Not trying to start a fight....

[LRRPF52]

The 6.8 and 6.5 Grendel entered the market at the same time.

One was falsely advertised as Special Forces' new cartridge, soon to replace 5.56, right as the gears of the industry were firing up to answer demand for the GWOT, new DHS contracts, and a lot of activity in the defense and firearms world. That advertising caught on, and a lot of people were sucked into it before knowing anything really about the 6.8 SPC.

6.8 was banned from use many years ago, with threats of Court Martial if anyone was caught with it after the ban. The very few people that were testing them on a limited basis, even on deployment, were ordered to turn in their uppers, mags, and ammo, and if a single 6.8 SPC component was discovered in anyone's possession, they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent under UCMJ.

Word is that several people advocating it ticked off the wrong people too many times, several uppers blew up, and when JSOC tested it, they determined it to be unsafe for use. There were guys involved with it that literally had to be escorted off of Fort Bragg after being told to go away by several units within the Special Operations community.

On the civilian side, the proponents managed to make an impression with the DOJ head ballistics lab, who said as long as he worked there, he would never sign off on 6.8 for domestic LE use, since deception was used to represent the terminal performance of the cartridge by substituting varmint projectiles for Open-Tipped Match, in an attempt to dovetail that over to the military side for the sign-off on OTM use by JAG. As soon as they were rejected by the Fed's Ballistics Lab, they went to the UK and told the Ministry of Defense that they had better start tooling up now or get left behind, because this was going to be the new 6.8x43 NATO service rifle cartridge.

Remington's involvement with the cartridge was nothing short of a colossal abortion of epic magnitude. Of all the ammunition manufacturers one could go to, they went to big green box. Ask anyone who owns 6.8 how they feel about Remington's involvement with the cartridge.

It could have been a really nice little cartridge in .257, which D-TECH does as the 25 DTI, but the combined competence of the people involved with developing the 6.8 purposely chose to ignore the optimal caliber studies that had already been done by the Army on at least 2 different occasions, to include the pig studies. They chose the larger bore of the .277 instead for some reason, even with a case length of 43mm inside the AR15s very tight 2.260" COL.

SF and other units within USASOC went with the Mk. 262 77gr 5.56 Match load in accurized rifles instead of switching to a new cartridge. SF later tested and fielded the 70gr Barnes TSX load with brown-colored tips, with devastating performance on human targets.

The Army has since gone to M855A1, which has better armor defeat capabilities than M855, with terminal performance on tissue that is quite impressive.

The Marines went to the Mk.318 Federal SOST cartridge.

[Texas]

the 6.5 Grendel is the best multipurpose round for the AR15 platform

+1

[ahillock]

$1700 for a PF Neptune 8 upper, 18" Barlitien, threaded, 4 mags, nitirde coating...couple other options
$1400 for an optic and mount
$1300 for Omega, mount, and stamp
$500+ for ammo, dies, other miscellaneous crap that one always forgets.

Where did I over shoot? Buy once, cry once.

I could trim $300-$400 if I assembled from parts, but I lack the facilities to do so now that I am in marital flux living in an apartment. Besides, I want the upper capable of sub MOA (that can be easily screwed by assembly), then build my skills back up to the rifle.

Didn't realize you were including a suppressor + $200 tax stamp + optics + reloading equipment into your build price. Makes sense now that you listed out all of the other stuff you are including in your $5k.

What are you going to use for your lower?

[ahillock]

The 6.8 and 6.5 Grendel entered the market at the same time.

One was falsely advertised as Special Forces' new cartridge, soon to replace 5.56, right as the gears of the industry were firing up to answer demand for the GWOT, new DHS contracts, and a lot of activity in the defense and firearms world. That advertising caught on, and a lot of people were sucked into it before knowing anything really about the 6.8 SPC.

6.8 was banned from use many years ago, with threats of Court Martial if anyone was caught with it after the ban. The very few people that were testing them on a limited basis, even on deployment, were ordered to turn in their uppers, mags, and ammo, and if a single 6.8 SPC component was discovered in anyone's possession, they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent under UCMJ.

Word is that several people advocating it ticked off the wrong people too many times, several uppers blew up, and when JSOC tested it, they determined it to be unsafe for use. There were guys involved with it that literally had to be escorted off of Fort Bragg after being told to go away by several units within the Special Operations community.

On the civilian side, the proponents managed to make an impression with the DOJ head ballistics lab, who said as long as he worked there, he would never sign off on 6.8 for domestic LE use, since deception was used to represent the terminal performance of the cartridge by substituting varmint projectiles for Open-Tipped Match, in an attempt to dovetail that over to the military side for the sign-off on OTM use by JAG. As soon as they were rejected by the Fed's Ballistics Lab, they went to the UK and told the Ministry of Defense that they had better start tooling up now or get left behind, because this was going to be the new 6.8x43 NATO service rifle cartridge.

Remington's involvement with the cartridge was nothing short of a colossal abortion of epic magnitude. Of all the ammunition manufacturers one could go to, they went to big green box. Ask anyone who owns 6.8 how they feel about Remington's involvement with the cartridge.

It could have been a really nice little cartridge in .257, which D-TECH does as the 25 DTI, but the combined competence of the people involved with developing the 6.8 purposely chose to ignore the optimal caliber studies that had already been done by the Army on at least 2 different occasions, to include the pig studies. They chose the larger bore of the .277 instead for some reason, even with a case length of 43mm inside the AR15s very tight 2.260" COL.

SF and other units within USASOC went with the Mk. 262 77gr 5.56 Match load in accurized rifles instead of switching to a new cartridge. SF later tested and fielded the 70gr Barnes TSX load with brown-colored tips, with devastating performance on human targets.

The Army has since gone to M855A1, which has better armor defeat capabilities than M855, with terminal performance on tissue that is quite impressive.

The Marines went to the Mk.318 Federal SOST cartridge.

Very interesting. Thank you for posting that history lesson.

[BluntForceTrauma]

They chose the larger bore of the .277 instead for some reason

They chose 0.277 specifically because ballistician Dr. Roberts reported that that caliber performed best in his gel tests.

It is debatable whether each projectile in his tests was comparable on an apples-to-apples basis. As you mentioned, his 0.277 projectile was a modified Hornady V-Max that exploded impressively and the 6.5mm projectile was something like a 120 SMK, doomed to failure because it barely fit in the case at mag length.

[stanc]

They chose the larger bore of the .277 instead for some reason...

The reason given back then was that .264 gave the best accuracy, and .284 delivered the best terminal effects, but .277 provided the best combination of accuracy and lethality.

Which is why the result was the 6.8 SPC, not the 6.5 SPC or 7 SPC.

[Cornbread]

The decision to keep the Grendel proprietary until may of 2011 played a large part. By then the 6.8 had gained some popularity and support of the major ammo makers. No round that does not have factory ammunition,and by factory I mean the big guys, readily available can become popular with the masses. I understand why it was done but in the end it gave the 6.8 a big head start.

[Furlock Bones]

The decision to keep the Grendel proprietary until may of 2011 played a large part. By then the 6.8 had gained some popularity and support of the major ammo makers. No round that does not have factory ammunition,and by factory I mean the big guys, readily available can become popular with the masses. I understand why it was done but in the end it gave the 6.8 a big head start.

hopefully, we can turn that around so more people build for it and load for it.

[Sticks]

Very interesting. Thank you for posting that history lesson.

X2

[LRRPF52]

They chose 0.277 specifically because ballistician Dr. Roberts reported that that caliber performed best in his gel tests.

It is debatable whether each projectile in his tests was comparable on an apples-to-apples basis. As you mentioned, his 0.277 projectile was a modified Hornady V-Max that exploded impressively and the 6.5mm projectile was something like a 120 SMK, doomed to failure because it barely fit in the case at mag length.

This photo is from one of the proponents. Notice anything?

[turk1961]

[LRRPF52]

The decision to keep the Grendel proprietary until may of 2011 played a large part. By then the 6.8 had gained some popularity and support of the major ammo makers. No round that does not have factory ammunition,and by factory I mean the big guys, readily available can become popular with the masses. I understand why it was done but in the end it gave the 6.8 a big head start.

Grendel was controlled well until SAAMI approval. Anyone that wanted to build 6.5 Grendel could do so if they wanted to with licensed reamers from AA. The reason was to protect the standard so customers wouldn't end up with barrels, uppers, and guns that don't feed, fire, and extract factory ammunition.

Hornady taking it to SAAMI happened much earlier than AA thought it would, and SAAMI approval was the goal all along.

A lot of people recognized the potential of the cartridge, so they all wanted to get on the bandwagon, but many didn't want to adhere to the standard because they felt they could do it better and didn't want to mess with licensing fees. It is what it is.

I didn't know it back then, but Bill literally spent over $10,000 on different reamers just in testing of the cartridge early on, to find the optimum combination of reliability and accuracy, with eventual steel case reliability down the road if he could work it out.

The approach to each cartridge couldn't have been more different when you look at them both. The easiest way to summarize the difference is that one had no real ownership vested in its success, even with all the effort and money invested.

The other had very definite ownership and stewardship by someone who Trey Knight referred to as, "...probably the most knowledgeable man in this industry." I recently learned that Bill Alexander was trained by Stoner at a conference held for the MOD back when Bill worked there as an engineer. Stoner laid out many of the strategic military logistics reasons to them why certain metals were used, the saga of the bolt metallurgy of the AR10 and AR15, how it went from 8620 to 9310, then Carpenter 158.

Another thing the Grendel had going for it was the bolt geometry research, development, testing, evaluation, and production that Bill had already done for the .50 Beowulf. He started by finding one of the engineers who worked for Colt, long-retired by then, who had been involved with the 7.62x39 Colt Sporter back in the 1980s. The thicker case rim of the Russian short 7.62x39 cartridge required a different approach to the extractor, and you couldn't just open up a 5.56 extractor and run with it, as the lips would shear off.

If you made the lip thicker going the only direction you could, to the rear, it would impinge on the case rim, so the bolt face had to come back, which also means the bolt tail needs to be lengthened if you are going to use standard AR15 firing pins. Diameter of the AR15 pressure containment system also prevented you from pushing the pressures too high, so case design for more efficient burn would help with that.

These are just some of the main points that went into the 6.5 Grendel design that might get overlooked. It's an interesting story for sure. If you were to draw 2 timelines in parallel, one of 6.5 Grendel and one of the 6.8 SPC, I think it would shock a lot of people at how different everything was looked at and handled, not only from an engineering perspective, but especially from a marketing one.

I try to look at it dispassionately, but a lot of people equate this with hate on my part, which makes me chuckle.

[LRRPF52]

I think another reason for the popularity of the 6.8 SPC is that it is one chamber. While the 6.5 Grendel has the SAAMI 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 CSS, 264 LBC, 6.5 PPCX, 6.5 BPC and maybe more chambers now. So, after I decided I “needed” a Grendel, I had to decide which chamber to go with.

That is why I don’t own one now. Should I get a SAAMI Grendel upper from AA for my AR or a LBC chambered upper? What about a bolt action like the Howa mini action which has the SAAMI Grendel chamber? Or build a bolt action with the 6.5 PPCX chamber? I think in an AR, the .300 chamber neck SAAMI Grendel is an advantage. While in a bolt the tighter neck should give better accuracy and longer case life.

I still don’t own a Grendel…..YET!

The 6.8 had several chambers from the start, which only increased in number as more people got into it. The actual SAAMI chamber for 6.8 SPC is referred to as a mistake, a colossal failure, with specific drawing errors in it that proved catastrophic with several different guns. Everyone that has followed even a little bit of 6.8 development knows not to use the SAAMI chamber, and almost none of the current manufacturers that I know of still use it. There might be a few that still hold onto it.

At the AMU, there were different chambers for different things. The hardest 2 challenges to overcome were the Navy's demand for more velocity and the SPR DM/Light Sniper Support Rifle guys' demand for accuracy, so there was a Murray DMR chamber, and then a MURG general purpose chamber meant for more speed.

Then Remington ordered the reamer for testing and got one with an 80 degree transition from the neck to the freebore, which would shave off copper from bullet jackets of certain COL, producing massive kabooms. There was one gun that blew so spectacularly, that a chunk of the bolt carrier embedded inside the Eotech, to the point that you could clearly see it in the field of view plain as day.

Then you had one of the guys who used to work at Barrett (who had a special love for duplex powder charges), start blowing up uppers left and right trying to get a 115gr up closer to 5.56 speeds.

Before SSA was purchased by Nosler, they had at least 3 different pressure levels for factory ammunition, several of which had red letter warnings not to ever use with a SAAMI chamber. There was a commercial, tactical, and combat tier system for the factory loads, with specific warnings that you the buyer had to be aware of, and I think 2 of them were well over the SAAMI MAP of the cartridge.

To really understand any of this, the interested researcher needs to have a working knowledge of MAP, MPLM, MPSM, freebore, basic knowledge of applied physics in pressure containment systems, bolt thrust, and other common terms used in firearms internal ballistics. You find some of the older rifle cartridges from the pre-WWII era that have different working pressures for them based on the steel advancements and what can be handled by modern actions, but it's odd to approach a cartridge intentionally with different working pressures for factory ammunition, knowing that some of them exceed the design limitations of existing factory rifles on the market, especially for a new cartridge. That was really odd to watch happen.

Nosler nipped that in the bud when they bought SSA, and I don't see the 3-tiered pressure system anymore for 6.8 SPC ammo. Ask anyone in the 6.8 crowd about whether to go SAAMI or SPC II, and they will immediately tell you to avoid the SAAMI chamber like the plague.

The opposite is true for 6.5 Grendel. The SAAMI chamber is not only safe, but very reliable and extremely accurate.

[ahillock]

I think another reason for the popularity of the 6.8 SPC is that it is one chamber. While the 6.5 Grendel has the SAAMI 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 CSS, 264 LBC, 6.5 PPCX, 6.5 BPC and maybe more chambers now. So, after I decided I “needed” a Grendel, I had to decide which chamber to go with.

That is why I don’t own one now. Should I get a SAAMI Grendel upper from AA for my AR or a LBC chambered upper? What about a bolt action like the Howa mini action which has the SAAMI Grendel chamber? Or build a bolt action with the 6.5 PPCX chamber? I think in an AR, the .300 chamber neck SAAMI Grendel is an advantage. While in a bolt the tighter neck should give better accuracy and longer case life.

I still don’t own a Grendel…..YET!

The answer is always the 6.5 Grendel SAAMI. Always. SAAMI.

[JASmith]

I think another reason for the popularity of the 6.8 SPC is that it is one chamber...

Not quite!

There are at least 3 variants of the SPC listed with load data on Ammoguide.com.

Remington rushed to get SAAMI certification and folks learned that not enough testing had been done. The SPC II and "DMR" variants were done to correct this problem.

The "Grendel Variants" were introduced by some of the same people who did the SPC with the apparent goal of introducing the same confusion for people interested in the Grendel.

No one to date has come up with a Grendel throat and neck that is superior to the SAAMI standard across the spectrum of 6.5 bullets.

The reason for that is the extensive testing done by Bill Alexander before going public with the cartridge. Indeed, some of the so-called variants were designs tested and rejected because they were deficient in one of the areas Bill wanted covered.