<*(((><
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,747
World scale scope doesn’t change much, typically. The US buys more guns than anywhere else each year, by a large margin.
I will say, I wasn’t surprised to see the 6.5 Grendel overtake the 6.8 SPC in market appeal in the last handful of years - but I WILL be very interested if .mil does adopt a .277” cartridge, what it will do for 6.8 SPC sales in the future.
Like I said previously I think the 6.5 Grendel really got a shot in the arm with the Creedmoor success. And it's a very good cartridge in itself. I just happen to like the 6.8 SPC II more, but IF the army does in fact adopt the .277" projectile, it will be a great service to all of us who shoot .277" projectiles as there will be a lot of advancement in bullet technology which will be huge. What I've read and heard is the military doesn't particularly like the wound channel / entrance wound size and terminal performance on the 6.5 projectiles, it seems most in .mil have resigned themselves it needs to be .277"; right or wrong; substantiated performance or not, that is what it seems their thinking is. The recent military trials operated under the assumption (and a good one I might add) that calibers ranging between 6.5mm - 7mm offer the best performance for an M4ish type weapon when weighing terminal performance and close quarters and distances out to 600 meters. A lot of this thinking was around with the .276 Pederson and .280 British, which didn't see the light of day due to the inventory of .30cal bullets from the 30-06 era.
Again, that is just what I've read in multiple accounts on the subject of .mil moving to an intermediate cartridge between the 5.56 and .308. It probably helped matters that the 6.8 SPC was developed as a run at being a military cartridge and the 6.5 Grendel a sporting cartridge, which is evident in their cartridge design (larger combustion chamber, shoulder angle, case taper, allowable magazine capacity, etc.).
Last edited: