Steve Gash article in Shooting Times

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • sneaky one
    Chieftain
    • Mar 2011
    • 3077

    #16
    BTW, once all the states get together on the condor- then the BALD EAGLE's issues ,,, we will all need lead free ammo.

    We went lead free in the gasoline in 1975,,,, Funny, not really, china gets to put lead into everything!

    Comment


    • #17
      I grew up on .270 Winchester. It's my baseline reference for center-fire rifles from childhood as to what a high power rifle is. That said, I think .270 Winchester is overkill for most medium game applications, especially with common soft point ammunition.

      .270 Winchester is best employed with dedicated hunting bullets that won't come apart at .270 velocities, which are typically ~3100fps with a 130gr bullet. I think the 140gr SST is a great affordable bullet for the .270 Win., but you still face issues with close range shots. The .270 is a great rifle out West, especially on mule deer, antelope, and elk, but you really need to watch what bullets you use so that they stay intact for the close distance shots.

      The .270 Winchester is what spurred Roy Weatherby to push .270 pills to faster speeds by loading it in a necked down .300 H&H Magnum with a double-radiused shoulder, starting the Weatherby line of even more overkill cartridges which SAAMI won't touch, as many of them are loaded to 70,000psi. This is the definition of making a rifle that can't be trained with, especially when looking at youth, budget, recoil, etc.

      The 6.5mm's have always had an edge on larger bores.
      Last edited by Guest; 07-20-2014, 02:35 PM.

      Comment

      • Y85
        Warrior
        • Sep 2012
        • 252

        #18
        Ok, I'm starting to see this a bit -- but a lot of this is "empiric" as JA (?Joe?) stated earlier. I read thru the ShootersNotes site (great stuff, btw). And now I begin to see why we have spilled so much electronic ink on bullet design (Sneaky, I've read your posts with interest over the years.). If, as appears likely, we are slouching toward a lead-free future, what are we looking for in a hunting projectile in the 6.5G? I understand Joe's empiric connection between projectile type (based on constituent parts, shape, and construction) and wound channel (although, unless I missed it, most of what is written on ShootersNotes emphasizes permanent wound channel).

        When I was stationed at Bliss (now, that is a misnamed duty station), one of my colleagues was doing comparative research on wounding patterns using standard issue military weapons from the course of the Army's history and I had the opportunity to look over some of his data. (Brief synopsis, you do not want to be shot with a Minie ball.) We know that temporary wound cavity is also important in the ethical taking of game. Not to mention that expansion velocity floors for lead-free projectiles are -- depending on what you read -- somewhere around 1600-1800 fps.

        What is going to be the intersection point between construction material, weight, BC, HITS score (which takes into account velocity retained at impact and is thus, somewhat, derivative of BC without using it), and cartridge length to make the 6.5G an effective and reproducible (based on shooter skill) 400-600 yard caliber for medium game (up to and including mule deer or Canadian whitetails) in a rifle that can be carried in the field (18" bbl, fluting, etc, etc etc)?

        (And as a corollary, does anyone know if Barnes or Nosler or Hornady or whoever, is near-to-market with an all copper projo that expands at lower velocities (like the Accubond-LR does)? I spoke with Barnes about the LRX and they strongly recommend 1800 fps at impact -- which limits range in the Grendel -- and the 127g LRX is very long for an AR-magazine based round.)

        This is not just a theoretical exercise -- my son and I have a Colorado mule deer hunt this autumn and I was thinking of taking our Grendels. But the guide says be ready to shoot to 400 or a bit longer. I have no concerns about my 300WM at long range (although I have concerns about the old man behind the rifle) or my son's 338FED (no concerns with those young nerves and eyes). Just curious what people think -- Joe, Sneaky, LR52: any thoughts?

        Lastly, on the 270 comparative discussion, I concur that it is wonderful to see the increase in published interest in the 6.5G and the articles in the new Book of the AR-15 and Shooting Times are excellent but, IMO, what this cartridge needs (indeed what the entire AR-15 hunting community needs) is the 6.5G version of Jack O'Connor. We need someone to write with skill and poetry about the beauty of the wild hunting places, the thrill and heartbreak of the chase, the celebration and sadness of the harvest, and the utility and grace of the caliber.

        I nominate LR52.
        Last edited by Y85; 07-20-2014, 01:35 PM.

        Comment

        • keystone183
          Warrior
          • Mar 2013
          • 590

          #19
          Originally posted by JASmith View Post
          No bad keystroke fellas!

          The key item is bullet weight. Muzzle and impact velocity make very little difference as long as the impact velocity is in the recommended range for the bullet. For most lead-core bullets, that range is 2,000 to 3,000 fps. Since both the .270 and the Grendel have pretty close to the same range of bullet weights that can impact within this velocity at reasonable hunting distances, their effect on game is very similar.

          The main difference is the .270 has a flatter trajectory and a longer range to the threshold bullet velocity but one pays the price of enduring heavier felt recoil.

          Go to this page and read the linked papers for details: Ideal Bullet Weight
          I am certainly no expert or physicist. But for the last 10 or so years i've probably taken 20+ deer a year (sometimes significantly more) with a variety of calibers, including .270, .257, .22-250, and recently the grendel. The majority have been with the .270. Most of the shots, maybe 80% are with in 100yrds. Try mostly for shots in the neck if the situation allows. In my experience, there isn't much of a comparison. No matter the target area, the .270 has MUCH more knock down power (as subjective as that term may be) than the grendel. Not that the grendel won't put them down, but the .270's terminal effects are very noticeable in terms of speed of kill, and wound cavity/channel.

          Again, i love the grendel, and take it out more than just about anything else these days, for the obvious advantages. But, if i were paying for a hunt where it was important to me to get a sure kill.....no question where i'm going...

          Comment


          • #20
            Yes, the higher initial velocity of a .270 Winchester is noticeable at short range compared to the Grendel. But I don't think that will hold true at longer range. The bullets available for the .270 winchester are poor ballistically, they are designed for 0-300 yards and within that envelope they perform well indeed. But once the .270 has dropped below the velocity threshold of a massive temporary wound cavity it be comes just another chunk of metal through the vitals.

            Also, I would find another guide, if he tells me be prepared to shoot 400 yards, he is telling me he has a poor area, or poor techniques. Most guides worth their salt will be advising the opposite, and plan to get you in close, unless they observe you really have the skill for a 400 yard shot, they won't even permit it.

            I'm a long range hunter and a short range hunter, I would not hesitate to use my 6.5 Grendel out to 400 yards on a mule deer, whether it be a meat hunt or a trophy hunt makes no difference, I don't want to wound either. I find the 6.5 Grendel far more effective than the .243 and lots and lots of trophy mule deer have been taken with the .243. I even let one of my sons use our .243 on the Kiabab, and that is a hard to get tag. He killed a nice buck at 275 yards with a 100 grain Speer Grandslam from the little Remington model 7 .243. The 6.5 Grendel would have been more effective, and if I had one then, he would have used it. But dead is dead, and a 270, .243, or 6.5 bullet throughout the thorax makes them very dead.
            Bob

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by stokesrj View Post
              Yes, the higher initial velocity of a .270 Winchester is noticeable at short range compared to the Grendel. But I don't think that will hold true at longer range. The bullets available for the .270 winchester are poor ballistically, they are designed for 0-300 yards and within that envelope they perform well indeed. But once the .270 has dropped below the velocity threshold of a massive temporary wound cavity it be comes just another chunk of metal through the vitals.

              Also, I would find another guide, if he tells me be prepared to shoot 400 yards, he is telling me he has a poor area, or poor techniques. Most guides worth their salt will be advising the opposite, and plan to get you in close, unless they observe you really have the skill for a 400 yard shot, they won't even permit it.

              I'm a long range hunter and a short range hunter, I would not hesitate to use my 6.5 Grendel out to 400 yards on a mule deer, whether it be a meat hunt or a trophy hunt makes no difference, I don't want to wound either. I find the 6.5 Grendel far more effective than the .243 and lots and lots of trophy mule deer have been taken with the .243. I even let one of my sons use our .243 on the Kiabab, and that is a hard to get tag. He killed a nice buck at 275 yards with a 100 grain Speer Grandslam from the little Remington model 7 .243. The 6.5 Grendel would have been more effective, and if I had one then, he would have used it. But dead is dead, and a 270, .243, or 6.5 bullet throughout the thorax makes them very dead.
              Bob
              Very well said.
              The ability to place the bullet where it should go is most important.
              Lots of practice and an accurate rifle helps.
              The 6.5Grendel is very accurate with little recoil in a great platform.
              After seeing how well it shoots if I wanted to shoot way out there like 600 yards and beyond I'd get a 260 rem or 6.5 creedmore.

              Comment


              • #22
                I have a .260 and a 6.5 Creedmoor and a 6.5X55, they perform marginally better than my Grendel, but If I am purposefully going to shoot long range, I take my 6.5 STW which launches a 140 grain Berger Hunting VLD at 3350 fps. For the majority of situations I'll take my 6.5 Grendel just because it is handier and most shots are not 600 yards or more, they are 300 yards or less. Even Antelope in the wide open plains are shot at less than 300 yards 90+% of the time.
                I've been concentrating on hunting in Europe lately and my AR's aren't welcome in most places. I wind up taking my Blaser R8 with a 6.5X55 and a 9.3X62 barrel with me mostly. Seems like I always have the wrong one on the gun. Here is a little Roe Buck I shot with the 9.3X62 using a 286 grain RWS TUG bullet. It killed him and didn't destroy much meat. My 6.5 Grendel would have killed him and not destroyed much meat either. The shot was only 117 meters and there, they think that is a long shot. Most game is taken well within 100 meters and in some places it's illegal to take a shot more than 200 meters.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I don't shoot bolt guns much anymore and I sold my 308 since the 6.5grendel will work for most hunting.
                  It was getting too heavy compared to mouse guns.
                  The lighter weight guns like the DPMS G2 and H's nextgen seam to have made them lighter.
                  I think the 6.5SLR is the best 6.5 off the 308 case but hasn't caught on yet.
                  How do you like your 260rem and 6.5creedmore.
                  I'm leaning towards the 6.5creedmore for use with the 140 hunting VLD's.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I like the 6.5 Creedmoor really well. It is superior if you don't hand load as the Hornady factory loads are uber accurate, single hole at 100 yards. If you hand load there isn't much difference, you really couldn't tell them apart in the field. Same goes for the 6.5X55 except it takes a long action. The AMU went with the .260 for their NRA match rifles which are McMillan 2000 rifles also available in 6.5 Creedmoor. Emil Praslic the coach of the Army Marksmansip Unit told me they tested them extensively and could tell no difference and Lapua agreed to make 260 brass but not Creedmoor. So they chose the .260. Carl Bernosky also tested both and chose the 6.5 Creedmoor but later moved to the 6mm Hagar. So there you have it the best of the best the AMU and Carl looked at the same situation and made opposite choices. It really is six of one or half a dozen of the other. Unless you intend to shoot factory loads, then the 6.5 Creedmoor wins hands down, 260 factory loads are poor at best.

                    Bust just to keep this on topic, I don't think either the .260 or the 6.5 Creedmoor are any more effective in the field than the 6.5 Grendel. On paper yes, but not in real life.

                    Bob
                    Last edited by Guest; 07-22-2014, 08:11 PM.

                    Comment

                    • keystone183
                      Warrior
                      • Mar 2013
                      • 590

                      #25
                      On paper, how would you compare the creedmoor to the .270?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The classic .270 130 grain factory load starts our with more speed and energy, but at 450 yards the 6.5 Creedmoor 140 grain factory A-max load has overtaken the 270 and caries more energy with a growing lead as the range increases. The 6.5 Creedmoor also allows a short action, the .270 requires a long action, and the .270 produces significantly more muzzle blast and recoil although the recoil is manageable in both.
                        Bob

                        Comment

                        • Butterbean
                          Warrior
                          • Oct 2012
                          • 123

                          #27
                          Originally posted by keystone183 View Post
                          Count me as someone who loves the grendel.....but lets not get carried away here.....

                          Yup.
                          Lifetime: NRA, GOA, 2AF

                          Comment

                          • sneaky one
                            Chieftain
                            • Mar 2011
                            • 3077

                            #28
                            Right guys, RJ has spent more time afield - everywhere than most of us- so he has seen more bullet damage upon game animals. That's why he is such a great informer on this forum, we love his posts.

                            But the the new monos are a new bullet, still under design, testing also by a few of us. I'm going lead free from here on out, a few more dollars per yr., are worth it to me, & my family. I am sure that us guys from the past , ate much lead in our diets- I'm done with that now.

                            Moving forward in the lead free realm, think of your kids, as to what we all know now days on lead. Look to china, they include lead into Every thing..... sad

                            Comment

                            • Paul45LC
                              Unwashed
                              • Mar 2014
                              • 23

                              #29
                              Originally posted by stokesrj View Post
                              Yes, the higher initial velocity of a .270 Winchester is noticeable at short range compared to the Grendel. But I don't think that will hold true at longer range. The bullets available for the .270 winchester are poor ballistically, they are designed for 0-300 yards and within that envelope they perform well indeed. But once the .270 has dropped below the velocity threshold of a massive temporary wound cavity it be comes just another chunk of metal through the vitals.

                              Bob
                              I hate to burst your bubble on this, but, the .270 Winchester has access to the complete array of Accubond, Ballistic Tips, Gameking, Interbond, SST, Scirocco, and TTSX bullets up to 150 grains where applicable. This means plenty of low drag selections. The .270 earned its reputation as a flat shooting long range hunting cartridge by being exactly that, a flat shooting long range hunting cartridge.

                              I love the Grendel because I'm fascinated by its ability to do so much with so little, but sir, it is no .270.
                              Waiting for an AR in .45-70 with a 30 inch octagon barrel, case hardened receiver, and extra fancy walnut furniture. Until the day someone makes one, I guess 6.5mm Grendel will do nicely.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Paul45LC View Post
                                I hate to burst your bubble on this, but, the .270 Winchester has access to the complete array of Accubond, Ballistic Tips, Gameking, Interbond, SST, Scirocco, and TTSX bullets up to 150 grains where applicable. This means plenty of low drag selections. The .270 earned its reputation as a flat shooting long range hunting cartridge by being exactly that, a flat shooting long range hunting cartridge.

                                I love the Grendel because I'm fascinated by its ability to do so much with so little, but sir, it is no .270.
                                Low drag selections coming into the .277 stable? Yes.

                                The kicker is that the span of bullet weights for the 6.5 caliber is about the same as for the .277 lineup. That automatically means a larger sectional density for smaller diameter bullets of the same weight. Hence it will be difficult to find a .277 bullet with superior performance to a 6.5 caliber bullet in the same weight. With the range of bullet weights being roughly the same, we see the 6.5 caliber has the edge bullet for bullet.

                                This means that, when using cases of equal volume, e. g., 6.5-06, the 6.5 will give superior performance with that superiority increasing with range for similar bullet designs of the same weight.

                                Turning to the Grendel, load data is available for bullets ranging from 85 grains to 156 grains. As long as these bullets are going fast enough to reliably expand, they will perform as well on game as the same weight .277 bullet even when the larger bullet is going a few hundred fps faster. Further, the slower bullet can outperform the faster one when it is going so fast that the bullet fragments instead of simply expanding.

                                This behavior was established in tests referenced in the Ideal Bullet Weight papers. This means that the only difference is the range over which the two bullets are within their impact velocity envelopes and the trajectory. Bottom line, as long as both bullets are above the expansion threshold and below the fragmentation ceiling, there is essentially no difference in average permanent wound channel between .264 and .277 bullets.

                                Further, as stokesrj points out, the 270 tends to drive bullets of classic design a bit too fast for reliable performance in game. Yes, there are spectacular wounds, but these are too often on the surface but with not much penetration because the bullet blows up, or a lot of meat is ruined by multiple fragments and ripping because of the near-explosive encounter.

                                The Grendel does not have this problem.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X