6.5 Grendel Variants, Good or Bad?

[Buster]

Yup!
There are a lot of wildcats that have the standard cartridge as part of the name.

Well, I'm not to crazy about "Grendel II"; let's call it a "Gendel-Cat"

[JASmith]

Well, I'm not to crazy about "Grendel II"; let's call it a "Gendel-Cat"

Truthfully, I don't like it either even though the chamber likely handles some bullets as well or batter than the SAAMI chamber & throat. The "Grendel II" name is associated with the bashing and slander that needs to go away.

[Buster]

Truthfully, I don't like it either even though the chamber likely handles some bullets as well or batter than the SAAMI chamber & throat. The "Grendel II" name is associated with the bashing and slander that needs to go away.

Yeah, I was just kidding and I agree; the Grendel name needs to be associated with a Grendel, so people will know what they are getting.

[BjornF16]

I don't have a problem with the variants...I do have a problem with peoples agendas in attacking the SAAMI spec whether it their personal agenda or they are just being naive tools for someone else.

I personally have a variant in a bolt action...PacNor's "Grendel Match"....295" neck, probably traditional throat (I don't know for certain). I haven't had any issues with factory Grendel ammo (i.e. it does not have a "short throat").

When I buy an AR15 Grendel, I want a SAAMI spec chamber (to include the throat). If a company is "playing name games" or playing tolerance games to avoid the compound throat, I will avoid them and encourage others to do likewise.

Even Arne Brennan went to the compound throat when he was selling 6.5 CSS...must have worked for him.

We all know there are a few "characters" who wish the Grendel ill will...not really sure why they continue to troll here.

[cory]

Isn't this a 'Wildcat"...?

Yes fair enough, however when the buyer is lead to believe they're buying a proven chamber, that's fraud.

[Tedward]

when someone introduces an untested variant to cover their failure in manufacturing to an acceptable quality, this for me is completely unacceptable.

Do you know it hasn't been tested? This print of the Grendel II is dated 2008. Is it possible this reamer has been used for a while and finally came to be public is all.

Grendel II.jpg

I do agree with everyone's opinion that it is a variant of the Grendel but as far as not being tested is an assumption.

[JASmith]

Do you know it hasn't been tested? I saw the print that was posted and the date was 2008. Is it possible this reamer has been used for a while and finally came to be public is all.

Because none of the advocates came forward with test data when the question was posed multiple times. Too many of us seem to forget what was in even recent threads -- the result is some issues that have been put to bed continue to be shaken like a dog does with a toy.

[Tedward]

I am not trying to bring up the topic but since everyone is talking again, the design of the Grendel II has been around for a while, check out the date on my updated post. Something I found interesting...

[JASmith]

If you had read the relevant threads, you would already know that.

Why do dogs have keep chewing used bones?

[Tedward]

I was following the thread on Variants, good or bad.

People posting unsafe and untested is why I posted that in case some new readers read that comment. I think it is tested and people don't know what they have. I also think I'm allowed an opinion too.

[JASmith]

What was learned from other sources was the so-called Grendel II was tested early on and abandoned in favor of the compound throat because the compound throat works better for most bullets.

Tedward, if I recall you participated in those conversations, so your memory is short, or you are trying to evoke untoward responses from folks who are tired of this continued rehashing of settled issues.

[bwaites]

Do you know it hasn't been tested? This print of the Grendel II is dated 2008. Is it possible this reamer has been used for a while and finally came to be public is all.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4904[/ATTACH]

I do agree with everyone's opinion that it is a variant of the Grendel but as far as not being tested is an assumption.

Call it Grendel II or Satern 264 or LBC 264, that reamer has been around a lot longer than 2008. That drawing might be dated 2008, but the design has been around since the first Grendel. Arnie Brennan was essentially running a chamber like that with his original designs, even before Grendel brass was finalized. I think Arnes had a .295 neck, but other than that, very similar.

But I do find it interesting that Steve Satern, under contract at the time to AA to build Grendel barrels, was signing off on a drawing of a Grendel variant chamber, and was keeping the trademarked name of Grendel on it. There is an awful lot of strangeness there, since the Grendel wasn't yet SAAMI and was still trademarked.

[cory]

Do you know it hasn't been tested? This print of the Grendel II is dated 2008. Is it possible this reamer has been used for a while and finally came to be public is all.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4904[/ATTACH]

I do agree with everyone's opinion that it is a variant of the Grendel but as far as not being tested is an assumption.

Because there are three reasons not to divulge test results: they're proprietary, there are none, or the results were less than favorable to your position. There's no reason for proprietary data here, so take your pick.

It's possible for me to dunk a basketball, but unless someone does some serious photoshopping you'll never see it happen. A lot of things are possible, but I prefer to deal in substantiated history.

To break it down Barney style, I'm only interested in dealing in facts and data, not what you seem to remember, scratching what you conveniently forget.

You are correct on my statement being an assumption. However, in absence of test data it's the safe/conservative assumption. That's shall I say normal in engineering, take the conservative, verifiable path.

[NugginFutz]

But I do find it interesting that Steve Satern, under contract at the time to AA to build Grendel barrels, was signing off on a drawing of a Grendel variant chamber, and was keeping the trademarked name of Grendel on it. There is an awful lot of strangeness there, since the Grendel wasn't yet SAAMI and was still trademarked.

Ya think? Love to be a fly on the wall at either AA or Satern, when that is discussed.

In the final analysis, though, I agree with others, when they suggest that if you decide to release a "PC compatible" Grendel chamber, have the nerve to hang your own name on it, instead of riding the coattails of a successful brand, SAAMI, or not. The specious argument that this is "kosher" since there are multiple .308 variants falls apart, when you realize that there is only .308 Winchester, not .308 Winchester II, or a .308 Lapua Palma, but not a .308 Lapua Palma II. When someone sees .243 Ackley Improved, they are not at all confused that it might be .243 Win.

[NugginFutz]

What was learned from other sources was the so-called Grendel II was tested early on and abandoned in favor of the compound throat because the compound throat works better for most bullets.

Tedward, if I recall you participated in those conversations, so your memory is short, or you are trying to evoke untoward responses from folks who are tired of this continued rehashing of settled issues.

I tend to believe the latter, jasmith, as tedward recently commented on another board that the liberty "dust up" is unlikely to die down, soon. It seems that he is working to ensure that it remains so. Disagree? Then he can prove me wrong, and let it go.