+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Military & Law Enforcement (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) (/showthread.php?tid=4857)
Pages:
1
2
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - Trooper - 02-08-2013
Just doing a bit of comparison thus research. I have been to a number of sites comparing the 6.5 Grendal to other 6.5mm rounds as well as the .308 and 7mm.
For most 6.5mm rounds, the Grendal is equal. It appears to hold its own against the .308, of course. The real competition comes for the 7mm family.
As a general purpose cartridge (GPC), the big advantage of the Grendal is that it works in the AR15/M4 platform yet gives .308 performance. If we could use a bigger platform (ie AR10), what would be the ideal cartridge? My basic metrics are fps (2500 seems to be the sweet spot), Ballistic Configuration (the Grendal is seem be at .540, not sure what a 7mm would have to be to compete) and performance at 500 to 1000 meters.
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - bwaites - 02-08-2013
If you go to a larger platform like the AR10, you can shoot 6.5 bullets at about 300-400 FPS better velocities. That's huge at 500 to 1000 yards.
The best two options would be the .260 and 6.5 Creedmoor.
The best balance between size, weight, maneuverability, and recoil seems to be the Grendel. BUT....once you pass 600 yards, the bigger cartridges have an advantage.
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - Ridgerider - 02-09-2013
What about the 6.5 x 47 Lapua it has an advantage over the Creedmoor
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - bwaites - 02-09-2013
Ridgerider Wrote:What about the 6.5 x 47 Lapua it has an advantage over the Creedmoor
The 3 rounds, .260, 6.5 Creedmoor and 6.5 Lapua are essentially equal in all actuality.
Very authoritative review here:
http://demigodllc.com/articles/6.5-shootout-260-6.5x47-6.5-creedmoor/
Conclusion:
Summary - Who Wins?
The .260, 6.5x47, and 6.5 Creedmoor have almost very close ballistic performance. Factory ammunition for the 6.5x47 Lapua is down 100-150 fps versus the .260 and 6.5 Creedmoor, but an experienced reloader with a strong action can match or exceed their performance with hand loads due to the strong case design. I wasn't able to test the 6.5 Creedmoor in an AI-AW like the .260 and 6.5x47. My best guess is that it would match .260 Remington, but the variance would be within what we see barrel to barrel. For the same pressure, the .260 and the 6.5 Creedmoor will have an about 100-125 fps advantage over the 6.5x47 Lapua, with the 140-gr class bullets.
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - Allen - 02-09-2013
From the Hornady reloading book 8th edition
"One of the biggest advantages the 6.5 Creedmoor has over cartridges like the 260 Remington and the 6.5-284 is the fact that it was designed ground up as a short action cartridge. While the body of the 6.5 Creedmoor is shorter than the 260 Remington the fact that bullets do not need to be seated as deep means that it has as much useable propellant payload capacity AND bullet's can be loaded longer to accommodate different throats and still fit in short action magazines."
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - stanc - 02-09-2013
Trooper Wrote:As a general purpose cartridge (GPC), the big advantage of the Grendal is that it works in the AR15/M4 platform yet gives .308 performance. If we could use a bigger platform (ie AR10), what would be the ideal cartridge? My basic metrics are fps (2500 seems to be the sweet spot), Ballistic Configuration (the Grendal is seem be at .540, not sure what a 7mm would have to be to compete) and performance at 500 to 1000 meters.What you are describing is essentially the hypothetical "6.5 GPC" that Guardsman26 and Tony Williams seek to have developed.
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - Trooper - 02-10-2013
stanc Wrote:What you are describing is essentially the hypothetical "6.5 GPC" that Guardsman26 and Tony Williams seek to have developed.
How does the 6.5 GPC compare to the 6.5 Grendel?
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - Guardsman26 - 02-13-2013
The Grendel is fine in a controlled environment. But when you make a version of it with military spec FMJ projectiles and powder, expect it to lose performance. You also need tracer and AP. Fitting these requirements within the existing 11.3 x 39 mm case is likely to be a tall order.
Ideally, the perfect GPC provides 6.5 x 47 mm Lapua performance in as near a 6.5 mm 39 mm case.
It also has to have a lead-free round, not because the tree-huggers have taken over the Pentagon, but because steel core rounds provide excellent penetration against body armour.
Finally, as efficient as the 6.5 mm Grendel bullet is, it isn't clear how well it performs in soft tissue in terms of yaw and over-penetration.
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - Trooper - 02-13-2013
Guardsman26 Wrote:The Grendel is fine in a controlled environment. But when you make a version of it with military spec FMJ projectiles and powder, expect it to lose performance. You also need tracer and AP. Fitting these requirements within the existing 11.3 x 39 mm case is likely to be a tall order.
Ideally, the perfect GPC provides 6.5 x 47 mm Lapua performance in as near a 6.5 mm 39 mm case.
It also has to have a lead-free round, not because the tree-huggers have taken over the Pentagon, but because steel core rounds provide excellent penetration against body armour.
Finally, as efficient as the 6.5 mm Grendel bullet is, it isn't clear how well it performs in soft tissue in terms of yaw and over-penetration.
The 6.5x47 Lapua is then pushing towards the size of the 7.62x51. How does any of the 6.5mm compare to the 7mm UIAC?
I would gather that that 6.5x47 would not fit in the magazine well of the current M4/M16 families.
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - JASmith - 02-13-2013
Here's a couple of discussions that start to scratch the surface of the topic:
In brief, the Grendel is an excellent medium game cartridge. For potential military applications, however, the ideal cartridge will depend on the source selection criteria imposed on the process. These criteria are, in turn, dependent on the kind of fighting (or ceremonial value in the case of pistols for most military roles) envisioned by the decionmakers.
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - stanc - 03-26-2013
Posted on the MG&A forum:
Quote:...a 1971 study by the US Army's BRL on the ballistics of different caliber projectiles. One would assume this type of study would be needed as part of exploring a new cartridge:Because 6.5mm is mentioned, I thought perhaps it might be of interest.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/882117.pdf
The odd thing (for a 1971 study) is that it models 6.5mm
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - rickOshay - 03-26-2013
And there is this one: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/34132774/Taking%20back%20the%20half%20kilometer.pdf
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - jawbone - 03-26-2013
a fascinating read, rickO. many thanks for the link.
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - LRRPF52 - 03-30-2013
That is an excellent read, Taking back the half kilometer. Before we go on, I think serious students of Infantry tactics, rifle marksmanship, and the training/environment/equipment balance should be able to answer the following questions:
1) What did the US Army Rifle Qualification Course of 1917 look like? (What 3 engagement ranges was it broken down into?)
2) What significant changes in infantry tactics took place in the Great War, and what were they?
3) What organization was formed in 1919, and what path did that organization take with regard to caliber?
4) What three calibers were tested in the post-WWI period in the US?
5) What was the effectiveness-to-range break-down of each caliber?
6) Which caliber did they conclude would be the Army's new service rifle caliber, and what was the outcome of that decision?
7) If there was one pivotal weapon system for individual infantrymen designed in the last century that changed the face of dismounted warfare forever, what would it be?
8) Which Army employed entire units with one type of weapon system during WWII, and what weapon system was that? How did it work out for them?
9) What was the Tables Of Organization & Equipment of the US Infantry Squad in WWII?
10) What development took place in the US after WWII with regard to the Rifle Qualification Course?
11) How many Tables did the 1949 Qualification Course use, and what was different about them compared to the 1917 Qualification Course?
12) How did the TO&E of the Infantry Squad change after WWII going into the Korean War? What rifle replaced the M1903A4, and what duty positions were lost?
13) What new squad was added to the Infantry Platoon?
14) What lessons were learned in WWII, forgotten institutionally, then re-learned in Korea, then forgotten again, then re-learned in Afghanistan in our day?
15) What era followed the Korean War, and what major developments took place with US service rifle requirements and the rifle training program? What was that training program's name?
16) What were the 2 stated goals of the new training program in that era, and did it achieve both of them?
17) Which US ally began a series of cartridge testing & developments based on the previous Ordnance Board tests of the 1930's, and what were those cartridges?
18) What was the US response to these developments?
19) Which cartridge was developed and adopted as a result?
20) What service rifle emerged as the new US rifle in 1957?
21) What other rifle using modernized manufacturing techniques emerged at the same time, and what was the Army Ordnance Corps' response to it?
22) What rifle was developed from that rifle, and what project laid the conceptual base for its caliber and statement of use?
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - stokesrj - 03-30-2013
Ridgerider Wrote:What about the 6.5 x 47 Lapua it has an advantage over the Creedmoor
What advantage do you see in the 6.5x47?
I own all three, .260 Rem, 6.5x47 Lapua, and 6.5 Creedmoor and find the 6.5 Creedmoor to be superior, at least in my uses. If I drive the 6.5x47 to my Creedmoor performance, brass is short lived. I can buy factory loaded ammunition from Hornady in 6.5 Creedmoor that will produce .5 MOA accuracy at half the cost of Lapua factory loaded ammunition and I can buy Hornady Superformance ammunition that while not quite as accurate will obtain 150 fps more velocity. The brass is cheaper and of very high quality, you could argue that it isn't as high of quality as the Lapua which is available for both the .260 and the 6.5x47 but I can obtain the same accuracy and life with the Hornady bass as the Lapua brass. So, although I am fond of Lapua brass, in practical terms it offers no advantage.
But I must admit I'm potentially partial to the 6.5 Hornady and may see things from that slant. And the three cartridges are so close that any advantage is very hard to discover, that is unless you shoot factory ammo and the the .260 is a dog compared to the other two.
Bob
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - ricsmall - 03-30-2013
stokesrj Wrote:What advantage do you see in the 6.5x47?
I own all three, .260 Rem, 6.5x47 Lapua, and 6.5 Creedmoor and find the 6.5 Creedmoor to be superior, at least in my uses. If I drive the 6.5x47 to my Creedmoor performance, brass is short lived. I can buy factory loaded ammunition from Hornady in 6.5 Creedmoor that will produce .5 MOA accuracy at half the cost of Lapua factory loaded ammunition and I can buy Hornady Superformance ammunition that while not quite as accurate will obtain 150 fps more velocity. The brass is cheaper and of very high quality, you could argue that it isn't as high of quality as the Lapua which is available for both the .260 and the 6.5x47 but I can obtain the same accuracy and life with the Hornady bass as the Lapua brass. So, although I am fond of Lapua brass, in practical terms it offers no advantage.
But I must admit I'm potentially partial to the 6.5 Hornady and may see things from that slant. And the three cartridges are so close that any advantage is very hard to discover, that is unless you shoot factory ammo and the the .260 is a dog compared to the other two.
Bob
Thanks for that comparison bob. A friend and I are about to build 2 rifles and I had narrowed it down to 6.5 CM and 260 rem. this helps a great deal, though I do have one question. I am a hand loader, so do you have a compelling argument for one over the other in that regard. I must say, I was leaning toward the creedmore, maybe because it's newer, but I think mostly because I prefer the case design/shoulder angle of the CM.
Thanks
Richard
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - LRRPF52 - 03-30-2013
From the hand-loader's standpoint, the .260 Remington wins by leaps and bounds if component selection is an issue, as there are numerous sources for brass, when compared to the 6.5x47 Lapua and 6.5 Creedmoor, which are both single-source really.
The .260 Rem has brass from the following sources:
Lapua
Norma
Nosler
Remington
Sako
Winchester 7mm-08 necked down (feels like necking once-fired brass almost, and is very good brass)
In the context of the OP comparing the Grendel to them for military use, I think discussions involving any case based off the T65/7.62 NATO are counter-productive for an assault rifle or multi-purpose service rifle cartridge, because of weight, space, and recoil penalties, and such cases don't qualify as an intermediate cartridge anyway.
The more I work with the Grendel, especially during DM training, the more I realize how a 16" Grendel, maybe even a 14.5" Grendel, fits the bill very well. It bucks the wind extremely well for such a little cartridge, while delivering substantial energy on-target, with minimal felt recoil.
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - stokesrj - 03-30-2013
Well, I think it boils down to a few simple characteristic decisions. I'm selling off all my .260 rifles and have had one of my historically important rifles rechambered to 6.5 Creedmoor. So, my decision is made, practical considerations of brass supply aside, I have over 5,000 Hornady 6.5 Creedmoor cases on hand so brass availability is not a serious concern form me, so I chose the 6.5 Creedmoor. But if brass availability was the primary consideration then the .260 has the advantage. So, from a design standpoint the 6.5 creedmoor is superior, from a factory load standpoint the 6.5 creedmoor is superior, and from a brass availability standpoint the .260 is superior. So it depends upon where you place your priorities.
For me it is simple 6.5 Creedmoor wins hands down. For others without the supply on hand the .260 wins, hands down.
Emil Praslic runs the AMU across the course rifle team. He had this same decision to make and chose a turn key solution, the Tubb 2K rifle chambered in .260 Remington. He could have chosen either of the other solutions but his decision was based upon readily available components. McMillan chambered the Tubb 2K in both .260 and 6.5 Creedmoor, Lapua had not yet committed to the .260 for brass, so they moved in with the .260 Rem anyway and that move won a national championship for them.
Sherri Galliger, used the .260 with Sierra 108, and 142 SMK bullets and Hodgdon Varget powder in Remington cases to win the National High Power Championship in 2010.
I have a Tubb 2K in 6.5 Creedmoor and I can say it is superior in all respects on the range, it shoots tighter groups than a .260 in the same rifle, it shoots higher velocities at lower pressure, and gives longer barrel life. But that is not the critical factor, Sherri shooting either caliber would win, because she is a more consistent and talented shooter, not because of the caliber she chose or was chosen for her.
For the record, I have abandoned my Tubb 2K and 6.5 Creedmoor in favor of the AR platform firing a 6mm Hagar, for me it is a more favorable platform, not that the T2K isn't a great platform, it is fantastic. However, I shoot the AR better even at 600 yard prone slow fire. And for the rapid fire strings a semi auto with softer recoil is the ticket. So, that is what I'm campaigning this year.
Back to the subject at hand, let me see if I can boil it down given a few comparisons and rank the choices first to last.
Ballistic performance, 6.5 Creedmoor, 260 Remington, 6.5x47
Factory Load Performance - 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5x47, .260
Factory Load Cost - 6.5 Creedmoor, .260 Remington, 6.5X47
Brass Quality - 6.5x47 and .260, 6.5 Creedmoor
Brass Availability - .260, 6.5x47, 6.5 Creedmoor
Accuracy of hand loads - 6.5X47 and 6.5 Creedmoor, .260
So, it depends upon your rank order of important factors.
I hope this helps, but in the end it comes down to the shooter, not the cartridge.
Bob
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - ricsmall - 03-31-2013
Thanks for the input LR and Stokes. I'm leaning to the CM, and that's probably the route well take. Now to find some donor rifles. These will be bolt guns, and i already have two SA builds, but I hate to tear either one down cause they are lasers, but something will come along.
Richard
How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC) - stanc - 03-31-2013
LRRPF52 Wrote:That is an excellent read, Taking back the half kilometer. Before we go on, I think serious students of Infantry tactics, rifle marksmanship, and the training/environment/equipment balance should be able to answer the following questions:Well, I think this is off topic, and I can't claim to be a serious student of those subjects, but since I'm sitting here in solitary confinement and am bored to tears, I'll take a crack at some of them.
Quote:4) What three calibers were tested in the post-WWI period in the US?.256, .276 and .30 caliber (6.5mm, 7mm and 7.62mm)
Quote:6) Which caliber did they conclude would be the Army's new service rifle caliber, and what was the outcome of that decision?.276 (7mm) was recommended for adoption, but .30 caliber was retained.
Quote:7) If there was one pivotal weapon system for individual infantrymen designed in the last century that changed the face of dismounted warfare forever, what would it be?Nothing is forever, but the assault rifle has had an ongoing affect on infantry operations to this day.
Quote:17) Which US ally began a series of cartridge testing & developments based on the previous Ordnance Board tests of the 1930's, and what were those cartridges?The UK, with the .270 British (7x46) and .280 British (7x43)?
Quote:18) What was the US response to these developments?To disregard them, and stick with .30 caliber.
Quote:19) Which cartridge was developed and adopted as a result?7.62 NATO.
Quote:20) What service rifle emerged as the new US rifle in 1957?My all time favorite: The M14
[video=youtube;N06ySsT2EKU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N06ySsT2EKU[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N06ySsT2EKU