6.5 Grendel V.S. 7.62x51 500yds & Beyond........ Questions......

[Christopher67]

Every time I pull the trigger on a 16" 7.62 NATO carbine that someone has brought to one of my courses or someone lets me shoot at the range, each cycling of the action and loss of sight picture rings in my head like this:

"Bang...So glad I have Grendel. Bang-SO Glad I have Grendel. Bang....Da** this sucks. Bang...Who thought this was a good idea? Bang...To think that this was my dream gun one time. Bang...I can hear my impacts, but sight picture has come way off target each time-asa that me or another shooter? Bang....Gotta love that muzzle concussion and FOV disruption."

A lot of 147gr FMJBT M80 is all over the place at 600yds, especially from a SCAR with a factory trigger. When I was competing with .308 Win., I was shooting the 155gr Scenar as fast as I could because at the time, we were accepting the stated BC of it being in the .5s, which turned out to be way inflated. A lot of us made that choice over the 175gr SMK based on the stated BC alone, when it turns out that the 175gr SMK has a better BC, bucks the wind better, holds its energy a little better. A 155gr Scenar was all over the place in normal wind conditions at 800-1000yds for me and my friends even from top-end rifles with top end barrels, top-end shops, top-end glass. The 155gr Scenar smokes a 147gr FMJBT all day long, with one exception being the German MEN stuff. That ammo is match-grade perfection, very fast, superb brass, super consistent bullet, way flat like a .260 Rem, but nowhere near the wind deflection of a 6.5mm.

For those that are die-hard, 7.62 NATO, 1930s-1950s regressive thinking (from decades of .276 Pedersen, 6.5x55, 6.5x54 M-S progress), that MEN ammo is wonderful TGT ammo.

Even guys shooting Creedmoor or .260 Rem can't put the round count onto a plate at distance as fast and easy as I can with a little 18" or 20" Grendel. I have them all, and there is a certain amount of atmospheric and particulate matter disturbance that happens with muzzle blast, requiring a lag time between shots to let the dust settle and the atmosphere to equalize.

I see a distortion of the air around the muzzle that obscures the target when I break the shot through one of the larger volume cartridges, especially when rapid-firing or wanting that fast follow-up shot, even at altitude. You can see what I'm talking about at 0:29 seconds into this video:

This was that same persons response to what you said:

Now go and ask them what that performance of a 6.5 bullet manufactured by the military arsenals would be.

Note, I used M80 ball as the 7.62 ref. There is no military ball equivalent for 6.5 Grendel.

We are not talking about target and ringing a steel plate at or past 600m. We are talking about combat shooting here. Terminal ballistics is the end game at greater range.

The 264 USA has a MV of 2650fps where as the Grendel only has 2450 from a 16in barrel (both using the same 123gr SMK)

Why is that important? Because FMJ or military ball ammo already bleed off 60 to 70% of its delivered energy inside a mans body. FMJ, besides only putting a hole in a mans body, still does very little damage.

Again, you have to remember that this is for the Army and not dudes on a range shooting at targets.
Reply With Quote

LRRPF52, i truly appreciate everything you do & the info that you share.

[stanc]

This was that same persons response to what you said:

Now go and ask them what that performance of a 6.5 bullet manufactured by the military arsenals would be.
Note, I used M80 ball as the 7.62 ref. There is no military ball equivalent for 6.5 Grendel.

I fully agree with him that any valid comparison with 7.62 M80 Ball needs to use 6.5 Grendel FMJ.
Odds are the Serbian military are (or will be) using PPU 6.5 Grendel 110gr FMJ for their ball ammo.

[LRRPF52]

This was that same persons response to what you said:
LRRPF52, i truly appreciate everything you do & the info that you share.

Maybe he doesn't know that I was in the Army, have deployed to multiple theaters of the globe pre and post-9/11, spent time in 3 different Scout Sniper Platoons, attended SOTIC Level II, and have been actively involved in deployment or training specifically related to the subject at hand literally for decades.

Guess what, we shot lots and lots of steel plates as part of that training in all the units I was in, as well as automated pop-up E-sils on transitions ranges. Coming from my background, if I could choose any rifle right now for one of several duty positions that I held, the 6.5 Grendel would be at the top of the list over anything in 7.62 NATO as far as shooting precision/distance is concerned, for all of the same reasons that make it such a useful hunting cartridge.

For the close range fight, I'm still a big fan of 5.56 slaughterhouse effects with high basic load round count for my assault elements, entry-level soldiers with limited marksmanship training, and all the support people who go outside the wire as part of a dismounted unit.

7.62 NATO is a non-starter for me personally. If that's all there is, then I'll put it to good use, and would have to find a way to carry enough of it for survivability without crushing my ideal maneuver weight, and therein lies the problem. I know several guys and units that went black or near black on 7.62 NATO who were snipers or DMs. I know of one unit in Afghanistan that almost went black on 5.56, and came razor thin close to being overrun by savages who like to rape boys and young men with no facial hair as part of their normal culture.

Replacing 7.62 NATO with Grendel capability would increase the round count of a dismounted unit, while increasing its maneuver potential, and increasing its hit probability in the existing ranges we currently engage targets at, while increasing the reach over 7.62 NATO by at least a few hundred meters, from DM, CSASS, and LMGs with shorter barrels that weigh less, with longer component life for the critical stressed parts like barrels.

It makes a ton of sense from the micro, can't see past my 4-year enlistment soldier who will never be given quality instruction on reading the wind, to 2nd and 3rd term combat leaders with Sniper or DM training, to the 4th term PSG who has to manage beans, bullets, batteries, and band-aids, to the macro level desk-driving logistics officer who looks at fleet life of SAW or M240 barrels in his Combat Brigades and Divisions, wondering how he can reduce replacement intervals.

If it was just isolated to the long gun community, that would be a great thing in and of itself, as we would get the same or longer barrel life on the schoolhouse rifles, with better hit potential for the students right out of the gate, from a gun that weighs the same as an M4 or SPR, and all the familiarity that comes with that. They can also turn around and use that same carbine as a close range blaster when moving to and from insertion platforms to the OBJ area, lay down some scunnion on savage bugger devourers with super fast follow-up shots across multiple bung violators, and still have plenty of ammo when things go south with exfil, counter-attack, FRAGO for the next mission unplanned, etc. You can't do all of that with 7.62 NATO. It's the literal albatross around any dismounted unit's neck, but we like the terminal performance of a heavier projectile hitting barriers and far targets with more authority than 5.56 NATO, hence the current mix.


I've had this conversation with guys across the relevant services, and I hear them passionately saying all this to me before I even have a chance to say, "Dude, we're tracking 100% 5x5." We're talking Army SF Sniper Instructors, guys out the Unit, USMC Division-level Sniper Instructors, all of whom have multiple relevant deployments in these duty positions.

[Christopher67]

Maybe he doesn't know that I was in the Army, have deployed to multiple theaters of the globe pre and post-9/11, spent time in 3 different Scout Sniper Platoons, attended SOTIC Level II, and have been actively involved in deployment or training specifically related to the subject at hand literally for decades.

Guess what, we shot lots and lots of steel plates as part of that training in all the units I was in, as well as automated pop-up E-sils on transitions ranges. Coming from my background, if I could choose any rifle right now for one of several duty positions that I held, the 6.5 Grendel would be at the top of the list over anything in 7.62 NATO as far as shooting precision/distance is concerned, for all of the same reasons that make it such a useful hunting cartridge.

For the close range fight, I'm still a big fan of 5.56 slaughterhouse effects with high basic load round count for my assault elements, entry-level soldiers with limited marksmanship training, and all the support people who go outside the wire as part of a dismounted unit.

7.62 NATO is a non-starter for me personally. If that's all there is, then I'll put it to good use, and would have to find a way to carry enough of it for survivability without crushing my ideal maneuver weight, and therein lies the problem. I know several guys and units that went black or near black on 7.62 NATO who were snipers or DMs. I know of one unit in Afghanistan that almost went black on 5.56, and came razor thin close to being overrun by savages who like to rape boys and young men with no facial hair as part of their normal culture.

Replacing 7.62 NATO with Grendel capability would increase the round count of a dismounted unit, while increasing its maneuver potential, and increasing its hit probability in the existing ranges we currently engage targets at, while increasing the reach over 7.62 NATO by at least a few hundred meters, from DM, CSASS, and LMGs with shorter barrels that weigh less, with longer component life for the critical stressed parts like barrels.

It makes a ton of sense from the micro, can't see past my 4-year enlistment soldier who will never be given quality instruction on reading the wind, to 2nd and 3rd term combat leaders with Sniper or DM training, to the 4th term PSG who has to manage beans, bullets, batteries, and band-aids, to the macro level desk-driving logistics officer who looks at fleet life of SAW or M240 barrels in his Combat Brigades and Divisions, wondering how he can reduce replacement intervals.

If it was just isolated to the long gun community, that would be a great thing in and of itself, as we would get the same or longer barrel life on the schoolhouse rifles, with better hit potential for the students right out of the gate, from a gun that weighs the same as an M4 or SPR, and all the familiarity that comes with that. They can also turn around and use that same carbine as a close range blaster when moving to and from insertion platforms to the OBJ area, lay down some scunnion on savage bugger devourers with super fast follow-up shots across multiple bung violators, and still have plenty of ammo when things go south with exfil, counter-attack, FRAGO for the next mission unplanned, etc. You can't do all of that with 7.62 NATO. It's the literal albatross around any dismounted unit's neck, but we like the terminal performance of a heavier projectile hitting barriers and far targets with more authority than 5.56 NATO, hence the current mix.


I've had this conversation with guys across the relevant services, and I hear them passionately saying all this to me before I even have a chance to say, "Dude, we're tracking 100% 5x5." We're talking Army SF Sniper Instructors, guys out the Unit, USMC Division-level Sniper Instructors, all of whom have multiple relevant deployments in these duty positions.

Thanks for your service to this great country.

[DJL2]

LRRP...you better be right!

Seriously, though, I just had a heart to heart talk with myself. American classic or no, I'm going to part ways with my 7mm Rem Mag. I'm pretty confident that a 162 grain VLD (Berger, Hornady, Matrix...) at 3000+ fps offers great down range performance. However, I'm not about to try and smack an Elk at any distance, let alone 1300+ yards...I don't need that sort of performance. What I need is "good enough" performance that I can enjoy shooting and do so economically. I really think the little 6.5 might be just the ticket...more so even than the 6.5 CM (for reasons already stated). In fact, especially with factory ammo, the 6.5 Grendel offers a big performance jump from 5.56 at relatively little cost.

Bottom line, with the right ammo, 6.5 Grendel will get you on target out to 1000-1200 meters from what I can see - there are precious few folks who don't have their needs met there. Maybe if I become a long range hunting junkie at some point...

"Intermediate" cartridges have been and will remain a great choice for GP use. Also, the M80 is hot garbage...color me completely unimpressed, no matter what platforms slings the lead.

[Kswhitetails]

LRRP...you better be right!

Seriously, though, I just had a heart to heart talk with myself. American classic or no, I'm going to part ways with my 7mm Rem Mag. I'm pretty confident that a 162 grain VLD (Berger, Hornady, Matrix...) at 3000+ fps offers great down range performance. However, I'm not about to try and smack an Elk at any distance, let alone 1300+ yards...I don't need that sort of performance. What I need is "good enough" performance that I can enjoy shooting and do so economically. I really think the little 6.5 might be just the ticket...more so even than the 6.5 CM (for reasons already stated). In fact, especially with factory ammo, the 6.5 Grendel offers a big performance jump from 5.56 at relatively little cost.

Bottom line, with the right ammo, 6.5 Grendel will get you on target out to 1000-1200 meters from what I can see - there are precious few folks who don't have their needs met there. Maybe if I become a long range hunting junkie at some point...

"Intermediate" cartridges have been and will remain a great choice for GP use. Also, the M80 is hot garbage...color me completely unimpressed, no matter what platforms slings the lead.

This. This right here. Welcome to Grendelville! Pick a house and move right in!

[Sticks]

I just competed in myour first long range rifle match.

Due to range conditions there were two stages that had to be slapped together from scratch., one of which was shooting off a 55 gallon drum on its side for 5 targets, and the only way to get the 6 target at 270 yards (IIRC) 2 MOA target was either set up a tripod for standing or grab hold of the little 3" dia tree for a forward brace.

My 18 Grendel weighs in at 13 pounds, where as the other 50+ bolt gun guys weigh in at 19+ pounds. With two squads behind us, I was one of what appeared to be only 5 other hits on that target, and my remaining time was on par with the other 7 guys in my squad, only had about 30 seconds to move from a sitting position with our pack in our laps for butt stock support, to standing, dope the shot down from 700, and engage. Most guys said screw it, some tried with their 24+ inch barrels and supressors and weight...miss.

The lighter and smaller package of the AR 15 in 6.5 Grendel definitely has the advantage in all day hiking and shooting fatigue.

[Klem]

'19+ pounds'? Are you sure?

[LRRPF52]

'19+ pounds'? Are you sure?

19lb rifles are pretty common in PRS. Some of the stocks alone weigh 6lbs and up, like the JAE-700.

Guys/gals are shooting Heavy Palma, MTU, and M24 profiles, a lot of 26" 6mm Creedmoors, with most barrels weighing at least 5lbs or more.

Add in a 2.2lbs Defiance action, bottom metal, 10rd mag, bipod, Vortex Razor, rings, muzzle device/suppressor, and you're well on the way to a 20lb rifle.

I noticed this at a match with my .260 gasser on one of the wobbly barricade stages. We had 40mph winds throughout the match, and I couldn't hold my rifle steady from a standing position on that barricade, no matter how tight I pulled on my quick-adjust 2-point sling. I was thinking, "If I had that little Grendel right now, this shot would be done and on to the next shot already."

Wasn't even a long shot, just an extremely difficult position with a heavy rifle.

[joedirt199]

And I thought my 13 lbs savage 308 was heavy

[Klem]

An M24 is 12lbs empty and 16lbs all-up with scope and full mag (24" - 27" barrels).

Here's a picture of a civilian F Class gun, designed to be shot from the prone in a rest. Shooters pull these monsters out and walk 50 metres from the nearest car park. The weight limit in that class is 8kg (17.6lbs), or 10kg (22lbs) with a fixed bipod. Note the 30" Medium Palma barrel and lead shot glued into the stock to bring it exactly up to 17.5lb limit. You cannot shoot this unsupported and expect to hit anything at distance, with accuracy. Regardless, I think we all agree that 19lbs is looking to be impractical for practical shooting.



If their guns really are 19lbs+ then I think we can at least agree that's way too heavy for a bolt gun being lugged around in the field. I can only think there must be a lot of supported shooting and short distances to hike without genuine backpacks.

A 24" medium Palma in a McMillan A5 with scope, bipod, sling, plus 10rds in a mag is no more than 13.5lbs (I've just weighed it).

If these guys are turning up to a civilian match with 19lb bolt guns then the first thing that can come off is the suppressor. Go easy on the barrel, scope and trigger...but everything else just holds it together.

[DJL2]

Klem,

Check out the Precision Rifle Blog. They have a great run down an the exact equipment (spoiler, it is as LRRP described above) used by the top 100 competitors in the Precision Rifle Series.

http://precisionrifleblog.com/

[LRRPF52]

An M24 is 12lbs empty and 16lbs all-up with scope and full mag (24" - 27" barrels).

Here's a picture of a civilian F Class gun, designed to be shot from the prone in a rest. Shooters pull these monsters out and walk 50 metres from the nearest car park. The weight limit in that class is 8kg (17.6lbs), or 10kg (22lbs) with a fixed bipod. Note the 30" Medium Palma barrel and lead shot glued into the stock to bring it exactly up to 17.5lb limit. You cannot shoot this unsupported and expect to hit anything at distance, with accuracy. Regardless, I think we all agree that 19lbs is looking to be impractical for practical shooting.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9626[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]9627[/ATTACH]


If their guns really are 19lbs+ then I think we can at least agree that's way too heavy for a bolt gun being lugged around in the field. I can only think there must be a lot of supported shooting and short distances to hike without genuine backpacks.

A 24" medium Palma in a McMillan A5 with scope, bipod, sling, plus 10rds in a mag is no more than 13.5lbs (I've just weighed it).

If these guys are turning up to a civilian match with 19lb bolt guns then the first thing that can come off is the suppressor. Go easy on the barrel, scope and trigger...but everything else just holds it together.

There's an annual match called Steel Safari that covers 3 days down in NM that many of the top PRS shooters like to shoot because it's more fun than any of the local and regional PRS matches. The difference is you are doing a bit of hiking in Southwest US terrain in the summer, covering some distance from station to station. The guys with the heavy rifles they normally shoot in PRS are pretty smoked by the end of each day, lots of flushed faces, redness, signs of early heat issues, dehydration, etc. Everyone carries a small pack, some carry tripods, everyone has some pretty high end LRFs, binos, water, snacks, mags, ammo, and the rifle.

It really pays off to have optimum equipment weight over the long haul throughout each day, as I saw a lot of shooters who were struggling physically with the conditions and weight, unable to focus on the multiple tasks of TGT detection, ranging, remembering where they are, then finding a suitable position to engage them from, while applying all the nuances of long range shooting.

[DJL2]

For the thread, as a point of reference, if I were to build one "like the pros" in PRS, here's what I'd have (from PRS Blog data):

A Defiance Machine action @ 2.19 lbs (plain Jane)
Manner's Composite PRS-1/PRS-2 @ 3 lbs (notable, because this is a light weight option)
Bartlein Barrel, 26 inches (6x47mm Lapua) @ ~6 lbs (some estimation here, barrel weights can vary considerably)
Vortex Optics Razor HD Gen II @ 3 lbs (48.5 ounces)
Vortex Rings @ .25 lbs (4.6 ounces for a set of two) - again, this is much lighter than a Spuhr (for example)
APA Gen II Little Bastard @ .25 lbs (4.3 ounces)

Raw Total: 14.7 lbs for a "lightweight" setup with no add ons (e.g. sling, suppressor, barricade adapters, etc.)

The SilencerCo Omega is 14 ounches (call it a pound).
Stock selection is huge...a McMillan A5 adds 10 ounces, for example. An MPA chassis (a popular choice) weighs 4.85 lbs...adding nearly two to the base rifle. Running an AICS AX Chassis? 5.6 lbs...2.6 over base. JAE Rem 700 stock? 6 lbs 8 ounces...apparently made with pure lead alloy, 3.67 lbs over stock.

New weights with different stocks:
Rifle w/ McMillan A5 - 15.5 lbs
Rifle w/ MPA chassis - 16 lbs
Rifle w/ AICS AX - 17+ lbs
Rifles w/ JAE finest lead block - 18.5 lbs (or so we think...hard to find a scale to handle this sort of weight)

Now, I didn't include bottom metal, magazines, ammunition, scope levels, etc...lots of little things here and there. These are all components used by the top 100 PRS shooters...not just some dude at the local range doing "tacticool" shooting. There are certainly ways to make things heavier.

[biodsl]

There are certainly ways to make things heavier.

LOL! Isn't that the truth!