I don't hate an inanimate object, nor do I hate anyone.  Emotion has zero to do with it.  Looking at it from an emotional perspective robs you of objectivity.

That's why I stick to facts.  Again, when I heard about this new .270 cartridge in the AR15 back in 2002-2003 from buddies of mine who were in 5th Group and other units, my pants got tight.  The personalities involved with 6.8 are the ones who ruined it. That was all Murray/"AMU" and DMR chambers back then.  Art got kicked off of Bragg too?  I was talking pre-SSA days.  It just gets worse and worse the more you know.

If anyone thinks there is money to be made in reloading handbooks, you would cry if you saw my profit and loss statements on handbooks alone. If I wasn't in the financial position that I am, I would never be able to devote a minute to it expecting to make money.  Talk to anyone in the print business about what kind of volume you need to see profits.  6.8 cutting into my piece of the pie?  That's a good one.  We actually looked at doing a handbook for 6.8, and recognized at the time that it would have good sales initially.  The question is, who do you find that is competent and doesn't have personality problems when trying to make it happen.  

The only reason I have put years of effort into 6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks is because I saw a need in the market for them, and addressed that need.  It's a niche market within a niche market, so you know right off the bat there are no margins.  I lose sales by supporting other distributors, but again, it isn't about profit.

You would be doomed if you made a business plan around writing books in today's age, especially for reloaders. Think about it.

What you will see is that most of the reloading handbooks on the market are from the big companies like Hornady, Speer, Barnes, Sierra, Lyman, and Berger because that is just par for the course for being in that business.  They have to print manuals or they lose credibility.  They make margins on sales of product.


Again, anyone making these accusations and statements fails to correctly identify what's even going on.  The problems with 6.8 were way before SSA got involved, and really were woven into its DNA by the people that conceived it.  That fingerprint just doesn't seem to be erasable.  It's like a magnet for negativity.

Being able to have high hit probability at ELR from an AR15 with factory ammo is pretty remarkable to me, especially from a 16" barrel, then turn around and be able to hunt any game with it in North America from a lightweight AR15.

If there was a shooter's dictionary, after "remarkable", something like that should be right there.

Any game in North America? lol

triggered. Now LRRP and yama can come together with you as their common enemy.

holy shit that is hilarious

Just wait until he tries to tell you it's an elephant gun.

Dude
The 6.5G is not more remarkable than the 6.8 SPC.
They are so damn equal its not funny.
I can kill anything you can at any distance you can.
Farther with my new project.
But neither will kill anything in North America.
I can take you into some mountains here Grizz hunting and see if you come out. That would be a fools venture.

You bring up early teething pains with the 6.8 and act like they have anything to do with the cartridge now.
All the while ignoring all the issues your own cartridge has right now.
I can buy a barrel from anywhere right now and its going to have an SPCII chamber with a leade from .085 to .114 and nothing else is going to be different.
I can buy any bolt from any manufacturer and its going to work.
Its moon miles more standard than a Grendel. We have no history of broken bolts or feed issues.

Perhaps you do this to take attention away from all the problems your camp is having.
Maybe that's it, purely a distraction maneuver.

The personal attacks against myself, Dr Roberts and others that support the 6.8 are of a purely emotional nature. Either that or your just nuts.

Naaa...
I like Rifleman, hes always pretty spot on.

Huge grizzlies in Alaska have been killed with 5.45x39 and 5.56 with multiple shots.  I wouldn't purposely choose those, but a semi-auto with multiple hits in rapid succession even with less than ideal cartridges is already proven.

If anyone thinks a grizzly is going to suck up 120gr TSX to the face or chest, I'm going to go with the Barnes on that bet.  I would rather have a semi auto than a bolt gun in that scenario anyway, especially one that doesn't have a lot of blast or muzzle climb, and has excellent penetration.

As to the other types of large game and remarkable performance....

This speaks volumes to your level of insanity.
Please do not post crap like this.
Your going to get someone killed.

Wow. Perhaps the 5.45 and 5.56 ought to be in that entry under extraordinary.

I mean, they'll kill bears, right? Wonder how they do on Oryx and big moose...

This is crazy.

Everyone knows the 277 Wolverine beats both the 6.8SPCII and the 6.5 Grendel in every scenario.

(Distraction technique...)

Literally millions of moose have been killed with 6.5x55 Mauser dating back to the late 1800s, and that has been with steels and chamber pressures lower than what modern steels accomplish.

People that haven't seen a lot of terminal effects and are only used to looking at bigger vs. smaller numbers get detached from the reality where we are looking at shooting pieces of lead and copper through an animal at over twice the speed of sound.

There was a certain course I was in where terminal ballistics were almost a daily thing, with practical results seen on live tissue on a weekly basis.  I spent 14 months in that training facility, with hands-on real GSW on a regular basis, something you just wouldn't see in a lot of other capacities.

People make wound ballistics out to be a very definitive and narrow window when looking at rifle calibers and game, when the results of most center fire rifle cartridges are actually quite similar.

I would challenge those who have little-to-no elbow-deep terminal wound ballistics experience to get out and shoot some more.

Animals are very vulnerable to high velocity rifle projectiles.  If you think of all the large game that was killed with what people had before we even had modern metallic cartridges and high velocity, you would be forced to accept the reality that people who claim you need magnums and other cartridges to kill grizzlies can't support that statement in the backdrop of history.

This photograph is from the 1870s, for example



A .30-30 will smoke a grizzly.  The old .30 Remington will kill grizzly.  Inuit tribes have used .222 Remington and less on even larger bears for decades.

A lot of people base their experience on one paradigm where they either were present or shot something with what they had, which then becomes the absolute minimum, or heard it from someone else that you need a magnum to kill large game.

A good penetrating projectile will kill any animal on the face of this earth that walks.  Doubt me?

Ask how all those bear pelts in the 1700s were harvested.  Kodiak brown bear pelts in the early 1700s were one of the most profitable furs on the international market.  Metallic rifle cartridges didn't even exist.  They didn't even have integrated cartridges then.  Grizzlies were basically exterminated from the North American plains as farming and expansion West progressed.  Hunting of them was unrestricted due to nuisance to farming.  Even a 5.45x39 would have been a wonder weapon back then.

Your not helping your case.
You go ahead and stand against a charging Grizz with your Grendel and see how that pans out.
They also have taken a heart-double lung shots, charged and taken 4 more before stopping, with a 338 Win Mag.
You come across one close you may get 1 or 2 shots off before they are on you. Take your 120 TSX to the face or chest and still rip your face off? Yes they can.
You think if a deer can take a heart lung shot and still run 200 yards a Grizz cant do the same thing?
You take certain situations twist them to every situation and run with it. Even better, try that with a Kodiak. Yea, still North American.

Your so caught up in trying to convince everyone that the Grendel is the greatest thing since air that you completely let common sense evade you.
Your taking classes you took and trying to apply them to wild big game animals. Dude.......

Hey Mark, can I borrow one of your .277 Wolverines. I'm going hunting Cape Buffalo and LR says it will work so it must be true.
I could just take my 6.8 but LR says history shows its more power than I need so it must be overkill.

Learn to speak English before you attempt to debate at an adult level.  Your grammar and spelling is atrocious, for starters.

The course I was in wasn't the kind of "class" you're thinking of.  We didn't only study terminal wound ballistics, we performed and treated them on a regular basis, to include high velocity GSW.  We had a shoot shack and 10 ORs, full vet lab, and things that most big city hospitals don't have.  We had our own portable X-ray machines, a med supply that would astonish most people, and one of the most extensive medical facility training environments for combat trauma management on the face of the planet.

You're going to lose an argument with me on terminal ballistics, and lose bad.

I dont give a rats ass about checking grammar Mr. Knowitall, pick something else to pick apart.

The only thing terminal in this conversation now is your idiotic advice about caliber usage on big game.
If anyone follows your advice your going to get someone hurt or killed. Maybe even some innocent hiker or family that comes across the wounded game animal your advice put out there.





 

Your claims are getting pretty out there. Might be true...but without some substantation you are sounding pretty full of it.

Yet Doc Roberts is just a dentist and doesn't know anything.

278 Honey Badger is even better. Obviously.

Does anyone really have to ask