6.5 vs. 6.8 debate is coming to an end - Page 3

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 6.5 vs. 6.8 debate is coming to an end (Page 3 of 9)

Posted: 2/12/2006 4:26:57 PM EDT

[#1]

Some one need to start a poll, and fined out how many 6.8 SPC & 6.5 owers are out there! set it up for people with more then one and are both. lets see what the market says

Posted: 2/12/2006 4:30:48 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
I would honestly love to see that proven or disproven either way.

Same here. So far, the only credible tests I know of were performed by DocGKR.

We refer to the Colt fanatics as "Kool Aid Drinkers."

I hereby nominate the term "Reavers" for the Grendel fanatics. All you have to do to stir them up into a violent frenzy is shout "SPC!" at them.

Originally posted by Griz in another thread:

Quoted:
I'd love to see this info as well, but since (as far as I have seen) there is no public info on terminal performance of the various commercial 6.8 SPC offerings, how will we be able to compare?

Posted: 2/12/2006 4:38:04 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Also, the 9mm vs 45acp debate has ended. 9mm is the winner.

Which would be why LE has gone .40 and the military is talking about .45s again

Posted: 2/12/2006 4:46:34 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So is there any actual new information, or are we just rehashing the old shit over and over again?

I just got back from SHOT. I heard a lot of talk about the new SIG rifle, the SCAR, and the Elcan Specter VR. Didn't hear any people talking in the isles about 6.5 or 6.8. My impression of this thread is that it's trying to make something out of nothing regarding SHOT show news.

-z

Sour grapes eh?

Not at all. I relayed my personal experience truthfully. It was a huge show and I may have missed some things. None of the "buzz" I heard being talked about at the show was related to 6.5 or 6.8. That is all.

I want more good and verified data out there, and less B.S. and baseless rumors promulgated in the forums.

-z

Posted: 2/12/2006 4:56:04 PM EDT

[#5]

Sorry I missed you Zak,,, was at the show with Bill Alexander most of the week. Would have been great to meet you face to face.

Arne

Posted: 2/12/2006 4:58:59 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
People treat these rounds like they are as different as night and day. In reality, there will perform very similarly. 0.3mm is hardly perceptible, and at realistic ranges they will have about the same amount of drop. I did a point blank range analysis a few years ago, and the Grendel outranged the 6.8 by only 7%. The only difference between these two cartridges is that the Grendel is a flatter shooting cartridge at ranges that most people can not and should not shoot.

IMHO, the jury is still out on both cartridges. I think you are suddenly seeing more activity with the Grendel because Alexander Arms unwisely restricted licensing. He made the rifles he wanted, not what most AR shooters wanted. Now that he is licensing some more customer-oriented businesses to produce rifles, it is natural for there to be pent up demand. Grendel shooters are finally able to get what they want, which SPC shooters have been doing for years. Now that rifles and ammo will be available for both cartridges, we should see in the next few years which one of these will succeed like the 243, and which will be marginalized like the 6mm Rem.

They ARE as different as night and day. The 6.5 Grendel loads have some of the best BC of ANY bullet on the market in ANY caliber. Its supersonic past 1200 yards. Yeah, I guess there similiar in the sense they both get shot out of a gun, they both have a bullet, powder, primer and a shell casing. But the comparisons end about there. Might as well compare .243 to 30-06 and say "Gee whiz, there the same cause at 100 yards they both do sub MOA"

Specop, you have perfectly proved my point. Internet commandos focus on the superiority of Grendel at 1200 yards, which is completely outside of practical rifle range. Very, very few shooters have the opportunity, equipment or skill to shoot past 300 to 500 yards, let alone 1200. At realistic ranges, or even way beyond that point, there is little practical differences between the cartridges when it comes to field shooting.

Except for the few people who have the opportunity, skill and equipment to shoot past point blank range, 6.5 v. 6.8 is as dumb as .243 v. 6mm Rem or .270 v. .280.

I cant altogether disagree with that. There are people who shoot long range, but they are not the majority by any means. Do I consider myself a LONG range shooter? No, not yet. I have access to ranges that exceed the effective range of just about any shoulder fired weapon on the market barring perhaps TOW missiles.
But some day i hope to use that distance. At that point, I will take a 6.5 over just about anything else. Also, the 6.5 is no slouch inside 500 or even 300 yards. Hell look at the popularity of the caliber in Europe. The 6.5 is an excellent, excellent all around performer. Theres virtually no task the 6.5 cant do, and do very well. The same simply cannot be said for the 6.8. While it excels close in, it gives up something in the distance department.

I myself like versatility. I dont want a dedicated close quarters upper, a dedicated varmint upper, a dedicated long range upper, a dedicated deer upper etc etc etc. I want one upper that can function well in all areas. The 6.5 is that upper.

Argueing terminal ballistics is always a funny topic to me. Because people focus solely on terminal ballistics and forget one thing. Shot placement. Sure, the 6.8 has better terminal ballistics in close. If you shoot'm in the foot it means fuck all. And either the 6.8 or 6.5 will be devastating on a center mass shot. So really, in real world applications I see no difference in terminal ballistics between a 6.8 and a 6.5. In real world applications I see the 6.5 filling more roles then the 6.8

The choice, for me, is easy.

Posted: 2/12/2006 5:08:57 PM EDT

[#7]

As for my Wolf being match grade comment......I never specified WHICH wolf caliber was match grade.

On the whole I'm very happy for what Wolf is doing for us gun owners. They are expanding their ammo line to offer us more choices, either on high quality match ammo or good cheap plinking ammo. They are also spinning out alot of C&R type calibers as I understand it. As was said above, its the consumer that wins both in regards to Wolf expanding its line up and the 6.5 or 6.8 debate.

As long as we the consumer win, I have no complaints.

Posted: 2/12/2006 5:26:49 PM EDT

[#8]

Credible huh. I still question whether they are actually credible. There seems to be 0 testing of the other calibers and bullet types done in his tests. At least I haven't seen it. By the way I'm talking about Dr. Roberts and his credible testing, which includes just one caliber and bullet. There hasn't ever been any evidence that he tested any other calibers or projectiles. If so, what was the bullet type and velocity of the 6.5mm tested?

Posted: 2/12/2006 5:52:31 PM EDT

[#9]

Which would be why LE has gone .40 and the military is talking about .45s again

Dang Lumpy-get them to spring for some good stuff-127+p+

Posted: 2/12/2006 5:52:31 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Credible huh. I still question whether they are actually credible. There seems to be 0 testing of the other calibers and bullet types done in his tests. At least I haven't seen it.

Posted: 2/12/2006 5:57:39 PM EDT

[#11]

I dont know why you guys are having a debate over this still. It's pretty simple. If you want long range ballistics, the Grendel is choice since there are better BC bullets for this round. And if you want Terminal Ballistics, the 6.8 SPC seems to be the choice with the testing so far.

As far as the Wolf ammo, how can you debate on it when no one has tested it yet?

Figure out your priorities and purchase the upper accordingly.

Posted: 2/12/2006 6:36:29 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
We told you there was going to be a lot happening, hope you guys like what you are seeing, The 6.5 Grendel is now offered in AR's by

Alexander Arms
Competition Shooting Sports
Sabre Defense
DPMS

Who knows, Armalite may come on the list (did I say that),,,

Also add a new ARFCom industry partner: AR15barrels.com

wganz
¶

Posted: 2/12/2006 10:02:53 PM EDT

[#13]

Where do you get the superior terminal ballistics of the 6.8 from? One source? Is this based solely on ballistic gelatin tests? How about with layers of clothing or body armor on? I don't think anyone has even tested the 6.5 Grendel yet to say that it does not perform as well as the other one.

Posted: 2/12/2006 10:27:14 PM EDT

[#14]

I think I will take the money and get me a bolt .308/.30-06 and handload some SMKs before I toss money at not-yet adopted crap.

What worked in WWII works for me, and should work for you. (caliber-wise)

Posted: 2/12/2006 10:30:07 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
I think I will take the money and get me a bolt .308/.30-06 and handload some SMKs before I toss money at not-yet adopted crap.

What worked in WWII works for me, and should work for you. (caliber-wise)

Of course those old calibers would work.
But why get those when theres calibers that work better?

Posted: 2/12/2006 11:28:29 PM EDT

[#16]

LAWDAWG8654,

Please get your facts straight and exercise a bit more due dilligence and background research, as NOTHING you wrote above about our testing is correct.

Credible huh. I still question whether they are actually credible. There seems to be 0 testing of the other calibers and bullet types done in his tests. At least I haven't seen it. By the way I'm talking about Dr. Roberts and his credible testing, which includes just one caliber and bullet. There hasn't ever been any evidence that he tested any other calibers or projectiles. If so, what was the bullet type and velocity of the 6.5mm tested?

Where do you get the superior terminal ballistics of the 6.8 from? One source? Is this based solely on ballistic gelatin tests? How about with layers of clothing or body armor on? I don't think anyone has even tested the 6.5 Grendel yet to say that it does not perform as well as the other one.

Posted: 2/12/2006 11:46:29 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
LAWDAWG8654,

Please get your facts straight and exercise a bit more due dilligence and background research, as NOTHING you wrote above about our testing is correct.

Credible huh. I still question whether they are actually credible. There seems to be 0 testing of the other calibers and bullet types done in his tests. At least I haven't seen it. By the way I'm talking about Dr. Roberts and his credible testing, which includes just one caliber and bullet. There hasn't ever been any evidence that he tested any other calibers or projectiles. If so, what was the bullet type and velocity of the 6.5mm tested?

Where do you get the superior terminal ballistics of the 6.8 from? One source? Is this based solely on ballistic gelatin tests? How about with layers of clothing or body armor on? I don't think anyone has even tested the 6.5 Grendel yet to say that it does not perform as well as the other one.

It sounds like your speaking from a position of authority on the subject. Could you link us to these tests? I'm curious to see the results.

Posted: 2/12/2006 11:59:21 PM EDT

[#18]

Ok, what velocity did you get with the 6.5mm SPC? Using what projectiles? Also, it would be of interest to more than a few people how the other calibers performed; 7mm SPC, 25 SPC, so on. Are there actually pictures of the gel tests that were perfomed with these cartridges? Of course you didn't have the 6.5 Grendel to test. But what about the projectiles, which ones exactly were tested.

The only thing I have seen is a picture of a lineup of dummy cartridges that represent the various SPC versions. If you're telling me that you developed loads for all these cartridges and had barrels chambered for them and then tested each one with each bullet available (not just the American made ones) then I will maybe buy into what you are trying to claim. I left out that someone developed a special bullet just to make the 270 look better.

I don't know, maybe I don't have a high enough security clearance to find out more information. Or, maybe you can enlighten me.

Posted: 2/13/2006 1:25:57 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Ok, what velocity did you get with the 6.5mm SPC? Using what projectiles? Also, it would be of interest to more than a few people how the other calibers performed; 7mm SPC, 25 SPC, so on. Are there actually pictures of the gel tests that were perfomed with these cartridges? Of course you didn't have the 6.5 Grendel to test. But what about the projectiles, which ones exactly were tested.

The only thing I have seen is a picture of a lineup of dummy cartridges that represent the various SPC versions. If you're telling me that you developed loads for all these cartridges and had barrels chambered for them and then tested each one with each bullet available (not just the American made ones) then I will maybe buy into what you are trying to claim. I left out that someone developed a special bullet just to make the 270 look better.

I don't know, maybe I don't have a high enough security clearance to find out more information. Or, maybe you can enlighten me.

Let's see....DocGKR does ballistics testing for a living, and is an expert in the field, and you don't and aren't. I can't see why you would even THINK that questioning him is going to have any result other than making you look like a jackass. Get some sense, man.

It's this kind of behavior that causes me to be tenative in buying anything 6.5 Grendel. It seems a large preponderance of the 6.5 G buffs have "issues". If owning a 6.5 G will cause me to act like a complete jackass, then count me out. Get it through your thick head once and for all that both cartridges can exist at the same time in the same market.

I probably will buy a 6.5 G upper, but I'm not getting rid of my 6.8 because there are still way more manufacturers of 6.8 barrels and uppers out there, and WAY more 6.8 guns out there too. You can buy 6.8 ammo right now at a gun shop. I hope that I will be able to buy 6.5 G ammo when I buy my upper. I also hope that 6.5 lives up to the hype, as people are currently killing deer, hogs, and I would assume taliban with 6.8 (SSA is still selling it to the military, so it's being used somewhere), not just making tight groups on paper with 24" uppers.

Posted: 2/13/2006 2:39:53 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Ok, what velocity did you get with the 6.5mm SPC? Using what projectiles? Also, it would be of interest to more than a few people how the other calibers performed; 7mm SPC, 25 SPC, so on. Are there actually pictures of the gel tests that were perfomed with these cartridges? Of course you didn't have the 6.5 Grendel to test. But what about the projectiles, which ones exactly were tested.

The only thing I have seen is a picture of a lineup of dummy cartridges that represent the various SPC versions. If you're telling me that you developed loads for all these cartridges and had barrels chambered for them and then tested each one with each bullet available (not just the American made ones) then I will maybe buy into what you are trying to claim. I left out that someone developed a special bullet just to make the 270 look better.

I don't know, maybe I don't have a high enough security clearance to find out more information. Or, maybe you can enlighten me.

There is/was a 60+ page started back in late '03 IIRC on the tacticalforums under Termianl Effects, that described as much of the testing as was authorized to be released.

Of course you didn't have the 6.5 Grendel to test.. The needed platform (16" or less) and 25rnd mags didn't exist until now. So what's your point.

Edit to add: If you want a 6.5G, then get one. Same goes for a 6.8SPC.

LAWDAWG8654, just because you are behind the info curve on the 6.8 development and testing by a couple of years is not Doc's fault.

Posted: 2/13/2006 3:25:57 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, what velocity did you get with the 6.5mm SPC? Using what projectiles? Also, it would be of interest to more than a few people how the other calibers performed; 7mm SPC, 25 SPC, so on. Are there actually pictures of the gel tests that were perfomed with these cartridges? Of course you didn't have the 6.5 Grendel to test. But what about the projectiles, which ones exactly were tested.

The only thing I have seen is a picture of a lineup of dummy cartridges that represent the various SPC versions. If you're telling me that you developed loads for all these cartridges and had barrels chambered for them and then tested each one with each bullet available (not just the American made ones) then I will maybe buy into what you are trying to claim. I left out that someone developed a special bullet just to make the 270 look better.

I don't know, maybe I don't have a high enough security clearance to find out more information. Or, maybe you can enlighten me.

There is/was a 60+ page started back in late '03 IIRC on the tacticalforums under Termianl Effects, that described as much of the testing as was authorized to be released.

Of course you didn't have the 6.5 Grendel to test.. The needed platform (16" or less) and 25rnd mags didn't exist until now. So what's your point.

Edit to add: If you want a 6.5G, then get one. Same goes for a 6.8SPC.

LAWDAWG8654, just because you are behind the info curve on the 6.8 development and testing by a couple of years is not Doc's fault.

LAWDAWG8654 must have just got out of the boonies, still has water in his ears or jarred his head on the last jump to not know about Doc.
Bad Reconnaissance, man.

Posted: 2/13/2006 4:07:03 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

LAWDAWG8654 must have just got out of the boonies, still has water in his ears or jarred his head on the last jump to not know about Doc.

Bad Reconnaissance, man.

It was obviously all of the fine facts Doc provided that threw him off. With such a well rounded rubuttal providing all the information LawDawg had requested I can see how he got confused............

Posted: 2/13/2006 4:23:35 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
The only attraction at this point is that they fit my RRA lower.

.

This is pretty much the only reason both of these rounds exist!!!

Posted: 2/13/2006 4:33:30 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
LAWDAWG8654 must have just got out of the boonies, still has water in his ears or jarred his head on the last jump to not know about Doc.
Bad Reconnaissance, man.

It was obviously all of the fine facts Doc provided that threw him off. With such a well rounded rubuttal providing all the information LawDawg had requested I can see how he got confused............

Since you and LAWDAWG8654 seem to need spoon or bottle feeding.

Start looking here:

www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000512

Posted: 2/13/2006 4:46:42 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
LAWDAWG8654 must have just got out of the boonies, still has water in his ears or jarred his head on the last jump to not know about Doc.
Bad Reconnaissance, man.

It was obviously all of the fine facts Doc provided that threw him off. With such a well rounded rubuttal providing all the information LawDawg had requested I can see how he got confused............

Since you and LAWDAWG8654 seem to need spoon or bottle feeding.

Start looking here:

www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000512

Thank you, thats all I wanted. As for Lawdawg, I'll let him speak for himself now.

I should say, I have no dog in this fight. The 6.8 does nothing for me the 5.56 cant do just as well. I want the Grendel for the superior ballistics at long range.

And by the way, my bottle seems to be empty. Could you fill it for me?

Posted: 2/13/2006 4:58:18 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not care who is or what smoke is blown up your ass, but the $.12-.15 price point per round for the consumer is IMPOSSIBLE for brass case boxer primer ammo! We can not even get that with 5.56 nato which is made at 1000 per minute at Lake City Arsenal

I guess well have to see. Based on Wolf's ability to source world class rimfire match ammo at substantially lower prices than its competition, I have no problems believing that they will do so again with CF ammo.

Hmmmm......TX65 just did, but his $.25-30 per round is a stretch too.

Has any of Wolf's manufacturers made a 6.5mm bullet is the past? Reason I ask is if they do not, there is another outsourcing materials and cost increase. If they plan on making the tooling, that is a huge upfront cost that will have to be absorbed somewhere (consumers pocket?). Any 6.5 bullet that will be worth a damn even at bulk will be $.05 a piece. So between the the brass and bullet we are at $.17-.20 per round but still need some raw materials. For shits and jiggles say all raw material costs $.20.

Add labor, packaging, shipping costs, tariffs and any other taxes..............and the $.25-.30 price point will not happen. More realistic cost would be $.45-60 per round. Why would any company sell a higher grade product for only pennies more than their cheap stuff?

Posted: 2/13/2006 5:46:02 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:..............and the $.25-.30 price point will not happen. More realistic cost would be $.45-60 per round. Why would any company sell a higher grade product for only pennies more than their cheap stuff?

You are engaging in the very same "speculation" that you are shouting must stop and is nonsense. Pot, kettle.......

Posted: 2/13/2006 6:49:17 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not care who is or what smoke is blown up your ass, but the $.12-.15 price point per round for the consumer is IMPOSSIBLE for brass case boxer primer ammo! We can not even get that with 5.56 nato which is made at 1000 per minute at Lake City Arsenal

I guess well have to see. Based on Wolf's ability to source world class rimfire match ammo at substantially lower prices than its competition, I have no problems believing that they will do so again with CF ammo.

Hmmmm......TX65 just did, but his $.25-30 per round is a stretch too.

Has any of Wolf's manufacturers made a 6.5mm bullet is the past? Reason I ask is if they do not, there is another outsourcing materials and cost increase. If they plan on making the tooling, that is a huge upfront cost that will have to be absorbed somewhere (consumers pocket?). Any 6.5 bullet that will be worth a damn even at bulk will be $.05 a piece. So between the the brass and bullet we are at $.17-.20 per round but still need some raw materials. For shits and jiggles say all raw material costs $.20.

Add labor, packaging, shipping costs, tariffs and any other taxes..............and the $.25-.30 price point will not happen. More realistic cost would be $.45-60 per round. Why would any company sell a higher grade product for only pennies more than their cheap stuff?

Why don't YOU e-mail Wolf with these questions.

I'm done.

Posted: 2/13/2006 6:52:52 AM EDT

[#29]

DocGKR,

Respectfully, I would like to ask a few questions. First off, this is not an attack at all. It is not meant to question Dr. Roberts integrity, or capacity and ability to conduct any ballistics tests.

Where does the Doc come from? I have heard you are a practicing Dentist/Orthodontist, is this correct? Do you do ballistics testing full time, and for a living, or is this something you do in addition to your Dental/Orth carrer?

How long has it been since any gel test on either a Grendel round or a SPC round were conducted?

In the previous tests, what were the specific components, of each caliber, tested?

Currently, are either of these exact rounds in commercial production and available to the consumer?

If there are differences between the rounds tested, and what is now available as current production ammunition, what are these differences?

If there are differences, does this not suggest a new set of tests should be performed on both calibers with the currently available commercial loadings?

I apprecaite you taking time to participate in this thread, and on the forum in general.

Just to be fair, I will offer to the thread some specifics on myself. It should be obvious to the board I support the Grendel. This does not mean that I am negative towards the SPC, quite the contrary, you can read in this very thread I have claimed that neither cartridge is the "winner" or "loser", but that it is the consumer that is the winner based on having more purchasing options.

My philosophy on the 6.X debate is both should be considered "in addition to" and not "in lieu of" the existing chamberings, or each other.

Now, why do I support the Grendel? Because I shoot paper, and not humans. For that purpose, the Grendel is simply a better tool than any 5.56/.223, the SPC, or the .308. Given the range of commercial bullets in 6.5, and the high BC of said bullets, there is not really much to debate as to which is more suited as a target cartridge, either short range, or long range. I can, and will, support only what I can personally attest to.

Posted: 2/13/2006 7:01:19 AM EDT

[#30]

I thought tests of 6.5 bullets during develpment of the SPC involved the 6.5 SPC, not the 6.5 Grendel? And like the 6.8 SPC the 6.5 SPC was limited to short stubby bullets?

Posted: 2/13/2006 7:25:10 AM EDT

[#31]

Guys, Guys , Guys

First, lets not continue the 6.5 vs 6.8 battle.,,, it gets old. Options are only to benefit of the consumer and any "other" users out there. I have told Gary Roberts and Steven Holland both, I admire what their goals were and do not fault them in the least. In my direct conversations with both of them, we all have been able to talk professionally without calling into question where we come from.

The two cartridges were designed from entirely different perspectives... They werent even designed with the knowledge of the other.

There is absolutely no reason that this is a winner take all battle, the choice of what to own is yours based on your needs and what you find in the market to suit your needs. In the end, the future of either cartridge will depend entirely on the business viabiiity of each for the manufacturers making them.

Gary Roberts has never represented to me that he has ever tested a Grendel, nor I have seen him say it. He says he has tested some 6.5 caliber bullets, but was very honest in saying he didnt test everything or even a lot of them. To my knowledge, Gary Roberts is an oral surgeon with a major university medical center in Northern California. He also does wound ballistics consulting to some law enforcement groups that I know of.

We had another doctor, who was also a member of the IWBA, do terminal testing of the Grendel and some of those tests results have been put in the public view. As far as publishing pictures, that is up to that doctor, not me or Bill A. They are his property, not ours.

I think it is fair to say that Gary Roberts has been a very vocal proponent of the 6.8 SPC, that does not make him bad, but it does mean that if your concern is doing an unbiased terminal test between the Grendel and 6.8 SPC, that it is not proper for him to do it, nor would it be for the doctor we had do it. Again, not a criticism of Gary Roberts, just that it would be like having Ford test the new Chevy. He is free to buy a Grendel and shoot it, but any conclusions if negative would be viewed with criticism... No differrent then if I did it and was negative against the 6.8... Guess what guys, I am biased too.

When we did an informal shoot off between the 6.8 and 6.5 two weeks ago, we made a point of having 4 different people shoot both so that no one person could intentionally skew the results. This was a test of accuracy in the face of lousy environmental conditions (10-20 mph wind with changing directions) at 200 yards.

The net results of SHOT 2006 is that low cost 6.5 Grendel ammo from a pure ammo manufacturer has been released and will be available in quantity this summer depending on when summer hits in your area. Whether you believe it or not, ammo will be 25-30 cents per loaded round unless the value of the dollar goes south or the Chinese buy all the brass, lead and copper on the planet which would effect every cartridge. There are now multiple manufacturers making Grendels including 3 large ones. High capacity magazines (25 rounds reliable) are available now and you are free to order them. You have barrel length options from 14.5 inches to 28 inches.

Posted: 2/13/2006 7:28:36 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Also, the 9mm vs 45acp debate has ended. 9mm is the winner.

hinking.gif

Posted: 2/13/2006 5:30:55 PM EDT

[#33]

I find it easier to find 6.5 ammo than 6.8 ammo.

I just got back from SHOT and was sad to see that Black Hills is not loading either caliber and Remington wasnt even pushing the 6.8SPC.

Posted: 2/13/2006 6:05:17 PM EDT

[#34]

[Rodney King] Can't we all just get along ? [/Rodney King]

Posted: 2/13/2006 6:58:43 PM EDT

[#35]

I don't know about you guys... And I really don't give a rat's ass, but...

I'm damn happy that the 6.5 will be available at a lower price point. There are many applications for an intermediate cartridge from a light (AR) platform in the rural LE world. If it is low cost, and Bill does have a heavy jacketed soft point up his sleeve for barrier penetration that is MOA accurate from the CM/CL uppers... He'll have a winner on his hands.

When the SHOT brouhaha dies down, I'll be picking up a 14" to show to local LE, so we can test it side by side with the 12" 6.8 DI test mule and a 14.5" 6.8 piston gun down the line.

Posted: 2/13/2006 7:41:19 PM EDT

[#36]

DaveS, do I know you? Because you hit the nail on the head except I didn't jar my head (it was my hip) on my last jump.him
6.8mm 115 Hornady OTM
6.8mm 115 SMK
5.56mm 77 MK 262 Mod1
5.56mm M855

If those are not classified then these are not either and should be available to view! Unless they weren't done.

Where are the:
7.62mm M80
7.62mm M118LR
6.5mm 85 Sierra HP
6.5mm 95 Hornady V-Max
6.5mm 100 Nosler BT
6.5mm 107 SMK
6.5mm 108 Lapua Scenar
6.5mm 120 Norma FMJ
6.5mm 123 Lapua Scenar
6.5mm 130 Norma Match
6.5mm 139 Lapua Scenar
6.5mm 144 Lapua FMJ

Once again, were these projectiles tested? If not, just say no, its alright. Ok, a couple of them are not land warfare legal (95 V-MAX, 100 NBT, however most of them are). Also, was the Hornady 115 OTM developed specifically for these tests? Does that mean no other caliber was seriously considered? Is it because the 43mm case was chosen first and then projectiles and calibers were considered? Am I getting warm? Maybe nothing above 100 grains in the 6.5 was tested because the case was too long to get decent velocity within the confines of the AR magazine.

I am not a 6.8 SPC hater, I am also not a 6.5 Grendel lover. I want the best all around performing cartridge possible. I want evidence of performance or lack thereof. If you do not also want this then you are a blind follower.

Rant over, out.

Posted: 2/13/2006 11:40:13 PM EDT

[#37]

Not a single box of 6.8 has been seen at any of my dealers in months. 6.8 uppers are paperweights without ammo

6.5 will have better distribution through wolf which should make it easier to locate, better priced and more able to meet any demand

Posted: 2/14/2006 12:00:10 AM EDT

[#38]

I will say once again the only reason I have not bought a 6.5 Grendel upper is becasue of the lack of published testing. If you want someone impartial to do the testing who is that going to be? I say it does not matter. Tests can be replicated and confirmed or they will be debunked but it is the responsibility of the 6.5 crowd to get something out there for the consumer to make an educated decision before investing. Its not only good science but good business.

Dr Roberts has both tested a lot of rounds and not tested a lot of rounds. The terminal effects of 6.8 are known and public... 6.5 is not. That is a problem. What velocites does the 6.5 get from barrels under 14.5"? We dont know. That is why the 6.8 is currently the short carbine round of choice and 6.5 is not.

I have been keeping up with the 6.8 before it had a name and the caliber was "secret" back in the day. I decided I would buy it if the ammo became available in Walmart and not until. I knew it had crappy external ballistics from day 1 and did not care. It was to replace or supplement 5.56 carbines for self defense or LE use. I feel the same about the 6.5 but also want to see testing whether it is supposedly biased or not. Testing can be replicated and proven or it will be disproven and the inital tester will lose all credibility. This is all we who wonder about the 6.5 and sit on the fence want to know. I want to shoot medium sized game with it but I cant buy the upper if I dont have a clue how it will perform compared to 6.8 and .308 loads.

Does the person who did ballistics testing on the 6.5 already give a reason that he refuses to make public his findings? This was done quite some time ago so it cant have been some paper he was going to publish or it would be out.

Posted: 2/14/2006 12:07:40 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
The terminal effects of 6.8 are known and public...

The current factory ammo is very different than the ammo the 6.8SPC got its reputation on. Because of some pressure issues with the early ammo Remington has made changes that may have negatively effected terminal performance.

I would like to see some tests of the current factory ammo out of production guns/uppers.

Posted: 2/14/2006 12:07:53 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Not a single box of 6.8 has been seen at any of my dealers in months. 6.8 uppers are paperweights without ammo

6.5 will have better distribution through wolf which should make it easier to locate, better priced and more able to meet any demand

The shop where my dad works sotcks and sells 6.8 ammo all the time. I guess you are basing your conclusion on what you personally have seen, which is not a great way to indicate the entire state of affairs in the 6.8 world.

To use your same sense of invalid logic: No 6.5 ammo or uppers have EVER been seen or sold at my dad's shop, and 6.8 uppers, guns and ammo have, so I guess that makes the 6.5G the real paperweight, doesn't it?

You can make ridiculous statements about what is to come all day, but don't expect people to believe them because you saw or didn't see something at SHOT. This goes for any caliber, not just 6.5 G and 6.8 SPC.

Posted: 2/14/2006 12:09:10 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
I will say once again the only reason I have not bought a 6.5 Grendel upper is becasue of the lack of published testing. If you want someone impartial to do the testing who is that going to be? I say it does not matter. Tests can be replicated and confirmed or they will be debunked but it is the responsibility of the 6.5 crowd to get something out there for the consumer to make an educated decision before investing. Its not only good science but good business.

Dr Roberts has both tested a lot of rounds and not tested a lot of rounds. The terminal effects of 6.8 are known and public... 6.5 is not. That is a problem. What velocites does the 6.5 get from barrels under 14.5"? We dont know. That is why the 6.8 is currently the short carbine round of choice and 6.5 is not.

I have been keeping up with the 6.8 before it had a name and the caliber was "secret" back in the day. I decided I would buy it if the ammo became available in Walmart and not until. I knew it had crappy external ballistics from day 1 and did not care. It was to replace or supplement 5.56 carbines for self defense or LE use. I feel the same about the 6.5 but also want to see testing whether it is supposedly biased or not. Testing can be replicated and proven or it will be disproven and the inital tester will lose all credibility. This is all we who wonder about the 6.5 and sit on the fence want to know. I want to shoot medium sized game with it but I cant buy the upper if I dont have a clue how it will perform compared to 6.8 and .308 loads.

Does the person who did ballistics testing on the 6.5 already give a reason that he refuses to make public his findings? This was done quite some time ago so it cant have been some paper he was going to publish or it would be out.

Have you looked for 6.5 Swede tests? The 6.5 Grendel should have very similiar results.
Or to put it simply, if its good nuff for the European moose hunter, its for damn sure good nuff for deer.

Posted: 2/14/2006 12:16:21 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, what velocity did you get with the 6.5mm SPC? Using what projectiles? Also, it would be of interest to more than a few people how the other calibers performed; 7mm SPC, 25 SPC, so on. Are there actually pictures of the gel tests that were perfomed with these cartridges? Of course you didn't have the 6.5 Grendel to test. But what about the projectiles, which ones exactly were tested.

The only thing I have seen is a picture of a lineup of dummy cartridges that represent the various SPC versions. If you're telling me that you developed loads for all these cartridges and had barrels chambered for them and then tested each one with each bullet available (not just the American made ones) then I will maybe buy into what you are trying to claim. I left out that someone developed a special bullet just to make the 270 look better.

I don't know, maybe I don't have a high enough security clearance to find out more information. Or, maybe you can enlighten me.

There is/was a 60+ page started back in late '03 IIRC on the tacticalforums under Termianl Effects, that described as much of the testing as was authorized to be released.

And here we are in 2006 after several changes to the factory production ammo.

When the .357mag first came out it pushed a 158GN JSP over 1500FPS. That has been watered down to about 1235FPS now. it would be silly to judge the .357Mags performance based on 1930's ammo and its equally foolish to judge the terminal performance of the current Factory 6.8SPC ammo based on 3 year old gel shots with handloaded ammo.

Posted: 2/14/2006 1:17:33 AM EDT

[#43]

How about dead deer taken with 6.8 SPC within the last 6 months? Are those results too old and outdated?

Posted: 2/14/2006 1:28:34 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
How about dead deer taken with 6.8 SPC within the last 6 months? Are those results too old and outdated?

Not too old and outdated, but not viable. Your from Texas, everyone knows Texas deer arent much more then large dogs, hell you could kill'm with a nothing more then a BB gun.

Posted: 2/14/2006 1:40:46 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Not a single box of 6.8 has been seen at any of my dealers in months. 6.8 uppers are paperweights without ammo

6.5 will have better distribution through wolf which should make it easier to locate, better priced and more able to meet any demand

The shop where my dad works sotcks and sells 6.8 ammo all the time. I guess you are basing your conclusion on what you personally have seen, which is not a great way to indicate the entire state of affairs in the 6.8 world.

To use your same sense of invalid logic: No 6.5 ammo or uppers have EVER been seen or sold at my dad's shop, and 6.8 uppers, guns and ammo have, so I guess that makes the 6.5G the real paperweight, doesn't it?

You can make ridiculous statements about what is to come all day, but don't expect people to believe them because you saw or didn't see something at SHOT. This goes for any caliber, not just 6.5 G and 6.8 SPC.

Perception is reality

Posted: 2/14/2006 4:06:28 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not a single box of 6.8 has been seen at any of my dealers in months. 6.8 uppers are paperweights without ammo

6.5 will have better distribution through wolf which should make it easier to locate, better priced and more able to meet any demand

The shop where my dad works sotcks and sells 6.8 ammo all the time. I guess you are basing your conclusion on what you personally have seen, which is not a great way to indicate the entire state of affairs in the 6.8 world.

To use your same sense of invalid logic: No 6.5 ammo or uppers have EVER been seen or sold at my dad's shop, and 6.8 uppers, guns and ammo have, so I guess that makes the 6.5G the real paperweight, doesn't it?

You can make ridiculous statements about what is to come all day, but don't expect people to believe them because you saw or didn't see something at SHOT. This goes for any caliber, not just 6.5 G and 6.8 SPC.

Perception is reality

As distorted as yours may be.............I have no issues finding factory 6.8 SPC ammo, yet I prefer to handload. Sometimes production volume is not all that high but it's catered specifically to my 6.8 SPC AR15s liking.

I will dive into the 6.5 Grendel game as well in about 6 months. Nice to see other manufacturers picking up the licensing so we can see would can build the better 6.5 Grendel mousetrap. When that is determined, I will go with the better company. Should be right around the time when all that 6.5 Grendel brass cased boxer primed ammo at $5-7 a box is going to be on the shelves, right? I still plan on handloading for it.

Posted: 2/14/2006 4:24:14 AM EDT

[#47]

Believe it or not... .308 is still a favorite among the soldiers.

Posted: 2/14/2006 5:05:58 AM EDT

[#48]

It gets harder and harder to come to this site by the day. I have never seen so much bullshit, rumor, and speculation all in one place. What a waste of 6 pages...

Stephen

Posted: 2/14/2006 7:02:24 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
I will say once again the only reason I have not bought a 6.5 Grendel upper is becasue of the lack of published testing.

So you have not bought a 6.8 either right since there is no published testing available for that round. Or do you consider a few cherrypicked photos of gel tests on ammo that is loaded to dangerous pressures using a prototype bullet to be valid "published testing"?

I'll wait for real, scientific data before I proclaim one or the other the winner in the terminal ballistics arena. In the meanwhile, it doesn't take any special equipment or expertise to determine the winner of the external ballistics comparison.

Posted: 2/14/2006 7:34:14 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I will say once again the only reason I have not bought a 6.5 Grendel upper is becasue of the lack of published testing.

So you have not bought a 6.8 either right since there is no published testing available for that round. Or do you consider a few cherrypicked photos of gel tests on ammo that is loaded to dangerous pressures using a prototype bullet to be valid "published testing"?

I'll wait for real, scientific data before I proclaim one or the other the winner in the terminal ballistics arena. In the meanwhile, it doesn't take any special equipment or expertise to determine the winner of the external ballistics comparison.

If external ballistics are the single most important factor, then the 6.5 G clearly wins. But I think many give the 6.8 credit for actually seeing combat, and being developed with combat in mind, not 1000 yd ranges. It's also been out on the market in much larger quantities, and uppers are being produced by more manufacturers. Now that I'll be able to get an upper for a reasonable price that isn't 24 inches long, I'll be happy to compare the two.

I don't think either is going to die soon. I'd like to see this thread die soon, though, because the original intent of its author was to restart a long-running debate that has no end, and I was one of the people who bit.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 6.5 vs. 6.8 debate is coming to an end (Page 3 of 9)

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us