6.5 Grendel still misunderstood/misrepresented

I just came across this article in Defense Review and had to share. In the midst of discussing equipment for the Secret Service, they make some specific weapon recommendations.

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1199

"The 6.8mm SPC will give you the best terminal ballistics the tactical AR can offer within the 500-yard envelope, which should be more than enough range. Anything past that, and you want to go to 6.5 Grendel, 7.62x51mm and up."

They go on to say,
"The 6.5 Grendel (a.k.a. 6.5mm Grendel) is also a highly effective cartridge, but for CQB/CQC-to-medium range, the 6.8 still has the edge. The 6.5mm, however, has superior long-range performance.

Why is it that people continue to hype the 6.8 SPC as superior to the Grendel, when empirical evidence says otherwise?
:confused:

Personally, I became interested in the cartridge for the long-range performance, but liked it even more knowing the superior close-range capability.

Because, as stated previously, in every test conducted to date, 6.8 mm has met the end-user requirements, while other calibers tested have not. It is that simple. Could 6.5G meet the requirements? Probably so, but to date it has not.

Why is it that people continue to hype the 6.8 SPC as superior to the Grendel, when empirical evidence says otherwise?
:confused: Personally, I became interested in the cartridge for the long-range performance, but liked it even more knowing the superior close-range capability.

Skunk:

Cite the empirical and qualitative studies that prove the current 6.5 Grendel cartridge (123 grain Lapua or 120 grain Wolf MPT) are superior to the 6.8 loads that are recommended for CQB?

As far as I know, the only tests using the Grendel used the 123 Lapua load that Alexander sells.

So, if there are more tests that have been run, how about citing them so we can see their results?

LR1955

Okay, here goes. Per the Grendelballistics.pdf I originally found on this site (http://www.65grendel.com/graphics/grendelballistics.pdf). I can't attach it because it is too large and now the link does not work. It is cited in the article http://www.65grendel.com/65g_65and68.htm

Data is "based on 20-inch barrels using a GI drag profile"

6.8 SPC with 115gr Sierra
BC for the 6.8mm 115gr Sierra is .324
At muzzle 2700 fps & 1861 foot lbs of energy
100 m 2422 fps & 1498 foot lbs
200 m 2161 fps & 1192 foot lbs
300 m 1916 fps & 938 foot lbs


6.5 Grendel with 123gr Scenar
BC for the 6.5mm 123gr Scenar is .547
At muzzle 2600 fps & 1846 foot lbs of energy
100 m 2427 fps & 1609 foot lbs
200 m 2261 fps & 1397 foot lbs
300 m 2102 fps & 1206 foot lbs

The data continues on to 1000 meters, but I'd rather not type it all. Arguably, the 6.8 has an additional 15 foot lbs of energy at the muzzle. But, that very small advantage disappears within the first 100 meters. This looks like the Grendel has the advantage in "CQB/CQC-to-medium range" as the author writes in the Defense Review article.

Also, the 123gr 6.5 projectiles have a greater sectional density (.252) than the 6.8 115gr (.214). This lends itself to better barrier penetration, such as auto glass, doors, etc. I have not seen data on this, but it seems a reasonable conclusion.

Below are links to where I found BC & sectional density data:
http://www.sierrabullets.com/bullets/BallisticCoefficient-rifle.pdf
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=175131

Is all of this irrefutable evidence that the Grendel is better? Perhaps not. I'm a reloader, hunter, and soldier... so I try like heck to do the best I can with what I see. What do you think? I do find this stuff very interesting.

Regards,
Skunk6

I hadn't realized there is a great ongoing discussion related to this in another thread:

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=51304#post51304

Is all of this irrefutable evidence that the Grendel is better? Perhaps not. I'm a reloader, hunter, and soldier... so I try like heck to do the best I can with what I see. What do you think? I do find this stuff very interesting. Regards, Skunk6

Skunk:

Sorry but that isn't due to a study of terminal ballistics. It is inferring based on kinetic energy and sectional density without any testing to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

If you wanted to claim that a longer bullet has more sectional density than a shorter bullet given the same diameter -- you are correct. If you wanted to claim that the 6.5 bullet fired at X velocity has more kinetic energy at a certain distance down range than another bullet design fired at a different speed, it can be proven one way or the other just by using mathematics

However, both of these combined don't mean one has better penetration or terminal effects over the other. That is where they have to be tested.

LR1955

Fair enough... do you know of anyone doing such testing? I would like to see their results. BTW, happy Thanksgiving to everyone out there. I'm enjoying some time & excessive food up in PA with the in-laws.

Okay, here goes. Per the Grendelballistics.pdf I originally found on this site (http://www.65grendel.com/graphics/grendelballistics.pdf). I can't attach it because it is too large and now the link does not work. It is cited in the article http://www.65grendel.com/65g_65and68.htm

Data is "based on 20-inch barrels using a GI drag profile"

6.8 SPC with 115gr Sierra
BC for the 6.8mm 115gr Sierra is .324
At muzzle 2700 fps & 1861 foot lbs of energy
100 m 2422 fps & 1498 foot lbs
200 m 2161 fps & 1192 foot lbs
300 m 1916 fps & 938 foot lbs


6.5 Grendel with 123gr Scenar
BC for the 6.5mm 123gr Scenar is .547
At muzzle 2600 fps & 1846 foot lbs of energy
100 m 2427 fps & 1609 foot lbs
200 m 2261 fps & 1397 foot lbs
300 m 2102 fps & 1206 foot lbs

The data continues on to 1000 meters, but I'd rather not type it all. Arguably, the 6.8 has an additional 15 foot lbs of energy at the muzzle. But, that very small advantage disappears within the first 100 meters. This looks like the Grendel has the advantage in "CQB/CQC-to-medium range" as the author writes in the Defense Review article.

Also, the 123gr 6.5 projectiles have a greater sectional density (.252) than the 6.8 115gr (.214). This lends itself to better barrier penetration, such as auto glass, doors, etc. I have not seen data on this, but it seems a reasonable conclusion.

Below are links to where I found BC & sectional density data:
http://www.sierrabullets.com/bullets/BallisticCoefficient-rifle.pdf
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=175131

Is all of this irrefutable evidence that the Grendel is better? Perhaps not. I'm a reloader, hunter, and soldier... so I try like heck to do the best I can with what I see. What do you think? I do find this stuff very interesting.

Regards,
Skunk6
What length grendel barrel shoots a 123 at 2600? I had a 22" that I was able to get the 100 Lapua going 2800fps. Just thinking a 22" barrel would not be so great as a combat barrel. Also I had a 20" 6.8 that would shoot 115s at 2800 figure I loose 25fps/in and a 16" 6.8 should push a 115 close to 2700 but more like 2600 at a maximum combat pressure of 54000psi.

I don't think either cartridge is great past 300, like GKR says they will poke a hole in something but will they offer adequate terminal performance?

I really don't see the mil dropping the 308 as the sniper round, I think the 300WM is still used along with the 338L too.

IMO it's not about what's best for the men, the one that is chosen will be the one that lines some Generals or politicians pocket just like it has always been.
I wonder if they have ever considered the public could be better armed than the mil? Oh yeah that's why they keep trying to take the guns away :D
Who has more experienced vets the active military or the general public made up of retired vets? hmm

What length grendel barrel shoots a 123 at 2600? I had a 22" that I was able to get the 100 Lapua going 2800fps. Just thinking a 22" barrel would not be so great as a combat barrel. Also I had a 20" 6.8 that would shoot 115s at 2800 figure I loose 25fps/in and a 16" 6.8 should push a 115 close to 2700 but more like 2600 at a maximum combat pressure of 54000psi.

I don't think either cartridge is great past 300, like GKR says they will poke a hole in something but will they offer adequate terminal performance?

I really don't see the mil dropping the 308 as the sniper round, I think the 300WM is still used along with the 338L too.

IMO it's not about what's best for the men, the one that is chosen will be the one that lines some Generals or politicians pocket just like it has always been.
I wonder if they have ever considered the public could be better armed than the mil? Oh yeah that's why they keep trying to take the guns away :D
Who has more experienced vets the active military or the general public made up of retired vets? hmm


I think you are confusing your loyalties with objectivity.

What length grendel barrel shoots a 123 at 2600? I had a 22" that I was able to get the 100 Lapua going 2800fps. Just thinking a 22" barrel would not be so great as a combat barrel. Also I had a 20" 6.8 that would shoot 115s at 2800 figure I loose 25fps/in and a 16" 6.8 should push a 115 close to 2700 but more like 2600 at a maximum combat pressure of 54000psi.

I don't think either cartridge is great past 300, like GKR says they will poke a hole in something but will they offer adequate terminal performance?

I really don't see the mil dropping the 308 as the sniper round, I think the 300WM is still used along with the 338L too.

IMO it's not about what's best for the men, the one that is chosen will be the one that lines some Generals or politicians pocket just like it has always been.
I wonder if they have ever considered the public could be better armed than the mil? Oh yeah that's why they keep trying to take the guns away :D
Who has more experienced vets the active military or the general public made up of retired vets? hmmThe general public rightly has more experienced people within its ranks, just as God intended.

Good post.

While I love the Grendel, the 6.8x43 (not the 6.8SPC) is proving to be a hot little round especially at close ranges and with shorter barrels. Due to the profile of the 6.5, I think overpenetration could be a major issue, especially at close ranges. It would no doubt offer superior barrier penetration though.

There's always more to it than the on-paper numbers. Similar to the 9mm-vs-45ACP argument. Until someone produces wound channel ballistics evidence, it's all hypothetical.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

This is old news;

A poorly aimed shot resulting in poor shot placement will never be as good as a well aimed shot resulting excellent shot placement.

You can kill with a .22lr from 100yds if you have a good shot placement.

You can fail to stop something with a .50BMG at that same distance.

Shot placement trumps all.

Shot placement is less critical when the intent is to simply incapacitate and take the target out of the fight - not necessarily kill. This is especially true when you have a bullet that causes extra tissue damage from yawing, fragmenting, cutting, or tearing. These additional sources of tissue damage can be caused by a number of factors with velocity and energy being only a small part that can also sometimes have counterproductive effects. Bullet design is a very significant factor. A well designed bullet can have a very high chance of causing very rapid incapacitation with a hit anywhere near center of mass even if the point of impact is not directly on the central nervous system or heart. A bullet that stays intact and penetrates the target completely is not usually the most damaging scenario but is often adequate to incapacitate nevertheless. It is very difficult to determine the expected behavior of a bullet without extensive testing in a range of weapons, environments, and materials as barriers and targets.

I'm a little late on this thread but I have to say that I see a lot of people on these threads discussing "wound channels" and "terminal ballistics". 99.9% of these people have never had to shoot anyone or will ever have to. A lot of arm chair quarterbacking going on from the bleachers. I can tell you FOR SURE that a well placed shot is the single most critical factor in any given gun fight (or shooting situation). You can ask any sniper if you can find one on here.

Also, IMO there is a lot of discussion over the many gadgets and gizmo's that are supposed to make the person in possession there of, a tacticool superstar. 6.8 vs. 6.5, 9mm vs 45, 40 vs. 45, optic snobs and guys with 22" and 24" barreled AR platforms. IMO it's just a lot of talk. The person pulling the trigger is where the rubber meets the road and if you've never done that, you should probably stick to quoting football statistics to you fantasy football league buddies.

Now that I just alienated myself on this forum, I'll just say, don't sweat the petty stuff, pet the sweaty stuff. Get some trigger time and you won't be so apt to argue about numbers on the internet. I came on this forum looking for load data. I guess I'll keep looking.

Sorry if I spoiled anyones day.

yeah, why the heck are people arguing about ballistic energies? all you need is a .22lr, with good shot placement you could take a guy out from 1000 yds, because shot placement is ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.

yeah, why the heck are people arguing about ballistic energies? all you need is a .22lr, with good shot placement you could take a guy out from 1000 yds, because shot placement is ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.Yep, that's what I used for all my hits. I only built a 6.5G to have something to talk about. http://images20.fotki.com/v383/photos/4/41655/4406419/cool_shades-vi.gif

Yep, that's what I used for all my hits. I only built a 6.5G to have something to talk about. http://images20.fotki.com/v383/photos/4/41655/4406419/cool_shades-vi.gif

And because its fun to build stuff.

we should definitely arm the snipers with something like a ruger 10/22. Rifle and ammo are light, fast follow up shot, low recoil and with proper training they can take out a raghead from the opposite mountain. A sniper could carry at least 1000 rounds. for the sake of argument lets say 1.3 rounds per kill, thats over 750 kills. What's not to like? (hmm. maybe they'd need to make jacketed .22 like in WW2 to conform to the hague, but other than that I see no problem).

If only Simo Häyhä had had a .22lr when he was practicing against the commie troops invading his land, he'da got more than the 705 I'll bet. http://images31.fotki.com/v1094/photos/4/41655/4406419/smokin2-vi.gif

If only Simo Häyhä had had a .22lr when he was practicing against the commie troops invading his land, he'da got more than the 705 I'll bet. http://images31.fotki.com/v1094/photos/4/41655/4406419/smokin2-vi.gif

I feel sorry for him, having to lug an overly powerful rifle around with massive recoil and muzzle blast...I mean, even the 65g is way too powerful, just think about what a 7.62x54 r would do. His shoulders must have been dislocated after each day

Shot placement is less critical when the intent is to simply incapacitate and take the target out of the fight - not necessarily kill. This is especially true when you have a bullet that causes extra tissue damage from yawing, fragmenting, cutting, or tearing. These additional sources of tissue damage can be caused by a number of factors with velocity and energy being only a small part that can also sometimes have counterproductive effects. Bullet design is a very significant factor. A well designed bullet can have a very high chance of causing very rapid incapacitation with a hit anywhere near center of mass even if the point of impact is not directly on the central nervous system or heart. A bullet that stays intact and penetrates the target completely is not usually the most damaging scenario but is often adequate to incapacitate nevertheless. It is very difficult to determine the expected behavior of a bullet without extensive testing in a range of weapons, environments, and materials as barriers and targets.

I had not heard we are supposed to shoot to wound, if you shoot you had better plan on killing, wounding does not always take someone out of the fight and to think otherwise is foolish at best.

You do not shoot to wound, you shoot to stop.

I'd like to add that the military doesn't shoot to just wound. If they did they would have target silhouettes of arms and legs only up at the training ranges.
Many soldiers have gone on to fight more and kill their foe when they were just wounded.

With that said if 6.5 were used in our military more then likely it would be a FMJ
and being that I think we'd have more pass through and less tissue damage then say something else like the 6.8. Someone who has more terminal tissue experience would know this. Most of us are learned with hunting type bullets.

With the 5.56, at close ranges, the velocity is high enough to cause the bullet to completely self destruct in tissue.....usually. Especially true of the earlier bullets like in Nam. I have lots of game experience with the Nam issue 55 grain FMJ cannelure bullet fired from my 7 twist Colt HBAR and the destruction on all varmints is mind boggling. In Nam either the bullet made a massive wound or it made just a small hole and the massive wound was more in favor.

one of the links in another thread mentioned the Marines issueing an "open tip match" round after they discovered problems with the new M855 green round.

I had not heard we are supposed to shoot to wound, if you shoot you had better plan on killing, wounding does not always take someone out of the fight and to think otherwise is foolish at best.

You do not shoot to wound, you shoot to stop.Civilians, if called upon to testify, shoot to stop. Shoot to stop the crime in progress, a shoot which can be lethal to the criminal. Few weep for that possibility.

In the military, where I spent 30 years, we shot to kill or to hit and stop, depending on distance. While all of the studies indicate a wounded soldier commands more attention than a dead one does, that's based on how the US government's army deals with the wounded, not what Freedom Fighters do.

With that said if 6.5 were used in our military more then likely it would be a FMJ
and being that I think we'd have more pass through and less tissue damage then say something else like the 6.8.I know of no information that proves your assertion.

Bigger holes let out more air and blood. More energy and hydrostatic shock increase lethality and or trauma.

However velocity does rule, if a BB were to be traveling at 27K fps the devastation would be horrific.

All things being equal in velocity leads you back to a bigger hole to cause more trauma.

However velocity does rule, if a BB were to be traveling at 27K fps the devastation would be horrific.

All things being equal in velocity leads you back to a bigger hole to cause more trauma.

Is that why a varmint 75 grain hollow point 243 bullet moving well over 3500 feet per second is better for deer hunting then a 100 grain 243 bullet soft point moving at 2900 feet per second? You are wrong.

That is only a difference of 600fps.

Do the actual formula and you will see what I meant.

Of course you will need to understand that.


What I'm trying to point out to you is that a High Velocity light varmint bullet in a 243 were blow up on the surface of a deer (unless you're shooting at some puny deer) and result in the animal slightly wounded and running off. You know that too.

Typically, the 6.5G projectiles are moving at equal or higher velocities than 6.8S projectiles and are heavier to boot.

I'm afraid the varmint/heavy bullet example is merely academic here.

The hole diameter difference between .264 and .277 is insufficient to warrant expectations of additional wound severity increases with the .277 bullet.

Agreed, the formula for force would also indicate that one of the variables would need to be substantially higher to effect the outcome appreciably.

The Grendel achieves this at ranges beyond 300m vs. the 6.8 because the 6.8's velocity drops off quickly.

No matter what they do, the 6.8SPC will never be a .270win

maybe if they necked a beowulf down to 6.8 it would have a chance.

Even a .277 bullet in a Grendel case outperforms a 6.8SPC