I'm not debating velocity at all. But I can remember not so long ago when a South African company was touting BC's for 6.5 and 6.8 bullets that also defied the real numbers, measured accurately.

These guys: http://www.gsgroup.co.za/sptech.html

They list a 120 grain bullet for the 6.5 with a BC of .681!

I don't really care WHAT the caliber is, when you start touting BC's like this, they just don't jive with what we see in real world, actual tests.

Bill

I'm just waiting to see what Harrison gets out of these. I'm sure they will be very fast, 3400 or more.He has gotten close to that 3400fps figure with the Barnes 85gr load. Those were maximum loads and pushing it though.  Whatever he finds as a safe loading for the 77gr or the 80gr is what I'm waiting on. The 85gr is @3300fps.

You can drive lighter bullets faster, there is no doubt, but when you take lighter bullets, you reach the point where you can actually create enough length and density to get a decent BC, which takes into account both the bullet shape, and the weight.

As I pointed out earlier, it isn't all shape. The Lapua 108 and 123 Scenars are exactly the same bullet, except the 123 has a larger lead core. The BC's are significantly different. You can drive the 108 faster, but even losing 200 FPS in velocity, the 123 will outperform it at distances over 400 yards.

I hope there is some new magic to these bullets, but I've had my chain pulled enough times to be pretty sceptical!

Bill

Let's keep our numbers accurate, since this is a tech forum.  I don't want our 6.8 velocities to slip into "folklore status."

Harrison and I were together at Wild River Ranch when that velocity was achieved, and it was not 3400 FPS with an 85 grain TSX.  It was 3412 FPS in one single shot on the chrono, using the then-brand new 80 grain GS custom (south African) bullet.  



      80 grain GS custom is on left


The average velocity of that string was lower, 3360.  Yes, that was definitely a max test load and I don't think anyone should be trying to duplicate our results, because we were testing the velocity limits of the 6.8.  You have to remember that SSA brass also held just a little more powder then, too.  I don't think anyone had ever driven a 6.8 load to that speed, unless Harrison did it prior to the test at the ranch.  At that time, the 85 TSX was an "experimental bullet," holding all the promise of something that could change the face of the 6.8, and sure enough it has.

To be clear, in my books, the 85 TSX has a max load which produces a velocity around 3200 FPS.  YMMV

W/r/t bullets, things have gone even further ahead with the advent of the 95 TTSX, but it wasn't because of these bullet's BC's or even the relatively high speed they achieve.    The GS customs simply turned out to be too expensive and too hard to get in order for them to ever become mainstream.

I still load the 80 grain GS bullets, and my most accurate load is going 3280 FPS (from a 20" barrel).   3300 is also possible with reloder 7 and SSA's fast powder, but not my most accurate load.  They are all copper and penetrate well, but I think the 85 TSX is in the same league and certainly easier to dial in an accurate load with several powders and charge weights.  the 95 TTSX is not an all-star BC bullet, but it still kills animals effectively out past 300 yards, because it opens up at speeds as slow as 1600 FPS.  It is not all about BC, but it certainly can't hurt you, either.  All this needs to be kept in perspective.

The BC is still yet to be determined on these Elite bullets, but I have no reason yet to doubt the numbers we are seeing except that it seems ambitious.  I sure hope they are right though.  It would be a nice addition to the line ups for the 6.8 and 6.5's.

ETA:  added photos

My mind does at times mislead me. I was trying to quote something I mis remembered. I stand corrected, but the velocities are still impressive.  The GS bullets are nice. I'd heard that GS was opening a facility here in the states, but it's just a rumor for me at this point. It would make them more readily available.

Thought I'd update my old post in that Cabelas now has some Hornady 6.5 Grendel ammo on the shelf.

There is a lot of competing information here.  Loads of people trying to bury each other in raw data to prove their point.  I used to edge toward the 6.8 side of the fence, but I am leaning now toward the 6.5 side.  Why?

I am former military, and I have always looked at it from a military standpoint.  Not just as a replacement to 5.56, but the possibility of its use in a SAW/LMG and in a MGPMG.  There are 2 things that I have been trying to consider:

1. Single round performance.  I am looking for the optimal performace of a single bullet type/weight that will oeprate optimally accross the entire spectrum of ranges, from 5-1000 meters, from 16" to 24" bbls.  As this thread has shown, you can create a custom load which will invade the other bullet's territory (getting a 6.8 out to 1000/ getting a 6.5 to match up in CQB), but if it were possible for one of these to be adopted as a combat cartrige (general use, not specialized as the 6.8 is now), there has to be a standard.  

2. Overall performance.  From skimming through the previous pages, it seems like at close range (0-300) the 6.8 maintains a slight advantage, but both cartridges are much superior to 5.56.  From 300 - 500, the rounds appear more balanced, and from 500 - 1000, the 6.5 starts to pull away, even approaching 7.62 territory out at range.

What I would like to see is a 6.5 and 6.8 tested.  Each calibre "expert" picks a single bullet weight/powder load for that calibre (it need not be the same weight for both calibres, but what that person feels will work best for that calibre), and fire it: 16" at close range out to 300m, then push the 16" to 600m.  Then take that same cartridge design into a longer barrel for SPC use out to range 800-1000.  results would be measured in accuracy at each range and esitimated "power" at each range, and esitimated max effective range.  I suppose, with all the testing that has been done, that most of that info may be buried in here somewherer already.  I am just not sure if anyone has done a comparison of single rounds from each side; everyone likes to maximize and emphasize what "their" round exels at.

There is no "best" cartridge, as they were designed for different roles.  This fight has climbed into the ranks of "5.56 v 7.62"  and "9mm v .40 v .45"

The truth is 2.30" overall cartridge length and the size of the AR15 platform are what limit us from having a true all in one weapon that weighs nearly the same as the AR15 and "fights", for lack of a better term, like the .308 platform guns.  I still think the perfect caliber is 7mm, but what the hell do I know...

Obviously you dont know much if you think 7mm is the best....

I think you nailed it. Everything on the Ar platform seems to be some sort of compromise based ultimately on the magwell length. The question then is what is of more importance, muzzle velocity (204), short range short barrel terminal ballistics (6.8), long range ballistics (6.5) or even some other combination.

Arguing the relative BC of competing designs is moot when the application for it is limited to 500m. That's the limit a human will shoot, even if equipped with longer range weapons, and that is what was observed in combat studies since the 1930's and earlier. Some do attempt long range shooting, the need and demand are there, but the bulk of soldiers, hunters, and shooters don't go much over 500m.

It's why the discussion of 6.8 vs. 6.5 is based on a flawed concept, that the 6.5G and it's long range ability are "superior." It can be on a precision target range, but real world use means it's a small percentage solution. In the Army, it was addressed by reissuing the M14 at the rate of 5,000 per 100,000 M4/M16's already in SW Asia. There's a professional opinion right there.

Those who actually use AR's in the field  provide the same result - the 6.8 outsells the 6.5G 10 to 1 or more. That ratio is real money put down on the counter to back up what shooters believe is the better solution to their needs. The 6.8SPC is designed for the ranges they shoot, the power level they need, and the barrel length they want to carry. They don't accept the BC argument as solving their problem, they want more power at the ranges they shoot, compared to the 5.56, and they see the 6.8 as the answer.  

Arguing BC is largely a misapplied issue that has little relative value for the typical AR shooter. It's one small part of the overall design that most can't see and won't use.

Indeed? Your argument is heavily in favor of the 5.56 then, since the 69 and 77 grain bullets create less recoil, larger round counts on loadout, and essentially the same results on humans as the 6.8 within the 500 yard bubble.

10 to 1? Would you mind telling us where you get that figure, or is it just a guess? I won't debate that there are more 6.8's out there, but 10 to 1? Highly doubtful.

Hmmm....better tell all those guys that they can't possibly humanly shoot longer than 500 meters!

In truth, the vast majority of contact in battle has been at far less than 300 meters, until Afghanistan, which is changing the whole plan of battle with its very long range encounters.

The 6.5 and the 6.8 are so close in every parameter inside 500 meters that its a tossup. Pick your bullet for one, optimize the bullet for the other, and they will be virtually indistinguishable. BUT...if you need that extra reach from time to time, the Grendel will get you there more easily, and closely matches .308 ballistics after that first 600 yards or so. Dead is dead, and inside 500 meters, they both will get you VERY dead!

No one except some Special Ops guys have experience with the 6.8 and the 6.5 on human targets in battle, and they ain't talking, so all the hullaballoo about the "competition" comes from armchair warriors and mall ninjas.

Please describe the "typical" AR shooter, also. I haven't met that guy, I don't think!!

Bill

I think the "typical" AR shooters are of a status slightly elevated from FUDD...but I could be wrong!  

Seriously, there's no way to know the ratio of sales between these two excellent cartridges.  I keep telling people to buy both, shoot both, and keep the one you like the most.  I kept both, since I don't like selling ARs  

I weighed both options and chose the 6.8 SPC for my uses.  I hunt deer and 5.56 isn't legal in Virginia.  I shoot AR's about 99% of the time I shoot rifles and shoot that type of rifle the best so the AR is a natural choice for me.

It came down to a few things for me;

1.  I like shorter rifles.  6.8 is the winner there.
2.  I needed a legal and mean deer rifle for inside 300 yards.  6.8 works as does 6.5.  I don't need the 6.5 long range advantage though.
3.  The more options the better.  6.8 hands down.
4.  Shooting industry support for the caliber.  6.8 wins.
5.  I don't reload currently and have no plans to right now.  A wide selection of ammo is a must and I think the 6.8 beats out the 6.5 there.
6.  Popularity among shooters and hunters.  6.8 wins.

Note that my requirement was simply for a short, light, powerful (relatively) AR for deer hunting inside 300 yards.  I'm thinking my next 2 6.8's are going to be SBR's.  One to replace my current hunting rifle and one exactly the same but with an Aimpoint to be my home defense gun.

Just my .02

Derek,

See, that's the right way to make a decision...

Decide what is important to YOU, then base your decision on those things!

Some of the differences are so minimal that it isn't worth arguing over.

Bill

Typical ar shooter= 100 yard square range a majority of the time. Alot of them also ask to borrow my cleaning road to knock steal cased 556 crap out of there 223 chambers. Sorry for the range rant at the end.

The list of 6.8 manufactures vs 6.5 manufactures is 3:1 or more so 6.8 sales to 6.5 sales is probably WAY more than 10:1 if you want to know the truth, but no I don't have any facts other than how many companies make the 6.8 vs the 6.5, the statement is hardly hard to believe if you really think about it since there are many more hunters buying 6.8's than long range shooters buying 6.5's.

When was the last time a major ammo manufacture released a new 6.5 round? Hornady just released another new 6.8 round and has plans for another next year and they don't keep making ammo for something that isn't selling.

Excuse me....Hornady is making Grendel ammo, they're the last one to take it on!

There are multiple smaller manufacturers building the ammo as well.

Wolf makes cheap ammo, and there is another major manufacturer who has negotiated to make low cost ammo.

And LOTS of guys hunt their Grendels, the round was foreseen as a deer round, according to the history!

As for 6.8 vs 6.5, they both have their spots in local stores in my area. Truthfully, I've never seen anyone at my range shooting a 6.8, though I have found SSA brass on the range, so I know someone is! I regularly shoot with a couple other 6.5 guys, one of who I met at the range.

There are more 6.8's but the ratio, well, that's actually tough to say.

I would point out that the 6.8 isn't figureing much in Remingtons plans, at least if you look at their offerings in the caliber!

Bill

Remnington screwed up the chamber of the 6.8 and had to load severely underpowered ammo to cover their mistake. The correct chamber has been out there now for several years, and almost every producer of 6.8 rifles uses that chamber. SSA and a few others load for those vastly improved specifications. Remington refuses to change, forcing most ammo makers to continue to load to the inferior specs that their rifles are chambered for. Their refusal to change has cost them tremendous amounts of market share in both rifle sales and ammo sales, both loaded and components( they use much less desired lg rifle primers). Rather than correct the mistake and resubmit to saami the right specs, they run from the problem by designing a competing cartridge. If I were Remington and had my ass handed to me because of improper design and unwillingness to take care of my customers, I wouldn't figure it in my plans either.
As I've said before, both are great rounds, but check with your dealers and see how much difference there is in sales of rifles, accessories, and ammo. I think you may be surprised that there is, while maybe not 10/1, a huge difference. Also, while there may be a minimal price difference between the two, you will find that the availability of the 6.8 is far greater, is produced in vastly larger quantities, and will continue to be for the near future. I hope both continue to grow so that we may enjoy both for years to come.

doubletap, mods please delete.

I really don't think its that easy for a company to just resubmit specs to saami, especially years after it was approved. What would they do about all the orginal spec rifles, if the new saami spec allowed the high pressure rounds? Think about the liability, cause not every sonsumer is smart enough to know excately what kind of chamber they have and what knid of ammo is ok to shoot.

Remington could resubmit to sammi but it would at least have to change the name, similar to the .223 and 5.56.

While resubmitting the 6.8spc's correct drawings to saami would be nearly impossible as there would be confusion on the part of many that accept the Remingtomn specs as satisfactory, or don't pay attention to the marketplace as we do, many iin the 6.8 game have thought it would be a great idea to submit it as 6.8 x 43, or a couple of other monikers, 6.8 spec II or even .270 Kurz or short or auto, with a warning on the boxes. The solution to the chamber problem on existing rifles is a simple few turns of a chamber reamer, and can be done by any smith of youiaren't comfortable with it, or the manufacturer, Remington, and Ruger, and a couple of other and the older guns could do the procedure as a magnificent sign of customer service. The only thing left at that point is some of the older guns have a 1/9 twist, and still should stay away from the newer spec ammo. The ammo companies that are loading ammo for the higher velocities note this on the boxes and in their advertisement, and any companies that start making the newer ammo would of course note that as well. It will likely take a Remington or a Ruger to fund the expense and to have the political capital in the industry to spend as well to acheive this goal.  I would like to see the smaller manufacturers combine their resources to get this done, and I would be willing to donate funds to the cause, ( it is expensive), and I'm sure many others that want the correct chamber certified would as well. I can guarantee that most of us on the 6.8forums would be willing to donate something to that cause, but I can't speak for everyone.

I had heard a little about the 6.8, specifically I read a Rifle Shooter writeup on the Ruger's 6.8 that I found in the "can" here in Afghanistan.

I knew that "the place" to do some "research" would be this site and I found this thread am glad that I did.

I've only read to page 2 and as it is close to midnight, I'll bookmark it and come back to it later.

As far as (your) arguments go, If I'm the jury, the 6.8 wins (based on the arguments in the first two pages).

So far as I'm concerned, the biggest factors are availability of uppers & ammo.  The 6.8 seems to be going "mainstream," and I suspect that it will become a deer hunting favorite for AR shooters.

As a reloader, I'm very keen to try out some of the loads that I've read about on this site.

6.5 sounds like a fine gun, but for my purposes (hunting to 300 yards) and SHTF weapon that beats the 5.56, the 6.8 would be my choice.

Around the World and Back

"6.5 sounds like a fine gun, but for my purposes (hunting to 300 yards) and SHTF weapon that beats the 5.56, the 6.8 would be my choice."

+1

I recently went from 6.8 to 6.5.  Reason?  I joined a range that has a 300 meter and 600 meter target area.  I wasn't getting the results I wanted in my 6.8.  Also for my bolt gun, I shoot a 260 Remington and can use the same bullets in both.  As for my experience....inside 300 yards or meters it really doesn't seem to matter.  They're both good cartridges.  When you stretch the range out, the 6.5 seems like the better of the two...at least TO ME!

The guys that beat their chest and scream that thier cartridge is better...well, they're just screaming hoping the one that yells the loudest is the winner.  Winner of what I'm not sure, maybe idiot of the internets???

They're both good rounds, make your choice and love it.  Me personally, I like the 45 over the 9mm but that's a whole different discussion isn't it?

I tested the new Elite Trident 77 grain bullets recently.  The first task was to see how fast they could go with what I consider to be safe pressures.  All of the loads I tested were fired from an AR Performance 20" SS barrel with properly headspaced bolt and adjustable gas block.  These features help me to avoid swipes caused by improper timing or headspace irregularities.  I used brass that was once fired in this same chamber.  After testing 6.8 for over 5 years (including using the Pressure Trace system on many barrels), I feel I  can reliably see the point at which pressure is sufficient to flatten primers or cause ejector swipes.  I back off, as should you, when these signs arise.

Here are the first photos of the Tridents.  They are obviously lathe turned and the cannelures are designed to reduce bearing surface area and friction.   The little "spud" you see on the base of the bullet is a remnant of manufacture and does not affect case capacity or performance.  These prototypes are solids / penetrators, but others may be segmented or HP / OTM.  Elite's  idea here was to attempt to make lighter, longer bullets from a material that might allow a higher BC.  I hope most of you know that I will not make a claim of the "proposed BC" in terms of a number because I am as skeptical as the rest of you, when it comes to "higher BC" claims with new .277's.   I should also say that Elite has been careful not to make claims yet because they have not tested the final design for BC.

My velocities were nothing shocking, and not any faster than those we've achieved with the 80 grain GS custom.   These bullets are very accurate but design changes will probably be made so this is a test of concept as much as anything else.

Bullets:



Loaded round....this one is 2.30"



My favorite powder choices are Reloder 7 and St. Mark's, and I expected highest velocity from these.  I got at least 100 FPS more with the St. Marks, at similar pressure levels, as has been the case with the 80 grain GS, the 85 TSX, and the 95 TTSX.  

I maxed this out at 3275, since breaking 3300 FPS required loads which gave occasional ejector swipes and flat primers.  From past experience with Pressure Trace and data from MFR's pressure barrels, that is likely to be just over 58,000 to possibly 60,000 PSI, IOW, too much.

The loads that produced 3275 had no swipes or primer flattening, no case head expansion and ejected to 3 O'clock.

Interesting, but as a hunter, I will have little use for a penetrator, even if the BC is > .400.  If there is more development and we get closer to .450 then everybody wins.


ETA:  I also fired some of these from a 16" barrel and got an average velocity of 3210 FPS.  I believe that H with AR Performance used 1680 and got 3250 from a 16" barrel.  

sexy!

Very nice!

First, thank you for your service!!

Second, making a decision upon either round based upon a magazine article and the very biased opinions, both for and against, offered here is perhaps the poorest research available.

Read multiple articles in the press, and then compare actual ballistics based upon what you will do. 300 yards barely even gets me up in the morning to shoot, its simply not very much fun. There is little challenge to shooting out to 300 yards with either cartridge (at least when no one is shooting back!) Neither one is a SHTF cartridge, because neither is readily available at out of the way places. 5.56 remains the go to for SHTF.

But stretch it to 500 or more yards and life gets interesting. Then compare the two. I want as much 'stand off" distance as I can get in the AR15, and right now, using factory ammo, that is the Grendel. BUT...those are MY criteria, and everyone should pick based upon what and how they intend to shoot!!

Once again, thanks for your service!!

Bill

These look very similar to the 110 grain 6.5 Barnes bullets. I had hoped the Barnes would be decent penetrators, but in testing on steel they didn't do any better than more traditional bullets such as Nosler BT's when fired at similar velocities.

The metal composition of these may well be different, but looks like brass or a similar alloy. Any idea how close it is to Barnes 110 grain bullets?

Barnes 110's:




They do make cool splashes on the steel though!

Bill

They are made from case brass and a good bit harder than the copper Barnes bullets but not so hard that they will harm your barrel.

Surprisingly Bill, my 6.8 projectiles don't fall into a black hole at 300 or even 500 yards. Granted, the farthest I've been able to test so far is out to 500. When the weather gets better, I will be back out at the farm to use the entire 750yds. I held less than moa out to 500 with handloaded 90TNTs with just the unmagnified Eotech, prone, laying in the grass. At 300, with a Bushnell Elite 6500 at 14X I got 1.3 inches from prone using an .50cal ammo can for front support. Groups of that size were repeatable easily, but those were my best. All were 5 shot groups, I don't shoot anything less. The 6.5 is a great round, and so far has better range, ( that advantage is shrinking),but don't discount the 6.8 so easily.

You also posted that due to availability concerns, the 6.8 is out, then you supported your choice of the 6.5 by stating standoff distances. The 6.8 is much, much easier to find, and there are many more manufacturers for it than the 6.5. Pick your point, one or the other. I don't have a problem with the 6.5, it's a great round, and whatever reasons someone chooses between the two is up to them. I do have a problem however, with misinformation, and unfortunately, most of the gun media is still stuck in 2005, using old data, without mentioning the fact that Remington screwed up the chamber and nearly killed the cartridge by continuing to make it with the wrong specs. I would like to see some of the gun rags cover that topic and compare it to what's been available for some time now, but it seems most are beholden to the advertising dollars from Remington, and don't want to bite that hand. I greatly respect Gunwritr, as he has generally been one to tell it like he sees it. He has saved me a ton of cash by avoiding equipment and weapons that were inferior. He has also been influential in draining my bank account as well. I would like to see him go to HTR's place, or up to Harrison's and spend a few days with them, and shoot what they have, including the newer things they are working on. Bring that to the light of day in the mainstream gun media.

Never said they did. Just that the 6.5 offers considerably better long range ballistics. As for a SHTF gun, I never said the Grendel was my choice for that, either, only that it offered more stand off distance. In fact, if you actually read my post, you'll note that I said NEITHER one is a good choice for that!

As for easier to find, I think that depends on where you are. I can't get 6.8 in my neck of the woods, but my local store carries Grendel. Go Figure!!

I think both are fine for the vast MAJORITY of what people do. For me, the Grendel just fills the bill better. I seldom shoot at LESS than 300 yards, and beyond 400, the Grendel simply performs better.That said, 99.9 percent, (or more!) of the rounds used in the United States are used at shorter distances, and the 6.8 does admirably there!

Bill

Those Barnes 110 bullets aren't copper,  like most of theirs are, they look very much like case brass also.They are also much harder than the typical Barnes bullets.

Bill

I've got some of those on the wish list @ Midway for when I get another order together.  Anyone done any penetration tests verses auto glass?  Other barrier substances?  Or do they perform the same as say the 123 Lapua OTM?

Great question. I haven't done any penetration with anything but steel plate.

It would be interesting how they do on auto glass and wood. I need to make a wood box for testing, just haven't got to it.

Bill

Bill, sorry for reading something into your post that wasn't there. I have become very defensive about that issue lately, because there is often just so much vitriolic rhetoric posted about it. I really like the Grendel, and it is better for long range performance once you get over 500 yards. The trajectory isn't near the issue any more, it's the wind deflection. That's changing too though with some of the newer projectiles with the higher b.c., and with the newer powders we're seeing about 100fps over the tremendous gains that the spec II chamber and better twist gave us, which was on average 200-300fps over Remington's mess. It's just that and the fact that this caliber, though tremendously popular, and growing every day, is largely ignored in its current incarnation by the shooting press. If the big advertisers don't push it, they don't seem to want to cover it. That's why I'd like to see Gunwritr do an updated review, give props to the little guys that are making things happen, and quash all of the old news and data. The performance difference between what Remington offered, and what is available today, is comparable with a race between a Fiat and a Ferrari.

    As is regards the 6.5 versus the 6.8 debate, in true Arfcom fashion, get both.

    This message was typed many hours ago but my net went down. Apologies to Brian.

Well, as a late comer to the 6.8/6.5 debate, or really just ignoring it, since I didn't really have a burning need for either...until now.  After reading all I could before my eyes began to bleed, I see a lot of comparisons on range, energy, trajectory, ammo availability, etc.....but if there is any application specific comparison regarding hunting (deer/hogs/etc), then I've missed it.  Which is the better deer/hog round from an AR to 300 yards (mostly less)?
Is the advent of the Wolf 6.5 ammo and others upping availability of the 6.5  factory loads vs. the (apparent, from what I see) dropoff in factory available 6.8 loads of any real hunting worthiness/velocity?  I'm even eyeballing the 25/223 wildcats for viability, but with Barnes TTSXs and other premium bullets, I can probably get fairly close to any .25 (and 6mm) with the 5.56.  Disect all that and shoot holes or inform me some.  Thanks.

I've got access to some hog/deer infested areas and want to use an AR some of the time....my .5.56 ARs and Winchester 64gr PPs and Barnes 55/62 grainers don't leave me brimming with confidence in 100% meat recovery.

You must be looking in the wrong spots if you think the 6.8 loads are dropping off, Nosler just released a 85gr E-tip and Hornady added a 120gr SST to their 6.8 line up, Elite has a 77 and 100gr,  PRVI says they will be loading the 6.8 this year and.....
Available factory ammo



6.8 SPC
BVAC––––––––115gr SMK
––––––––––––––––110gr Vmax
Barrett––––––-110gr HPBT
Corbon––––––110 TTSX
––––––––––––––115 SMK
––––––––––––––115 subsonic
DoubleTap––––-95gr Barnes TTSX
––––––––––––––-110 Vmax
––––––––––––––-115 FMJ
––––––––––––––-110TTSX
––––––––––––––-110 OTM
Hornady––––-110 Vmax
––––––––––––––-110 OTM
––––––––––––––-120 SST
Rem.––––––––-115 FMJ
––––––––––––––-115 HPBT
––––––––––––––115 corelokt
––––––––––––––115SMK
Sellier&Bellot-110 TTSX
––––––––––––––––-110 Vmax
SSA––––––––––––85 TSX––––––––––––SSAs loads available in Commercial and Tactical velocities
––––––––––––––––90 TNT
––––––––––––––––95 frangable
––––––––––––––––95TTSX
––––––––––––––––97 AP
––––––––––––––––100 Nosler Accubond
––––––––––––––––110 Nosler Accubond
––––––––––––––––110 Sierra Pro hunter
––––––––––––––––110 TTSX
––––––––––––––––115 SMK





Remington, Hornady and SSA  make 6.8 brass
PRI, C-products and Barrett make 6.8  mags

1)   Wow, this question could start a forest fire   Seriously, though, as someone with many hundreds of hours afield with the 6.8 (less with the Grendel), and hundreds of kills on deer and hogs, I would say neither is better than the other for this purpose.  They are so similar that the differences cannot be seen in the field, provided that you compare similar guns, shooter, range and bullet.  For example, the 95 TTSX from a 20" 6.8, versus the 100 TTSX from  a 20" Grendel, would be virtually indistinguishable.  Yes, the 6.8 can achieve more velocity with shorter barrels, but I hunt deer with a 20" 6.8 and given the many kills I have watched with clients shooting the Grendel, I don't think there's enough difference to matter.

2)  Once again, there is plenty of good ammo for both calibers.  I totally disagree with the assertion that 6.8 factory ammo is somehow less available.  We have 4 new bullets for the 6.8 in the last year (120 Hornady SST, 95 Barnes TTSX, 85 grain Nosler E-tip, and the 77 grain Elite Trident), and SSA just released another new, less expensive 115 OTM round in the last month.  If you can't find a good bullet and load for the 6.8 or the Grendel, then you must be shooting 5.56

I have been on this thread for a long time, and the debate is completely moot, IMHO.  These two are similar, both are far superior to 5.56, and while they do have their individual +'s and -'s, as regards hunting < 300 yards, they are essentially the same.


ETA: Hey Tim!  How are you doing?     You and I posted :20 seconds apart

Actually, thanks for all of that...it was just my perception of popularity over the last year vs factory loads coming along for the grendel....but I don't care which one is 'better' from an argumentative standpoint....I just want to be able to buy rounds off the shelf (for now) that'll smoke deer/hogs out to 300 yards, with most stuff being under 150 yards....from that standpoint, there has to be a winner for off the shelf, hunting loads, and you are leaving me to assume that it's the 6.8??..but then again, is that spec I, spec II, DMR loads on the shelf  for the 6.8, or are 90% of them spec I loads, and are those as effective as the others or 6.5 stuff for critters?  I'll load for either choice, down the road, but I'm initially concerned with practical availability and pricing for hunting rounds, etc.  I'm not trying to inflame one vs. the other, other than to see any practical differences.  Your experience says there isn't, so the only question is does handloading quantify it, or are factory loads available for similar performance in each?  

As an avid Grendel guy, I have to agree with the two posts above. (Boy, that might be a first! LOL!) Ammo for both is becoming more readily available, though there are pockets of the country where one or the other might not be real easily available in stores.

For hunting inside 300 yards, where the VAST majority of pigs and deer are killed in the US, the two are close twins, maybe not identical, but so close only their mothers can tell them apart!

The new bullets for each caliber are so good that there really isn't a hairs breadth difference.

Beyond 400 yards, where maybe 1% or less of the game is taken in the US, the Grendel holds an edge, but out to 600 yards its still slim. Anyone hunting with either caliber beyond 600 is not doing justice to the game, unless they are shooting only varmints and prairie dogs, where any hit is probably fatal, at that range the better ballistics of the Grendel bullets win out.

So if there is a chance you are going long for varmints, then the Grendel wins, but inside 400 yards, they both do the job, and there isn't a whisker to separate them.

Bill

Based on off the shelf loads, they still are close. Walking into most stores will leave you wanting for either. Most stores will carry 1 or 2 Grendel loads, and the same for the 6.8. Online you can find plenty of both.

Although you will see lots of possible loads for both, and they are factory listed, finding those loads on the shelf will be tough.

Pick a load you want to use, and the TTX loads work great for both, and check around. See if they are readily available in your area. My bet is that you'll have to go online to find either. You'll find the Hornady load for the Grendel, and a few others for the 6.8, but I've never seen more than 2 Grendel loads in a store, and never seen more than 3 6.8 loads anywhere, either.

These really are a reloaders paradise, with quite a few online possibilities, but not much in the stores.

Bill

I found Wolf 6.5 and Hornady 6.5 at my local Cabela's and my local gun store.  They also both have some 6.8 on the shelves....I agree, if you want to shoot either.....invest in reloading preferably.

I really like my 65G(and would like to own a 6.8 down the road too!), but in true ARFCOM fantasy-land, when the "Fecal Matter Hits the Oscillator", I go to my 5.56 rifles.

True ARFcom fashion is to buy both...

And then I got a .458 SOCOM and a couple .308 rifles to boot.

Maybe that's BRD!  

Can someone in the know post the ballistics to 800meters out of 20" barrels for BOTH the 6.5G/264LBC with Barnes 100TTSX (.264) and the 6.8SPCII with Barnes 95TTSX (.277)?

Thanks!

The 6.5 will have much better ballistics at 800 meters, especially out of a 20" barrel. The 6.8 was designed to be used in short barrels, so you really don't gain much speed going to a 20" barrel. There really isn't a comparison between the two at that distance because the 6.5 wins hands down.

Wilson Combat now offers 6.8 ammo loaded for Spec II. IIRC, the 95gr TTSX load's MV is ~2850 fps.

FWIW, I shoot both cartridges. Like 'em both too. I like the 6.5 for extended distances, and like the 6.8 for its performance from shorter barrels.

why? you cant ethically make a kill with either round at those distances, people have used both rifles to hit steels and such out that far. Yes the 65 will beat the 68 at that distance but if your planning on shooting 800-1K all the time move up to the 308 platform.

I have several 68's and for inside of 400 yards (which is double what I have ever shot an animal at) it will do everything I could ask of it.

Thanks for your opinion, but I read this entire thread and I already have heard it.  

I don't want opinions, I already have those.  I need to see objectively comparative ballistics tables, which are sorely absent from this thread.  Same manufacturer and type of bullets, near same weight, same barrel lengths, max load of the same powder if possible (say TAC).  If you don't have 20" data, post 18" data.  If you don't have 18" data, post 16" data.  if you had data for all these barrel lengths, that would be best.  

Someone who has these tables, please post them here, as it is relevant to comparing these two rounds as the topic of the OP states above.
Otherwise, this thread is what most 6.8/6.5 comparison threads are, defensive and complimentary opinions based on what may be empirical evidence, but may just as well be online hearsay or anecdote.