Steve Gash article in Shooting Times

[keystone183]

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.

Again, i am certainly no ballistics expert nor do i have any high speed video in to ballistics gel. But visuals on wounds internally and externally on actual animals, i have lots. On whitetails from 60 to 140 lbs dressed weight, there is NO comparison. Same on mulies to 350lbs. Shooting 130 gr to 150 gr noslers or soft points of some flavor, i've never had any problems with under penetration at any of the distances i've shot (25- 300 yds). Fragmentation and ruining some meat? Yep, but never under penetration. But, that's why i prefer neck shots. But to the point. Is the grendel deadly? Yes. Does it have less recoil? Yes. Does it fit in my AR? Yes. Does it provide a much larger margin for error, and provide faster kills? No.

[stokesrj]

Guys, I think the point is being missed, yes the .270 is more powerful to start with, it also requires a long action, an overall longer and less ergonomic gun, produces more muzzle blast and recoil than the 6.5 Grendel. I've personally shot a lot of game with a .270 and with a 6.5x55. The .270 is noticeably more authoritative up close, but when the range is extended, that edge is lost, the performance between the two are indistinguishable beyond 300 yards. The 6.5 Grendel is indistinguishable from the 6.5x55 so far with the limited number of animals I've shot with the Grendel at extended range.

I'm a fan of Jack O'Conner, read everything he ever wrote and discussed guns and hunting with him face to face on multiple occasions, he was a professor at ASU where I attended college. What he did not write a lot about was his favorite rifle, a 30-06. He felt it had an edge over the .270 but it was far more interesting to write about the .270 since a 30-06 was old hat. That is the way of gun writers, there is no money in writing about what works reliably over the long haul. The result is that we have an image in our head formed by what we hear about this caliber or that caliber, I'm the same. That is why I started out with a .270 in Alaska, shot my first bull moose with one. It worked, but I eventually switched to the 30-06 for the same reason Jack O'Conners favored it. But what I found was it didn't kill any more quickly or surely at longer distance than the 6.5x55 did. I eventually used the 6.5x55 more and more.

Here is a real world example of how a rifle performs at long range. In 1984 I drew a coveted Desert Bighorn Sheep tag for the Kofa range north of Yuma, Arizona. I scouted the area for 31 days prior to the hunt, rented a plane and flew the entire hunt unit. It was a bad year for the Kofa range, surrounding units had more rain and most of the sheep had moved out. I located one mature ram, an 11 year old that was heavily broomed on his right side but he was the best ram in the unit. So, I decided to go after him.
Once the season opened, I made a stalk to the closest point I could without him detecting me and waited for him to bed down, which he did, but not in a place I could get closer. Finally after waiting four hours, he got up and fed right back to where he had come, still no chance for a closer stalk, so I decided to take him from there, a long shot in those days before laser range finders and everything we have today. My optical range finder read 457 yards but we had discovered it some times lies. I was shooting my Steyr Model M professional hunter loaded with 165 grain Nosler Partition bullets and 57 grains of IMR4350. This rifle routinely shot this load into .5 MOA or there a bouts. I was shooting a 6x42 fixed power scope but I had practiced much with this rig and knew precisely how to hold for 450 yards. My friend Roger was on the spotting scope, and I was laying prone, shooting from a bipod.

The Ram and his Ewes were calm, the had no idea we were in the area.
At the shot the ram didn't react so I turned to Roger who shrugged and said "I didn't see and impact". So, I said same hold, watch closer and fired again. Roger shrugged and said "you must be hitting him" but all the ram did was calmly walk across the open hill side. So, I shot again, this time Roger said, "he is hit, he's limping and I see blood running down his front leg". So, I held the same and let rounds huber four and five go. Finally he laid down, just as he would if he was bedding. Eventually, his head dropped and he rolled over.
It took us a good 30-45 minutes to climb to where he was and when we got there, all five shots had gone through his chest cavity, but you could not tell which were entrance and which were exits, if you didn't know which way he was standing at the shots. Rifles just don't pack much punch at longer ranges, they kill by removing vital organs, not by shock. The 6.5 Grendel would have produced the exact same result under these circumstances with the same bullet construction, or perhaps faster results with a more lightly constructed bullet and of course so would the 30-06.

To take it a step further, Rick Reakoff was a master guide who lived in Wiseman Alaska. I met him and his family when I was a young hunter there, his daughter Hedi was 11 years old at the time and had just killed a monster bull moose with Ricks rifle, a 30-30 Savage model 99. Rich killed many moose, black, polar, and grizzly bears, Dall sheep, and caribou with that rifle and often said I don't know why all these gun writers think you have to have a .300 magnum, the 30-30 kills everything up here just fine.

Rick was very experienced and practical, he was a subsistence hunter as well as a master guide, he understood the limitations of his rifle and used it within those limitations. Although we may argue the relative effectiveness of the .270, I think we could agree that the 6.5 Grendel certainly out performs a 30-30 and the AR outperforms a Save Model 99. Used within it's limitations the 6.5 Grendel will take any animal in North America. I know that is heresy, and contrary to what the gun press would have us believe, but, I've seen the 30-30 do it with my own eyes. It wouldn't be my first choice for heavy game, that's why I have the 9.3X62 pictured earlier, it provides more margin of error in situations like driven game. When the game is running, precise shot placement is more difficult and with it, I can reach the vitals from any angle on any animal in North America, and with proper shot selection take any animal that walks the face of the earth. I also have a .375 for those few African countries that won't allow the 9.3X62 but seldom use it any longer.
Bob

[keystone183]

I believe i agree with everything you just said. My entire purpose was, let's not get carried away or be hyperbolic. Over selling and under delivering never works out well. Again, two years ago i had one .270 and no grendels. Now i have one .270 and three grendels. I would guess the vast majority of game is taken under 200 yds in this country, and a very very small percentage is taken over 300. So, just so people know, the grendel doesn't pack the punch the .270 does at those ranges, but it dang sure does the job, and has so many advantages, i now own three.