Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/6/2005 1:11:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:27:32 AM EDT
it would give our soldiers a slightly larger round which could be nice. they would have less rounds they could carry though.

also probably want new rifles?

pros and cons but for a big con i can't even guess how many 5.56mm rifles, smgs are on earth right now they are made for 5.56 not something else.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:30:29 AM EDT
Idle talk, I am sure. 6.5 would be a poor choice, esp. compared with 6.8, which was NOT selected for logistical reasons.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:36:59 AM EDT
Interesting!!!!
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:43:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 1:44:08 AM EDT by rasanders22]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Idle talk, I am sure. 6.5 would be a poor choice, esp. compared with 6.8, which was NOT selected for logistical reasons.



6.8 SPC is not an ideal over all round. 6.5 Grendel is an ideal round because it can reach out a long distance and is a more powerful round than 5.56 and 7.62. It shoots flatter and has more power out to 1000 yards than 5.56, 6.8 spc and 7.62. However, magazine capacity is limited. Add that in with Alexander Arms being a small company, not huge like Remmington and you have reasons why it wont replace 5.56.

Also, I can get brass for the grendel. How much brass is available for the SPC?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:47:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 1:47:19 AM EDT by Mr45auto]
After reading up a bit I think the grendel is a superior round to the 6.8 but of course I have zero experience with either. Can the grendel function in unmodified 5.56 magazines? This would be a huge plus in any decision to change calibers.

I would like to see a change from 5.56 to something more potent but I just dont see it happening any time soon, certainly not in time of war.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:53:00 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:03:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
After reading up a bit I think the grendel is a superior round to the 6.8 but of course I have zero experience with either. Can the grendel function in unmodified 5.56 magazines? This would be a huge plus in any decision to change calibers.

I would like to see a change from 5.56 to something more potent but I just dont see it happening any time soon, certainly not in time of war.



No they do not. They have 10 and 17 rounder magazines. 25 round magazines are in the works.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:20:56 AM EDT
6.5Grendel cannot be fired from SAWS and other machine guns....6.8 can.

6.5 would be great if we were routinely engaging the baddies at 800 yards plus, we are not. 6.8 is a better round for CQA/B/C/D/whatever.

I read this stuff a while back, so if something else has changed, oh well. Save a bunch of moula, and give the troops a better 5.56x45 round, and TEACH THEM TO BE RIFLEMEN AGAIN.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:51:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Idle talk, I am sure. 6.5 would be a poor choice, esp. compared with 6.8, which was NOT selected for logistical reasons.



Big +1.

They have not even shipped carbine length barrels for the 6.5 yet. So there is no information out there on how well they would work.

The Army is not going to be buying any 20-26" barreled rifles, that day has come and gone.

What you saw was Janes talking to the 6.5 guys and they want to have a sale. What a great way to have PR. AFJ does the same kind of (shit) story - all talk nothing more.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:56:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rasanders22:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Idle talk, I am sure. 6.5 would be a poor choice, esp. compared with 6.8, which was NOT selected for logistical reasons.



6.8 SPC is not an ideal over all round. 6.5 Grendel is an ideal round because it can reach out a long distance and is a more powerful round than 5.56 and 7.62. It shoots flatter and has more power out to 1000 yards than 5.56, 6.8 spc and 7.62.



Clue 1: Most battles are fought at 100y or less - NOT 1000 yards.

Clue 2: The military is going to carbines more and more. Barrels should not be more than 16", and less is preferable. The 6.8 works great out of 16" & 12" barrels. The Grendle has not even been offered in such lengths - it seems as a caliber the 6.5 is optimal for longer barrels compared to the 6.8.


Add that in with Alexander Arms being a small company, not huge like Remmington and you have reasons why it wont replace 5.56.

A very good point.


Also, I can get brass for the grendel. How much brass is available for the SPC?

It's available, and more is available every week.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:16:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 7:19:57 AM EDT by twl]
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:20:57 AM EDT
Aw hell no, a reliable source from So.Florida, said they are going to the .458 SOCOM.........
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:21:43 AM EDT
I personally think the 6.5 is the best possible round for all situations in the AR.
In my opinion, its the cats ass.

I'd like to see them switch it up to the 6.5, but I'd bet my car it wont happen.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:23:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 7:24:11 AM EDT by brouhaha]
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:26:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:30:22 AM EDT
In any case I think a cartridge would be more viable if the existing mags could be used. The less you have to mess with the existing systems the better off you'll be. If it's just a barrel swap it's going to be easier than needing new mags and barrels/bolts, etc.

Nothing will happen(more than limited testing/use) while we're actively engaged in a major military operation.



I hope no new weapons are adopted without changing the cartridge fired. If we keep 5.56 then Mk262 needs to be the general issue ammo. At least go back to M193.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:57:57 AM EDT
Not gonna happen

Mark
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:29:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 11:30:24 AM EDT by rasanders22]

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Idle talk, I am sure. 6.5 would be a poor choice, esp. compared with 6.8, which was NOT selected for logistical reasons.




They have not even shipped carbine length barrels for the 6.5 yet. So there is no information out there on how well they would work.

.



16 inch uppers start shipping in Nov.


Clue 1: Most battles are fought at 100y or less - NOT 1000 yards.



Then why are m-14's being issued in Afghanistan. I'd rather have a rifle I can use at 100 yards, and 800 yards versus 2 rifles, one for under 150 yards, one for over.


6.5Grendel cannot be fired from SAWS and other machine guns....6.8 can.


Barrel change and bolt change. I doubt it would be much harder than that. New links would be needed which is not that big of a deal.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:33:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:
TEACH THEM TO BE RIFLEMEN AGAIN.



+1
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:43:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rasanders22:

16 inch uppers start shipping in Nov.



Thank you that is my point (and something I pointed out in another reponse). They still haven't even shipped yet - so how could the military have done it's testing to determine if it's even a consideration?


Then why are m-14's being issued in Afghanistan. I'd rather have a rifle I can use at 100 yards, and 800 yards versus 2 rifles, one for under 150 yards, one for over.


Let's not twist the facts. There are SOME .308 rifles being issued - it's not a general issue item. It's more of a 'designated markeman' arm for one person in the squad/fireteam.

And quite simply most soldiers (or Marines) don't have the skill to hit moving targets or targets behind cover at 800M. In simpler terms you don't spend millions to handle a 1 in 10,000 shot for every soldier.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:52:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rasanders22:

16 inch uppers start shipping in Nov. hat is the MV on the 16 and non-existant 12 inch uppers? Probably not as great as the 20 inch guns that we keep hearing about.

Then why are m-14's being issued in Afghanistan. Sheer fucking stupidity. They are being issued with one mag, no optic, and no spare parts. Nobody ants the damn things.

Barrel change and bolt change.[SAW] I doubt it would be much harder than that. New links would be needed which is not that big of a deal. Nontapered cartridges don't feed ell out of bnelt fed weapons. Even with new links.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:55:24 AM EDT
Pipe dream.

We're far too heavily invested into 5.56 to change.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:56:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:



Thank you that is my point (and something I pointed out in another reponse). They still haven't even shipped yet - so how could the military have done it's testing to determine if it's even a consideration?



Under that same notion, why should they choose the 6.8 when no one can even get brass?


Let's not twist the facts. There are SOME .308 rifles being issued - it's not a general issue item. It's more of a 'designated markeman' arm for one person in the squad/fireteam.
.



I would still rather have one rifle that has more power and more accurate out to 1000 yards than two seperate rifles. YEs it would cost a lot of money, but how often does our military spend money on unless stuff. Heres an idea, lets cut the Air Force barracks budget 1%. Now its all paid for.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:04:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rasanders22:
Under that same notion, why should they choose the 6.8 when no one can even get brass?



Did you take a stupid pill this morning or what?

1) 6.8 Has been tested AND USED with 16" & 12" barrels.
2) Brass IS available - witness the several 6.8 loading threads on this and other forums.
3) Why does the military need brass when they are getting loaded ammo?



I would still rather have one rifle that has more power and more accurate out to 1000 yards than two seperate rifles. YEs it would cost a lot of money, but how often does our military spend money on unless stuff. Heres an idea, lets cut the Air Force barracks budget 1%. Now its all paid for.


So let's get this staight you complain about the military spending money on 'useless stuff' yet you want to issue every soldier a new rifle with new ammo, with a 800yard range that they can't use?
And do this you want to deny housing to the enlisted airmen - who already make less than minimum wage?

So you want them to waste this money on the 6.5 why? What is in it for you? How do you stant to gain by doing it? Because I know you're not doing it for the troops - otherwise you'd be pushing for the 6.8SPC.

BTW dollars to donuts you lose that "800y" capability when you go from the 20-24" barrells to the 16" barrels. So lets see what the 16" & 12" can do before you sell the product based on performance from the longer barrels.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:09:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By rasanders22:
Under that same notion, why should they choose the 6.8 when no one can even get brass?



Did you take a stupid pill this morning or what?

1) 6.8 Has been tested AND USED with 16" & 12" barrels.
2) Brass IS available - witness the several 6.8 loading threads on this and other forums.
3) Why does the military need brass when they are getting loaded ammo?



I would still rather have one rifle that has more power and more accurate out to 1000 yards than two seperate rifles. YEs it would cost a lot of money, but how often does our military spend money on unless stuff. Heres an idea, lets cut the Air Force barracks budget 1%. Now its all paid for.


So let's get this staight you complain about the military spending money on 'useless stuff' yet you want to issue every soldier a new rifle with new ammo, with a 800yard range that they can't use?
And do this you want to deny housing to the enlisted airmen - who already make less than minimum wage?

So you want them to waste this money on the 6.5 why? What is in it for you? How do you stant to gain by doing it? Because I know you're not doing it for the troops - otherwise you'd be pushing for the 6.8SPC.

BTW dollars to donuts you lose that "800y" capability when you go from the 20-24" barrells to the 16" barrels. So lets see what the 16" & 12" can do before you sell the product based on performance from the longer barrels.



16 inch 6.5 Grendel barrals still make head shots out to 900 yards. And as far as denying housing to someone that makes less than minimum wage is a crock andf you know it. Af barracks are the nicest barracks ive ever set foot in. I spent 1 year on Keesler AFB. Airmen were getting their own rooms, some barrakcs had people to clean your room for you. Money is better spent on better rifles if you ask me.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:15:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:16:18 PM EDT
Headshots, at 900y from a 16" barrel, that hasn't been released yet. Ok...sure...I wish our soldiers could do that with full up sniper rigs firing match ammo.

So you're making comments about every AF barracks because you spent a year in ONE of them?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:21:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rasanders22:

16 inch 6.5 Grendel barrals still make head shots out to 900 yards.



ummm OK
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:24:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By rasanders22:
Under that same notion, why should they choose the 6.8 when no one can even get brass?



Did you take a stupid pill this morning or what?


I think he did. 900 yd headshots with a 16" barrel?


Originally Posted By Forest:2) Brass IS available - witness the several 6.8 loading threads on this and other forums.

FWIW Since I climbed onto the 6.8 SPC bandwagon in mid-May 2005, I've bought 700 pcs of shiny NEW Remington factory brass. I've also purchased 200 rounds of factory loaded ammo to test..from three (3) different manufacturers: Remington; Hornady and Load X (I could've bought more if I wanted to).
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:30:59 PM EDT
Shit, if all our rifle battles are at under 300 yards, might as well issue SKSes. $79 bucks a pop, last I saw.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:37:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:
Shit, if all our rifle battles are at under 300 yards, might as well issue SKSes. $79 bucks a pop, last I saw.



Except for the horrible terminal ballistics of the 7.62X39 round, the slow loading of the weapon, and its poor accuracy. Other than that, why not?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:49:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:
Shit, if all our rifle battles are at under 300 yards, might as well issue SKSes. $79 bucks a pop, last I saw.



Except for the horrible terminal ballistics of the 7.62X39 round, the slow loading of the weapon, and its poor accuracy. Other than that, why not?



Wanna volunteer to get shot at 300 yards with a 7.62x39 round?

"Sarcasm: It's What's For Dinner."
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:50:47 PM EDT
Grendel kicks MAJOR ass.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:50:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

Wanna volunteer to get shot at 300 yards with a 7.62x39 round?




You wanna volunteer to get shot at 300y with a .22LR?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:51:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:
Shit, if all our rifle battles are at under 300 yards, might as well issue SKSes. $79 bucks a pop, last I saw.



Except for the horrible terminal ballistics of the 7.62X39 round, the slow loading of the weapon, and its poor accuracy. Other than that, why not?



Wanna volunteer to get shot at 300 yards with a 7.62x39 round?

"Sarcasm: It's What's For Dinner."



I'll let you shoot at me at 300 yards with an SKS. Then I get to shoot at you at 300 yards with my AR. We each get one shot. Deal?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:23:28 PM EDT
I thought that 5.56 and 7.62 are to be replaced by Superhornets.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:34:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:44:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 1:46:20 PM EDT by MR220]

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:
6.5Grendel cannot be fired from SAWS and other machine guns....6.8 can.

6.5 would be great if we were routinely engaging the baddies at 800 yards plus, we are not. 6.8 is a better round for CQA/B/C/D/whatever.

I read this stuff a while back, so if something else has changed, oh well. Save a bunch of moula, and give the troops a better 5.56x45 round, and TEACH THEM TO BE RIFLEMEN AGAIN.




Anyone have a link to info on why 6.5 would not work in saw's and other mg's ?

Both rounds seem like an improvement over the current 5.56 -
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:16:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:29:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 2:30:45 PM EDT by spartacus2002]

Originally Posted By Troy:

Originally Posted By MR220:
Anyone have a link to info on why 6.5 would not work in saw's and other mg's ?

Both rounds seem like an improvement over the current 5.56 -



The case diameter of the 6.5 is too large for the M249 (remember, it has a bunch of linkage and so forth to feed the ammo), and it's extreme shoulder angle would not work reliably with the extreme harshness that ammo encounters in a belt-fed. For the same reason, the Grendel would not work in some other 5.56 designs.

-Troy





6.5 Grendel compared to 5.56


6.8 SPC compared to 5.56
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:32:47 PM EDT
no way
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:40:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:
Facts:
<snipped>
To date, there has yet to be a Grendel load that meets IWBA or FBI wound criteria at any range, from any barrel length. The 6.8 SPC was developed specifically to give optimal performance (for its size and host weapon) in that same criteria, and subsequent testing has shown this to be true.

ARs with barrels as short as 12" will shoot a {6.8spc} 115gr OTM bullet that is JAG-legal and will still fragment out to 150m or so. How does the Grendel do from a 12" AR barrel?
-Troy


Think that needs some emphasis.


Originally Posted By MR220:
Anyone have a link to info on why 6.5 would not work in saw's and other mg's ?


I dont have a link but I believe the cartridge shape and size doesn't allow for use with links, and the overall shape of the cartridge isn't ideal for reliable functioning in automatic weapons. It's a cartridge designed for long range target shooting (which it does well) not for war.


I'll add this, particularly in reference to the idea that the Grendel should/could replace the 7.62x51. It's not enough in a combat environment to just put a round where it's aimed. That round has to have an effect on the target. The drive to get 7.62x51 weapons onto the current battlefields is not just for long range accuracy.. in fact I'd say that is the least of the reasons for it... the need for 7.62 is for barrier penetration (IMHO). Shooting into cars and buildings to get the bad guys. If the Grendel can get through those barriers and have an effect on the targets, and do so from both designated marksman type rifles as well as belt fed support weapons, AND have adequate terminal ballistics with no barriers, then I'll listen to an arguement that it could replace 7.62x51.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:51:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:
Facts:

6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel are both MOA or better out to 600m. Can anyone argue that this isn't good enough?

Beyond this distance, the Grendel holds its accuracy better, but both can hit human targets out to 800m or more. The problem is that neither cartridge is going to cause a great amount of tissue damage at that distance, with the limited velocity available. Without a CNS shot, you can't count on taking the bad guy out of the fight.

To date, there has yet to be a Grendel load that meets IWBA or FBI wound criteria at any range, from any barrel length. The 6.8 SPC was developed specifically to give optimal performance (for its size and host weapon) in that same criteria, and subsequent testing has shown this to be true.

ARs with barrels as short as 12" will shoot a 115gr OTM bullet that is JAG-legal and will still fragment out to 150m or so. How does the Grendel do from a 12" AR barrel?

It shouldn't be a surprise that the round designed for this specific need (combat, especially from today's shorter-barreled rifles) does a better job in that role than the round designed primarly for long-range accuracy (which it does very well at).

-Troy



You need to take your pesky facts and go to the AR section.
THis is GD, where pigs fly and bullshit walks.


Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:01:39 PM EDT
From what I have heard is they are going ot keep the 5.56mm for non spec ops troops and go with the new caliber weapons for the others. Reason of point being the increase of women in combat support roles and also us non infentry types there do not get shoot as often as we like. The AF has gone to once every 2 years for officers to shoot unless you deploy more than 30 days a year. I think with NATO countries having new 5.56mm and some Polish AK's being switch to 5.56mm that I think 5.56mm will be the mainstream round until we get some kind of new rifles that take caseless ammo.

Scott
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:06:12 PM EDT
Maybe we should just adopt Guide Guns and go back to the .45/70...
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:14:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rasanders22:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Idle talk, I am sure. 6.5 would be a poor choice, esp. compared with 6.8, which was NOT selected for logistical reasons.



6.8 SPC is not an ideal over all round. 6.5 Grendel is an ideal round because it can reach out a long distance and is a more powerful round than 5.56 and 7.62. It shoots flatter and has more power out to 1000 yards than 5.56, 6.8 spc and 7.62. However, magazine capacity is limited. Add that in with Alexander Arms being a small company, not huge like Remmington and you have reasons why it wont replace 5.56.

Also, I can get brass for the grendel. How much brass is available for the SPC?



We've been over this before. At short range the 6.8 has better terminal ballistics. No one is looking to replace the 7.62, so past 500m or so its a moot point.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:15:01 PM EDT


Not going to happen.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:15:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By brouhaha:
Remember...

The 6.8 was created with terminal performance in mind.

The 6.5 was created with long range accuracy in mind.

The 6.8 has been tested (and works very well) from a 12" barrel. More rounds will fit in a mag.

The 6.8 is compatible with all current 5.56 weapons.

The 6.8 is superior for combat use.



Exactly.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:56:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 5:58:09 PM EDT by dutchman74]
I hate rehashing old crap

The 6.5 Grendel was developed as a Bench rest round from from a long barrel to achieve great accuracy at long range. The 6.5 Grendel is a 7.62x39mm necked down to 6.5 mm that has a high BC due to its long slim design. Slim long bullets do not always equal to great terminal ballistics. They are some issue with the Grendel feeding in a SAW and in other automatic designed weapons do to sharp shoulder angles of the design. The 6.5 does have a better BC bullet then the 6.8


6.8 spc was developed by a Army SF group to increase terminal ballistics over the 5.56mm round currently deployed out to 500m. the 6.8 spc is deviated from the .30 Remington The 6.8 spc is a shorter and wider bullets design that tumbles and fragments, think of the .270 Winchester bullet. It will feed in Saw just fine and other automatic designed weapons.


Here is my Opinion,
Joe Smoo Army guy from the inner city is not going to know how to shoot 800 meter with a barrel that 24 inches long and a 17 round mag that does not feed correctly. Most of the military is not going to take long range shots at a BG's when only trained at 300m. Is the 6.8 spc the direct replacement for the 5.56mm maybe, is the 6.5 Grendel no.

http://www.65grendel.com/graphics/grendelballistics.pdf
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:48:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By talbalos:

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By rasanders22:
Under that same notion, why should they choose the 6.8 when no one can even get brass?



Did you take a stupid pill this morning or what?


I think he did. 900 yd headshots with a 16" barrel?


Originally Posted By Forest:2) Brass IS available - witness the several 6.8 loading threads on this and other forums.

FWIW Since I climbed onto the 6.8 SPC bandwagon in mid-May 2005, I've bought 700 pcs of shiny NEW Remington factory brass. I've also purchased 200 rounds of factory loaded ammo to test..from three (3) different manufacturers: Remington; Hornady and Load X (I could've bought more if I wanted to).




I read on

www.65grendel.com
that during development of the round, a 16 inch upper was made. Balance was horrible but the developer claimed that head shots were made out to 900 yards and the round was still able to punch through 4 inches of pine.

I cannot order brass right now. Midway usa is out
www.midwayusa.com/esearch.exe/search?TabID=0&category_selector=all_products&search_keywords=6.8+spc+brass
I can however, order Grendel brass.
www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=887027

I know most fighting is fought under 150 yards. However, not all of it is. I would rather have a over powered round all the time than having a underpowered round just one time. And with 25 round magazines comming out, mag capacity isnt much of a issue.
But lets look at ballistics. This is out of a 20 inch barrel. So 16 inche bbls are going to be less.
115gn 6.8 spc
fps energy
0 2800 2002
100 2523 1625
200 2262 1307
300 2017 1039
400 1789 817
500 1580 638

Now 6.5 Grendel
120 grn nosler 24 inch barrel
0 2580 1773
100 2391 1523
200 2210 1301
300 2036 1105
400 1872 933
500 1716 784

So yes, I will sacrifice 220 fps and 229 ft/lbs of energy to be able to shoot more acurately and longer. Yes, 6.8 is great for under 300 yards. But what about that first time you get shot at from 700 yards away by someone with a RPK or draganov.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top