1522 -63.42 77.01 0.68 566 0
475 1475 -73.44 87.78 0.73 531 0
500 1429 -84.45 99.55 0.79 499 0
525 1386 -96.54 112.39 0.84 469 0
550 1344 -109.74 126.35 0.89 441 0
575 1305 -124.16 141.52 0.95 416 0
600 1267 -139.83 157.95 1.01 392 0
And now a 123 grain bullet from the 6.5 grendel with a BC of .55 shot at 2500
Range Velocity Impact Drop ToF Energy Drift
0 2500 0 0 0 1707 0
25 2458 0.55 0.24 0.03 1650 0
50 2419 0.74 0.84 0.06 1598 0
75 2381 0.56 1.81 0.09 1548 0
100 2343 0 3.16 0.13 1499 0
125 2305 -0.96 4.91 0.16 1451 0
150 2268 -2.34 7.08 0.19 1405 0
175 2231 -4.14 9.67 0.22 1359 0
200 2195 -6.37 12.69 0.26 1316 0
225 2158 -9.06 16.17 0.29 1272 0
250 2122 -12.21 20.12 0.33 1230 0
275 2087 -15.85 24.55 0.36 1190 0
300 2052 -19.99 29.48 0.4 1150 0
325 2017 -24.65 34.93 0.44 1111 0
350 1982 -29.84 40.91 0.47 1073 0
375 1948 -35.59 47.45 0.51 1036 0
400 1914 -41.91 54.56 0.55 1001 0
425 1881 -48.83 62.27 0.59 966 0
450 1848 -56.36 70.59 0.63 933 0
475 1816 -64.53 79.55 0.67 901 0
500 1783 -73.35 89.16 0.71 868 0
525 1752 -82.87 99.47 0.76 838 0
550 1721 -93.08 110.47 0.8 809 0
575 1690 -104.04 122.22 0.84 780 0
600 1660 -115.75 134.72 0.89 753 0
As you can see the 123 grain bullet from the grendel beats the 6.8 for range, energy, and trajectory.
The 6.8 is capable of about another 100 fps with some handloads but most people can't reach it safely and no manufacturer makes any that will go that fast.
a 110 grain bullet from a 6.8 going at 2600 fps with a bc of .32
Range Velocity Impact Drop ToF Energy Drift
0 2600 0 0 0 1651 0
25 2525 0.52 0.23 0.03 1557 0
50 2457 0.72 0.79 0.06 1475 0
75 2390 0.55 1.71 0.09 1395 0
100 2325 0 3.02 0.12 1320 0
125 2261 -0.96 4.73 0.16 1249 0
150 2197 -2.34 6.87 0.19 1179 0
175 2135 -4.18 9.46 0.23 1113 0
200 2073 -6.48 12.52 0.26 1050 0
225 2012 -9.31 16.1 0.3 989 0
250 1953 -12.66 20.21 0.34 932 0
275 1895 -16.59 24.89 0.37 877 0
300 1837 -21.12 30.18 0.42 824 0
325 1782 -26.31 36.12 0.46 776 0
350 1727 -32.17 42.74 0.5 729 0
375 1674 -38.77 50.09 0.54 684 0
400 1622 -46.14 58.22 0.59 643 0
425 1571 -54.35 67.18 0.64 603 0
450 1522 -63.42 77.01 0.68 566 0
475 1475 -73.44 87.78 0.73 531 0
500 1429 -84.45 99.55 0.79 499 0
525 1386 -96.54 112.39 0.84 469 0
550 1344 -109.74 126.35 0.89 441 0
575 1305 -124.16 141.52 0.95 416 0
600 1267 -139.83 157.95 1.01 392 0
And now a 123 grain bullet from the 6.5 grendel with a BC of .55 shot at 2500
Range Velocity Impact Drop ToF Energy Drift
0 2500 0 0 0 1707 0
25 2458 0.55 0.24 0.03 1650 0
50 2419 0.74 0.84 0.06 1598 0
75 2381 0.56 1.81 0.09 1548 0
100 2343 0 3.16 0.13 1499 0
125 2305 -0.96 4.91 0.16 1451 0
150 2268 -2.34 7.08 0.19 1405 0
175 2231 -4.14 9.67 0.22 1359 0
200 2195 -6.37 12.69 0.26 1316 0
225 2158 -9.06 16.17 0.29 1272 0
250 2122 -12.21 20.12 0.33 1230 0
275 2087 -15.85 24.55 0.36 1190 0
300 2052 -19.99 29.48 0.4 1150 0
325 2017 -24.65 34.93 0.44 1111 0
350 1982 -29.84 40.91 0.47 1073 0
375 1948 -35.59 47.45 0.51 1036 0
400 1914 -41.91 54.56 0.55 1001 0
425 1881 -48.83 62.27 0.59 966 0
450 1848 -56.36 70.59 0.63 933 0
475 1816 -64.53 79.55 0.67 901 0
500 1783 -73.35 89.16 0.71 868 0
525 1752 -82.87 99.47 0.76 838 0
550 1721 -93.08 110.47 0.8 809 0
575 1690 -104.04 122.22 0.84 780 0
600 1660 -115.75 134.72 0.89 753 0
As you can see the 123 grain bullet from the grendel beats the 6.8 for range, energy, and trajectory.
The 6.8 is capable of about another 100 fps with some handloads but most people can't reach it safely and no manufacturer makes any that will go that fast.
Juice Boxes
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 104
A guy at our gun club, who owns a Grendel, says AA's numbers on the 6.5 Grendel are a bit "inflated"
longdayjake
Member
It kind of depends on the chamber and barrel. Some guys are beating his numbers and others can't get near them. Some guys go crazy and get a 28" barrel and get really good 1200 yard groups.
I think the new .264 LBC-AR (Les Baer Custom-AR, I guess), is a Grendel in all but name, with a slightly different chamber. Hornady is making dies and brass (coincidentally, once Hornady started also making 6.5G ammo, so I'm betting it's just a different headstamp). But because it is not affiliated/related to Alexander Arms, availability, cost (no licensing fees), etc., are supposed to be better.
I own several AR's in several calibers including .223, .308, and 6.5 Grendel.
All have their place in my shooting and hunting needs but I can say the Grendel is rapily becoming my favorite Varmint rifle. The Grendel has a much better punch than the .223 and is a much lighter rifle than my AR-10. Recoil iis also light and this round has proved to be very devistating even on pigs with the 120 grain SST bullets.
To me no single AR will do all I like which is why I own several.
All have their place in my shooting and hunting needs but I can say the Grendel is rapily becoming my favorite Varmint rifle. The Grendel has a much better punch than the .223 and is a much lighter rifle than my AR-10. Recoil iis also light and this round has proved to be very devistating even on pigs with the 120 grain SST bullets.
To me no single AR will do all I like which is why I own several.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
What everyone said, but add this...
In a nutshell, the argument for the 6.5 grendel (and also for the 6.8 SPC) is:
At SHORTER and MID ranges (out to about 300 or 350 yards or so):
1. It exhibits better external ballistic performance than the 5.56x45mm, particularly at those "MID" ranges (but not better than 7.62x51mm, but "good enough"), AND
2. Exhibits better intermediate obstacle penetration than the 5.56x45mm (but not better than 7.62x51mm, but "good enough"), AND
3. (ARGUABLY) exhibits better terminal ballistic performance than the 5.56x45 (but at least equal terminal ballistic performance, or "good enough"), AND
4. (ARGUABLY) exhibits EQUAL (or nearly so) terminal ballistic performance as the 7.62x51 (again, "good enough")
, all the while still maintaining the sacred "full auto controllability" of the 5.56x45mm, which the 7.62x51 can NOT do,
AND
At LONG ranges (out to 600 - 800 yards and beyond):
1. The 6.5 grendel is better than ANY other chambering that can be shoe-horned into an AR15 sized platform in BOTH external ballistic performance AND terminal ballistic performance (much better than 5.56x45, slightly better than 6.8 SPC, etc.), AND
2. Is even better than 7.62x51mm from any platform in BOTH external ballistic performance (!!!), AND even at SOME point of long-distance, terminal ballistic performance as well.
Sounds good right?
But the "problems" with that simple analysis that makes the 6.5 grendel seem like a no brainer are:
1. We are NOT limited to the AR15 sized platform. We have the larger ones. Particularly we as citizens/civilians are not constrained by the enormous cost of switching platforms/lowers/armory parts, etc.
2. Just because it's better than 7.62x51 at long ranges does NOT mean that it's better than OTHER chamberings that fit into larger platforms, such as .260 rem, which is superior to any/all of the above at long ranges, and next, for probably the most important factor of them all....
3. Long-Range, Long-Schmange!!! Who cares? A fighting rifle is a SHORT range rifle, period! The 5.56x45 does it all (except thick barrier penetration) at short and mid ranges, and there's never any need to take 400 yard plus shot - if there were, you'd be carrying a different rifle altogether - preferably a turnbolt in a larger caliber than either 5.56x45 or 6.5 grendel (OR, if in the military, we would holler for the DM in the squad to take the long shot!). The only time this long range rifle is needed, for the 'standard' soldier/marine, is for military volley fire at long range -- but we as citizens/civilians don't ever need / use volley fire!
4. Finally, ye olde false dichotomy (or false trichotomy, etc.) problem, combined with OTHER concerns besides terminal performance, external ballistic performance, full auto controllability, platform size/weight, and ammo size/weight: The 6.5 grendel is not the only round in this same general class or categories of "tweener" rounds - there's the 6.8 spc, which exhibits supposedly better feed reliability (extremely important issue), and any number of other already-invented or to-be invented wildcats in the 6.0mm to 6.8mm range, which would perhaps combine the best of (or even better than the best of), the ballistic performance of the 6.5 grendel and the feed reliability of the 6.8 SPC.
Bottom line, the 6.5 grendel, and the very similar 6.8 SPC are indeed just about THE "shiznit" (in a 'standardized', non-wildcat round at least) for civilians in lightweight AR15 style platforms, *if (but only if) you must for some reason have a just-one-do-it-all rifle*, including looooooong range performance. But a do-it-all gun should not be, and is not, limited to this small light platform. It should be bigger and shooter a better round than either, preferably .260 Rem or similar. A lightweight gun is is fighting gun is a short-range gun, by definition, period. No need ever for long range shots for civilians (and only in the extreme rarest of circumstances is said full-auto controllability needed for civilians - since 1986). So the 6.5 grendel and similar are arguably a great idea for the militaries of the world (someday; when the inertia/cost factor is mitigated or overcome), but they are a real enigma wrapped in confusion for civilians, IMO. And so, as it stands the 5.56x45mm is THE perfect short-range (to mid-range) fighting chambering - can't be improved upon, except for ammo variations which have already to some extent, and are still being, perfected (that's the prevailing argument at this time, anyway).
And let's not forget that the 5.56x45 is *slightly* more controllable in full-auto than the 6.5 or 6.8 rounds, and the 5.56x45 allows the soldier to carry *slightly* more ammo than the 6.5/6.8 rounds, having lighter bullets. Again, both military concerns, but both weigh in favor of 5.56x45, not 6.5/6.8.
Those are the basic argument outlines anyway....
And let's also not forget that the true best all-purpose round that hits the sweet spot for the AR15 sized rifles, is probably not found from any chambering using any of those 3 calibers: .224, .264, or .277 - rather, more likely, the sweet spot is .243/6mm, or possibly .257 caliber. I'm defining MY "sweet spot" here as a focus on *vast improvements in bullet BC, with only a slight loss of velocity" -- for whatever reason, conjured up by the "Bullet-Inherent-BC-Quirks" gnomes or gods -- probably something like a 6x45 meets that sweet spot the best.
Let's also not forget that punching through intermediate obstable, be they thin & hard like kevlar/steel layers, or thick & softer like sand, brush, small trees, is also mostly a military need, not a civilian need.. but, OK, potentially you could need that in a self-defense scenario.
So there are multiple reasons why the civilian analysis is very different from the military analysis (and your friend is undoubtedly talking about civilian use, becuase guess what - if he enlists, they won't let him use that 6.5 grendel weapon):
1. Inertia with the M16/M4 system - Cost of switching over (not an issue with us civvies) to a different platform
2. Weight of carrying a lot of ammo with mags (not an issue with us civvies)
3. Full-auto controllability (not an issue with the vast majority of us civvies, since who can afford a full-auto lower anymore?)
4. Intermediate obstactle penetration (COULD potentially be an issue with civilians, I suppose, but ordinarily would not be - for example, a soldier might need to shoot an enemy through a house/building wall, without clearly seeing his target. You and I as civvies won't need that, because if we can't see the target, then the target likely is not presenting a threat, in which case using deadly force would not be justified). So this is mostly a military concern, but granted it's somewhat of a civvy concern.
So the point is, what analysis works for the militaries is not necessarily the same analysis of what works for you and me and your friend. The only really important common concern is the weight of the weapon itself. Lighter is better, and in a very LIGHT rifle, a 6.5 or 6.8 round does put a little more punch on a hunting target like a deer than 5.56x45, if you want to hunt with an EBR.
I personally would like to see the 6x45 become standardized and more popular then either the 6.5g or 6.8s. I like the 6mm bullets for good reason, and a round like that maintains 90+% of the recoil-recovering abilities of the 5.56x45, maintains 90+% of bullet yawing induced wound channel capabilities of 5.56x45, with the right bullets, but puts better BC in the air and puts more weight and penetration on the target. That's for a short-range fighting rifle.
In any event, for a "JUST ONE" rifle, including loooong range capability, why not just get an AR10 style in .260 rem like I did and be done with it?
In a nutshell, the argument for the 6.5 grendel (and also for the 6.8 SPC) is:
At SHORTER and MID ranges (out to about 300 or 350 yards or so):
1. It exhibits better external ballistic performance than the 5.56x45mm, particularly at those "MID" ranges (but not better than 7.62x51mm, but "good enough"), AND
2. Exhibits better intermediate obstacle penetration than the 5.56x45mm (but not better than 7.62x51mm, but "good enough"), AND
3. (ARGUABLY) exhibits better terminal ballistic performance than the 5.56x45 (but at least equal terminal ballistic performance, or "good enough"), AND
4. (ARGUABLY) exhibits EQUAL (or nearly so) terminal ballistic performance as the 7.62x51 (again, "good enough")
, all the while still maintaining the sacred "full auto controllability" of the 5.56x45mm, which the 7.62x51 can NOT do,
AND
At LONG ranges (out to 600 - 800 yards and beyond):
1. The 6.5 grendel is better than ANY other chambering that can be shoe-horned into an AR15 sized platform in BOTH external ballistic performance AND terminal ballistic performance (much better than 5.56x45, slightly better than 6.8 SPC, etc.), AND
2. Is even better than 7.62x51mm from any platform in BOTH external ballistic performance (!!!), AND even at SOME point of long-distance, terminal ballistic performance as well.
Sounds good right?
But the "problems" with that simple analysis that makes the 6.5 grendel seem like a no brainer are:
1. We are NOT limited to the AR15 sized platform. We have the larger ones. Particularly we as citizens/civilians are not constrained by the enormous cost of switching platforms/lowers/armory parts, etc.
2. Just because it's better than 7.62x51 at long ranges does NOT mean that it's better than OTHER chamberings that fit into larger platforms, such as .260 rem, which is superior to any/all of the above at long ranges, and next, for probably the most important factor of them all....
3. Long-Range, Long-Schmange!!! Who cares? A fighting rifle is a SHORT range rifle, period! The 5.56x45 does it all (except thick barrier penetration) at short and mid ranges, and there's never any need to take 400 yard plus shot - if there were, you'd be carrying a different rifle altogether - preferably a turnbolt in a larger caliber than either 5.56x45 or 6.5 grendel (OR, if in the military, we would holler for the DM in the squad to take the long shot!). The only time this long range rifle is needed, for the 'standard' soldier/marine, is for military volley fire at long range -- but we as citizens/civilians don't ever need / use volley fire!
4. Finally, ye olde false dichotomy (or false trichotomy, etc.) problem, combined with OTHER concerns besides terminal performance, external ballistic performance, full auto controllability, platform size/weight, and ammo size/weight: The 6.5 grendel is not the only round in this same general class or categories of "tweener" rounds - there's the 6.8 spc, which exhibits supposedly better feed reliability (extremely important issue), and any number of other already-invented or to-be invented wildcats in the 6.0mm to 6.8mm range, which would perhaps combine the best of (or even better than the best of), the ballistic performance of the 6.5 grendel and the feed reliability of the 6.8 SPC.
Bottom line, the 6.5 grendel, and the very similar 6.8 SPC are indeed just about THE "shiznit" (in a 'standardized', non-wildcat round at least) for civilians in lightweight AR15 style platforms, *if (but only if) you must for some reason have a just-one-do-it-all rifle*, including looooooong range performance. But a do-it-all gun should not be, and is not, limited to this small light platform. It should be bigger and shooter a better round than either, preferably .260 Rem or similar. A lightweight gun is is fighting gun is a short-range gun, by definition, period. No need ever for long range shots for civilians (and only in the extreme rarest of circumstances is said full-auto controllability needed for civilians - since 1986). So the 6.5 grendel and similar are arguably a great idea for the militaries of the world (someday; when the inertia/cost factor is mitigated or overcome), but they are a real enigma wrapped in confusion for civilians, IMO. And so, as it stands the 5.56x45mm is THE perfect short-range (to mid-range) fighting chambering - can't be improved upon, except for ammo variations which have already to some extent, and are still being, perfected (that's the prevailing argument at this time, anyway).
And let's not forget that the 5.56x45 is *slightly* more controllable in full-auto than the 6.5 or 6.8 rounds, and the 5.56x45 allows the soldier to carry *slightly* more ammo than the 6.5/6.8 rounds, having lighter bullets. Again, both military concerns, but both weigh in favor of 5.56x45, not 6.5/6.8.
Those are the basic argument outlines anyway....
And let's also not forget that the true best all-purpose round that hits the sweet spot for the AR15 sized rifles, is probably not found from any chambering using any of those 3 calibers: .224, .264, or .277 - rather, more likely, the sweet spot is .243/6mm, or possibly .257 caliber. I'm defining MY "sweet spot" here as a focus on *vast improvements in bullet BC, with only a slight loss of velocity" -- for whatever reason, conjured up by the "Bullet-Inherent-BC-Quirks" gnomes or gods -- probably something like a 6x45 meets that sweet spot the best.
Let's also not forget that punching through intermediate obstable, be they thin & hard like kevlar/steel layers, or thick & softer like sand, brush, small trees, is also mostly a military need, not a civilian need.. but, OK, potentially you could need that in a self-defense scenario.
So there are multiple reasons why the civilian analysis is very different from the military analysis (and your friend is undoubtedly talking about civilian use, becuase guess what - if he enlists, they won't let him use that 6.5 grendel weapon):
1. Inertia with the M16/M4 system - Cost of switching over (not an issue with us civvies) to a different platform
2. Weight of carrying a lot of ammo with mags (not an issue with us civvies)
3. Full-auto controllability (not an issue with the vast majority of us civvies, since who can afford a full-auto lower anymore?)
4. Intermediate obstactle penetration (COULD potentially be an issue with civilians, I suppose, but ordinarily would not be - for example, a soldier might need to shoot an enemy through a house/building wall, without clearly seeing his target. You and I as civvies won't need that, because if we can't see the target, then the target likely is not presenting a threat, in which case using deadly force would not be justified). So this is mostly a military concern, but granted it's somewhat of a civvy concern.
So the point is, what analysis works for the militaries is not necessarily the same analysis of what works for you and me and your friend. The only really important common concern is the weight of the weapon itself. Lighter is better, and in a very LIGHT rifle, a 6.5 or 6.8 round does put a little more punch on a hunting target like a deer than 5.56x45, if you want to hunt with an EBR.
I personally would like to see the 6x45 become standardized and more popular then either the 6.5g or 6.8s. I like the 6mm bullets for good reason, and a round like that maintains 90+% of the recoil-recovering abilities of the 5.56x45, maintains 90+% of bullet yawing induced wound channel capabilities of 5.56x45, with the right bullets, but puts better BC in the air and puts more weight and penetration on the target. That's for a short-range fighting rifle.
In any event, for a "JUST ONE" rifle, including loooong range capability, why not just get an AR10 style in .260 rem like I did and be done with it?
Last edited:
Maverick223
Member
For folks that want to reach out pretty far with an AR-15 platform the 6.5G is the best round to do the job. It is also suitable for deer hunting (as well as varminting) and the like, where the .223Rem. is marginal at best. Disadvantages are the cost of the round, loss of cartridge capacity, and additional weight. For some the 6.5G is a useful round, but for most folks it is unnecessary and inferior to the .223.
longdayjake
Member
How is it inferior? Because you can put 5 more rounds in a mag?
Maverick223
Member
As far as performance, the 6.5G gives up nothing to the .223Rem., but that isn't always the most important factor. Cost, the majority of AR-15s are used as plinkers, and ammunition expenditure becomes a major factor.
Zerodefect
member
Well, hopefully grendel catches on. Right now all I can find are 6.8spc parts. Not many options for grendel mags, barrels etc.
longdayjake
Member
There are all kinds of options for those willing to look. I will admit that the 6.8 is more popular at the moment, but there are plenty of places to get grendel stuff if you are willing to look for it.
True, but nobody that buys an AR in a different caliber does it for plinking purposes.
True, but nobody that buys an AR in a different caliber does it for plinking purposes.
Maverick223
Member
Sure they do....22LR! I agree that most cartridge conversions are done for a gain in performance, and the 6.5Grendel is hands down my favorite of these (including the WSSMs that offer higher performance). It is the Goldilocks cartridge for the AR-15.
longdayjake
Member
Okay, you got me. But you have to admit that the action isn't even close to the same. They just give a .22 an AR body.
Maverick223
Member
I know where you're coming from, and don't get me wrong that 6.5G is a great cartridge with a lot of potential, I have a buddy that is looking to build a dedicated 6.5G on my recommendation (he wanted a target/deer rifle in an AR platform).
Zak Smith
Member
False.
Run the numbers for a 155 Scenar at 2930 fps.
If a 123gr Scenar can be shot at 2620 fps (it's AA's 24" numbers), it's more or less similar to a 175 SMK shot at 2700 fps.
My buddy with a Grendel says he gets 2485 fps from 120gr factory ammunition from a 20" - which is a lot less than 2620.
longdayjake
Member
What length barrel? Also, how hot do you have to run them to get them to go that fast from a .308? I'm not saying it cant be done, just that you are comparing a factory load to what I am almost positive is a hot handload. That said, I don't think you can get a grendel 120 grain bullet to go much faster than that from a 20" barrel. Now, give the grended a 24" barrel and you can get it to 2600 fps. I will say though that the .308 will most definately have more energy for quite a while.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
OK, Zak, true enough with the 155 scenars, but then you sacrifice terminal ballistic performance at all ranges, at least in my understanding and belief.
Maybe, when you compare it to other .30cal bullets, but the 155gr. 7.62mm Scenar will still have better terminal performance than the 123gr 6.5mm scenar.
Just because a smaller caliber bullet has equal or better trajectory, it doesn't mean will bleed the bad guy or the game faster.
Last edited:
Zak Smith
Member
24" - not a max load.
For the same bullet construction type I'll put my money on the bigger/heavier bullet.
Do you have terminal ballistics data on the 123 Scenar vs. the 155 Scenar?
For the same bullet construction type I'll put my money on the bigger/heavier bullet.
longdayjake
Member
Of course the .308 is going to do better until it slows down enough that the 6.5 passes it up. Okay, so the short cased 6.5 grendel wont beat the .308 at terminal performance. But the .308 can't be shot out of an AR either. Oh and the .308 requires 50% more powder. I love my .308's but they kick a lot harder than my grendel and they won't fit in my AR. I own a loaded m1a too for when I want to throw .308 down range. They are great rounds and one must admit that the grendel does pretty well from such a limited casing.
- Status
