6.5 Grendel vs 5.56

[VASCAR2]

A discussion on a gun forum about using a 6.5 Grendel AR-15 for all purpose rifle as opposed to using the 223/5.56 AR-15 gave me the incentive to conduct a small test. The question arose as to whether the 6.5 Grendel had to much recoil to be used in any type of match shooting such as three gun tactical matches involving targets at various distances. The 6.5 Grendel has been used effectively for hunting and with the advent of cheaper ammo for the 6.5 Grendel it makes the 6.5 Grendel a versatile target and plinking cartridge.

I have a 16" 6.5 Grendel AR15 set up very close to the same configuration as my 16" 223/5.56 AR-15. I also have an AR-15 chambered in 22 long rifle which is set up the same way as my 223/5.56 AR-15. The 6.5 Grendel uses a J&T Distributing 16" chrome moly barrel 1:9 twist with fixed A-2 sight, carbine hand guard and gas tube with Phantom Flash Hider. The rifle has a Double Star lower with a DS six position collapsable stock with RRA NM LPK.

My 223/5.56 uses a Bushmaster semi heavy barrel chrome lined 1:9 twist carbine hand guard and gas tube with A-2 flash hider and A-2 fixed front sight. The upper and lower receivers are RRA and the lower has a RRA six position collapsable stock with a RRA NM LPK.

My 22 LR AR-15 uses a dedicated CMMG 16" 1:16 twist rimfire barrel in M-4 light weight profile with an A-2 flash hider and fixed A-2 sight. The lower is CMMG with a six position RRA collapsable stock and RRA NM LPK. All three rifles have commercial buffer tubes and the supplied carbine buffer and springs. Each rifle is equipped with a 3 point sling and a rail mounted to the fixed sight tower with a Streamlight Polytach light. All three rifles have Midwest Industries BUIS. MY 223/5.56 has an E O Tech 512 and my 22 LR AR-15 has an E O Tech 511.

I normally use a Luepold Mark AR 3-9X40 scope on my 16" 6.5 Grendel but for this test I used a E O Tech 512. Basically all three rifles are very close in configuration and appearance.

I weighed the 16" 6.5 Grendel, empty was 8.8 pounds, loaded with 24 rounds 120 grain HP BT PPU was 10.0 pounds.

The 16" 223/5.56 weighed 9.2 pounds empty and loaded with 30 rounds M-193 weighed 10.0 pounds.

The 22 rimfire AR-15 empty weighed 8.0 pounds and loaded with 24 40 grain Aguila Super Extra weighed 8.2 pounds.

The test consisted of firing three rounds from the low ready on the buzzer from a Pact timer. The target was a 9" paper plate at 20 yards. Ammo was Aguilla 40 grain plated high velocity Super Extra. In 223 I used Winchester 55 grain FMJ and in 6.5 Grendel I used Prvi Partizan 120 grain HP BT. There were no malfunctions during the test. I shot 10 strings of three shots and recorded the times all except the tenth time with the 22 LR. I averaged all the times and they are listed below.

The first time is the average reaction time from the buzzer to the first shot.

22 LR 1.64

223 1.45

6.5 G 1.208

I'm sure the times improved as I repeated the shot strings and this test is more about recovery time for the various cartridges as the first round on target.

The split time to the second shot. Average

22 LR .377

223 .779

6.5 G .847

The split time to the third shot. Average

22 LR .4211

223 .832

6.5 G .772

The total time from buzzer to third shot average.

22 LR 2.3155

223 3.061

6.5 G 2.928

This test illustrated to me how much improvement can be gained by practice. I used to shoot rifles in CQB training a lot before retiring. I have not shot CQB very much in the last couple of years and it was very obvious. Practice can make more difference than the time it takes to shoot a 5.56 compared to a 6.5 Grendel.

While shooting the stages I dropped 4 shots outside the 9" paper plate with the 22 LR. I had no misses with the 223 and one miss at 6 O Clock just off the plate with the 6.5 Grendel. In one stage I was distracted by a piece of brass which increased my time to the second shot. Real world, crazy stuff always happens and Murphy never takes a vacation.

In three gun where the time is important down to the hundredth of a second the 5.56 is probably a better choice. For the hobby shooter the 6.5 Grendel could still be competitive, especially if the course involved longer range (300 yards +).

The 6.5 Grendel is also heavier per magazine and only holds 24 rounds compared to the 30 rounds for the 223/5.56. One thing that surprised me was once I used my AR-15 in 6.5 Grendel with E O Tech I didn't notice s significant difference in recoil or recovery time. I had mostly shot the 16" Grendel off hand with the 3-9 scope. Shooting off hand with a scope or from the bench makes the recoil more noticeable with the 6.5 Grendel. I really expected the 6.5 Grendel to be more difficult to control and reinforces to me how effective red dot sights are in CQB.

Here is a photo of the three test rifles, from the left 223/5.56, 6.5 Grendel and 22 LR.

26DF1D4D-32CD-44A2-A1B2-A0B63343E6A4 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/150966264@N06/]

Here is a picture of the 22 LR target. I had a tendency to pull my shots low left, I guess because I was recovering from recoil. I lost my original pictures showing the cardboard where the target was stapled. The four misses were visible in the other picture which was lost due to Photobucket debacle.


5D2EDCD8-D356-4E9B-9824-03D48F954E81 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/150966264@N06/]




Here is a photo of the 223 target, my sights are zeroed at 100 yards so impact at 20 yards will be 1:5"-2" low.

0976EA04-D9BE-4830-9705-9F5357D8F088 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/150966264@N06/]

Here is a picture of the 6.5 Grendel target. I was trying not to let my shots go low left, a little better.

95E602D3-9D98-46DC-88B7-D58B822324F6 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/150966264@N06/]

[catorres1]

Vascar,

This is awesome, thanks so much for doing this. I really think it will be a valuable as an answer to a question many people probably have. I know some of my friends have asked me how the Grendel will do as a CQB gun as I talk to them about my project, so this is really great.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I read these results, I really see no appreciable difference between the 223 and the 65 in terms of performance. Looks like 223 had the better first split time, but the 65 had the better second split time. 1st to last shot, the 65 won it. But all the differences are so minute as to be chalked up to luck.

So unless I am reading this wrong, which is very possible, it's 6 of 1 and half dozen of the other, for the most part (hardcore competitor use not included).

Awesome, thanks!

[VASCAR2]

I decided not to post every individual string with times because it is boring enough go through long threads. When I used to train a lot I got into a rythem while shooting. Kind of like the rythem when shooting a revolver. The recoil impulse on my 6.5 Grendel was definitely different than the 223. Whether I was just getting more accustomed to this type of drill and getting into the groove I can't say for sure.

When I fire a rifle or pistol I try to recover from the recoil in a smooth motion back on target timing my shot with the movement of the muzzle, breaking the shot when I'm back on target. My timing was off shooting 22 rimfire and I was pushing the muzzle lower left and got 4 rounds off the target between 6-7 O Clock. The more drills I ran the better I got, hense my belief it is more about the skill of the shooter more so than a particular weapon or cartridge. Take a firearms master who puts thousands of hours in training and they're darn good with any firearm.

It is obvious the 22 rimfire has very minimal recoil and the difference between the 22 rimfire and 223 is significant. To me the 6.5 Grendel had a little more recoil than the 223, maybe like shooting a 115 grain +P 9 MM compared to a standard pressure 9 if that much. I think if a person trained a lot and the tenths and hundreth of second meant winning a match the 223/5.56 might be better unless there is a major/minor caliber scoring.

For me personally I put more emphasis on tactics and trigger time than a particular weapon. I think with the same amount of trigger time on the 223/5.56 or 6.5 Grendel the averages would be very similar. I'd still like to have one of ex PD buddies run the test just to compare results. I'm thinking about running the test with my Tavor but my gut tells me there will be no significant difference.

[JASmith]

Thanks for doing the test and sharing!

Adding to your conclusion for short range competitions, bwaites has observed that the Grendel does well in F-class out to 600 yards but larger volume cases buck the wind a bit better at 1000 yards.

Again, the difference is noticeable only for the very best competitors.

Many of us, me especially, did not guess just how good this cartridge is when we first started working with it!

[VASCAR2]

I decided to give the individual times for the 10 strings, 223 first then 6.5 G

Reaction time to first shot, Elapsed time then split

1.) 1.38********************1.) 1.33
*** 2.26 .88--------------------2.17 .84
*** 3.13 .87--------------------2.93 .76

2.) 1.59********************2.) 1.25
*** 2.36 .77---------------------2.01 .76
*** 3.30 .94---------------------2.80 .79

3.) 1.50********************3.) 1.47
*** 2.27 .77----------------------2.44 .97
*** 3.03 .76----------------------2.97 .53 Flinched off target low

4.) 1.42********************4.) 1.45
*** 2.18 .76----------------------2.30 .85
*** 2.84 .66------------------–---3.37 1.07

5.) 1.35********************5.) 1.26
***2.02 .67---------------------2.61 .1.35 distracted by brass
***2.78 .76---------------------3.31 .70

6.) 1.52********************6.) 1.15
*** 2.37 .85-----------------------1.90 .75
*** 3.18 .81-----------------------2.64 .74

7.) 1.26********************7.) 1.24
*** 2.10 .84-----------------------2.19 .95
*** 2.95 .85-----------------------3.03 .84

8.) 1.49********************8.) 1.36
*** 2.34 .85-----------------------2.07 .71
*** 3.32 .98-----------------------3.03 .84

9.) 1.38********************9.) 1.20
*** 2.09 .71------------------------1.84 .64
*** 3.08 .99------------------------2.54 .70

10) 1.61*********************10) 1.37
*** 2.30 .69------------------------2.03 .66
*** 3.00 .70------------------------2.66 .63


Averages don't tell the whole story but are an indication on trends. For me shooting I didn't have the consistency to show either 223 or 6.5 G as being superior. Honestly being able to hit inside of a 9" circle with a centerfire rifle ought to go a long way on getting you home at the end of the day. Shooting against the clock always gets my juices going a little.

The quickest reaction time with 2.23 1.26 seconds 6.5 G 1.15
The slowest reaction time with 2.23 1.61 seconds 6.5 G 1.47

Fastest first split 223 .67 seconds 6.5 G .64 seconds
Slowest first split 223 .88 seconds 6.5 G 1.35 seconds

Fastest 2nd split 223 .66 seconds 6.5 G .53 seconds, was a miss. lol
Slowest 2nd split 223 .99 seconds 6.5 G 1.07 seconds

[VASCAR2]

Since I had previously used my 16" 6.5 Grendel with the Luepold Mark AR 3-9X40 mil dot scope I was curious how it would compare to shooting the 16" 6.5 Grendel with the E O Tech 512. As a control I shot a 16" bull barrel DPMS Gen I 22 LR with a Tasco 2.5-10X44 scope. The DPMS upper is mounted on a RRA NM LPK with RRA 6 position collapsable stock. The empty weight of the DPMS is 8.6 pounds, loaded with 30 rounds Aquila 40 grain SE in metal 30 round BDM mag the 22 LR AR-15 weighs 9.8 pounds. The 16" 6.5 Grendel with scope empty weighs 8.4 pounds and loaded with a 24 round ASC mag and 24 Wolf 100 grain FMJ bullets the 6.5 Grendel weighs 10.2 pounds.

Here is a photo of the 16" bull barrel DPMS dedicated 22 rimfire AR-15 with BDM 30 round magazine.

7948E5AE-F675-49A3-82F7-08C11B684BC1 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/150966264@N06/]

Here is a photo of the 16" 6.5 Grendel with the Leupold Mark AR 3-9X40 scope in a RRA cantilever mount.

E749508F-8643-47F6-B69D-C5092D0E79F3 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/150966264@N06/]


I conducted the same test using a Pact timer, at the buzzer from the low ready I fired three rounds at a white 9" paper plate at 20 yards. I've shot 22 LR AR-15's a good bit off hand with 2.5-10 scopes but never under time or in competition. I used the Tasco scope on 2.5 power. With the weight of the DPMS rimfire it was easy to rapid fire and I dropped no shots off the plate. I'm used to shooting both eyes open but using a scope limits your field of view compared to an E O Tech.

Here is a photo of the scoped 22 rimfire target. The original picture in this post was lost showing the plate on the cardboard. This is a picture of the target plate only.

11ED54B2-F667-4365-A3F8-C8AD140B8730 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/150966264@N06/]

I then attempted to run the same test with the scoped 16" 6.5 Grendel. I was using a new untested ASC 24 round mag. On the second string I encountered a failure to feed on the 3rd round. The left feed lip was a lot lower than the right so I attempted to adjust the feed lip with my pliers but still encountered problems. I switched to a proven mag and encountered no further malfunctions.

During the test with the scoped 6.5 Grendel I dropped five shots off the 9" paper plate. After the test I shot a few 3 shot strings with no timer testing the troublesome magazine. My group was much improved but I would not use the 6.5 Grendel with this scope in any kind of close range scenario if I had a choice.


I do not like trying to shoot for speed with the Leupold Mark AR scope set on 3 power. The recoil of the 6.5 Grendel was enough to make getting into a rhythm with narrow field of view difficult. The 40 MM objective limits the field of view compared to the 44 MM objective and the 2.5 power of the Tasco scope. The Leupold is a good scope but not for this test/task.

Here is a photo of the scoped 6.5 Grendel target. I don’t have the picture of the backing cardboard showing the misses. Here is a picture of the target only.

7B3E2998-F066-431D-A8D6-B5CE377E657C by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/150966264@N06/]

[VASCAR2]

Here is a picture of the un-timed 6.5 Grendel target. I guess the saying about rushing is usually not as good as going slower and being smooth.

48C2C1F7-C611-41FA-ADCC-9B400C9DEF19 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/150966264@N06/]

Here are the times comparing the scoped 22 rimfire to the scoped 6.5 Grendel.
The first time is the average reaction time to first shot, the second time is amount elapsed followed by the time between shots, the third row is total time and time between second and third shot. The 22 rimfire is listed first then 6.5 Grendel. Average of ten strings of 3 shots.

22 LR________________________________6.5 G

Avg. 1.588___________________________Avg. 1.27
Split .502___________________________Split .760
Split .430___________________________Split .948

Here are the times for each 3 shot string with the 6.5 Grendel

1. 1.31
__2.57_______________Split 1.26
__3.64_______________Split 1.07

2. 1.33
___1.95_______________Split .62
___2.88_______________Split .93

3. 1.10
__1.64_________________Split .54
__2.64________________Split 1.00

4. 1.36
___1.91_________________Split .55
___2.79________________Split .88

5. 1.07
___1.84________________Split .77
___2.69_______________Split .85

6. 1.28
___2.15________________Split .87
___3.58________________Split 1.43

7. 1.24
__1.81__________________Split .57
__2.73_________________Split .92

8. 1.86
__2.54_________________Split .68
__3.22_________________Split .68

9. 1.38
__2.09_________________Split .71
__2.91_________________Split .82

10 1.44
__2.47_________________Split 1.03
__3.48_________________Split 1.01

One issue I encountered with the 6.5 Grendel that I didn't notice shooting the 22 rimfire. There were a few strings where I lost the view through the Leupold scope because my head moved enough from recoil my eye was out of allignment with the scope. At very close range a person could point shoot with out using the scope. The eye box on the 3-9 scope restricted me enough to where I had difficulty seeing the target after recoil. I would like to experiment with the newer 1-4 or 1-6 power scopes.

I had no trouble aquiring the target for the first shot, you can see this by looking at the reaction time between the 22 rimfire and the 6.5 Grendel. The recoil of the 6.5 Grendel made a noticable difference in my times but was primarily because of the optic.

[catorres1]

Vascar,

This is very timely that you did this additional testing. I just went out today with my son and our hunting went from deep thicket...10 yard visibility to, at the end of the day, both pigs and coyotes from 120 to 500 yards.

As I think about completing my Grendel project, I have been swinging between just getting a 2-10, getting a 1-6, or putting on something like a 4.5-14 with an additional 'heads up' optic mounted at an angle on the long range optic.

Considering your results here, just the 2-10 is probably not going to make me happy for this hunting or for tac classes. So one of the last two options will be the way to go. Not sure, with my poor sight, the 1-6 is going to give me what I want for long range steel shooting, but I need to try it out.

BTW, my son ended up taking a Coyote at 120 yards or so off his stomach with his 270, so it was a great day.

[VASCAR2]

catorres1 thank you for your kind words. I've always been a gadget type of guy and like making things work. The beauty of the AR-15 is it flexibility. I have switched optics numerous times and have not had issues returning to zero. I have only shot one or two times with a mini red dot mounted above a scope and never used an angle mounted red dot. After seeing the pros use the scope and angled iron sights or red dot I'm sure you can make it work if you spend the time.

The determining factor for scope magnification for me is the size of target and terrain. I live in the midwest, in the summer visibility is limited by the foliage and crops. In the colder times of year I can shoot at long range. I really like the 2.5-10 power scope for varmint hunting. Ten power gives me enough power to identify most varmints such as foxes, marmouths, raccoons out to several hundred yards but on 2.5 power I like the field of view to make snap shots off hand.

I have seriously considered buying a 1-4 or 1-6 optic just to test. I really like the mildot reticle and chose the Mark AR 3-9X40 because of the mildot reticle. I have enough magnification to shoot steel targets at 800 yards on 9 power at 350' above sea level. To shoot any further I really need a 20 MOA mount. At three power I can use the scope for close range varmints and with the light can even engage targets at reasonable range in low light.

At least if you buy a quality optic and it doesn't work for you it can be sold on forums like here.

[catorres1]

Vascar,

Yeah, the terrain and uses I'll be putting it are so varied, it's hard for me to decide. That's really why I want a Grendel, it's wide range of use. But that makes optics complicated. I actually talked to a SF Sniper at a military base visit, just to see what he thought. He suggested the higher-range/heads up combo setup. But the weight of that I'd like to avoid. A 1-6 illuminated just feels so much more elegant. But looking at targets yesterday at 6 power through another scope I have....well my eyes just ain't what they used to be! More mag is definitely appreciated. Need new glasses, no doubt, but I don't think that's going to make a 6 power work for me at 1k shooting at steel. Even targets at 500 seem too small these days at 6 power.

I am doing another precision rifle course this summer, hopefully, and the instructor does tactical rifle as well. So I'll get a chance to play with his 1-6 when I visit, and see just how well it works in between shooting my bolt guns.

If I can make that work, that would be pretty nice, but I suspect a heavier combo setup is in my future. Heads up at a cant for very close tactical play, then switch to the larger optic for anything over prolly 50 yards.

[VASCAR2]

Sounds like good plan to me.