AR Sponsor
6.8SPC or 6.5G? Which one should I buy? (Page 10 of 14)
|
Originally Posted By hi-tech-rancher:
I'll give you some real world experience with all of them: 1) the 6.8 SPC with 95 grain TTSX's knocks down hogs better than any other AR-15 cartridge I've fired in over 30 years of hunting (I have not yet shot the 100 TTSX from the Grendel, but I expect it to be excellent, as well) . I have killed > 700 hogs with the 6.8 now, and it bears no resemblance to the 7.62 X 39, especially when you consider the bullet trajectory, and the lack of good .310" bullets for X 39. I used to watch hogs run off with crappy X39 bullets in them, especially using soft points, which failed often to penetrate the shoulder blade. 2) The 6.8 has so many good bullets available that I am not sure I see the comparison with X 39 or even .30-30. LeverEvolution (FTX) bullets are excellent, but you can't shoot .30-30 in a 6.5 lb., 12"bbl AR-15. I have killed lots of animals with .30-30, but again the trajectory of most .30-30 bullets will not be as flat as the 85 TSX, 95 TTSX, 90 grain TNT, or even the 110 SPH. A much more educated statement would have been that the .30RAR ( as was tested by Bill Wilson recently) is actually duplicating .30-30 ballistics even in SBR's, but they are scarce and its future is uncertain. 3) I find it much more realistic to say that the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel are both similar to each other, superior to the 5.56 in killing power and that all of them are capable of excellent accuracy, completely dependent upon the barrel, the optic / sights, the shooter and the conditions. No one caliber is so much more inherently accurate than the others to make such silly statements. I meant .30 Remington, not .30 Rem AR. |
|
I am what most people would consider an AR noob. I have read through this thread and did my best to sort through all the BS and fanatics opinions not based on facts and have come to this conclusion.......
If you want to shoot very accurately at ranges from 500-1000 yards get the 6.5 Grendel but you will be stuck with a bigger, heavier barrel. If you want more of a carbine length barrel get the 6.8 SPC but you will cap your effective range at about 500 yards. There is no clear "winner" it is just a matter of what you as a shooter are looking for. Other than what i have stated earlier i see no huge differences in the calibers. Am i right?? |
|
Originally Posted By Viper121791:
I am what most people would consider an AR noob. I have read through this thread and did my best to sort through all the BS and fanatics opinions not based on facts and have come to this conclusion....... If you want to shoot very accurately at ranges from 500-1000 yards get the 6.5 Grendel but you will be stuck with a bigger, heavier barrel. If you want more of a carbine length barrel get the 6.8 SPC but you will cap your effective range at about 500 yards. There is no clear "winner" it is just a matter of what you as a shooter are looking for. Other than what i have stated earlier i see no huge differences in the calibers. Am i right?? No, you will not be stuck with a bigger, heavier barrel. You don't need a 28, 24, 20, 18 or even a 16 inch barrel on a Grendel if you don't want it. They tick along nicely with a 14.5 inch and I've shot a 10.5 inch that ran fine. My favorite Grendel is a 16 inch gun with a Gov weight barrel. Don't fall into the trap of thinking a Grendel needs some stupid long and heavy barrel. Sure, they work great set up like that and run as a DMR or precision rig. But they also work fine run as a lightweight carbine. 
This is my 16 inch carbine and it's both light and handy. It works dandy on big game at the traditional muzzle to 300 yard distances and slays steel out to 600-700 yards. My next Grendel will be a 12 inch gun. I think that will be pretty friggen cool and it will easily outperform a 20 inch 5.56....I'll be interested to see how fast I can drive a 100 grain Berger OTM and Barnes TTSX. I'll guess around 2,650 fps. |
Looking for info on firearms, ammo, optics, gear?
Check out www.tacticalgunfan.com
A dead whale or a stove boat.
Check out www.tacticalgunfan.com
A dead whale or a stove boat.
| Which would I choose? 6.8 SPC even though 6.5 is superior in every way IMO but no enough to counter negatives like availability and price. Less than $1 a round vs. $1.50 on average. Easy to find vs. hard to find. 10x as many ammo and parts producers vs. two or three. Proprietary vs. non proprietary. 6.5 Grendel is dying due to poor marketing, crappy CS and closed nature. |
|
Originally Posted By JDJR:
Which would I choose? 6.8 SPC even though 6.5 is superior in every way IMO but no enough to counter negatives like availability and price. Less than $1 a round vs. $1.50 on average. Easy to find vs. hard to find. 10x as many ammo and parts producers vs. two or three. Proprietary vs. non proprietary. 6.5 Grendel is dying due to poor marketing, crappy CS and closed nature. WOW!! Terrible information! Untrue, all of it, and a mega fail!! The Grendel has gone through teething problems, created by a caliber that rapidly became more popular than the introducing manufacturer could possibly anticipate. But in the last year Hornady has signed on to build ammo, and several other manufacturers are considering releasing rifles based on the caliber. To top that off, ongoing negotiations with a major manufacturer will probably bring very inexpensive ammo to market in the near future. Lets see, though, has 6.8 ever had ammo as cheap as Wolf 6.5 ammo? Hornady runs right around $1 a round, cheaper than comparable 6.8 ammo from what I can find. Les Baer has released a new rifle that although not a Grendel per se, fires the same ammunition. Others are following suit. Many others have signed on as Grendel licensees in that same time frame. Sounds to me like the cartridge is here to stay, and that the companies will figure out all the rest. Hornady stumbled a bit in not producing enough factory ammo with their first run, and it all sold out in a matter of weeks, but I'm betting that doesn't happen again, and with a new player bringing on cheop plinking ammo, the round is here to stay. |
| I can get 6.8 all day long for much less than $1.00 a round,SSA Prohunter 110gr are 17.10, SSA Sierra 115gr OTM/boattail are 18.95, Hornady VMax 110gr are are 18.95, Compare that to Hornady 40gr Vmax in .223 at 17.49 or SSA 77gr OTM at 18.72.Just to be fair try 120gr AA 6.5G ammo at Midway for 32.99, and I chose that not as the most expensive, because it isn't, but as the only ammo in stock there, and the Wolf is out of stock back ordered until Dec.2010 everywhere I have looked, ALexander Arms, and Nathez. There are a lot of loads that are over that price with the 6.8, but you're talking about rounds with Barnes, Nosler, and other high end projectiles. Look up the cost of anything else with those projectiles and they will be comparable according to their use of components and materiel. |
|
Originally Posted By pavlovwolf:
I can get 6.8 all day long for much less than $1.00 a round,SSA Prohunter 110gr are 17.10, SSA Sierra 115gr OTM/boattail are 18.95, Hornady VMax 110gr are are 18.95, Compare that to Hornady 40gr Vmax in .223 at 17.49 or SSA 77gr OTM at 18.72.Just to be fair try 120gr AA 6.5G ammo at Midway for 32.99, and I chose that not as the most expensive, because it isn't, but as the only ammo in stock there, and the Wolf is out of stock back ordered until Dec.2010 everywhere I have looked, ALexander Arms, and Nathez. There are a lot of loads that are over that price with the 6.8, but you're talking about rounds with Barnes, Nosler, and other high end projectiles. Look up the cost of anything else with those projectiles and they will be comparable according to their use of components and materiel. Thanks Pavlov, I hadn't seen those lower priced 6.8 rounds. They are very comparable to 6.5 Hornady pricewise. 6.5 should have similar, though cheaper options by the end of the year, or soon thereafter. |
| That's cool bwaites. Those are not sale prices, those are every day prices at Palmetto State Armory. They are local to me and where I go, of course they are online. They mormally have some of the best prices around. SSA is still working on a plinking round as well. They moved to a new facility so things are somewhat behind. I have also talked to a couple of companies who are looking to bring a steel cased 6.8 to the market. The projectiles aren't the high dollar part, unless you start talking bonded, ttsx, and that kind of thing. OTM is as cheap to make as fmj, powder and primer are the same, so the savings will have to be the place to save cost. Ij just wanted to post those prices because there is a lot of old info out there as far as ballistics and ammo prices. When I got in the 6.8 game prices were already where they are now pretty much, but a few years back it was really high. The thing is, is that there is nothing but premium or close to it type ammo available cost wise. |
|
Originally Posted By pavlovwolf:
While I'm a 6.8 guy, I hope the 6.5G never dies. It's a great round. I do see that there are more manufacturers picking it up, some in slight variations on the theme as far as chambers, helping it to save it from it's bondage at the hands of it's creator. Well, it's creator is not doing a very good job of keeping it in bondage. 
A major foreign ammo manufacturer just picked up the Grendel and will be introducing a 110 grain FMJ and 120 grain OTM to start. The big deal here is it will be very competitively priced and they are slated to bring in huge quantities. So yeah, Grendel ammo is scarce at the moment due to its rising popularity, but relief is on the way. They will be bringing in cases and components as well. Probably hit store shelves by the end of the year. Plus there is more news on the way concerning BOTH calibers..... |
Looking for info on firearms, ammo, optics, gear?
Check out www.tacticalgunfan.com
A dead whale or a stove boat.
Check out www.tacticalgunfan.com
A dead whale or a stove boat.
|
Here are some current loads
L to R: 123 Hornady A-MAX, 120 grain Wolf MPT, AA 100 grain Berger OTM, AA 120 grain Nosler, AA 120 grain Barnes TSX, AA 129 grain SST, AA 130 grain Scirocco, AA 110 grain Barnes Solid, AA 125 grain AP 
Here are some velocity readings I measured with an Oehler 35P 12 feet from the muzzle at 90 degrees F 1030 feet above Sea Level 20 inch Alexander Arms GDMR: Alexander Arms 100 grain Berger OTM 2,847 Alexander Arms Barnes 120 grain TSX 2,551 Alexander Arms Nosler 120 grain Ballistic Tip 2,600 Alexander Arms Lapua 123 grain Scenar 2,627 Hornady 123 grain A-MAX 2,582 Alexander Arms 16 inch Mid-Length carbine: Alexander Arms Berger 100 grain OTM 2,723 Alexander Arms Barnes 120 grain TSX 2,494 Alexander Arms Nosler 120 grain Ballistic Tip 2,535 Alexander Arms Lapua 123 grain Scenar 2,523 Hornady 123 grain A-MAX 2,463 Accuracy of Hornady's 123 grain A-MAX load is outstanding. I've also been very impressed by AA's 100 grain Berger OTM. I didn't really think I'd like it, but it shoots extremely well and is pretty zippy. Like to try it on coyotes. The AA 120 grain TSX load should be an excellent performer too. Really interested in trying Barnes new 100 grain TTSX.......that should be a zinger...... |
Looking for info on firearms, ammo, optics, gear?
Check out www.tacticalgunfan.com
A dead whale or a stove boat.
Check out www.tacticalgunfan.com
A dead whale or a stove boat.
|
Originally Posted By MaverickCowboy:
Can someone dispel the rumor/bs speak that the 6.8spc is identical to a 7.62x39 / .30 remington./. 30-30 and less accurate than the 5.56? Hear that at a gun show? No, even the earliest Remington ballistics showed they weren't identical, and things have been improved significantly since then. As for the 600m record, thanks for the update. Cheerful news. 
Of late some have expressed the 6.5 may be the ulitmate deer rifle cartridge. I have no objection to it's use, it certainly will do the job. It's the constant echo of the "superior" mantra that becomes annoying. In many instances, posters make claims about the 6.5 that somehow declare it to be "better." In this case, I have to ask, how is the 6.5 an ultimate cartridge compared to the historical #1, the .30-30 lever action? As the ORO study in the '50's showed, aimed rifle fire in combat that actually killed was generally at 100m. Most of the rest at longer ranges was largely based on the fact a lot of bullets were flying around. I find it difficult to believe hunters - the same cross section of humanity soldiers are comparable to - would do any better. At those ranges, the reputed advantage of high BC and long range never come into play. The cartridge simply cannot deliver superiority when it's under utilized. Compared to the .30-30, it's nowhere near it's sweet spot. The .30-30 is right in it's range of effective use, and with iron sights suffers very little accuracy. It also has the advantage in two other areas - it always has magazines available, and you can get ammo nearly anywhere that sells it. The greatest risk is that it will be sold out. The 6.5 enthusiast has to ask if the caliber is providing an answer for most of their actual shooting needs. Claiming long range use, do they hunt antelope or prairie dog? Is it a multipurpose rifle they shoot at ranges frequently, over 400m? If it's not being shot 85% of the time at it's optimum range, then it's built to an exception, not to the rule. It won't make it 85% wrong, but it certainly won't be it's best. That's where cartridges like the .30-30 and 6.8 are better, being used at the actual ranges soldiers and hunters shoot. The 6.5 certainly isn't extreme, like trying to commute to work in a Top Fuel Dragster. More like owning a hot bike, it does the job, but for urban city use, its not in it's best element. There's no place to wind it out. If a buyer plans to wind out the 6.5, go for it. The idea that the bike is somehow superior doesn't hold up as well when you're in the snow and have a passenger. That day, you should have taken a Jeep.Cherokee. Since the 6.5 no longer holds the record for 600m, It needs to be asked why not dump it and go for the clearly superior 6mm PPC, which has been around a lot longer? Why isn't it constantly chanted as the ultimate - unless it too is actually not that useful? Has an elk been shot with 6mm PPC? Would it really make it The One clearly superior elk cartridge? It's that kind of overstatement that makes the claims for the 6.5 offensive to reason. It's locker room trash talk. |
|
AS OF RIGHT NOW, THIS THREAD WILL BE BACK ON TOPIC. I asked multiple times over the past few pages to restrict the discussion to advantages/disadvantages of each caliber, but it's turned into a mindless bickering and collection of off-topic comments. From now on, I will once again play a more active part in this thread and moderate the living crap out of it - that includes sending warnings to people who continue to flaunt the rules.
|
Daddy loves you. Now go away.
|
With 19 pages of posts in this thread I cannot remember if I have commented.
As one person stated he had both and liked both and was keeping both, thats fine. I have never had anything in .270 cal and did not want to add another diameter to my stock, so I went the 6.5 route to acompany my 6.5x55 Swedes. Since starting with an Alexander Arms Overwatch upper, I have built two others in 6.5 Grendel, a 16" and a 24" tactical rifle type, both using Adams Arms Pistons. Granted where I live I probably will not have the chance to shoot over 300 yards, much less 1000 so both would have been ok. I have never seen either cal on a gunstore shelfe here in E Texas, so you are on your ownthere. Order via mail, internet, ect or reload. I have done some of both. I have ordered and used some of the Wolf and find it's ok, nothing special but primarily inexpensive, especially useful when testing out a new rifle. It does to be a bit on the dirty side, and leaves more copper than I like, but really have not had any problems with cleaning. The one big advantage I did see for the Grendle, was the ability to size 7.62x39 brass to 6.5 Grendle and fireform. I find the fireforming loads to be on a par with the Wolf in the acccuracy dept. I got 2000 IMI 7.62 cases and am working my way through them. I also picked up some of the Alexander Arms and Laupa headstamped brass and find it to be very good. It uses small rifle primers vs large on the Wolf and 7.62 formed cases, which is supposed to give an accuracy advantage?? Since the 6.8 uses the 30 Rem case as a parent case, I suspect availibilty of cases might be more probablimatic, but really don't know. Honestly, with the exception of those going for the extreme long range shooting, I suspect that either would serve most of the rest of us well. Both calibers have had a long history of success in the game fields and 26 ( 6.5mm) or 27(6.8mm) cal is not much difference in hole diameter Bottom line, make up your mind and get what you want and enjoy it, don't worry about what others think! |
|
I was intrigued by the 6.5 vs 6.8 debate years ago when I first learned about both of them. I've done alot of reading and what I've learned boils down to this, the debate is really over case design. It is about a short and fat case vs a long and thin case, not .264 caliber vs .277 caliber. If you look at a couple dimentions the 6.5 G case is 1.52" vs the 6.8 SPC case length of 1.68". That is fairly significant in terms of how much of the 2.26" mag length is left for the bullet. If you look at average case diameter for the 6.5 it is .4355" and for the 6.8 it is .411" (base + shoulder / 2). While that seems fairly close if you look at the bullet diameter as well the 6.5 bullet is 60.6% the size of the case while the 6.8 bullet is 67.4%. If you compare cross sectional area it is even more evident. The 6.5 bullet is 36.7% the cross sectional area of the case cross sectional area while the 6.8 is 45.4%.
The short and fat case of the 6.5 Grendel allows a larger volume of powder to be used with heavier for caliber projectiles while maintaining the restrictive OAL of the AR mag well. This means a heavier bullet with better ballistic coefficient that is better for long range. This case design, however, has a smaller bore relative to the case diameter which makes it better suited to slower burning powders and it won't reach its full potential in short barrels. The longer, thinner case of the 6.8 SPC is optimized with shorter, lighter for caliber bullets. The bullet diameter being closer to the case diameter allows the use of faster burning powders allowing the bullet to be accelerated quicker making it more efficient in shorter barrels. This does, however, mean that the use of heavier projectiles will encroach on the powder capacity of the case when subjected to the AR mag well length restrictions. So this round is optimized for use with light for caliber bullets at high velocity from a shorter barrel. In the end each cartridge does what it is designed to do quite well in an AR sized package. Just because the 6.5 is ideal for higher BC bullets and long range shooting doesn't mean it can't be used in carbine barrels and for CQB and conversely just because the 6.8 SPC is ideal for a 12" barrel doesn't mean you can't use it at 500 yards from a 20" barreled gun. They each have their advantages at the extreme of their respective design parameters but if you use either in a medium length barrel (like a 16") at medium ranges (200-300 yards) you won't see much difference in the end. |
Advanced techniques are the basics mastered.
Excellence is an art won by training and habit. We are what we repeatedly do. -- Aristotle
Pistol/Shotgun/Rifle Instructor
Sig/Remington/RRA/Sabre Armorer
Excellence is an art won by training and habit. We are what we repeatedly do. -- Aristotle
Pistol/Shotgun/Rifle Instructor
Sig/Remington/RRA/Sabre Armorer
|
Originally Posted By Altair:
I was intrigued by the 6.5 vs 6.8 debate years ago when I first learned about both of them. I've done alot of reading and what I've learned boils down to this, the debate is really over case design. It is about a short and fat case vs a long and thin case, not .264 caliber vs .277 caliber. If you look at a couple dimentions the 6.5 G case is 1.52" vs the 6.8 SPC case length of 1.68". That is fairly significant in terms of how much of the 2.26" mag length is left for the bullet. If you look at average case diameter for the 6.5 it is .4355" and for the 6.8 it is .411" (base + shoulder / 2). While that seems fairly close if you look at the bullet diameter as well the 6.5 bullet is 60.6% the size of the case while the 6.8 bullet is 67.4%. If you compare cross sectional area it is even more evident. The 6.5 bullet is 36.7% the cross sectional area of the case cross sectional area while the 6.8 is 45.4%. The short and fat case of the 6.5 Grendel allows a larger volume of powder to be used with heavier for caliber projectiles while maintaining the restrictive OAL of the AR mag well. This means a heavier bullet with better ballistic coefficient that is better for long range. This case design, however, has a smaller bore relative to the case diameter which makes it better suited to slower burning powders and it won't reach its full potential in short barrels. The longer, thinner case of the 6.8 SPC is optimized with shorter, lighter for caliber bullets. The bullet diameter being closer to the case diameter allows the use of faster burning powders allowing the bullet to be accelerated quicker making it more efficient in shorter barrels. This does, however, mean that the use of heavier projectiles will encroach on the powder capacity of the case when subjected to the AR mag well length restrictions. So this round is optimized for use with light for caliber bullets at high velocity from a shorter barrel. In the end each cartridge does what it is designed to do quite well in an AR sized package. Just because the 6.5 is ideal for higher BC bullets and long range shooting doesn't mean it can't be used in carbine barrels and for CQB and conversely just because the 6.8 SPC is ideal for a 12" barrel doesn't mean you can't use it at 500 yards from a 20" barreled gun. They each have their advantages at the extreme of their respective design parameters but if you use either in a medium length barrel (like a 16") at medium ranges (200-300 yards) you won't see much difference in the end. It's been said many times (by me included) that they are actually so close in ability to one another that it's near silly. That's why someone interested should honestly get both, shoot and reload for both, then decide which one whets his whistle... |
|
Originally Posted By Altair:
I was intrigued by the 6.5 vs 6.8 debate years ago when I first learned about both of them. I've done alot of reading and what I've learned boils down to this, the debate is really over case design. It is about a short and fat case vs a long and thin case, not .264 caliber vs .277 caliber. If you look at a couple dimentions the 6.5 G case is 1.52" vs the 6.8 SPC case length of 1.68". That is fairly significant in terms of how much of the 2.26" mag length is left for the bullet. If you look at average case diameter for the 6.5 it is .4355" and for the 6.8 it is .411" (base + shoulder / 2). While that seems fairly close if you look at the bullet diameter as well the 6.5 bullet is 60.6% the size of the case while the 6.8 bullet is 67.4%. If you compare cross sectional area it is even more evident. The 6.5 bullet is 36.7% the cross sectional area of the case cross sectional area while the 6.8 is 45.4%. The short and fat case of the 6.5 Grendel allows a larger volume of powder to be used with heavier for caliber projectiles while maintaining the restrictive OAL of the AR mag well. This means a heavier bullet with better ballistic coefficient that is better for long range. This case design, however, has a smaller bore relative to the case diameter which makes it better suited to slower burning powders and it won't reach its full potential in short barrels. The longer, thinner case of the 6.8 SPC is optimized with shorter, lighter for caliber bullets. The bullet diameter being closer to the case diameter allows the use of faster burning powders allowing the bullet to be accelerated quicker making it more efficient in shorter barrels. This does, however, mean that the use of heavier projectiles will encroach on the powder capacity of the case when subjected to the AR mag well length restrictions. So this round is optimized for use with light for caliber bullets at high velocity from a shorter barrel. In the end each cartridge does what it is designed to do quite well in an AR sized package. Just because the 6.5 is ideal for higher BC bullets and long range shooting doesn't mean it can't be used in carbine barrels and for CQB and conversely just because the 6.8 SPC is ideal for a 12" barrel doesn't mean you can't use it at 500 yards from a 20" barreled gun. They each have their advantages at the extreme of their respective design parameters but if you use either in a medium length barrel (like a 16") at medium ranges (200-300 yards) you won't see much difference in the end. This is a great post, and I agree 100% Two things I'd like to add: (1) Don't get hung up on the 6.8SPC vs 6.8SPCII. They're essentially the same, with SPCII adding just .0100" leade, and almost every manufacturer on the planet has converted to SPCII. A few minutes of research clears this stuff right up. Remember that 6.5 Grendel shares compatibility with 6.5 CSS and .264-LBC, and you can buy factory ammo for 6.5 Grendel and .264-LBC and theoretically shoot it in either gun. Again, a few minutes of research clears this right up. (2) Since both rounds have similar capabilities for 99% of shooters, industry support and availability of components/ammo should have some weight when you decide which caliber to adopt for your collection. Don't let theoretical capability outweigh practical considerations. |
Scepticism is an exercise, not a life; it is a discipline fit to purify the mind of prejudice and render it all the more apt, when the time comes, to believe and to act wisely. -- George Santayana
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
| There is a new offering by elite ammo that will be closing the gap between the two at longer ranges. The bullet, though lighter at 77gr is a new has a ballistic coefficient of .460. It should be able to be launched at close to 3300-3400fps + from a spec II chamber and 1/11.25 or better barrel at standard pressures. That amount of speed with that b.c. will be hard to overtake. the lighter weight will of course have it's drawbacks, but this is a major step forward for the 6.8. |
|
Originally Posted By pavlovwolf:
There is a new offering by elite ammo that will be closing the gap between the two at longer ranges. The bullet, though lighter at 77gr is a new has a ballistic coefficient of .460. It should be able to be launched at close to 3300-3400fps + from a spec II chamber and 1/11.25 or better barrel at standard pressures. That amount of speed with that b.c. will be hard to overtake. the lighter weight will of course have it's drawbacks, but this is a major step forward for the 6.8. Can you give us more details? Lighter usually does not equate to better BC. For instance, the 6.5mm 108 Lapua Scenar and the 123 Lapua Scenar are the same bullet, same shape, etc. The 108 simply has a smaller lead core. The 123 has a significantly higher BC. Making a bullet that has a BC of .460 with a caliber of 6.8 just seems unlikely, unless it is for single loading only, not to mag length, or unless you intrude into the powder space significantly, which then creates the problem of getting enough powder in the case! Bergers 80 grain VLD .224 bullet only reaches .445, thats a longer, skinnier, heavier bullet. Bill |
|
Originally Posted By bwaites:
Originally Posted By pavlovwolf:
There is a new offering by elite ammo that will be closing the gap between the two at longer ranges. The bullet, though lighter at 77gr is a new has a ballistic coefficient of .460. It should be able to be launched at close to 3300-3400fps + from a spec II chamber and 1/11.25 or better barrel at standard pressures. That amount of speed with that b.c. will be hard to overtake. the lighter weight will of course have it's drawbacks, but this is a major step forward for the 6.8. Can you give us more details? Lighter usually does not equate to better BC. For instance, the 6.5mm 108 Lapua Scenar and the 123 Lapua Scenar are the same bullet, same shape, etc. The 108 simply has a smaller lead core. The 123 has a significantly higher BC. Making a bullet that has a BC of .460 with a caliber of 6.8 just seems unlikely, unless it is for single loading only, not to mag length, or unless you intrude into the powder space significantly, which then creates the problem of getting enough powder in the case! Bergers 80 grain VLD .224 bullet only reaches .445, thats a longer, skinnier, heavier bullet. Bill I also would like details. A 77gr .277" bullet with a BC of .460 goes against everything I know about bullets. I would love to know how they managed to do such a thing. I'd also like to know if this design can be used for a bullet that will work when it gets to the target (ie terminal ballistics vs punching paper). |
Advanced techniques are the basics mastered.
Excellence is an art won by training and habit. We are what we repeatedly do. -- Aristotle
Pistol/Shotgun/Rifle Instructor
Sig/Remington/RRA/Sabre Armorer
Excellence is an art won by training and habit. We are what we repeatedly do. -- Aristotle
Pistol/Shotgun/Rifle Instructor
Sig/Remington/RRA/Sabre Armorer
|
Originally Posted By Altair:
I also would like details. A 77gr .277" bullet with a BC of .460 goes against everything I know about bullets. I would love to know how they managed to do such a thing. I'd also like to know if this design can be used for a bullet that will work when it gets to the target (ie terminal ballistics vs punching paper). I'll also third the request for more info, as a .4+ BC doesn't seem possible with a .270 77gr projectile that is fatter than the .224 77gr SMK. I realize Elite is known for their quirky 5.7 ammo, however they list no 6.8 loads on their website. |
'98 Jeep XJ Owner
6.8 > 6.5
6.8 > 6.5
|
I did some searching and found some info on fivesevenforum.com about these bullets. They are called Tridents and are solid bullets that have grooves and an "extreme boat tail" machined into them. Some are solid for penetration and some have deep bands cut that are supposed to cause fragmentation I believe. Funky looking thing.
5.7 Forum Link about Trident bullets The 6.8 bullet is about half way down the page and looks to be the penetrator type. The BC isn't mentioned in the thread though. |
Advanced techniques are the basics mastered.
Excellence is an art won by training and habit. We are what we repeatedly do. -- Aristotle
Pistol/Shotgun/Rifle Instructor
Sig/Remington/RRA/Sabre Armorer
Excellence is an art won by training and habit. We are what we repeatedly do. -- Aristotle
Pistol/Shotgun/Rifle Instructor
Sig/Remington/RRA/Sabre Armorer
|
Originally Posted By pavlovwolf:
There is a new offering by elite ammo that will be closing the gap between the two at longer ranges. The bullet, though lighter at 77gr is a new has a ballistic coefficient of .460. It should be able to be launched at close to 3300-3400fps + from a spec II chamber and 1/11.25 or better barrel at standard pressures. That amount of speed with that b.c. will be hard to overtake. the lighter weight will of course have it's drawbacks, but this is a major step forward for the 6.8. that light of a bullet will also shed velocity and retained energy faster too........ they list velocity at 2900 fps from an 18 inch barrel.....call me unimpressed. |
Looking for info on firearms, ammo, optics, gear?
Check out www.tacticalgunfan.com
A dead whale or a stove boat.
Check out www.tacticalgunfan.com
A dead whale or a stove boat.
|
Originally Posted By Forest:
Originally Posted By Altair:
I also would like details. A 77gr .277" bullet with a BC of .460 goes against everything I know about bullets. I would love to know how they managed to do such a thing. I'd also like to know if this design can be used for a bullet that will work when it gets to the target (ie terminal ballistics vs punching paper). I'll also third the request for more info, as a .4+ BC doesn't seem possible with a .270 77gr projectile that is fatter than the .224 77gr SMK. I realize Elite is known for their quirky 5.7 ammo, however they list no 6.8 loads on their website. http://68forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15988&highlight=Elite That's a posting from 68f. These questions need to be addressed to the manufacturer of the bullets (Elite)... |
| The questions can be better answered by checking on the thread mentioned. The testing that was done was with a old spec chamber and a 1/10 twist, with large rifle primers. Very mediocre loading and limited specs. The production ammo will be using SSA small primer brass and will be a tad hooter. They are also listening to us and should be loading a +p loading. They are offering projectiles as well. I understand that a lighter bullet will shed velocity quicker, but with the velocities that we can expect from this bullet, it will still be impressive, The b.c. is what Panzermike or Vitaly from the company claimed. If everything holds up, it will be impressive. I ran the numbers through a ballistics program and it looks really good. If you can imagine the 77gr .223 offering being launched at a much slower velocity still being a vastly superior round to that of the standard 55 and 62gr offerings, this will be a similar step up from most of the 6.8 offerings out there. Some are running the 85gr tsx at 3300fps and the SSA factory tactical load is a consistent 3125fps average from my 16" AR Performance barrel. The 85gr Barnes has a very low b.c. of .246. So it should be a big step up in performance if a lighter bullet is what you're looking for. |
|
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
Originally Posted By pavlovwolf:
There is a new offering by elite ammo that will be closing the gap between the two at longer ranges. The bullet, though lighter at 77gr is a new has a ballistic coefficient of .460. It should be able to be launched at close to 3300-3400fps + from a spec II chamber and 1/11.25 or better barrel at standard pressures. That amount of speed with that b.c. will be hard to overtake. the lighter weight will of course have it's drawbacks, but this is a major step forward for the 6.8. that light of a bullet will also shed velocity and retained energy faster too........ they list velocity at 2900 fps from an 18 inch barrel.....call me unimpressed. I would be willing to bet they are loading to the crappy original specs, for safety. If I can get 3100 fps with the 85gr TSX and not have any pressure signs or problems, I can pretty much bet that bullet would be at least 100+ fps faster... |
I did a quick look and found that JBM Ballistics has included the Hornady 123gr AMAX in their online library of bullets for this ballistics calculator. Note that I use a 300 yard zero, this is because it keeps the bullets inpact area within a "torso" sized target at ranges from 100 to 400-500 yards. I also consider about 500 ft.lbs. the low lethal energy level, not 1000 ft. lbs.
|
Pat
[url]http://public.fotki.com/fastpat/self_defense/ar-rifles-1/ar-rifles/ar-15-6-5grendel.html[/url]
[url]http://public.fotki.com/fastpat/self_defense/ar-rifles-1/ar-rifles/ar-15-6-5grendel.html[/url]
|
These bullets are going to be a major advance for the 6.8. For some background, I have personally driven an 80 grain GS bullet to 3360 FPS, and still load them to 3300 ( this load produces ~ 54,000 PSI). I load my 85 grain TSX bullets to 3050 FPS in 16" barrels, and I have had that load pressure tested, showing 55,200 PSI in a 1:10 SPCII barrel. Neither of these bullets has a high BC.
The 77 grain Elite bullet will weigh the same as the popular 5.56 bullet, but I can assure you that it will be going at least 500 FPS faster, in the same length barrel as what a 5.56 can produce, and at the same or lower pressure, with a higher BC. I can also assure you that I will exceed 3200 FPS with this bullet and keep the pressure within 55K PSI. What was the original intent to create the 6.8? It wasn't so much trying to increase the bullet weight to 130 grains....that was never the purpose. The challenge with this round was 1) fit the new cartridge in the AR mag well 2) shoot a heavier bullet faster than the 5.56 could 3) produce higher velocities in shorter barrels Loading bullets with high BC's was never one of the goals because it was designed as a short to medium range battle rifle cartridge, which is what the M4 is now. Only after we saw how popular it was, even without the military adopting it, did we realize how many ways it could be improved over the original design. Caliber has never really been the overriding concern with these cartridges because bullet weights are so similar in the high .20's The .22 caliber gets you to about 77 grains, that's it, but that carries compromises of its own. The higher the bullet weight, the longer it is, and you run into all of the same problems. Mag length, case capacity, etc. Whether its .25. 264. or 277 you can use ~100 grains of bullet, but you can go as low as 70, and as high as 130, which gives you more chances to reach compromises on bullet length, BC, SD, and even new tacts like this, in which we dropped the weight with lead-free bullet materials but a length that gives a very high BC, and still fits in the mag. Ingenious! I think all of you here would agree that a drawback of the 6.8's design has been : Short \ stubby bullets which by definition have very low BC's. Short, stubby bullets were required to allow for them to fit in the magazine. This helps solve that problem, and where appropriate, the screaming velocity that this lighter bullet can achieve, with a BC of .460, solves one of the primary dilemmas of the design. I say its an advance and makes the 6.8 that much more versatile. |
"Texas - the only state that ever kicked another country's ass."
"I'll never forget September 11, 2001, those who have fought and died, or those who continue to fight to avenge the deaths of over 3000 innocent Americans"
"I'll never forget September 11, 2001, those who have fought and died, or those who continue to fight to avenge the deaths of over 3000 innocent Americans"
|
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
Originally Posted By pavlovwolf:
There is a new offering by elite ammo that will be closing the gap between the two at longer ranges. The bullet, though lighter at 77gr is a new has a ballistic coefficient of .460. It should be able to be launched at close to 3300-3400fps + from a spec II chamber and 1/11.25 or better barrel at standard pressures. That amount of speed with that b.c. will be hard to overtake. the lighter weight will of course have it's drawbacks, but this is a major step forward for the 6.8. that light of a bullet will also shed velocity and retained energy faster too........ they list velocity at 2900 fps from an 18 inch barrel.....call me unimpressed. Since velocity is lost only because of drag, wouldn't the higher BC of the bullet make that statement false? It is my understanding that a 500 grain bullet with a BC of .5 and a 100gr bullet with a BC of .5 fired at the same velocity will lose velocity at the same rate assuming identical conditions. If HTR is right and this bullet can go 3200fps then there is something here. That said, the same extreme boat tail bullet design can be applied to the 6.5 Grendel and boost those BC's even higher. What can be applied to one can also be applied to the other in most cases. Maybe we'll see a 100gr 6.5 bullet with a BC of .6+ |
Advanced techniques are the basics mastered.
Excellence is an art won by training and habit. We are what we repeatedly do. -- Aristotle
Pistol/Shotgun/Rifle Instructor
Sig/Remington/RRA/Sabre Armorer
Excellence is an art won by training and habit. We are what we repeatedly do. -- Aristotle
Pistol/Shotgun/Rifle Instructor
Sig/Remington/RRA/Sabre Armorer
|
Originally Posted By Altair:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
Originally Posted By pavlovwolf:
There is a new offering by elite ammo that will be closing the gap between the two at longer ranges. The bullet, though lighter at 77gr is a new has a ballistic coefficient of .460. It should be able to be launched at close to 3300-3400fps + from a spec II chamber and 1/11.25 or better barrel at standard pressures. That amount of speed with that b.c. will be hard to overtake. the lighter weight will of course have it's drawbacks, but this is a major step forward for the 6.8. that light of a bullet will also shed velocity and retained energy faster too........ they list velocity at 2900 fps from an 18 inch barrel.....call me unimpressed. Since velocity is lost only because of drag, wouldn't the higher BC of the bullet make that statement false? It is my understanding that a 500 grain bullet with a BC of .5 and a 100gr bullet with a BC of .5 fired at the same velocity will lose velocity at the same rate assuming identical conditions. If HTR is right and this bullet can go 3200fps then there is something here. That said, the same extreme boat tail bullet design can be applied to the 6.5 Grendel and boost those BC's even higher. What can be applied to one can also be applied to the other in most cases. Maybe we'll see a 100gr 6.5 bullet with a BC of .6+ A bullet train and a Porsche 911 may have the same speed ability and aerodynamics, but I guarantee you the train (more mass) keeps the speed up far longer than the Porsche once you let off the gas. Mass has very interesting effects when you're doing comparisons between like velocity objects... ETA - Of course there are tons of other factors at work, and that was a serious oversimplification, but hopefully it makes my point, at least... |
|
Originally Posted By QuicksilverJPR:
Originally Posted By Altair:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
Originally Posted By pavlovwolf:
There is a new offering by elite ammo that will be closing the gap between the two at longer ranges. The bullet, though lighter at 77gr is a new has a ballistic coefficient of .460. It should be able to be launched at close to 3300-3400fps + from a spec II chamber and 1/11.25 or better barrel at standard pressures. That amount of speed with that b.c. will be hard to overtake. the lighter weight will of course have it's drawbacks, but this is a major step forward for the 6.8. that light of a bullet will also shed velocity and retained energy faster too........ they list velocity at 2900 fps from an 18 inch barrel.....call me unimpressed. Since velocity is lost only because of drag, wouldn't the higher BC of the bullet make that statement false? It is my understanding that a 500 grain bullet with a BC of .5 and a 100gr bullet with a BC of .5 fired at the same velocity will lose velocity at the same rate assuming identical conditions. If HTR is right and this bullet can go 3200fps then there is something here. That said, the same extreme boat tail bullet design can be applied to the 6.5 Grendel and boost those BC's even higher. What can be applied to one can also be applied to the other in most cases. Maybe we'll see a 100gr 6.5 bullet with a BC of .6+ A bullet train and a Porsche 911 may have the same speed ability and aerodynamics, but I guarantee you the train (more mass) keeps the speed up far longer than the Porsche once you let off the gas. Mass has very interesting effects when you're doing comparisons between like velocity objects... ETA - Of course there are tons of other factors at work, and that was a serious oversimplification, but hopefully it makes my point, at least... To check my thinking I plugged a couple of values into my ballistics program and here is what I got. An 80gr .224" Hornady A-Max has a BC of .473 and a 300gr .375" Hornady BTSP has a BC of .460 according to their reloading manual. They aren't exactly the same but close enough for my purposes. If you fire both of these at 2500fps according to my program the 80gr A-Max is going 1636fps at 500 yards and 1030fps at 1000 yards while the BTSP is still going 1614fps at 500 yards and 1012fps at 1000 yards. The 80gr bullet, with the slightly higher BC, is going a little faster. Now the energy values are obviously significantly different since one bullet weighs over three times as much as the other, but as for just losing velocity the higher BC should always win out. Just for the sake of argument I pluggd in two fictional projectiles with identical BC's. One was a .177 caliber 10gr projectile with a BC of .5 and the other was a 1000gr .510 caliber projectile with a BC of .5 and fired them both at 3000fps. At 500 yards both were at 2092fps and at 1000 both were at 1347fps. In the end, if the BC is correct for the bullet then that alone should predict velocity loss, not mass. In a vacuum there is no velocity loss so the only thing slowing a bullet down in the atmosphere is air resistance. BC takes into account both shape and mass so it would account for the differences in mass already. That is why two identically shaped bullets of the same proportion in two different calibers (and therefore 2 different masses) will have different BC's. Also, if you have two identically shaped bullets of the same caliber (exactly the same external dimentions) made from two different materials the one made from the heavier material will have the higher BC (think lead core vs all copper). The extra mass does contribute to velocity retention, which translates to a higher BC. That is why I wonder how they managed a BC of .460 from such a light bullet. If you think of your train and Porche example the train would have a much lower level of resistance. It has metal on metal wheels as opposed to rubber on asphalt and if you think of it in terms of air resistance it is very long and skinny compared to the car. It would also have significantly more mass. Just like a bullet, it would have a much higher "BC" than the car. |
Advanced techniques are the basics mastered.
Excellence is an art won by training and habit. We are what we repeatedly do. -- Aristotle
Pistol/Shotgun/Rifle Instructor
Sig/Remington/RRA/Sabre Armorer
Excellence is an art won by training and habit. We are what we repeatedly do. -- Aristotle
Pistol/Shotgun/Rifle Instructor
Sig/Remington/RRA/Sabre Armorer
|
It just clicked that the 300gr .375" BTSP with a BC of .460 was the same BC as this new 6.8 bullet. I should have done the comparisons with them directly. I just plugged those into my ballistics calculator with correct weight, caliber, and BC and they had identical velocities from the muzzle to 1000 yards.
ETA: I did another comparison for retained energy and the results were what I expected. The heavier projectile does retain energy better. The 77gr .277" bullet fired at 2002fps has a muzzle energy of 685ft-lbs. To get the same energy from the 300gr .375" projectile only requires 1014fps. Since the lighter bullet must go faster, and air resistance increases exponentially with speed, the lighter bullet did lose energy faster. At 1000 yards the 77gr bullet would have 133ft-lbs left while the heavy 300gr bullet still had 272ft-lbs. |
Advanced techniques are the basics mastered.
Excellence is an art won by training and habit. We are what we repeatedly do. -- Aristotle
Pistol/Shotgun/Rifle Instructor
Sig/Remington/RRA/Sabre Armorer
Excellence is an art won by training and habit. We are what we repeatedly do. -- Aristotle
Pistol/Shotgun/Rifle Instructor
Sig/Remington/RRA/Sabre Armorer
|
Originally Posted By Altair:
It just clicked that the 300gr .375" BTSP with a BC of .460 was the same BC as this new 6.8 bullet. I should have done the comparisons with them directly. I just plugged those into my ballistics calculator with correct weight, caliber, and BC and they had identical velocities from the muzzle to 1000 yards. Yeah, there's no way to make an oversimplified comparison. Rolling resistance is nothing like air resistance and fluid dynamics... It's actually easier to see when shooting than it is trying to describe it. |
|
Originally Posted By Altair:
It just clicked that the 300gr .375" BTSP with a BC of .460 was the same BC as this new 6.8 bullet. I should have done the comparisons with them directly. I just plugged those into my ballistics calculator with correct weight, caliber, and BC and they had identical velocities from the muzzle to 1000 yards. ETA: I did another comparison for retained energy and the results were what I expected. The heavier projectile does retain energy better. The 77gr .277" bullet fired at 2002fps has a muzzle energy of 685ft-lbs. To get the same energy from the 300gr .375" projectile only requires 1014fps. Since the lighter bullet must go faster, and air resistance increases exponentially with speed, the lighter bullet did lose energy faster. At 1000 yards the 77gr bullet would have 133ft-lbs left while the heavy 300gr bullet still had 272ft-lbs. That's because Force = mass x acceleration (squared) Mass obviously can make up for a lot of velocity... |
|
Originally Posted By QuicksilverJPR:
....A bullet train and a Porsche 911 may have the same speed ability and aerodynamics, but I guarantee you the train (more mass) keeps the speed up far longer than the Porsche once you let off the gas. Mass has very interesting effects when you're doing comparisons between like velocity objects... ETA - Of course there are tons of other factors at work, and that was a serious oversimplification, but hopefully it makes my point, at least... I love it......I bout shat myself..... also when they collide with something..... I'm not trying to pick black pepper outa fly shit, but I would rather go with a little more mass than vel......at the ranges I usually shoot at...200 to 300yd... |
" The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to let them shoot holes in me..."
7 > 6.8
7 > 6.8
|
The 6.8, after the Elite "Trident" is released, will now have a high BC bullet, however, it will only weigh 77 grains. Another ( I think its 80 grains) is in the works and will have a different design, but still high BC. This bullet will retain its velocity longer than a bullet of the same weight with lower BC, period. Inertia is one thing, but bullets shed velocity due to wind drag. They don't experience friction from anything other than air, and gravity exerts the same force on all objects. Yes, with more mass, they are harder to move, but if you drop a feather and bowling ball in a vacuum, they hit the ground at the same time.
So the question is this. If you have two bullets, regardless of caliber, and they are made of the same material, and have the same design, function and overall shape, which one will have more terminal effectiveness? In that case, the one with more mass. If you have two bullets with the same weight, and function, and the only thing different is the BC, which one will "fly better." The one with higher BC. If you have two bullets of the same weight, shape and function and one has a slightly higher BC, but the other is traveling much faster, which one will perform better? That answer depends upon lots of variables: How much faster? How far will they travel before they impact? Where is all this going? Let's take the 6.8 and 6.5's (Grendel, .264 LBCAR). If there are elite bullets for both the 6.8 and the 6.5 then one post made earlier is sound. It will help both cartridges perform better in some ways : Let's say we get a 77 grain bullet for the 6.8 at .460 BC and we can make it go 3200 FPS. Let's also presume that we get a similar bullet for the Grendel, but it ends up being 90 grains and BC of .575, and it can be driven to 3200 FPS from the same length barrel and with the exact same pressure. Then this bullet will advance the Grendel's performance to a level that the 6.8 cannot match. The thing is, will there be such a bullet and will it be heavier and will it reach 3200 FPS? How long a barrel will one need for that same velocity? At this point I am not sure. I've seen the posts from Elite on several forums and I don't remember seeing a 6.5, but there is a 5.7, a 6.8 and a 7.62. I guess you could say that questions like this show how these two cartridges are so similar, and yet, they use totally different properties to derive their advantages. It also shows us that there are some very smart people getting performance out of some fine details that arise because of the whole AR-15 mag well restriction. That is one of the only things that has ever made this whole 6.8 versus 6.5 thing fun. It allowed me to learn more about ballistics then I ever cared to know previously. |
"Texas - the only state that ever kicked another country's ass."
"I'll never forget September 11, 2001, those who have fought and died, or those who continue to fight to avenge the deaths of over 3000 innocent Americans"
"I'll never forget September 11, 2001, those who have fought and died, or those who continue to fight to avenge the deaths of over 3000 innocent Americans"
|
Originally Posted By QuicksilverJPR:
Originally Posted By Altair:
It just clicked that the 300gr .375" BTSP with a BC of .460 was the same BC as this new 6.8 bullet. I should have done the comparisons with them directly. I just plugged those into my ballistics calculator with correct weight, caliber, and BC and they had identical velocities from the muzzle to 1000 yards. ETA: I did another comparison for retained energy and the results were what I expected. The heavier projectile does retain energy better. The 77gr .277" bullet fired at 2002fps has a muzzle energy of 685ft-lbs. To get the same energy from the 300gr .375" projectile only requires 1014fps. Since the lighter bullet must go faster, and air resistance increases exponentially with speed, the lighter bullet did lose energy faster. At 1000 yards the 77gr bullet would have 133ft-lbs left while the heavy 300gr bullet still had 272ft-lbs. That's because Force = mass x acceleration (squared) Mass obviously can make up for a lot of velocity... True, but with shooting projectiles, velocity is your friend in some other important ways: 1) higher velocity projectiles have flatter trajectory 2) flatter trajectory makes it easier to hit a target, closer to the line of sight, over a longer range envelope. IOW, it helps eliminate the need for holdover out to longer distances and allows "dead-on" hold both from close in to farther out. 3) More velocity = less time of flight which allows the wind less time to influence the path of the projectile. The above 3 can influence whether you actually hit the target, so they are very important features. I learn this every time I go prairie dog hunting. Its pretty humbling to attempt hitting a shoe at 353 yards 
4) higher velocity leads to more violent deformation of bullets, which can be advantageous if the bullet is built right. (the * here is that it can be a detriment if the bullet is not built right, or if the cartridge burns out the throat very quickly) Neither the 6.8 nor the 6.5's seem to have throat erosion problems, so anything that makes their current weight projectiles go faster is good, AFAIC. |
"Texas - the only state that ever kicked another country's ass."
"I'll never forget September 11, 2001, those who have fought and died, or those who continue to fight to avenge the deaths of over 3000 innocent Americans"
"I'll never forget September 11, 2001, those who have fought and died, or those who continue to fight to avenge the deaths of over 3000 innocent Americans"
|
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
You aren't the only one. This company is promising a free lunch, we know what that means.
they list velocity at 2900 fps from an 18 inch barrel.....call me unimpressed. The 6.8SPC guys don't seem to be able to be satisfied with their place on the continuum. The 6.8SPC is a good cartridge that I would NOT replace if I had a rifle in that caliber. The 6.5 Grendel is a BETTER cartridge that I'd buy if I hadn't invested in the 6.8SPC world. Fortunately, I had that choice and made it correctly. |
Pat
[url]http://public.fotki.com/fastpat/self_defense/ar-rifles-1/ar-rifles/ar-15-6-5grendel.html[/url]
[url]http://public.fotki.com/fastpat/self_defense/ar-rifles-1/ar-rifles/ar-15-6-5grendel.html[/url]
|
Originally Posted By Pat_H:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
You aren't the only one. This company is promising a free lunch, we know what that means.
they list velocity at 2900 fps from an 18 inch barrel.....call me unimpressed. The 6.8SPC guys don't seem to be able to be satisfied with their place on the continuum. The 6.8SPC is a good cartridge that I would NOT replace if I had a rifle in that caliber. The 6.5 Grendel is a BETTER cartridge that I'd buy if I hadn't invested in the 6.8SPC world. Fortunately, I had that choice and made it correctly. Whoa now, that's a pretty broad brush you're painting with, partner. A great big bunch of us "6.8SPC guys" are very happy with the cartridge at its current state of the art. But we certainly don't mind watching developments in ammo, powder, bullets, etc. I too agree that these new bullets exist more as promises than fact, but it's fun to check on their progress with no expectation that we actually will be able to shoot to 1,000 yards with a 6.8 gun. If it happens, great! If not, no big deal. As you say, if 6.5 Grendel or .264 LBC or 6.5CSS works for you, then all of us 6.8SPC guys honestly do wish you well, and good shooting! |
Scepticism is an exercise, not a life; it is a discipline fit to purify the mind of prejudice and render it all the more apt, when the time comes, to believe and to act wisely. -- George Santayana
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
|
Let me jump back in here.
I am impressed by all the work people are doing on the 6.8 SPC. It's a very good thing. The work on the 6.8 SPC has ALSO made the 6.5mm Grendel a better cartridge. The cartridges are driving each other to more impressive performance. This is all a good thing. While I do think 77 grains is a bit light for my tastes, it looks to be a very interesting projectile. I tend to lean towards heavier projectiles, but so what...... I think its great all the work being done. As long as pressures are safe then its a good thing all around. |
Looking for info on firearms, ammo, optics, gear?
Check out www.tacticalgunfan.com
A dead whale or a stove boat.
Check out www.tacticalgunfan.com
A dead whale or a stove boat.
|
I keep looking at the numbers, and trying to figure out how this bullet is breaking the laws of fluid dynamics.
And the answer I keep coming up with; it can't. You can't take a larger diameter object, make it weigh the same as a smaller diameter object, and come up with a similar BC. It doesn't matter what material you use, you can't do it. So I'll be very interested to watch this develop, and even more interested to see the actual BC's when measured by Brian Litz or someone similar. Bill |
|
Originally Posted By bwaites:
I keep looking at the numbers, and trying to figure out how this bullet is breaking the laws of fluid dynamics. And the answer I keep coming up with; it can't. You can't take a larger diameter object, make it weigh the same as a smaller diameter object, and come up with a similar BC. It doesn't matter what material you use, you can't do it. So I'll be very interested to watch this develop, and even more interested to see the actual BC's when measured by Brian Litz or someone similar. Bill I'm in this boat as well. While I'm trying to keep an open mind as to this bullet taking advantage of some aerodynamic phenomenon I'm at present unaware of, I also just can't wrap my head around a .277" bullet that weighs 77 grains having a BC of .460... I hope I'm wrong, and I will wait to see the end result before passing judgement. |
Advanced techniques are the basics mastered.
Excellence is an art won by training and habit. We are what we repeatedly do. -- Aristotle
Pistol/Shotgun/Rifle Instructor
Sig/Remington/RRA/Sabre Armorer
Excellence is an art won by training and habit. We are what we repeatedly do. -- Aristotle
Pistol/Shotgun/Rifle Instructor
Sig/Remington/RRA/Sabre Armorer
|
Notice what I said about this new bullet:
I used words like "let's say," "higher BC" and "if". I like the premise and contrary to what some of you might believe, I see that it could end up benefiting the Grendel even more than the 6.8 because IF there were to be a 6.5mm bullet weighing around 90 grains with a BC of around .500 or beyond, then, you suddenly have a 5.5 lb Grendel that can launch its 90 grain class projo out of a very short barrel, at very high speed, while still retaining a lot of velocity at extreme ranges. Now the circle would become complete for it. All they are trying to do is complete the same circle for the 6.8. The one missing link is the low BC's. Its really quite simple, and I for one would really like to see all of you give props to these guys for responding to some educated requests for improvements, as brought forth by the cartridges critics, and accepted by its proponents. To see some of the generalizations and high-school team rivalry at this late in the game is a distraction. Give it up and lets' discuss these two in terms of the experts who shoot each, have delved into each, and can speak objectively to both their strengths and weaknesses, for the benefit of those who have not yet dabbled. The concept is sound but the execution remains to be seen. I will be testing some of these for Elite, and I promise to bring you all velocity numbers, etc. ETA: I am still waiting for some of you 6.5 owners to come to the ranch and shoot pigs with us! 
|
"Texas - the only state that ever kicked another country's ass."
"I'll never forget September 11, 2001, those who have fought and died, or those who continue to fight to avenge the deaths of over 3000 innocent Americans"
"I'll never forget September 11, 2001, those who have fought and died, or those who continue to fight to avenge the deaths of over 3000 innocent Americans"
|
Originally Posted By Pat_H:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
You aren't the only one. This company is promising a free lunch, we know what that means.
they list velocity at 2900 fps from an 18 inch barrel.....call me unimpressed. The 6.8SPC guys don't seem to be able to be satisfied with their place on the continuum. The 6.8SPC is a good cartridge that I would NOT replace if I had a rifle in that caliber. The 6.5 Grendel is a BETTER cartridge that I'd buy if I hadn't invested in the 6.8SPC world. Fortunately, I had that choice and made it correctly. Can someone explain to me why they believe that a 77 grain bullet with very low amt of bearing surface, will go SLOWER in an 18" barrel, than does the Barnes 85 grain TSX commercial (SAAMI safe) load in same barrel? Please explain the ballistics behind that, if you would, especially considering that this bullet appears to have much higher BC. The 85 grain TSX tactical load does 3050 FPS from a 16" barrel. That is real-world, every day stuff. To make accusations of "not being able to accept their place..." is, with due respect, not consistent with reality, Pat. You have to remember that we still have people claiming that the 6.8 is only capable of safely shooting a 110 grain OTM at 2500 FPS. That is wrong, but it took a little while for people to accept the fact that a longer throat (wow, what an advanced concept that is) would allow for a little more pressure and velocity. |
"Texas - the only state that ever kicked another country's ass."
"I'll never forget September 11, 2001, those who have fought and died, or those who continue to fight to avenge the deaths of over 3000 innocent Americans"
"I'll never forget September 11, 2001, those who have fought and died, or those who continue to fight to avenge the deaths of over 3000 innocent Americans"
6.8SPC or 6.5G? Which one should I buy? (Page 10 of 14)
AR Sponsor
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter