Anyone want to stand up on a target range and let somebody with a 6.5 Grendel shoot at you to see how "less lethal" it is?

At 300yds?
At 1000 yds?

I didn't thnk so.

Gelatin is great for controlled testing.
If anyone thinks that means someone is not going to fall over dead(or severely injured) after being shot with either of these calibers in a good hit, then they are misconstruing the purpose of testing.

A 6.5 caliber round has shown its mettle in many wars and combat situations, as well as countless hunting situations of deer, elk, and the like. It will kill. And it will shoot flatter, with more steam to longer ranges than 6.8.

As I understand it, the purpose of the 6.8 was to be a better battle round than the 5.56 for 300 meters or less, and have a similar trajectory to the 7.62x51NATO round so that existing sight calibration systems could be retained. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

It is the definition of what was wanted, which spawned the 6.8.
In my opinion, it is not saying that another round could not be better than it in a wider scope of uses, just saying that this round meets the qualifications that were specified, and gelatin testing showed best results with a particular bullet that they had made.

Since the 6.5 Grendel has a significantly flatter trajectory than the 7.62x51NATO, and shoots further with power, the Grendel has actually disqualified itself from the military desires because it shoots too far and too flat to be used with the existing sighting systems currently issued. Also the particular bullet used in the Grendel appears to have too long an entry "neck" in gelatin, compared to the 6.8 at the ranges under consideration. Let's face it. They have a short range goal in mind, and that isn't what the Grendel is.

I don't know about the 12" results of the Grendel, but I know that short barrels will limit the performance of ANY rifle cartridge, compared to a longer barrel. To me, it's like asking Edwin Moses to run his hurdles in Army boots, and then wondering why he didn't run a world record time.

Maybe if they make the barrel short enough, it will reduce the 6.5 Grendel trajectory to the point where it actually matches the 6.8 trajectory. Just kidding.

Quoted: Anyone want to stand up on a target range and let somebody with a 6.5 Grendel shoot at you to see how "less lethal" it is?

That has to be THE absolute dumbest argument I've ever heard in my life.

Congrats.  You get a cookie.  Find a dumber argument and I'll give you a little gold star.

I don't want to be shot with a pellet gun either.  

Thanks for the cookie!

Quoted: Anyone want to stand up on a target range and let somebody with a 6.5 Grendel shoot at you to see how "less lethal" it is? At 300yds? At 1000 yds? I didn't thnk so.

Brouhaha covered this.

Gelatin is great for controlled testing. If anyone thinks that means someone is not going to fall over dead(or severely injured) after being shot with either of these calibers in a good hit, then they are misconstruing the purpose of testing. A 6.5 caliber round has shown its mettle in many wars and combat situations, as well as countless hunting situations of deer, elk, and the like. It will kill. And it will shoot flatter, with more steam to longer ranges than 6.8.

"A 6.5 caliber round" is not the same as 6.5 Grendel.  You can't make terminal ballistic equivalents between loads based soley on their caliber.  I think you'll find a small bit of variation between .22LR, .22 Hornet, .223, and .22-250, even though all use bullets within .001" of each other.

Consider how few countries adopted the 6.5 round.  Also consider that we KNOW that 6.5 will do well on LARGER animals, because of it's yaw depth.  But that is the exact reason why it is a POOR performer for HUMAN COMBAT.  Just because a round is good for elk does not meen it is good for terrorists or other bad guys.

As I understand it, the purpose of the 6.8 was to be a better battle round than the 5.56 for 300 meters or less, and have a similar trajectory to the 7.62x51NATO round so that existing sight calibration systems could be retained. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

Not correct.  6.8 SPC was designed to enhance effectivness (via increased tissue damage in what 30 years of terminal ballistics testing has determined to be the optimal wound profile) at ALL ranges, *including* from today's shorter weapons, BUT ALSO retaining or extending longer-range capabilities.  The 6.8 SPC is more effective than either M855 or Mk262 at 600m and beyond, and these are ranges that are EXTREMELY rarely taken by the military from an AR platform.

6.5 Grendel gives up FAR TOO MUCH from 0-600m to trade for any possible increased performance beyond that range.

It would be like if you had a job that paid $20/hour with standard overtime and doubletime pay, and someone else was trying to convince you to restructure your pay scale to $12/hour, standard overtime, but quadruple instead of doubletime for hours worked over 12 in a day.  Sure, you'd be making $48/hour instead of $40/hour when you worked over 12 hours in a day, which might happen once in a blue moon, but all other times, which is 99% of the time you work, you'd be getting ripped off.

-Troy

Thanks for the correction. I thought that I read that the 6.8 was supposed to use existing sight equipment/settings already in use.

Quoted: Thanks for the correction. I thought that I read that the 6.8 was supposed to use existing sight equipment/settings already in use.

That wasn't a design requirement, but a "happy little accident" that it does.

-Troy