Any interest in the 6.5 Grendel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
All fair points. All I was getting at is that the SPC case family at least leaves enough bolt to run reliably. There is a fair argument that the bolt thrust problem is fatal to trying to hotrod the platform. I won't really disagree.

It's also worth noting that the M262mod1 trajectory is pretty good. Unless you're trying to improve terminal performance it's not clear that hot rodding is buying much.
those are all exactly my points, what is disappointing is that if not for some attempt to pander to the limitations of the AR-15, cartridges like 6.8SPC and 6.5 grendel could blow 5.56 and 7.62 completely out of the water, but because of that pandering all the ammo made for them is just... meh

you can achieve the same accuracy and range with 75 and 77 grain 556 loads, and and something like 277 wolverine is 95% the performance of 6.8SPC using the same bolts, same mags, and about 1/4 the costs per round
 
The only thing that strikes me as odd about the 277 wolverine (bearing in mind I've never seen one in person) is that the muzzle energy claims are very high - about 300 ft-lbs higher than you generally see for 5.56 and at least 100 ft-lbs above .300 BLK, but 277 wolverine is the cartridge in the middle. I'm wondering where the extra performance is coming from (assuming the numbers are accurate).
 
The only thing that strikes me as odd about the 277 wolverine (bearing in mind I've never seen one in person) is that the muzzle energy claims are very high - about 300 ft-lbs higher than you generally see for 5.56 and at least 100 ft-lbs above .300 BLK, but 277 wolverine is the cartridge in the middle. I'm wondering where the extra performance is coming from (assuming the numbers are accurate).
i see 277 wolverine at about 1,500ft/lbs energy, 5.56 is around 1,200ft/lbs, so that is 300ft/lbs higher which is very easy to explain.. larger diameter bullets simply pick up more energy than smaller diameter bullets because the surface of the base of the bullet multiplied by the gas pressures within the barrel equal the thrust being applies to the bullet

300 blackout SHOULD be higher if the cartridge itself wasnt a compromise, its shorter with much less case capacity than it should have because its just a glorified 300 whisper which was designed for subsonic use (1100fps or less), the true representative of the 30 caliber option for the 5.56 case should be 7.62x40WT which wasnt designed around subsonics, but designed to deliver as much power as possible from a 5.56 case and ive seen 7.62x40WT push a 125 grain bullet at about 2,600fps (about 1,600ft/lbs from a 16" barrel)

all those people who rant and rave about how great the 300 blackout is when they have absolutely no intention of ever using subsonic ammo are doing themselves a great disservice and neutering themselves if they pick the blackout over the 7.62x40
 
I have several friends that own Grendels, mine has been flawless over the last 4 years or so I have owned it. Don't know about bolt issues personally but I guess it's like anything else; if you build it there is someone out there who can break it!
059548AA-227F-47FF-A950-F1D6F4DFD1B4_zpsdcqwbdau.jpg
 
I can't see how .300 BLK is shorter than 7.62x40 WT - aren't they both limited to 2.26" to feed reliably out of magazines?

Edit: never mind, I looked at the cartridge specs and saw how short 110gr .30 bullets are, and now I understand. The .300 BLK has really short brass, and as such has to be loaded short with light bullets.
 
Last edited:
I can't see how .300 BLK is shorter than 7.62x40 WT - aren't they both limited to 2.26" to feed reliably out of magazines?

Edit: never mind, I looked at the cartridge specs and saw how short 110gr .30 bullets are, and now I understand. The .300 BLK has really short brass, and as such has to be loaded short with light bullets.
Pretty much. A 277WLV has more case capacity and can use the same bullet weights as the 300BO. As a result it has a higher muzzle velocity, energy and effective range.
 
The wider bullets also slow down more quickly, though.

Not to get too far into the weeds, but focusing on muzzle energy specifically is sort of missing the point of these cartridges, and Grendel in particular. The purpose is a round with a higher BC than the 223 typically has, so as to retain more juice down range and ultimately shoot flatter/straighter out to 500yd and beyond.

Also, the bolt thrust issue isn't a Grendel-specific issue. Any time you try to get much more power than 223 out of the AR parts, it seems like stuff starts letting go...almost like the rifle('s designer) is trying to tell us something ;)

So accepting that a certain general power output is to be expected at the muzzle from an intermediate-sized rifle (let's not kid ourselves, none of these hot-shot cartridges are hugely different than the base chambering since there's only so much powder volume to play the game with. Want to see the game change, see the AR10), the best thing you can do to make it more effective farther away is to use higher-BC bullets that don't slow down as fast or drift in the wind as much. Grendel won't hit as hard as 308 or reach out quite as far, but it gets lead on target nearly as far despite being much lighter/weaker to start. If the extra energy truly is required out there to punch through stuff tougher than jelly, see again the AR10 (or M240/etc)

Go much smaller than 6.5mm (223) and it's increasingly hard to get high BC bullets stabilized as they become veritable needles (with attendant terminal performance & bullet construction difficulties); go much wider and you either slow way down with heavy bullets (500Beowulf) or greatly limit your range due to diminished BC (300BO supersonic). All these regimes are plenty useful, but straying from long-ogive 6mm size rounds moves more towards specialization than generalization. You won't get as dramatic of high velocity effects as with 223, nor will you get the inertia & penetration of a big bore thumper, but you will be able to engage targets with reasonable effect to much greater distances than with the other regimes. For a rifle intended for war or hunting, I have to agree with the analysts of old that long-range performance is typically something to be compromised on for superior effect closer in, since target shooting is rarely real life.

But for those who naturally want a single gun that 'does everything,' the Grendel and similar cartridges seem to be a happy median between mass(meat penetration), velocity(barrier penetration), and range(target shooting). It can do practically all the same jobs as both the fast and heavy chamberings (including some which are mutually exclusive like armor penetration), but can also reach out further than either group. It basically adds a whole other dimension (mid-long range) while sacrificing very little otherwise. A pity Alexander's company was so stingy with the rights, or it probably would have dominated early on during the AR wildcatting craze, potentially sucking the oxygen away from Blackout.

TCB
 
I've had 2 grendels. First was an 18" aa which I sold then built one with 16" barrel that I still have. Ive had zero issues with either one. The 16" is a tack driver with nosler ballistic tips and varget. Neither one has ever jammed, ftf, or fte. Comfortably quiet with tbac can. Of all my ars its my go to gun. It just fills a niche for me
 
Oh right, they don't actually have 6.5 Grendels, this is just stuff they've read on the internet.
Why would I buy what might be literally the single worst designed rifle cartridge of the modern era? There's plenty of better things to spend my money on, and the 6.5 Grendel would still be a child's toy compared to 6.5 Creedmoor even if it worked.

No thanks :banghead:
 
When a given caliber consistently breaks the guns, I just avoid it. Subjective, objective, it's still junk.
 
The high Ballistic coefficient of those long 6.5 javelins makes the 6.5 Grendel quite an interesting tool to have available. IMHO the tactical strengths are in the cartridge itself, having effective and accurate terminal ballistics in semi auto in the 600 -800 yard range or thereabouts.Most posts have commented about so called inherent weakness of the cartridge in an AR platform, yet I do believe an AK style variation in 6.5 Grendel is available .

BARNBWT thanks for the comprehensive responses in your posts while you are actively extending a thread. Although I came to this thread for more evidence to evaluate the 6.5 Grendel, which I have considered, but might be inclining to 6.5 Creedmoor for more case capacity and thus energy. Excuse my faux pas if any,but recently I have been awaiting a detailed response from someone with your knowledge in a thread with key words "statistical evidence of high pressure pistol rounds." where you had written extensively and stated," some 357 magnums have gone through 10's if not 100's of thousands of rounds" with no alarming signs of wear. It would be much appreciated if you take a peek back and post a response. Thanks ! MB
 
The results of long term use of full auto AR's shooting 200,000 rounds a year show there is a distinct lifespan for GI bolts, about 20-25,000 rounds. That's with 5.56 ammo.

With the overall cartridge length of the AR limited to 2.300" there is only one thing that can change, bolt head diameter is already at it's working limit for a combat weapon. Pushing the diameter even larger to accommodate the 6.8SPC at .422 or 6.5 G at .440 demonstrates that the bolt and lugs will fail even sooner. That is why those bolts are offered in higher alloy materials with additional heat treating.

Not to forget that bolt thrust issues are often peak gas pressure issues, both cartridges have been modified since the introduction to improve them. They operate at lower pressures and actually can gain velocity or have more power to push a heavier bullet.

That is why there are type II variants as the cartridges are improved, and they constitute the bulk of what is sold to knowledgeable buyers. The offsetting issue is that the boxed ammo available on the shelf is all loaded to SAMMI specifications that don't take advantage of the additional performance. It's largely a handloaders proposition to take advantage, but the incremental performance is just that.

Either 6.8 or 6.5 is a definite step up from 5.56 and both extend the lethal range very well.

For some it boils down to which offers the ballistic performance they are looking for. Others may just see it as not having a dog in the fight as they are close enough, what they look for is supplies of ammo and variety. Both cartridges require non milspec parts including barrel, bolt and magazines, but that's as far as it goes.

6.5 has the edge on precision at extended range, 6.8 has more power. Both trump .300 Whisper, which was a niche round until AAC wanted to drum up more silencer sales and usurped it as the .300 Blackout. That struck a chord with the casual shooting community who are inch decimal 'centric' about cartridges. If it's a .30 cal how could it be wrong? It's not, nor is .300BO morally incorrect, but it's not another wonder cartridge either.

Pick the ballistic performance that matches, determine if you can get a decent supply, and you'll be largely satisfied. What does happen more often on forums is a poster getting a tribal association with a cartridge based on emotional needs and then the monkey dancing begins as the various parties jockey for the Alpha male title. At best it's marketing hype, at worst it's denial about actual performance rated in numbers to keep the illusion the emperor is actually wearing clothes.

If you want improved performance from the AR15 platform you accept that the bolt will be stressed more. At the normal rate of failure with standard bolts used, shooting less than 1,000 rounds a year, the lugs will likely last 25 years or more. For the most part shooters will have long moved on and the gun relegated to the back of the storage cabinet as more entertaining guns are shot.

There is already a trend to consider some models of the M16 as retro, the M4 is seen as dated, and the AR may eventually be an old Fudd's rifle in your future. The Garand is.
 
*pssst; the real problem isn't Grendel, it's the AR platform, but don't tell no one; spread the word.

;)

TCB
 
Last edited:
well, buy one of you want it, im not just not going to spend the money on what is still an incomplete project that was half-assed from the get go in some desperate, yet failed attempt to pander to the AR

and as far as long range shooting goes, a 75 grain hornady HPBT at 2700fps will have a flatter trajectory than 123 grain 6.5 grendel out of equal barrel lengths
 
and as far as long range shooting goes, a 75 grain hornady HPBT at 2700fps will have a flatter trajectory than 123 grain 6.5 grendel out of equal barrel lengths

That's not really true though. Compared to a 123AMAX at 2580fps the 75BTHP cannot reach 1000yds supersonic, has more drop and way more wind drift. The difference in drop isn't much until beyond 500yds so it wouldn't effect the majority of shooters, but drift at that point is already apparent.
 
Llama "what might be literally the single worst designed rifle cartridge of the modern era."

Please enlighten us further as to what qualifies you to make such a statement.

Reminds me of the consultant who knows a hundred ways to make love, but doesn't know any women.
 
That's not really true though. Compared to a 123AMAX at 2580fps the 75BTHP cannot reach 1000yds supersonic, has more drop and way more wind drift. The difference in drop isn't much until beyond 500yds so it wouldn't effect the majority of shooters, but drift at that point is already apparent.
it doesnt have much drop, and youre not getting 2500fps+ in a 16 inch barrel out of the grendel
 
Last edited:
Llama "what might be literally the single worst designed rifle cartridge of the modern era."

Please enlighten us further as to what qualifies you to make such a statement.

Reminds me of the consultant who knows a hundred ways to make love, but doesn't know any women.
You can fail at being insulting all you want, and the 6.5 Grendel will still be a garbage round that breaks bolts and extractors because the people designing it were too ignorant of the platform they were working on to make a successful round.

If you want to get stuck with junk, it's your money. Or was.
 
Last edited:
You know what's really sad about the Grendel? After all the disaster of using the wrong case and bolt face, it STILL doesn't outperform the 6x45. A 6x45 shooting 105 AMAXes has basically the same 1000y capabilities as a 6.5 Grendel shooting 120 AMAXes, but is cheaper to shoot, uses cheaper brass, requires no new parts other than a barrel swap, has the full magazine capaqcity, and oh yeah doesn't break the guns.

So after all that work, Alexander Arms created new junk rather than use the existing superior cartridge because they wanted something proprietary, and their customers were duped into following because they were ignorant of what has been out there since the 60s. Sad.
 
and as far as long range shooting goes, a 75 grain hornady HPBT at 2700fps will have a flatter trajectory than 123 grain 6.5 grendel out of equal barrel lengths

2008-02-18_173538_65G_DropChart.jpg
440px-Effect_of_BC_on_Wind_Drift.jpg

TCB
 
Now put a 6x45 shooting a 105gr AMAX (BC .500) at 2640 on there. I want to see how this wonder round matches up to 60s technology... :)

Edit: Whoever made that chart is also riding the hairy edge safety-wise, because I don't think you can get 2650 on that 123gr SMK bullet without exceeding the bolt thrust of a 5.56 at 62KPSI. Given the bolt is already compromised, that's not exactly smart. But then very little about the 6.5 Grendel is.
 
Last edited:
I ran that back, and per quick load I can't get to 2650 with a 123 SMK in 6.5 Grendel without both using RL17 and having a bolt thrust equivalent to a 71K PSI 5.56 load. In order to hit 2750 with a 77gr SMK, I only need to run at 47KPSI (RL17 again). So you're comparing a 6.5 Grendel bolt breaker to a 5.56 softball, and oh look, the performance is not the same. Imagine that :banghead:

If you load the 6x45 and 6.5 Grendel to the same bolt thrust (which is unfair to the 6x45 since it has a stronger bolt) the 6x45 will stomp the 6.5G.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top