Free 6.5 Grendel Reload Data

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • barrelcactus

    #16
    Originally posted by Bwild97 View Post
    I hate to revisit this mess again, but long story short the "Grendel II" chambering was spawned after a certain barrel manufacturer short chambered Grendel rifle barrels purchased through a group buy here on this forum, then offered to fix said barrels by "scraping" them. The result was a chamber that had excessive throat/leade, some argued that this was better and the "Grendel II" was born.
    I have read that version here but also read the Grendel II was born in circa 2003 when Bill Alexander created it. Satern just used an older reamer print. Seems lots of different bias exist but lets talk about the data.

    Comment

    • Bwild97
      Warrior
      • Jan 2015
      • 217

      #17
      There are only a few that know (remember) the truth of the matter.

      True! Bill Alexander did experiment with lots of chambers during the development of the 6.5 Grendel before settling on one to submit to SAAMI. But I have never seen him say the "Grendel II" was one of them. I may have missed it through all the excuses and rumors though.

      Comment

      • barrelcactus

        #18
        Thats what Arne Brennan (codeveloper)reported on another board he said the orginal Grendel was what we call the Grendel II print.

        Comment

        • pajasonc
          Warrior
          • Dec 2016
          • 203

          #19
          Originally posted by barrelcactus View Post
          Thats what Arne Brennan (codeveloper)reported on another board he said the orginal Grendel was what we call the Grendel II print.
          I read that post as well. No way to know for sure if it was actually him or someone posing as him but that's what was said.

          Comment

          • barrelcactus

            #20
            Originally posted by pajasonc View Post
            I read that post as well. No way to know for sure if it was actually him or someone posing as him but that's what was said.
            Thats easy to determine just PM and ask he runs beyond556.com.

            Comment

            • StoneHendge
              Chieftain
              • May 2016
              • 2009

              #21
              Originally posted by barrelcactus View Post
              How do you like those primers are they a thinker cup like the BR4 and the CCI450?
              I like the feel of Federals over CCIs. They aren't quite as wide and don't have the "snap" that CCIs can have upon insertion. I've picked up a lot of each at really good prices. The GM205Ms are thin while the GM205MARs have a thicken up which is almost as thick as a CCI. They are completely interchangeable, so I use the ARs if I don't like the look of the fired primer with the GM205M. They are also the "hottest" non magnum Small rifle primer
              Let's go Brandon!

              Comment

              • barrelcactus

                #22
                I dont really see differences in loads in the Grendel using different primers. I dont think much variance exists in small rifle primers. Thats good to know about the size of the primers CCI450s are tight in the Lapua brass.

                Comment

                • Drillboss
                  Warrior
                  • Jan 2015
                  • 894

                  #23
                  Originally posted by barrelcactus View Post
                  Thats what Arne Brennan (codeveloper)reported on another board he said the orginal Grendel was what we call the Grendel II print.
                  http://www.alexanderarms.com/images/...er-article.pdf

                  Comment

                  • barrelcactus

                    #24
                    The GII has .120 length heres Arne Brennans email arne@northamericansportsman.com

                    Comment

                    • Drillboss
                      Warrior
                      • Jan 2015
                      • 894

                      #25
                      Originally posted by barrelcactus View Post
                      The GII has .120 length heres Arne Brennans email arne@northamericansportsman.com
                      OK. Here's the next 2 sentences: So the throat was shortened to 0.120 inch. That showed an insignificant increase in accuracy and proved very projectile sensitive, so Alexander took a page from the Swedish Mauser book.

                      Then they evolved to the compound throat.

                      Comment

                      • barrelcactus

                        #26
                        Arne says they could not get groups with the Lapua Scenars. They then tried the shorter throat compound throat and it did shoot the scenars well with the powder they were using.. They did not have these modern powders though like 8208xbr and ar comp. The new data after folks have been shooting for seceral years with all kinds of bullets including lapua scenars suggests what they were seeing was a sensitivity to jump when ball powders when used with certain bullets. All this data with various bullets and a prefernce toward extruded powders by shooters seem to indicate to me that they learned the wrong lesson from a limited data set. They thought they were seeing a problem with the throat not liking lapua scenars but it was slapua scenars combined with ball powders.
                        Last edited by Guest; 05-11-2017, 10:01 PM.

                        Comment

                        • Drift
                          Warrior
                          • Nov 2014
                          • 509

                          #27
                          Thanks for the data. I'll probably try some of those loads.

                          Comment

                          • Drillboss
                            Warrior
                            • Jan 2015
                            • 894

                            #28
                            I don't think I'm dog piling and I didn't say a word about the data. Your earlier comments implied (at least by my interpretation) that the Grendel II was the "original" Grendel chamber and was therefore as good or better than the SAAMI chamber. I think it would be awesome if someone were to buy a group of blanks and have the same smith chamber 3 with SAAMI, 3 with Grendel II, and maybe 3 with 264 LBC-AR and then present the average of the results. Until that's done, the closest thing we have is Alexander's original testing of the various designs which apparently showed the SAAMI chamber to have the best accuracy with the widest range of bullets tested.

                            There's no denying that the Grendel II is on the market today because of the group buy fiasco a few years ago. And it's apparently more cost effective to mass produce barrels with the Grendel II chamber than with the SAAMI chamber. With that said, maybe the Grendel II has been a good thing for the Grendel cartridge. There are probably many, many more rifles shooting the Grendel cartridge today since Brownell's and Midway started selling the Liberty barrels. I was amazed to see that only about 10% of the loads in your group were fired from SAAMI chambers.

                            You and Arne may be right about the initial testing, I have no way of knowing. I don't have any problem at all with the Grendel II chamber, if that's what people want to buy. My problem is that the Grendel II, Grendel I, Type I bolt, Type II bolt, Type II barrel, etc. results in people not knowing what it is they are buying. SAAMI is a specification that can be relied upon.

                            Comment

                            • barrelcactus

                              #29
                              Originally posted by Drillboss View Post
                              I don't think I'm dog piling and I didn't say a word about the data. Your earlier comments implied (at least by my interpretation) that the Grendel II was the "original" Grendel chamber and was therefore as good or better than the SAAMI chamber. I think it would be awesome if someone were to buy a group of blanks and have the same smith chamber 3 with SAAMI, 3 with Grendel II, and maybe 3 with 264 LBC-AR and then present the average of the results. Until that's done, the closest thing we have is Alexander's original testing of the various designs which apparently showed the SAAMI chamber to have the best accuracy with the widest range of bullets tested.

                              There's no denying that the Grendel II is on the market today because of the group buy fiasco a few years ago. And it's apparently more cost effective to mass produce barrels with the Grendel II chamber than with the SAAMI chamber. With that said, maybe the Grendel II has been a good thing for the Grendel cartridge. There are probably many, many more rifles shooting the Grendel cartridge today since Brownell's and Midway started selling the Liberty barrels. I was amazed to see that only about 10% of the loads in your group were fired from SAAMI chambers.

                              You and Arne may be right about the initial testing, I have no way of knowing. I don't have any problem at all with the Grendel II chamber, if that's what people want to buy. My problem is that the Grendel II, Grendel I, Type I bolt, Type II bolt, Type II barrel, etc. results in people not knowing what it is they are buying. SAAMI is a specification that can be relied upon.
                              It is as good or better as is the 264lbc or the 6 5 CSS. The SAAMI is one option and is not magic.The data shows Grendel II shoots a wide range if bullets submoa. The claims Grendel II is not as good as the SAAMI are not supported by actual real world data compiled from normal real world shooters over several years. If the original Grendel testers were using ARcomp or 8208xbr when testing the 123gr scenars its doubtful the compound throat would have ever been considered as they would have gotten good results. As it is now the SAAMI is a great option as long as your not one of the unlucky ones with stuck bullets like have been reported on here over and over.
                              Last edited by Guest; 05-13-2017, 05:14 AM.

                              Comment

                              • NugginFutz
                                Chieftain
                                • Aug 2013
                                • 2622

                                #30
                                Originally posted by barrelcactus View Post
                                Thats easy to determine just PM and ask he runs beyond556.com.
                                Beyond556.com is no more. It's been gone for several months that I'm aware of.
                                If it's true that we are here to help others, then what exactly are the others here for?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X