AR Sponsor
6.8SPC or 6.5G? Which one should I buy? (Page 12 of 14)
| The best thing you can do is to go to each respective website and go to their reloading sections. The 68 forum is full of data that is up to date with all of the 30 some odd offerings that are available to load with right now. You will see velocities listed for most of those, with all of the barrel lengths you are interested in. GO to the 6.5 forums and check the same thing out there. Go to JBM ballistics and enter the info for each and then do your own comparisons. NO bullshit that way. |
THX1138 MOS, Officer Candidate.
|
Originally Posted By Serbspaniard:
Originally Posted By -Fozzy-:
Originally Posted By Serbspaniard:
Can someone in the know post the ballistics to 800meters out of 20" barrels for BOTH the 6.5G/264LBC with Barnes 100TTSX (.264) and the 6.8SPCII with Barnes 95TTSX (.277)? Thanks! The 6.5 will have much better ballistics at 800 meters, especially out of a 20" barrel. The 6.8 was designed to be used in short barrels, so you really don't gain much speed going to a 20" barrel. There really isn't a comparison between the two at that distance because the 6.5 wins hands down. Thanks for your opinion, but I read this entire thread and I already have heard it. I don't want opinions, I already have those. I need to see objectively comparative ballistics tables, which are sorely absent from this thread. Same manufacturer and type of bullets, near same weight, same barrel lengths, max load of the same powder if possible (say TAC). If you don't have 20" data, post 18" data. If you don't have 18" data, post 16" data. if you had data for all these barrel lengths, that would be best. Someone who has these tables, please post them here, as it is relevant to comparing these two rounds as the topic of the OP states above. Otherwise, this thread is what most 6.8/6.5 comparison threads are, defensive and complimentary opinions based on what may be empirical evidence, but may just as well be online hearsay or anecdote. I don't own either of these, nor have I tested these loads. These are theoretical numbers from loads listed on websites. They are not concrete. Also, you are getting numbers from the least common barrel length of the 6.8 (it gets near the same velocity in shorter barrels) and one of the bullets that doesn't take advantage of the BC of 6.5mm projectiles so neither of these is optimal for either cartridge. Never the less, here you go: 6.8 SPC, 95gr TTSX, 20" bbl (distances in yards, not meters) Distance........Vel.................Energy...........Drop Muzzle........2800fps..........1653 ft-lbs...........0" 200.............2191fps...........1013 ft-lbs.........10.46" 400.............1657fps.............579 ft-lbs.........50.68" 600.............1204fps.............306 ft-lbs.........143.3" 800..............957fps..............193 t-lbs..........332.46" 6.5 Grendel, 100gr TTSX, 20" bbl Distance........Vel.................Energy...........Drop Muzzle........2700fps...........1618 ft-lbs..........0" 200.............2176fps............1051 ft-lbs........11.02" 400.............1708fps.............648 ft-lbs.........52.04" 600.............1299fps.............375 ft-lbs.........141.9" 800.............1023fps.............232 ft-lbs.........315.79" |
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 don't own either of these, nor have I tested these loads. These are theoretical numbers from loads listed on websites. They are not concrete. Also, you are getting numbers from the least common barrel length of the 6.8 (it gets near the same velocity in shorter barrels) and one of the bullets that doesn't take advantage of the BC of 6.5mm projectiles so neither of these is optimal for either cartridge. Never the less, here you go: 6.8 SPC, 95gr TTSX, 20" bbl (distances in yards, not meters) Distance........Vel.................Energy...........Drop Muzzle........2800fps..........1653 ft-lbs...........0" 200.............2191fps...........1013 ft-lbs.........10.46" 400.............1657fps.............579 ft-lbs.........50.68" 600.............1204fps.............306 ft-lbs.........143.3" 800..............957fps..............193 t-lbs..........332.46" 6.5 Grendel, 100gr TTSX, 20" bbl Distance........Vel.................Energy...........Drop Muzzle........2700fps...........1618 ft-lbs..........0" 200.............2176fps............1051 ft-lbs........11.02" 400.............1708fps.............648 ft-lbs.........52.04" 600.............1299fps.............375 ft-lbs.........141.9" 800.............1023fps.............232 ft-lbs.........315.79" Thank you. Let me preface by stating I have no dog in this fight and that I am actively determining which upper to purchase to replace my 24" .556/.223 Varmint upper. Looking at this data, and considering that these bullets have two of the lowest expansion (aka fragmentation) threshold velocities (I believe these bullets require 1600 ft/s to reliably expand, and the other (TSX) Barnes bullets and other manufacturer bullets are 1800+ [albeit 1700+ for sierra pro-hunters] velocity), these bullets are in my opinion the best candidates to compare maximum range take down effectiveness of these cartridges. Sure, the Grendel's 100grnTTSX doesn't have the BC of the 123g Lapua Scenar, but that Scenar bullet is not going to expand/fragment and distribute its energy like the 100grn TTSX will at 400 yards; it will hit a target further out, but its punching paper, not hemorrhaging organs (I expect the 110grnTTSX .277 and the 120grnTTSX .264 will also perform similarly, but with greater wind resistance, due the higher BCs and weight, and therefore greater long range stability/accuracy). So, if you are looking to hunt medium game (two or four legged) with either of these birds, it appears either cartridge would work well, indeed as well as the other. However, the SPCII chamber may give it the edge here in long distance kill performance. Knowing the amount of powder (and the type) behind the above ballistics would be of interest. With the 85grn TSX currently being pushed out of the 6.8SPCII chamber at above 3000ft/s (even with factory ammo from SSA!), I wonder whether the above 6.8 95grnTTSX data is max load. If the 6.8SPCII chamber will allow this Barnes 95grnTTSX to be pushed to 3000ft/s, I believe this 6.8 load may actually be more effective medium game killer than the 6.5g at distance. Check this data I found, though I can't vouch for the authority/accuracy: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tv8ouMbmB88cIgyT0j5E5uw&output=html Getting the 95grnTTSX to 3000+ft/s will make this a 500 yard effective projectile, bettering the 6.5g by 100-75 yards. Stretching beyond that, pushing the 6.8 (.277) 110grnTTSX would obviously be more ideal, given the increased BC (.377 vs. .292) and weight over the 100grn. Even if it is possible to get a 110grn projectile to 2800+ft/s out of the 6.8SPCII, it may not be with the 110grnTTSX due the increased projectile length of the solid copper TTSX. Perhaps a Barnes MRX 110grnTTSX .277 may be ideally suited for the 6.8SPCII, with its tungsten core reducing the length to allow for a 2800ft/s powder charge (assuming it can be done), yet allowing for a 500 yard effective expansion with the 1600ft/s threshold. This MRX need would not apply, however, to the 6.5G with its comparatively short case. Of course, the same performance advantage would apply to getting the Grendel to push the 100grn and 120grn (BC .443!) TTSXs to 3000ft/s and 2800ft/s, respectively. Though, I do not believe that is realistic for the 6.5g/264lbc based on the numbers I have seen reported. Educated, intelligent replies, without flaming arrows, appreciated. |
|
Originally Posted By Altair:
Originally Posted By Serbspaniard:
Originally Posted By -Fozzy-:
Originally Posted By Serbspaniard:
Can someone in the know post the ballistics to 800meters out of 20" barrels for BOTH the 6.5G/264LBC with Barnes 100TTSX (.264) and the 6.8SPCII with Barnes 95TTSX (.277)? Thanks! The 6.5 will have much better ballistics at 800 meters, especially out of a 20" barrel. The 6.8 was designed to be used in short barrels, so you really don't gain much speed going to a 20" barrel. There really isn't a comparison between the two at that distance because the 6.5 wins hands down. Thanks for your opinion, but I read this entire thread and I already have heard it. I don't want opinions, I already have those. I need to see objectively comparative ballistics tables, which are sorely absent from this thread. Same manufacturer and type of bullets, near same weight, same barrel lengths, max load of the same powder if possible (say TAC). If you don't have 20" data, post 18" data. If you don't have 18" data, post 16" data. if you had data for all these barrel lengths, that would be best. Someone who has these tables, please post them here, as it is relevant to comparing these two rounds as the topic of the OP states above. Otherwise, this thread is what most 6.8/6.5 comparison threads are, defensive and complimentary opinions based on what may be empirical evidence, but may just as well be online hearsay or anecdote. I don't own either of these, nor have I tested these loads. These are theoretical numbers from loads listed on websites. They are not concrete. Also, you are getting numbers from the least common barrel length of the 6.8 (it gets near the same velocity in shorter barrels) and one of the bullets that doesn't take advantage of the BC of 6.5mm projectiles so neither of these is optimal for either cartridge. Never the less, here you go: 6.8 SPC, 95gr TTSX, 20" bbl (distances in yards, not meters) Distance........Vel.................Energy...........Drop Muzzle........2800fps..........1653 ft-lbs...........0" 200.............2191fps...........1013 ft-lbs.........10.46" 400.............1657fps.............579 ft-lbs.........50.68" 600.............1204fps.............306 ft-lbs.........143.3" 800..............957fps..............193 t-lbs..........332.46" 6.5 Grendel, 100gr TTSX, 20" bbl Distance........Vel.................Energy...........Drop Muzzle........2700fps...........1618 ft-lbs..........0" 200.............2176fps............1051 ft-lbs........11.02" 400.............1708fps.............648 ft-lbs.........52.04" 600.............1299fps.............375 ft-lbs.........141.9" 800.............1023fps.............232 ft-lbs.........315.79" The 6.8 MV with a 95gr TTSX from a 16" barrel is 2850 fps and from a 20" barrel 2950 fps if you want the correct data, this is the REAL velocity from Wilson Combats 6.8 ammo they are selling now and not hand loads since hand loads can be safely pushed even faster at 2900 fps from a 16" and 3K fps from a 20" barrel. |
6.8SPC: 95gr TTSX @ 2950 fps 20" barrel
6.5G: 100gr TTSX @ 2700 fps 20" barrel 
With the velocities quoted for 20" barrels and a 200 yard zero both bullets drop 233" at 800 yards all else equal but the 6.8 shoots flatter than the 6.5 until 800 yards. ETA: 6.8 TTSX BC corrected |
|
Originally Posted By EWP:
The 6.8 MV with a 95gr TTSX from a 16" barrel is 2850 fps and from a 20" barrel 2950 fps if you want the correct data, this is the REAL velocity from Wilson Combats 6.8 ammo they are selling now and not hand loads since hand loads can be safely pushed even faster at 2900 fps from a 16" and 3K fps from a 20" barrel. Updated data using 2950fps for the 6.8 and 2850fps for the 6.5: 6.8 SPC, 95gr TTSX, 20" bbl (distances in yards, not meters) Distance........Vel.................Energy...........Drop Muzzle..........2950................1835................0" 200...............2324................1139..............9.38" 400...............1773..................663.............45.17" 600...............1298..................355............126.62" 800................997...................210............292.56" 6.5 Grendel, 100gr TTSX, 20" bbl Distance........Vel.................Energy...........Drop Muzzle.........2850.................1803................0" 200..............2311.................1185..............9.85" 400..............1828...................742.............46.27" 600..............1402...................436............125.29" 800..............1076...................257............276.84" |
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 EWP:
Originally Posted By Altair:
Originally Posted By Serbspaniard:
Originally Posted By -Fozzy-:
Originally Posted By Serbspaniard:
Can someone in the know post the ballistics to 800meters out of 20" barrels for BOTH the 6.5G/264LBC with Barnes 100TTSX (.264) and the 6.8SPCII with Barnes 95TTSX (.277)? Thanks! The 6.5 will have much better ballistics at 800 meters, especially out of a 20" barrel. The 6.8 was designed to be used in short barrels, so you really don't gain much speed going to a 20" barrel. There really isn't a comparison between the two at that distance because the 6.5 wins hands down. Thanks for your opinion, but I read this entire thread and I already have heard it. I don't want opinions, I already have those. I need to see objectively comparative ballistics tables, which are sorely absent from this thread. Same manufacturer and type of bullets, near same weight, same barrel lengths, max load of the same powder if possible (say TAC). If you don't have 20" data, post 18" data. If you don't have 18" data, post 16" data. if you had data for all these barrel lengths, that would be best. Someone who has these tables, please post them here, as it is relevant to comparing these two rounds as the topic of the OP states above. Otherwise, this thread is what most 6.8/6.5 comparison threads are, defensive and complimentary opinions based on what may be empirical evidence, but may just as well be online hearsay or anecdote. I don't own either of these, nor have I tested these loads. These are theoretical numbers from loads listed on websites. They are not concrete. Also, you are getting numbers from the least common barrel length of the 6.8 (it gets near the same velocity in shorter barrels) and one of the bullets that doesn't take advantage of the BC of 6.5mm projectiles so neither of these is optimal for either cartridge. Never the less, here you go: 6.8 SPC, 95gr TTSX, 20" bbl (distances in yards, not meters) Distance........Vel.................Energy...........Drop Muzzle........2800fps..........1653 ft-lbs...........0" 200.............2191fps...........1013 ft-lbs.........10.46" 400.............1657fps.............579 ft-lbs.........50.68" 600.............1204fps.............306 ft-lbs.........143.3" 800..............957fps..............193 t-lbs..........332.46" 6.5 Grendel, 100gr TTSX, 20" bbl Distance........Vel.................Energy...........Drop Muzzle........2700fps...........1618 ft-lbs..........0" 200.............2176fps............1051 ft-lbs........11.02" 400.............1708fps.............648 ft-lbs.........52.04" 600.............1299fps.............375 ft-lbs.........141.9" 800.............1023fps.............232 ft-lbs.........315.79" The 6.8 MV with a 95gr TTSX from a 16" barrel is 2850 fps and from a 20" barrel 2950 fps if you want the correct data, this is the REAL velocity from Wilson Combats 6.8 ammo they are selling now and not hand loads since hand loads can be safely pushed even faster at 2900 fps from a 16" and 3K fps from a 20" barrel. Very interesting dope here. Is this out of a SPC II spec chamber (the "high performance" spec .100 freebore) or a standard spec? Looking at this data, I suspect that the .277 110TTSX could be safely pushed to 2800ft/s with handloads. This would be significant due to the TTSX's low 1600ft/s expansion threshold and the 110grn's significantly better BC of .377 (vs. .292 of the 95grnTTSX). This is, however, a jump in 15grns (an increase of more than 15%), not 10grns, which may make it bit much for the 6.8 to accomplish (more, I suspect, due to the decrease in room for powder charge). Furthermore, I doubt the 6.5g/.264lbc could push the 120grnTTSX .264 to 2800 or even 2700ft/s out of a 20" barrel. IF this is fact, the 6.8 could be argued to be a more effective put down round at 500 meters. Albeit, only slightly more effective, because the 6.5G/.264lbc with the 100TTSX is already there. |
|
The 110gr TTSX is very long and cuts into case cap. so ~2700 fps is about all that can be got from a 16" but a 20" should be able to get 2800 fps fairly easy & the 6.8 will push the new 120gr SST(.400 BC) from Hornady to 2600+ fps no problem.
And yes all velocities I have shown have been chronograph-ed from my 16" 6.8 Rainier UM spec-II barrel. |
|
Or you could look at a better 6.5mm bullet. Hornady says their 123 grain AMAX will expand down to 1600 fps.........
I was told they did some short barrel testing with this bullet and it performed extremely well. launched at 2600 fps this would retain 1661 fps at 600 yards and 753 ft-lbs with a 200 yard zero at muzzle it generates 1846 ft-lbs at 200 is retains 1394 ft-lbs it drops 25 inches at 400 1034 ft-lbs it drops 88 inches at 600 and retains 753 ft-lbs it drops 202 inches at 800 and retains 545 ft-lbs In a full value 10 mph wind, drift is 30 inches at 600 yards with this load. I have shot a pile of this ammo from 12.5, 16 and 20 inch guns out to 800 yards and am very impressed by it. I have worked with the Grendel a lot and I would not pick the 100 grain Barnes for use past 200/300 I also would not pick that 6.8 bullet for long range use. That's not what either of them are intended are. just my 2 cents for what its worth...... |
What would Boxer do?
A dead whale or a stove boat.
A dead whale or a stove boat.
|
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
Or you could look at a better 6.5mm bullet. Hornady says their 123 grain AMAX will expand down to 1600 fps......... I was told they did some short barrel testing with this bullet and it performed extremely well. launched at 2600 fps this would retain 1661 fps at 600 yards and 753 ft-lbs with a 200 yard zero at muzzle it generates 1846 ft-lbs at 200 is retains 1394 ft-lbs it drops 25 inches at 400 1034 ft-lbs it drops 88 inches at 600 and retains 753 ft-lbs it drops 202 inches at 800 and retains 545 ft-lbs In a full value 10 mph wind, drift is 30 inches at 600 yards with this load. I have shot a pile of this ammo from 12.5, 16 and 20 inch guns out to 800 yards and am very impressed by it. I have worked with the Grendel a lot and I would not pick the 100 grain Barnes for use past 200/300 I also would not pick that 6.8 bullet for long range use. That's not what either of them are intended are. just my 2 cents for what its worth...... Sounds like a good option for the 6.5G. Out of what barrel length? And why would you not pick the 100grnTTSX Barnes to shoot beyond 300, or even 200, yards? And why would you not pick the 6.8 95grnTTSX Barnes bullet for "long range" (aka medium range, 200-600 meters) use? What experience do you have with the 6.8 SPC II chambered weapon firing the Barnes 95grn (or 110grn) TTSX? My experience with Barnes bullets is that they kill everything at ranges above their expansion threshold velocity. Literally, every four legged mammal I have shot with a Barnes TSX or TTSX bullet has dropped and died within 50 feet of impact. Anecdotal, yes. Uncommon, no. Moreover, these bullets shoot straight, at least out of my rifles (5.56, .270, .308, 30-06, .300 and .338). Regardless of the "intended purpose" of the cartridge (or what you would do), the numbers above indicate the 6.8 SPC out of a spec II chamber can readily perform at the same range (600meters) with the same weight projectiles as a 6.5g. In addition, since the majority of use is going to be under 300 yards anyway, business or non-business weapons, then the 6.8SPC in a spec II chamber may be the best choice because it has superior numbers at short range (with nearly any ammo), has superior numbers out of short barrels, makes a (slightly) larger hole, and can readily make a put down hit at the same range as a 6.5g with the right projectiles/ammo. To add icing, many bad bipeds have been and are actively being dispatched by the 6.8 under crucible conditions. Moreover, if a guy has (chooses to have) both an SBR upper for business/security and a long barrel upper for hunting medium quadrupeds out to 600 yards (longer than I would, but possible within the numbers), he can perform both with the 6.8SPC in a spec II chamber. And that long range (what I would call medium range) medium game performance is substantially as well as the 6.5G. I'm not saying that the 6.8SPC out of a spec II chamber will out perform a .270 win, but there doesn't appear to be much advantage in the 6.5g, at least apples to apples. I like both cartridges, just trying to sort out their capabilities, and discounting the 6.8's abilities to put mammalian targets down at 5-600 meters appears to be unjustified. |
|
Originally Posted By Serbspaniard:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
Or you could look at a better 6.5mm bullet. Hornady says their 123 grain AMAX will expand down to 1600 fps......... I was told they did some short barrel testing with this bullet and it performed extremely well. launched at 2600 fps this would retain 1661 fps at 600 yards and 753 ft-lbs with a 200 yard zero at muzzle it generates 1846 ft-lbs at 200 is retains 1394 ft-lbs it drops 25 inches at 400 1034 ft-lbs it drops 88 inches at 600 and retains 753 ft-lbs it drops 202 inches at 800 and retains 545 ft-lbs In a full value 10 mph wind, drift is 30 inches at 600 yards with this load. I have shot a pile of this ammo from 12.5, 16 and 20 inch guns out to 800 yards and am very impressed by it. I have worked with the Grendel a lot and I would not pick the 100 grain Barnes for use past 200/300 I also would not pick that 6.8 bullet for long range use. That's not what either of them are intended are. just my 2 cents for what its worth...... Sounds like a good option for the 6.5G. Out of what barrel length? factory load from my 20 inch gun And why would you not pick the 100grnTTSX Barnes to shoot beyond 300, or even 200, yards? Because it's not optimized for that. Look at the numbers. I can get better performance from a traditional bullet. Plus, I don't think 100 grain bullets are optimum for the Grendel. I think it does better with 120/123s. I'm not saying the TTSX isn't a good bullet, but the exterior ballistics on it blow, it sheds velocity and energy like a furry dog in summer so why not choose a more efficient projectile which will do the job better? For the record I don't shoot game past 300 yards. That's just me. Ring steel on my range out to 800 yards whenever I feel like it, sure, but I simply don't shoot game past 300 yards. If I did, I would not select the 100 grain TTSX. And why would you not pick the 6.8 95grnTTSX Barnes bullet for "long range" (aka medium range, 200-600 meters) use? What experience do you have with the 6.8 SPC II chambered weapon firing the Barnes 95grn (or 110grn) TTSX? The topic was shooting out to 800, I would not pick that bullet for use past 400 yards for much of anything. If you like it drive on. I do not have as much experience as many here on the board with those two particular projectiles, but I have burned A LOT of 6.8 SPC from a variety of barrel lengths both semi and full auto. I've shot it into gel and out to 600 yards. I have always said it is a good cartridge and I have recommended it. BUT I live in Kansas, and simply prefer the Grendel. My experience with Barnes bullets is that they kill everything at ranges above their expansion threshold velocity. Literally, every four legged mammal I have shot with a Barnes TSX or TTSX bullet has dropped and died within 50 feet of impact. Anecdotal, yes. Uncommon, no. Moreover, these bullets shoot straight, at least out of my rifles (5.56, .270, .308, 30-06, .300 and .338). How many animals have you taken with them? As an industry professional I have taken game both here and abroad with a host of calibers and different types of bullets. I'll take shot placement first. All I need is a bullet to work as intended, it doesn't have to be the latest greatest. I've never had an issue killing game with Lapua's 123 grain Scenar for example. But if it works for you and you love those designs, I think that's great. But just because that is the ticket for you doesn't mean there are not other ways of doing things. People have been taking game for a very long time with old technology. Regardless of the "intended purpose" of the cartridge (or what you would do), the numbers above indicate the 6.8 SPC out of a spec II chamber can readily perform at the same range (600meters) with the same weight projectiles as a 6.5g. I agree that the 95/100 grain Barnes bullets out of these two cartridges are extremely similar. But then again, I could also say that the 100 grain Barnes performs very poorly out of the Grendel at distance due to its low BC and, as shown above, there are better options available which significantly improve performance. I mean, I just threw one readily available factory load out there. But if you think these two particular examples 'indicate' something, cool. In addition, since the majority of use is going to be under 300 yards anyway, business or non-business weapons, then the 6.8SPC in a spec II chamber may be the best choice because it has superior numbers at short range (with nearly any ammo), has superior numbers out of short barrels, makes a (slightly) larger hole, and can readily make a put down hit at the same range as a 6.5g with the right projectiles/ammo. To add icing, many bad bipeds have been and are actively being dispatched by the 6.8 under crucible conditions. I have never found the 6.8 to have any real practical advantage at short range. The Grendel invariably runs it down by 75/100 yards. SBRs? Yes, I agree and have always said the 6.8 SPC performs very well out of short barrels. But my 12.5 inch Grendel will carry 1,000 ft-lbs to 300 yards with factory loads. But if you like it cool. Also, many bad bipeds have been and are actively being dispatched by the Grendel under crucible conditions. I know of one shot past 1,000 yards from a 20 inch gun. 
Moreover, if a guy has (chooses to have) both an SBR upper for business/security and a long barrel upper for hunting medium quadrupeds out to 600 yards (longer than I would, but possible within the numbers), he can perform both with the 6.8SPC in a spec II chamber. And that long range (what I would call medium range) medium game performance is substantially as well as the 6.5G. And you can't do that with the Grendel? I shoot my 12.5 inch gun out to 500 and 600 yards, my 16 inch gun out to 800 yards. If you honestly think a 6.8 SPC will work as well as a Grendel past 500, have at it. I'm not saying that the 6.8SPC out of a spec II chamber will out perform a .270 win, but there doesn't appear to be much advantage in the 6.5g, at least apples to apples. But, that is the failure of your entire argument. The cases were designed differently for specific purposes. The 6.8 SPECIAL PURPOSE CARTRIDGE was specifically designed to offer dramatically superior performance compared to the 5.56 at traditional distances. The Grendel was specifically designed as more of a general purpose cartridge which could take advantage of high BC projectiles. Your argument would be the same as me saying, hey Lapua's 144 grain FMJ with its .630 BC does pretty darn well out of the Grendel. Especially on intermediate barriers. Look how superior the Grendel is to the SPC because the performance of the SPC with 144 grain projectiles blows. It doesn't make any sense, they are two cartridges which are similar in many ways yet strikingly different in others. If one is better for your needs, cool. I have both. I like both cartridges, just trying to sort out their capabilities, and discounting the 6.8's abilities to put mammalian targets down at 5-600 meters appears to be unjustified. I don't remember anyone saying the 6.8 SPC couldn't put mammalian targets down at 5-600 meters. I have shot pallets of Mk 262 Mod1 at those distances and the 6.8 SPC is similar in the wind. It is what it is. It has its strengths and weaknesses just like everything in life. Its a fine cartridge and it should be more popular than it is. Is it perfect? No. But its a fine cartridge, just like the Grendel... |
What would Boxer do?
A dead whale or a stove boat.
A dead whale or a stove boat.
|
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
Originally Posted By Serbspaniard:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
Or you could look at a better 6.5mm bullet. Hornady says their 123 grain AMAX will expand down to 1600 fps......... I was told they did some short barrel testing with this bullet and it performed extremely well. launched at 2600 fps this would retain 1661 fps at 600 yards and 753 ft-lbs with a 200 yard zero at muzzle it generates 1846 ft-lbs at 200 is retains 1394 ft-lbs it drops 25 inches at 400 1034 ft-lbs it drops 88 inches at 600 and retains 753 ft-lbs it drops 202 inches at 800 and retains 545 ft-lbs In a full value 10 mph wind, drift is 30 inches at 600 yards with this load. I have shot a pile of this ammo from 12.5, 16 and 20 inch guns out to 800 yards and am very impressed by it. I have worked with the Grendel a lot and I would not pick the 100 grain Barnes for use past 200/300 I also would not pick that 6.8 bullet for long range use. That's not what either of them are intended are. just my 2 cents for what its worth...... Sounds like a good option for the 6.5G. Out of what barrel length? factory load from my 20 inch gun And why would you not pick the 100grnTTSX Barnes to shoot beyond 300, or even 200, yards? Because it's not optimized for that. Look at the numbers. I can get better performance from a traditional bullet. Plus, I don't think 100 grain bullets are optimum for the Grendel. I think it does better with 120/123s. I'm not saying the TTSX isn't a good bullet, but the exterior ballistics on it blow, it sheds velocity and energy like a furry dog in summer so why not choose a more efficient projectile which will do the job better? For the record I don't shoot game past 300 yards. That's just me. Ring steel on my range out to 800 yards whenever I feel like it, sure, but I simply don't shoot game past 300 yards. If I did, I would not select the 100 grain TTSX. And why would you not pick the 6.8 95grnTTSX Barnes bullet for "long range" (aka medium range, 200-600 meters) use? What experience do you have with the 6.8 SPC II chambered weapon firing the Barnes 95grn (or 110grn) TTSX? The topic was shooting out to 800, I would not pick that bullet for use past 400 yards for much of anything. If you like it drive on. I do not have as much experience as many here on the board with those two particular projectiles, but I have burned A LOT of 6.8 SPC from a variety of barrel lengths both semi and full auto. I've shot it into gel and out to 600 yards. I have always said it is a good cartridge and I have recommended it. BUT I live in Kansas, and simply prefer the Grendel. My experience with Barnes bullets is that they kill everything at ranges above their expansion threshold velocity. Literally, every four legged mammal I have shot with a Barnes TSX or TTSX bullet has dropped and died within 50 feet of impact. Anecdotal, yes. Uncommon, no. Moreover, these bullets shoot straight, at least out of my rifles (5.56, .270, .308, 30-06, .300 and .338). How many animals have you taken with them? As an industry professional I have taken game both here and abroad with a host of calibers and different types of bullets. I'll take shot placement first. All I need is a bullet to work as intended, it doesn't have to be the latest greatest. I've never had an issue killing game with Lapua's 123 grain Scenar for example. But if it works for you and you love those designs, I think that's great. But just because that is the ticket for you doesn't mean there are not other ways of doing things. People have been taking game for a very long time with old technology. Regardless of the "intended purpose" of the cartridge (or what you would do), the numbers above indicate the 6.8 SPC out of a spec II chamber can readily perform at the same range (600meters) with the same weight projectiles as a 6.5g. I agree that the 95/100 grain Barnes bullets out of these two cartridges are extremely similar. But then again, I could also say that the 100 grain Barnes performs very poorly out of the Grendel at distance due to its low BC and, as shown above, there are better options available which significantly improve performance. I mean, I just threw one readily available factory load out there. But if you think these two particular examples 'indicate' something, cool. In addition, since the majority of use is going to be under 300 yards anyway, business or non-business weapons, then the 6.8SPC in a spec II chamber may be the best choice because it has superior numbers at short range (with nearly any ammo), has superior numbers out of short barrels, makes a (slightly) larger hole, and can readily make a put down hit at the same range as a 6.5g with the right projectiles/ammo. To add icing, many bad bipeds have been and are actively being dispatched by the 6.8 under crucible conditions. I have never found the 6.8 to have any real practical advantage at short range. The Grendel invariably runs it down by 75/100 yards. SBRs? Yes, I agree and have always said the 6.8 SPC performs very well out of short barrels. But my 12.5 inch Grendel will carry 1,000 ft-lbs to 300 yards with factory loads. But if you like it cool. Also, many bad bipeds have been and are actively being dispatched by the Grendel under crucible conditions. I know of one shot past 1,000 yards from a 20 inch gun.
Moreover, if a guy has (chooses to have) both an SBR upper for business/security and a long barrel upper for hunting medium quadrupeds out to 600 yards (longer than I would, but possible within the numbers), he can perform both with the 6.8SPC in a spec II chamber. And that long range (what I would call medium range) medium game performance is substantially as well as the 6.5G. And you can't do that with the Grendel? I shoot my 12.5 inch gun out to 500 and 600 yards, my 16 inch gun out to 800 yards. If you honestly think a 6.8 SPC will work as well as a Grendel past 500, have at it. I'm not saying that the 6.8SPC out of a spec II chamber will out perform a .270 win, but there doesn't appear to be much advantage in the 6.5g, at least apples to apples. But, that is the failure of your entire argument. The cases were designed differently for specific purposes. The 6.8 SPECIAL PURPOSE CARTRIDGE was specifically designed to offer dramatically superior performance compared to the 5.56 at traditional distances. The Grendel was specifically designed as more of a general purpose cartridge which could take advantage of high BC projectiles. Your argument would be the same as me saying, hey Lapua's 144 grain FMJ with its .630 BC does pretty darn well out of the Grendel. Especially on intermediate barriers. Look how superior the Grendel is to the SPC because the performance of the SPC with 144 grain projectiles blows. It doesn't make any sense, they are two cartridges which are similar in many ways yet strikingly different in others. If one is better for your needs, cool. I have both. I like both cartridges, just trying to sort out their capabilities, and discounting the 6.8's abilities to put mammalian targets down at 5-600 meters appears to be unjustified. I don't remember anyone saying the 6.8 SPC couldn't put mammalian targets down at 5-600 meters. I have shot pallets of Mk 262 Mod1 at those distances and the 6.8 SPC is similar in the wind. It is what it is. It has its strengths and weaknesses just like everything in life. Its a fine cartridge and it should be more popular than it is. Is it perfect? No. But its a fine cartridge, just like the Grendel... I guess you don't remember discounting the ability of the 6.8SPC to shoot long distance. Scroll up, you wrote it. This thread is not about which of these cartridges performs better on paper at 800 yards. It is about getting information that will aid people in their decision on which of these two cartridges they will spend their hard earned money. And you don't want to compare apples to apples because you can dope the .264LBC/G to the bottom of the travel in your elevation dial to punch paper at 1000 yards with a diving high BC (wind resistant) projectile that won't reliably expand or fragment at that distance. Ok. The .264LBC/G is apparently great at punching paper at steep approach angles, which is relevant to the OP's topic. It would be great if you could post some more data here that will illuminate this for readers rather than just making unsupported assertions in elitist toned prose. What my line of inquiry within this thread is illuminating, that you are apparently choosing to obfuscate, is that the 6.8SPC Can Alllow A Shooter To Push One Of The Best Hunting Bullets On Earth To 500+ Meters At A Velocity Where It Will Reliably Expand. Moreover, it does this As Well As The Grendel Does With A Nearly Identical Projectile. This is where my point (or argument as you put it) does not fail, but proves a simple fact that is relevant to the OP's topic. You don't like the 100 or 120grn TTSX projectiles (despite the 120grn's .443BC?) because it doesn't approach your paper targets as well as you would like out of your Grendel. Fine. You opinion doesn't change the FACT that the Barnes T/TSX bullets are, for their weight, among the best performing bullets on earth when they hit live targets. Regardless, it would be great if you could post some supportive data on how much more superior say the 123grn Lapua Scenar and its BC of .510 (some say it is actually much lower than that) and even your 144grn FMJ Lapua mention. Show us where the Grendel is at its best as a general purpose cartridge that it was designed/intended to be. But again, it is directly relevant to the topic of this thread (as written by the OP) for people to know that the 6.8SPC spec II can match the .264LBC/G out to 500+ meters with the same 95-110grain bullet designed to kill mammals, not just punch paper. |
|
Originally Posted By Serbspaniard:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
Originally Posted By Serbspaniard:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
Or you could look at a better 6.5mm bullet. Hornady says their 123 grain AMAX will expand down to 1600 fps......... I was told they did some short barrel testing with this bullet and it performed extremely well. launched at 2600 fps this would retain 1661 fps at 600 yards and 753 ft-lbs with a 200 yard zero at muzzle it generates 1846 ft-lbs at 200 is retains 1394 ft-lbs it drops 25 inches at 400 1034 ft-lbs it drops 88 inches at 600 and retains 753 ft-lbs it drops 202 inches at 800 and retains 545 ft-lbs In a full value 10 mph wind, drift is 30 inches at 600 yards with this load. I have shot a pile of this ammo from 12.5, 16 and 20 inch guns out to 800 yards and am very impressed by it. I have worked with the Grendel a lot and I would not pick the 100 grain Barnes for use past 200/300 I also would not pick that 6.8 bullet for long range use. That's not what either of them are intended are. just my 2 cents for what its worth...... Sounds like a good option for the 6.5G. Out of what barrel length? factory load from my 20 inch gun And why would you not pick the 100grnTTSX Barnes to shoot beyond 300, or even 200, yards? Because it's not optimized for that. Look at the numbers. I can get better performance from a traditional bullet. Plus, I don't think 100 grain bullets are optimum for the Grendel. I think it does better with 120/123s. I'm not saying the TTSX isn't a good bullet, but the exterior ballistics on it blow, it sheds velocity and energy like a furry dog in summer so why not choose a more efficient projectile which will do the job better? For the record I don't shoot game past 300 yards. That's just me. Ring steel on my range out to 800 yards whenever I feel like it, sure, but I simply don't shoot game past 300 yards. If I did, I would not select the 100 grain TTSX. And why would you not pick the 6.8 95grnTTSX Barnes bullet for "long range" (aka medium range, 200-600 meters) use? What experience do you have with the 6.8 SPC II chambered weapon firing the Barnes 95grn (or 110grn) TTSX? The topic was shooting out to 800, I would not pick that bullet for use past 400 yards for much of anything. If you like it drive on. I do not have as much experience as many here on the board with those two particular projectiles, but I have burned A LOT of 6.8 SPC from a variety of barrel lengths both semi and full auto. I've shot it into gel and out to 600 yards. I have always said it is a good cartridge and I have recommended it. BUT I live in Kansas, and simply prefer the Grendel. My experience with Barnes bullets is that they kill everything at ranges above their expansion threshold velocity. Literally, every four legged mammal I have shot with a Barnes TSX or TTSX bullet has dropped and died within 50 feet of impact. Anecdotal, yes. Uncommon, no. Moreover, these bullets shoot straight, at least out of my rifles (5.56, .270, .308, 30-06, .300 and .338). How many animals have you taken with them? As an industry professional I have taken game both here and abroad with a host of calibers and different types of bullets. I'll take shot placement first. All I need is a bullet to work as intended, it doesn't have to be the latest greatest. I've never had an issue killing game with Lapua's 123 grain Scenar for example. But if it works for you and you love those designs, I think that's great. But just because that is the ticket for you doesn't mean there are not other ways of doing things. People have been taking game for a very long time with old technology. Regardless of the "intended purpose" of the cartridge (or what you would do), the numbers above indicate the 6.8 SPC out of a spec II chamber can readily perform at the same range (600meters) with the same weight projectiles as a 6.5g. I agree that the 95/100 grain Barnes bullets out of these two cartridges are extremely similar. But then again, I could also say that the 100 grain Barnes performs very poorly out of the Grendel at distance due to its low BC and, as shown above, there are better options available which significantly improve performance. I mean, I just threw one readily available factory load out there. But if you think these two particular examples 'indicate' something, cool. In addition, since the majority of use is going to be under 300 yards anyway, business or non-business weapons, then the 6.8SPC in a spec II chamber may be the best choice because it has superior numbers at short range (with nearly any ammo), has superior numbers out of short barrels, makes a (slightly) larger hole, and can readily make a put down hit at the same range as a 6.5g with the right projectiles/ammo. To add icing, many bad bipeds have been and are actively being dispatched by the 6.8 under crucible conditions. I have never found the 6.8 to have any real practical advantage at short range. The Grendel invariably runs it down by 75/100 yards. SBRs? Yes, I agree and have always said the 6.8 SPC performs very well out of short barrels. But my 12.5 inch Grendel will carry 1,000 ft-lbs to 300 yards with factory loads. But if you like it cool. Also, many bad bipeds have been and are actively being dispatched by the Grendel under crucible conditions. I know of one shot past 1,000 yards from a 20 inch gun.
Moreover, if a guy has (chooses to have) both an SBR upper for business/security and a long barrel upper for hunting medium quadrupeds out to 600 yards (longer than I would, but possible within the numbers), he can perform both with the 6.8SPC in a spec II chamber. And that long range (what I would call medium range) medium game performance is substantially as well as the 6.5G. And you can't do that with the Grendel? I shoot my 12.5 inch gun out to 500 and 600 yards, my 16 inch gun out to 800 yards. If you honestly think a 6.8 SPC will work as well as a Grendel past 500, have at it. I'm not saying that the 6.8SPC out of a spec II chamber will out perform a .270 win, but there doesn't appear to be much advantage in the 6.5g, at least apples to apples. But, that is the failure of your entire argument. The cases were designed differently for specific purposes. The 6.8 SPECIAL PURPOSE CARTRIDGE was specifically designed to offer dramatically superior performance compared to the 5.56 at traditional distances. The Grendel was specifically designed as more of a general purpose cartridge which could take advantage of high BC projectiles. Your argument would be the same as me saying, hey Lapua's 144 grain FMJ with its .630 BC does pretty darn well out of the Grendel. Especially on intermediate barriers. Look how superior the Grendel is to the SPC because the performance of the SPC with 144 grain projectiles blows. It doesn't make any sense, they are two cartridges which are similar in many ways yet strikingly different in others. If one is better for your needs, cool. I have both. I like both cartridges, just trying to sort out their capabilities, and discounting the 6.8's abilities to put mammalian targets down at 5-600 meters appears to be unjustified. I don't remember anyone saying the 6.8 SPC couldn't put mammalian targets down at 5-600 meters. I have shot pallets of Mk 262 Mod1 at those distances and the 6.8 SPC is similar in the wind. It is what it is. It has its strengths and weaknesses just like everything in life. Its a fine cartridge and it should be more popular than it is. Is it perfect? No. But its a fine cartridge, just like the Grendel... I guess you don't remember discounting the ability of the 6.8SPC to shoot long distance. Scroll up, you wrote it. Just because you can do it doesn't mean its optimum for it. Just as remarked that its similar to a Mk 262 Mod 1. I only shot 77 grain MatchKings at 600 if I had to. 80 grain Bergers loaded long are significantly better at 600 yards from a 5.56. The difference is noticeable. This thread is not about which of these cartridges performs better on paper at 800 yards. It is about getting information that will aid people in their decision on which of these two cartridges they will spend their hard earned money. This thread has gone on for 23 pages. The recent comments were regarding the two at 800 meters. Hence my comment. I have already shared a lot of info, data and my thoughts in the past 23 pages. Most everything has been covered by both sides. And you don't want to compare apples to apples because you can dope the .264LBC/G to the bottom of the travel in your elevation dial to punch paper at 1000 yards with a diving high BC (wind resistant) projectile that won't reliably expand or fragment at that distance. Ok. The .264LBC/G is apparently great at punching paper at steep approach angles, which is relevant to the OP's topic. It would be great if you could post some more data here that will illuminate this for readers rather than just making unsupported assertions in elitist toned prose. Actually, no if you reread my post I stated that you are correct that when loaded with these two projectiles the cartridges perform in a similar manner. I have been saying for years that inside 300/400 yards these two cartridges perform in a similar manner. One of most respected members of this particular board with more experience than just about anyone when it comes to shooting game with the 6.8 SPC II says the same thing in this thread. What I added is that due to the case design of the Grendel it can also be loaded with high BC projectiles giving it very good exterior ballistics out to 800 yards or so. While you may have no use for 'punching paper' or shooting steel, I'm sure a lot of the members of this board do exactly that. If I am punching paper I don't really care what the projectile does after it punches a hole. All I want is for the holes to be as close together as possible. When shooting shooting steel I want my LaRues to fall over or my Action Target silhouettes to ring so I know I hit it. Regarding "doping to the bottom of the travel of your elevation dial" my 20 inch Grendel GDMR requires less elevation than my Sako TRG-22 in .308 IF I load AA's 123 grain Scenar into the Grendel and M118LR/175 grain MatchKings into the .308. The Grendel requires 13 MOA to get to 600 while the .308 is similar but requiring 14. At 800 the Grendel requires 22 while the .308 requires 24 (again similar) while at 1,000 the Grendel requires 33 while the .308 requires 37 (this is with a 200 yard zero on both guns). So for such a tiny cartridge it performs well. Yes the .308 can beat it with better ammo selection, but this is a very common match/sniper load. Wind drift is also less. As stated previously, I live in Kansas. Wind is a big deal out here. 25-35 mph winds are common in Spring and Fall. 40+mph winds are not uncommon. So yes, I do appreciate less wind drift. I also understand that most people do not have an 800 yard range on their property like I do, nor access to longer ranges. Many will never shoot past 200/300. But please don't turn your nose up on those that would like to be able to shoot in High Power or F Class or tactical matches. What my line of inquiry within this thread is illuminating, that you are apparently choosing to obfuscate, is that the 6.8SPC Can Alllow A Shooter To Push One Of The Best Hunting Bullets On Earth To 500+ Meters At A Velocity Where It Will Reliably Expand. Moreover, it does this As Well As The Grendel Does With A Nearly Identical Projectile. This is where my point (or argument as you put it) does not fail, but proves a simple fact that is relevant to the OP's topic. I agreed with your point regarding the exterior ballistics and that the Barnes is a fine bullet. My comment remains that by choosing that particular bullet and loading it into the Grendel you are ignoring why the cartridge was designed the way it was. It is similar to trying to compare the .270 Win and .30-06 with identical weight bullets. There is more there than meets the eye, but both cartridges work well. Plus I could just as easily state that the Grendel will drive a projectile (Hornady's 120 grain AMAX) which will reliably expand out to approximately 650 yards with factory ammo and perhaps 700 yards with a handload. But again, you are talking about the very limits of velocity required for adequate expansion with either cartridge and there are much better cartridges than either of them for shooting big game at such distances. A .300 Win Mag comes to mind...ethics also come into play. You don't like the 100 or 120grn TTSX projectiles (despite the 120grn's .443BC?) because it doesn't approach your paper targets as well as you would like out of your Grendel. Fine. You opinion doesn't change the FACT that the Barnes T/TSX bullets are, for their weight, among the best performing bullets on earth when they hit live targets. I never said I didn't like the 100 grain Barnes, I said the Grendel is not at its best with bullets of this weight. I would say the same regarding Sierra's 107 grain MatchKing or Lapua's 108 grain Scenar or Berger's 100 grain OTM. But Barne's 100 grain projectile would work well for its intended purpose which is taking game animals at reasonable and ethical distances. One niche that I am currently testing it in is out of my 12.5 inch gun. I am still testing it though. The 120 grain TTSX is a proven performer. Mark LaRue is well known to have taken a nice Bull Elk with it at slightly over 400 yards. That is excellent performance and marksmanship. Out of a 16 or 20 inch gun I would choose the 120 grain over the 100 grain as it will retain its velocity and energy better. You simply cannot drive the 100 grain fast enough out of the Grendel to make it worth it in my opinion. Regardless, it would be great if you could post some supportive data on how much more superior say the 123grn Lapua Scenar and its BC of .510 (some say it is actually much lower than that) and even your 144grn FMJ Lapua mention. Show us where the Grendel is at its best as a general purpose cartridge that it was designed/intended to be. Lapua lists the BC of their 123 grain Scenar at .547. I have found it to be very close to that, but perhaps a hit lower (.530). The 144 grain Lapua FMJ was loaded early on but again this projectile is really too heavy for optimum performance out of the Grendel. It penetrates well, especially on glass, and I played with it allot early on, but came to the conclusion that this cartridge performs best with projectiles in the 120-123 weight class. If you would like more data I have an article posted here on the subject 6.5mm Grendel article posted on Arfcom But again, it is directly relevant to the topic of this thread (as written by the OP) for people to know that the 6.8SPC spec II can match the .264LBC/G out to 500+ meters with the same 95-110grain bullet designed to kill mammals, not just punch paper. OK, well stated. How do they compare with 123 grain bullets? Hornady's 123 grain AMAX was not designed for punching paper. 
|
What would Boxer do?
A dead whale or a stove boat.
A dead whale or a stove boat.
|
Originally Posted By coldair:
I visited both forums and choose the 6.8 for more reasons then simple ballistics. And from all your posts it's obvious that the 6.8 SPC performs very well and that you are very happy with it. I'm very glad you picked the right cartridge for you. I also appreciate the info you share on this board. One of my best friends, Gus Norcross of Angus Arms prefers the 6.8 SPC and is extremely pleased with it. He ends up with all my 6.8 brass
|
What would Boxer do?
A dead whale or a stove boat.
A dead whale or a stove boat.
|
here is a reported failure of the 6.8 to perform as expected http://68forums.com/forums/showthread.php?20220-Initial-disappointment-in-the-6.8-vs-Hogs |
I wish I was the man my dog thinks I am
|
Originally Posted By coldair:
here is a reported failure of the 6.8 to perform as expected http://68forums.com/forums/showthread.php?20220-Initial-disappointment-in-the-6.8-vs-Hogs THAT IS AWESOME! Thanks for posting!! Now THAT is penetration! |
What would Boxer do?
A dead whale or a stove boat.
A dead whale or a stove boat.
|
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
OK, well stated. How do they compare with 120 grain bullets? Hornady's 123 grain AMAX was not designed for punching paper.
Since when was the A-Max not designed for punching paper, as far as I know it is a match bullet and not a hunting bullet. We are proud and excited to announce the 6.5 Grendel in our Match™ ammunition line.
The 6.5 Grendel Match ammo is loaded with Hornady A-MAX bullets 6.8SPC 120gr SST @ 2600 fps 20" barrel 500 yards––1625 fps––-703.8 fpe––-55.92" drop––-17.7" drift @ 10 MPH 
6.5 Grendel 123gr Amax @ 2500 fps 20" barrel 500 yards––-1731 fps––-818.3 fpe––-54.88" drop––-13.74" drift @ 10 MPH 
Not a whole lot of difference if you ask me, and both are probably below their reliable expansion velocity at that distance. |
|
Originally Posted By EWP:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
OK, well stated. How do they compare with 120 grain bullets? Hornady's 123 grain AMAX was not designed for punching paper.
Since when was the A-Max not designed for punching paper, as far as I know it is a match bullet and not a hunting bullet. We are proud and excited to announce the 6.5 Grendel in our Match™ ammunition line.
The 6.5 Grendel Match ammo is loaded with Hornady A-MAX bullets 6.8SPC 120gr SST @ 2600 fps 20" barrel 500 yards––1625 fps––-703.8 fpe––-55.92" drop––-17.7" drift @ 10 MPH http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu173/earnest013/120grSST-1.jpg 6.5 Grendel 123gr Amax @ 2500 fps 20" barrel 500 yards––-1731 fps––-818.3 fpe––-54.88" drop––-13.74" drift @ 10 MPH http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu173/earnest013/123grAmax.jpg Not a whole lot of difference if you ask me, and both are probably below their reliable expansion velocity at that distance. Steve Johnson of Hornady told me during an interview that their 123 grain .264 inch AMAX was designed to expand and that they had done testing on gel with it. He specifically told me the threshold for expansion was approximately 1,600 fps. Velocity from my 20 inch gun with factory ammo is 2,581 fps. |
What would Boxer do?
A dead whale or a stove boat.
A dead whale or a stove boat.
|
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
Originally Posted By EWP:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
OK, well stated. How do they compare with 120 grain bullets? Hornady's 123 grain AMAX was not designed for punching paper.
Since when was the A-Max not designed for punching paper, as far as I know it is a match bullet and not a hunting bullet. We are proud and excited to announce the 6.5 Grendel in our Match™ ammunition line.
The 6.5 Grendel Match ammo is loaded with Hornady A-MAX bullets 6.8SPC 120gr SST @ 2600 fps 20" barrel 500 yards––1625 fps––-703.8 fpe––-55.92" drop––-17.7" drift @ 10 MPH http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu173/earnest013/120grSST-1.jpg 6.5 Grendel 123gr Amax @ 2500 fps 20" barrel 500 yards––-1731 fps––-818.3 fpe––-54.88" drop––-13.74" drift @ 10 MPH http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu173/earnest013/123grAmax.jpg Not a whole lot of difference if you ask me, and both are probably below their reliable expansion velocity at that distance. Steve Johnson of Hornady told me during an interview that their 123 grain .264 inch AMAX was designed to expand and that they had done testing on gel with it. He specifically told me the threshold for expansion was approximately 1,600 fps. Velocity from my 20 inch gun with factory ammo is 2,581 fps. OK so it's kinda like the 6.8 Hornady 110gr BTHP that expands instead of frag's. I wasn't sure about the Grendel's velocity so I split the difference in the 16" & 24" velocity quoted on Hornady's website since most Grendel's I have seen velocity testing done on will loose more than 40 fps from 24" to 20" and most do not come close to 2600 fps with a 120gr bullet in a 20" barrel. |
|
Originally Posted By EWP:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
Originally Posted By EWP:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
OK, well stated. How do they compare with 120 grain bullets? Hornady's 123 grain AMAX was not designed for punching paper.
Since when was the A-Max not designed for punching paper, as far as I know it is a match bullet and not a hunting bullet. We are proud and excited to announce the 6.5 Grendel in our Match™ ammunition line.
The 6.5 Grendel Match ammo is loaded with Hornady A-MAX bullets 6.8SPC 120gr SST @ 2600 fps 20" barrel 500 yards––1625 fps––-703.8 fpe––-55.92" drop––-17.7" drift @ 10 MPH http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu173/earnest013/120grSST-1.jpg 6.5 Grendel 123gr Amax @ 2500 fps 20" barrel 500 yards––-1731 fps––-818.3 fpe––-54.88" drop––-13.74" drift @ 10 MPH http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu173/earnest013/123grAmax.jpg Not a whole lot of difference if you ask me, and both are probably below their reliable expansion velocity at that distance. Steve Johnson of Hornady told me during an interview that their 123 grain .264 inch AMAX was designed to expand and that they had done testing on gel with it. He specifically told me the threshold for expansion was approximately 1,600 fps. Velocity from my 20 inch gun with factory ammo is 2,581 fps. OK so it's kinda like the 6.8 Hornady 110gr BTHP that expands instead of frag's. I wasn't sure about the Grendel's velocity so I split the difference in the 16" & 24" velocity quoted on Hornady's website since most Grendel's I have seen velocity testing done on will loose more than 40 fps from 24" to 20" and most do not come close to 2600 fps with a 120gr bullet in a 20" barrel. That looks to be an excellent option for the 6.8 SPC. I'll have to get my hands on some to try. Out of my 20 inch gun both AA's 120 grain Nosler (2,600 fps on the nose) and 123 Scenar (2,627 fps) will do that. Their 120 grain TTSX runs at 2,551 fps. |
What would Boxer do?
A dead whale or a stove boat.
A dead whale or a stove boat.
|
Not bad for factory ammo since most peoples reloads with the 123gr run at 2450-75 fps that I have seen at Sniper Hide.
And yes the new 120gr bullet seems to be a great option especially using the newer AA2200 powder that I use, it has started to catch on recently with some of the other 6.8 reloader's also and works great from 100-130gr bullets giving up to ~2600 fps(~2450 fps 16") with a 130gr Speer BTSP bullet which provides some serious knock down power from a 20" rig. 130gr BTSP @ 2600 fps 200 yard zero 0 yards––-2600 fps––-1951 fpe 200 yards––-2221 fps––-1423 fps––-0 drop––––0 drift 400 yards––-1876 fps––-1016 fpe––-25.87 drop––-7.79" drift 500 yards––-1717 fps––-851.7 fpe––-52.87" drop––-15.2" drift @ 10 MPH |
|
I've now got the 135 SMK running to 2420 FPS from my 18" Bolt gun....Yep, that's a 6.8. Granted, the OAL is 2.385" and will not fit in a mag, but single loaded, its awesome out to 600 yards (that's the farthest I have shot the 135 SMK so far).
I will be loading the 120 SST with AA 2200 this coming weekend. There is more to the 6.8 story especially now that we are seeing these loads with the heavier bullets and higher BC's. |
Wild River Ranch, LLC
www.wildriverranchtexas.com
www.wildriverranchtexas.com
|
Originally Posted By hi-tech-rancher:
I've now got the 135 SMK running to 2420 FPS from my 18" Bolt gun....Yep, that's a 6.8. Granted, the OAL is 2.385" and will not fit in a mag, but single loaded, its awesome out to 600 yards (that's the farthest I have shot the 135 SMK so far). I will be loading the 120 SST with AA 2200 this coming weekend. There is more to the 6.8 story especially now that we are seeing these loads with the heavier bullets and higher BC's. Sounds great! I'll be very interested to hear how you make out with that combo. Always like your contributions! |
What would Boxer do?
A dead whale or a stove boat.
A dead whale or a stove boat.
|
Thanks for pointing out the 175grn .308/x51 comparison in bullet drop. Significant performance from the .264LBC/G that is extremely relevant here.
Also, I stand corrected on the Scenar's BC, I had the AMAX's performance in mind when I wrote that, which is why I wrote the AMAX BC instead. I am impressed with the .264LBC/G's performance out to 800 meters. It is nothing to laugh at. I shoot targets too and knowing that the .264LBC/G can hunt and hit paper at outer edge of the medium range envelope out of a 20" AR platform is, well, comforting. As well, knowing that the 6.8SPC in a type II chamber can reach out to hit at 500+ meters with medium game bullets (arguably as well as the .264LBC/G) is also very comforting, especially if someone intends to shoot and stock 6.8SPC cartridges out of a sub 16" barrel as well. Yes, ethics are important, but knowing the 6.8SPC is not limited to sub 300, or even sub 400 arena, but can reach out to 600, is good info in the event one may need to employ the 6.8 when in extreme need to put down a piece of food/bad-haji at that further distance. Nonetheless, since I do punch paper, I am slightly leaning toward a Grendel/.264LBC. |
|
I'll be interested to see how the 120 grain SST does at 600 and beyond. The .264 129 SST never impressed me as far as accuracy goes
but I bet the 6.8 is more accurate. Looks to be a great bullet for this cartridge. |
What would Boxer do?
A dead whale or a stove boat.
A dead whale or a stove boat.
|
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
I'll be interested to see how the 120 grain SST does at 600 and beyond. The .264 129 SST never impressed me as far as accuracy goes but I bet the 6.8 is more accurate. Looks to be a great bullet for this cartridge. I hope so. I measured the 120 SST up against the 110 TTSX, and it is just a little shorter, so case capacity will likely be an issue. However, I surely plan to load it out to 2.385 or 2.395" ( that's the max length of my bolt gun's mag) and see what I can make it do. With a BC of ~.440, it should do pretty well out to 500. It also has a cannelure that will be nowhere near the case mouth I wish Horandy wouldn't do that, since seating these to 2.26" would be almost counterproductive. We shall see. ETA: I got the real numbers on the SST. 1.150" long and currently advertised at .400 BC. Sorry for any confusion |
Wild River Ranch, LLC
www.wildriverranchtexas.com
www.wildriverranchtexas.com
|
Originally Posted By hi-tech-rancher:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
I'll be interested to see how the 120 grain SST does at 600 and beyond. The .264 129 SST never impressed me as far as accuracy goes but I bet the 6.8 is more accurate. Looks to be a great bullet for this cartridge. I hope so. I measured the 120 SST up against the 110 TTSX, and it is just a little shorter, so case capacity will likely be an issue. However, I surely plan to load it out to 2.385 or 2.395" ( that's the max length of my bolt gun's mag) and see what I can make it do. With a BC of ~.440, it should do pretty well out to 500. It also has a cannelure that will be nowhere near the case mouth I wish Horandy wouldn't do that, since seating these to 2.26" would be almost counterproductive. We shall see. A .440 bullet SST? Get her to 2450-2500fps with a COAL of 2.285 or so and that would be something. While it would drop more than a 110gr VMAX or OTM at 500 - it would improve the 6.8s performance to 800y. |
'98 Jeep XJ Owner
"Free thinking is great.. that's how the Assault wheelbarrow with silenced .22 rifle was born..." Harv24
"Free thinking is great.. that's how the Assault wheelbarrow with silenced .22 rifle was born..." Harv24
|
Originally Posted By Forest:
Originally Posted By hi-tech-rancher:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
I'll be interested to see how the 120 grain SST does at 600 and beyond. The .264 129 SST never impressed me as far as accuracy goes but I bet the 6.8 is more accurate. Looks to be a great bullet for this cartridge. I hope so. I measured the 120 SST up against the 110 TTSX, and it is just a little shorter, so case capacity will likely be an issue. However, I surely plan to load it out to 2.385 or 2.395" ( that's the max length of my bolt gun's mag) and see what I can make it do. With a BC of ~.440, it should do pretty well out to 500. It also has a cannelure that will be nowhere near the case mouth I wish Horandy wouldn't do that, since seating these to 2.26" would be almost counterproductive. We shall see. A .440 bullet SST? Get her to 2450-2500fps with a COAL of 2.285 or so and that would be something. While it would drop more than a 110gr VMAX or OTM at 500 - it would improve the 6.8s performance to 800y. Forest, as I said before, I already have the 135 SMK loaded to 2.385", going 2420, and can easily hit steel gongs at 600 yards. The BC on that bullet is .488. I have shot 1" groups (albeit only 3 rounds) at 200 yards with it. I fully expect to be able to hit 2500 FPS with the 120 SST. ETS: interesting side note: I single loaded, and then fired the 135 SMK from my ARP 1:12, 3 groove barrel and the bullet was stable. |
Wild River Ranch, LLC
www.wildriverranchtexas.com
www.wildriverranchtexas.com
|
Originally Posted By hi-tech-rancher:
Forest, as I said before, I already have the 135 SMK loaded to 2.385", going 2420, and can easily hit steel gongs at 600 yards. The BC on that bullet is .488. I have shot 1" groups (albeit only 3 rounds) at 200 yards with it. I fully expect to be able to hit 2500 FPS with the 120 SST. While interesting from an academic & hunting viewpoint, many of us are interested in how a magazine length version would work. Not really possible with the 135gr SMK, but with the 120 SST - now that would be interesting. 500y really isn't a challenge, it's rediculously easy with 110gr VMAX & OTM loads, even those loaded to the original Remmington spec of 2550 fps. In my mind the 120 should extend the 6.8 at sea level to an honest 800+ yards - IF it can be loaded to PRI magazine length and a min MV of 2450fps. |
'98 Jeep XJ Owner
"Free thinking is great.. that's how the Assault wheelbarrow with silenced .22 rifle was born..." Harv24
"Free thinking is great.. that's how the Assault wheelbarrow with silenced .22 rifle was born..." Harv24
|
Originally Posted By Forest:
Originally Posted By hi-tech-rancher:
Forest, as I said before, I already have the 135 SMK loaded to 2.385", going 2420, and can easily hit steel gongs at 600 yards. The BC on that bullet is .488. I have shot 1" groups (albeit only 3 rounds) at 200 yards with it. I fully expect to be able to hit 2500 FPS with the 120 SST. While interesting from an academic & hunting viewpoint, many of us are interested in how a magazine length version would work. Not really possible with the 135gr SMK, but with the 120 SST - now that would be interesting. I have done it 500y really isn't a challenge, it's rediculously easy with 110gr VMAX & OTM loads, even those loaded to the original Remmington spec of 2550 fps. In my mind the 120 should extend the 6.8 at sea level to an honest 800+ yards - IF it can be loaded to PRI magazine length and a min MV of 2450fps. I agree that the 135 SMK loaded to "bolt gun only" length is essentially a novelty while there are so few bolt guns. But, I cannot simply leave well enough alone and have to tinker with this stuff. I like this cartridge in the AR but I like it just as much in a bolt gun. After loading the 110 TTSX to 2.385" , I was able to get them to 2770 FPS in that 18" bolt gun. That should kill any deer or hog very efficiently. That's a hell of a lot of power for a cartridge like this. Performance like that is hard to leave alone. As for the 120 SST, I have already dummy seated one to 2.305" and I expect to be able to get an adequate amount of Re 10X or AA 2200 in behind them. I have no doubt that I can get them going 2450, and very confident about 2500. Another great thing about the SST, is that it should be a great hunting bullet as well as longer range silhouette or LE type bullet. |
Wild River Ranch, LLC
www.wildriverranchtexas.com
www.wildriverranchtexas.com
|
Originally Posted By hi-tech-rancher:
... I measured the 120 SST up against the 110 TTSX, and it is just a little shorter, so case capacity will likely be an issue. However, I surely plan to load it out to 2.385 or 2.395" ( that's the max length of my bolt gun's mag) and see what I can make it do. With a BC of ~.440, it should do pretty well out to 500. It also has a cannelure that will be nowhere near the case mouth I wish Horandy wouldn't do that, since seating these to 2.26" would be almost counterproductive. ETA: I got the real numbers on the SST. 1.150" long and currently advertised at .400 BC. Sorry for any confusion. As for the 120 SST, I have already dummy seated one to 2.305" and I expect to be able to get an adequate amount of Re 10X or AA 2200 in behind them. I have no doubt that I can get them going 2450, and very confident about 2500. Another great thing about the SST, is that it should be a great hunting bullet as well as longer range silhouette or LE type bullet. 18" Remington bolt gun? 1-10 twist with throat treatment? Greenhill twist on a 1.150" long .277 bullet comes in right at 1-10.008 twist. Yes, 2450fps should be reachable since Hornady advertises 2460fps from a 16" - your prayers are answered Forest... http://www.hornady.com/store/6.8mm-SPC-120-GR-SST/ |
"A man with one AR is like a man with one arm." -me (pun intended)
|
Originally Posted By chris65:
Originally Posted By hi-tech-rancher:
... I measured the 120 SST up against the 110 TTSX, and it is just a little shorter, so case capacity will likely be an issue. However, I surely plan to load it out to 2.385 or 2.395" ( that's the max length of my bolt gun's mag) and see what I can make it do. With a BC of ~.440, it should do pretty well out to 500. It also has a cannelure that will be nowhere near the case mouth I wish Horandy wouldn't do that, since seating these to 2.26" would be almost counterproductive. ETA: I got the real numbers on the SST. 1.150" long and currently advertised at .400 BC. Sorry for any confusion. As for the 120 SST, I have already dummy seated one to 2.305" and I expect to be able to get an adequate amount of Re 10X or AA 2200 in behind them. I have no doubt that I can get them going 2450, and very confident about 2500. Another great thing about the SST, is that it should be a great hunting bullet as well as longer range silhouette or LE type bullet. 18" Remington bolt gun? 1-10 twist with throat treatment? Greenhill twist on a 1.150" long .277 bullet comes in right at 1-10.008 twist. Yes, 2450fps should be reachable since Hornady advertises 2460fps from a 16" - your prayers are answered Forest... http://www.hornady.com/store/6.8mm-SPC-120-GR-SST/ Yes, 18" bolt gun with chamber reamed to DMR dimensions (.080" freebore) and 1:10 twist. It is a 6 groove, but handles pressure as well as any other barrel I have. |
Wild River Ranch, LLC
www.wildriverranchtexas.com
www.wildriverranchtexas.com
|
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
Originally Posted By EWP:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
OK, well stated. How do they compare with 120 grain bullets? Hornady's 123 grain AMAX was not designed for punching paper.
Since when was the A-Max not designed for punching paper, as far as I know it is a match bullet and not a hunting bullet. We are proud and excited to announce the 6.5 Grendel in our Match™ ammunition line.
The 6.5 Grendel Match ammo is loaded with Hornady A-MAX bullets 6.8SPC 120gr SST @ 2600 fps 20" barrel 500 yards––1625 fps––-703.8 fpe––-55.92" drop––-17.7" drift @ 10 MPH http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu173/earnest013/120grSST-1.jpg 6.5 Grendel 123gr Amax @ 2500 fps 20" barrel 500 yards––-1731 fps––-818.3 fpe––-54.88" drop––-13.74" drift @ 10 MPH http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu173/earnest013/123grAmax.jpg Not a whole lot of difference if you ask me, and both are probably below their reliable expansion velocity at that distance. Steve Johnson of Hornady told me during an interview that their 123 grain .264 inch AMAX was designed to expand and that they had done testing on gel with it. He specifically told me the threshold for expansion was approximately 1,600 fps. Velocity from my 20 inch gun with factory ammo is 2,581 fps. What type of game ( small deer, big deer, hogs? ) would the 123 Amax be suited for? It seems to be an intrinically accurate slug. Have you used it on any game animals, and at what ranges? |
|
Originally Posted By LightningII:
I think for hogs I'd choose the 130 grain Swift Scirrocco, slower than most 123 gr projectiles, but deep penetration at hog hunting ranges. I think the 123 gr AMAX would work well on deer sized game. Mark LaRue took an elk with his 6.5 Grendel, but I don't know the details of the load he used.
What type of game ( small deer, big deer, hogs? ) would the 123 Amax be suited for? It seems to be an intrinically accurate slug. Have you used it on any game animals, and at what ranges? |
Pat
http://images54.fotki.com/v451/photos/5/41655/9070027/DD_Handguard_croppedsml-vi.jpg
http://images54.fotki.com/v451/photos/5/41655/9070027/DD_Handguard_croppedsml-vi.jpg
|
Originally Posted By EWP:
Originally Posted By Gunwritr:
OK, well stated. How do they compare with 120 grain bullets? Hornady's 123 grain AMAX was not designed for punching paper.
Since when was the A-Max not designed for punching paper, as far as I know it is a match bullet and not a hunting bullet. We are proud and excited to announce the 6.5 Grendel in our Match™ ammunition line.
The 6.5 Grendel Match ammo is loaded with Hornady A-MAX bullets 6.8SPC 120gr SST @ 2600 fps 20" barrel 500 yards––1625 fps––-703.8 fpe––-55.92" drop––-17.7" drift @ 10 MPH http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu173/earnest013/120grSST-1.jpg 6.5 Grendel 123gr Amax @ 2500 fps 20" barrel 500 yards––-1731 fps––-818.3 fpe––-54.88" drop––-13.74" drift @ 10 MPH http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu173/earnest013/123grAmax.jpg Not a whole lot of difference if you ask me, and both are probably below their reliable expansion velocity at that distance. I get 2526fps avg with 120gr SMK's out of my 16" Grendel on top of TAC, and I still think there are probably better powders for that combo. I get over 2700fps with the 100gr NBT's, so I actually think the Grendel is optimum in shorter barrels than 24". I think there are diminishing returns with the longer pipes, to be honest. I've heard of maybe one person playing around with 85gr in the Grendel, but I'm not sure what results they got. There isn't much need to go lower than the 95gr VMAX for varminting. The numbers between Grendel and 6.8 within 300yds are academic, only you get those with less starting velocity from the Grendel, meaning lower pressures. The Grendel case is actually a very high-pressure case, but the limitation is the AR15 bolt. Now that AA is making hard use bolts & Harrison is making Super Bolts + Grendel barrel combos, those of us who load for the Grendel will be able to run higher pressures in the AR, but the existing system still does what it does well. It's fun to load for and shoot. I also live in an area where I have vast expanses of desert, mountains, and hills that I can shoot distance at, but to be honest, the .260 AR10 dominates that department for me. I have inspected the bolt on the SCAR 17H and it has very thin walls-nothing like an AR10, but is made from some different type of steel. FN usually does a great job of making robust components, so I'm thinking they ran the endurance tests on that design for a while before blessing it. That said, the Grendel & 6.8 Bolts made from similar alloys should provide added pressure capacity to the system. I was more interested in the Grendel as a lightweight hunting platform, and maybe some action-shooting competition where a lighter rifle would give an advantage, but distant targets come into play too. If you took two 16" carbines that looked externally identical, one chambered in Grendel, the other in 6.8, and let the most dedicated fans of each camp shoot with them out to 400yds, I doubt either would be able to tell the difference using similar projectiles within 100-110grains. The 6.8 has more commercial loadings right now, while the Grendel has more affordable loadings with the Serbian PPI 120gr MPT, as well as the higher end Hornady, AA, PK, and other box ammo. I predict that both cartridges will reach an equilibrium as to available box ammo, caliber-specific projectiles, manufacturers, and industry support within the next 5 years, where they will both become permanent mainstays in the AR15 alternative caliber domain. The development behind both is still ongoing, and more than healthy. The Grendel afforded me the ability to never really need to build a .308 AR10 again, so I can chamber the big boys in better calibers like .260 Rem. I do plant to build an 18" Grendel and make a good attempt to bite the heels of the .260 using a Bolt/barrel extension from ARP, and most likely a Polygonal rifled barrel from BHW. A buddy of mine who taught SOTIC and other courses out at Bragg gets 2700fps with 139gr Scenars out of his CZ527 bolt gun Grendel, so that is a really impressive and efficient cartridge matching 6.5x55 Swede Milsurp velocities, with way less powder and a smaller action. It will be lots of win for customers going into the future, since the AR15 becomes more dominant among hunters and sporters. I think many LE departments can start looking at replacing bolt guns with AR15 action precision auto-loaders for the police marksmen, and there is still room to push the longer projectiles for barrier defeat for the worst-case critical scenarios, especially for a carbine that you don't have to go to the trunk for, that can deploy right from the front seat. |
|
Originally Posted By shepheard:
How do the best loads fare out of SBR's for both 6.8 and 6.5? Say a 12" barrel. If you compared similar bullet weights, let's say 90 grain bullets for both the 6.8 and 6.5G in 12" barrels, the performance would be very similar,. The lighter weight would allow the Grendel to push that bullet, closer to the MV produced by the 6.8, and BC would be a little higher. I'm not sure what the MV would be with the 100 TTSX in 6.5, but the .277 95 TTSX can be fired at 2750 FPS from the 12" barreled 6.8, and with opening velocity of 1600 FPS, it can kill medium game animals out to almost to 400 yards. While the 6.8 is a little more efficient in these very short barrels, the Grendel will have higher BC bullets, so the performance is so similar as to be imperceptible, save for the specific holdover you would use to shoot targets at different ranges with each. This is where the 6.8 with 85 TSX is so popular. The trajectory is very flat MV of 2900 FPS from 12" barrel. .277 85 TSX, 2" sight height above bore. 50: + 0.4 100 : + 1.6 150: + 1.6 200: 0 250: -3.2 300: -8.4 I, too predict that 6.8 and 6.5's are here to stay and they will continue to evolve as hunting calibers for AR's. |
Wild River Ranch, LLC
www.wildriverranchtexas.com
www.wildriverranchtexas.com
|
Originally Posted By hi-tech-rancher:
I, too predict that 6.8 and 6.5's are here to stay and they will continue to evolve as hunting calibers for AR's. Once Wolf and Tula come out with some cheap plinking rounds, they will own the market as the #2 and #3 choice for variants. |
|
Originally Posted By 346ci:
Originally Posted By hi-tech-rancher:
I, too predict that 6.8 and 6.5's are here to stay and they will continue to evolve as hunting calibers for AR's. Once Wolf and Tula come out with some cheap plinking rounds, they will own the market as the #2 and #3 choice for variants. I think 6.8 and 6.5 Grendel already own the market for #2 & #3 hunting chamberings in the AR15. |
|
I'm counting 21 current factory loads for the Grendel. What is the count for 6.8 SPC up to now? I know it's comparable, as I saw 12 different SSA loads on their site, and there are several Hornady loadings too, along with S&B.
Alexander Arms 1. 100gr Berger Match HPBT 2. 120gr Barnes TSX HPBT 3. 120gr Nosler Ballistic Tip 4. 123gr Lapua Scenar HPBT 5. 129gr Hornady SST 6. 130gr Swift Scirocco 7. 115gr Berger HPBT Custom (Hornady 6.5 Grendel brass) Note: AA brass is Lapua brass headstamped Alexander Arms 6.5 Grendel, with small rifle primers. Precision Firearms 1. 123gr Sierra Match King HPBT 2. 123gr Lapua Scenar HPBT 3. 120gr Sierra Match King HPBT 4. 123gr Hornady AMAX (Lapua brass) 5. 120gr Hornady AMAX 6. 120gr Nosler Ballistic Tip 7. 130gr Nosler Accubond 8. 107gr Sierra Match King HPBT 9. 100gr Lapua Scenar HPBT 10. 108gr Lapua Scenar 11. 123gr Lapua Silver Scenar Note: Precision Firearms uses Lapua brass predominantly, with Hornady sometimes as an exception. Hornady 1. 123gr Hornady AMAX Note: Hornady uses small rifle primer brass of different alloy and internal dimensions/case capacity from Lapua. Wolf/PPU (Prvi Partizan from Serbia production, Wolf marketed) 1. 123gr Soft Point 2. 120gr MPT Note: PPU brass uses LARGE rifle primers, different alloy brass, and different internal dimensions/case capacity. |
|
As of 5/23/12
Barrett––––––-110 HPBT BVAC––––––––-110 VMax ––––––––––––––110 Accubond ––––––––––––––115 HPBT ––––––––––––––115 FMJ Corbon––––––-110 TTSX ––––––––––––––115 SMK ––––––––––––––115 subsonic DoubleTap––––-95 TTSX ––––––––––––––-110 Vmax ––––––––––––––-115 FMJ ––––––––––––––-110 TTSX ––––––––––––––-110 OTM Good To Go Ammunition ––––––––––––––-115 OTM ––––––––––––––-120 SST Hornady––––––-110 Vmax ––––––––––––––-110 BTHP ––––––––––––––-120 SST Hunting Shack-110 VMax ––––––––––––––-115 OTM RAM––––––––––-110 VMax ––––––––––––––-115 OTM Rem.––––––––-115 FMJ ––––––––––––––115 HPBT ––––––––––––––115 Corelokt Bonded ––––––––––––––115 SMK Sellier&Bellot––-110 TSX ––––––––––––––-110 PTS SSA––-Loads available in Commercial and Tactical velocities ––––––––––––––––85 ETip ––––––––––––––––85 TSX ––––––––––––––––85 Barnes RRLP frangible ––––––––––––––––95 TTSX ––––––––––––––––97 AP ––––––––––––––––100 Nosler Accubond ––––––––––––––––110 Nosler Accubond ––––––––––––––––110 Sierra Pro hunter ––––––––––––––––110 TTSX ––––––––––––––––115 SMK ––––––––––––––––140 Berger VLD Wilson Combat ––––––––––––––––95 TTSX ––––––––––––––––110 BTHP ––––––––––––––––110 TSX http://68forums.com/forums/showthread.php?22614-Current-Factory-Loadings |
|
Here's a link to a range report WRR has been doling on some new lathe-turned .277" 85 and now 80 grain bullets, from Cutting Edge Bullets. This last load that I came up with, leaves a 12" barrel at ~ 3000 FPS and an 18" barrel at around 3200. A screamer for sure. Its also accurate enough that I killed coyotes at ranges up to 350 yards and one at 275, at night, with a head shot. Read through to the last few pages, as I posted more range data after the prototype was modified using our feedback. Not sure these are available yet in 6.5, but since CEB makes so many calibers, I'm thinking it will be.
http://68forums.com/forums/showthread.php?28518-Range-Report-from-Wild-River-Ranch....Cutting-Edge-Raptor |
Wild River Ranch, LLC
www.wildriverranch.net
www.wildriverranch.net
|
Originally Posted By Pat_H:
Originally Posted By LightningII:
I think for hogs I'd choose the 130 grain Swift Scirrocco, slower than most 123 gr projectiles, but deep penetration at hog hunting ranges. I think the 123 gr AMAX would work well on deer sized game. Mark LaRue took an elk with his 6.5 Grendel, but I don't know the details of the load he used.
What type of game ( small deer, big deer, hogs? ) would the 123 Amax be suited for? It seems to be an intrinically accurate slug. Have you used it on any game animals, and at what ranges? Barnes bullets or Accubonds will do the same thing as well.... |
|
Originally Posted By Tim_W:
#1 the 6.8 upper comparison chart chart Just the facts-subject to edits as info compiled- latest handload velocities- apx 58000psi in the Xtreme, 12 twist 3 groove and 11.25 twist polygonal barrels only. Do not try these in 10 twist barrels or barrels with SAAMI chambers. EXPERIENCED LOADERS ONLY ALWAYS START A FEW GRAINS LOWER AND WORK UP. April - 2009 90gr TNT-2.30" 29-29.5gr RE7 very accurate-2950fps 16" Xtreme barrel 90gr TNT- 2.3" 30.5 gr Max RE7 -3056fps 16" Xtreme barrel 80gr GS HV- 2.3" 30.6gr max RE7-3228fps 16" Xtreme barrel 85gr Barnes TSX-2.3" 30.6gr max RE7-3209 fps 16" Xtreme barrel 105gr GS SP-2.51" 30.5gr max RE10X-2950fps 16" Xtreme barrel all 110s 110gr Nosler-2.3" 30.2gr max RE10X-2870fps 16" Xtreme barrel 110gr pro-hunter 110gr Vmax 110gr TSX Energy and exterior ballistics info coming The 6.8 performance report, Aug. 2008 - compares chambers, twist and rifling designs by using pressure and velocity. report As Cold says below, If you buy it off the rack and shoot factory ammo , availability of both will be very important. LMT, LWRC, DPMS, CMT, Armalite, I.T.S. all make 6.8 bolts PRI, CP and Barrett make 6.8 mags almost every major manufacturer makes the 6.8 and many custom shops do also. this should be updated to only 'Do not try these in SAAMI Barrels'..... |
|
Originally Posted By RUTGERS95:
Originally Posted By Tim_W:
#1 the 6.8 upper comparison chart chart Just the facts-subject to edits as info compiled- latest handload velocities- apx 58000psi in the Xtreme, 12 twist 3 groove and 11.25 twist polygonal barrels only. Do not try these in 10 twist barrels or barrels with SAAMI chambers. EXPERIENCED LOADERS ONLY ALWAYS START A FEW GRAINS LOWER AND WORK UP. April - 2009 90gr TNT-2.30" 29-29.5gr RE7 very accurate-2950fps 16" Xtreme barrel 90gr TNT- 2.3" 30.5 gr Max RE7 -3056fps 16" Xtreme barrel 80gr GS HV- 2.3" 30.6gr max RE7-3228fps 16" Xtreme barrel 85gr Barnes TSX-2.3" 30.6gr max RE7-3209 fps 16" Xtreme barrel 105gr GS SP-2.51" 30.5gr max RE10X-2950fps 16" Xtreme barrel all 110s 110gr Nosler-2.3" 30.2gr max RE10X-2870fps 16" Xtreme barrel 110gr pro-hunter 110gr Vmax 110gr TSX Energy and exterior ballistics info coming The 6.8 performance report, Aug. 2008 - compares chambers, twist and rifling designs by using pressure and velocity. report As Cold says below, If you buy it off the rack and shoot factory ammo , availability of both will be very important. LMT, LWRC, DPMS, CMT, Armalite, I.T.S. all make 6.8 bolts PRI, CP and Barrett make 6.8 mags almost every major manufacturer makes the 6.8 and many custom shops do also. this should be updated to only 'Do not try these in SAAMI Barrels'..... If you want to tell people they can fire those loads in their barrel go ahead but I haven't tried them in their barrels so I am not going to tell them they can shoot those loads in their barrels. |
|
Here's just a little visual reference to where we're at trying to source samples of all the 6.5mm projectiles. This is roughly halfway there-no custom pills, no Woodleighs (2 SKU's), GS Solids (7 SKU's), Hawk Precision (4 SKU's), and not all of the name-brand pills either. Sierra, Lapua, and Berger alone have several new pills that I don't have yet, although I do have 2 of the new Lapua Scenar-L's in the picture.
For hand-loaders and ammunition manufacturers, there's a lifetime of bullet selection for hunting and target really. 
|
6.8SPC or 6.5G? Which one should I buy? (Page 12 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