Not trying to start a fight....

[Constitutionalist]

I'm new here and folks will probably think this is the wrong forum for this question. After a couple years of trying to decide on my next AR caliber, I decided on a Grendel. (I love it BTW but that's not the purpose of this post.)

Anyway here goes:

Considering that there appears to be nothing a 6.8SPC can do that a 6.5 Grendel can't do as well or better, why is the 6.8SPC still even being made?

I'm asking this question in good faith. I figured if I put it on a 6.8 leaning forum I'd get "Because it's the most wonderful cartridge ever developed by man!" What I'm hoping for is a more objective discussion. It seemed like 90% of what I read comparing the two was "The 6.8 does X just as good (or almost as good) as the 6.5.

Where (honestly) does the 6.8 shine? I'm not seeing it....

Thanks for a very interesting and informative forum

John

[ahillock]

Here is a good thread on the discussion that I have found informative.

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?12049-6.5-grendel-or-6.8-spc

[kmon]

The 6.8 SPC is also from Remington and Big Green put its muscle behind it.

[Sticks]

From what I have gathered from my research and various forums, it all boils down to "the right tool for the job".

There is no "Magic" caliber that is the be all and end all of rifle cartridges to do everything from QCB to long range DMR work in .mil practice, or hunting/sporting for the civilian.

Anything larger than a .22/5.56 is excessive for prairie rats (IMO), and most hunters should not be hunting medium to large game with anything smaller.

Even here, in some of the older threads I still trip over comments stating that the .30 caliber still out performs the 6.5 past 600, when everything on paper is quite contradictory (grated those threads are 2012 dates, and improvements in powder and loadings have upped the 6.5G game). It is also a bit of a stretch to compare a full size rifle cartridge performance to a small frame rifle cartridge.

For me, I have my 5.56 assembly for contact to 400, a Mk12 for contact out to 700+, and have been drooling over the 6.5 to replace the Mk12 for 3 years now. I am just having a hard time justifying the $5k price tag that it is going to come to. I really want to get into the long range target shooting, and this looks like it will fit the bill quite nicely, and serve multiple uses if needed - but is not the "one" rifle I will ever need.

The real truth is that shot placement makes up for needing large calibers, you just have to know your limits, and the rifles limits.

[stanc]

I'm new here and folks will probably think this is the wrong forum for this question. After a couple years of trying to decide on my next AR caliber, I decided on a Grendel. (I love it BTW but that's not the purpose of this post.)

Anyway here goes:

Considering that there appears to be nothing a 6.8SPC can do that a 6.5 Grendel can't do as well or better, why is the 6.8SPC still even being made?

My guess: Because there are perhaps ten times as many folks shooting 6.8 SPC as there are people who shoot 6.5 Grendel.

[cory]

It's performance vs marketing. Marketing is the only reason that 6.8 spc and the blackout are popular.

[JASmith]

The difference in muzzle velocity between the Grendel are so small that it is not significant.

The Grendel enjoys better ballistic coefficients for the same bullet weight so terminal velocity for the Grendel quickly overtakes that of the 6.8 SPC. The difference in drop becomes noticeable beyond about 250 yards with the Grendel superior in drop and drift.

Looking at the knock-down survey (http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showt...l=1#post143857) we see that about half of the animals were harvested inside 200 yards. These shots would have favored neither cartridge. The remaining half, however, were made easier by the Grendel trajectory.

If I recall correctly, most game is taken inside 200 yards, which means that the Grendel may indeed have increased the hunter's reach in an interesting way.

Therefore, the difference is in marketing effectiveness -- the SPC enjoyed a huge boost by being hyped as a special forces round and possibly the next service-wide cartridge. Remington adopting the cartridge and applying their reputation and marketing machine helped it even more.

The fact that the SPC has not enjoyed the hoped for success in either the SF or main steam service community has been lost on in many folks' minds. The cartridge being 'good enough' for most hunting is what keeps it alive.

The Grendel may well be the tortise in this race because it continues to gain traction and interest in spite of what I describe as distractions by the SPC and the Blackout.

[85_Ranger4x4]

It's performance vs marketing. Marketing is the only reason that 6.8 spc and the blackout are popular.

The .300 is hot right now for shooting subsonic/suppressed and uses more standard AR15 parts (people get scared of switching bolts and mags)

Everybody (good or bad) has heard of Remington, I hadn't heard of 6.5G until after I joined a forum and never heard of AA until I started looking into building one.

[ahillock]

From what I have gathered from my research and various forums, it all boils down to "the right tool for the job".

There is no "Magic" caliber that is the be all and end all of rifle cartridges to do everything from QCB to long range DMR work in .mil practice, or hunting/sporting for the civilian.

I think most would agree on here that there is no magic round that does everything. But to be honest, the 6.5 Grendel is the best multipurpose round for the AR15 platform and the closest thing to a magic round for the AR15. Nothing else comes close to it that I have seen.

For me, I have my 5.56 assembly for contact to 400, a Mk12 for contact out to 700+, and have been drooling over the 6.5 to replace the Mk12 for 3 years now. I am just having a hard time justifying the $5k price tag that it is going to come to. I really want to get into the long range target shooting, and this looks like it will fit the bill quite nicely, and serve multiple uses if needed - but is not the "one" rifle I will ever need.

The real truth is that shot placement makes up for needing large calibers, you just have to know your limits, and the rifles limits.

$5k on a 6.5 build? I hope you are getting 2 ounces of gold back for that build. Very pricey and you could spend half that budget and have an amazing 6.5 build. You might want to reconsider the project. Sounds over budget.

Yes shot placement is king. However, there are times where you can't lign up for the perfect shot placement. Those times you want the round with the better terminal ballistics to make up for less than optimal shot placement.

[Rickc]

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

[m796rider]

Lots of shooters are velocity whores and will go to whatever cartridge gets them the highest MV. Shooting a .270cal 90gr TSX at 3000fps sure *seems* a lot better than shooting a .264cal 123gr SST at 2500fps...

[Sticks]

...$5k on a 6.5 build? I hope you are getting 2 ounces of gold back for that build. Very pricey and you could spend half that budget and have an amazing 6.5 build. You might want to reconsider the project. Sounds over budget.

$1700 on a PF Neptune 8 upper, 18", Nitride, threaded only, Adj gas, mags, and a few other options
$1400 on an optic and mount
$1200 on an Omega, mount, and stamp
$500 on ammo, dies, other miscellaneous crap that one always forgets.
=$4800 easily rounded up to $5k after tax and shipping.

Where did I over shoot? I'm 75% of an AI bolt gun - hence my still drooling. Buy once cry once. I think the price is obscene as well, but I can't find more fat to trim.

I could trim $300 to $400 if I assembled from parts, but I want an upper that is capable of sub MOA and build my skills back up to the rifle. I lack the facilities to do so in my state of marital flux living in an apartment, and a tack driver upper can be easily screwed during assembly. I have no problem paying a pro to do it right.

Yes shot placement is king. However, there are times where you can't lign up for the perfect shot placement. Those times you want the round with the better terminal ballistics to make up for less than optimal shot placement.

Agreed. So do you wait/relocate for a better shot, or wish you opted for a larger rifle with a heavier pill?

I agree that the current best option for the AR/M4 frame for a near perfect multi purpose rifle is the 6.5G. Hell, none of us would be here if we thought different. Now if we can just get the food down under $.20 a round, and a top quality CHF - CL barrel that you can squeeze 15k rounds through and still retain the accuracy.

Maybe someday someone will come up with a cartridge/powder/bullet/barrel combination that will stay supersonic to 1200 out of a 12", have the energy and trajectory to make it count at 1000, plus have the ability to shoot subsonic and cycle. Then we will have the ultimate upper for the small frame rifle.

[Mike Wood]

I bought once and cried once for less than half as much, and my rifle will shoot as well or better. I agree, $5k on that listed above might be worth it to those with money to burn, but the same or better can be done for less. To each his own though with his own money to burn lol

And FYI...I built mine in an apartment using only a vice, upper lapping tool, and the normal AR15 tools. "Lack of facilities" is not a legit excuse considering these things are legos for men and you have to try REALLY hard to mess it up. And I'm no pro...I've only built 7 ARs so I'm far from it

Post some pics of how that $5k setup shoots

[Furlock Bones]

he did include his optics and silencer in that amount. that's $2600 of the $5K right there. another $500 in ammo and equipment.
$1,900 to build a spec rifle is not crazy. it's actually spot on.

[Mike Wood]

he did include his optics and silencer in that amount. that's $2600 of the $5K right there. another $500 in ammo and equipment.
$1,900 to build a spec rifle is not crazy. it's actually spot on.

I think $1700-$1900 wasn't including the lower

Either way, she should be a shooter with PF's guarantee of half MOA