Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page AR-15 » AR Variants
AR Sponsor: bravocompany
Site Notices
Page / 5
Link Posted: 9/25/2011 6:17:44 PM EST
[#1]
It is PRIs delta handgurad and I LOVE IT... except for the whole handguard rail and receiver rail not being on the same plane. That can be a deal breaker for many, but there are ways around that issue

I need to do a detailed photo thread on it because there aren't many pics out there, maybe tomorrow
Link Posted: 9/25/2011 6:21:24 PM EST
[#2]
Quoted:
This thread needs more Grendel pics
http://i957.photobucket.com/albums/ae52/762RUM/ec1b7f62.jpg

OP, while Les Baer's pistols are works of art I don't think all that is nessacery for an accurate AR.
The one I built above consistantly shoots .5 MOA groups, with my personal 123A-Max handloads. There is a lot of hate for the Grendel for some reason on this site, I don't know why because it's a HELL of a round.


Nice rig RUM!  Hey, what hand guard is that your Grendel is wearing?  I am not familiar with the triangular hand guards like yours, all I see are round or full of rails.  Also, is RUM a reference to a series of large overbore rifle calibers or your preference for alcoholic beverage ?  Just kidding.

Bill A,  While we are talking about Grendels (I do have one BTW) what has happened to the magazine supply situation since C-products is no longer around (that I know of)?  I do have a few mags and would like to get a few more.  A PMAG (or something similar would be nice).  Hope to buy some of that steel cased Wolf ammo when it finally gets here.

I did like your explanation of the throat/chamber issue in relation to the 6.4x55, etc.  That could be why my Swedish chambered Encore (aftermarket barrel) doesn't shoot as good as my old M96 Mauser and I have bent extractors in that thing trying to get that brass out of the "match chamber".  Guess you don't really need the tight chamber if the throat is done properly.

Thanks,

Indy
Link Posted: 9/25/2011 6:34:30 PM EST
[#3]
Quoted:
Nice rig RUM!  Hey, what hand guard is that your Grendel is wearing?  I am not familiar with the triangular hand guards like yours, all I see are round or full of rails.  Also, is RUM a reference to a series of large overbore rifle calibers or your preference for alcoholic beverage ?  Just kidding.

Bill A,  While we are talking about Grendels (I do have one BTW) what has happened to the magazine supply situation since C-products is no longer around (that I know of)?  I do have a few mags and would like to get a few more.  A PMAG (or something similar would be nice).  Hope to buy some of that steel cased Wolf ammo when it finally gets here.
I did like your explanation of the throat/chamber issue in relation to the 6.4x55, etc.  That could be why my Swedish chambered Encore (aftermarket barrel) doesn't shoot as good as my old M96 Mauser and I have bent extractors in that thing trying to get that brass out of the "match chamber".  Guess you don't really need the tight chamber if the throat is done properly.

Thanks,

Indy



The handguard is a PRI Delta, and yes RUM is a reference to a series of grossly overbore carttridges.

A 300RUM to be exact.......


Sorry OP, I didnt mean to thread jack

Link Posted: 9/26/2011 6:04:07 AM EST
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is a lot of hate for the Grendel for some reason on this site, I don't know why because it's a HELL of a round.


The issue is not "if" is a good round, it certainley is a good one, not the answer to all problems though. The issue is the person pushing it and their practices.


That may very well be the case, if you have some info that supports that I would like to see it, I have always been skeptical of AA. However I think ALOT of this is Internet here say. There is alot of butt hurt on this site to ,I get all butt hurt when the 6.8 fan boys come out in every 6.5 thread and try to disprove the laws of physics.

Sometimes in life we need to stop acting like little girls and take a good objective look at things ,for ms it breaks down like this

6.5/ common parent case, wide bullet selection, inherently efficent bullets and case design, excellent  ballistics and energy retention

6.8/ uncommon parent case, limited bullet selection, efficient case design but inefficient bullets, excellent termintal ballistics but it bleeds off energy and velocity too fast

That's about it ,I despise the 5.56 and the Grendel is everything I've wanted in a multipurpose round in a great  multipurpose rifle, and for good or bad AA brought it to market and I have the rifle I want.
Link Posted: 9/26/2011 7:22:09 AM EST
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is a lot of hate for the Grendel for some reason on this site, I don't know why because it's a HELL of a round.


The issue is not "if" is a good round, it certainley is a good one, not the answer to all problems though. The issue is the person pushing it and their practices.


This is still a tech forum, if its a business issue, it simply doesn't belong in a tech forum.

This is a tech forum, and should be treated as such, leave the personal feelings and hearsay at the door.

If its a tech issue, show us the reasons, using actual empirical data, for your statements.



Link Posted: 9/26/2011 12:13:05 PM EST
[#6]
Link Posted: 9/26/2011 2:01:49 PM EST
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is a lot of hate for the Grendel for some reason on this site, I don't know why because it's a HELL of a round.


The issue is not "if" is a good round, it certainley is a good one, not the answer to all problems though. The issue is the person pushing it and their practices.


That may very well be the case, if you have some info that supports that I would like to see it, I have always been skeptical of AA. However I think ALOT of this is Internet here say. There is alot of butt hurt on this site to ,I get all butt hurt when the 6.8 fan boys come out in every 6.5 thread and try to disprove the laws of physics.

Sometimes in life we need to stop acting like little girls and take a good objective look at things ,for ms it breaks down like this

6.5/ common parent case, wide bullet selection, inherently efficent bullets and case design, excellent  ballistics and energy retention

6.8/ uncommon parent case, limited bullet selection, efficient case design but inefficient bullets, excellent termintal ballistics but it bleeds off energy and velocity too fast

That's about it ,I despise the 5.56 and the Grendel is everything I've wanted in a multipurpose round in a great  multipurpose rifle, and for good or bad AA brought it to market and I have the rifle I want.




So this has now moved to a 6.5g vs. the 6.8? No problem, I can call your bluff and keep it technical. You like the 6.5, cool, didn't say I hated it, just expressed my opinion on the person behind it and the problems associated with that.

The uncommon 6.8 case? Nope, won't walk into the local wally world and pick up some 6.8 brass, you won't find any 6.5 either. Now, if I take my computer's mouse and go on over to MidwayUSA.com, I will find 3 different brands of 6.8 to choose from. Ummmm, 3 brands of 6.5G, with AA being the highest. Good thing I reload the cheaper 6.8.

Limited 6.8 bullets? How about 30+ to choose from?

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/68bullets34am.JPG

I believe you will find many in that lineup that are more than "efficent". If you don't believe that, you might want to talk to the guys who shoot the 6.8. It can ring steel at 1K just as the 6.5G. Energy is the 6.8's game, its testing on the battle field and with hunting has proven that.

While I believe the 6.5G has somewhat of an advantage at punching paper past 500yds, the 6.8 is more of a all around better choice. If you payed any attention to the advancement of the 6.8, you will see it has risen leaps and bounds from it's first appearance. Remington screwed it up and almost killed it, good thing other people knew what they were doing and allowed it to be what it should have been. Now I see AA doing the same towards the G as Remy did with the 6.8. Not so much as getting the specs wrong, just not having the right person to steer it in the right direction. Hopefully the G will overcome the hurdle and keep trucking. However with new rounds such as the .264LB, the G's future isn't looking good. It will be up to the diehard AA fans, if he can keep them.
Link Posted: 9/26/2011 2:02:55 PM EST
[#8]
Saturn and MidwayUSA's in house brand, AR-Stoner.  I don't exactly know the relationship between Saturn and Liberty but they also no longer carry Grendel or Beowulf but now have the lbc in their line up.  There's three that I know of for sure but thought there was at least one more


Just to clear this up....Satern and Liberty use the same address, so it would appear they are the same company. AR-Stoner appears to be a Midway house brand of Liberty. So essentially, one company, not three.

Link Posted: 9/26/2011 2:06:16 PM EST
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is a lot of hate for the Grendel for some reason on this site, I don't know why because it's a HELL of a round.


The issue is not "if" is a good round, it certainley is a good one, not the answer to all problems though. The issue is the person pushing it and their practices.


This is still a tech forum, if its a business issue, it simply doesn't belong in a tech forum.

This is a tech forum, and should be treated as such, leave the personal feelings and hearsay at the door.

If its a tech issue, show us the reasons, using actual empirical data, for your statements.





Let me know when we can't express our opinion. No personal fellings or hearsay involved. The discussion is technical and will stay that way.

Link Posted: 9/26/2011 2:07:49 PM EST
[#10]
Quoted:
Saturn and MidwayUSA's in house brand, AR-Stoner.  I don't exactly know the relationship between Saturn and Liberty but they also no longer carry Grendel or Beowulf but now have the lbc in their line up.  There's three that I know of for sure but thought there was at least one more


Just to clear this up....Satern and Liberty use the same address, so it would appear they are the same company. AR-Stoner appears to be a Midway house brand of Liberty. So essentially, one company, not three.



1 company but the G lost 3 different barrels to choose from? Even though 1 is less than 3, does that make the loss better?
Link Posted: 9/26/2011 6:33:53 PM EST
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is a lot of hate for the Grendel for some reason on this site, I don't know why because it's a HELL of a round.


The issue is not "if" is a good round, it certainley is a good one, not the answer to all problems though. The issue is the person pushing it and their practices.


This is still a tech forum, if its a business issue, it simply doesn't belong in a tech forum.

This is a tech forum, and should be treated as such, leave the personal feelings and hearsay at the door.

If its a tech issue, show us the reasons, using actual empirical data, for your statements.





The statements have everything to do with a tech forum.  The drama that we're watching play out with no explanation from the source is making a lot of us reconsider whether to purchase a Grendel or .264 LBC.  IMHO the current and future status of the Grendel will have everything to do with sourcing those pesky little details like brass.  Which sucks since I for one think the Grendel cartridge is superior.  I'll be taking delivery of a Grendel barrel from AA tomorrow if delivery is on schedule, but I'm planning to purchase another before the year is out and I'm looking very hard at the .264.  I for one may be finding out if the Hornady Grendel brass will function in the .264 chamber very soon.  My plan was always to assemble something short for hunting in Michigan and something longer for bench use.  

Link Posted: 9/26/2011 7:37:23 PM EST
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is a lot of hate for the Grendel for some reason on this site, I don't know why because it's a HELL of a round.


The issue is not "if" is a good round, it certainley is a good one, not the answer to all problems though. The issue is the person pushing it and their practices.


This is still a tech forum, if its a business issue, it simply doesn't belong in a tech forum.

This is a tech forum, and should be treated as such, leave the personal feelings and hearsay at the door.

If its a tech issue, show us the reasons, using actual empirical data, for your statements.





The statements have everything to do with a tech forum.  The drama that we're watching play out with no explanation from the source is making a lot of us reconsider whether to purchase a Grendel or .264 LBC.  IMHO the current and future status of the Grendel will have everything to do with sourcing those pesky little details like brass.  Which sucks since I for one think the Grendel cartridge is superior.  I'll be taking delivery of a Grendel barrel from AA tomorrow if delivery is on schedule, but I'm planning to purchase another before the year is out and I'm looking very hard at the .264.  I for one may be finding out if the Hornady Grendel brass will function in the .264 chamber very soon.  My plan was always to assemble something short for hunting in Michigan and something longer for bench use.  



The drama you are watching play out is basically limited to two trolls who basically only post in Grendel threads.
The one with the very low post count is likely a banned member with a different account. Don't lose sight of that.

The Grendel is not going away. Period. Brass is readily available. It is also easily made from 7.62x39mm cases. Midway
has brass in stock right now. AA has posted they have an announcement coming shortly regarding ammunition.
Enjoy your Grendel build and post how it performs. If you decide to buy a .264 LBC, I'm sure you will be quite pleased
with that as well. Les builds a great rifle, but you have far fewer options.
Link Posted: 9/26/2011 8:02:44 PM EST
[#13]
Quoted:
Now I see AA doing the same towards the G as Remy did with the 6.8. Not so much as getting the specs wrong, just not having the right person to steer it in the right direction. Hopefully the G will overcome the hurdle and keep trucking. However with new rounds such as the .264LB, the G's future isn't looking good. It will be up to the diehard AA fans, if he can keep them.


The Grendel has been around for almost 8 years, and continues to grow in popularity.
I have seen many cartridge introductions in recent years, and from 'the big players' in the industry.
Many of them have already faded away, or just linger along. The Grendel though has continued to
grow despite being introduced by a small unknown company. The person behind it obviously IS the
right person as not only does the cartridge still exist, but it has even gone through SAAMI. Its being
produced both domestically and abroad.

The .264 LBC is not a 'new round'. It's a 6.5mm Grendel with a different headstamp. Do you know
how small Black Hills yearly run of .264 LBC ammo is? How long will LBC continue to support the cartridge?
That is a better question.

Everyone knows all it will take is the introduction of inexpensive steel case Grendel ammo to end conversations like
this for good. Then you will need to come up with something else to gripe about....

Enjoy your 6.8, its a great round.
Enjoy your Grendel, its a great round too.
Neither are going away any time soon, and both seem to continue to get better.
Link Posted: 9/26/2011 8:44:21 PM EST
[#14]
Quoted:
The drama you are watching play out is basically limited to two trolls who basically only post in Grendel threads.
The one with the very low post count is likely a banned member with a different account. Don't lose sight of that.


Maybe you should practice what you preach, neither of your statements have anything tech related in them. This is a Les Baer thread also, if you will notice the title.
Link Posted: 9/27/2011 4:48:35 AM EST
[#15]
Gunwritr I don't know who the trolls are that you mention.  But I do know what I'm watching happen in the barrel market, and a little simple math tells me more suppliers are picking up the .264 LBC then the Grendel.  Actually from where I'm standing some of the markets finest barrel suppliers are dropping AA like a bad habit.  Personally I'm real interested in why?  We can only speculate that its AA themselves causing this since no one seems to want to talk about whats really happening.  All speculation aside, I can tell you from a business stand point AA is not sending out the right message right now.
Link Posted: 9/27/2011 7:44:36 AM EST
[#16]
Quoted:
Gunwritr I don't know who the trolls are that you mention.  But I do know what I'm watching happen in the barrel market, and a little simple math tells me more suppliers are picking up the .264 LBC then the Grendel.  Actually from where I'm standing some of the markets finest barrel suppliers are dropping AA like a bad habit.  Personally I'm real interested in why?  We can only speculate that its AA themselves causing this since no one seems to want to talk about whats really happening.  All speculation aside, I can tell you from a business stand point AA is not sending out the right message right now.


I second this, I'm not a troll, I'm just planning on building a 6.5/264 in the near future (I'm actually just trying to decide what barrel/bolt I want, everything else is ready to go) and when I hear companies are having problems complying with a license agreement that they have had for almost as long as a cartridge has been 'mainstream' it concerns me.  Sorry if this makes me a troll but again I have to agree with harleyrkc, more and more companies are using the lbc chamber rather than the AA chamber.  You can't tell me you honestly think it is just by chance.  AA is on the forum telling us using their trademark has no fees, its easy etc etc but then gun magazine and online bulletins explain how big of a pain it has been for companies like Saturn to use the AA chamber specs.  IMHO the truth lies somewhere between the two statements, but again this is just speculation and that's why I'm asking.  No real answer has been given though so consumers like me will continue to speculate and if you or AA don't think that matters look at the stock market, negative speculation is a very powerful thing.
Link Posted: 9/27/2011 8:25:07 AM EST
[#17]
Link Posted: 9/27/2011 8:51:31 AM EST
[#18]
Barrel makers will chamber whatever you want chambered. Obtaining a license to chamber the actual Grendel chamber simply requires that you contact AA and go through the licensing process, and many have done so.

Some barrel makers and gunsmiths prefer to use only open source reamers, that is their prerogative.

The Grendel chamber was designed specifically as an AR chamber, with the purpose of allowing virtually any reasonable 6.5 bullet to be used and to be accurate. Thousands of hours and thousands of rounds were expended to arrive at a chamber that was both accurate and forgiving.

Les Baer builds very good rifles, but his chamber was designed with ultimate accuracy using a single bullet. That's why the only load he offers has that bullet.

There are enough differences that some Grendel ammo will load just fine in an LBC chamber, but no one has pressure tested that ammo in the LBC chamber to my knowledge. On the other hand, some Grendel ammo MAY NOT do so, witness the issues with Hornady ammo when it came out.

As Mr. Alexander says,  "This configuration was amongst those originally tested and when applied in a high end barrel can, by careful component selection, provide excellent accuracy. In our tests in several hundreds of barrels the chamber was not a robust solution for a production gun that might not sport a hand selected cut rifled barrel. Being part of the very early tests we also did not take the time to thoroughly match the chamber to the case dimensions. This has shown up to some extent with the rash of these clone chambers that would not accept the Hornady Grendel ammunition and brass. Problems ranged from interferance at the neck shoulder junction to headspacing on the case mouth."

I should address the accuracy issue, also. I have shot MANY .25 MOA groups, and in fact the very FIRST group I shot after receiving my 28" Grendel is pictured below. That's a 5 shot group. Undoubtedly the Les Baer rifles can shoot, but the Grendel chamber is no slouch, and shoots awfully well itself!

Link Posted: 9/27/2011 10:00:36 AM EST
[#19]
Quoted:
There is a lot more to the Grendel than a  couple of disgruntled vendors. Note that despite the noise created we have now probably better cut rifled barrels, which we can actually get and which we do not have reject. Our button barrels are shooting tighter than anything we have ever had previously and we are adding a line of chrome lined CHF barrels. In examining what is happening it is easy to do the math based upon a few vocal individuals who wish to indicate turmoil as a nice calm ongoing production does not make good reading on the internet.

Magazines need to be created, we are putting together the new D&H Grendel magazines. If everything is so rosy let me see all those LBC/CSS/Sporter/SAOD mags that they worked on so diligently. Where is the Lapau brass or the Wolf brass in LBC/CSS/Sporter/SAOD. Who is putting together all the tech data to bring in the new economy ammunition and what will it say on the head stamp, oh wait yet again that is Alexander Arms, who will probably end up picking up yet another tooling bill so that this all happens. From my perspective everything else is nothing more than parasitic attempts to do exactly what we tried to avoid with the Grendel. To grow any cartridge needs a single standard. Do you think that the big manufacturers of either rifles or ammunition will decide to get involved if there are dozens of chamber types and loads that border on dangerous. No! the market guys and the lawyers will simply look and say "too much mess, too much liability", keep running 5.56. The Grendel has reached this stage because initially we would not just fall in line and make 6.8SPC. We would not let anything that was vaguely based off the cartridge be called a Grendel regardless of what it was or even if it was safe. We would not let certain individuals build and publish loading data as Grendel despite the fact that some of the pressures exceeded the proof loads. We made sure that loading dies and loading information was available. We worked to build magazines, we rejected out of specification parts, we perfected the bolts and made sure that all the big manufacturers had access to the prints so that these were safe for anyone buying them and finally we upset and pissed off anyone who thought they would redirect the process for their own short term gains.

Yes we will make a little money but we could probably do as well making 5.56 and not have all the headaches. We did Grendel because it is too good to be screwed over by idiots who do not care about this industry and place money/ego before technical excellence. The cartridge is too good to be allowed to die and brings too much to the AR shooter. I never want to see the place where there is no Grendel ammunition or you have to start asking which brands fit the actual chamber in the gun you have. Everything should fit everything and be safe. I cannot stop people making stuff that is wrong, does not work, or is potentially hazardous to life but I can sure as hell make sure that it does not say Grendel on it so at least the customer knows. It might also come as a surprise but I do not want to see the 6.8 fail either or the 300 AAC. They are all additions and bring diversity to an otherwise stale market.

In respect to the rest of the market one should note that Grendel has now passed SAAMI. The burden of safety now passes to them. There are some very significant changes looming in the near future which I think will please most people.



The only reason I'm concerned is because every time I turn around it seems that another company is making barrels chambered in something other than the Grendel and lately its all been the LBC.

I would think SAAMI is your hurdle with the big manufactures.  Look at the 6.8.  SAAMI has only approved 6.8 not SPC II but there are still several big names producing 6.8 SPC even though there are differences and other 6.8 chambers (SPC II, 6.8x43 etc).  If the Grendel cartridge would have been brought to SAAMI earlier would that not have solved the clone issue if it truly is the best chamber (I'm not questioning whether it is or not).  Again looking at the 6.8, we have the SPC II and the x43 from Harrison because the original specs were not the best but companies er on the side of safety and chamber the SAAMI approved specs.

Is the delay of sending the cartridge for SAAMI approval because AA is not a member therefore the cartridge had to have someone take it through the approval process (enter Hornady)?  Even though SAAMI has approved the cartridge it still isn't a SAAMI cartridge though right?  I guess I should ask what does having their approval on the technical aspect really do if the chamber can't be published?  Also, even when it does get published non-SAAMI members could still chamber whatever the heck they wanted just like they do with the 6.8 right?  SAAMI is very confusing you guys and your legal team must be having a heyday!
Link Posted: 9/27/2011 10:39:19 AM EST
[#20]
Quoted:

The only reason I'm concerned is because every time I turn around it seems that another company is making barrels chambered in something other than the Grendel and lately its all been the LBC.

I would think SAAMI is your hurdle with the big manufactures.  Look at the 6.8.  SAAMI has only approved 6.8 not SPC II but there are still several big names producing 6.8 SPC even though there are differences and other 6.8 chambers (SPC II, 6.8x43 etc).  If the Grendel cartridge would have been brought to SAAMI earlier would that not have solved the clone issue if it truly is the best chamber (I'm not questioning whether it is or not).  Again looking at the 6.8, we have the SPC II and the x43 from Harrison because the original specs were not the best but companies er on the side of safety and chamber the SAAMI approved specs.

Is the delay of sending the cartridge for SAAMI approval because AA is not a member therefore the cartridge had to have someone take it through the approval process (enter Hornady)?  Even though SAAMI has approved the cartridge it still isn't a SAAMI cartridge though right?  I guess I should ask what does having their approval on the technical aspect really do if the chamber can't be published?  Also, even when it does get published non-SAAMI members could still chamber whatever the heck they wanted just like they do with the 6.8 right?  SAAMI is very confusing you guys and your legal team must be having a heyday!


Very good questions.
Alexander Arms has stated they will be making a number of official announcements at an Industry writer event Oct 5th.
So we all need to be patient for a few more days.
It appears to be big news which will greatly benefit shooters and will answer all your questions and more.
But they are waiting for the industry event to do it.
Tom at the Military Arms Channel will be there, so he will likely be the first to break the news.....unless I beat him to it.......
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 2:12:37 AM EST
[#21]
What new barrel companies are making the LBC?
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 6:19:08 AM EST
[#22]
Quoted:
What new barrel companies are making the LBC?


Black Hole Weaponry
Kies Firearms
SI Defense
SAC
D9 Firearms

As well as those previously mentioned
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 7:04:38 AM EST
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
What new barrel companies are making the LBC?


Black Hole Weaponry
Kies Firearms
SI Defense
SAC
D9 Firearms

As well as those previously mentioned


How many of those actually make barrels as per his question?
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 7:39:35 AM EST
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is a lot of hate for the Grendel for some reason on this site, I don't know why because it's a HELL of a round.


The issue is not "if" is a good round, it certainley is a good one, not the answer to all problems though. The issue is the person pushing it and their practices.


This is still a tech forum, if its a business issue, it simply doesn't belong in a tech forum.

This is a tech forum, and should be treated as such, leave the personal feelings and hearsay at the door.

If its a tech issue, show us the reasons, using actual empirical data, for your statements.





The statements have everything to do with a tech forum.  The drama that we're watching play out with no explanation from the source is making a lot of us reconsider whether to purchase a Grendel or .264 LBC.  IMHO the current and future status of the Grendel will have everything to do with sourcing those pesky little details like brass.  Which sucks since I for one think the Grendel cartridge is superior.  I'll be taking delivery of a Grendel barrel from AA tomorrow if delivery is on schedule, but I'm planning to purchase another before the year is out and I'm looking very hard at the .264.  I for one may be finding out if the Hornady Grendel brass will function in the .264 chamber very soon.  My plan was always to assemble something short for hunting in Michigan and something longer for bench use.  



The drama you are watching play out is basically limited to two trolls who basically only post in Grendel threads.
The one with the very low post count is likely a banned member with a different account. Don't lose sight of that.

The Grendel is not going away. Period. Brass is readily available. It is also easily made from 7.62x39mm cases. Midway
has brass in stock right now. AA has posted they have an announcement coming shortly regarding ammunition.
Enjoy your Grendel build and post how it performs. If you decide to buy a .264 LBC, I'm sure you will be quite pleased
with that as well. Les builds a great rifle, but you have far fewer options.


Just as another poster has said, This is technical how?  I resent you calling me a Troll.  I think you should do some research and you'll find that Bill Alexander use to post under the name of Trestle ( may have the spelling wrong) and was banned.  Now he's back under another name. If I'm considered a Troll against AA, you can be considered a Troll pro AA.

Administrators:  please forgive the non technical post here, but for a supposedly famous gunwriter to make slurs and name calling is unwarranted.

Now to make this technical now that the 6.5 Grendel is SAAMI how will this help their sales?  SAAMI means that now anyone can make a 6.5 Grendel barrel and stamp it such.  So instead of, for example, the 6.5 CSS barrel now can legally be stamped 6.5 Grendel.  This means that a customer will choose a 6.5 Grendel of his manufacture choice and price right and still obtain a rifle with an original 6.5 Grendel chamber.  

Link Posted: 9/28/2011 7:50:29 AM EST
[#25]

Now to make this technical now that the 6.5 Grendel is SAAMI how will this help their sales?  SAAMI means that now anyone can make a 6.5 Grendel barrel and stamp it such.  So instead of, for example, the 6.5 CSS barrel now can legally be stamped 6.5 Grendel.  This means that a customer will choose a 6.5 Grendel of his manufacture choice and price right and still obtain a rifle with an original 6.5 Grendel chamber.  


Unless CSS has changed their barrels, their barrel will still be a 6.5 CSS, because the neck is a different dimension than the Grendel neck as accepted by SAAMI, correct?

As I understand it, once approved by SAAMI, the design is standardized. Anyone else using the design, who doesn't comply with the SAAMI drawings, is not actually producing the named chamber.

SAAMI standardizes the cartridge and chamber, so that everyone is using the same dimensions.

Link Posted: 9/28/2011 7:52:55 AM EST
[#26]
Quoted:
I resent you calling me a Troll.




Link Posted: 9/28/2011 7:56:11 AM EST
[#27]
Quoted:
now that the 6.5 Grendel is SAAMI how will this help their sales?  SAAMI means that now anyone can make a 6.5 Grendel barrel and stamp it such.



Hmmmmm.............OH SNAP........that would mean they aren't the greedy bastages like a vocal few have claimed.....

Link Posted: 9/28/2011 8:08:31 AM EST
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I resent you calling me a Troll.






Thanks for that inciteful technical post Gunwritr.  I see we have a new standard set technical posts.
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 8:14:29 AM EST
[#29]
Quoted:

Now to make this technical now that the 6.5 Grendel is SAAMI how will this help their sales?  SAAMI means that now anyone can make a 6.5 Grendel barrel and stamp it such.  So instead of, for example, the 6.5 CSS barrel now can legally be stamped 6.5 Grendel.  This means that a customer will choose a 6.5 Grendel of his manufacture choice and price right and still obtain a rifle with an original 6.5 Grendel chamber.  


Unless CSS has changed their barrels, their barrel will still be a 6.5 CSS, because the neck is a different dimension than the Grendel neck as accepted by SAAMI, correct?

As I understand it, once approved by SAAMI, the design is standardized. Anyone else using the design, who doesn't comply with the SAAMI drawings, is not actually producing the named chamber.

SAAMI standardizes the cartridge and chamber, so that everyone is using the same dimensions.



Well is the point....standardization.  SAAM standardizes the cartridge dimensions along with the chamber dimensions. So I would expect CSS to change their chamber in order to stamp the barrel 6.5 Grendel.  What is so hard to understand about that?  Being SAAMI now anyone can produce it.  They'll of course have to get the reamer and I would imagine that too will be standardized.  What I was trying to say is take the 7mm Remington Magnum when Remington came out with it. Because it became SAAMI any manufacture could make it.  That means for example if Winchester or Savage was your preference you could buy those. Same for when Winchester came out with the 243 Winchester, you could get it in any brand.  

Link Posted: 9/28/2011 8:36:11 AM EST
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:

Now to make this technical now that the 6.5 Grendel is SAAMI how will this help their sales?  SAAMI means that now anyone can make a 6.5 Grendel barrel and stamp it such.  So instead of, for example, the 6.5 CSS barrel now can legally be stamped 6.5 Grendel.  This means that a customer will choose a 6.5 Grendel of his manufacture choice and price right and still obtain a rifle with an original 6.5 Grendel chamber.  


Unless CSS has changed their barrels, their barrel will still be a 6.5 CSS, because the neck is a different dimension than the Grendel neck as accepted by SAAMI, correct?

As I understand it, once approved by SAAMI, the design is standardized. Anyone else using the design, who doesn't comply with the SAAMI drawings, is not actually producing the named chamber.

SAAMI standardizes the cartridge and chamber, so that everyone is using the same dimensions.



Well is the point....standardization.  SAAM standardizes the cartridge dimensions along with the chamber dimensions. So I would expect CSS to change their chamber in order to stamp the barrel 6.5 Grendel.  What is so hard to understand about that?  Being SAAMI now anyone can produce it.  They'll of course have to get the reamer and I would imagine that too will be standardized.  What I was trying to say is take the 7mm Remington Magnum when Remington came out with it. Because it became SAAMI any manufacture could make it.  That means for example if Winchester or Savage was your preference you could buy those. Same for when Winchester came out with the 243 Winchester, you could get it in any brand.  



If that is what happens, then yes that is what it would mean.
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 8:48:59 AM EST
[#31]
Well is the point....standardization.  SAAM standardizes the cartridge dimensions along with the chamber dimensions. So I would expect CSS to change their chamber in order to stamp the barrel 6.5 Grendel.  What is so hard to understand about that?  Being SAAMI now anyone can produce it.  They'll of course have to get the reamer and I would imagine that too will be standardized.  What I was trying to say is take the 7mm Remington Magnum when Remington came out with it. Because it became SAAMI any manufacture could make it.  That means for example if Winchester or Savage was your preference you could buy those. Same for when Winchester came out with the 243 Winchester, you could get it in any brand.  



Which was Bill Alexanders intent all along. Without the ability to get SAAMI standardization until a member stepped up and took it to SAAMI, the only way to maintain that standardization was to require a license and ensure that the licensee followed the specifications he required.

Without that, we would have no Lapua brass, no Hornady brass, no Wolf ammo, no mags, and none of the other specific to Grendel parts. The market simply wouldn't have supported it.

If you don't concede that, I would ask: Where is the LBC brass? How about the LBC mags? Or the CSS brass or Mags? Of the 6.5 Sporter brass and mags? Without Bill Alexander sheparding this through the way he has, none of those barrels and uppers could even exist!

From all I can tell, Bill Alexander did what had to be done for a small company to make a new design become commonplace, and now that it may have reached critical mass, is doing what needs to be done to carry it forward to even wider acceptance.
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 8:49:12 AM EST
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Now to make this technical now that the 6.5 Grendel is SAAMI how will this help their sales?  SAAMI means that now anyone can make a 6.5 Grendel barrel and stamp it such.  So instead of, for example, the 6.5 CSS barrel now can legally be stamped 6.5 Grendel.  This means that a customer will choose a 6.5 Grendel of his manufacture choice and price right and still obtain a rifle with an original 6.5 Grendel chamber.  


Unless CSS has changed their barrels, their barrel will still be a 6.5 CSS, because the neck is a different dimension than the Grendel neck as accepted by SAAMI, correct?

As I understand it, once approved by SAAMI, the design is standardized. Anyone else using the design, who doesn't comply with the SAAMI drawings, is not actually producing the named chamber.

SAAMI standardizes the cartridge and chamber, so that everyone is using the same dimensions.



Well is the point....standardization.  SAAM standardizes the cartridge dimensions along with the chamber dimensions. So I would expect CSS to change their chamber in order to stamp the barrel 6.5 Grendel.  What is so hard to understand about that?  Being SAAMI now anyone can produce it.  They'll of course have to get the reamer and I would imagine that too will be standardized.  What I was trying to say is take the 7mm Remington Magnum when Remington came out with it. Because it became SAAMI any manufacture could make it.  That means for example if Winchester or Savage was your preference you could buy those. Same for when Winchester came out with the 243 Winchester, you could get it in any brand.  



If that is what happens, then yes that is what it would mean.


Was that post an echo David?   Anyone can make it and in order to stamp it 6.5 Grendel it has to have those chamber dimensions that SAAMI settled on. I'd feel pretty confident that most builder will do that, but I'm not sure Les Baer will.

Link Posted: 9/28/2011 8:49:29 AM EST
[#33]
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 9:07:12 AM EST
[#34]
Quoted:
Well is the point....standardization.  SAAM standardizes the cartridge dimensions along with the chamber dimensions. So I would expect CSS to change their chamber in order to stamp the barrel 6.5 Grendel.  What is so hard to understand about that?  Being SAAMI now anyone can produce it.  They'll of course have to get the reamer and I would imagine that too will be standardized.  What I was trying to say is take the 7mm Remington Magnum when Remington came out with it. Because it became SAAMI any manufacture could make it.  That means for example if Winchester or Savage was your preference you could buy those. Same for when Winchester came out with the 243 Winchester, you could get it in any brand.  



Which was Bill Alexanders intent all along. Without the ability to get SAAMI standardization until a member stepped up and took it to SAAMI, the only way to maintain that standardization was to require a license and ensure that the licensee followed the specifications he required.

Without that, we would have no Lapua brass, no Hornady brass, no Wolf ammo, no mags, and none of the other specific to Grendel parts. The market simply wouldn't have supported it.

If you don't concede that, I would ask: Where is the LBC brass? How about the LBC mags? Or the CSS brass or Mags? Of the 6.5 Sporter brass and mags? Without Bill Alexander sheparding this through the way he has, none of those barrels and uppers could even exist!

From all I can tell, Bill Alexander did what had to be done for a small company to make a new design become commonplace, and now that it may have reached critical mass, is doing what needs to be done to carry it forward to even wider acceptance.


Well that is a tough question to answer.  Let's tackle the two examples I gave the 7 Mag and the 243 Win.  More then likely those would be in bolt rifles. So there the magazines aren't a problem because the two rounds are made off existing donor rounds and don't require different magazines. That goes even for those models that are semi auto's and lever actions.

CSS isn't making a complete firearm or even a complete upper for that matter.  They just make a barrel for an AR 15.  Let's say Les came up with the 264 even before there was a 6.5 Grendel.  I would think he would start with a 7.62x39 magazine and not a high capacity one. A lot of wildcats on the AR 15 use existing 5.56 magazines or modified ones.  Isn't the 50 Beowulf magazine a modified 5.56 magazine?  

Here's what I think.  Who's to say the 6.5 Grendel would have become a reality if Arne Brenan wasn't put together with Bill Alexander? Would you concede to say that Bill Alexander isn't the sole 6.5 Grendel inventor.

Of course Fortier will come along and try to distort the history of the 6.5 Grendel with his Lapua engineer version.



Link Posted: 9/28/2011 9:51:39 AM EST
[#35]

Well that is a tough question to answer.  Let's tackle the two examples I gave the 7 Mag and the 243 Win.  More then likely those would be in bolt rifles. So there the magazines aren't a problem because the two rounds are made off existing donor rounds and don't require different magazines. That goes even for those models that are semi auto's and lever actions.

CSS isn't making a complete firearm or even a complete upper for that matter.  They just make a barrel for an AR 15.  Let's say Les came up with the 264 even before there was a 6.5 Grendel.  I would think he would start with a 7.62x39 magazine and not a high capacity one. A lot of wildcats on the AR 15 use existing 5.56 magazines or modified ones.  Isn't the 50 Beowulf magazine a modified 5.56 magazine?  

Here's what I think.  Who's to say the 6.5 Grendel would have become a reality if Arne Brenan wasn't put together with Bill Alexander? Would you concede to say that Bill Alexander isn't the sole 6.5 Grendel inventor.

Of course Fortier will come along and try to distort the history of the 6.5 Grendel with his Lapua engineer version.


Maybe I should have said, "Is there another AR cartridge that requires a different mag that someone has developed and carried to the point of the Grendel, without major factory backing?"

Arne getting together will Bill was fortuitous, certainly. But would Arne have gone to Lapua and had brass made, or talked Wolf into producing low cost ammo? Most likely not, he was interested in using it for long range shooting, didn't require those things, since he was making cases from PPC brass. He was most interested in ultimate accuracy, not developing a cartridge that would run consistently in every AR. Denying that Arne was a part of Grendel development is unfair to him. Believing that his contribution to the development of what became the Grendel was undoable without him is just as unfair. Alexander got brass from Lapua and cheap Wolf ammo, and helped and fostered along the development of the mags and bolts that became so important to all of the clones as well as the Grendel.

Its possible that the cartridge might have developed without Alexander, but it would still be made by small gunsmiths using PPC and 7.72x39 brass, without bespoke brass and mags.




Link Posted: 9/28/2011 10:04:36 AM EST
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
.Alexander Arms has stated they will be making a number of official announcements at an Industry writer event Oct 5th.
So we all need to be patient for a few more days.


Will you or Mr Alexander make an announcement here as well?


All I know is Alexander Arms is making an announcement at the Big 3 Industry event.
I would expect, since they are a industry member of this forum, that they would do
it here as well, and then across the industry.
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 10:29:37 AM EST
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well is the point....standardization.  SAAM standardizes the cartridge dimensions along with the chamber dimensions. So I would expect CSS to change their chamber in order to stamp the barrel 6.5 Grendel.  What is so hard to understand about that?  Being SAAMI now anyone can produce it.  They'll of course have to get the reamer and I would imagine that too will be standardized.  What I was trying to say is take the 7mm Remington Magnum when Remington came out with it. Because it became SAAMI any manufacture could make it.  That means for example if Winchester or Savage was your preference you could buy those. Same for when Winchester came out with the 243 Winchester, you could get it in any brand.  



Which was Bill Alexanders intent all along. Without the ability to get SAAMI standardization until a member stepped up and took it to SAAMI, the only way to maintain that standardization was to require a license and ensure that the licensee followed the specifications he required.

Without that, we would have no Lapua brass, no Hornady brass, no Wolf ammo, no mags, and none of the other specific to Grendel parts. The market simply wouldn't have supported it.

If you don't concede that, I would ask: Where is the LBC brass? How about the LBC mags? Or the CSS brass or Mags? Of the 6.5 Sporter brass and mags? Without Bill Alexander sheparding this through the way he has, none of those barrels and uppers could even exist!

From all I can tell, Bill Alexander did what had to be done for a small company to make a new design become commonplace, and now that it may have reached critical mass, is doing what needs to be done to carry it forward to even wider acceptance.


Well that is a tough question to answer.  Let's tackle the two examples I gave the 7 Mag and the 243 Win.  More then likely those would be in bolt rifles. So there the magazines aren't a problem because the two rounds are made off existing donor rounds and don't require different magazines. That goes even for those models that are semi auto's and lever actions.

CSS isn't making a complete firearm or even a complete upper for that matter.  They just make a barrel for an AR 15.  Let's say Les came up with the 264 even before there was a 6.5 Grendel.  I would think he would start with a 7.62x39 magazine and not a high capacity one. A lot of wildcats on the AR 15 use existing 5.56 magazines or modified ones.  Isn't the 50 Beowulf magazine a modified 5.56 magazine?  

Here's what I think.  Who's to say the 6.5 Grendel would have become a reality if Arne Brenan wasn't put together with Bill Alexander? Would you concede to say that Bill Alexander isn't the sole 6.5 Grendel inventor.

Of course Fortier will come along and try to distort the history of the 6.5 Grendel with his Lapua engineer version.





I think the point that many miss is that they think someone just designs a cartridge and companies produce cases, loaded ammunition, magazines and
whatever for it. If you are Remington, Winchester or Federal then maybe. But if you are a small unknown then such is not the case. Many truly great
cartridges never go anywhere, and all too many useless cartridges receive big backing and then die. It takes a great deal of money to produce magazines,
and to buy the tooling and dies needed to produce things like cases, loading dies, reamers, etc. To Alexander's credit he stuck with it and grew the cartridge
without the momentum of a Remington media blitz or possible US Army Spec Ops adoption.

Would Alexander have been able to design the Grendel on his own? From a purely technical standpoint you have to consider if he had designed any other
cartridges previously, and he had.

But that is not history or what actually happened. Arne was involved in the early work when it was PPC based. Everyone knows that. Credit is due him for
everything he accomplished.

However, today's Grendel is not simply a 6.5mm PPC and the cartridge continued to evolve before it became the Grendel. Lapua did become involved
in the project and they were producing .220 Russian cases. So Janne Pohjoispaa, an engineer at Lapua, had his hand in the final design when the case
design was changed to what it is today. The change is pretty obvious:
At left is a 6.5mm Grendel, in the center is a 6.5PPC which was Arne's prototype ammunition and at right is a 6.5x39mm.


What I don't understand is why you would take credit away from Lapua/Pohjoispaa for their work on the design? It's not like Pohjoispaa isn't well known
and respected in Europe, hasn't worked on numerous military projects, and isn't a well respected author with articles published not only in European
magazines but also here as well (including in Precision Shooting and Small Arms Review). He's a nice guy and deserves credit for his work. Alexander
certainly gives him the credit he is due....

But again, that is old news. The big news will be announced in a week, and it will be interesting to see what the future holds for this interesting cartridge
and shooters who take a fancy to it. Without a doubt, shooters will benefit the most.

I truly hope it finally puts an end to threads like this, and shooters can enjoy whatever flavor suits them best.
Then we can go back to arguing about something truly important, like beans or no beans in Chili.......
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 11:06:43 AM EST
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well is the point....standardization.  SAAM standardizes the cartridge dimensions along with the chamber dimensions. So I would expect CSS to change their chamber in order to stamp the barrel 6.5 Grendel.  What is so hard to understand about that?  Being SAAMI now anyone can produce it.  They'll of course have to get the reamer and I would imagine that too will be standardized.  What I was trying to say is take the 7mm Remington Magnum when Remington came out with it. Because it became SAAMI any manufacture could make it.  That means for example if Winchester or Savage was your preference you could buy those. Same for when Winchester came out with the 243 Winchester, you could get it in any brand.  



Which was Bill Alexanders intent all along. Without the ability to get SAAMI standardization until a member stepped up and took it to SAAMI, the only way to maintain that standardization was to require a license and ensure that the licensee followed the specifications he required.

Without that, we would have no Lapua brass, no Hornady brass, no Wolf ammo, no mags, and none of the other specific to Grendel parts. The market simply wouldn't have supported it.

If you don't concede that, I would ask: Where is the LBC brass? How about the LBC mags? Or the CSS brass or Mags? Of the 6.5 Sporter brass and mags? Without Bill Alexander sheparding this through the way he has, none of those barrels and uppers could even exist!

From all I can tell, Bill Alexander did what had to be done for a small company to make a new design become commonplace, and now that it may have reached critical mass, is doing what needs to be done to carry it forward to even wider acceptance.


Well that is a tough question to answer.  Let's tackle the two examples I gave the 7 Mag and the 243 Win.  More then likely those would be in bolt rifles. So there the magazines aren't a problem because the two rounds are made off existing donor rounds and don't require different magazines. That goes even for those models that are semi auto's and lever actions.

CSS isn't making a complete firearm or even a complete upper for that matter.  They just make a barrel for an AR 15.  Let's say Les came up with the 264 even before there was a 6.5 Grendel.  I would think he would start with a 7.62x39 magazine and not a high capacity one. A lot of wildcats on the AR 15 use existing 5.56 magazines or modified ones.  Isn't the 50 Beowulf magazine a modified 5.56 magazine?  

Here's what I think.  Who's to say the 6.5 Grendel would have become a reality if Arne Brenan wasn't put together with Bill Alexander? Would you concede to say that Bill Alexander isn't the sole 6.5 Grendel inventor.

Of course Fortier will come along and try to distort the history of the 6.5 Grendel with his Lapua engineer version.





I think the point that many miss is that they think someone just designs a cartridge and companies produce cases, loaded ammunition, magazines and
whatever for it. If you are Remington, Winchester or Federal then maybe. But if you are a small unknown then such is not the case. Many truly great
cartridges never go anywhere, and all too many useless cartridges receive big backing and then die. It takes a great deal of money to produce magazines,
and to buy the tooling and dies needed to produce things like cases, loading dies, reamers, etc. To Alexander's credit he stuck with it and grew the cartridge
without the momentum of a Remington media blitz or possible US Army Spec Ops adoption.

Would Alexander have been able to design the Grendel on his own? From a purely technical standpoint you have to consider if he had designed any other
cartridges previously, and he had.

But that is not history or what actually happened. Arne was involved in the early work when it was PPC based. Everyone knows that. Credit is due him for
everything he accomplished.

However, today's Grendel is not simply a 6.5mm PPC and the cartridge continued to evolve before it became the Grendel. Lapua did become involved
in the project and they were producing .220 Russian cases. So Janne Pohjoispaa, an engineer at Lapua, had his hand in the final design when the case
design was changed to what it is today. The change is pretty obvious:
At left is a 6.5mm Grendel, in the center is a 6.5PPC which was Arne's prototype ammunition and at right is a 6.5x39mm.
http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/Gunwritr/LtoR65Grendel65PPCexperimental65x39reduced-1.jpg

What I don't understand is why you would take credit away from Lapua/Pohjoispaa for their work on the design? It's not like Pohjoispaa isn't well known
and respected in Europe, hasn't worked on numerous military projects, and isn't a well respected author with articles published not only in European
magazines but also here as well (including in Precision Shooting and Small Arms Review). He's a nice guy and deserves credit for his work. Alexander
certainly gives him the credit he is due....

But again, that is old news. The big news will be announced in a week, and it will be interesting to see what the future holds for this interesting cartridge
and shooters who take a fancy to it. Without a doubt, shooters will benefit the most.

I truly hope it finally puts an end to threads like this, and shooters can enjoy whatever flavor suits them best.
Then we can go back to arguing about something truly important, like beans or no beans in Chili.......


I don't know why you say I take credit away from Lapau.  Did I say that exactly?  No.  Lapau didn't make much of a change to the cartridge and you know that.  The changes mostly were to facilitate manufacturing it.  

What other cartridge did Bill Alexander design?  I know what you will say and I have an extensive research into that.  

Link Posted: 9/28/2011 11:08:01 AM EST
[#39]
Quoted:

Well that is a tough question to answer.  Let's tackle the two examples I gave the 7 Mag and the 243 Win.  More then likely those would be in bolt rifles. So there the magazines aren't a problem because the two rounds are made off existing donor rounds and don't require different magazines. That goes even for those models that are semi auto's and lever actions.

CSS isn't making a complete firearm or even a complete upper for that matter.  They just make a barrel for an AR 15.  Let's say Les came up with the 264 even before there was a 6.5 Grendel.  I would think he would start with a 7.62x39 magazine and not a high capacity one. A lot of wildcats on the AR 15 use existing 5.56 magazines or modified ones.  Isn't the 50 Beowulf magazine a modified 5.56 magazine?  

Here's what I think.  Who's to say the 6.5 Grendel would have become a reality if Arne Brenan wasn't put together with Bill Alexander? Would you concede to say that Bill Alexander isn't the sole 6.5 Grendel inventor.

Of course Fortier will come along and try to distort the history of the 6.5 Grendel with his Lapua engineer version.


It's also possible that without Arne getting together with Bill Alexander, with a working 6.5 cartrdige, that Bill may have never come up with and made anything.

Maybe I should have said, "Is there another AR cartridge that requires a different mag that someone has developed and carried to the point of the Grendel, without major factory backing?"

Arne getting together will Bill was fortuitous, certainly. But would Arne have gone to Lapua and had brass made, or talked Wolf into producing low cost ammo? Most likely not, he was interested in using it for long range shooting, didn't require those things, since he was making cases from PPC brass. He was most interested in ultimate accuracy, not developing a cartridge that would run consistently in every AR. Denying that Arne was a part of Grendel development is unfair to him. Believing that his contribution to the development of what became the Grendel was undoable without him is just as unfair. Alexander got brass from Lapua and cheap Wolf ammo, and helped and fostered along the development of the mags and bolts that became so important to all of the clones as well as the Grendel.

Its possible that the cartridge might have developed without Alexander, but it would still be made by small gunsmiths using PPC and 7.72x39 brass, without bespoke brass and mags.






Who is to say if Arne didn't come along that Bill would have come up with the 6.5 Grendel? From what I understand Bill really didn't have a 6.5 carrtridge on the drawing board.

Link Posted: 9/28/2011 11:19:57 AM EST
[#40]
Quoted:


I don't know why you say I take credit away from Lapau.  Did I say that exactly?  No.  



'and try to distort the history of the 6.5 Grendel with his Lapua engineer version'

you's be trolling.........

< Image Removed - you know better than that - F >
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 11:21:35 AM EST
[#41]
For those of you going on about the cartridge availability, you might want to take a look over at Les Baer's website.  Hornady brass is already available headstamped .264 LBC.  Now lets step back and ask how long it took AA to bring brass to market and then ask how long it took LB to bring brass to market?  The Grendel cartridge has been around for roughly ten or more years and brass has only become mainstream in recent years.  The .264 LBC came out, what roughly a year or two ago, and brass is already going mainstream.  Not to mention theres the real possibility of fire forming Hornady Grendel brass to make .264 LBC, I'd assume it to be easier then converting 7.62 x 39, which is how I personally got my first Grendel brass due its outrageous pricing previously.

Keep in mind I'm not knocking AA, I just assembled a Grendel today with a barrel I purchased from him, and I assembled a Grendel with one of his barrels for my father two years ago.  I just don't like having smoke blown up my ass.  A little bit of truth about whats going on in the market would go a long way right now, instead of going on, and on, and on about who invested what into the growth and research of the cartridge.  Because as much as we appreciated the time and money AA has invested, the markets changing.  If we get some honest answers my next 6.5 barrel will also be purchased from AA just to support those who brought it to market, but if things stay the way they are I'll be buying a barrel from ?????
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 11:22:13 AM EST
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:


I don't know why you say I take credit away from Lapau.  Did I say that exactly?  No.  



'and try to distort the history of the 6.5 Grendel with his Lapua engineer version'

you's be trolling.........

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTncavuDHWKAlCkttjNiDUGo4Qv1SjtOyzGmcYpKeRLXb-zseO0


I'm not distorting anything. What exactly then, your version, did Lapau do to the submitted cartridge from Arne and Bill?

Link Posted: 9/28/2011 11:36:21 AM EST
[#43]
Quoted:
For those of you going on about the cartridge availability, you might want to take a look over at Les Baer's website.  Hornady brass is already available headstamped .264 LBC.  Now lets step back and ask how long it took AA to bring brass to market and then ask how long it took LB to bring brass to market?  The Grendel cartridge has been around for roughly ten or more years and brass has only become mainstream in recent years.  The .264 LBC came out, what roughly a year or two ago, and brass is already going mainstream.  Not to mention theres the real possibility of fire forming Hornady Grendel brass to make .264 LBC, I'd assume it to be easier then converting 7.62 x 39, which is how I personally got my first Grendel brass due its outrageous pricing previously.

Keep in mind I'm not knocking AA, I just assembled a Grendel today with a barrel I purchased from him, and I assembled a Grendel with one of his barrels for my father two years ago.  I just don't like having smoke blown up my ass.  A little bit of truth about whats going on in the market would go a long way right now, instead of going on, and on, and on about who invested what into the growth and research of the cartridge.  Because as much as we appreciated the time and money AA has invested, the markets changing.  If we get some honest answers my next 6.5 barrel will also be purchased from AA just to support those who brought it to market, but if things stay the way they are I'll be buying a barrel from ?????


harleykc, there is no diffrerence in LBC brass and Hornady Grendel brass, there is no need to fireform, period. Hornady LBC brass IS Hornady Grendel brass with a different headstamp. The ONLY reason that there is .264 LBC brass is BECAUSE Hornady had already agreed/planned to produce Grendel brass and agreed to headstamp the same brass for Les Baer. Why don't you call up Les Baer and ask where the brass drawings are? Les Baer had nothing to do with the development of the cartridge, paying for the development of the brass, or anything else regarding the Grendel. Lets call a spade a spade, the LBC is designed to take advantage of a very good cartridge, but development of that cartridge was not done by Les Baer. Heck, Les Baer himself isn't even advertising the .264 LBC anymore, it disappeared from his ads months ago.

AA Lapua brass is just a couple bucks/hundred more than Hornady brass, so I'm not quite sure where the "outrageous" pricing idea comes from.  

And your dates are off considerably as to the age of the Grendel, but I'm sure that will be corrected shortly by someone with more accurate timelines than I bother to keep. However, the first Grendel brass wasn't produced until 2003 or 2004, with Alexander paying for the tooling and Lapua doing the work.

I'm a little confused as to the "little bit of truth"? What exactly are you asking for?


Link Posted: 9/28/2011 11:43:33 AM EST
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well is the point....standardization.  SAAM standardizes the cartridge dimensions along with the chamber dimensions. So I would expect CSS to change their chamber in order to stamp the barrel 6.5 Grendel.  What is so hard to understand about that?  Being SAAMI now anyone can produce it.  They'll of course have to get the reamer and I would imagine that too will be standardized.  What I was trying to say is take the 7mm Remington Magnum when Remington came out with it. Because it became SAAMI any manufacture could make it.  That means for example if Winchester or Savage was your preference you could buy those. Same for when Winchester came out with the 243 Winchester, you could get it in any brand.  



Which was Bill Alexanders intent all along. Without the ability to get SAAMI standardization until a member stepped up and took it to SAAMI, the only way to maintain that standardization was to require a license and ensure that the licensee followed the specifications he required.

Without that, we would have no Lapua brass, no Hornady brass, no Wolf ammo, no mags, and none of the other specific to Grendel parts. The market simply wouldn't have supported it.

If you don't concede that, I would ask: Where is the LBC brass? How about the LBC mags? Or the CSS brass or Mags? Of the 6.5 Sporter brass and mags? Without Bill Alexander sheparding this through the way he has, none of those barrels and uppers could even exist!

From all I can tell, Bill Alexander did what had to be done for a small company to make a new design become commonplace, and now that it may have reached critical mass, is doing what needs to be done to carry it forward to even wider acceptance.


Well that is a tough question to answer.  Let's tackle the two examples I gave the 7 Mag and the 243 Win.  More then likely those would be in bolt rifles. So there the magazines aren't a problem because the two rounds are made off existing donor rounds and don't require different magazines. That goes even for those models that are semi auto's and lever actions.

CSS isn't making a complete firearm or even a complete upper for that matter.  They just make a barrel for an AR 15.  Let's say Les came up with the 264 even before there was a 6.5 Grendel.  I would think he would start with a 7.62x39 magazine and not a high capacity one. A lot of wildcats on the AR 15 use existing 5.56 magazines or modified ones.  Isn't the 50 Beowulf magazine a modified 5.56 magazine?  

Here's what I think.  Who's to say the 6.5 Grendel would have become a reality if Arne Brenan wasn't put together with Bill Alexander? Would you concede to say that Bill Alexander isn't the sole 6.5 Grendel inventor.

Of course Fortier will come along and try to distort the history of the 6.5 Grendel with his Lapua engineer version.





I think the point that many miss is that they think someone just designs a cartridge and companies produce cases, loaded ammunition, magazines and
whatever for it. If you are Remington, Winchester or Federal then maybe. But if you are a small unknown then such is not the case. Many truly great
cartridges never go anywhere, and all too many useless cartridges receive big backing and then die. It takes a great deal of money to produce magazines,
and to buy the tooling and dies needed to produce things like cases, loading dies, reamers, etc. To Alexander's credit he stuck with it and grew the cartridge
without the momentum of a Remington media blitz or possible US Army Spec Ops adoption.

Would Alexander have been able to design the Grendel on his own? From a purely technical standpoint you have to consider if he had designed any other
cartridges previously, and he had.

But that is not history or what actually happened. Arne was involved in the early work when it was PPC based. Everyone knows that. Credit is due him for
everything he accomplished.

However, today's Grendel is not simply a 6.5mm PPC and the cartridge continued to evolve before it became the Grendel. Lapua did become involved
in the project and they were producing .220 Russian cases. So Janne Pohjoispaa, an engineer at Lapua, had his hand in the final design when the case
design was changed to what it is today. The change is pretty obvious:
At left is a 6.5mm Grendel, in the center is a 6.5PPC which was Arne's prototype ammunition and at right is a 6.5x39mm.
http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/Gunwritr/LtoR65Grendel65PPCexperimental65x39reduced-1.jpg

What I don't understand is why you would take credit away from Lapua/Pohjoispaa for their work on the design? It's not like Pohjoispaa isn't well known
and respected in Europe, hasn't worked on numerous military projects, and isn't a well respected author with articles published not only in European
magazines but also here as well (including in Precision Shooting and Small Arms Review). He's a nice guy and deserves credit for his work. Alexander
certainly gives him the credit he is due....

But again, that is old news. The big news will be announced in a week, and it will be interesting to see what the future holds for this interesting cartridge
and shooters who take a fancy to it. Without a doubt, shooters will benefit the most.

I truly hope it finally puts an end to threads like this, and shooters can enjoy whatever flavor suits them best.
Then we can go back to arguing about something truly important, like beans or no beans in Chili.......


First and most importantly, Cincinnati chili reigns supreme, everyone knows that!

I would echo though your last comment and add that's all I want is to be able to  have the cartridge that I prefer its just with all the speculation, arguing, back biting and gnashing of teeth have me somewhat confused on where I should spend my money.  Justified or not it seems that these come from all parties at one time or another, but hopefully we will be able to take comfort in whatever the 5th holds (even though it seems like you already know )
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 11:46:06 AM EST
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


I don't know why you say I take credit away from Lapau.  Did I say that exactly?  No.  



'and try to distort the history of the 6.5 Grendel with his Lapua engineer version'

you's be trolling.........

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTncavuDHWKAlCkttjNiDUGo4Qv1SjtOyzGmcYpKeRLXb-zseO0


I'm not distorting anything. What exactly then, your version, did Lapau do to the submitted cartridge from Arne and Bill?



No? But I simply quoted you twice.

"and try to distort the history of the 6.5 Grendel with his Lapua engineer version"
"I don't know why you say I take credit away from Lapau.  Did I say that exactly?  No."

We both know you are very careful in how you choose your words.

Regarding your question:
Take a look at the picture I posted and compare the two cartridges for yourself.
Notice any differences? Pretty obvious.

But here is a quote from an article published in RifleShooter magazine:

So at the 2003 SHOT Show Alexander approached Lapua’s US importer/distributor about doing a run of .220 Russian brass reformed into 6.5mm PPC. Unfortunately, with Alexander Arms being a small fish, they had no interest. He had hit a brick wall. Then fate stepped in when a stone-faced Finn in a typically European suit appeared at his booth. Janne Pohjoispaa, an engineer from Lapua, unfolded a piece of paper and handed it to him. Drawn on it was a new cartridge concept, the 8.6x39mm Lapua Tactical. It was basically a .220 Russian case necked up to .338, and Pohjoispaa was looking for someone to make a rifle for it. Alexander instead suggested necking the .220 Russian up to 6.5mm. When Pohjoispaa nodded the foundation for the Grendel was laid.

After the show Alexander began bouncing cartridge drawings off of Pohjoispaa. Initially these were almost identical to the 6.5mm PPC. Pohjoispaa though didn’t like the long neck due to production losses. So working together the two of them evolved the design into today’s 6.5mm Grendel. The first step was to shorten the neck and increase case capacity. With such a relatively small case, any increase in capacity was a plus. The final change was to thicken the case neck to .012 inch. This served to lengthen case life in a semi-auto rifle. Alexander Arms paid for the cartridge tooling and placed an initial order for 50,000 brass cases on 24 November 2003.
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 11:54:53 AM EST
[#46]
David,

You said it all right here:  After the show Alexander began bouncing cartridge drawings off of Pohjoispaa. Initially these were almost identical to the 6.5mm PPC. Pohjoispaa though didn’t like the long neck due to production losses. So working together the two of them evolved the design into today’s 6.5mm Grendel. The first step was to shorten the neck and increase case capacity. With such a relatively small case, any increase in capacity was a plus. The final change was to thicken the case neck to .012 inch. This served to lengthen case life in a semi-auto rifle. Alexander Arms paid for the cartridge tooling and placed an initial order for 50,000 brass cases on 24 November 2003.


It's not like Pohjoispaa designed the whole cartridge.  It was, what boils down to a few minor changes, just a tweaking.  You yourself even said to facilitate manufacturing.  

So how about we agree to disagree and quit the pissing match?  The original question was on the 264 LBC and that has been answered more then once in this thread and even by Bill Alexander.

Let's just wait for the next big fairly tale, I  mean announcement that Alexander Arms is suppose to make.
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 11:57:55 AM EST
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
For those of you going on about the cartridge availability, you might want to take a look over at Les Baer's website.  Hornady brass is already available headstamped .264 LBC.  Now lets step back and ask how long it took AA to bring brass to market and then ask how long it took LB to bring brass to market?  The Grendel cartridge has been around for roughly ten or more years and brass has only become mainstream in recent years.  The .264 LBC came out, what roughly a year or two ago, and brass is already going mainstream.  Not to mention theres the real possibility of fire forming Hornady Grendel brass to make .264 LBC, I'd assume it to be easier then converting 7.62 x 39, which is how I personally got my first Grendel brass due its outrageous pricing previously.

Keep in mind I'm not knocking AA, I just assembled a Grendel today with a barrel I purchased from him, and I assembled a Grendel with one of his barrels for my father two years ago.  I just don't like having smoke blown up my ass.  A little bit of truth about whats going on in the market would go a long way right now, instead of going on, and on, and on about who invested what into the growth and research of the cartridge.  Because as much as we appreciated the time and money AA has invested, the markets changing.  If we get some honest answers my next 6.5 barrel will also be purchased from AA just to support those who brought it to market, but if things stay the way they are I'll be buying a barrel from ?????


harleykc, there is no diffrerence in LBC brass and Hornady Grendel brass, there is no need to fireform, period. Hornady LBC brass IS Hornady Grendel brass with a different headstamp. The ONLY reason that there is .264 LBC brass is BECAUSE Hornady had already agreed/planned to produce Grendel brass and agreed to headstamp the same brass for Les Baer.


Truth....he speaks it. I was there (IMO Editorial Roundtable) when Hornady announced they were introducing 6.5mm Grendel ammo/brass. It's easy to buy something if someone is already
manufacturing it. Same brass, just a different headstamp.
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 12:02:59 PM EST
[#48]
Quoted:
David,

You said it all right here:  After the show Alexander began bouncing cartridge drawings off of Pohjoispaa. Initially these were almost identical to the 6.5mm PPC. Pohjoispaa though didn’t like the long neck due to production losses. So working together the two of them evolved the design into today’s 6.5mm Grendel. The first step was to shorten the neck and increase case capacity. With such a relatively small case, any increase in capacity was a plus. The final change was to thicken the case neck to .012 inch. This served to lengthen case life in a semi-auto rifle. Alexander Arms paid for the cartridge tooling and placed an initial order for 50,000 brass cases on 24 November 2003.


It's not like Pohjoispaa designed the whole cartridge.  It was, what boils down to a few minor changes, just a tweaking.  You yourself even said to facilitate manufacturing.  

So how about we agree to disagree and quit the pissing match?  The original question was on the 264 LBC and that has been answered more then once in this thread and even by Bill Alexander.

Let's just wait for the next big fairly tale, I  mean announcement that Alexander Arms is suppose to make.


We both know I have never said Pohjoispaa designed the whole cartridge. If he had, it would be the 6.5mm Pohjoispaa.......and that just doesn't
have a ring to it now does it. People can decide for themselves how much of a 'tweak' it was from the picture.

Yep, now we wait for Alexander Arms announcements, perhaps they will even make you happy.......
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 12:11:18 PM EST
[#49]
Quoted:

First and most importantly, Cincinnati chili reigns supreme, everyone knows that!

I would echo though your last comment and add that's all I want is to be able to  have the cartridge that I prefer


I agree, that's why I hope all the bickering finally comes to an end and shooters can just buy what they want, enjoy it
and be happy........
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 12:27:14 PM EST
[#50]
Just my opinion but this thread is mildy interesting and the debate also only mildly influences consumers.  I did my homework, my brother built and shot several deer wtih a 6.8 last year, 6.8 is more popular than 6.5 grendel at present but I still decided to go 6.5 grendel.  I have shot 20 deer in texas with 223 and wont make that mistake again.  I own a 270 wsm so it wasnt about bullets, and I wish I hadnt sold my 260 as it was the best deer gun I ever owned.  I could have gone 6.5 grendel or the 264LR.  I researched both websites, looked at pricing and quality.

I ordered a 6.5 grendel barrel, bolt, and muzzle break from alexander arms an hour or so ago.

I couldnt be more happy and cant wait to build it, punch some paper, and slam some deer and hogs!  

Page / 5
Page AR-15 » AR Variants
AR Sponsor: bravocompany
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top