John, You sure act like you have a lot to gain and/or lose. I myself can afford to be wrong. I also will believe a soldier in the sandbox before a "Photoshop guy for ad agency" in "Minnesota".

John - let me ask you... why would you have us believe that the Remington folks, Barrett folks, or anyone else for that matter, are "lying" or blemishing the truth, yet your sources are gospel?

JTC, I've already explained that the inconsistencies in statements and actions (similar to John Kerry's current troubles) aroused my suspicion regarding Barrett and Remington. I've already disclosed my motivation. However, I can see you're going to believe what you want to believe. Further, your posts are getting dangerously close to juvenile personal attacks, which is so tediously predictable at times. You're a big boy and it's a free country: Get yourself a 6.8 SPC and be happy. Cool?

John

---------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

Some distinction needs to be made between T&E equipment given or loaned to the miltary, off the shelf items purchased with unit funds, and actual military issue equipment assigned an NSN number.

We should remember the Art of War.  Someone here must be from military intellegence who can comment on MI operatives.  In an era of conflict, the truth is always being avoided.   G4 will never reveal their true face.  How can you tell the enemy what are you using? or how can you tell who is the enemy?

Quoted: O Gawd! I'm trying not to comment, but fer cryin' out loud! Let's forget that the Army themselves say they are not buying 6.8 SPC. Let's try a different line of reasoning: If it's true (it is) that the military is scrambling to produce enough 5.56, how is it they're diddling around buying up a ton of unofficial ammo for some unofficial guns in a completely different cartridge? Or let's try this: If every 6.8 SPC gun uses 10,000 rounds, we then divide the total by that amount (or whatever) to estimate 15,000 6.8 SPC guns in service. Has Barrett made that many guns? I'm sure there's a Barrett VP who would want us all to think so who will say and do anything to make sales! Or let's try this: Even if Barrett made 5,000 guns and sold them for $1,000 each, that would be $5,000,000. Wouldn't that kind of buy have to go to a more formal and open bidding process? Gawd A-mighty! Keep digging yourselves a deep hole boys, yer gonna need it to bury that stinking pile of taurine feces that's building up. John -------------------- 6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body www.65grendel.com

And you don't consider this juvenile?

Look. You continue to make the same claim. You do not provide evidence. I ask for the evidence. You do not satisfy the request. I continue to nudge you.

I do question your motivation. I on the other hand have nothing better to do. I like to talk firearms. You peak my interest and so I press you for more. So we banter back and forth. til one of us gets tired or you give me more. I'm sorry you take it personal, but that's just the way it is I guess.

Since we're already being juvenile, let me point out that it's "pique" not "peak."

Quoted: Since we're already being juvenile, let me point out that it's "pique" not "peak."

I have to admit I am a terrible speller. Half the time I write a post I use Word to double check before I hit submit.

Alrighty then, let's take a breather from the military adoption scuttlebutt. You're saying: "Grendelizer's just being negative; does he actually have anything positive to contribute?"

OK, fine. Let's review my arguments in favor of the 6.5 Grendel versus the 6.8 SPC. I'm only considering these cartridges as regards their military use as a replacement for both 5.56 and 7.62 NATO (or one or the other, take your pick!) for use in assault rifles, light and medium machine guns, and designated marksman rifles. As far as civilian use goes, get what your heart desires.

1. If the 6.8 SPC uses a "magic" powder, the same powder can be used in the 6.5 Grendel.

2. If the 6.8 SPC uses a "magic" bullet, the same bullet can be used in the 6.5 Grendel.

3. They say the 6.8 SPC is "optimized" for use in short barrels. This is achieved by using a light bullet that accelerates quickly in a short barrel to meet the fragmentation envelope requirements. But the downside is that light bullets lose velocity quickly and their fragmentation ability soon suffers, as well as their trajectory and penetration. This is why 5.56 is moving to heavier 77gr.

However, the 6.5 Grendel in a short barrel relies not on velocity, but on the momentum of its high-sectional-density and high-ballistic-coefficient bullet to maintain its velocity, fragmentation, trajectory, and penetration at extended ranges, even from short barrels. If I can throw a golf ball and a ping-pong ball at the same speed when it leaves my hand, which will maintain it's velocity better?

4. They say the 6.5 Grendel bullet is actually too long, in the sense that it penetrates too deeply in ballistic gelatin before yawing and fragmenting. (According to one set of criteria, yaw should begin within 3" of striking ballistic gelatin.) However, consider this example: One test using a very-long-for-caliber 100gr magazine-length load in 5.56 showed yaw beginning within one inch and explosive fragmentation, the best the testers had seen. What this shows is that long-for-caliber bullets need not, in every case, penetrate excessively before yawing.

Why the early yaw in that test? Possibly due to a barrel twist rate that barely stabilized the long bullet. Possibly due to a rearward center of gravity on the bullet, which makes it unstable in a denser medium and enhances its tendency to flip. Which has a more unstable center of gravity: a short table lamp or a tall floor lamp? The 6.5 Grendel can take advantage of these principles.

Why the explosive fragmentation? With a long bullet the frictional forces are acting on a larger surface area to break it apart. Which is easier to break in two: a new pencil or a two-inch stub of used pencil? Also, when it tumbles, a long bullet will cut a physically larger swath than a shorter one. Also, 6.5 Grendel bullets (think 123gr and 144gr) typically have greater mass with which to fragment than 6.8 SPC bullets (110gr or 115gr). They are, to put it simply, bigger chunks of lead. If both a one-pound hand grenade and a two-pound grenade explode in your foxhole, which will create more fragments?

Furthermore, longer, more streamlined, high-ballistic-coefficient bullets keep their velocity better downrange. At range, the 6.5 Grendel beats the trajectory and winddrift of all current milspec 5.56 and 7.62 loadings, not to mention 6.8! And again, if penetration is desired, longer bullets have higher sectional density (the ratio of bullet weight to diameter) which gives them greater momentum to punch through barriers. If two freight trains, one with 50 cars and the other with 100 cars, both slam on the brakes, which is harder to stop?

Why do I mention these advantages of long bullets? Because the 6.5 Grendel, with its shorter case (39mm), allows for the loading of longer bullets while still maintaining magazine-length in the AR15/M16 platform. The 6.8 SPC, with its longer case (43mm), only allows shorter bullets, with their attendant, ahem!, shortcomings. Also, the 6.5 Grendel case allows for longer, more streamlined, high-ballistic-coefficient bullets which keep their velocity (and all the benefits of velocity) better downrange. I should mention that both cases have the same powder capacity.

Did I forget accuracy? The 6.5 Grendel is based on the PPC benchrest case, famous for its accuracy. Field results, as they come in, are confirming this anew. Additionally, the 6.5 Grendel case represents an improved PPC case, in that the shoulder is lengthened for more powder capacity and the neck is shortened for reliability in full-auto firearms.

Both the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel fit magazine-length in the same weapon. However, as I've argued above, the 6.5 Grendel gives you more benefits within that same weapon. The one can do everything the other can do, and then some. That's why I say: Why get a Volkswagen when they're having a sale on Mercedes and you can get one for the same price?

John

P.S. In all my points, I have referenced established principles of physics and ballistics, principles that do not change, even if we're not privy to actual test results with a specific cartridge. So, just for the moment, and just for the sake of this exercise, does anyone dispute these general principles of physics and ballistics, even if I don't have gel test photos demonstrating the specifics?

------------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

I have looked into the 6.5 Grendel in recent days and it looks to me like it is very similar to the .260 Remington. Kinda like a .260Rem or 6.5X55mm in a smaller package. It certainly is an impressive round. In all honesty, when I 1st heard of the 6.8 SPC, I was led to believe it was a .270 Winchester in a small package (from a hunting magazine). Great! I love the .270 Win! Then I find out that you can't use heavier bullets.
From what I found out, the 6.8 SPC was underpowered for a reason. The developers were looking for a specific performence at a specific range (0-300M). From what I found, it was designed for the Special Forces. It was designed from the end useres on up. (These statements can be verified on the Tactical Forum; heavy reading) In short, I believe the jest was that the 6.5 was TOO powerful for the criteria lined out by the end users.
I know what your thinking... TOO POWERFUL! NO SUCH THING! I guess that's what science gets ya.
I think we can agree that the 6.8 SPC is a better round than the 5.56 NATO. (Believe it or not I have found one person who says there is nothing better than the 77 gr. 5.56 NATO). So let's use it 'til we build a better mouse trap. If it were me, gimmie the .50 BMG! Problem is sometimes it ain't always healthy to carry a gun bigger than you.
Before the 6.8 came out, I was going to build an AR in 7.62X39mm. I just don't trust the .223 for anti-personel (read: home defense). I have a Mini-Thirty and an SKS, so I figure why not 6.8? If anything, it's another toy! But believe me, it won't be the last. (Hello .50 Bewolf!)

Edited for clarity

John,
Some where earlier I mentioned that I checked out your website and said that  you were a dedicated soul. To keep up the good work. That really was a compliment. I agree that at extended ranges the 6.5 Grendel is a better cartridge. My whole point on the matter was that the 6.8 was not designed for extended ranges. It is apparent to me that we disagree with accepting the 6.8. I see it as being better than the 5.56 and to use it. But I don't think we should stop there. It is at this point where our disagreements end. We both want a better cartridge!

Brouhaha, please continue to educate me. Please be specific and detailed and reference known principles of ballistics that you would gladly share in a roomful of ballisticians of the caliber of Buford Boone of the FBI:

"The 6.5 is a bench caliber." Why only a bench caliber?

"The 6.8 is a combat caliber." What makes it a combat caliber?

"The 6.5 is very accurate, but terrible at wounding." What, exactly, makes it terrible at wounding?

"The 6.8 is pretty damn accurate and incredible at wounding." What, exactly, makes it incredible at wounding?

John

-----------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

Why is this topic still being discussed and at this point does anyone even really care anymore except for those posting about it? lol

As much as I love my Grendel I really hope the 6.8 rumors are just that...rumors, as I really would like to have a 6.8 in a SPR config. I'll keep my Grendel for the long range stuff (groundhogs aren't picky about terminal ballistics, lol) ;)

Keep calm, Brouhaha. You've been "Kerryesque" in not answering my direct questions. You may think you've previously answered them, but you haven't. Please answer the four direct questions; they're just Ballistics 101-type questions. Nothing tricky.

John

-----------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

3. They say the 6.8 SPC is "optimized" for use in short barrels. This is achieved by using a light bullet that accelerates quickly in a short barrel to meet the fragmentation envelope requirements. But the downside is that light bullets lose velocity quickly and their fragmentation ability soon suffers, as well as their trajectory and penetration. This is why 5.56 is moving to heavier 77gr.

I am not making the claim that it is optimized for short barrels, but your reasoning and conclusions around this point are flawed.    The more overbore (higher case volume : bore area ratio) a cartridge is, the more it will benefit from each additional inch of barrel in the 16-28" regime.    This effect is more noticable when using heavier bullets.  For normalization between calibers (because bullet mass will differ), think about the bullet's sectional density (SD).  6.5 Grendel is more overbore than 6.8SPC.  Only one of the lightest 6.5 bullets (108gr) is comparable in S.D. to the 115gr 6.8SPC bullet.   Thus 6.5 will benefit more from each additional inch of barrel in the 16-28" regime with typical 6.5 bullets than 6.8 will.     In an extreme example, think of a .45ACP carbine.  It will develop most of its velocity potential in a shorter barrel.

This is independent of powder used.  Assuming the barrel is long enough to hit max pressure with the slowest powder to meet max pressure in a full barrel (say 24"), ie- it's longer than about 5", that same powder will be the one to reach maximum velocity in any shorter barrel.

Furthermore, on the 77gr point. Do you have any citation for your claim that, " But the downside is that light bullets lose velocity quickly and their fragmentation ability soon suffers, as well as their trajectory and penetration. This is why 5.56 is moving to heavier 77gr." ?

M855 starts off at a much higher velocity than the 77gr Mk262, and the M855 stays faster than the 77gr out to 1000 yards (assuming 77 @ 2750 and the 62 @ 3100 ).   The primary advantage of the 77gr is that it fragments at a lower fraction of its muzzle velocity than M855.

Besides, we should NOT be going back to 'one cartridge fits all'....

A good GPMG cartridge is too powerful for an assault cartridge, and a good assault cartridge will be too weak for GPMG use...

7.62x51 is pretty well perfect for GPMG/sniper use, 5.56 is the same for use from 20" weapons...

The M-4 makes 6.8 a good idea for some uses, and 77gr 5.56 for others...

But no cartridge can do all of those jobs, you end up with a jack of all trades and master of few (like the 7.62x51-as-all-around-cartridge was)...

Quoted: That's why I say: Why get a Volkswagen when they're having a sale on Mercedes and you can get one for the same price? John

...I'm not going to debate the merits of your technical claims, but I've seen 6.5 uppers on sale through Midway for about a $1000 and 6.8 uppers through Model 1 for under $400.  Considering price, your Mercedes / VW analogie is pretty accurate.

If Alex Arms can supply ammo, uppers and mags at the same price (or at least within 10%) I think you will have a winner.  Until then, your going to have to really be all that much better than the 6.8 to convince people to drop the extra money.

Brouhaha, has the 6.8 SPC team broken any new technological ground in creating their cartridge that others in the military might be interested in knowing? Have they discovered any new principles of physics and ballistics that others could apply to their cartridges? We already know they've discovered "magical" powders and bullets, but have they also been able to defy the laws of physics? Are the lessons and knowledge the 6.8 SPC team learned in their development transferable to other cartridges? If you can't apply scientific PRINCIPLES to a class of things and expect them to act predictably according to those principles, then you've left the realm of science and have entered the land of voodoo.

"The 6.5 is a bench caliber." What about 6.6? What about 6.4? This doesn't make sense. All the 6.5s were originially developed as military cartridges. Is 5.56 a bench caliber? What kind of statement is that? Perhaps you mean the 6.5 Grendel, specifically, is a bench "cartridge." To say a 6.5 diameter bullet is a  bench "caliber" is nonsensical, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and simply assume your words weren't precise.

"The 6.5 is NOT a good battle cartridge." Uh . . . this is just restating what you've already said. Can you actually tell us why? Technical reasons why? I'm not asking about someone's limited tests of their limited version of something. Is there any reason based in scientific PRINCIPLE that says a 6.5-caliber round cannot be used in a good battle cartridge and can only be used as a bench caliber? No, there is no reason and any attempt to come up with one would be amusing.

"The 6.8 is a combat caliber."  Again, perhaps you're confusing the issue. You mean to say "cartridge," not "caliber." It's nonsensical to say 6.8 is a combat caliber. Not 6.7? Not 6.9? Not 6.5? The .270 Winchester was developed as a hunting cartridge, not a combat cartridge. But, of course, a hunting cartridge has nothing to do with a combat cartridge because "hunting is lumped in with target shooting." And we all know that hunting has nothing to do with killing large mammals at various ranges and angles and speeds and under varying states of physiological duress . . . it only has to do with punching neat holes in paper at one's leisure.

So you meant to say that the 6.8 SPC, specifically, is a combat "cartridge." What makes it a combat cartridge? What's your answer? You tell me about the bullet. That's not telling me anything. Either any other cartridge can use the same bullet, or you've come up with some new technology that no one else yet has. The 6.8 SPC built its reputation on a couple gel test photos of an illegal, hollow-point bullet! Is there some scientific PRINCIPLE regarding the use of bullets in the 6.8 SPC that no other cartridge can use? No, and the specific performance of a specific bullet doesn't invalidate other cartridges from using the same principles. You've proven nothing that is specific to the 6.8 caliber or bullet diameter or whatever you want to call it.

"The 6.5 is very accurate, but terrible at wounding." You say because it's neck is too long before it yaws. You're citing a specific example that doesn't validate any principle, because I've already cited a specific example that counters your example. Further, the military SPECIFICALLY requested that their 6.5 Grendel tests ONLY use an FMJ bullet. So they get a standard, off-the-shelf, 30-year-old design and you conclude from this that no 6.5 bullet can possibly be created to yaw quickly? How does a standard FMJ 6.8 SPC bullet perform, if you want to compare apples to apples? 6.5 bullets that fragment dramatically already exist, but they're as illegal as your dramatically fragmenting 6.8 bullets. There is no scientific PRINCIPLE why a long-for-caliber bullet of a given design cannot yaw quickly.

Is there anything I argued in my original post that is not scientifically factual? Were any of the PRINCIPLES of ballistics and physics incorrect? If your performance claims for the 6.8 SPC are based on scientific PRINCIPLES and not the art of black magic, then there's NO REASON any other cartridge can't also take advantage of and apply those principles.

The bottom line is that claims that the 6.8 SPC is a better combat cartridge than the 6.5 Grendel are invalidated by the points in my original post, and you've still done nothing to refute them on principle. Just because all possible tests of all possible bullet combinations have not yet been done on the 6.5 Grendel does not alter the PRINCIPLES of physics and ballistics. The worst you can say about the 6.5 Grendel is that it is only AS GOOD AS the 6.8 SPC, and that's if you discount all its performance at long range.

Answers to others will have to come later, I've practically used up my lunch hour and I'd still like to get something to eat.

John

---------------------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

OK, back from lunch, and I see that Brouhaha joins the Barrett and Remington guys in a forfeit. Any other takers? I'm only one guy against about 100 of you, surely someone out there can actually refute my points without the smoke screen of personal attack.

If not, get all the 6.8 SPC you want for civilian use, but you should be ashamed of yourselves for wanting our military to adopt a second-rate cartridge when a better alternative is available, but powerful industry partners with vested interests would hope to squelch it.

John

---------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

Quoted: Huh?  Hollowpoints are illegal now? Wow, somebody alert JAG that those evil 77gr Noslers and 77gr SMK's are breaking The Hague rules.

Those rounds are not designed to expand and therefore do not breach the Hague Conventions.  
HFG

I'm not trying to put down ALex Arms...I'm making a simple observation as a shooter and someone interested in one of these two cartridges.  I don't have the tax payer covering the cost...I have to actually pay for the gun I want to set up.  Say what you will about Model 1 sales, they are good guns that go bang when you pull the trigger.  

If I want to get into this intermediate cartridge game, I have to ask myself what is the best bang for the buck.  While there is a lot of convincing information that the 6.5 is a slightly more efficent cartridge; I can not justify spending 2x as much for an upper and factory ammunition (it's my understanding that Remington will run $0.40-$.50 a round).  I think the average shooter is going to look at this the same way...and I'm afraid for Alex Arms taht most will decide that the ballistic advantage is not worth the financial difference.

Like I said, Alex Arms gets their stuff more affordable (within 10%) and I think you will move this cartridge from the bench rest shooter to the ranks of the average ar shooter.

...but please don't take this as a knock against the cartridge or the manufacture, just simple observations from a regular shooter.

I got no dog in this hunt. I decided I'd go with the .458 SOCOM.

Quoted: ...If not, get all the 6.8 SPC you want for civilian use, but you should be ashamed of yourselves for wanting our military to adopt a second-rate cartridge when a better alternative is available...

I think the military is perfectly capable of determining what their needs are and how best to fill them.

This kinda reminds me of the old Beta vs. VHS debates. VHS won because it was the best format for the real world. Never forget that decisions based on technical specifications made in a vacumn rarely survive contact with the real world.

I want the 20 minutes of my life back that I wasted reading this crap...

It's amazing how a single comment based on a misunderstanding can cause this much BS to be thrown about. I see so many people that "know" the 6.8 project is being thrown out, and just as many on the other side.

First of all, I hope everyone here realizes that no matter how much arguing is done on this BB, the military is going to go with what they think is best. Your OPINION doesn't mean a rat's ass to the government.

"I heard it from someone in the industry, so it MUST be true!" Let's face it, a lot of folks in the industry lie. It's called marketing. I mean, Remington has been telling me that the 6.8 will be released commercially "next month" since LAST OCTOBER! WTF is up with that? There are a lot of people on both sides that have much to benefit by supplying misinformation. Beware...

Anyhow, these are the confirmable facts about the 6.8:
A) 1.5 million rounds of 6.8 have been ordered (maybe even delivered by now), not 150 million.
B) The butchered 110 grain AMAX projectile was rejected by JAG, the 115 SMK and Hornady OTMs ARE approved.
C) The 6.8 is in "active testing" overseas at current. I don't know if that means combat usage in theatre, or just testing.
D) SOCOM is VERY interested in the 6.8. Read over at Tac-Forums and see for yourself.
E) The project is far from dead. PRI is still selling magazines to the government, and Remington is still selling ammo.
F) The 6.8 IS NOT MEANT TO REPLACE ANYTHING! Whoever tells you this is FULL OF SHIT! It's a supplementary caliber. Nothing more, nothing less. The military is not looking to replace anything at current. MK262 5.56 is not replacing anything either, FYI.

What's the #1 problem with the 6.8 right now? Factory ammo is very hard to come by. There are ways to get it, but I won't go into that just yet...


Bill Alexander has said before that he is not trying to actively market the 6.5 Grendel cartridge to the military. "If they want it, they know where to find it," is what he said, IIRC. Bill is a great guy, and I respect his vast knowledge of external ballistics (his understanding of it is far beyond what my mere mortal mind can fathom), but I don't think the Grendel is ready for military usage. Why?

There is no test data available to us for short (sub-16") barrels.
There is no test data available to us for the Lapua Scenar bullets in ballistic gel.  I think I can speak for all of us when I say that I don't want a 5" neck and 25"+ of penetration.
There is no test data available to us for full auto reliability.
There are no chromelined barrels on the market.

When we see those four things, THEN will I (and many other people, I imagine) be interested in the caliber. I'm not bashing the 6.5, just calling it as I see it. I honestly have no vested interest in either caliber, as I intend to pick the better perfomer for myself.

Now, how about this solution...

The 6.5 guys stick to threads that pertain to 6.5, and the 6.8 folks do the same? I know, some HAVE been doing just that, but others need to. What the fuck are we doing discussing the 6.5 Grendel in this thread anyhow?

So, let's just get BACK on topic, and leave the petty 12 year old name calling and bickering behind. The mods have obviously been more than lenient in keeping this abomination open, so let's respect them by at least discussing the topic at hand.

Respectfully,
Cap'n

Quoted: The 6.5 is very accurate, but terrible at wounding.

How many people have been shot with the 6.5 Grendel?

"So, let's just get BACK on topic."

C'mon, Capn C, just when I was starting to enjoy myself! You sound just like me when I catch my kids building campfires in the garage!

John

-----------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

Quoted: "So, let's just get BACK on topic." C'mon, Capn C, just when I was starting to enjoy myself! You sound just like me when I catch my kids building campfires in the garage! John

I can see where they get it from

Just kidding

-Cap'n

This may have been answered before BUT...

How hard would it be to gel test a SMK/ Nosler HPBT type bullet in the 6.5 cartridge?  i.e. are the only bullets that fit in the 6.5 Grendel all FMJ?  I agree that comparing the 6.5 FMJ round to the 6.8 FMJ round would be a more _fair _ comparison than those already made..but it wouldn't be very informative, right?  6.5 HPBT vs. 6.8 HPBT tests would probably be of great interest to lots of people..

You know, someone out there who is in control of the 6.8SPC may be reading this and laughing his A** off.

John - Beer when you're in Kansas!

Quoted: You know what?  I offered a while back.  I sent Grendelizor an IM asking if he'd like to donate some ammo and a loaner upper.  I wanted to gel test comparable 6.5 and 6.8 side by side. Know what happened?  NOTHING.  I received no response.

I think that's a very generous offer of your time and money- frankly, if you didn't personally offer to do it, I'm not sure it would get done such that the results would be accessable to ARFcomers!

If your offer still stands and you're making it public, maybe someone will take you up on it (TX65?)

Do you know if there is such a HPBT that can be loaded in 6.5 Grendel?

Quoted: Quoted:This may have been answered before BUT... How hard would it be to gel test a SMK/ Nosler HPBT type bullet in the 6.5 cartridge?  i.e. are the only bullets that fit in the 6.5 Grendel all FMJ?  I agree that comparing the 6.5 FMJ round to the 6.8 FMJ round would be a more _fair _ comparison than those already made..but it wouldn't be very informative, right?  6.5 HPBT vs. 6.8 HPBT tests would probably be of great interest to lots of people.. You know what?  I offered a while back. I sent Grendelizor an IM asking if he'd like to donate some ammo and a loaner upper.  I wanted to gel test comparable 6.5 and 6.8 side by side. Know what happened?  NOTHING.  I received no response.

It easy to say anything on the Internet. This offer seems very fair, Grendelizor, put up or shut up.
Your choice.

However, Grendelizer is not authorized by Alexander Arms to provide rifles and ammunition to anyone for testing.

Unless he signed some sort of NDA, I think what he does with his rifle and ammo is his own business.

-z

Quoted: However, Grendelizer is not authorized by Alexander Arms to provide rifles and ammunition to anyone for testing. Unless he signed some sort of NDA, I think what he does with his rifle and ammo is his own business. -z

Enough said.

Quoted: As far as Brouhaha being able to test a 6.5 Grendel, I directly extended an offer to him two months ago to drive 45 minutes and join me at the range (We both live in Houston)  I sent him my phone number and have not heard from him.. In addition, Marty of Teppo Jutso knows my number and calls me every so often, we chat, I even gave him some Sierra 77 MKs for free to play with, but Brouhaha has not called and I know Marty and Brouhaha know eachother.

Rebuttal?

I know some heavy hitters are in here but I just want to chime in.  The 6.5, in my opinion, is more like a battle rifle cartridge.  It could probably take an elk at 300 yards with the right bullet.  I suppose so could the 6.8 with the right bullet.  But this notion of replacing a battle rifle cartridge we already have, to me, seems ridiculous.  Should our snipers get rid of all their .308 bolt guns too?  I don't understand this.  Why do you have to have just one round?  We've got 5.56, .308 and .50 cal.  There may be others that I don't know of but what would the military gain to only have one round?  We've always had more than one for more than one purpose.  All the 6.8 would do is upgrade the current package with a little more punch.  I'm not convinced that the 77 otm didn't do that, but if the socom's guys think that then that's cool with me.  But as far as claims go, has anyone shot a 6.5 grendel on full auto out of carbine type rifle?  Seems like it'd be a little stiff.  Almost like the .308 on full auto.  Not quite but it's getting up there.  And to claim it'd be a good full auto round and doing it is two different things.  Now maybe grendolizer can put me in my place about this full auto issue but until then it's a baseless claim.  I'm not saying the 6.8 is an end all to be all but I really don't see how the 6.5 would be.  What's wrong with the .308 for sniping?  We have proven systems for that role.  Including .50 caliber.  Grendolizer, I appreciate your passion but your logic is way overstated that you could replace all caliber's with the 6.5.  Plain and simple.   So to say we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for liking the 6.8 is pretty silly.  None of us our saying the 6.8 should be used for "everything".  You are, however.  I'm not saying 6.5 grendel isn't a good cartridge, I just don't feel it's a brush stroke fix everything cartridge.  I do however feel that the 6.8 is probably an improvement over the 5.56 without getting into too much recoil.  But I've never fired it so I don't know.  And I like you am just a hunter/ shooter.  And by the way, I agree with your point that hunting would be bit more like combat than target shooting.  Sorry brou.

It easy to say anything on the Internet. This offer seems very fair, Grendelizor, put up or shut up.
Your choice.

And now it appears the same exact thing should be said to Brouhaha,, put up or shut up.  



Sounds like we have a challenge, and I want to see a shoot out (down the range of course.....)  

And finally, WTF does this debate raging here have to do with the title of the thread, whic if I recall is "Military cancels the 6.8 SPC."  For God's sake somebody needs to start another 6.8 vs. 6.5 thread...  

Where those involved with the 6.8SPC invited to the blackwater shoot this year? Did they attend?

Grendelizer gets home from a long commute and sees yet more controversy! Apparently no one listened to Capn Crunch's wisdom, which would have been wise. Anyway, just a bit more (because I know that about three pages ago I said I was trying not to get involved! Oops!):

First of all, I consider it very, very, VERY bad form to reveal publicly a private message. Ouch! Are we that desperate?

Second, yes, it's a free country, but I decline Brouhaha's offer and stand with the Grendel guys. I refer Brouhaha to Arne's post.

Third, I think I've said my peace, which no one seems to want to discuss intelligently and so I'll take WTR's advice and start another thread specific to the 6.8 vs. 6.5 when I get any updated information that, hopefully, answers Capn Crunch's four concerns (although others can follow his example and call Bill Alexander directly if they're serious about getting technical info).

John

----------------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

grendolizer, it did help for me to know where brou was coming from to know that info.  You say no one wants to discuss it intelligently, yet you did not respond to either dave a's or my post which in my opinion we're good points (of course I think that) and we we're not berating you.  

You claim it would be a good full auto weapon.  Do you have one?  Does somebody have one?

You claim it would be a good replacement for all rounds.  ( you claimed there is ap rounds, anti personelle rounds, etc, etc)Why is this a good idea?  Should we only have one tank?  One plane?  One boat?  I know that's kind of an exxageration but yet I don't follow you're thinking on this one.

If my memory serves me right you claimed it is a better performer ballistically.  Well, I'll I've got to say is it would probably kill pretty good.  But I think so would the 6.8. So I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.  If you put a hpbt match bullet in there I'm sure it would behave differently than the fmj.  How much?  I don't know.

You claim the 6.8 is a train wreck with spooky powders that your "guys" say it's dead.  Well whatever.  People with integrety expect to be believed, and when they're not, they let time prove them right.  I'll guess we'll all just have to wait and see.  But believe me, you haven't shed any light on the subject, which I think right now, is what most of us are interested in.

And on top of that, you didn't explain why you didn't respond to brou, which makes me suspicious.  But I'm just a third party nobody looking in.