Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 60

Thread: Which round for big game AR-15?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,630
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    The argument against 5.56 for deer is still based on FMJ or varmint bullet performance. I have no doubt that a TSX or Gold Dot in 5.56 can reliably take down a deer.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    847
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd.K View Post
    The argument against 5.56 for deer is still based on FMJ or varmint bullet performance. I have no doubt that a TSX or Gold Dot in 5.56 can reliably take down a deer.
    We built a few SPRs for friends. I would not recommend it, however one guy took a nice bear with his (5.56 cannot recall the hunting bullet). Another has taken Antelope and Deer with his 5.56 with a variety of loads he has worked up.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    965
    Feedback Score
    24 (100%)
    I went round and round with this a couple years ago. Finally just decided to stick with 556 with a good bonded bullet, and if I need something more, grab my 308. I have taken 3 deer with 556. 2 of them went great. The third was a bad shot and took some tracking. In the end, shot placement is always key.

    Sent from my Z797C using Tapatalk

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Roaming
    Posts
    889
    Feedback Score
    0
    The 6.8 has a larger selection of hunting bullets, ammo and parts in general. The Grendel has a better selection of match bullets. As for the long range, when the bullet drops below the velocity need to make it expand they will act like a fmj. SD doesn't kill game, bullet construction and performance is more important. A 16" 6.8 will produce apx the same velocity as a 20" Grendel.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Shenandoah, Earth
    Posts
    170
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by constructor View Post
    The 6.8 has a larger selection of hunting bullets, ammo and parts in general. The Grendel has a better selection of match bullets. As for the long range, when the bullet drops below the velocity need to make it expand they will act like a fmj. SD doesn't kill game, bullet construction and performance is more important. A 16" 6.8 will produce apx the same velocity as a 20" Grendel.
    Velocity vs Barrel Length was a deciding factor for me in choosing 6.8x43 over 6.5G.

    I get >2,500 fps from a 12.5" ARP barrel, and >2,700 fps from a 16" ARP using 6.8spc 110 grain projectiles.

    The numbers I've seen for 6.5g just seemed either slow, or were from 20"-24" barrels.

    Since I don't often shoot past 300 ( and wouldn't think of shooting game at those ranges), the 6.8 made more sense for me.

    But hey, each to their own.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    847
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterHelix View Post
    Velocity vs Barrel Length was a deciding factor for me in choosing 6.8x43 over 6.5G.

    I get >2,500 fps from a 12.5" ARP barrel, and >2,700 fps from a 16" ARP using 6.8spc 110 grain projectiles.

    The numbers I've seen for 6.5g just seemed either slow, or were from 20"-24" barrels.

    Since I don't often shoot past 300 ( and wouldn't think of shooting game at those ranges), the 6.8 made more sense for me.

    But hey, each to their own.
    Some of the exact same conclusions several of us came to in choosing 6.8 over the 6.5. Barrel length and velocities. Being able to throw a 130 grain .270 essentially (6.8) out to 400-500 yards using a 16" barrel was an easy decision. As a key barrel maker told me in person and I quote, "If you are shooting paper get a Grendel if you're shooting hearts get a 6.8". I have seen plenty of game taken here in Montana with a 6.8, many of them large animals and at respectable distances. The accuracy I have seen achieved out of the 6.8 is remarkable. The case design and shoulder also aid in very reliable feeding for the 6.8 in comparison to its rival. Mr. Holland (one of the designers as well as 5th Army Marksmanship Unit) wasn't messing around when the design and concept for the 6.8 was born. The cartridge is a good one, especially when taking to the field in pursuit of game with a AR variant.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,655
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd.K View Post
    The 6.8 and 6.5 don't have much difference at hunting ranges. Pick what you like and avoid the crazy arguments that people get into over them.

    One thing I have to say about the 6.5 is I don't think it has any range advantage for hunting. Bullet performance should limit the range for ethical hunting before any real ballistic difference.
    Pretty large over simplification, especially if comparing to 300/whisper

    The higher BC hitting bullets in typical weight that Grendel allows offers more than just retained energy at range, it's also reduced wind drift and drop which makes it easier to get clean bullet placement.

    I would not use Grendel (or any ar15 based cartridges) for long range hunting myself. And if all you do is 25-50 yards, blast away with whatever floats your boat. (Though I'm not sure the 30/30 to 300 equivilence is quite as clear cut when typical barrel length is factored in)

    I will concede that the 6.8 type 2 thing does close quite a bit of performance gap, as does some of the newer 6.8 projectiles.

    Will call BS on "Grendel has feeding issues", will need to back that up.

    Myself and friends have been aware of the 300 Blackout / whisper for decades, through TC and similar usages. Long before AAC quote unquote reinvented the cartridge.

    It is appealing for certain situations, primarily suppressed. Big slow bullets. And even the AAC folks who championed it agreed that if you think you need blackout, Grendel and 6.8 or probably not of interest. And if you are looking for Grendel things, 300 is probably not what you're looking for.

    I view Grendel as a product improved 7.62x39. Pretty much squeezes the maximum performance you can out of an AR-15 platform for 100 - 123 grain bullets while maintaining cabine/fighting reliability. (Huge amounts of full auto testing and was designed to be reliable with steel case mil ammo)

    It's a great all-around cartridge, with excellent factory match loads and easy to obtain accuracy through handloading, excellent hunting loads that shoot to same or similar point of impact, but also cheap and reliable Steelcase blasting ammo.

    If that's not what you're looking for, there are other options.

    Everytime I start to head back down the 7.62 x39 path I catch myself, and just buy more Steelcase Grendel, or build another.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,655
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by TacMedic556 View Post
    Some of the exact same conclusions several of us came to in choosing 6.8 over the 6.5. Barrel length and velocities. Being able to throw a 130 grain .270 essentially (6.8) out to 400-500 yards using a 16" barrel was an easy decision.
    If you are wanting 130 grain and up, then I'd agree 6.8 has an edge in AR15 platform. Just like 300 will start to have one in even heavier weights.

    Some will counter that with modified (bastardized?) throats that Grendel can have improved heavy bullet performance. But it's really getting out of the sweet spot, and the compromises are too large. I'm not a fan of safety/feeding compromises that tie loadings to particular chambers/throats.

    That's probably some of my lack of interest in 6.8. If the "type II" improved 6.8 had been the SAAMI offering, it would have been a much harder decision. I could have gone with any of them, still could.

    As a key barrel maker told me in person and I quote, "If you are shooting paper get a Grendel if you're shooting hearts get a 6.8". I have seen plenty of game taken here in Montana with a 6.8, many of them large animals and at respectable distances.
    Again a big generalization. Not entirely without some valid aspects, but also missing some.

    Much game taken with Grendel. And 300, 5.56 and a dozen other flavors as well. Many good options. Some with more, some less tradeoffs.

    The accuracy I have seen achieved out of the 6.8 is remarkable. The case design and shoulder also aid in very reliable feeding for the 6.8 in comparison to its rival. Mr. Holland (one of the designers as well as 5th Army Marksmanship Unit) wasn't messing around when the design and concept for the 6.8 was born. The cartridge is a good one, especially when taking to the field in pursuit of game with a AR variant.
    Back to anecdotal. Grendel also has many famous designers in it's heritage, including quite a bit of input from the AMU. The idea that either 6.8 vs 6.5 has a feeding advantage/disadvantage is debatable at best.

    Maybe 6.8 is as accurate as grendel now with the type II and improved projectiles. Early on it was not. But for hunting purposes, in typical hunting rifles (especially carbines), both are probably more than "good enough". Especially if you are mentioning 30/30 & 7.62x39 in the same breath.

    Grendel does have a bit of design elements (case taper, neck size, etc) to allow reliable usage of steel case as that was one of the design objectives, as was extended full auto usage. If that's not of interest or important to you, then probably not relevant. It's not an accident that the grendel has much in common with 7.62x39, though with some changes to allow reliable AR-15 usage and improved accuracy.

    There are people hotrodding both cartridges, sometimes safely and sometimes with tradeoffs. I've grown tired and suspicious of both sides (and spinoff) claims. I've seen some that very much cherry picked known weaker performance loadings to show theirs was better (including one well known barrier penetration test).

    All that said: figure out if you want a 5.56, a medium weight, or a slow/big performance first.

    How important is bolt and mag commonality with 5.56?

    What typical ranges do you hunt at? Longest shot you plan to take? Antelope, hogs, whitetail, or bigger?

    Cheap practice ammo of interest? Or only shoot premium factory loadings? Handload?

    All of these should influence your candidates more than nuances regarding individual cartridge advantages (or not)

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,630
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by pinzgauer View Post
    The higher BC hitting bullets in typical weight that Grendel allows offers more than just retained energy at range, it's also reduced wind drift and drop which makes it easier to get clean bullet placement.
    I was talking about 6.5 specifically vs 6.8 range.

    My point is that 6.5 fans will always bring up drop and I don't think it has any place in hunting discussions. It's just not relavent at the range we are bullet performance limited to.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    302
    Feedback Score
    0
    My vote would be for the 6.5x38mm Grendel. I don't see any reason the 6.8 SPC would not work well though.
    Good night Chesty...wherever you are.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •