What happened to the 6.5 Grendel?
- Thread starter Catfishman
- Start date
I think the fact that the 6.5 G almost works shows promise for a M16 based light sniper rd. I think it should be a 22 or 6 mm. The easiest way would be too shorten. & neck down a 6.8. But I'd really like to have a parent ctg with a rim & base dia between the 6.8 & the PPC. Unfortunatley the only candidate that I am aware of is the 224 Weatherby, that is very expensive brass & it is belted. I think a base dia around. 430 too 435 would be workable. With a little more taper & a 26 ° shoulder& a little more length.
The premise of the OP was "What happened to the 6.5 Grendel?" Starting with the Wikipedia entry, the caliber was developed for long distance precision shooting with the AR. It was a range caliber that used the Russian cartridge, and can trace it's lineage thru the 6mm PPC on long distance ranges. It was shot and earned a record at 600m, and the design does a good job getting there with a bullet that has good ballistic coefficiency.
What gets lost in translation is that the average soldier won't shoot beyond 500m, and wouldn't do it with a caliber that could. Further, the same studies dating back to WWI showed the average soldier doesn't like .30 cal recoil, or weapons weighing more than about 8 pounds loaded. What is also missed is that the battle forces ALWAYS have other resources in the same unit that will reach out further, and even more effective, longer ranging implements of death and destruction available literally on verbal request, in real time.
It's NOT about the individual soldier, it's about CREW SERVED WEAPONS, trying to make the soldier the one answer on the battlefield is a uninformed and ridiculous perspective.
Anyone who's read The Musician's of Mars understands. It's a unit commander conducting an orchestra, not a 22 year old SPC4 taking potshots outside their visual range. 500m out, the soldier can't accurately see what gender, or sometimes, what species of something is moving over occluded terrain - and if hostile, certainly not helping at all.
If ANYONE would know, an experienced SF soldier would, and that's who tried their hand at improving the lethality of a weapon to get better hits at the contact ranges they thought made up their combat. They did it from a 14.5 inch barrel, and got internal resources at the AMU to assist. None of that was directed at, nor did it get any long distance record. There were enough decision makers to try it in combat, and rumor has it it was.
End result, nobody is getting hurt choosing one or the other, except for the few who aren't making money on a caliber they thought would do well. If anyone's shorts are in a twist, it's the 6.5 merchandisers, because the public isn't buying into the case or bullet diameter. Sales are remarkably stagnant.
Has Alexander Arms strangled the round? Yes, the move by Les Baer is certainly structured to usurp their hold on development, just as AAC is stirring the .300 Whisper pot with the .300 Blackout. Competition breeds a better product.
There are dozens of suppliers of 6.8SPC, and they have certainly improved the product to the point where it's the #1 alternate caliber to 5.56. If 6.5G wants to grow, it NEEDS the competition from the .264LBC to get more market share and open the specs so that better designs and improvements can happen.
Neither will likely replace any US military caliber, there are other considerations, such as the LSAT, or even the possibility of doing nothing at all for another ten years.
What isn't going to happen is a lot of growth because hundreds of thousands of shooters agree to put money down for a cartridge that is outside of their skill or ability to shoot. Which is why the 6.8SPC is selling as well as it does - as a hunting cartridge in 16" AR's. It's riding a crest of popularity, both with the AR, and as a deer and hog caliber, both still growth industries.
Open a new 600m range within 2 hours driving time of everyone in American, you might get the 6.5g to catch up - or market it as a short barrel hunting and tactical round, which it never was intended to be.
That last comment is in bold because when I say it, those with a marketing agenda start up their demonizing and namecalling about me. Well, Wiki and AA still haven't changed their websites about the origins, they just have new revelations about the secret tactical workup that was going on, apparently undocumented until recently.
What the heck, the round was pretty much finalized before Alexander even knew about it, just like Armalite did most the work before it was sold to Colt. Can anybody find a record of it being used in a 1000 round carbine course back in the early days? Does a picture of the 14.5" version for military use exist, circa 2001?
6.5G is a niche paper puncher's caliber for space gun shooters. There's nothing wrong with that except for the sudden revision of history to make it a tactical shooter's super bullet capable of far more than most soldiers can use.
The hype and stridency really showcase the worst of what shooting has to offer. The 6.8SPC was never meant to compete with the 6.5G, was never designed by like competitors, and was never intended to go head to head in the field or one the range. What has happened is jealously that one has moderately succeeded, while the other remains marginalized.
It's exactly what each group of proponents intended to happen. Why is that so hard to accept?
What gets lost in translation is that the average soldier won't shoot beyond 500m, and wouldn't do it with a caliber that could. Further, the same studies dating back to WWI showed the average soldier doesn't like .30 cal recoil, or weapons weighing more than about 8 pounds loaded. What is also missed is that the battle forces ALWAYS have other resources in the same unit that will reach out further, and even more effective, longer ranging implements of death and destruction available literally on verbal request, in real time.
It's NOT about the individual soldier, it's about CREW SERVED WEAPONS, trying to make the soldier the one answer on the battlefield is a uninformed and ridiculous perspective.
Anyone who's read The Musician's of Mars understands. It's a unit commander conducting an orchestra, not a 22 year old SPC4 taking potshots outside their visual range. 500m out, the soldier can't accurately see what gender, or sometimes, what species of something is moving over occluded terrain - and if hostile, certainly not helping at all.
If ANYONE would know, an experienced SF soldier would, and that's who tried their hand at improving the lethality of a weapon to get better hits at the contact ranges they thought made up their combat. They did it from a 14.5 inch barrel, and got internal resources at the AMU to assist. None of that was directed at, nor did it get any long distance record. There were enough decision makers to try it in combat, and rumor has it it was.
End result, nobody is getting hurt choosing one or the other, except for the few who aren't making money on a caliber they thought would do well. If anyone's shorts are in a twist, it's the 6.5 merchandisers, because the public isn't buying into the case or bullet diameter. Sales are remarkably stagnant.
Has Alexander Arms strangled the round? Yes, the move by Les Baer is certainly structured to usurp their hold on development, just as AAC is stirring the .300 Whisper pot with the .300 Blackout. Competition breeds a better product.
There are dozens of suppliers of 6.8SPC, and they have certainly improved the product to the point where it's the #1 alternate caliber to 5.56. If 6.5G wants to grow, it NEEDS the competition from the .264LBC to get more market share and open the specs so that better designs and improvements can happen.
Neither will likely replace any US military caliber, there are other considerations, such as the LSAT, or even the possibility of doing nothing at all for another ten years.
What isn't going to happen is a lot of growth because hundreds of thousands of shooters agree to put money down for a cartridge that is outside of their skill or ability to shoot. Which is why the 6.8SPC is selling as well as it does - as a hunting cartridge in 16" AR's. It's riding a crest of popularity, both with the AR, and as a deer and hog caliber, both still growth industries.
Open a new 600m range within 2 hours driving time of everyone in American, you might get the 6.5g to catch up - or market it as a short barrel hunting and tactical round, which it never was intended to be.
That last comment is in bold because when I say it, those with a marketing agenda start up their demonizing and namecalling about me. Well, Wiki and AA still haven't changed their websites about the origins, they just have new revelations about the secret tactical workup that was going on, apparently undocumented until recently.
What the heck, the round was pretty much finalized before Alexander even knew about it, just like Armalite did most the work before it was sold to Colt. Can anybody find a record of it being used in a 1000 round carbine course back in the early days? Does a picture of the 14.5" version for military use exist, circa 2001?
6.5G is a niche paper puncher's caliber for space gun shooters. There's nothing wrong with that except for the sudden revision of history to make it a tactical shooter's super bullet capable of far more than most soldiers can use.
The hype and stridency really showcase the worst of what shooting has to offer. The 6.8SPC was never meant to compete with the 6.5G, was never designed by like competitors, and was never intended to go head to head in the field or one the range. What has happened is jealously that one has moderately succeeded, while the other remains marginalized.
It's exactly what each group of proponents intended to happen. Why is that so hard to accept?
madcratebuilder
New member
Excellent post tirod!
Open a new 600m range within 2 hours driving time of everyone in American, you might get the 6.5g to catch up - or market it as a short barrel hunting and tactical round, which it never was intended to be.
Tirod could have saved some bandwidth and only re-stated the above for the 53rd time
:barf:
Tirod could have saved some bandwidth and only re-stated the above for the 53rd time
:barf:
HorseSoldier
New member
His point is completely accurate. Grendel isn't well designed to do anything a fighting cartridge needs to do, but with 6.8 SPC on the radar it looked like a market was opening up that Alexander Arms tried to get into.
53? I haven't kept count.
I gave it some more thought on another forum. I'll sum up - the 6.5G is Ok for what it does, nothing is a super caliber. What has caused a lot of people to remain unconvinced are those who post reams and tables of data proving it to be equal to the .308, and in complete opposition to the existence of the 6.8SPC.
They aren't selling the caliber to the public with all the geek talk and assurances it's a great round - if you can shoot 600m. Cuts the ground right out of most buyers. Bill Alexander would do better to muzzle them if he could.
As posted on the summer patriot, winter soldier website, both calibers sighted in at the same range will still hit the same pie plate, or even candy wrapper, all the way out.
Logistics - being widespread in the market place, and having a slight ballistic advantage in shorter barrels, made 6.8 my choice. Complaints about lack of cartridges on the market, and the necessity of handloading, eliminated the 6.5g.
If anything, the 6.5G is a good case study on what not to say or do in marketing. The wrong buyers post up the wrong things and make it a personal issue. I try to stick to the subject and not involve personality, unlike others.
It wastes bandwidth.
I gave it some more thought on another forum. I'll sum up - the 6.5G is Ok for what it does, nothing is a super caliber. What has caused a lot of people to remain unconvinced are those who post reams and tables of data proving it to be equal to the .308, and in complete opposition to the existence of the 6.8SPC.
They aren't selling the caliber to the public with all the geek talk and assurances it's a great round - if you can shoot 600m. Cuts the ground right out of most buyers. Bill Alexander would do better to muzzle them if he could.
As posted on the summer patriot, winter soldier website, both calibers sighted in at the same range will still hit the same pie plate, or even candy wrapper, all the way out.
Logistics - being widespread in the market place, and having a slight ballistic advantage in shorter barrels, made 6.8 my choice. Complaints about lack of cartridges on the market, and the necessity of handloading, eliminated the 6.5g.
If anything, the 6.5G is a good case study on what not to say or do in marketing. The wrong buyers post up the wrong things and make it a personal issue. I try to stick to the subject and not involve personality, unlike others.
It wastes bandwidth.
I don't think anything "happened" to the 6.5 Grendel, except that it's more popular than ever.
The 6.5 Grendel does NOT eat bolts, that's a myth.
I just replenished my supply of Hornady ammo, Wolf ammo is available again, and various other manufacturers are on tap to provide anyone who wants a 6.5 Grendel rifle with one.
If you have one, enjoy it, if you want one, get it. It's a great round.
The 6.5 Grendel does NOT eat bolts, that's a myth.
I just replenished my supply of Hornady ammo, Wolf ammo is available again, and various other manufacturers are on tap to provide anyone who wants a 6.5 Grendel rifle with one.
If you have one, enjoy it, if you want one, get it. It's a great round.
One of the primary reasons Grendels seem to eat bolts is because the face of the upper receivers are not perfectly square with the bore, and barrel extension. If you torque down the extension, the very slight difference in high and low spots on the face of the upper, puts similar high and low spots into the barrel extension.
Once the barrel extension has the high and low spots in the locking lug recesses, some bolt lugs bear more energy than others.
I had AR15 precision lap the front of an upper for me that had eaten a couple of bolts. Since being lapped, my bolts have worked perfectly. Same with the Alexander arms rifle that I had built..no bolt problems.
Once the barrel extension has the high and low spots in the locking lug recesses, some bolt lugs bear more energy than others.
I had AR15 precision lap the front of an upper for me that had eaten a couple of bolts. Since being lapped, my bolts have worked perfectly. Same with the Alexander arms rifle that I had built..no bolt problems.
603Country
New member
Seems like about 70% of forum topics are heated discussions about M16 type weapons and how to get better calibers in that weapon. The simple (or not so simple) fact is that it's all about trying to put a decent cartridge in a weapon with limitations. That's why I don't own one and that's why Uncle Sam will eventually transition to something like the FN SCAR in good old 308. Once everyone in SOCOM gets the hot new rifle, everyone else will want one. Then the transition starts.
So please, don't ten zillion of you guys all jump on my case for pointing out the obvious.
So please, don't ten zillion of you guys all jump on my case for pointing out the obvious.
Lots of internet BS tirod...
"...the 26" guns on a battleship..."
Largest guns ever on a "battleship" were 18".
"It makes no difference how great the BC is..."
Simplistic BS.
"The confusion starts when it's assumed the 6.5 will perform the same in a 16" barrel or shorter. The design doesn't work that way - it requires a 20"+ barrel to get the 600m results. Out of a short barrel, it's doesn't deliver the same. The 6.8 does. Apples and oranges."
How about an apples to apples comparison using the SAME source for data on both cartridges instead of opinion...
From a 14.5" barrel the 6.5 Grendel will shoot a 100g bullet 2550 fps MV.
From a longer 16" barrel the 6.8 SPC will shoot a 100g bullet 2600 fps MV.
Again from a 14.5" barrel the Grendel will shoot a 129g bullet at 2250 fps MV.
And from the 16" barrel the SPC will shoot a 130g bullet at 2300 fps MV.
And remember, due to the high BC that tirod apparently does not think is important, at less that 100 yards the Grendel has a higher velocity.
Have a problem with the above FACTUAL data? Argue with Hornady, not me. Data is directly from their new 8th edition pages 238-330 and 363-365.
"It takes different powder loads, cartridge shapes, and bullets to get results at different ranges."
Nope, to beat the 6.8 SPC at any and all ranges just takes the little Grendel!
"The 6.5 uses a long heavy bullet to reach out - 130 grain is common."
Simply wrong, the Grendel is likely at its best with bullets of 125g and less.
"The 6.8 is getting optimized at about 95 grain..."
Don't know about this but every RELIABLE source I have seen says the SPC is "optimized" for bullets of about 110-115g.
"As for the caliber choices on the battlefield, the Army has always used different calibers for different ranges..."
And what makes you think this? The military has been striving unsuccessfully for over 100 years to find "that one magic cartridge".
Wasn't the .30-40 Krag supposed to do that in the 1890's?
Didn't the .30-06 do that from the turn of the century to the 1950's?
Wouldn't the .276 Pedersen have done that if adopted in the 1930's?
Wasn't the 7.62X51mm supposed to be that cartridge in the 1950's? ONE cartridge for rifles, select-fire rifles and machine guns.
Didn't they try that with the 5.56X45mm?
"Consolidating to one caliber would call for a huge expense for little reward."
And their excuse for consolidating was the "huge SAVINGS".
"It's why the M14 was dragged out of mothballs..."
The M-14 actually NEVER went away!
"...rather than spending millions more on tests and competitions that won't get something significantly better - better - than what is already in the system. Not worth the time bothering."
The M-14 was not a cheap solution it was the QUICK solution, again since it never really went away.
"...is taken at face value. Kinda like politics, don't believe everything you hear..."
tirod, maybe you should do the same with your own words.
t
"...the 26" guns on a battleship..."
Largest guns ever on a "battleship" were 18".
"It makes no difference how great the BC is..."
Simplistic BS.
"The confusion starts when it's assumed the 6.5 will perform the same in a 16" barrel or shorter. The design doesn't work that way - it requires a 20"+ barrel to get the 600m results. Out of a short barrel, it's doesn't deliver the same. The 6.8 does. Apples and oranges."
How about an apples to apples comparison using the SAME source for data on both cartridges instead of opinion...
From a 14.5" barrel the 6.5 Grendel will shoot a 100g bullet 2550 fps MV.
From a longer 16" barrel the 6.8 SPC will shoot a 100g bullet 2600 fps MV.
Again from a 14.5" barrel the Grendel will shoot a 129g bullet at 2250 fps MV.
And from the 16" barrel the SPC will shoot a 130g bullet at 2300 fps MV.
And remember, due to the high BC that tirod apparently does not think is important, at less that 100 yards the Grendel has a higher velocity.
Have a problem with the above FACTUAL data? Argue with Hornady, not me. Data is directly from their new 8th edition pages 238-330 and 363-365.
"It takes different powder loads, cartridge shapes, and bullets to get results at different ranges."
Nope, to beat the 6.8 SPC at any and all ranges just takes the little Grendel!
"The 6.5 uses a long heavy bullet to reach out - 130 grain is common."
Simply wrong, the Grendel is likely at its best with bullets of 125g and less.
"The 6.8 is getting optimized at about 95 grain..."
Don't know about this but every RELIABLE source I have seen says the SPC is "optimized" for bullets of about 110-115g.
"As for the caliber choices on the battlefield, the Army has always used different calibers for different ranges..."
And what makes you think this? The military has been striving unsuccessfully for over 100 years to find "that one magic cartridge".
Wasn't the .30-40 Krag supposed to do that in the 1890's?
Didn't the .30-06 do that from the turn of the century to the 1950's?
Wouldn't the .276 Pedersen have done that if adopted in the 1930's?
Wasn't the 7.62X51mm supposed to be that cartridge in the 1950's? ONE cartridge for rifles, select-fire rifles and machine guns.
Didn't they try that with the 5.56X45mm?
"Consolidating to one caliber would call for a huge expense for little reward."
And their excuse for consolidating was the "huge SAVINGS".
"It's why the M14 was dragged out of mothballs..."
The M-14 actually NEVER went away!
"...rather than spending millions more on tests and competitions that won't get something significantly better - better - than what is already in the system. Not worth the time bothering."
The M-14 was not a cheap solution it was the QUICK solution, again since it never really went away.
"...is taken at face value. Kinda like politics, don't believe everything you hear..."
tirod, maybe you should do the same with your own words.
t
Mention of 90-lb 19 year old girls being trained to shoot in the army reminds me of the fact that the typical draftee of WWII and even WWI was considerably smaller and lighter than a typical enlistee of today. I suppose we have MacDonald's to thank for that and that's why you can't find any surplus WWII uniforms that fit.