Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 8/20/2004 5:38:11 AM EST
For those interested, the 6.5 Grendel was tested by the FBI and Military using FBI test protocols (supposed to be 10 yard testing) for terminal ballistics at 20 and 500 yards.

The 6.5 Grendel passed all tests causing extraordinary gel-block damage.


Link to the full article at: FBI and Military Test Results

Here are some exerpts:

“Test Event 2: Heavy Clothing. The gelatin block is covered with four layers of clothing: One layer of cotton T-Shirt material (48 threads per inch); one layer of cotton shirt material (80 threads per inch); a 10-ounce down comforter in cambric shell cover (232 threads per inch); and one layer of 13 ounce cotton denim (50 threads per inch). This simulates typical cold weather wear. The block is shot at ten feet, measured from the muzzle to the front of the block.”

6.5 GRENDEL RESULTS, TEST 2: It was difficult to establish the onset of bullet yaw, but the yaw was fully established between 5 and 7 inches. The permanent cavity was difficult to establish because the round split the block from top to bottom. (Theoretically, this would invalidate the results and does not allow the extrapolation that with larger gelatin blocks the result will be a cavity of 8 inches or greater.) They couldn’t gather all the fragments, because the larger pieces exited the top rear of the block; the smaller fragments of the long bullet averaged about 30-40 grains. The fragments tended to stay in larger chunks, rather than becoming sand-like granules.

....

“Test Event 8: Automobile Glass at 20 yards. This event repeats Test Event 6 but at a range of 20 yards, measured from the muzzle to the front of the glass, and without the 15 degree offset. This shot is made from straight in front of the glass, simulating a shot at the driver of a car bearing down on the shooter.”

6.5 GRENDEL RESULTS, TEST 8: Again, the 6.5 Grendel passed this both at 20 yards and at 500 yards distance.

SUMMARY: The 144gr FMJBT Lapua exhibited both yaw and fragmenting, with the fragments tending to stay in larger pieces, making this almost a de facto triplex round. And the testers didn’t even want to touch the 123gr Lapua Scenar, which is a match bullet giving very aggressive fragmentation. I’m sure this won't be the last word in 6.5 Grendel testing.

What have these tests proved? That the 6.5 Grendel is an awesome gelatin killer! The work performed in this series simply indicates that the 6.5 Grendel is worth further examination. What is the future? The sponsoring agencies have valid data that they have personally witnessed and participated in for review against their requirements.

Link Posted: 8/20/2004 5:54:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 5:55:40 AM EST by brouhaha]
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 11:25:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 11:25:12 AM EST by brouhaha]
After talking to staff, locked. Dupe of [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=198100[/url]
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:19:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 12:21:04 PM EST by Troy]
Upon further consideration, I'll let this be it's own thread, so that it doesn't confuse the previous one. I jumped the gun a bit; sorry everyone.

-Troy
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 5:18:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By brouhaha:
First off, this is a dupe thread.

Secondly, they didn't use proper sized gel blocks, which is why "extraordinary" damage was caused. Handgun/5.56 sized blocks were used which are far too small.





Is that because the blocks were to small to contain the temporary cavity?

Link Posted: 8/20/2004 6:31:34 PM EST
Why all defensive against the 6.5mm Grendel?
He just posted some info and never even brought up the 6.8 Rem SPC

All he did was post a link.....

The 6.8 might be a fine cartridge, but right now it exists in SOF magazine and the internet only for the most part.....The last time I spoke with the Remington LE people they said I'd have ammo in 30 days, that was 45 days ago, and nothing in sight. The writers I've spoken with who have had a chance to chrony production 6.8 recently (G&A got a couple boxes in for instance) all said it's not meeting the advertised spec. If it shows up I'll be interested to see how it performs. I enjoyed shooting it at Barret's demo, but still waiting for it to arrive.

Yawing within 1 inch of penetration? How many rifle loads actually do that? And more importantly what happens to such rounds when they hit light cover 5 or 10 feet in front of someone. 5.45 7N6 doesn't even yaw that quick.........

Skip the smoke, performance is merely a matter of bullet design and velocity. If you want a projectile to meet a certain criteria you simply pick one designed for it. Or better yet, build one for the job. The 6.5 SPC was not tested with all available projectiles in this diameter, so that argument has no relevence.

How the 6.5 Grendel performs remains to be seen, however, it is here today and available along with ammunition. Just a phone call away, which is something I cannot say for the 6.8. Simply making deragatory remarks about it helps no one. What we need is hard data on the cartridge when loaded with a variety of projectiles to see how it actually DOES perform. Then we can all make intelligent educated decisions. But simply saying "that's stupid and this is better" helps no one. It's people like you who should be working the hardest to help provide accurate data.....
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 10:32:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 10:42:11 PM EST by brouhaha]
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 10:15:40 AM EST
Brouhaha, First off please understand that I'm not being deragatory towards you or your work. So please relax.

As to your reply,

yes, you are the moderator, so you can do as you wish. I just did not think (hope) that this thread would head that way.

I never implied that my being unable to obtain new production 6.8 was your problem. My point is simply that I am not alone in this matter.

I agree with you 100%, there are often errors in articles in firearm magazines. There are certainly some writers/magazines that do a better job than others. None are perfect though, and I certainly know I've made mistakes in print in the past. That said, there are also some very hardworking credible writers out there who try very hard to get accurate data for their readers. It was two of these individuals to who I was referring.

I mentioned the 5.45 Soviet only due to the simple fact that, as far as military rifle cartridges are concerned, it is known to yaw faster than almost all of them.

As far as the 6.5mm is concerned the seemingly probable answer is simply the projectiles being tested have performed as designed. It still comes down to design.

The 'people like you' comment was meant as a compliment as people here respect you. If you really honestly think that I don't spend much of my own money and endless hours on projects trying to obtain accurate information for readers then nothing I say will probably change your mind. Respected by some hated by others, it comes with my profession. Yes, I DO get paid for my work. I made the decision to make this a career, and it's what I do full time. If it makes me a lessor person in your eyes, then so be it.

My whole point was simply that you are respected here by many, so it would be of value if you set the entire 6.8 cartridge to the side and considered the 6.5 on its own merits, and let the chips fall where they may.

That was it, I apolagize if I offended you.

best regards,

David M. Fortier
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 7:13:21 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 7:52:29 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 8:01:40 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 4:09:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By tatjana:
We just get frustrated at rehashing the same threads.



+1

From Dr. Gary Roberts, 8/20/04: "The testing Grendelizer referenced above attempted to use the FBI standard test protocols, but it was NOT performed by the FBI, nor is the FBI currently recommending this cartridge and bullet. FWIW, from the description above, the testing appears to have been done in a less than ideal fashion. Nonetheless, it is a start at getting some data for the Grendel. "
From tacticalforums.com - The Terminal Effects Forum - Topic: 6.5 Grendel Update

Chance
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 10:55:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 10:58:57 PM EST by Autobahndriver]
I'd like to see some more testing published.
Thought the testing at 500 meters using the FBI handgun protocol for 10-20 meters would be a good guage of terminal effectiveness. The FBI protocol looks at several clothing coverings as well as behind barrier situations. The case of the gelatin block blowout is the only problem - the pressure experienced by the bullet/fragments probably dropped significantly leading to deeper penetration (less resistance).

Any 6.5 Grendel owners out there have anything to add with testing performed on your own?
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 7:59:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/29/2004 8:01:49 AM EST by KMFDM]
GunWritr:

Don't take this as an assault, ok. I was at the first gel tests for the 6mm-7mm SPC-While yes, the bullets were limited in size partially because of availability at the time the difference between the 6,5 and the 6,8 in loadings tested were so much improved that the 6,5mm was immediatly apparent to all there that it was not worth pursuing in that cartridge case. Even the tester who was somewhat skeptical in the beginnning before shots were fired was impressed by the difference.

Yaw in 1" seems to be about the norm for the 6,8 SPC in all the tests I have been to. Much better than the 7N6 which from what I understand has been a marginal performer on people from the reports I have heard but I am sure there are just as many who praise it. The Afgans I talked to did not respect it though. It (SPC) seems to still perform well.

I do not dislike the Grendel cartridge at all, but until it can come close to the SPC in the parameters it (the SPC) was designed for I really don't have much use for it . I wish it well as a matter of fact. It seems to fill a nice niche in the long distance accuracy bit for the AR-15
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 10:55:16 AM EST
Plus, why should brou or any of us just " set the 6.8 aside" just because some people are saying it's dead. As far as anyone knows nothing's confirmed. Unless I missed something. There seems to be info on both sides of that issue. Now if YOU want to set the 6.8 aside, which it seems you already have, go right ahead. And if the 6.8 does die and I'm wrong, maybe well be looking more at the 6.5. But I'm still not convinced that the 77 grainers don't make up for what some people call an ineffective round. We've even had soldiers on here saying the m855 has worked for them. So the discussion may have no end for a long time yet.
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 10:58:44 AM EST
And anyways, I don't respect brou that much because he uses a tasco!!!!! Just kidding!!!!
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 11:14:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/29/2004 11:19:24 AM EST by Autobahndriver]
I believe in the stopping power of the 6.8 SPC - but I also believe in the stopping power of the 6.5 Grendel which offers additional advantages as a long range cartridge with a larger bullet selection.

I still want to see more testing with other bullets used in both cartridges. The primary terminal ballistics testing seen with the 6.5 Grendel has been with the slower heaviest full jacket 144gr bullet. The primary terminal ballistics testing with the 6.8 SPC that has been shown is with a lighter (115 gr) hollow point round (hollow point actually drilled into the lead core rather than just a match hollow point that does not penetrate the lead core).

See: http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=521#post521
for a cutaway view of the 6.8 SPC round.
Top Top