This is going to be a long post, but I hope that some of you find it useful. It is my attempt at a graphical explanation as to why I choose to hunt with the Grendel. A few things need to be clarified first.
My target animals are coyotes, cougar, black bears, mule deer, whitetail deer and elk.
The area that I hunt limits about 80% of my shot opportunities to 100 yards or less. The remaining 20% of the opportunities are less than 300 yards. Beyond that, I’m not really comfortable with shooting at an animal anyways. This is probably a fair representation of many hunters in North America.
I believe in a thing called overkill. Some hunters do not. If I’m shooting at coyotes or cougars I don’t really care about overkill either. Dead is dead and you can’t get “more deader”. However, if I’m going after deer, bear or elk then I want to eat it. There is something inside of me that wants to be as responsible with what God has provided to me as food as I can be. When I was a kid, my best friend’s dad would take us hunting. He had two types of hunting rifles, a 30-30 and the 30-06. We did all of our own butchering (and I still do). It didn’t take me long to realize that both rounds killed deer out to 200 yards, but the 30-30 didn’t waste so much meat and it didn’t make such a mess on the kitchen counter when butchering the animal.
In order to compare the potential effectiveness of a bullet/barrel length for hunting purposes, I started a spreadsheet. While you may not agree with my “cut off” levels, the numbers should be accurate and provide a good comparison between options.
The “cut off” levels are based on loose “generally accepted standards” and my own experience. Take them with a grain of salt and don’t get upset if you don’t agree with them. They have served me well though and tend to represent what I have seen in the field and on the butcher block.
Here are the cut off levels and the reasoning behind them.
Minimum Humane Energy for Deer/Bear.
800 ft/lbs
Minimum Humane Energy for Elk/Moose.
1,200 ft/lbs
Maximum Energy for Deer/Bear.
2,400 ft/lbs
This needs some explanation. 2,400 ft/lbs is three times the minimum for deer and double the minimum for elk. At this point it is my opinion that I am wasting too much meat. It’s time to find a less powerful round or get more distance between me and the deer/bear.
Maximum Energy for Elk/Moose.
3,600 ft/lbs
This is three times the minimum required for elk. I feel that the wrong tool has been selected for the job at this point. Either selecting a less powerful round or getting more distance from the target would resolve the issue.
Excessive Velocity.
2,800 ft/sec
I’m sure that I’m going to get some comments on this number. Basically, what I’ve noticed is that there is “excessive bloodshot” at high velocities, even when the energy levels don’t indicate that there should be. This is a very loose number and is only based on my own personal experience. Again, take it with a grain of salt and don’t get upset if you don’t agree.
Minimum Bullet Weight
110gr
I’m sure to get some feedback on this as well. I know that a great many deer have been taken with a 100rg 243. My family and I have taken quite a few ourselves with that very combination. We have used it enough for me to know that I no longer wish to do so. Sometimes it works great. Other times the bullet hits a bone and explodes. There was not enough mass and weight retention to continue into the vitals of the deer. The deer runs off with a very minute blood trail for us to follow. Then I’ve seen the exact same shots with heavier bullets result in a DRT (Dropped Right There). This is just my own self-imposed limitation, you can take it or leave it.
Two points should be discussed before comparing cartridges.
First is the overall length of the 6.5 Grendel round. This plays an important consideration since it allows for micro action bolt guns and use in AR15s. The AR15 is the most popular sporting rifle and is therefore the easiest to customize. They are also very accurate and light. Being able to chamber my choice of round in this platform is an advantage. The micro bolt action rifles are naturally smaller and lighter than the short action and long action bolt guns. Shorter and lighter is a good thing when hunting.
Second is the price of ammo. I haven’t yet included options such as the .458 SOCOM because it costs about $3 per round. The Grendel on the other hand is about $1 per round for hunting options and down to $0.22 per round for budget practice ammo. This is a consideration when selecting a hunting round that I want to practice with.
For the first comparison, let’s look at the other rounds that can be chambered in the AR15. The 223 and 5.56 NATO never even make it to the minimum for deer so I won’t even bother showing those. Besides the fact that it is not legal to hunt anything bigger than a cougar or coyote with them in Washington. The next is the 300 Blackout.
300 Blackout.jpg
This chart tells me that the 300 blackout can be a decent short range deer round. It is however a poor choice for elk. I must also be careful when selecting ammo for the 300 Blackout for hunting since the heavier rounds never make it to my minimum deer energy levels. I’ve used the 300blk on coyotes at short ranges with success, but for filling the freezer I’m looking for a bit more power and longer ranges.
A quick look at the 7.62x39 tells me that it makes for a nice little deer round, but again it falls short for elk. Two things to note are that this has the same weight as our test 6.5 Grendel and a relatively long 20” barrel. Yet even the short 12” barreled Grendel leaves it in the dust performance wise.
7.62x39.jpg
The 6.8 SPC is probably the closest competitor to the 6.5 Grendel. Especially for hunting. The Grendel quickly outpaces the 6.8 at long range target shooting, but at hunting distances it is less significant. The 6.8 is a larger diameter. All else being equal, a larger diameter hole is an advantage when hunting. Since the test data that I have for the 6.8 is with a 16” barrel, I am only showing the equivalent data from the Grendel. As you can see, the Grendel still has about a 100 yard deer advantage and a 50 yard elk advantage over the 6.8 SPC. Throw in the cost of practice ammo and I’m buying a Grendel instead of the 6.8 SPC.
6.8 SPC.jpg
The rounds discussed above all share the same AR15 platform or micro action bolt options. From this group I think that it’s pretty easy to see why I chose the 6.5 Grendel. Next I will cover the more traditional hunting rounds that would otherwise fall into the “intermediate” category, but they don’t work in an AR15.
My target animals are coyotes, cougar, black bears, mule deer, whitetail deer and elk.
The area that I hunt limits about 80% of my shot opportunities to 100 yards or less. The remaining 20% of the opportunities are less than 300 yards. Beyond that, I’m not really comfortable with shooting at an animal anyways. This is probably a fair representation of many hunters in North America.
I believe in a thing called overkill. Some hunters do not. If I’m shooting at coyotes or cougars I don’t really care about overkill either. Dead is dead and you can’t get “more deader”. However, if I’m going after deer, bear or elk then I want to eat it. There is something inside of me that wants to be as responsible with what God has provided to me as food as I can be. When I was a kid, my best friend’s dad would take us hunting. He had two types of hunting rifles, a 30-30 and the 30-06. We did all of our own butchering (and I still do). It didn’t take me long to realize that both rounds killed deer out to 200 yards, but the 30-30 didn’t waste so much meat and it didn’t make such a mess on the kitchen counter when butchering the animal.
In order to compare the potential effectiveness of a bullet/barrel length for hunting purposes, I started a spreadsheet. While you may not agree with my “cut off” levels, the numbers should be accurate and provide a good comparison between options.
The “cut off” levels are based on loose “generally accepted standards” and my own experience. Take them with a grain of salt and don’t get upset if you don’t agree with them. They have served me well though and tend to represent what I have seen in the field and on the butcher block.
Here are the cut off levels and the reasoning behind them.
Minimum Humane Energy for Deer/Bear.
800 ft/lbs
Minimum Humane Energy for Elk/Moose.
1,200 ft/lbs
Maximum Energy for Deer/Bear.
2,400 ft/lbs
This needs some explanation. 2,400 ft/lbs is three times the minimum for deer and double the minimum for elk. At this point it is my opinion that I am wasting too much meat. It’s time to find a less powerful round or get more distance between me and the deer/bear.
Maximum Energy for Elk/Moose.
3,600 ft/lbs
This is three times the minimum required for elk. I feel that the wrong tool has been selected for the job at this point. Either selecting a less powerful round or getting more distance from the target would resolve the issue.
Excessive Velocity.
2,800 ft/sec
I’m sure that I’m going to get some comments on this number. Basically, what I’ve noticed is that there is “excessive bloodshot” at high velocities, even when the energy levels don’t indicate that there should be. This is a very loose number and is only based on my own personal experience. Again, take it with a grain of salt and don’t get upset if you don’t agree.
Minimum Bullet Weight
110gr
I’m sure to get some feedback on this as well. I know that a great many deer have been taken with a 100rg 243. My family and I have taken quite a few ourselves with that very combination. We have used it enough for me to know that I no longer wish to do so. Sometimes it works great. Other times the bullet hits a bone and explodes. There was not enough mass and weight retention to continue into the vitals of the deer. The deer runs off with a very minute blood trail for us to follow. Then I’ve seen the exact same shots with heavier bullets result in a DRT (Dropped Right There). This is just my own self-imposed limitation, you can take it or leave it.
Two points should be discussed before comparing cartridges.
First is the overall length of the 6.5 Grendel round. This plays an important consideration since it allows for micro action bolt guns and use in AR15s. The AR15 is the most popular sporting rifle and is therefore the easiest to customize. They are also very accurate and light. Being able to chamber my choice of round in this platform is an advantage. The micro bolt action rifles are naturally smaller and lighter than the short action and long action bolt guns. Shorter and lighter is a good thing when hunting.
Second is the price of ammo. I haven’t yet included options such as the .458 SOCOM because it costs about $3 per round. The Grendel on the other hand is about $1 per round for hunting options and down to $0.22 per round for budget practice ammo. This is a consideration when selecting a hunting round that I want to practice with.
Other AR15 Options
For the first comparison, let’s look at the other rounds that can be chambered in the AR15. The 223 and 5.56 NATO never even make it to the minimum for deer so I won’t even bother showing those. Besides the fact that it is not legal to hunt anything bigger than a cougar or coyote with them in Washington. The next is the 300 Blackout.
300 Blackout
300 Blackout.jpg
This chart tells me that the 300 blackout can be a decent short range deer round. It is however a poor choice for elk. I must also be careful when selecting ammo for the 300 Blackout for hunting since the heavier rounds never make it to my minimum deer energy levels. I’ve used the 300blk on coyotes at short ranges with success, but for filling the freezer I’m looking for a bit more power and longer ranges.
7.62x39
A quick look at the 7.62x39 tells me that it makes for a nice little deer round, but again it falls short for elk. Two things to note are that this has the same weight as our test 6.5 Grendel and a relatively long 20” barrel. Yet even the short 12” barreled Grendel leaves it in the dust performance wise.
7.62x39.jpg
6.8 SPC
The 6.8 SPC is probably the closest competitor to the 6.5 Grendel. Especially for hunting. The Grendel quickly outpaces the 6.8 at long range target shooting, but at hunting distances it is less significant. The 6.8 is a larger diameter. All else being equal, a larger diameter hole is an advantage when hunting. Since the test data that I have for the 6.8 is with a 16” barrel, I am only showing the equivalent data from the Grendel. As you can see, the Grendel still has about a 100 yard deer advantage and a 50 yard elk advantage over the 6.8 SPC. Throw in the cost of practice ammo and I’m buying a Grendel instead of the 6.8 SPC.
6.8 SPC.jpg
Summary for AR15 Options
The rounds discussed above all share the same AR15 platform or micro action bolt options. From this group I think that it’s pretty easy to see why I chose the 6.5 Grendel. Next I will cover the more traditional hunting rounds that would otherwise fall into the “intermediate” category, but they don’t work in an AR15.
Comment