32,000 rifles contracted from LWRC between the Saudi's and Jordan, yea just a few, call it a couple if you desire to minimize it further. Who has contracted for the Grendel???? Oh, win 6.8.

Like anyone of course we want cheaper, quality plinking ammo. We have it, S&B 110gr FMJ, quality brass case, small rifle primer, $13.49 a box. Sell the brass at .35 on the low side (usually goes for .40 on 6.8Forum EE), 7 bucks back. $6.49 a box for 1 MOA target/training ammo. Czech manufacturer, makes brass for Hornady (= quality) no trade issues.
Thats not to mention Federal AE ammo coming out made in the good ol USA, same price point, Fed brass cases. Same once fired brass return.
If in the market to go with a alternate to the 5.56 in an AR15 why would someone hang their hat on steel cased Russian ammo with whats available for the 6.8 given performance between the 2 is so comparable?
Win 6.8 yet again.

Yes I know cats were built off the Grendel, I took a real long look at it before going 6.8. Again limited by chamber pressures, win 6.8 cat.

Know why this is easy? Because its true, I dont have to twist or create circular nonsense retorts. :)

I agree completely.....it's all done to perhaps sway new people toward their pet catridge....I'm referring to LRRPF52. ...I use to counter his "facts" which in all reality is disinformation....cherry picked comparisons or old information referring to the old chamber...usually never using any spc II info. I stopped debating with him because it's a waste of time...He has an agenda to insert his mantra in every 6.8 thread on the Internet....Any more I urge people to do their own comparisons and make their own minds up....never trust what a fan boy tells you....compare ammunition....especially spc II ammo, ammunition availability, parts availability, reliability, industry support etc etc and make your own informed decision....frankly the differences in performance are not as great as many will lead you to beleive so other factors may make your decision easier.

Sure, it's a definite win for 6.8, and I said so in an earlier post in this thread. But, it's just not the big deal that 6.8 fans like to make of it. When (or if) an entire army - not just an elite unit - converts to 6.8, then there'll be something to really brag about.

A 32,000 rifle contract is very nice for LWRC, but that number is just a small fraction of the total number of rifles in the armed forces of those two countries.

Yep. And same amount of time and energy put into picking up all of the brass, finding a buyer, perhaps packing and shipping, too. Not for me, thanks. If I must work, I want to get a whole lot more than 20 cents per hour.

See above. Plus, I always hated policing up brass. And now that I'm physically unable to do so, it makes the steel-case option even more attractive.

No, at least not for me.

You may not have to, but you just did. Your original comment was that 6.8 was better because it has "adaptability" to enable development of a number of wildcats. When I point out that 6.5 has the same adaptability in wildcat creation, you change your argument to chamber pressure limits.

Wow, and yet it goes on.....

Whew!! Lotta good info, a lot outside of my experience zone at least for now. I was really not wanting to get into the depbate of the two. I really wanted to know what it was that made 6.8 owners choose it. Lots of passion on on both sides and that's what's makes it all fun as long it doesn't turn into to big of a pissin match. Thanks again to everyone that had input and for the sweet gun porn. So now bringing it way back down to my level...someone pretty green to the platform, if I go this route I want to make sure it a spc II chamber corect?  And what twist rate is prefered for a16" barrel?

Yes make sure its an SPCII chamber.
1 in 11 or 1 in 11.25 twist is the best.
4 groove or 5R rifling will be the most accurate.
Order on 4 best barrels in my humble opinion.
Ar Performance melonited barrel, 5R rifling is 25 to 50 fps faster than other barrels.
Bison 4 groove (what I have)
Wilson Combat
Black Hole Weaponry

This is so easy.

SO your saying that if your disabled (condolences on this point sir)  and make a mess of the range by not policing your own brass the Grendel may be a better choice? If not the 6.8 is the way to go, of course if you leave 6.8 brass on the ground as opposed to steel casing at least they will be useful to whomever has to clean up the otherwise magnet fodder.

Nor does it means anything in this debate that a few other countries as well as our own DEA, FBI and local LEO organizations either outfit or allow the 6.8 in service but not the Grendel.
As well if they are not willing to do away with all other small arms and only outfit with the 6.8 it means nothing to the validation of the cartridge?
It also means nothing to the validation of the cartridge that they chose to arm their elite units with it due to the increased firepower, range over a 5.56?

I did not spin anything as far as wildcats are concerned, you made a valid point. I merely stated that since both have the availability the 6.8 is the better choice and why it is the better choice.

OP sorry, I just dislike mis-information to someone who is asking about the 6.8.

Also to the OP, or anyone interested in the 6.8
Go over to the 6.8Forums
Introduce yourself and read away.
You can become an expert on the cartridge with the available information.

Not exactly. I'm saying that:

a. if I'm shooting where I don't have to (or am not allowed to) pick up the fired cases, I can let steel cases lie where they fall, and be at least as well off financially as someone who has to pick up his brass cases in order to sell them to cut his ammo cost;
and
b. if I'm shooting where it is required to police one's fired cases, it's relatively easy for me to pick up steel cases using a magnet on a string.

So, it's a nice option to have.

Perhaps you are unaware there is also a market for once-fired Grendel brass?

There you go again, deliberately twisting what I wrote. I never said it meant nothing. I said only that it doesn't mean quite as much as 6.8 fans make out it does. Not that I blame any of you for doing so; it's a safe bet that if 6.5 was to be adopted by an elite military unit, the Grendel guys would crow about it just as loudly.

Now we were talking about Grendel steel not brass, were we not Stan.

Its been fun Stan, thanks for being a good sport.

If there was no 6 8
A Grendel I might debate
But since its here
The choice is clear

Maybe you were, but I was talking about Grendel shooters having steel and brass as options, whereas 6.8 shooters have only brass.

Any time.

______ ______

It's 2014:

There are such things as brass catchers!

If I ever heard about discreet military units using, testing, deploying with, or doing anything with 6.5 Grendel, you wouldn't hear a thing about it from me. I'd take it to the grave.

I have heard anecdotes and information about certain people testing 6.8 SPC (with the correct, original chamber pre-SAAMI), to include zapping hogs from helos with it and being impressed with that, but they rejected it as a viable cartridge for their purposes, citing concerns over safety of the system when shot in high volume.

No doubt you would. But, I was referring more to information in the public domain, similar to the publicized acquisition of 6.8 guns and ammo for the Royal Guards of Saudi Arabia.

No thanks. I caught a brash once. Was very difficult to cure. Would rather not catch another one.

Oh...you mean a brass catcher. I never really cared much for using those.

I have never owned or shot a Grendel. I am sure it is a fine round and those who have it, I am sure they love it.
I own one 6.8 SPCII and plan to own another soon...
To the OP, I suggest going to the 68forum for information on the 6.8 and the Grendel forum for that info. The folks on the 68 forum have been a pleasure to visit with and learn from. I am sure the guys at Grendel will be glad to help you there as well.
I am no expert on either round/platform so I can not help you with the more technical information and knowledge that some here display.
Should you go the 6.8 route be sure to pick up some of the Hornady 120SST rounds. Many like myself have found them to be very accurate and get the job done on anything in the medium size game world. Like many have said, either choice is one you likely will be happy with. After you decide which one you want, just shoot it and enjoy it.

Best of luck to you.

6.8 was originally designed around being as efficient as possible in short barrels.  6.5 was originally designed to hit it's optimal use in longer barrels.  Both are good & are now fairly comparable in most configurations/applications.  Having said that, I put mine together for hunting, where a compact carbine was the goal.  I ruled out 6.5 from the start, since if I want to shoot long range, I have dedicated bolt guns for that purpose in .308 & .300 WM.

Today, I don't think you can go wrong with either one to be honest.  Both have developed significantly from where they were a few years ago, and overlap each other in a lot of aspects.  Having said that, the majority of 6.5 defenders will point to it's long range capability, and the majority of 6.8 defenders will point to it's original design goals (compact, increased lethality over 5.56, optimized for shorter barrels, etc., etc.)

If I had it to do all over again, I'd still lean towards 6.8 for what I'd want it for, as I have precision bolt guns for distance work.  For someone looking for an AR15 sized package that can also be used for longer ranges, I'd be predisposed towards the 6.5.  Just my opinion & YMMV.

TL:DR = Both are adequate and overlap each other quite a bit.  I give the slight edge for short efficiency to the 6.8 and distance to the 6.5.  I don't think you can really go wrong with either one in a well put together rifle though.

This is how Redding feels about it. Considered by most as the best reloading dies available.

SERIES D - Rifle & Handgun Dies
Series D die sets represent obsolete cartridges, wildcats, etc., essentially custom stock. We attempt
to maintain inventory in limited quantities. Consult us for your specific needs.
This is where they list the Grendel.

The 6.8 they have multiple sets available.
Including dies made for competition MSR's:
National Match Die Sets
Responding to customer requests Redding has built a special die set for
the serious military match shooter. Redding now offers this die set in
223 Rem, 6.8mm Remington SPC, 308 Win, 30-06 Springfield and 300
Blackout. The set includes a Full-Length Sizing Die a Competition Bullet Seating Die
and a Taper Crimp Die. Customers have built this set on their own
for years and Redding has responded with a factory offering to meet
the needs of this shooting discipline. . . . . . . . . . . . . $235.00
The Grendel is??? Not available........

Hmm. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but ISTR Cris Murray saying that 6.8 SPC was originally developed for the 18" barrel SPR version of the M16.

False. That's a myth perpetuated by 6.8 fans. Truth is, 6.5 Grendel was designed for pretty much the same range of barrel lengths as 6.8 SPC.

Note that in the following Hornady video, it's a carbine-length barrel shown, not a long barrel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC9hjqsIIY4

Its faulty, the 6.8 was designed for an M4 16in barrel

As well the Grendel working best with 18 to 20 inch barrels was NOT concieved or perpetuated by "6.8" fans.
I could respond that the Grendel was desgined for a 20 inch barrel but seeing the futility of competeing againt the performance of the 6.8 in a 16 inch barrel in the M4 marketplace.
The Grendelians decided to promote shorter barrels.
But lets not keep going there.
Do we really want to keep this up Stanc?

When I was researching an alternate cartridge I was at first directed by a co-worker to research the Grendel. Everything I read 2 years ago said it was designed to perform best with an 18 to 20 inch barrel.
Which would only make sense as it was designed as and is touted to be the best long range AR15 platform. No one that is intending to shoot long range as their main function of a weapon uses less than an 18 or 20in barrel.
Grendel's own marketing put the perception of it being a longer barreled weapon in the marketplace.

The Future Weapons episode also featured a 14.5" M4 chambered in 6.5 Grendel, and that was way back.

AA and Saber Defense used to sell SBR uppers ranging from 10.5" to 14.5", and Hornady even got a 14.5" pinned muzzle Grendel which they based the 8th Edition Reloading Handbook off of, calling it a 16".

So Grendel does well as an SBR, and that has been documented here dating way back.  Was sold and advertised in many 3rd party sources as such.  

Grendel does extremely well at hunting, but we were told "If you want to kill things, get a 6.8. If you want to punch paper, get a Grendel."

And the Grendel does well as a long-range shooter, but we "....should just get a bolt gun in .308 or .300 WM instead if you really want to shoot long range."

Funny thing is I got totally out of .308 in my personal arsenal, and haven't looked back.

Even for hunting mule deer in UT, I will grab a 6.5 Grendel carbine instead while my .270 Winchester continues to collect dust on the shelf.

People often say that a do-all rifle can't be a reality because the requirements are so different.  I think the 6.5 Grendel broke that mold.

OP said he's looking at 6.8, and the ammunition options are hard to argue with.  It's not a bad cartridge by any means, and I have serious doubt that a deer within common hunting distances will know the difference between getting hit with either.  For out West, I think it makes more sense to go 6.5mm.  Great wind-bucking and retained energy are what works well out here.  You can go shorter barrel in the forest as well out East, and still have just as good performance, with better reach across farm fields when hunting, but the 6.8 is still biting the Grendel's heels to a point.

LRRPF52, you and Stanc just dont get it.

The Grendel's not a bad cartridge, it just has not reached the popularity of the 6.8 or even the .300 Black.
It's a niche caliber, a decent one but still a niche caliber.
This is evidenced by the slowing of support for it by manufacturers.
Such as what I posted earlier from Redding. It falls under their wildcat/obsolete category, but not their mainstream category.
The .223/5.56, 6.8, .308, 30-06 and .300 AAC are the mainstream military weapon cartridges. Its whats going on now.
Yes there is still a Grendel market, but again its a small niche market.
"AA and Saber Defense used to sell SBR uppers" used to sell as in not anymore.
The Grendel has no longer hunting distances than a 6.8 does. Thats been proven many times over.
A deer at 350 yards gets the wind let out of it no matter if the shot is 1 MOA or .7 MOA, it really cant tell.
Neither cartridge has the energy for a humane shot past 400 yards.

Koolaid comes in many flavors, some just are not as popular as others.

This from Redding:

The SAAMI approved 6.8 SPC cartridge has seen its stature grow in Military Match and Service Rifle competitions this past year. It remains a favorite with the shooters of Modern Sporting Rifles due to its unique capabilities and its inherent accuracy. It bridges a gap for hunting and target sports, which allows for the creation of match rifles with great hunting capability.

The Redding national Match Die sets were introduced three years ago in .223 Rem, .308 Win and .30-06 Springfield and quickly became a "must have" for competitors and accuracy enthusiasts alike. The 300 Blackout was added last year and now the continued progression of the 6.8 SPC cartridge in the market has dictated that we provide it with the same level of performance and accuracy which the National Match Sets have in other calibers.

Like all National Match Die Sets, the 6.8 SPC features a full length sizing die, a Redding Competition Seating Die and a taper crimp die for use in military match style semi auto rifles as well as Modern Sporting Rifles where accuracy is a primary concern. This series of die set has been established as the direct result of requests from military match shooters who formerly bought the dies individually. Redding Reloading Equipment will continue to support popular shooting sports activities with innovative and appropriate reloading solutions.

The Link to Redding

I don't have a Utah Mule deer tag this year :(  I have 30 130 Scirocco's loaded to 2500fps with cfe-223 set aside for a Utah Muley!!!!!!!!  I'd shoot more of them, but they copper foul my barrel, this load has slightly less ft/lbs at the muzzle vs my 20 inch 6.8 shooting 110 AB to just over 2800 fps, but it holds energy well.  No sign's of pressure, but I'd bet its not within the Grendel pressure curve.  Using an ARP superbolt makes me feel GOOD.

For Deer, a 6.5G or 6.8 will thump them!  Deer are pretty fragile(well vs a large hog), SST's in either caliber or more expensive bonded projo's will work.  

I went with the 6.8 SPC over the 6.5 Grendel for various reasons.

I love my 6.8 SPC and want to do a 12.5" build for home defense one day. I use my 16" ARP to hunt deer. My longest shot may be 50 yards where I hunt, so having high BC bullets doesn't matter.

While it's absolutely true that .277 cal bullets don't have the ballistic coefficient of the 6.5mm bullets the new Nosler .277 150 gr Accubond LR has a BC of 0.625 which is pretty damn impressive.

Neither the 6.8 SPC or the 6.5 Grendel can shoot 150 grain bullets to their potential, but something like the 270AR will shoot them pretty well. That opens up a whole lot of options for MSR rounds.

Are guys shooting that 150 from the 270AR?  Even 2500-2600fps would be SMOKING.

Yama_Raja the fan boys might be right , just did a ammo seach and 1 site listed Grendel instock at 1 choice and 6.8 in  344 choices  , next site showed grendel at 2 choices  and 6.8spc 174 choices.,,,,,,,, Grendels so popular that you can hardly find ammo

I believe I saw a post where H (ARP Founder) is claiming 2550 fps with the Nosler Accubond LR.

I think your mistaken, while I really like my 270ar 130 is pretty much as heavy as anyone is running,  120's at 3K isn't anything to complain about

Was any of that in Stock Grendel ammo the all elusive Wolf steel case ammo? Lmfao.....

Hardly a fair comparison since there's what two or three companies making Grendel ammo and every nitwit with a loading setup who opened during the recent shortage makes 6.8.  It really is messed up that so few manufacturers make Grendel ammo.  I don't know why that is with all the folks trying to buy it.  I bought mine in bulk when I bought my rifle so I've yet to have to buy more.  Fortunately, few ammo makers or not, it's easy to find.  I would like to try the Wolf stuff, if it shoots worth a darn I'll buy a case.

The problem with the 6.5/6.8 debate isn't the calibers, it's the fanboys on both sides who just can't accept that within the ranges most people shoot there's very little difference between the two.  It's only for long range shooting that the Grendel outshines the 6.8 and very few people actually shoot those distances, I bought my Grendel just because I wanted that little extra.  Whether I actually take advantage of it I don't know that I'll ever even find a place to shoot that far.

Aside from the fact that the M4 does not have a 16-inch barrel (it's 14.5"), what is your source for the 6.8 SPC being designed for the M4, and not the SPR?

6.8 fans constantly claim that 6.5 Grendel needs longer barrels. When have Grendel fans ever made that claim?

And BTW, I've noticed that 18 inches seems to be a rather popular length for 6.8 barrels, too. Isn't that unnecessarily long for a cartridge supposedly optimized for short barrels?

I fully agree with your last sentence, but 6.5 Grendel was designed to work in barrel lengths from 10.5 inches up to 28 inches. Does it get higher muzzle velocities in longer barrels? Certainly, but that's also true of 6.8 SPC.

I agree it's a niche caliber. So what?

Their classification is wrong. The 6.5 Grendel is neither a wildcat nor obsolete. It is currently offered as factory ammo from mainstream manufacturers.

.30-06 has long been obsolete for military use. I haven't heard of .300 BLK being adopted by any armed forces, anywhere, so it hardly qualifies as a "mainstream military cartridge." 6.8 is in only very limited use, by only two countries, so it isn't a "mainstream military cartridge," either. Only 5.56 and 7.62 NATO are properly in that category.

Yup. Very sad. I had long wanted to buy a 14.5" AA upper assembly.

Indeed. You've obviously had your share.

haven't tried it but most 140's and up are too long, for the 270AR sure you could run them but performance will be hindered. if someone wants to send me a few i would test them but the 130's at 2800 should do the job on any animal i want to shoot.

edit to add: just put the 150 accubond in ql and it estimates velocity at 2500 for it, the long range isn't in there too new of a bullet.

Would a ARP 18"  264/grendel barrel be a good way to get into 6.5 grendel?
What about their 800 series bolt?

I would like to take the plunge into the grendel. (since I already have 6.5 mags registered in my commie state )
I already have a 6.8


AR15.com fashion of getting both

I would say that is the perfect way to start out. they 800 bolt would let you run up to 58,000-60,000 psi if you wanted or just added insurance to not have bolt problems. I am going to get one along with his six5, you can never have too many guns.

Yama, you were right about my memory being faulty. I did a little digging, and found that it wasn't Cris Murray who said that 6.8 SPC was originally developed for the 18" barrel SPR. It was Zak Smith, in his excellent article on 6.8 SPC history:

"The SPC designation was assigned based on the intended integration into the Mk12 Special Purpose Rifle (SPR). The SPC was designed from the ground up to provide increased energy, barrier penetration, and incapacitation from the Mk12 SPR, from contact distance to 500 meters." https://demigodllc.com/articles/6.8-mm-spc-cartridge-history-development-hornady-stag-arms-carbine/?p=2

So much for the myth of 6.8 SPC being designed for short barrels...

Thanks.  Too true about not having too many guns!!
I know ARP is a great source for 6.8 barrels and bolts.

I am just confused with the no compound throat and the designed for 123gr  hornady amax/sst ammo statements.
I don't want to be limited or make a wrong/misinformed choice.
I would imagine I could shoot other 6.5 G ammo if I wanted to safely?
Also, I will buy the bolt option with the barrel when becomes available. (if I catch it before sold out)

Go to 68forums and ask Harrison yourself. He's on there and will answer any questions you might have. He's Constructor there.

Thanks.
I would rather not ask on 6.8.
Was hoping people would provide their opinion on a barrel bolt setup for a 6.5.
I will start a new thread with the question.

Both calibers rule guys! Don't fight so much.

I shot my 6.8 (18in barrel) in a class this weekend.  Most of our shooting(300 rounds) was from 300-500 yards and it was easy to make accurate hits at that distance.  I even made a few hits at 1000.  The other 6.8 shooter had the same experiences.  The 1 Grendel shooter in the class shot just as well and there was no real difference at 1000 yards.  In fact, we all three made the exact number of hits there so I certainly wasn't "outgunned".  That Grendel shot like a laser beam though

The .308 and 6.5 Creedmore guys had a much easier time at 1000.

Some History
There was a whole push for several different carbines that devolved into the SCAR program.  You basically had these camps:

* An AR15 in 7.62x39 dating back to Colt's work in the 1980's, picked up by KAC with the SR-47, but for a different set of applications dealing more with Unconventional Warfare logistics requirements (feeding on local ammunition supply), but in a weapon that is friendly to reliability, ergos, and optics/accessory use like the M4.  One of the solicitations was for a caliber-change capable carbine that could switch from 7.62x39 to 5.56 NATO by the user.  Along with others, the LMT MRP, MGI QCB, Masada, and XCR were all quick barrel change systems that seemed to be made with this solicitation in mind.







* Robinson Arms XCR variant (This became the XCR for civilian sales.)



* Barrett AR15 with ARMS SIR System in a new caliber  (This became the Barret M468 with SIR System.)



* Murray and a senior NCO from 5th Group going rogue on the caliber since 7.62x39 proved to be a major challenge with the mags, as the intent was for the ERC to work from standard M4 30rd mags. (This became the 6.8 Remington SPC.)

* Just make it simple by creating a new load for 5.56, and free-floating the guns.  This became the Mk.12 SPR with Mk.262 77gr 5.56 NATO OTM.



There were competing factions within services ranging from people you've never heard of, to more white side of SOCOM, all with some overlapping requirements, and many with requirements that are still relatively unknown and not easily understood.  Some wanted a new caliber, some wanted 7.62x39 M4's basically, some wanted a precision DM style carbine/rifle, and others wanted a whole new weapon system to be pushed (mainly manufacturers trying to pimp their babies).  Along with that came some (ARMS) who felt screwed after Knight's was awarded the full contract for Rail Systems for both SOCOM and Big Army and Marines, so there was an effort to insert the SIR System into the new AR15 variant to be peddled.

These were serious contenders who really thought they had a chance at getting a new weapon system and caliber adopted by at least SF, and then maybe even Big Army for the win.  In the end, we got a really nice SPR with an awesome loading in the form of Mk.262 77gr OTM.  The weapon ended up being home-grown with some custom COTS work from barrel makers, mainly Douglas Super Match pipes, mixed with PRI carbon fiber tubes, and ARMS 12 o'clock rails joined to the M4 upper. Follow-on versions saw KAC handguards again to add insult to injury for ARMS, and many of these developments played big in the formulation of the SOPMOD Block II M4 program, namely free-floating the barrels for everyone, and looking at new loads from Mk.262 to Mk.318, and 70gr Barnes TSX.

New Cartridge?
The new cartridge was never solicited or asked for that Murray and Holland developed, and the full resources of US Army Ballistics Research Lab, Infantry Center, and a laundry list of other agencies who have scores of engineers ready to do the legwork necessary to make a new cartridge successful.  It did have non-committal blessing from lower grade officers within 5th Group who basically pledged not to get in the way and do what they could, but nothing from SF Command.

Unintended Success
What made 6.8 a success in the civilian market was that a lot of people love AR15's, but don't love .223 Remington when it comes to hunting, as well as living in States that have certain bore diameter requirements for even medium game.

Combined with the fact that a ton of legitimate chatter had been going on about all these requests for improved performance from the M4, the 6.8 advocates were able to pass it off as a genuine SF-solicited cartridge to the clueless people in the industry, who jumped on the bandwagon after hearing the hushed pitch at SHOT Show...."This is Special Forces new cartridge for the M4....shhhhhhh, don't tell anyone.  By the way, there's this other cartridge out there.  It's a piece of garbage, called the 6.5 Grendel.  You'll want to stay away from that one."

It was rather humorous to watch how 6.8 was passed off, but once the industry started seeing these new offerings that were actually getting industry support for the first time, unlike wildcats, consumers were ready to jump on the bandwagon in droves since they had been reading and hearing about how terrible 5.56 is since the early 1960's.  The 7.62 NATO nazi's could finally find favor with the little poodle shooter, now that it was chambered in a "real man's" bore diameter.  Millions of hunters could now legally hunt with an AR15, which certain SOF units had already been using it for to blast wild boar from helicopters in yonder parts of the globe when doing some initial field testing before rejecting the cartridge.

Perfect Storm
All the while, you had a post-9/11 spending frenzy market where Cleatus and Billy Bob were competing with legitimate PMC's and the military for the latest and greatest gear they read about in the gun rags at the grocery store.  These new cartridges arrived in the perfect storm for the civilian consumer, many of whom lived vicariously through their newly acquired weapons and equipment, with visions of putting terrorist dingle dangles in the dirt in far off lands as they blasted away on the weekend.  Hunters immediately realized they could launch projectiles with more than twice the weight of a .223 Rem., faster than AK velocities, with a good spread of projectiles to choose from in some of them.

Interestingly enough, the 6.8 did not have a good selection of projectiles appropriate for its magazine length in the AR15, so rather than let that stand, the market really responded to 6.8 hunters looking for lighter pills than what was available for the .270 Winchester, and developed a whole new line-up of pills ranging from 85gr to 120gr mostly.

Since all the 6.5mm pills already fit in the Grendel/AR15, there wasn't much need to produce Grendel-specific pills, as the Grendel was designed around available projectiles and the AR15 frame.  One of the online marketing successes of the 6.8 fans was to post a picture with a broad line-up of 6.8 Bullets, then stating that it had way more options than the 6.5 Grendel, not being anywhere near familiar with the 140 + 6.5mm projectiles.

The short barrel (sub-16") 6.8 SPC stuff happened many years after it was grabbed by the civvy side, and I remember it distinctly.  Combined with varmint bullets and fast burning powders, people were punting 90gr TNT's at some pretty impressive speeds, if you trusted their methods. I'm trying to remember who it was that was doing PDW 6.8's and the initial civvy-side work, but I remember spending some time at their booth at SHOT in 2008, but no earlier.

Initial response to the 6.8 velocity with 115gr OTM was mediocre for a lot of people.  When I started hearing 2900fps from an AR15 with a .277" bullet, it got my attention, only to learn it was a 90gr varmint pill with no BC.  Great for sales, but for those of us who need energy on target, it was a wet fart.  By 2008, everyone in the know already knew it wasn't going anywhere on the US military side, but it sure helped out for civilian sales to look at mv.

The good thing is that a lot of people have been given more options for using the AR15 in a hunting capacity, as well as target-shooting with retained energy on steel.

If you ask at the 68forums under the AR Performance no one will give you any guff.
As well you will get a timely answer

More of your same BS, outdated info.

Read this, from 2008 even.
Well before the powders like AA2200 or 1200R
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=401065

Point out what specific information that is "BS".  You didn't read my post, clearly.

I'm well aware of Harrison's elk hunt.  Posting it supports what statement again?  You're not helping your cause, whatever it is.

We were discussing the claim that 6.8 was designed to work in short barrels.  Stan linked Zak Smith's article on its history, where the 18" SPR was cited as one of the primary motivators in Murray's and Holland's work.

You responded with a link to an Elk hunt.  Maybe there is some confusion on you end as to exactly what is going on here.

For those still reading this thru the bickering.
If these results are "wet farts" the guy must buy a lot of pairs of pants.

6.8 Target round


120 SST Hunting round


95 TTSX Hunting round


95 TTSX @ 200 yards, yea I pulled one.


For the sake of argument I used 3000ft in elevation.
Im at 5500 to 8000 typically.

MY "cause" as you put it is to dispell the misinformation you put out about the capabilities of the 6.8, or lack there of.
"wet fart" etc.
I could care less about you picking apart my posts in your effort to discredit my information.
Rather than argue with you further I will simply post information that corrects your mis-information.
Truthfully your probably just trolling and I'm buying into it.

ETA:  Brand new Cabela's opened near my house last week, I made it in there today.  Multiple types of 6.8 SPC ammunition, NO 6.5 Grendel ammunition.  I've noticed that most vendors either stock one or the other, seldom both.  



I'm waiting for ARP's next run of .264 LBC barrels and bolts, though, I'm a reloader, so I'm not that worried about commercial load availability.  



 

Yea, I'm actually thinking about one of his Six5 Barrels as well.

Or a Wolverine next, not sure yet.

According to a poll you started on the Grendel forum The 20" is the most popular barrel length for the Grendel followed closely by the 24" and then the 18"

I own a 24" Grendel.  Super smooth shooting, very accurate, but I should have gotten an 18" for my purposes.  It's too damn heavy to be lugging all over hell and half of GA....