Bill Alexander- Thanks for the info! Is there any chance 6.5 Grendel barrels and extensions are really available or will be in the future?

My sincere apologies if you found it to be derogatory. 2700fps from a 16" barrel sounds rather splendid, especially with the very high BCs associated with the 6.5s. I for one will be looking forward to shooting them when they become available, especially the piston guns,

ETA - The salient advantage of the Grendel is the ability to seat bullets with oodles of ogive that are VLD. That's a good thing, especially if they run FA.  It's a very good thing if they run FA belted. Anything with a BC of over 0.6 is just the bees knees.......

FETA - The 6.8 won't make 0.5 even when you try really really hard. The .277 VLD 135s are just soooo long and have so much ogive that they won't seat right.

ETAYF - What bullet weight is 2500-2570 fps with? 123gr?

Simon

Quoted: 2700fps from a 16" barrel sounds rather splendid

Maybe my reading comprehension skills are lacking, but I thought he said that's what you can get if you're handloading and relying on traditional pressure signs on the spent brass to declare the load as "safe".  

the 16" M4 style carbine delivers between 2500 and 2570 fps depending upon the powder type employed. These loads are at the factory pressure level of 49,500 psi.

I assumed that was with the 120gr-123gr factory loads he was discussing.

tag

Quoted: Quoted: 2700fps from a 16" barrel sounds rather splendid Maybe my reading comprehension skills are lacking, but I thought he said that's what you can get if you're handloading and relying on traditional pressure signs on the spent brass to declare the load as "safe".

Are you pointing out that that is not a safe methodolgy?  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 2700fps from a 16" barrel sounds rather splendid Maybe my reading comprehension skills are lacking, but I thought he said that's what you can get if you're handloading and relying on traditional pressure signs on the spent brass to declare the load as "safe".   Are you pointing out that that is not a safe methodolgy?

I was just pointing out that according to Bill A., even with no pressure signs to be read in the "tea leaves", those loads exceeded safe levels when tested in a pressure breech...

The 50K Psi limit is a little like SAAMI pressures. They're a safe and confortable threshold that avoids risk. The 'hot' loads would be akin to the NATO spec 75 and 77gr. loadings you find in 5.56.  Not quite tea leaf time but rather a calculated acceptance of working nearer the edge of the envelope. Like the +P and +P+ in the handgun millieu. If the round can be pushed without excessive risk, that is what will happen......

Simon

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 2700fps from a 16" barrel sounds rather splendid Maybe my reading comprehension skills are lacking, but I thought he said that's what you can get if you're handloading and relying on traditional pressure signs on the spent brass to declare the load as "safe".   Are you pointing out that that is not a safe methodolgy?   I was just pointing out that according to Bill A., even with no pressure signs to be read in the "tea leaves", those loads exceeded safe levels when tested in a pressure breech...

A couple of comments:  no pressures for the 2700 fps loads have been reported.  All we know is that they exceed the SAAMI established value of 49,5K.  What would be really interesting is to see what pressures the 2700 fps loads generate.  If they end being near proof-load pressures, then any further discussions of 2700 fps are moot.

I don't always get SAAMI -- there are multiple cases based on the 30-06 case, and each has it's own pressure level.  I suspect it has as much to do with the vintage of the cartridge in question, i.e., preventing someone from hot rodding a 30-06 and firing it in an old Springfield, but it is well known that 25-06 and .270 Win, using the same case, are loaded to higher pressures.  The 6.5 Grendel, being a newly developed round shouldn't have those issues, so I question why 49,5K was the established std.  Seems kind of low to me, maybe it was established to ensure functioning, but I gotta believe the cases and actions can handle more than that.   My only area of concern would be bolt faces and lugs -- given the face is reamed out larger there may not be enough material to support increased bolt thrust and continuous 55-60K pressure loads.

Anyone know what pressure Mk 262 is loaded to?  I would suspect there up there at the 55K level or higher.  This is the realm where tradtional pressure signs on spent brass begin showing  up, so I wonder if there's a whole lot of difference from a safety perspective between shooting Mk 262 and higher pressure level 6.5 Grendel (or 6.8 SPC for that matter).  As a combat round, there isn't the necessity for long case life, it just has to survive one firing.  As long as heads don't separate, primers remain in their pockets, and no fatiguing of the action occurs, then higher pressure loads should be OK.

i'll be having dreams tonight over this.

More confusion, I did not intend that to happen, so I will go through the information again and hopefully answer a few of the questions.

i) The 16" Grendel carbine develops between 2500 and 2570 fps with a 120 grain bullet that is representative of the intended tactical load. This is achieved at a chamber pressure of 49,500 psi. The hunting load runs at the same pressure and is just slightly slower

ii) It is possible to handload to 2700 fps. Such a practice looks safe from pressure signs but must NOT be used. The resulting load exceeds the safe limit of the gun. Loading cartridges to pressure signs when the case head size exceeds that of the 5.56 is dangerous in this weapon. Remember the first problem you may ever encounter is the catastophic disintigration of your gun into many fast metal parts and you are holding this thing by your head.

iii) 50,000 psi is the defined pressure limit for the 6.5 Grendel. The maximum pressure is based upon the weakest platform and in this instance it is the AR15/M16. There are no "hot" loads for factory ammunition only safe loads. The advances in metalurgy that allowed the 5.56 to advance in pressure to it's current levels are already factored in to this equation. (Mk262 Mod 0 runs at 62,000 psi measured at the case mouth)

iv) My rational for the 50,000 psi limit is purely reliability. I do not wish to bore those who do not wish to study mechanics but the failure of this rifle is dominated by fatigue (maybe a little stress corrosion cracking). A single 50% overload will remove 90% of the units fatigue life. If I can push a 120 grain bullet with a 0.490 Bc to 2500 why should I risk catastrophic weapon failure or incur disagreable increases in recoil.

v) With due consideration of where we are with the Grendel, I would state that while the cartridge has the the ability to work in the CQB enviroment, this level of specialization is not the end game. What is needed is something that does not leave the shooter with any big holes in his capabilities.  While not optimum for the job the base rifle should be able to hit targets both unprotected and protected between 0m and 800m and neutralize them effectively. I do not want to have a whole array of barrel lengths required nor do I need to have to consider which mag I have in the gun

vi) I am hopeful that as we move forward those companies that manufacture multi caliber weapons will include the Grendel in their inventory. I cannot impose the caliber upon other manufacturers, nor will I take their business by offering my barrels to fit their guns; such should be driven by the customers.

Still need thoughts or observations on the tactical load, and equally on the hunting load.

Bill Alexander

Thanks very much for the info!

Can't wait to test the 14 & 16" barrel versions you mentioned.

For the combat round, try to ensure the bullet upset occurs in the first few inches of penetration. Penetration in the 12 to 18" range will be fine.  Bullets with deeper penetration and more retained weight will likely exit--this may be a factor in crowded environments and urban areas with neutrals or friendlies downrange.  On a more open battlefield with only combatants present, then deeper penetration and better intermediate barrier penetration is ideal.  

On the hunting round, I'd want good expansion, significant retained weight, deep penetration, and solid intermediate barrier penetration capability.  

Looks like I have found a new deer rifle.  

Tagged for updates.

Is there a rule of thumb to keep the neck short before blowup? The longer SMKs seem to have longer necks.....

Assuming adequate penetration can be maintained, upset within an inch is ideal and definitely within 3 inches is desired.

In general, SMK's, regardless of caliber, have deeper penetration prior to upset (ie. longer neck) than similar bullets from other manufacturers, including Hornady and Nosler.  SMK's, although very accurate, are NOT the best choice for an under 300 meter combat bullet, irrespective of caliber...

Quoted: We are indeed working on two offerings with Wolf ammunition and I would appreciate constructive comments. For the hunting crowd we have a 123g flat base soft point. I did not rush to a boat tail design as I suspect that most will agree that it is not ethical to take shots at the extreme edge of a cartridges capability and the flat base allows the back of the bullet to be a little more beefed up to help with penetration.

[disclaimer] I am by NO means any sort of ballistics expert and there is a strong possibility that my comments/suggestion will validate that - but maybe I'll learn something and suffer some humility at the worst. Forgive me as well if this isn't the type of feedback you were soliciting.[/disclaimer]

I was taking a gander at the new Swift Scirocco in 6.5mm...  

Advantages:
1. The SD is kick in the pants @ .265. My rudimentary ballistics knowledge has me believing that "SD" is the most significant ballistic characteristic (albeit, not exclusively) for a hunting bullet.

2. The BC is no slouch at .571 either. Regarding the boatail, as you stated Bill, teetering on the edge of the performance envelope is not widely endorsed for hunting. As such, the high BC may seem moot, but it falls under the, "can't hurt" category and will offer a marginal factor of increased effectiveness at "deer" ranges and some room for error in judged distances. My personal, although somewhat limited, experience with Scirocco's has not found penetration to be wanting, regardless of it's center of inertia.


3. Ballistic tipped. No chance of deformation during cycling like a softpoint does/can and effecting accuracy (ranges considered may make this irrelevat, but anyway).

4. IIRC, the Scirocco will still have 100% expansion as low as 14-1500 FPS. Again, not to suggest hunting a la "hail-Mary" fashion, but reference as an indicator that it expands well over a broad range of velocities. On the close-in range, it's a bonded bullet and claims are it will maintain high retained weights at all velocities.

5. They're easy to find domestically.

Disadvantages:
1. Don't have any specific design/performance data of the bullet you're considering. I list this as a potential disadvantage for the Scirocco because the contending 8gram bullet may simply be a better bullet for hunting/AR's. Maybe cannelured?

2. Price (ETA #2)

My shameful comments anyway...

Regardless, as someone suggested above, I will be hard pressed to sleep given my building anticipation and the mental anguish of what to trim in the budget to make room for another AA upper !

ETA: the new website looks great!! The Grendel relaoding data looked hauntingly "Beowulf" however. Thanks for the details as well, Bill!

I would assume the more to the rear the center of gravity is the faster it will upset.  So the longer the boat tail to he slower the yaw.  The steeper (lower) the ogive the slower the yaw.  The longer the air pocket in the tip the faster the yaw.  I could be completely wrong however.

If I can get "plinking" ammo for $5 a box, I'm getting a grendel upper.
I find putting lots of rounds downrange more helpful training than one every 2 minutes (thought I do appreciate the accuracy factor)

Quoted: I would assume the more to the rear the center of gravity is the faster it will upset.  So the longer the boat tail to he slower the yaw.  The steeper (lower) the ogive the slower the yaw.  The longer the air pocket in the tip the faster the yaw.  I could be completely wrong however.

That's making some sense for me... you could be wrong with company

Mr. Alexander,

Have you looked into making the softpoint round of the bonded variety, like the TBBC?

Aside from that, I'd have to echo Doc Robert's suggestions as to neck, fragmention and such.

Tag.

I see something new in my future.

I dunno about you guys, but this thread and news has my undivided attention.

As I had mentioend earlier, I'm not a member of the GIJoe Wannabe crowd and  I don't storm crackhouses.  Nor do I hunt or snipe at 660 yards...

However, I like ARs, and I like to hunt.  Until now these two interests were pretty much separate.  However, the possibility of a modestly priced, midlength 6.5 has my interest!!!

A 120 at 2500 sounds like a match made in heaven.

JD Jones has been driving 6.5 120s to these modest velocities out of Contenders for a long time.  The 6.5 JDJ is a WONDERFUL hunting round.  The usual component 6.5mm 120 expands well and penetrated wonderfully at these velocities...

If we have 6.5 Grendel uppers at or about $500, in 16" midlengths, and the post speeds of 2400-2500, I'm in.  I know hunter uppers are available and post wonderful accuracy, but I am not spending $800 or more on an upper.  The $500 variant might post 1 MOA instead of 1/2 MOA.  So be it.  Its minute of whitetail out to 200 yards.  

Dr. Roberts, your criteria for a 6.5 Grendel tactical bullet implies two different bullets. If I'm reading you correctly, you would like to specify one for "crowded environments" and one for an "open battlefield."

However, at least to start with, I gather that Alexander Arms is making only one "tactical" OTM bullet, and it will have to serve in both scenarios. So, as in most things regarding ballistics, it will have to be a compromise. Given that, what to do?

If one was always and only making frontal, center-of-mass (COM) shots through the chest wall and into the chest cavity, then I could see specifying upset within 1 to 3 inches, with 1 inch being ideal. But what percentage of shots offers this ideal presentation, especially in combat? More often than not, your adversaries are going to be seeking cover. The more cover your bullet can penetrate, the fewer places they have to hide, and the more their casualties increase. And if you can chase them from cover that your small arms can penetrate, then you can "herd" them into heavier structures where they feel safe. That is, until the JDAMs arrive from on high. . . .

To cover the range of less-than-ideal shot scenarios, I propose designing the bullet to begin upset at about the 4-inch mark in bare gelatin with no intermediate barriers. That way, you've still got fragmentation almost in the center of even a thin-bodied person with a 7" thick chest and you've penetrated the fat, muscle, and sternum of a larger-bodied person.

And if your bullet is tough enough to hold together for 4" of penetration in bare gelatin, it also has some toughness built in to perform well on the vast array of intermediate barriers perpetrators and enemy combatants use for ad hoc body armor and cover, not to mention skeletal bone, which doesn't seem to be factored into gelatin testing.

Bill, you asked for feedback, and there's my opinion on how you should design your tactical OTM, and why.

John

A vast amount of data on the rifle bullet characteristics that tend to work the best in armed combat has been developed the last few years.  Like it or not, bullets which upset earlier, tend to work better as long as they maintain adequate penetration.  Currently there are a couple of loads that begin to yaw and fragment at 4-6 inches--these have not proven as effective in combat use at 0-300 m engagement distances as the loads which begin to yaw and fragment in the 1-3 inch range.  I am NOT recommending two standard loads, rather assessing the options that must be balanced.  Irrespective of caliber, the U.S. military needs an environmentally robust combat rifle round with improved terminal performance, yet without the need (& associated costs) for 600+ meter sub-MOA precision accuracy. Such a carbine combat load needs to have a crimped and sealed primer, sealed case mouth, cannelure, acceptable accuracy (1-2 MOA or so) out to 300-400 meters coupled with good soft tissue terminal performance (early yaw, good fragmentation, at least 12 inches of penetration up to 15-18 inches of penetration, coupled with maximized tissue damage during the first 10 to 12 inches of travel in tissue.  In addition, a good AP round should also be fielded for rifle use for those situations requiring intermediate barrier/armor penetration.

This is the type of input I was looking for.

On the hunting bullet, I would love to be able to offer a bonded type projectile for the Wolf loading but I fear that the envelope of cost may preclude such an item. My first approach will be to use a conventional construction, with a taper drawn jacket and a cannelure to try and retain the integrity of the rear of the bullet and hence prevent core seperation. If I can adjust the thickness of the jacket correctly behind the cannelure I should be able to keep this only slightly deformed and this will also provide the penetration to hopefully exit the game. Remember the bullet has a good length in front of the cannalure so I should be able to get reasonable expansion as well.

I have the Swift Scirroco in the list now to develop load data. Pending disaster I hope to be able to offer this bullet in my factory loads but I will already say that the bullet plus a Lapua case will make this a +$20 a box load. I will publish handloading data so this may be the most economical route.

As usual the tactical load is going to be the most problematic. I also initially read the info provided and thought that this is asking for two bullets so I am glad to see a clarification of this issue, but I will disagree with one point that was raised. With this loading I am not specifically concerned with only the 0- 300m terminal effects. My suggestion is that there is not a digital line between 3" of wound channel neck and 4" of wound channel neck although I fully agree that 6" is too much, I will however always advocate 18" of penetration rather than 12" and I do not like the idea of having to move to a non optimal AP type munition simply to deal with intermediate barriers. Such a requirement says to me that the initial bullet is way too specialized. It also raises the spectre of perforating non effective contacts (read M855 ) if the AP ammunition is employed and the dynamics of the battle change or the barrier proves to be light.

For all round work I would suggest that I need 0-600m performance and that if I compromise the initial yaw out to 4" to get this plus a single round capability against flack vests, intermediate targets and major appendages, this may be acceptable. Equally the Grendel does give an ability to run out to 800m from the carbine so why not use it as it is free.

Enviromental compatability is a given.

Your consideration again please

Bill Alexander

Quoted: This is the type of input I was looking for. On the hunting bullet, I would love to be able to offer a bonded type projectile for the Wolf loading but I fear that the envelope of cost may preclude such an item. My first approach will be to use a conventional construction, with a taper drawn jacket and a cannelure to try and retain the integrity of the rear of the bullet and hence prevent core seperation. If I can adjust the thickness of the jacket correctly behind the cannelure I should be able to keep this only slightly deformed and this will also provide the penetration to hopefully exit the game. Remember the bullet has a good length in front of the cannalure so I should be able to get reasonable expansion as well. I have the Swift Scirroco in the list now to develop load data. Pending disaster I hope to be able to offer this bullet in my factory loads but I will already say that the bullet plus a Lapua case will make this a +$20 a box load. I will publish handloading data so this may be the most economical route. Your consideration again please Bill Alexander

Swift Scirroco is a great bullet but it's way overkill.  The Grendel for all intents and purposes is replicating 6.5x55mm Swede ballistics in an AR package.  The Swede never needed super bullets to get the job done, mainly because impact velocities were low enough to not unduly stress the bullets.  If you believe you will end up with 2550-2600 muzzle velocity, then impact velocity over most hunting ranges will range from around 1900-2450.  That ought to cover you out to 250-300 yds, based on BC, and that's plenty long in the hunting field.  

I would concentrate on something like a Nosler BT, a Hornady SST or Hornady IL, a Speer Hot Cor, just plain jane simple cup bullets.  Maybe something like the Hornady with an internal ring for locking jacket and core together or a Nosler 100/125 grain partition if you're concerned about penetration and weight retention.  But the only way you would have separation issues with these bullets if target distance were short and you nailed the animal right on a major bone, and even then I still think you get enough penetration for a quick kill.  I guarantee you though, if presented an off-angle shot such as quatering from the rear, the Hornady will penetrate deeply enough on game like deer, antelope, and black bear that you won't have a problem with bullet blowup and/or inadequate penetration.

What you don't need are high priced bonded core bullets.  If you were getting 3000+ fps muzzle velocities, then they would be called for.  But they just aren't needed in this application.

The only other thing I'd add is don't assume you need a boat tail bullet for hunting.  At the ranges which the Grendel would be used, they just aren't necessary.  Also, flat based bullets tend to be a bit more accurate and there's less chance of core slippage in the jacket.  The latter point may not be an issue at all given the velocity envelope, but all things consisered, core slippage is more likely with BTs than with FBs.

Quoted: This is the type of input I was looking for. On the hunting bullet, I would love to be able to offer a bonded type projectile for the Wolf loading but I fear that the envelope of cost may preclude such an item. My first approach will be to use a conventional construction, with a taper drawn jacket and a cannelure to try and retain the integrity of the rear of the bullet and hence prevent core seperation. If I can adjust the thickness of the jacket correctly behind the cannelure I should be able to keep this only slightly deformed and this will also provide the penetration to hopefully exit the game. Remember the bullet has a good length in front of the cannalure so I should be able to get reasonable expansion as well. I have the Swift Scirroco in the list now to develop load data. Pending disaster I hope to be able to offer this bullet in my factory loads but I will already say that the bullet plus a Lapua case will make this a +$20 a box load. I will publish handloading data so this may be the most economical route. As usual the tactical load is going to be the most problematic. I also initially read the info provided and thought that this is asking for two bullets so I am glad to see a clarification of this issue, but I will disagree with one point that was raised. With this loading I am not specifically concerned with only the 0- 300m terminal effects. My suggestion is that there is not a digital line between 3" of wound channel neck and 4" of wound channel neck although I fully agree that 6" is too much, I will however always advocate 18" of penetration rather than 12" and I do not like the idea of having to move to a non optimal AP type munition simply to deal with intermediate barriers. Such a requirement says to me that the initial bullet is way too specialized. It also raises the spectre of perforating non effective contacts (read M855 ) if the AP ammunition is employed and the dynamics of the battle change or the barrier proves to be light. For all round work I would suggest that I need 0-600m performance and that if I compromise the initial yaw out to 4" to get this plus a single round capability against flack vests, intermediate targets and major appendages, this may be acceptable. Equally the Grendel does give an ability to run out to 800m from the carbine so why not use it as it is free. Enviromental compatability is a given. Your consideration again please Bill Alexander

Bill, sorry about not calling Friday as promised. I got tied up doing an impromptu optics evaluation. I'll give you a shout Monday, you name the time. I've got a few ideas.

Thanks for the details, and the effort involved in turning the Grendel into a serious competitor in the tactical realm.

tag

Thank you for continuing with your thoughts concerning the projectiles.

To give a little background of where I am trying to get to with the ammunition, the big hole in the acceptance of any intermediate or alternative caliber for the AR is ammunition that is ecconomical enough for regular shooting or general blasting/plinking. You will also note that I said ecconomical not cheap. I am trying to present a cartridge that does not cost a lot but equally it is of a substantial standard that you are quite happy to shoot it all the time.

For hunting, with the above proviso accepted I feel that we are headed in the right direction with a standard construction flat base bullet. The observations concerning the 6.5x55 are certainly relevent. If the bullet works well in the field and equally allows ammo to get to the market at $5-$7 mark which is the aim this is perfect. I have a question. I am not too worried about white tail but is there any experience of using 6.5x55 with a traditional bullet on other game. Hogs would be a good test.

The tactical round is also governed by the same cost criteria. I am afraid I am of the school that you should shoot in training just the same as you should intend to shoot in the field ie train as you would fight. Keeping the ammo affordable allows training with the same ammo.

The bonded projectile from Swift is as I infered going to added to the AA factory line if everthing works well. It is there for those who balance the cost of the shot against the cost of the hunt. Equally I will be looking to this projectile for it's performance against the barriers of the FBI protocol.

Bill Alexander

Quoted: Thank you for continuing with your thoughts concerning the projectiles. For hunting, with the above proviso accepted I feel that we are headed in the right direction with a standard construction flat base bullet. The observations concerning the 6.5x55 are certainly relevent. If the bullet works well in the field and equally allows ammo to get to the market at $5-$7 mark which is the aim this is perfect. I have a question. I am not too worried about white tail but is there any experience of using 6.5x55 with a traditional bullet on other game. Hogs would be a good test. The bonded projectile from Swift is as I infered going to added to the AA factory line if everthing works well. It is there for those who balance the cost of the shot against the cost of the hunt. Equally I will be looking to this projectile for it's performance against the barriers of the FBI protocol. Bill Alexander

Plenty have been killed with 5.56, I wouldn't worry about 6.5 not being adequate.  If it were me, I might avoid Nosler BT or Hornady SST in that situation (and that's being pretty conservative) and move up to a Nosler Partition or Horn SP-IL, but those will be more than adequate.

What are your expectations on sales of uppers used for tactical applications vs hunting?  Do you expect to sell many 16" bbl uppers to hunters or do you expect they would go for longer length barrels?  Reason I ask is that there are scads of 140 grain bullets suitable for hunting.  These bullets combine both good BC and good sectional density, and if you drive them to 2600-2700 fps, that's the ticket.  Just wondering if the case capacity would allow achieving those velocities from maybe 20-22" barrels?  The added barrel length ought to be for another 100 fps over what you can get from 16" barrels.

If so, and if a buyers' main motivation were to hit the game fields, then that's what I'd expect them to buy.  Moreso over the 16" barrel.  If those velocities aren't achievable, then I'd focus hunting loads on 120-129 grain bullets.  Also note that Nosler makes a 100 grain partition in 6.5mm, so that might be an avenue to explore -- higher velocity, yet still a good penetrating bullet.

I'm not sure if this is the right thread to ask this in, but what are the velocity differences or expected velocity differences between the 16", 19.5" and 24" barrels? I guess looking at the 123 gn that is being drawn up and maybe the lapua scener 123? If there isn't much of a difference, I am going to jump onto your entry now, and getting another in a while.

Man I can't wait! The GP tactical load sounds better to me than one specifically designed for CQB. The hunting bullet doesn't interest me as much, however I would vote for a flat base soft point if I was going to use it for hunting black tail. Really looking forward to those hi caps. Roben.

Here is MY admittedly biased opinion regarding the proposed hunting bullet:

Try an off-the-shelf component bullet.  The 2500-2570 proposed for a 120 grain bullet is NOT stressing the bullet at all.  I've been using Nosler Ballistic Tips in .30/165 on whitetails at a little over 2600 for years.  Expansion is rapid, performance in wonderful.  Given that the 6.5/120 is roughly the same sort of bullet (very similar sectional density) I'd imagine it would do wonderfully.  In addition, someone else has done much of the bullet testing for you:  Try JD Jones, and looks at his track record with the 6.5/120 BT out of the 6.5 JDJ.  The typical handgun velocities are a bit slower, but I'm willing to bet the 21"-23" carbine speeds are exactly inline with your proposed grendel speeds.

I would only have two concerns with the Ballist Tip.  The very sharp polymer tip tends to make for a long bullet.  Seating depth sometimes suffers a tad when trying to make magazine length.  However, since this wonderful little Grendel already is set up for this issue, who cares???  

The only other issue might be rifle length impact velocities.  The 20-24" are going to push 'em harder.  However, we are still talking a Grendel, and we are NOT talking 3000+FPS impact speeds.  Does it really matter?  I doubt it.  

It ifs a big concern, simply use an Interbond. It will hold up inder any likely Grendel velocities.  If price of the bullet is indeed a big issue, you can moderate the impact velocities even easier:  Load a slightly slower 140 Ballistic Tip.  In either  carbine or rifle length these will opne up beautifully without the fragmentation that seems to occur at higher speeds...

I'm now using Hornady BTSP #3033 150 grainers at 2620.  Again, its another .30, but at 2620 its opens wonderfully, and still gives complete through and through penetration.  At $13.00-$14.00/hundred these are decently constructed but still plenty cheap.  

TO be completely honest, just about any 120 at 2500 sounds like venison on the table to me....  

Bill:
One of the things I've noticed as a varmint hunter is reduced velocity saved a lot of needle and thread time and the Grendel's modest velocity's  will do that and provide reasonable downrange performance. The other pattern I've noticed was the more expensive the bullet the better the terminal performance but the accuracy was lacking. As a reloader the $9/50 120 &100 grain Nosler  BTips are the exception.  The BTips shoot much better for me but don't know where the wash is between accuracy/terminal performance if your looking for one choice in a hunting bullet.  One of the reasons why I reload.

Bill,

For what it is worth, Larry Rogers, an MD, handgun hunter and contributer to The Sixgunner, JD Jones' publication, has recorded many many hundreds (or perhaps low 1000's) of autopsied deer harvests with assorted Contender and pistol rounds.  He has much info on bullet performance on the 6.5 JDJ.  The caliber connection has been stated and is fairly obvious.

I do not have contact information for him, but if you have a working relationship with J.D. Jones, or are able to secure the back copies of the Sixgunner, you might have a wealth of information on terminal performance with 6.5 projectiles at 6.5 G. ballistics.  It was that information and other researching that led me to the 6.5 JDJ.  With the right bullet, it is quite simply a killing machine on deer sized game.

Craig

Talked to Mr. Alexander for a while today.

Needless to say, I'm very excited about what's coming down the pipeline.

I dont think I've seen this mentioned...does anyone know what the fragmentation threshold of the 6.5 is?

I know this is currently a thread about ammo, but since "the man" is watching...

I'd LOVE to see the Grendel offered in an 18" barrel with a mid-length gas system

I don't know why, but the 18" barrel seems to have the best balance to me...

FWIW, "inexpensive" ammo is the ONLY thing I'm waiting on to make a purchase, and has been THE deciding factor regarding my purchase of a 6.X rifle.  I can spend $800 once on an upper, but I don't want to keep paying over and over every time I shoot.  I tend to spend $50 on ammo for every range trip.  I don't want to go all the way to the range and have to leave after 50 rounds.

I've already decided that, if the "Wolf" ammo doesn't happen, I'm just going to give up and buy an AR10 and be done with it...  

The Grendel magazine will be stainless steel. We are making them for Bill.

rickdownrange, can you say what your company is? Roben.

Quoted: I know this is currently a thread about ammo, but since "the man" is watching... I'd LOVE to see the Grendel offered in an 18" barrel with a mid-length gas system I don't know why, but the 18" barrel seems to have the best balance to me...

+1

Creative?

Quoted: I know this is currently a thread about ammo, but since "the man" is watching... I'd LOVE to see the Grendel offered in an 18" barrel with a mid-length gas system I don't know why, but the 18" barrel seems to have the best balance to me...

+2

I'm VERY interested in 6.5 Grendel, i'll probably get one as soon as these new items come out.


You said you were looking for opinions Mr. Alexander... Well, here'gos.

As for bullets, you've got pretty much everything covered, there's just one load I'd like that's missing... Regardless of if it is or isn't made, i'll be getting 6.5, but I'd like to toss it out there for future consideration.

The round I have in mind needs to be military grade, by that I mean cannelure, crimping, sealed case neck and primer to keep water out long term.

For military grade ammunition, weight is normally your friend. It gives you more range [assuming it doesn't mess up the BC too much], and more punch, that's just the way it is.

Thus, the bullet needs to be as heavy as it can realistically be made while still being magazine length, and without sacrificing performance too much. I'd like this round to be effective out to at least 800 yards, so we'll use that for the 'minimum accuracy and terminal effects threshold'.

For the best terminal effects, the round probably needs to upset between 1-3", 4" might work. It needs to fragment very well, the less recovered weight, the better. Penetration should be a minimum of 12", more is better, as long as it doesn't sacrifice fragmentation, etc.

Considering what you said about it 'ripping the gel block apart', if that's a repeatable effect with said round, and not just a fluke, ignore everything I've said, and just load that bullet into a crimped and sealed case.



As for the rifle itself, I'd be looking for a rifle with an 18.5" or 20" barrel, piston system [assuming it's a good one], A2ish or Vortex style flash hider, bayonet lug that actually works is one of my personal obsessions. Any good handguard would do, but frankly I like plain-jane A2 style handguards... Those aren't the best for accuracy, but I think it'd do... If not, well, whatever works.




Just a side note: Robinson Arms has a nice looking rifle coming out called the XCR... Lots of people are throwing stones at it because it's a few months late... But when it comes to market, assuming it lives up to the claims, I'd be very interested in one of those in 6.5 Grendel, of course, you an Alex Robinson would have to work that out...

Quoted: I know this is currently a thread about ammo, but since "the man" is watching... I'd LOVE to see the Grendel offered in an 18" barrel with a mid-length gas system I don't know why, but the 18" barrel seems to have the best balance to me...

+3... Only I'd like the piston system on mine... With a bayonet lug, please .


Yeah yeah, I know, I know, bayonets are useless...

Simon, the answer is yes. We are tooling the Grendel for Bill in stainless steel as well as a 5.56/.223 in stainless. The stainless steel mags will weigh 5.6 ounces versus 4 ounces for the aluminum. They will have an anti-tilt follower as well as an optional ranger bottom plate. They will be priced about 50% less than the H&K steel magazines. Both magazines will be offered with a black teflon finish as well as the moly dry coat.

bump.  My RRA varmint upper plans may be changing....

I would be interested in muzzle blast/flash of the combat rounds from a 16" and a shorty (10-11-12").  Also some gel tests from a short barrel at some medium ranges.  

Tagged for more info... I am so into a 6.5, gas piston, 16 to 18" deer slayer...