I'd be on the Grendel like stink on poo if I could just get a barrel and bolt for a reasonable price.  Getting a bare bones upper for $875 and modifying it to my likes/needs cost way to much to even approach that issue.  I've posted the same concern on the Grendel web sites, so to some I sound like a broken record.

I'm going with the squeaky wheel getting the grease (in this case the 6.5 Grendel barrel and bolt) approach.

Quoted: I'd be on the Grendel like stink on poo if I could just get a barrel and bolt for a reasonable price.  Getting a bare bones upper for $875 and modifying it to my likes/needs cost way to much to even approach that issue.  I've posted the same concern on the Grendel web sites, so to some I sound like a broken record. I'm going with the squeaky wheel getting the grease (in this case the 6.5 Grendel barrel and bolt) approach.

These are exactly my thoughts on the Grendel.

Quoted: (By the way, did you hear the 6.5 Grendel ripped through the FBI gel-test protocols? Not even the 6.8 SPC passed them all.) "Are the terminal effects better than a 5.56mm 77gn bullet?" Yes, if you call splitting an 8-inch gel block from top to bottom better. The 6.5 Grendel recently underwent terminal testing according to the standard FBI protocols. However, none of us will see the sponsoring party's results, so we won't be able to armchair analyze its terminal effects in detail. The military knows what it can do. If you're authorized, I'm sure you can get the results. If one isn't in the military, then you're using hunting bullets, and we've got 100 years and counting of knowing what 6.5 hunting bullets can do. Another word on terminal effects. Gel-testing only replicates performance in the human body to something like 64%. So it gives only an indication, but nothing ever definitive. And there is no "magic" bullet. Again, we've got 100 years of shooting things with 6.5 caliber bullets. So there's nothing mysterious about the caliber; ask Scandinavian moose, they know it well. Within the caliber, we can make any bullet you like. You want fragments? We got fragments! You want armor-piercing? We got AP. The fact that a 30-year-old standard FMJBT 144gr Lapua bullet is ripping gel-blocks apart is a good sign, but that's only a start. The recent testers wouldn't even touch the 123gr Lapua Scenar OTM because its fragmentation might be even more aggressive than any OTM we currently use (this is a match round only and soley to balance the weight for accuracy is there a hollow cavity in the nose; sort of like the Russian 5.45 round). "What is the pressure like in the chamber-is it more than the 6.8?" The 6.5 Grendel factory ammo runs pressures of 48,000-49,000, as tested over six pressure barrels. "What is the 6.5 Grendel trying to replace? the 5.56mm? or the 7.62mm? or both?" It's mainly aimed at giving 7.62 capabilities in a lighter, more compact package. I, personally, would argue that it be a multipurpose cartridge to replace both 7.62 and 5.56 in assault rifles, light and medium machine guns, and light sniper rigs. But there's a huge concern in the military over the weight of the ammo load, so 5.56 looks to stay in the near term. But then they develop the doctrine of the "double-tap" and they use up 5.56 rounds at a faster rate anyway! Two 62-grain chunks of lead or one 123- or 144-grain 6.5 Grendel chunk of lead: What's the difference? Anyway, don't get me started on that. . . . John ----------------- 6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body www.65grendel.com

What kind of penitration in those gel-blocks? How did it do against clothing? Barriers? At what range? What is the practical range of the grendel?

Chance

Ok, I am very familiar with gelatin block testing and it's efficacy. I usually do have access to most test results (just right now I am in Iraq so it is a little difficult for me to find out these things lately). The 6.8 also split a few gel blocks during testing. Gelatin analysis is good because it is a basic medium that gives reproducible results, that is why I asked.

The 6.8 runs at less than 50,000 psi or so, that was part of the design.

I want to know how many rounds in a magazine and other minor questions, because the people I work for will be the ones who get the 6.8mm SPC or the 6.5mm Grendel. I normally give periodic briefings on weapons/ammunition trends to certain people who want to know and they ask alot of questions. My interest is strictly military application. I don't care how well it thumps animals: I want to know how well it thumps people. If yaw and fragmentation start at the same depth of a 62 grain M855 5.56mm bullet then what real improvement have you gained? That is the foundation that  the new cartridge program (SPC) started for.

If you are trying to replace the 7.62mm good luck to you, it will be an uphill battle all the way for you, your biggest fight will probably be with the military sniper community they seem to be very intrenched with the 7.62mm.

As for 100 years of shooting things with 6.5mm bullets (beware of blanket statements like that); Why did the Greeks, Italians and Japanese go to larger calibers for their military rifles? Read up on what happened to the Italians and the Japanese and why they opted for bigger bullets (even after modifing the 6.5 Arisaka bullet to fragment). When, if ever did a Scandanavian shoot a 6.5mm in anger at anything other than a moose? (which has a slightly different physique than a person I am willing to bet). As for new bullets what then would these newer higher tech bullets do in a 6.8mm then?

It seems as though the 6.5mm Grendel is designed primarily for accuracy and the 6.5 bullet is hard to beat there if not impossible You won't hear any arguments from me on that one. But I am tired of hearing the: hey I shot that a&&-%$le 8 times while clearing a room and he did not drop and it seems to happen a lot more now than it did before with the older larger diameter bullets. The 6.8mm was designed for killing power primarily, then accuracy. So it is hard to judge against a cartridge that seems to be designed primarily more for long range accuracy.

I am not saying the 6.5mm lacks merit I am sure it does but until I see anything tangible on the 6.5mm Grendel. My endorsement stays there with the 6.8mm SPC (personal opinion). But I hope things pan out for the 6.5 Grendel-I don't wish it any ill will.

KMFDM wrote: "My endorsement stays there with the 6.8mm SPC."

KMFDM, I enjoy greatly hearing the well-considered opinions of someone I respect for his fairmindedness, and that's you. You're not just someone who says, "Dude, the 6.5 Grendel sux; the 6.8 SPC rools." And since it seems we're both on the same team trying to get the most effective military cartridge, and since you're both well-informed and reasonable, it should be interesting.

Let me then ask you some questions about the 6.8 SPC vs. 6.5 Grendel debate that few have been able to give good answers to: If you were to try and sell me on the 6.8 SPC over the 6.5 Grendel, what would you say? Other than that the 6.8 bullet has 9% greater frontal area (for what that's worth relative to the mass of the target). If frontal area is the sole criterion, then why has 5.56 been acceptable? Or why not stay with 7.62 if you need a larger frontal area? But if an intermediate frontal area is OK, then by what criteria do you make an arbitrary decision that 6.8 is acceptable and something only one-third of a millimeter smaller, the 6.5, is not?

In addition: Formerly, the best argument the 6.8 proponents could present is that the Hornady bullet performs great in gel tests, as if no other cartridge and bullet combo could possibly ever come close. I typically would respond, interestingly enough, as you have responded to me, that whatever bullet technology is used in the 6.8 can certainly also be used in the 6.5, and I don't remember hearing a rebuttal.

So, in your considered opinion, why the 6.8 SPC and why not the 6.5 Grendel? I'm not even interested, right now, in boring everybody with my "broken record" cross-examination. I'll just listen and learn.

John

------------------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

I am interested in both new calibers. I doubt I will ever handload and just buy box ammo. I would simply use either for hunting and some real light plinking. So I won't be wailing away on hundreds of rounds per shoot. I like what  I hear about the Grendel. From what  I read, it seems like a solid performer and I thought about buying one of these uppers. Unfortunatly, this wildcat round is made by a small manufacture and I'm not too crazy about special ordering. When  6.8 ammo becomes available, its is being produced by a major ammo maker and is being pushed by by 6.8 uppers made by different makers. Big plus. I'll bet more ammo makers would jump on the 6.8 bandwagon.  If 6.5 Grendel ammo was being made by at least one big maker, I would have it on order. Chances are, someday you might be able to walk into Wal-mart and buy 6.8 SPC while the hunting sales clerk shrugs his head from never hearing about some 6.5 Grendel. Bototmline, 6.5 Grendel sounds bad ass but 6.8 has a stronger backing. 6.5 Grendel  might actually be better but its being drowned by the 6.8 promotions.

I know this is irrelevent to you handloaders, but there are alot of us guys who have not jumped into the world of reloading. There are alot of guys who don't handload and also don't jump on internet forums to give their 2 cents......

Quoted: walk into Wal-mart and buy 6.8 SPC while the hunting sales clerk shrugs his head from never hearing about some 6.5 Grendel. Bototmline, 6.5 Grendel sounds bad ass but 6.8 has a stronger backing. 6.5 Grendel  might actually be better but its being drowned by the 6.8 promotions. I know this is irrelevent to you handloaders, but there are alot of us guys who have not jumped into the world of reloading. There are alot of guys who don't handload and also don't jump on internet forums to give their 2 cents......

big +1

i think it's pretty obvious we're never gonna see either 1 of these selling for $200 a case, but the walmart factor is huge.

i'd love to buy a couple of grendel uppers right now, but have the unsettling feeling it might not be around in 10 years.

i'm much less enthusiastic about the 6.8, but would probably grab one if i could go to sports authority and get a couple of boxes of ammo.

i'm thinking this is probably 3 years down the road.  minimum.

sigh...

Grendelizer:

The problem with the 6,5mm Grendel is I have no information on it just anecdotal evidence. If you can point me to a website/page that I can look at some of the performance criteria and case/loading specs. I can give you some answers that is why I initially inquired about the 6,5 Grendel.

When some of the initial gelatin testing was done on some of the SPC family (6mm, 6,5mm 6,8mm, 7mm and 7,62mm/.30) the difference was quite noticable and readily apparent between the calibers in terminal effect, especially the the line between 6,5mm and 6,8mm. The 6,5mm was wanted (because of better downrange ballistics due to the good accuracy of the 6,5mm bullet) good velocity, etc. but it just could not perform as well as the 6,8mm in the main criterion of terminal effect. Actually the best performer in my book was the 7mm for accuracy and terminal effects. But things being as they are the target velocity and a few other things did not turn out to be what was wanted. Actually the first batch of Remington brass was stamped 6,5mm on the base instead of 6,8mm (if memory serves correctly-I don't have my collection handy at this time) if that gives you any idea as to what was liked. My original input was to make a "Sturmgewehr" clone in 8mm Kurz (not the only one either on that) for the M-4, but that was unfeasible and a bit romantic. The 6,5s did very well in one of the years during development of the SPC during some matches and I think "Precision Shooter" had quite a few articles on the 6,5mm so I believe (personal thought here: not substantiated) was that that had some influence towards the 6,5mm SPC-LIKE I SAID THOUGH, PERSONAL OPINION (Please excuse the large case lettering just to make clear to some readers.

Alot of thought was put in on the 6,8mm idea-old data on R&D cartridges was dug up (the British pre-WWI .276, the .276 Pederson, The .280 British in both of it's case designs and some of the Post WWII French, Belgian and a few others). Some results of the old tests were found (i.e. "the Pig-Board" of the 1920's etc.)and it seemed to balance toward the 6,8mm-7mm zone for best overall performance and I still prefer myself the 7mm variant if I had one to choose, but it is not my call for the most part and I understand the choice and still back it.    

KMFDM, I just want to acknowledge I read your response and I am not going to argue, but I must make one clarification.

The 6.5 SPC tests were done using only the 43mm SPC case, and that makes all the difference in the world. Those results can't necessarily be extrapolated to other 6.5 bullets fired from the 6.5 Grendel case. The SPC case limits your 6.5 bullet choices; that's why we like the 6.5 x 39 Grendel case. We have a vast variety of bullet options as evidenced in the latest FBI protocol tests using the 144gr Lapua FMJBT.

John

-----------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

Grendelizer, Is this Dr. Fackler you keep refering to. Might that be Martin L. Fackler, MD of "Street Stoppers: The Latest Handgun Stopping Power Street Results" fame?

Quoted: Grendelizer, Is this Dr. Fackler you keep refering to. Might that be Martin L. Fackler, MD of "Street Stoppers: The Latest Handgun Stopping Power Street Results" fame?

Rather, "Street Stoppers: The Latest Handgun Stopping Power Street Results" was from Marshall and Sanow; Fackler was an opponent, right?

Quoted: JT, "Fackler" references are indeed referring to the work of Dr. Martin Fackler, and certainly not to the long-discredited Marshall & Sanow.  Several of Dr. Fackler's articles are linked to in the Ammo forum, and his work heavily influenced the Ammo Oracle. -Troy

I thought so. I had once bought in to the Marshall - Sanow works. It was Dr. Fackler's writings that helped correct that and brought me into the light. He is partly responsible for my faith in big calibers and heavy bullets. My question then is where would I find his works on the Grendel that Grendelizer keeps refering to? How about other calibers? The last I found on anything he or his collegues have done was Aug 2002.

Thanks for the info Troy. I'll check out the tactical forums.

JTC, I'm not aware I've referred to Fackler lately. I am generally in Fackler's camp regarding wound mechanisms, but I don't believe I've directly mentioned him recently. Quote me, refresh my memory.

John

-----------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

I  just downloaded the new version of RemShoot from their website.  (It is a very basic ballistic calculator program but it is also very free).  They actually list 3 different loads for the 6.8SPC.  So while this doesn't mean much for the military side of things, it is good to see for civilian use.

Quoted: JTC, I'm not aware I've referred to Fackler lately. I am generally in Fackler's camp regarding wound mechanisms, but I don't believe I've directly mentioned him recently. Quote me, refresh my memory. John ----------------- 6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body www.65grendel.com

Nevermind. Got what I wanted from Troy.

Ok, I finally found a little info online about the 6,5mm Grendel. Ballistics look good. Has any gun chambered in this caliber undergone the milspec. testing yet (6,000 round endurance tests, etc.)?
My chief design concerns are about opening the bolt face that much and having a weapon capable of firing full automatic, amongst other things in heat as high as 140 degrees F. (the temperature here last week, I am curious as to the pressure curves at extreme temps) with a cartridge that may have higher pressure than a 7,62x39mm for extended periods. One of the reasons that the .30 Rem case was selected is that you did not have to open the bolt face up so much, because concern was about bolt lug failure in the M16/M4 series at higher pressures than the 7,62x39. Especially when you may have a partially obstucted bore (from water etc.) certain units like to shoot as they come up out of the water with no time to go through the draining procedure (the M-4 bolt loves to fly apart when not properly drained at times).
As for your question about being able to use heavier bullets, yes the Grendel seems to be superior there. I am not sure how much heavier than about 125 grains a 6.8mm can handle (I never tried to do it, others may have though, dunno for sure). Will these bullets (Scenar, etc.) you mention pass legal review by JAG? If not, they are not pertinant to me. But when you increase bullet weight you also increase recoil and muzzle rise and you may have a weapon that is difficult to give a controlled pair  in CQC out of let alone accurate suppressive fire from. I am not sure on the Grendel until I actually shoot one side by side w/a 6,8mm and 5,56mm.

KMFDM, some of your questions are getting quite technical, on the engineering level. Simply give Bill Alexander at Alexander Arms a call. You may be thinking that because of projects he's done in the past he's got certain security classifications, but as far as the 6.5 Grendel goes, it's a public project that he'd be happy to discuss, up to a point of proprietary data, of course (540-639-8356).

I'm quite sure, but don't quote me, that Grendel bolts are machined new from the ground up, not reworked. Again, ask Bill.

John

--------------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

Quoted: Military purchasing authorities will NOT be buying the 6.8 SPC cartridge, and those who need to know have been informed. Thus, it looks like the 6.8 SPC is solely a commercial, civilian round. John ---------------- 6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body www.65grendel.com

Source of your info would be nice.......

tag

Well, if my sources wish to remain out of public scrutiny, it would be foolish of me to betray the hands that feed me and cut myself off from all the juicy gossip, wouldn't it? Sorry, no source disclosure will be forthcoming.

OK, now you're suspicious and think I'm just making it all up. Well, I wish there was something I could do about that, but I can't. I believe my sources to be reliable. I believe myself to be accurately reporting the data. Future events will bear things out one way or another.

By the way, others totally unrelated to me are saying the same thing here and in other forums, although I acknowledge that others, yet again, contradict and say it's alive and well. I guess time will tell.

And I'm really not that interested in hunting down every last little tidbit on the 6.8 SPC. It's a decent effort and can serve reasonably well. But I still say why get hamburger when you can have steak for the same price?

John

------------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Steak in an AR15 Bun
www.65grendel.com

Hamburger fragments sooner ?!  

Touché! (On your wit; but I don't concede the point on its technical merits!)

John

-----------------
6.5 Grendel: AR10 Soul in an AR15 Body
www.65grendel.com

It would be very interesting to see a bullet designed specifically to tumble quickly when entering soft material.  A heavy rear weight bias in a long bullet should do the trick.  The 6.5 Grendel ability to load longer bullets should be ideal for a quick tumble bullet.

We have copper solids - how about a almost all copper solid except for the rear 1/3 filled with lead?

I can wait to see  in 20 years the "old Debate" on the "6,8mm vs. the 6,5mm controversy" then add in any of these adjectives in whatever sequence (1st, last, whatever) you would like (Awesome, effective, superior, unquestionably better, good, better, bestest, etc. (ad nauseum) vs. Junk, "What were they thinking?", Garbage, ineffective, innacurate, etc. (ad nauseum). It should be interesting to hear if either of these cartridges are issued. I look forward to it when I am older and crusty hehehe. So everybody start preparing your arguments now there is plenty of time ahead.......

Quoted: It would be very interesting to see a bullet designed specifically to tumble quickly when entering soft material.  A heavy rear weight bias in a long bullet should do the trick.

Actually, I think it's the opposite.  A front weighted bullet would make the projectile more unstable.  Check out the FN P90 loads.  They're specifically designed to tumble with weighted fronts, but accuracy beyond 100 yards is horrid.  Rear cores actually increase stability in a round (that's why match bullets have hps), but the longer bullets in these designs might be the reason they're somewhat more unstable on entering tissue than a 'balanced' version.  It would definately be nice to see a test on a range of bullets looking for characteristics that lead to tumbling.