The most important piece of information in the DTIC paper is this:



When the initial gaggle of guys working on 6.8 compared the different bore diameters in the 30 Remington parent case during development for the ERC, they used a .277" Varmint projectile versus Sierra Match Kings in the others.  They were literally laughed out of one of the biggest Federal terminal ballistics testing labs when they pulled that stunt.  When they were initially called out on it, with the blatantly obvious red tip on the VMAX, they went and pulled the VMAX tips off and said, "See, Open Tipped Match-JAG Approved."  

One of the chief examiners said if he ever sees those morons again, there is no way he is even going to let them through the door.

Similar personality issues occurred on Bragg with various units, and one of the main developers of the 6.8 lost his job for pulling a stunt that could have landed a service member in Leavenworth if they done what he did.

If the general populace knew the history behind the scenes with the 6.8, a lot of people would be appalled at how unprofessional and amateur it was handled at every turn.  Then you had one of the more prominent firearms manufacturers get involved with it, and started developing their own loads by hiring a guy who had an obsession with duplex charges, resulting in the detonation of untold numbers of upper receiver groups.

It literally was one colossal abortion after another.  If someone were to write a history of the full 6.8 SPC development, it would read like a really bad Three Stooges series that just never seems to end, attracting the worst personalities like a snowball of rejects.  I have to hold back so much that I know about behind-the-scenes developments out of respect for all the different people who have shared their personal accounts with me, but it is really bad.

Keep in mind that when I first heard about it, I was very excited because I knew about the ERC and that a senior NCO from 5th Group was involved with it.  A lot of people don't know, but I was raised on .270 Winchester primarily, so the idea of a short .270 in the AR15 made my pants get tight.  Then the marketing campaign started to color my initial impressions of it.  I was helping a guy actually put one of the first uppers together before he deployed with it, and he told me how freaking classified it was even to share what the parent case was.  He was embellishing it, just like was done on the floor of SHOT by the early proponents, who said, "This is SF's and the Army's next cartridge.  It's so secret, we can't even tell you what the parent case is.  Shhhh .30 Remington, don't tell anyone."  

It was really an odd marketing approach that left me with a bad impression of the driving people behind it, and I didn't even know anything about the firing, the attempt to revive the ARMS SIR system after ARMS lost out to KAC, the Doctor'd terminal ballistics stunt with the Feds, the fleet testing CAG did where the guns were declared dangerous, the SEALs demanding 2800fps with a 115gr BTHP, etc.  It was just one bad episode after another.  The more I saw, the more I distanced myself from it, and I didn't even know about 6.5 Grendel yet.

That DTIC paper is filled with inaccuracies and rigged results.

The auto glass gel test, for example.  If someone tells you with a straight face that they are getting better performance with a bullet with less SD through auto glass, and also refuses to do a side-by-side with independent parties there to witness, like at the Blackwater shoot-off in 2004, you know what kind of marketing campaign you are dealing with.

Look again closely, or not closely, at this photograph from Dr. (Dentist) Roberts that he used to document his own bias with:




See the Hornady VMAX, whereas all the other bore diameters are using Open Tipped Match?

There's a reason why the Federal Agency Ballistics lab that oversees the adoption of ammunition told the 6.8 guys to leave, don't call us, we'll call you.

That DTIC paper can easily be thoroughly discredited by someone with a pretty low education level.

Yup. Doc Roberts doesn't know what he is talking about

Stay classy dude.

I would love to see your terminal performance testing articles.

I'm a 40 year old high school drop out.  I stopped reading at slide 3 due to spelling and grammar.  Did not strike me as something an educated professional produced.

Eta: I do plan on reading all of it at home.

He knows exactly what he was doing.  That's the point.  Why is the line-up shown with a VMAX for the .277, while everything else is OTM?

The biggest failure they overlooked was the .257"/6.35 bore.  That really is the harmony point with that case, using a different shoulder angle.

It would have motivated the industry to modernize the quarterbore projectile selection as well.

I personally suspect that someone really liked .270 growing up, like I did, and saw what they wanted to see.

This is the main reason the cartridge is ill-conceived:  You have too much bore diameter for the case length and AR15 magazine well constraints, so BC suffers.

That is why it was doomed from the start as the ERC, and why the 77gr OTM became what it did for SF/Squeals/Ranger Regiment.

If Murray and Holland would have listened to input from the people that tried to inform them that the Army had already done the legwork on this at least twice in the 20th Century, they could have seen what the optimal caliber was for the cartridge length constraints.

When you look at the whole thing, it really makes you wonder if they even understood the concept of BC, and what SF was actually looking for.

Unless I am missing something the spelling and grammar is fine. We get it...you love 6.5.

"Simply adopting new 5.56 mm barrier
blind combat loads that are optimized for
shorter barrels, offer consistent early
upset, along with adequate penetration,
and minimal AOA/Fleet yaw issues may
be the critical answer to many
deficiencies noted with currently issued
U.S. military 5.56 mm ammunition."-Doc Roberts.

He would agree with you.

I like Doc Roberts because he stresses that numbers do not  correlate with actual terminal performance. Only way to see how well a round performs is to shoot it...a lot...through a lot of different things....to determine effectiveness.

I am sure he has a bias towards 6.8, probably even a financial one. BUT.....you have a bias towards 6.5, and I have yet to see a high volume, controlled, and published terminal performance testing of 6.5 grendel.

As I have stated before: Most people don't shoot long range, especially hunters. They stay within 300 yards so all of the benefits of the 6.5 are kind of moot and terminal performance is king.

edit- SF was looking for a barrier blind ammunition that worked well from shorter barrels and gave good combat accuracy from CQB ranges out to a few hundred yards. All of which 6.8 delivers.

I actually do have published material that is far more elaborate than the DTIC article, a collective work where the terminal ballistics testing shows performance across a wide range of impact velocities, not optimal, cherry-picked results.

For starters, one shouldn't be surprised that a Naval Reserve Dentist doesn't understand that individual carbines play a very limited role in producing casualties.  Common mistake #1 from people outside of any combat arms career management field.

Focusing on individual carbine lethality is pretty much a wasted effort, when LMGs and DM/SASS weapons are where improvement is most needed.  Only someone out of touch with reality would want to reduce my magazine capacity for half of an Infantry Platoon, while not even addressing the LMGs, 240s, and DM/SASS weapons that actually are instrumental in producing casualties.

Like Nutnfancy, he needs to stay in his lane unless he wants to go into 11/18/03 CMF.  I would pay attention to an article about abscessed tooth removal, not how to address small arms and their cartridges for dismounted infantry combat operations.  As such, his contributions to the 6.8 only exemplify the poor choice of personalities again associated with the abortion that that cartridge is.

 
Great, where is it published? Link?

Just one of several pages in the Terminal Ballistics Chapter of Volume II:




If you look at what is published online, you're going to have only a tiny fragment of what was actually going on behind the scenes with SF and what different programs there were for ERC (Enhanced Rifle Cartridge).  What became the 6.8 was marginal at best.

The real driving force that was shared across the Groups and even the Squeals was a lightweight SASS, with extended range capability out of a rifle that weighed substantially less than an SR25, and would integrate well on an ODA.  They already had SR25s, which were heavy, not maneuverable, had reduced fighting load capacity with 20rd heavy mags, and increased recoil.

There was another program you rarely hear about that dated back to the 1980s that was funded, which revolved around 7.62x39 in Colt Commando profiled carbines, using theater-available magazines from the AK.  Hence the Colt 7.62x39 and later the KAC SR47.



Most of the units within SOCOM were not complaining about 5.56 performance, especially since most of them have institutional knowledge and experience dating back to the adoption of 5.56/AR15 in the early 1960s, with a lot of real-world terminal performance results to back the system up.

To 5th Group's credit, I think Afghanistan exposed a weakness in effective range, but most of this was more marksmanship related, as CAGs results in those same opening months in OEF were different than 5th Group's.  What is common in America is to address a problem with a new gadget, rather than become better with your existing gadget, and people like making new things here, so the 6.8 gained traction as a result of that initially, then fell flat on its face as it failed to meet the requirements of pretty much everybody that evaluated it.

Especially in the role of what became the SPR, the 77gr Sierra has higher hit probability than 6.8, giving the units the extended range they were looking for, while still being marginal.

The idea that the dominant demand was for a short range AK-like cartridge that worked better in AR15 mags was really a more dark project that the 7.62x39 chambered guns addressed.

Other than character assassination what does this have to do with 6.5 vs 6.8? You are really starting to show your bias here.

He already stated that better 5.56 ammunition will solve MOST terminal performance issues, specifically performance through barriers.

edit- to the part in red: I don't think anyone is arguing against this. 6.8 was developed specifically to address shortcomings of available 5.56 ammo. Once 5.56 ammo evolved an intermediate caliber became unnecessary. The interesting thing is that hunters began to use 6.8 and found it perfect for medium size game hunting.

It's not character assassination when you point out that a plumber doesn't know what he's doing with automotive mechanics, or a KC-10 pilot knows jack and squat about being a sniper.

The whole focus on individual carbines in his article, and his focus and proponency of 6.8 solidify that reality.

Where's the article on Light Machine Guns, DM systems, and SASS systems?  Don't write it.  Only someone with relevant experience should cover down on it, as opposed to a reservist who pulls people's teeth, while trying to dip toes into ballistics on the side.

If someone hasn't ever worked as part of a dismounted light infantry unit, especially as a combat leader, then how would they even know the first thing about the subject and what is important?

They wouldn't.  They can read all the articles, shoot all the gel, get in on training classes, get NRA and LE training certs, but none of it will open the window to the experience needed to even begin to understand what is actually required of the tools in that career field.

The inability to focus on BC and individual soldier load sticks out to me right off the bat.  BC increases hit probability, and BC is a result of high SD, which also produces excellent terminal performance and barrier defeat.

What I think has happened is that as a society, the dumber each generation gets with public schooling, the more awe it assigns to professional labels next to names, then assumes they are qualified to cover down on what it is they are talking about.  People run with Dr. Robert's DTIC paper thinking it is a treasure trove of ballistics information, when it simply isn't, and I agree with much of what is in there.  It still misses the point though on where we should be looking when discussing military small arms.

Pretty much every discussion on how to improve military small arms focuses on the most marginal systems in use, while ignoring the most casualty-producing ones.

I was not even remotely interested in the AR until they became available in 6.8spc. Now, I could get rid of every other rifle I own and be completely satisfied with just the 6.8spcII. As a matter of fact, the 6.8spcII is the most powerful caliber I own at the current time and I don't feel in any way under-gunned. The other rifles I own are 7.62x39 SLR-95's and some .22lr's.

IMO the 6.8spcII is a much more versatile round than 5.56 for we civilian types, as it can be used for medium to medium-large game with good effect. Also as a defensive weapon I feel it is much more effective, especially against barriers than the 5.56 counterpart.

But this is all conjecture on the part of a non-combatant ex-military peon that has studied small-arms for the better part of his adult life.

I admit that I knew about the 6.8 before I knew about the 6.5, but nonetheless, the better efficiency of the 6.5 didn't dissuade me from staying on the 6.8 bandwagon.

What has surprised me the most is when either cartridge is the topic of discussion is how it usually devolves into the negative back and forth exchanges. From my perspective I tend to see the 6.5 crowd usually feels the need to promote their pet 6.5 at every opportunity where I don't tend to see it as much from the 6.8 side.

I personally don't care which cartridge people choose, I would prefer the demand for 6.8 increase as it would hopefully spur more production and maybe help bring down the cost a little. But the current cost of fmj's certainly doesn't make it prohibitive by any means. Sure, when compared to 5.56 or 7.62x39 it is more expensive, but imo, the increase in performance makes up for it.

The search for an intermediate cartridge was only focused on SBR, carbine, and DMR rifles. Nothing more...nothing less.

m193 and m855 doesn't perform as well as the newer 5.56 ammunition. Adopting rounds barrier blind rounds like the Barnes 70gr TSX really improved the capabilities of the gun. Intermediate calibers kind of became irrelevant for what the Army was looking for.

to the part in red: You have no idea what you are talking about.

Explain to me how a dentist with LE training credentials is going to set up a support-by-fire position, or even task-organize for any dismounted mission.

Explain to me how they are going to do their adjacent unit coordinations, ammo requests, Pre-Combat Checks, or even troop the line.

Let alone DM and Sniper Training pre-deployment.  What a joke of epic proportions that would be.

I've seen officers who were so far over their heads just trying to issue an OPORDER that didn't even know the paragraphs, and it was pathetic-from guys who were supposed to be able to do it as a core competency.

A dentist would be so far out of their element in the world I grew up in, their head would spin.

 

By your rationale Eugene Stoner was worthless as a gun designer because he wasn't a grunt.

As for Doc Roberts: "he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research and
became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he
has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent
wound ballistic testing and analysis. He remains a Navy Reserve officer and has recently served
on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC
munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound
ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations."

He continues to provide valuable information and feedback on ammunition for self defense (even here on the forum), which many people then do their own formal testing and agree with his results. He is asked to provide data...he provides it. He obviously favors 6.8 as an intermediate cartridge for the AR platform.

I love these threads. Just so much.

not a fan of either, don't own either, never pulled a trigger on either.

the pissing match between LRRP and yama-raja  is almost enough to keep me out of any thread about either caliber. almost. i'm actually here to learn.

as i was reading the linked "article", powerpoint, whatever, i swear i saw numerous errors in spelling and grammar. I dont see them now in the frst 4 or 5 pages, so I OFFICIALLY RETRACT MY STATEMENT ABOUT THE SPELLING AND GRAMMAR.
That'll teach me to try to read something while upside-down in a wing.

Well i can agree with that. Both of them have something to sell and so much noise is created its hard to know what is true and what isn't.

What could solve it is separate sub forums for the individual calibers.

Got a question about 458 socom?  Click on Variants, then on 458.  300 blk?  Variants- then 300 blk.

And then, you banish Yama to the 6.8, and LRRP to the 6.5.  Each with their own kingdom.

Problem solved.  

Seriously.  People should be able to come here and get reliable information on the cartridges, without someone polluting the waters.

If a total novice gets on the forum and starts citing information that is incorrect, like what happened for years here with 6.8 being touted as more effective hunting cartridge, and 6.5 Grendel only good out of 24" barrels as just one example, what are we left with?

A forum that is full of incorrect information, that people then take and run with.

In effect, what people are asking for is to allow a bad actor to come here and tarnish the board with unreliable and false numbers, and expect people who actually know what they are talking about to remain silent.

All a lot of you see are forum members trying to correct each other.

What you don't see is the one who has decades of experience, and the one who just dipped his toes in this, and now he's a self-proclaimed ballistician.

That kind of behavior needs to be nipped in the bud quickly, if any credibility is to be associated with the Variants and other technical forums.

It's very hard to moderate, because this is the biggest gun forum online, and a lot of people seem to care more about post count than actual usable information in the attention-deficit generation.

I'd like to hear more about this rogue ninja dentist.

I understand how and why you'd say that. Were I in your shoes, with experience, I'd likely say the same thing.
To your credit every time Ive read your posts about about performance, you are fully honest and say that you are shooting above 6000 feet, and down here at 500 feet will be different.


I read yama's posts as a guy who knows nothing.  Across the few threads about these calibers, I find more people disagreeing with one person than the other. That tells me something.  

I'm looking forward to my build. IN a few months when it's done I'll post my results.  With factory loads

coming from the guy who had to be schooled in this very forum on what were gtg .308 loads

This isn't your personal forum.

This was an opinion thread and people posted their opinions. It was perfectly civil for the first couple of pages until you decided to rant about people not having your decades of ballistic experience. The way you so quickly denigrate and discount Dr Roberts and his YEARS of studying wounding is pretty telling as to your level of professionalism.

Both YOU and yama are more disruptive to this forum than anyone else here.

The article you neglected to read is from the same guy who did https://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/

No one disputes or takes issue with Dr Roberts choices for 5.56 defensive ammo or other dozen calibers and numerous rounds he tests. Why? Because he is transparent in his data and methods. He collects information from other well respected contributors of ar15.com (like molon) and I have no doubt that his article on 5.56 vs 6.8 is legitimate and forthcoming.

To keep this thread on track....here is some gel testing done by http://www.brassfetcher.com/Rifles/6.8mm%20SPC/6.8mm%20SPC.html

They have an interesting chart in the video on the page of kinetic energy imparted to the gel. Not sure if it is very relevant but I did notice the 6.8 does deliver more energy into the target than the 6.5 does.

It's disruptive to correct a novice without a clue as to what they are doing?

Because Dr. Roberts studies wound ballistics, nobody else can point out blatant discrepancies in the way different projectiles were used when they took the 6.8 to the FBI and were called out for being deceptive?

A lot of you would distance yourselves from that train wreck if you knew what went on behind the scenes.  How is anyone supposed to take someone seriously if they intentionally misrepresent data when going before the FBI ballistics lab?  That's a major problem professionally.  You think the head ballisticians at Quantico didn't tell anyone else how the 6.8 guys tried to pull the wool over their eyes with expanding projectiles and calling them OTMs?

To all of you who just want to hunt or blast with something with more power than 5.56, pick your flavor and enjoy.  You'll never know the difference within common hunting ranges, and neither will the animals, as long as you do your duty to ensure solid shot placement through the vitals.

After reflection, Mr Knowitall is just not worth the time or thought process........

I'm just a baaaaad person God let walk the earth.



On that note, time to go spend time with my wife.  Yama is getting too much attention from daddy.

So, I have a friend who works on race cars for a living and always gets into arguments with many car owners about various set-ups.  Invariably a car owner will proclaim definitively that his setup is optimal for all cars like his.  

My friend will disagree and say that while the setup will work for that particular car owner, it is not applicable to the general population because A) that car owner's experience is usually limited to HIS OWN type of car and B) a limited number of courses & conditions. (Usually the advice is add more spring and lower the car.)

My friend argues from the point of fleet testing -- he encounters many combinations of setups, drivers and conditions.  He has a large enough sample to work from to get a very good idea of what is optimal for whatever specific combination he encounters on a given race weekend.

I read through this seemingly age old battle that hearkens to other great rivalries -- you know, Yankees vs Red Sox, Cowboys vs Redskins, peanut butter vs chocolate.

I see the chief proponent of one side like the car owner -- everything he does works fine for him, and it should therefore work for everybody else.  (Even if the original specs were poorly put together, have since been modified without a standard, and then stretched a little bit more)

I see the chief proponent of opposing side like the race car engineer -- he has a much larger sample and perspective to draw from.  Consideration of various altitudes, weather conditions, operating pressures and parameters, safety margins and blah, blah, blah.

Even though race car engineer has the likability of a barbed-wire enema, I am going to go with what he says, because he not only questions my equipment, he makes me question my experience.

The race car owner always brings the Dunning - Kruger Effect to mind.

What bunch of forums? I've only been here and the reloading forum and there very briefly.

The difference is I do see it.
So I'm going to back off it.
To debate a fool is to become one.

Too late

Yes. It is getting tiresome. Pick your favorite and drive on.

So the expert engineer is a dick because he knows more than everyone else? NO ONE else can have experience except him?

Notice how the expert engineer resorts to attacks on character when data goes against what he is trying to say and then he makes completely unverifiable claims as an attempt to discredit that same data. I mean....dentists are just bad people anyways so who is going to mind if you call into their years of work on wounding and bullet performance just because they support a round you don't like.

You know what ends up happening? People start to see through the "expert" and think that maybe he is just trying to push an agenda (financial reasons usually), and start to question his opinion. I am sure LRRP has good information...but as he actively tries to tear down the 6.8 and raise up 6.5 it should raise red flags with people. Dude has an agenda. This includes getting an entire forum banned for the actions of ONE member.

I will let you guess what caliber that forum is dedicated to.

That's a pretty serious allegation.  Is it verifiable?  Laying the banning of an entire forum at the feet of one individual is giving LRRPF52 way too much credit. Where are your facts on this? Were you privy to something the rest of us weren't?

Financial interests? Between the two of them, I've only ever heard one of them allude to having a financial stake in their pet chamber. As I recall, he's said he is actively assisting in the development 6.8 machine guns or some such thing. Possible volunteerism, I suppose, but clearly an active interest.

From my point of view, I see two self proclaimed champions of their favored AR15 variant. Each has apparently assumed the role of defending that favorite from the perceived slanders of the other.  Is it annoying to see them constantly locking horns in a technical forum?  HELL YES!  But I only ever see one of them initiating comparison posts with what regularly proves to be biased data. I agree with an earlier comment, where it was suggested that posts to the variants technical section should be restricted to areas of one's own expertise - i.e. stick with posting your own experience and avoid setting up these straw arguments.

Good Lord, this is tiresome.

Why did the early proponents of the 6.8 ignore the Army optimum caliber studies and refuse to analyze the data that the AMU tried to provide them with?
Why did they try to commit fraud with ammunition allocation and signature authority from within an Army unit to the tune of thousands of dollars worth of ammo?  Someone else's fault
Why did people lose their jobs over 6.8?  Someone else's fault
Why did the guns fail left and right when someone actually fleet-tested them?  Someone else's fault
Why did they have to be escorted off Fort Bragg after trying to pimp the cartridge to people that repeatedly told them "no"?  Someone else's fault
Why did the 6.8 proponents then go to the UK and tell the UK MOD Small Arms Procurement people, "You better start tooling up now, this is the new NATO rifle cartridge?"
Why did the units within 5th Group that actually deployed with 6.8 get told to pack everything up in shipping containers, send them back, and if anyone was even caught with as much as a single cartridge, they would be court-marshaled?  Someone else's fault
Why did they attempt to deceive the FBI Ballistics Lab with modifying expanding bullets and calling them "OTMs, JAG-approved!"?

It's always someone else's fault, and that all happened within the first few years of 6.8's entrance onto the scene.  

It's my fault somehow that that a banned vendor who published customer address, name, etc. on this site, then sent forum members here to shill for his products in violation of the AR15.com COC, got that forum banned from mention here.  It isn't the actions of the perpetrators, or the response from the mods here to protect the site, no.  The blame logically and naturally falls on my shoulders.  Anyone thinking logically would conclude that.

And therein you start to see a pattern. Keep in mind that growing up on the .270 Winchester, I have a very fond connection with that bore diameter, so when I heard that someone was making an AR15 in a .277 bore, my pants got tight.  The more I had contact with some of the early proponents of it, the more I chose to distance myself from them and what I recognized as a very negative campaign run by people with no clue as to how to promote a new product.  It was really bad, and hasn't changed much.

Good one.

Unfortunately, one bit of misinformation or someone stating a wrong fact on the internet quickly evolves into an acceptance of that error as fact.

One place publishing reloading data going up to 58,500 psi as a "do not exceed load", somehow becomes "58,500 psi is safe average for loading...."

Why do you hate 6.8 so much? It is a proven performer at killing things. So is 6.5. Damn.

All your "why" stuff happened when Art from SSA was trying to push stuff on the Army.
The "problem" was Extreme plated bullets that peeled copper off under full auto fire (Art didnt test them full auto) and formed a copper ring on the forcing cone essentially causing a bore obstruction.
It was not a over pressure problem in the cartridge design you constantly hammer on.
Creating the SPCII spec eliminated this problem. Note the 45* forcing cone angle and .100 to .114 leade. The guns that had the problem had a 30* forcing cone.

Art pitched a fix and yes got escorted off the base, he didnt want to admit the problem was his ammo, it was.
You act like you the only one that has knowledge of events early in the development of the cartridge.
What your leaving out without knowledge of it is those present liked the cartridge, knew the problem and that it was not a show stopper but a wrong projectile problem.
I have spoken personally with a guy that was there. He was with an Arab detail as an adviser at a demonstration I was part of.
He liked the cartridge then and still does. He told me the problem at the time was more logistics and supply.

All this crap has nothing to do with the cartridge in its SPCII configuration or the cartridge in 2016 and how far it has came.
That's why they call it product development, your argument holds no water. Its weaker than a Grendel bolt with a hot hand load

You keep calling me an amateur, novice, I dont know anything.
Sir you have no idea what I am doing or what I am involved in with multiple calibers.
In the last year I have been part of demos with Delta, CAG and others foreign and domestic.

All this crap from you.
What about:
Multiple chambers with so many different reamer configs even you must be confused.
2 different bolts with many substandard pieces out there.
Feed issues in the M16 platform so bad under full auto fire they cannot be overcome.
Leads from .030 to .130 thousandths of an inch, who knows what projectiles someone can run and how can a load manual cover all these seating depths?
Grendel I, Grendel II, 264LBC and how many other configurations?
Magazine problems
Broken bolts
You have a whole bunch of problems right now with your pet cartridge.

Your like a woman scorned due to your situation with the banned vendor.
So you attack the 6.8 in every nonsensical way you can.

That is not a mystery question.
Because it sells better than the 6.5 he helped author a reloading manual for and sells by the way.
The 6.8 cuts into his piece of the pie.

LOL... You should ask LRRP how much he makes off the book sales. As motivation goes, selling the reloading manuals is pretty weak. Might as well accuse you of backing 6.8 because you're in talks to mfg a couple of bullets. Again, pretty weak.

There's no reason both of you guys can't be passionate about your chosen rounds just because you're gun guys.

I agree with you, I have nothing at all against the Grendel.
I'll likely even bring out a few projectiles in 6.5 you guys could use if testing proves out.

Its just not the be all end all and neither is the 6.8.
But the 6.8 has came a long way since 2004 and that should not be diminished due to the personal vendetta of someone.

Neither of these cartridges do anything remarkable. They're just mid-powered medium bore rounds that are nearly ballistic twins.

Who said "average safe loading"? I have always said "up to 58,500 psi"

You will never see me recommend someone exceed WP's data that is published.
My own 120 SST load with AA2200 is 27.2. my 95 TTSX load is 29.5 not the max of 30.2.
Dont you think they take it into account that people will load to the maximum recommended load?

As well anyone reloading near max charge weights from any manual with any caliber should recheck loads when changing powder lots.

You Grendel guys should also get the word out about the new AA2520, although its burn rate is the same it has been reformulated and is now from St Marks and not PB Claremont.
Its supposed to be less temp sensitive and although the burn rate is the same its a whole new powder.
You should all rework and recheck your loads.

I agree
In the grand scheme of cartridges we are arguing whose little sister is tougher.
If LR would just leave the 6.8 alone and go stroke his Grendel, I would do the same with the 6.5 :)