Where was he force fed trash talk? Please quote. "Anyway, you will most likely not have any kind of accuracy out of your 6.8 (even with a long barrel) out past 700 yards. They use extremely low BC bullets and they drop like a rock and shed velocity really quick."
Your first post started in with verse #1 of the grendel chant.
No it isn't. I use real data provided by real companies. The person that wrote that article MADE UP STUFF. Also, its not an accusation if you can prove it. And I can prove it! The gist of his point was to compare apples to apples, rather than the typical "grendel lover" ploy of comparing "best case" from a grendel point of view and "worse case" from a 6.8 point of view. MY point was to offer it (as presented) as a means to be fair when doing a comparison. There's more to it than what the grendel lovers want to tout. If you want to get all tied up about it... well... be my guest.
Thats not an issue with the grendel. There are plenty of places you can get Grendel ammo RIGHT NOW. In fact, the store I shop at has 6.5 hornady but not a single round of 6.8 anywhere. Reloading components are easier to find for the grendel anyway since 7.62x39 brass can be used so thats a moot point and poor argument. Hmmm... the biggest complaint I've heard when reading on grendel forums is the lack of ammo. I have yet to see any grendel ammo on the shelves where I am. And... I offered it with a bit of sarcasm too... which apparently wasn't caught on your end.
I'm not upset that you shared a link. In fact I was excited to read something that may offer a really good 6.8 long range load. I was upset upon reading the article that it contained a HUGE bias and false information. It makes you look foolish when you post it as "proof" that the 6.8 can match the 6.5 at long range. If you're genuinely interested in learning something about the 6.8 that isn't based on the "canned grendel chants"... go hang out and ask sincere questions to the guys at the 68forums. Instead... (as usual)... if it isn't offering up the preferred "grendel kool-aid"... it's "biased and false"... blah blah blah.
Okay, now my turn to PROVE that the article was biased. I will do this by quoting HIS OWN WORDS. (they will appear in puke-green).
alexander arms, one of the chief developers of the 6.5mm grendel, lists a factory loading using the 123 grain sierra hpbt (a/k/a “matchking”) as 2475 fps.
Alexander actually lists a lapua scenar as 2480 fps from a 16" barrel but no big deal.
at its website, alexander arms describes a factory load using the same 115 grain hpbt bullet (a/k/a “matchking”) at 2525 fps
i will simply assert that it is reasonable to say that the 6.8mm remington will generate around 2600 fps from a 115 grain bullet, without undue pressure.
So, he says 2475 for grendel. Then he says 2525 for 6.8. Then he says he thinks 2600 is reasonable. Okay I can accept that. I believe that the 6.8 can be loaded to shoot 2600 with a 115 grain bullet and 16" barrel. But here comes the part that is horribly biased.
ballistic co-efficient:.320-.329 -- 6.8mm (.277”) 115 grain bullet, at 2600 fps
compared to
ballistic co-efficient: .510- .519 -- 6.5 grendel (.264”) 123 grain bullet, at 2400 fps
So, somehow the grendel loses 75 fps? Tell me how thats not biased or an unfair comparisson.
What do I think would be fair? Compare Alexander Arms data to SSA data. the 123 lapua scenar from the grendel is listed at 2480 fps and the 115 grain OTM ssa tactical load (also a match bullet) is listed at 2575 fps. Since you ask... set up the two in like configurations, loaded similarly and compare them. Record each one's strengths and weaknesses for a given parameter... then look at it objectively. (BTW... a loss of 75 fps due to a particular rifle's chamber, rate of twist, rifling type, etc. is not beyond the grasp of real world results. Again... agendas come into play with the gathering of data) THEN... let each camp present their "best" configuration/loads and record each one's strengths/weaknesses again. Then, go choose for yourself which one puts a grin on YOUR face. Instead... there's this continual attempt to go piss on someone else's preferences with an aire of superiority... just like what goes on around here between the "glock lovers" and the "1911 lovers". Your "compare load to load" as your dogma is only PART of the tale (which is what the author of that article was trying to communicate). There's chamber design, type of rifling, rate of twist, barrel length, as well as the "load" (And, how the load is prepped/assembled).
My guess is that you will get a different result than the article gave.
I am out of time but if you really want I can post more problems with the article at a later time.And, again, since you asked, no, I'm no more interested in your other verses of the "grendel chant" than I was was to begin with. So, save it for someone who is interested.
