Any interest in the 6.5 Grendel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

I dunno man, take it up with Wikipedia or Bill Alexander or SAAMI or whatever, since 123 @ 2650 seems to show up in a lot of places. Seems like a standard (if not 'the' standard) load from what I can tell. Maybe it's causing all those bolt failures, who knows (btw; wasn't the new M855A1 causing bolt failures or something, which was ultimately handwaved away with more intensive maintenance procedures, or something? Why, it's almost as though the gun itself is trying to tell everyone something...). At any rate, it doesn't appear to be a serious source of concern for the folks actually running these guns, meanwhile I still hear about the occasional 223 broken bolt, admittedly with a much higher frequency-bias than Grendel (a failure, btw, that simply doesn't seem to happen in ANY other platform but the AR15; why, it's almost as though the gun itself is trying to tell everyone something...)

And what about putting bullets through an autoloader that are so long they are practically falling out the inside of the case neck? Is it even possible to do a 6x45 with a 105gr VLD inside an AR mag OAL? I thought 6x45 typically ran closer to 70-80gr bullets. I'm also curious what kind of spin-stability issues you might be running into with such extreme lengths, as well as performance consistency; not saying it doesn't work, but you're talking radically longer bullets & I'm curious how well a standard rig can handle both. Especially with the bullet necessarily so far back from the lands inside the case (that Grendel II chamber thing has a similar issue with all the extra freebore they added being a detriment to ultimate accuracy, though it did reduce peak pressures)

6x45 also has 27gr capacity vs 35gr H2O for the Grendel case, likely more of that going towards lead volume vs powder when the bullets start getting heavy (not great for either, of course, but Grendel has a shoulder that's farther back so more of the ogive can stick out the front before sucking up cartridge volume, not to mention more powder along side the bullet due the wider case)

I get what you're saying, that the narrower case allows for higher pressures that can partially compensate for the reduced volume. Just as with automobiles, though, more volume ultimately triumphs over higher pressure, even when talking the same basic engine block (the AR15). At any rate, you have to admit these rounds are a heck of a lot more similar than they are different, so getting this passionate about one or the other is kind of silly. If Grendel is 'the worst cartridge evar' I'm afraid that means your pet 6x45 (seriously, I'm good on Google searching stuff, but it does not appear this chambering is at all common even compared to the fairly obscure Grendel) is the second or third worst cartridge ever conceived, itself ;)

For sure I can't easily find trajectory data on the 6x45, but I have a hard time believing it could possibly be significantly different (compared to the factors a shooter can compensate for at various ranges, I mean) considering the rounds are in a similar size class, at a similar velocity, with the Grendel generally having a slight edge in BC but both higher than average. I'd be especially surprised if one abruptly pulls away from the other at some point before 800yds the was Grendel does from PPC at around 600 or so.

At any rate, the purpose of those charts was to show the effect of BC and long range drop & windage; it's a horse race until about 500yds, then the BCs take over regardless. Also that 5.56 simply doesn't do great past 400/500yds (who'd a thunk it?) which is why these ~6mm things came into being vs 7.62 NATO. I'd love to see a chart showing how the 6mm diameter between 5.56 and 6.5 leapfrogs to the front with similar BC bullets, though (that's the closest we can get to an apples/apples comparison, though as I said initially, the realities of such long bullets strongly favor short/stubby case geometry)

TCB

*I've read numerous times in my only-recent research into Grendel that Quickload is notoriously inaccurate for the Grendel cartridge. I recall the same being true for 5.7x28 to a massive extent before updates. Their algorithm seems to overestimate pressures for short, stubby cartridges with high BC bullets for whatever reason (I'll bet the WSSMs have similar issues with QL)
 
I am not surprised that this conversation degenerated to a bash fest filled with statistics. It's the nature of those who prefer a certain type of cartridge - the performance edge has to be frequently displayed in charts and graphs to make a point.

Just shoot it. For the most part incremental differences are rarely seen unless you shoot at the extremes of range, which is exactly what some cartridges are designed and intended to do. Other than that, it's a 125m world where power has a higher priority. In government work that means you move up to another cartridge with an overall length incapable of being used in the AR 15 sized platform.

Barn was right, the problem is the M16 is size restricted and you live with it or get something else. Arguing about the ammo within that envelope of bolt size and mag length dimensions is like attempting to judge which angel dancing on the head of a pin has more style. At 125m you'll never see it.
 
barnbwt, understanding bolt thrust really isn't that hard (unless you're Mr. Alexander, in which case it's a great foggy mystery). It's simply the peak pressure times the area over which that pressure is applied. Ideally you would use the maximum internal case cross section in square inches, but since that varies by brass maker it's probably easier just to use the exterior dimensions. From that, we get that 6.5 Grendel will have 38% more bolt thrust for the same internal pressure. Or put another way, you can only run a 6.5 Grendel at 72% of the pressure you can run a 5.56 at if you want to keep bolt stress the same.

Now, let's take at face value the idea that M855A1 may be breaking MPI-inspected military bolts. Hmm. M855A1 runs at 59K PSI. So that says 6.5 Grendel would start having the same problem at about 42.5K PSI. Yet in order to achieve the results in those charts we have to run at 52KPSI and also use the horribly temp-sensitive RL17. So first off we're running what amounts to a proof load, and second long range performance (which is the nominal goal here) is going to suck because velocities will move all over the place with ammo and chamber pressure. If you drop down to our calculated safe pressure level, use a 16in barrel, and use 4895 instead to eliminate the temp sensitivity, now you can only drive that SMK at 2250 and 6.5 Grendel is exposed for the performance dog it is.

That's actually being overly fair to the 6.5 Grendel though, because its bolts have additional material removed in 2 dimensions relative to the 5.56 bolt (for type 1). So they're not as strong. Meaning they should be run at something LESS than 42.5K PSI. How much less depends on how much you like breaking bolts.

Note that 6x45 has NONE of these problems. Case diameter is the same as a 5.56, so no extra bolt thrust and no material removed from the bolt. Run at 59K PSI, they'll throw a .5 BC 105gr AMAX at 2430 (with all other conditions the same). So let's think about this: the 50 year old round that already existed outperforms the newly developed proprietary round. How did this happen? How were the customers so easily duped?
 
that 6.5 grendel load is listed on wikipedia and its source is alexander arms, 2650 with a 123 grain SMK was measured from a TWENTY-FOUR inch barrel, my 75 grain HPBT hand loads for 5.56 are doing 2700 from a 16".. from a 16 inch barrel the grendel would get around 2400-2450, and from a 24 inch barrel my 5.56 hand loads would be getting closer to 3000fps

that chart is not even remotely a fair one
 
barnbwt, understanding bolt thrust really isn't that hard (unless you're Mr. Alexander, in which case it's a great foggy mystery). It's simply the peak pressure times the area over which that pressure is applied. Ideally you would use the maximum internal case cross section in square inches, but since that varies by brass maker it's probably easier just to use the exterior dimensions. From that, we get that 6.5 Grendel will have 38% more bolt thrust for the same internal pressure. Or put another way, you can only run a 6.5 Grendel at 72% of the pressure you can run a 5.56 at if you want to keep bolt stress the same.

Now, let's take at face value the idea that M855A1 may be breaking MPI-inspected military bolts. Hmm. M855A1 runs at 59K PSI. So that says 6.5 Grendel would start having the same problem at about 42.5K PSI. Yet in order to achieve the results in those charts we have to run at 52KPSI and also use the horribly temp-sensitive RL17. So first off we're running what amounts to a proof load, and second long range performance (which is the nominal goal here) is going to suck because velocities will move all over the place with ammo and chamber pressure. If you drop down to our calculated safe pressure level, use a 16in barrel, and use 4895 instead to eliminate the temp sensitivity, now you can only drive that SMK at 2250 and 6.5 Grendel is exposed for the performance dog it is.

That's actually being overly fair to the 6.5 Grendel though, because its bolts have additional material removed in 2 dimensions relative to the 5.56 bolt (for type 1). So they're not as strong. Meaning they should be run at something LESS than 42.5K PSI. How much less depends on how much you like breaking bolts.

Note that 6x45 has NONE of these problems. Case diameter is the same as a 5.56, so no extra bolt thrust and no material removed from the bolt. Run at 59K PSI, they'll throw a .5 BC 105gr AMAX at 2430 (with all other conditions the same). So let's think about this: the 50 year old round that already existed outperforms the newly developed proprietary round. How did this happen? How were the customers so easily duped?
and yeah, the 6.5 grendel was poorly thought out in all areas of its creation, alexander hasnt a clue as to what he is doing and clearly cared more about offering something for the AR-15 specifically than he did about actually creating a solid, viable cartridge..

i mean, how much booze was he on to actually think he was going to stuff 7.62x39 size cartridges into a 5.56 magazine well? or that the AR-15 could even remotely handle the thrust necessary to achieve an adequate improvement in performance?.. just because the guy owns a company that makes aftermarket doesnt mean he has a clue as to what he's doing, or didnt make a mistake

and there are other areas he completely failed to pay attention to, like the shoulder angle, such a sharp shoulder angle is fine and dandy for benchrest cartridges, but something youre trying to market as an automatic military cartridge is going to result in less reliable feeding, theres a reason 5.56, 7.62x39, and 308, all the most popular military cartridges have longer shoulders and its not because theyre "old"
 
Didn't answer my question on 6x40 bullet length

I also understand Quick load is also known to not be great at predicting pressure in this cartridge and gives conservative pressures

Also, 38% more pressure at nearly the same fraction less case volume and 30% less powder gives better performance from a mere 15% lighter bullet? :confused:

Interesting series of loads, advising 70-90gr at most
https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=493137

Do also recall that chart I posted is for long, 24" barrels not typically found in an AR platform; might be the source of some confusion. Yes, the larger case suffers from shorter barrels for the need of slower powders, but that hardly makes it a paper tiger when longer barrels are obviously an option. Small cases do better when loaded peaky for short barrels for the bolt thrust reason you describe; I don't recall them being a requirement, though

How did this happen? How were the customers so easily duped?
Cuz we're all big dummies incapable of math or logic, right? Here's a question; why isn't 6x45 at all popular if it is so clearly dominates all comers while being easier & cheaper to deal with? Nothing to do with its 90gr bullets being about half the weight of the 308 whose trajectory we're trying to approximate with this endeavor, I'm sure.

I am not surprised that this conversation degenerated to a bash fest filled with statistics
My first point with the chart was the statements about lanky 223 having better long tange trajectory than Grendel were bunk. Now we have a guy saying the exact same thing about literally the next caliber up in the same cartridge :banghead:

Sadly, it's so obscure that a simple search won't debunk it as easily. I'd have to get series of measured/verified MVs, and use publiished BC data for the bullets to plot the drop/drift of each. And I really don't care enough to do so since I hate ARs and would use a VZ that can be loaded hotter anyway, which is far more practical in Grendel --same as others favor 223-based rounds in the AR. Thats not a real slight on either cartridge, though.

TCB
 
Don't you know that 6.5 Grendels always come in 24" barrels and 5.56s always have 14.5" barrels
The chart was the same for all rounds, fellas --not my fault x45 has too small a case volume to take advantage :rolleyes:

I see now your real issue is Bill Alexander, not the cartridge. Guy was a moron for keeping the design hostage, but 'wrong on every front?' Please.

alexander hasnt a clue as to what he is doing
Bonafides; present them, or stop spewing slurs against a guy who's clearly done a lot more hard research on cartridge development than you ever will. Patents or trademarks will work.

my 75 grain HPBT hand loads for 5.56 are doing 2700 from a 16".. from a 16 inch barrel the grendel would get around 2400-2450, and from a 24 inch barrel my 5.56 hand loads would be getting closer to 3000fps
Ah, I forgot you got SAAMI cert on your handloads last year, my bad. Are your estimates even verified with a chrono, or are they QL predictions? Why are we stuck keeping the barrel at a short length again, despite adding so much more of a slow pattern? I thought we were trying to optimize, here, not justify our pet wildcat.

TCB
 
Sadly, it's so obscure that a simple search won't debunk it as easily. I'd have to get series of measured/verified MVs, and use publiished BC data for the bullets to plot the drop/drift of each. And I really don't care enough to do so since I hate ARs and would use a VZ that can be loaded hotter anyway, which is far more practical in Grendel --same as others favor 223-based rounds in the AR. Thats not a real slight on either cartridge, though.

TCB
what magazines would you use in a vz58 chambered for grendel? alexander designed a cartridge that neither fits 5.56 nor 7.62x39 platforms, too fat to properly fit AR mags, too straight to fit AK or VZ mags, he created a bastard that cant fit in with any click

i think someone needs to design a better 7.62x39 based cartridge that can at least use AK or VZ mags in rifles that can handle the higher pressures
 
The bolt lug "problem" is solved by getting a stronger bolt. Maxim has both 7.62x39 (for TYPE I) and 6.5 Grendel bolts in 9310 for $75.

Or one could just buy a couple of regular 7.62x39 bolts for $40 ea. and replace as needed.

ETA: I just did some quick searching and found 7.62x39 bolts in 9310 for $44.99. I think everything is gonna be okay. ;)
 
Last edited:
Wow, lots of Debbie Downers here.

I'll throw another log on the fire.... For all of the haters that blame the problems on the AR's design features, such as chamber thrust, bolt weakness, and short barrels... What about the 6.5 Grendel in a bolt gun? Specifically the CZ 527?

I have already heard everyone say that a 6.5 ( Swiss, Creedmore, whatever) all out perform the Grendel. True, the Grendel is the smallest of the 6.5 family. However that lends itself to fit perfectly in a true micro-action CZ. Sometimes smaller is better.

A CZ 527 7.62x39 action perfectly handles the Grendel with existing magazines and bolt faces working just fine. The only change needed would be the barrel, of which there are multiple aftermarket options.

So, like a said, a lot of peoples disdain for the Grendel seems to stem from the AR, so lets take that out of the picture, and consider a small and quick handling bolt action instead. Why is the Grendel so terrible then?
 
Incidentally, if we try to do an actual fair comparison using the same bolt thrust, same barrel length, same temp sensitivity of powder, and same bullet type (let's use heavyish AMAX) we get the following:

Held constant everywhere: 16" barrel, AMAX bullets, H4895 powder, bolt thrust the same as M855A1, sea level altitude, 50 degree temp, results run by QuickLoad and JBM balistic.

6.5 Grendel
--------------
42.5K PSI
120 gr. AMAX
G1 BC .465 (from Hornady)
Muzzle velocity: 2243
---
500y velocity: 1449 ft/s
500y drop: 88"
500y energy: 559 ft-lbs
---
800y velocity: 1132 ft/s
800y drop: 322"
800y energy: 342 ft-lbs


5.56
--------------
59K PSI
75 gr. AMAX
G1 BC .435 (from Hornady)
Muzzle velocity: 2651
---
500y velocity: 1689 ft/s
500y drop: 60"
500y energy: 475 ft-lbs
---
800y velocity: 1213 ft/s
800y drop: 231"
800y energy: 245 ft-lbs


6x45
--------------
59K PSI
105 gr. AMAX
G1 BC .500 (from Hornady)
Muzzle velocity: 2387
---
500y velocity: 1611 ft/s
500y drop: 73"
500y energy: 605 ft-lbs
---
800y velocity: 1215 ft/s
800y drop: 264"
800y energy: 344 ft-lbs

As we can see, when the comparison is actually made fair, the 6.5 Grendel is strictly worse than the 6x45. The Grendel has more drop, less energy down range, less down range velocity, and thus a shorter supersonic range. It's rare that you see a cartridge that is strictly worse than existing cartridges across the board, but somehow they managed. QuickLoad doesn't lie. It takes talent to make a cartridge that bad.

Compared to the bland ol' 5.56, the 6.5 Grendel has more drop, less velocity, and a shorter supersonic range. It does however have more energy down range, but not enough to get excited about. So really they didn't even manage to outdo the original chambering in any useful way. Sad.
 
The bolt lug "problem" is solved by getting a stronger bolt. Maxim has both 7.62x39 (for TYPE I) and 6.5 Grendel bolts in 9310 for $75.

Or one could just buy a couple of regular 7.62x39 bolts for $40 ea. and replace as needed.

ETA: I just did some quick searching and found 7.62x39 bolts in 9310 for $44.99. I think everything is gonna be okay. ;)
there are limitations to "get a stronger bolt".. if you were building a grendel in something like a CMMG mutant which uses AR-10 locking lugs (about the only way you will get a strong enough bolt strength to get the full potential from 6.5 grendel) then that would work, but the AR-15s limitations to bolt thrust are part of its design, not material selection
 
Sure, there are always trade-offs in every design. It is becoming quite clear that the mechanical trade-offs stated in this thread are manageable and minimal.
 
I have nothing against 6.5 Grendel. I just like my 6.8SPCII better. I use the 6.8 Super Bolt. Plenty of factory loads even though I now reload. Although the Remington factory loads are so-so not sure why they chose them for that chart. Point being 6.8SPCII is on the cusp of acceptance 6.5 is further out there.
 
Incidentally, if we try to do an actual fair comparison using the same bolt thrust, same barrel length, same temp sensitivity of powder, and same bullet type (let's use heavyish AMAX) we get the following:

Held constant everywhere: 16" barrel, AMAX bullets, H4895 powder, bolt thrust the same as M855A1, sea level altitude, 50 degree temp, results run by QuickLoad and JBM balistic.

6.5 Grendel
--------------
42.5K PSI
120 gr. AMAX
G1 BC .465 (from Hornady)
Muzzle velocity: 2243
---
500y velocity: 1449 ft/s
500y drop: 88"
500y energy: 559 ft-lbs
---
800y velocity: 1132 ft/s
800y drop: 322"
800y energy: 342 ft-lbs


5.56
--------------
59K PSI
75 gr. AMAX
G1 BC .435 (from Hornady)
Muzzle velocity: 2651
---
500y velocity: 1689 ft/s
500y drop: 60"
500y energy: 475 ft-lbs
---
800y velocity: 1213 ft/s
800y drop: 231"
800y energy: 245 ft-lbs


6x45
--------------
59K PSI
105 gr. AMAX
G1 BC .500 (from Hornady)
Muzzle velocity: 2387
---
500y velocity: 1611 ft/s
500y drop: 73"
500y energy: 605 ft-lbs
---
800y velocity: 1215 ft/s
800y drop: 264"
800y energy: 344 ft-lbs

As we can see, when the comparison is actually made fair, the 6.5 Grendel is strictly worse than the 6x45. The Grendel has more drop, less energy down range, less down range velocity, and thus a shorter supersonic range. It's rare that you see a cartridge that is strictly worse than existing cartridges across the board, but somehow they managed. QuickLoad doesn't lie. It takes talent to make a cartridge that bad.

Compared to the bland ol' 5.56, the 6.5 Grendel has more drop, less velocity, and a shorter supersonic range. It does however have more energy down range, but not enough to get excited about. So really they didn't even manage to outdo the original chambering in any useful way. Sad.
this just proves what ive been saying all along, that most of the "perceived" shortcomings of 5.56 can be solved by simply using heavier, higher BC bullets which significantly close the gap between the perceived performance of 5.56, and what people perceive 6.5 and 6.8 as bringing to the table
 
this just proves what ive been saying all along, that most of the "perceived" shortcomings of 5.56 can be solved by simply using heavier, higher BC bullets which significantly close the gap between the perceived performance of 5.56, and what people perceive 6.5 and 6.8 as bringing to the table
That's a reasonable statement. The biggest issue I see with 5.56 is close range terminal performance, not anything having to do with long range capability. Like most small bore cartridges that will take long bullets, it does well at range when loaded appropriately.
 
That's a reasonable statement. The biggest issue I see with 5.56 is close range terminal performance, not anything having to do with long range capability. Like most small bore cartridges that will take long bullets, it does well at range when loaded appropriately.
well theres also the issue that smaller diameter bullets as they have less thrust on the bullet (smaller diameter bullet means smaller surface area for the gas pressures to impinge upon) will have poorer short barrel performance than bullets of a larger diameter which not only have a larger surface area for the thrust to impinge upon but also rely a bit less on speed

for this reason and close range penetration of most barriers that favor higher energy and more momentum, you can make a case for cartridges that use 100-120 grain projectiles at 2500fps+
 
Exactly, Justin, which is why 6.8SPC is a bit better initially and from a shorter barrel, but the lower BCs cause it to drop off around 500yds. Tradeoffs.

6.5 Grendel
--------------
42.5K PSI
120 gr. AMAX
G1 BC .465 (from Hornady)
Muzzle velocity: 2243
A mere 3 grains heavier gives an AMAX with .510 BC, nice cherry you picked there.

After some research on 6x4 I found that not only are 6mm blanks a wee bit hard to come by, the chambering (at least as of the ~2013 dates I saw the most activity) appears to be far and away the favorite of foul mouthed forum trolls on at least a half a dozen forums arguing with fevered exaggeration.

Apparently Grendel is bait like 5.7x28, so I'll part ways here :rolleyes:

TCB
 
the ultra high ballistic coefficient is fine and dandy if youre running it through a DMR with match barrel and ammunition, but for a military rifle, military ammo issues to general troops will not have that level of accuracy (expect about 2 MOA) nor would the rifles built to mil-spec standards have the capabilities of taking advantage of it either, which makes the added BC of 6.5 grendel completely useless outside of matches and competitions or as a special purpose DMR

the .277" projectiles, their better short barrel performance and still relatively high ballistic coefficients (.400 from a 120 grain .277" SST) is far more versatile and would make a better bullet selection for a military cartridge.. the problem with 6.8 SPC is it uses a non-standard case head size that significantly increases the cost of ammunition, unless the military were to actually adopt it, which is about as likely as congress repealing the national firearms act tomorrow, 6.5 SPC will always cost significantly more than anything else to buy or to reload, the 6.5 grendel using 7.62x39 brass gives it a cost advantage
 
A mere 3 grains heavier gives an AMAX with .510 BC, nice cherry you picked there.
I used the same bullet technology for everyone. That's the opposite of cherry picking :eek:

All cartridges' long range performance can be improved by using bullets with longer ogive designs, plastic tips, or voids to increase length. By comparing using the same bullet technology, we get a direct apples to apples comparison that shows how pathetic the 6.5 Grendel really is compared to the claims.

If you go to another bullet family with equivalent designs like the Berger Match boat tail/OTM line, you'll see the same pattern:
77gr .223: 0.192 G7
105gr 6mm: 0.253 G7
120gr 6.5mm: 0.232 G7
(all provided by Berger)

As you can see, when you compare bullets of the same profile, the 6mms in the 105 range outperform the 6.5mms in the 120 range. Since the 6x45 will drive its bullet faster AND it will have a higher BC, there's no possible way the 6.5G can win. The only way you can make it look good is to use long-ogive bullets in one caliber, not use them in another, and not use matching bolt thrusts. Then you can (dishonestly) make anything look good.
 
Incidentally, the same relationship exists in the Match king line, but you have to compare long-ogive version to each other, or short-ogive versions. So compare the 120gr 6.5mm to the 95gr 6mm, or the 123gr 6.5mm to the 107gr 6mm.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I keep reading on this thread not that the cartridge itself sucks, but that the cartridge was poorly designed to fit the AR rifle/carbine. However, I hear many good things when it is fit into a different rifle, like the CZ 527M previously mentioned, (if I didn't like my 527M in 7.62x39mm so much the way it is, I might be tempted, in fact, I may get another one to do just exactly that.), as told to me by CZ execs getting calls form people for assistance to make the caliber change.
I mentioned this earlier, but nobody picked up on it, so I would like to say again that there is at least one experimental BREN 805 shown on "another board" that has been rechambered in 6.5 Grendel with some initial success. I would like to see an intermediate cartridge like the 6.5 get some serious attention to see just how well it could be made to work in serious rifles.
This one is funny -
i mean, how much booze was he on to actually think he was going to stuff 7.62x39 size cartridges into a 5.56 magazine well?
I thought that was 300 Blackout? :D
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I keep reading on this thread not that the cartridge itself sucks, but that the cartridge was poorly designed to fit the AR rifle/carbine. However, I hear many good things when it is fit into a different rifle, like the CZ 527M previously mentioned, (if I didn't like my 527M in 7.62x39mm so much the way it is, I might be tempted, in fact, I may get another one to do just exactly that.), as told to me by CZ execs getting calls form people for assistance to make the caliber change.

I don't see any big problems with it in a bolt rifle. You should be able to boost pressure quite a bit if the action would otherwise allow it. How much I don't know, and is certainly action dependent, but probably beyond the SAAMI spec in some cases. I think what you'd end up with is a deer rifle that throws a 120gr bullet at about 2500 ft/s which is perfectly serviceable. It should be a solid deer gun out to 350y or so in a very light package. There are lots of other options for that, but I don't see anything wrong with this one.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I keep reading on this thread not that the cartridge itself sucks, but that the cartridge was poorly designed to fit the AR rifle/carbine. However, I hear many good things when it is fit into a different rifle, like the CZ 527M previously mentioned, (if I didn't like my 527M in 7.62x39mm so much the way it is, I might be tempted, in fact, I may get another one to do just exactly that.), as told to me by CZ execs getting calls form people for assistance to make the caliber change.
I mentioned this earlier, but nobody picked up on it, so I would like to say again that there is at least one experimental BREN 805 shown on "another board" that has been rechambered in 6.5 Grendel with some initial success. I would like to see an intermediate cartridge like the 6.5 get some serious attention to see just how well it could be made to work in serious rifles.
This one is funny -
I thought that was 300 Blackout? :D
the 300 blackout has roughly the same SIZE bullet as 7.62x39, but the base diameter of the 6.5 grendel is 11.35mm, same as 7.62x39, which isnt that much smaller than the 12mm case head of 308, 30-06 and all their derivatives

and generally speaking the bolts in just about every other rifle you could chamber 6.5 grendel in would hold up just fine, bolt actions, AKs, SKS, VZ58, galil ace, sig 556r, PTR32, if these all had barrels chambered for it you could bet theyd handle the pressures just fine.. however all those magazines that go with those rifles are useless because alexander decided to make a cartridge that wouldnt work well in the AR, but still decided to pander to it enough that it cant really be chambered in anything else either.. bolt actions, an AKM with AR-15 magazine well, and a sig 556 with a 556R bolt and custom barrel are about your only options and youre still making compromises on the magazines
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top