Previous Page
Page:  / 3
Author
Message
WeaponsProfessor
Offline
Posts: 4
Feedback: 0% (0)
Posted: 7/2/2012 6:02:47 AM EST
6.5 Grendel vs. 6.8 SPC vs. .308


I have been looking at these calibers for several years now. I have read most everything I could get my hands on to help me figure out what would be the best “all-around” AR-15 caliber. I should specify when I say “all-around” I am considering: hunting (varmint to deer size), long range target and hunting, CQC or self-defense, cost per round, accuracy, penetration and “knock-down” power or ft-lbs of energy delivered.

I have read so many articles and there seems to be more “emotion” and “personal taste” than facts and ballistics. My goal here is to present what I was looking for several years ago before spending money on AR uppers. I have 5 different calibers of ARs and love most all of them (see my review of the 450 bushmaster) but I was looking for “one” several years ago and I know many people that are looking for just one upper to meet their many needs. Many people even consider some of the AR-15 calibers against an AR-10 (.308). I have compared many different manufactures of these three rounds with various bullet weights. They have all been fairly consistent. I chose to use Hornady for this comparison just because of their reputation and my experience with them. The ballistics I took from Nikon’s “Spot-On Ballistics Match Technology”. I also looked at Hornady’s ballistics however they only had info going out to 500 yrds. It still remained consistent with other info I have seen. I always say “the proof is in the pudding”. Take a look at the ballistics and look at the ballistic co-efficient (BC) for each of them.

6.8 SPC 120 gr Hornady SST (found as low as $.86 per rd for Hornady and cheapest (Remington) at $.79 per/rd)
Test Barrel (16") Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft-lbs)
MUZZLE100 200 300 400 500
2460/1612 2250/1349 2050/1120 1862/923 1685/756 1522/617

6.5 Grendel 123 gr Hornady A-max (found as low as $.88 per rd for Hornady and cheapest (WolfGold) for $.62 per/rd)
Rifle (16" Barrel) Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft-lbs)
MUZZLE100 200 300 400 500
2350/1508 2189/1308 2034/1129 1885/971 1744/831 1612/709


.308 155 gr A-max (found as low as $1.04 per/rd for Hornady)
Test Barrel (24") Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft-lbs)
MUZZLE100 200 300 400 500
2850/2795 2639/2397 2438/2045 2245/1735 2062/1463 1887/1225

I would have to say it’s a “no-brainer”. The 6.5 Grendel will outperform the 6.8 SPC in most every way. I have read arguments that the 6.8 SPC is a better CQC rd. This just kills me when I read “the 6.8 will outperform the 6.5 under 300 yards” “go with the 6.5 for long range hunting and the 6.8 for more knock down power”. REALLY…..Why?.......... Kinetic energy is almost EXACTLY the same from muzzle to around 300 yards with the same wt bullet. The difference is so small it is irrelevant. It would seem that there is little difference regarding accuracy at these distances as well (most would agree that the 6.5 always has a slight advantage for accuracy due to BC at any range). However, after 300 yards the 6.5 really takes the lead and the same goes for speed and accuracy. So 0-300 yards they are relatively equal. Look at 500-1000 yard distance and there is no comparison. Why would you not want to have both short and long-range capabilities? In fact, if you compare the 1000 yard ballistics of the 6.5 Grendel with the .308 it is shocking just how close the two are. The 6.5 is slightly faster but slightly less energy due to the lighter bullet. The sectional density is very impressive for the 6.5 so the penetration is most likely better than the .308. I am only making the comparison between a 6.5 to a .308 at “long” distance. There is little comparison regarding speed and energy less than 500 yards. Under 500 yards the .308 is far superior in both.

I have also heard that the 6.8 outperforms the 6.5 with shorter barrel lengths. Go to Hornady and compare the 6.8 SPC 120 gr SST vs. the 6.5 Grendel 123 gr A-max. The 0-500 yard ballistics for both are out of a 16” barrel and are very, very close out to 300 yards where the 6.5 takes the lead in both speed and energy.
What about cost? I have read many articles that supported the 6.8 over the 6.5 due to cost per/rd. The 6.8 has more companies that produce the cartridge however the cost per/rd can be found cheaper for the 6.5 (checkout ammoseek.com). I purchased 500 rds of WolfGold MPT for $12.50 box/20 rds. That is pretty cheap! Word is that Wolf is going to start producing steel cased ammo in 6.5. With the recent release of the “6.5 Grendel” trademark from AA, it is only a matter of time before more companies cash in on this caliber that has been “not so attractive” due to royalties in the past. Currently, I have only found ammo for the 6.5 in 2-3 different manufactures. My hope is that this will change as more people realize the capabilities and reality of this caliber. The cost per/rd from Hornady is about the same. Both are much cheaper than match ammo in the .308.

If you are into re-loading, the 6.5 has a very large selection. Hornady has 14 different selections ranging from 95 gr to 160 gr. The 6.8 also has 14 to select from based on .277 or 270. They both have a good selection for re-loading but currently the 6.8 SPC does enjoy the advantage in the variety of ammo available.
If I had to choose one of the three for everything from: CQC, combat/self-defense, hunting, target shooting at both short and long range, weight of ammunition and rifle, and cost for shooting……….. The 6.5 Grendel wins without a second thought.

I could not figure out why the 6.5 had not been adopted by the military and more embraced by the civilian population for years. Many wanted you to believe it was the lesser of the two cartridges. There were problems with the legal aspects related to name/trademark “6.5 Grendel”. It was a trademark/legal/royalties issue that kept a great cartridge from being produced by most of the mainstream AR companies. The GOOD news is that the 6.5 Grendel has been accepted by SAAMI and that Alexander Arms has agreed to release their trademark on the name "6.5mm Grendel". We should see in the next year a MAJOR growth of companies producing both weapons and ammo in the 6.5. I seriously hope the military will now take a second look at this cartridge for NATO. The history of the 6.5 is as long as it is impressive.

BOTTOM LINE………..do the research (should not take long) and see for yourself. This is a SUPERIOR cartridge for hunting (vermin to medium to large game), short and long distance target shooting, low recoil for younger shooters or faster follow up shots, and cost effective for shooting. If you are limited on “coin” and need to pick one upper to do it all, this is the one.
dudeinmo
Offline
Posts: 130
Feedback: 100% (5)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/2/2012 7:29:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2012 7:31:18 AM EST by dudeinmo]
Your going to hunt deer with an A-Max?

And your comparing SAAMI specs BTW. Not spec II on the 6.8.
Invalid
Offline
Posts: 60
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/2/2012 7:31:56 AM EST
Your post is a little long, but it reflects the due consideration that these calibers deserve.
If you haven't seen it, this long read is very worthwhile. Through all of the developments, a

viable point it made for the 6.5, at the end of the whole body of research and testing. It's

very interesting to see how many attempts were made that came close enough to being

optimum, but got passed over for whatever reason. This article suggests that the current

reason why NATO isn't looking for a replacement for the 5.56 and 7.62 is because the day of

the brass cartridge case is nearing its' end.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
It's very interesting as well to read over the forums for both the 6.8 and 6.5. On the6.8 forums, the general consensus pretty much sticks with the idea of an "assault rifle" caliber to

be applicable within 300 yards. On the 6.5 forums, we see a lot more mention of the 6.5

being viable to more like 800 yards.
To me, all of this discussion is difficult to put into perspective. If the only consideration was

a civilian sporting round that best serves to thin out the herd in the gunsafe, these new

rounds would have a lot more merit. In this world though, it's pretty clear that we're headed

into a whole lot more terrible conflict where Joe Civilian is better advised to stick with current

NATO calibers.
WeaponsProfessor
Offline
Posts: 7
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:25:53 AM EST
Why not use A-MAX? The last thing you want is a round leaving your target. ENERGY LOST. Especially with smaller rounds. Why do you think the Geneva Convention made HP illegal? The goal is not to “kill” the enemy, it’s to “wound” them and HP (or rapid expanding) delivers more energy into the target thus being far more fatal wounds. I always use HP in my 5.56 and have had great luck hunting deer. The only reason I have not used the A-max is weight. I want a heaver bullet for my 5.56. To answer your question, “YES”, I plan on using my A-Max for hunting in my 6.5 so as to deliver ALL the kinetic energy into the target and not the trees on the other side. The sectional density of the 6.5 provides outstanding penetration which is great at distance but not for a deer at 100 yrds. I spent 13 years in the medical profession both civilian and military and if you do a little research on gunshot wounds you do not want over penetration if your intent is to “kill” your target. This is why in most states FMJ ammo is illegal for hunting. Snipers use HP.
scudzuki
Offline
Posts: 225
Feedback: 100% (20)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:32:18 AM EST
I guess I'm reading it differently than you (not sure how that is) but given the stats you've listed, the .308 at 500 yards is still 17% faster than the 6.5 (with a bullet weighing 26% more) and has 173% the energy of the 6.5.

Also there is plenty of 147 to 150 grain .308 ammo available for less than $0.60/round, some of it boxer primed and so reloadable, although the really accurate stuff like Federal GMM with 168 gr SMKs averages over $1/round.

That said, I don't consider 7.62x51/.308 a do it all round as (for me anyway) the recovery between shots is longer than I'd like for closer encounters.

6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel do come much closer to satisfying that requirement.

Dunno where .300 AAC compares but I suspect it's a little weaker than the 6.x variants as I've heard it compared closely to 7.62x39...

Joe
WeaponsProfessor
Offline
Posts: 10
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:40:37 AM EST
Originally Posted By scudzuki:
I guess I'm reading it differently than you (not sure how that is) but given the stats you've listed, the .308 at 500 yards is still 17% faster than the 6.5 (with a bullet weighing 26% more) and has 173% the energy of the 6.5.

Also there is plenty of 147 to 150 grain .308 ammo available for less than $0.60/round, some of it boxer primed and so reloadable, although the really accurate stuff like Federal GMM with 168 gr SMKs averages over $1/round.

That said, I don't consider 7.62x51/.308 a do it all round as (for me anyway) the recovery between shots is longer than I'd like for closer encounters.

6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel do come much closer to satisfying that requirement.

Dunno where .300 AAC compares but I suspect it's a little weaker than the 6.x variants as I've heard it compared closely to 7.62x39...

Joe


You are completely right. It is compairing apples to bananas however at 1000 yrds they are VERY similar. It would be nice to have something that fits on the AR-15 that could come "close" to a AR-10 in range and energy. That was the point I was trying to make. I may have done a bad job in making that clear.
dudeinmo
Offline
Posts: 131
Feedback: 100% (5)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:50:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By WeaponsProfessor:
Why not use A-MAX? The last thing you want is a round leaving your target. ENERGY LOST. Especially with smaller rounds. Why do you think the Geneva Convention made HP illegal? The goal is not to “kill” the enemy, it’s to “wound” them and HP (or rapid expanding) delivers more energy into the target thus being far more fatal wounds. I always use HP in my 5.56 and have had great luck hunting deer. The only reason I have not used the A-max is weight. I want a heaver bullet for my 5.56. To answer your question, “YES”, I plan on using my A-Max for hunting in my 6.5 so as to deliver ALL the kinetic energy into the target and not the trees on the other side. The sectional density of the 6.5 provides outstanding penetration which is great at distance but not for a deer at 100 yrds. I spent 13 years in the medical profession both civilian and military and if you do a little research on gunshot wounds you do not want over penetration if your intent is to “kill” your target. This is why in most states FMJ ammo is illegal for hunting. Snipers use HP.



I'm just saying with the availability of the Hornady 6.5 129 SST you gain a purpose made hunting bullet and don't loose too much BC.
Hit a shoulder with that A-Max and track your kill ... or put an SST through it and watch it fall right there.
fenderCAB
Offline
Posts: 43
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/2/2012 9:01:24 AM EST
Do you have any stats for the 6.5 Grendel with a barrel longer than 16 inches? It's hard to compare a 6.5 out of a 16 inch barrel to a 308 out of a 24 inch barrel. Some calibers act more favorably with longer barrel lengths than others. For instance, there's a decent velocity gain with 5.56 going from 16 inches to 20 inches. I think that the Grendel is the same way. I'll bet the Grendel will come a little closer to 308 energy delivered out of a 20 inch or 24 inch barrel.
apierce918
Offline
Posts: 578
Feedback: 100% (13)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/2/2012 9:06:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By WeaponsProfessor:
Why not use A-MAX? The last thing you want is a round leaving your target. ENERGY LOST. Especially with smaller rounds. Why do you think the Geneva Convention made HP illegal? The goal is not to “kill” the enemy, it’s to “wound” them and HP (or rapid expanding) delivers more energy into the target thus being far more fatal wounds. I always use HP in my 5.56 and have had great luck hunting deer. The only reason I have not used the A-max is weight. I want a heaver bullet for my 5.56. To answer your question, “YES”, I plan on using my A-Max for hunting in my 6.5 so as to deliver ALL the kinetic energy into the target and not the trees on the other side. The sectional density of the 6.5 provides outstanding penetration which is great at distance but not for a deer at 100 yrds. I spent 13 years in the medical profession both civilian and military and if you do a little research on gunshot wounds you do not want over penetration if your intent is to “kill” your target. This is why in most states FMJ ammo is illegal for hunting. Snipers use HP.


the geneva convention didnt.
Commando_Guy
Member
Offline
Posts: 2972
Feedback: 100% (11)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/2/2012 9:07:37 AM EST
OP, you are ignoring the elephant in the room.
Specifically, the SSA 6.8 140gr VLD.

Nick
If the enemy is range, so are you.
Fat_Boy
Team Member
Offline
Posts: 2159
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/2/2012 9:32:41 AM EST
Originally Posted By WeaponsProfessor:
Why not use A-MAX? The last thing you want is a round leaving your target. ENERGY LOST. Especially with smaller rounds. Why do you think the Geneva Convention made HP illegal? The goal is not to “kill” the enemy, it’s to “wound” them and HP (or rapid expanding) delivers more energy into the target thus being far more fatal wounds. I always use HP in my 5.56 and have had great luck hunting deer. The only reason I have not used the A-max is weight. I want a heaver bullet for my 5.56. To answer your question, “YES”, I plan on using my A-Max for hunting in my 6.5 so as to deliver ALL the kinetic energy into the target and not the trees on the other side. The sectional density of the 6.5 provides outstanding penetration which is great at distance but not for a deer at 100 yrds. I spent 13 years in the medical profession both civilian and military and if you do a little research on gunshot wounds you do not want over penetration if your intent is to “kill” your target. This is why in most states FMJ ammo is illegal for hunting. Snipers use HP.


Dear Professor,

Please cite the place in the Geneva Convention that made "HP" ammo illegal.

Thanks,
FB

Oh, to stay on topic, I like the 6.5G. in the AR15 sized platform.
NRA {LIFER} ,GOA
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...(RUSH)

Posted By paddymurphy:
Could be worse. Try eating the spicy bucket at Joes crab shack on a date and then getting romantic after words---she was not happy
ErikS
Offline
Posts: 411
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/2/2012 10:13:45 AM EST
HP ammo works very well from the barrels of our fine snipers and has for years. SMKs are in the fight every day.

fenderCAB
Offline
Posts: 44
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/2/2012 10:15:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By Invalid:
Your post is a little long, but it reflects the due consideration that these calibers deserve.
If you haven't seen it, this long read is very worthwhile. Through all of the developments, a

viable point it made for the 6.5, at the end of the whole body of research and testing. It's

very interesting to see how many attempts were made that came close enough to being

optimum, but got passed over for whatever reason. This article suggests that the current

reason why NATO isn't looking for a replacement for the 5.56 and 7.62 is because the day of

the brass cartridge case is nearing its' end.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
It's very interesting as well to read over the forums for both the 6.8 and 6.5. On the6.8 forums, the general consensus pretty much sticks with the idea of an "assault rifle" caliber to

be applicable within 300 yards. On the 6.5 forums, we see a lot more mention of the 6.5

being viable to more like 800 yards.
To me, all of this discussion is difficult to put into perspective. If the only consideration was

a civilian sporting round that best serves to thin out the herd in the gunsafe, these new

rounds would have a lot more merit. In this world though, it's pretty clear that we're headed

into a whole lot more terrible conflict where Joe Civilian is better advised to stick with current

NATO calibers.


Great article you referenced when you get to the bottom and see the ballistics chart. Looks like the only negative to the 6.5 Grendel is that the military may have to give up a little juice in order to use longer, non-lead penetrator type bullets to satisfy NATO. It seems to surpass the 7.62x51 at 500 meters in energy delivered while still being very acceptable up to that point with less recoil. On paper, it seems superior to the 6.8 (spec I at least) and obviously superior to the 5.56.
Old_Painless
The Poster O'Truth
NRA
Offline
Posts: 40032
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/2/2012 11:35:55 AM EST
Maybe the Ammo Forum will be better. I will move it for you.
"I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it." - Capt. W. F. Call, Texas Ranger

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

SYSTEM
Posted: 7/2/2012 11:36:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2012 11:36:25 AM EST by Old_Painless]
Topic Moved
Manny2_0
Offline
Posts: 428
Feedback: 100% (26)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/2/2012 10:11:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2012 10:20:40 PM EST by Manny2_0]
Grendal does it all, but isn't the best at anything....

6.8 is the best in sbr, even 308 doesn't offer tons of advantage to it in terms of energy
and when you consider the weight, loss of capacity and recoil/follow up shots
I am inclinded to say 6.8 wins

16in 308 wins, good velocities and able to make it to 1k, and much more aval. ammo than the other two
and better at barriers

grendal awesome bc, light recoil

just my view

I like 6.8 cqb sbr 12in
over 100m 308 16in

None of them are the best at all roles, ea has their ninche and significant advantages over the other

I guess you have to decide what length of bbl you want, or role to fill before deciding,

Hell even the 5.56 can beat these at one thing
speed at which one is able to suppress targets
WeaponsProfessor
Offline
Posts: 11
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/3/2012 4:01:44 AM EST
Originally Posted By dudeinmo:
Originally Posted By WeaponsProfessor:
Why not use A-MAX? The last thing you want is a round leaving your target. ENERGY LOST. Especially with smaller rounds. Why do you think the Geneva Convention made HP illegal? The goal is not to “kill” the enemy, it’s to “wound” them and HP (or rapid expanding) delivers more energy into the target thus being far more fatal wounds. I always use HP in my 5.56 and have had great luck hunting deer. The only reason I have not used the A-max is weight. I want a heaver bullet for my 5.56. To answer your question, “YES”, I plan on using my A-Max for hunting in my 6.5 so as to deliver ALL the kinetic energy into the target and not the trees on the other side. The sectional density of the 6.5 provides outstanding penetration which is great at distance but not for a deer at 100 yrds. I spent 13 years in the medical profession both civilian and military and if you do a little research on gunshot wounds you do not want over penetration if your intent is to “kill” your target. This is why in most states FMJ ammo is illegal for hunting. Snipers use HP.



I'm just saying with the availability of the Hornady 6.5 129 SST you gain a purpose made hunting bullet and don't loose too much BC.
Hit a shoulder with that A-Max and track your kill ... or put an SST through it and watch it fall right there.



I totally agree but the only match ammo I have been able to find from Hornady is the A-Max. I dont reload so my options are limited. 5.56 A-Max hitting the shoulder I agree but the 6.5 A-Max hitting the shoulder I feel very confident it would punch through and drop it.
WeaponsProfessor
Offline
Posts: 12
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/3/2012 4:03:33 AM EST
Originally Posted By fenderCAB:
Do you have any stats for the 6.5 Grendel with a barrel longer than 16 inches? It's hard to compare a 6.5 out of a 16 inch barrel to a 308 out of a 24 inch barrel. Some calibers act more favorably with longer barrel lengths than others. For instance, there's a decent velocity gain with 5.56 going from 16 inches to 20 inches. I think that the Grendel is the same way. I'll bet the Grendel will come a little closer to 308 energy delivered out of a 20 inch or 24 inch barrel.


I really tired to find consistent compairison data, even tried contacting Hornady but did not hear back. That would be the best research to have all same bullets and barrel lenghts.
CovertChannels
Too much crap, not enough fans....
Offline
Posts: 4810
Feedback: 100% (21)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/3/2012 5:11:12 AM EST
.308 is not a caliber available in the AR-15 platform, only the AR-10 platform. So let's drop that one. I have had 6.5 Grendel AR-15s since Alexander Arms started making them over 8 years ago. I love everything about the platform except the magazines. The C Products magazines for the Grendel are okay and vary quite a bit in quality from batch to batch. They may have gotten better, but I have bought quite a few crappy ones with bad welds and poor finishes over the years.

I wish someone else would come out with a top notch magazine for the 6.5 Grendel.

I would take a 6.5 Grendel anyday over a 6.8 even with a spec II chamber. I use the 123 grain Lapua and 129 grain SST rounds exclusively from Alexander Arms and they are excellent rounds.
I do my best to believe the crap in your posts.....
Zhukov
Aimless' whipping boy
NRA
Offline
Posts: 40349
Feedback: 100% (46)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/3/2012 6:25:57 AM EST
The 6.8 in "shorter" barrels refers to a 12" setup, not 16.
Daddy loves you. Now go away.
cckw
Offline
Posts: 4351
Feedback: 100% (104)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/3/2012 5:43:43 PM EST
Originally Posted By dudeinmo:
Originally Posted By WeaponsProfessor:
Why not use A-MAX? The last thing you want is a round leaving your target. ENERGY LOST. Especially with smaller rounds. Why do you think the Geneva Convention made HP illegal? The goal is not to “kill” the enemy, it’s to “wound” them and HP (or rapid expanding) delivers more energy into the target thus being far more fatal wounds. I always use HP in my 5.56 and have had great luck hunting deer. The only reason I have not used the A-max is weight. I want a heaver bullet for my 5.56. To answer your question, “YES”, I plan on using my A-Max for hunting in my 6.5 so as to deliver ALL the kinetic energy into the target and not the trees on the other side. The sectional density of the 6.5 provides outstanding penetration which is great at distance but not for a deer at 100 yrds. I spent 13 years in the medical profession both civilian and military and if you do a little research on gunshot wounds you do not want over penetration if your intent is to “kill” your target. This is why in most states FMJ ammo is illegal for hunting. Snipers use HP.



I'm just saying with the availability of the Hornady 6.5 129 SST you gain a purpose made hunting bullet and don't loose too much BC.
Hit a shoulder with that A-Max and track your kill ... or put an SST through it and watch it fall right there.



Not at all how it actually works. I have 37 deer kills nearly all with A-max 168. Deer do not have a shoulder like yours. easy to punch through both. Although beter t ogo right behind them and spare the meat. I do my own butchering and always check out the wound. Bullet has gone clear through every time no matter what. some fragments left sometimes, but most of the bullet exits and with plenty of energy. Balck Hills loads A-maix in their hunting line, I had to read online that it wasn't a good hunting bullet long after I proved itself in the field.

Part two that you do not understand, deer are not wired like us. you can take out the heart and both lungs and they still run away. Only a spine shot drops them. Due to CWD I don't take spine shots, so all of my deer run away. I just start counting, it seems like forever, but it's 5-8 seconds and they go down having bled out, although most of the blood is still inside the chest waiting to spill on your boots.


DvlDog
Member
Offline
Posts: 6523
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/3/2012 6:16:56 PM EST
Originally Posted By WeaponsProfessor:
Why not use A-MAX? The last thing you want is a round leaving your target. ENERGY LOST. Especially with smaller rounds. Why do you think the Geneva Convention made HP illegal? The goal is not to “kill” the enemy, it’s to “wound” them and HP (or rapid expanding) delivers more energy into the target thus being far more fatal wounds. I always use HP in my 5.56 and have had great luck hunting deer. The only reason I have not used the A-max is weight. I want a heaver bullet for my 5.56. To answer your question, “YES”, I plan on using my A-Max for hunting in my 6.5 so as to deliver ALL the kinetic energy into the target and not the trees on the other side. The sectional density of the 6.5 provides outstanding penetration which is great at distance but not for a deer at 100 yrds. I spent 13 years in the medical profession both civilian and military and if you do a little research on gunshot wounds you do not want over penetration if your intent is to “kill” your target. This is why in most states FMJ ammo is illegal for hunting. Snipers use HP.


The amount of ignorance in this post is staggering.
45-Seventy
Offline
Posts: 2271
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/3/2012 6:17:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By WeaponsProfessor:
Why not use A-MAX? The last thing you want is a round leaving your target. ENERGY LOST. Especially with smaller rounds. Why do you think the Geneva Convention made HP illegal? The goal is not to “kill” the enemy, it’s to “wound” them and HP (or rapid expanding) delivers more energy into the target thus being far more fatal wounds. I always use HP in my 5.56 and have had great luck hunting deer. The only reason I have not used the A-max is weight. I want a heaver bullet for my 5.56. To answer your question, “YES”, I plan on using my A-Max for hunting in my 6.5 so as to deliver ALL the kinetic energy into the target and not the trees on the other side. The sectional density of the 6.5 provides outstanding penetration which is great at distance but not for a deer at 100 yrds. I spent 13 years in the medical profession both civilian and military and if you do a little research on gunshot wounds you do not want over penetration if your intent is to “kill” your target. This is why in most states FMJ ammo is illegal for hunting. Snipers use HP.


It didn't.

Snipers use OTM because it's ballistically superior, not for terminal effectiveness. In fact, SMK usually acts like ball in flesh.
Zhukov
Aimless' whipping boy
NRA
Offline
Posts: 40389
Feedback: 100% (46)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/3/2012 6:25:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By 45-Seventy:
Snipers use OTM because it's ballistically superior, not for terminal effectiveness. In fact, SMK usually acts like ball in flesh.

OTM's in many cases are considered land warfare legal as the cavity at the tip is an artifact of the manufacturing process and not explicitly designed to break apart.

Some data on SMKs:


Daddy loves you. Now go away.
Blain
Member
Online
Posts: 937
Feedback: 100% (104)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/4/2012 5:35:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/4/2012 5:46:45 PM EST by Blain]
The 6mm Optimum beats them both!!


Left to Right: 5.56, 6mm Optimum, 7.62x51


Caliber 5.56 NATO 6mm Optimum 7.62 NATO
Bullet weight 62 gr 100 gr 147gr
Velocity @ 0m 3100 fps 2900 fps 2800 fps
Energy @ 0m 1323 ft-lb 1867 ft-lb 2559 ft-lb
Velocity @ 1200m 913 fps 1149 fps 990 fps
Energy @ 1200m 115 ft-lb 293 ft-lb 320 ft-lb
Flight time to 1200m 2.63 sec 2.21 sec 2.54 sec
Deflection @ 1200m 240 inches 151 inches 200 inches
(in 10 mph wind)
Maximum trajectory 365 inches 244 inches 332 inches


I remember first reading about this cartridge in one of the special weapons magazines in 2001. I wonder why it never took off? It looks like the best of all worlds!

6.5 Grendel is the next best, the british figured that out 50 years ago.
BRONZ
You're Being Watched
NRAInstructor
Offline
Posts: 7443
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/5/2012 3:32:38 AM EST
Good info in here
BRONZ

You never have trouble if you are prepared for it. T. Roosevelt

  Previous Page
Page:  / 3