View Full Version : 6.5 Grendel & 6.8 SPCII - Feedback Wanted
Charles Daly
07-01-08, 13:30
We are considering adding some additional calibers to our builds, and right now the 6.8 SPC II and 6.5 Grendel are at the top of our "possible" list.
What do you guys think about these? Are both popular enough to warrant our producing them or should we only do one? Or neither?
Your feedback, as always, will be greatly appreciated!
Sincerely,
Both are fine calibers for the hobbyist shooter or hunter.
At this point, the 6.8 mm is more thoroughly tested and proven to work in a wider array of combat/duty situations and through a wider ranger of barrel lengths.
Have you read this: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf?
6.8 mm works best with a 1/11 or 1/12 twist barrel using the "Murray"/SPCII type chamber.
I'm looking for a good 6.8 upper now!!!
Furry Jello
07-01-08, 14:37
You might want to take a look at this also.
They did an eval on a bunch of 6.8 upers.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=353523
[QUOTE=Charles Daly;185629]We are considering adding some additional calibers to our builds, and right now the 6.8 SPC II and 6.5 Grendel are at the top of our "possible" list.
What do you guys think about these? Are both popular enough to warrant our producing them or should we only do one? Or neither?
Your feedback, as always, will be greatly appreciated!
Sincerely
If you make one in 6.5 Grendal : I will purchase it right away. Can I leave my deposit now:D 6.5 will reach out and touch someone!
Paul
I would love to see a 6.8.
Make your D-M4LE carbine in 6.8SPC with the correct SPC-II chamber and 1:11 twist (4 groove) barrel in 16" and 14.5" lengths, with other SBR lengths to follow. You won't be able to keep them in stock.
Make your D-M4LE carbine in 6.8SPC with the correct SPC-II chamber and 1:11 twist (4 groove) barrel in 16" and 14.5" lengths, with other SBR lengths to follow. You won't be able to keep them in stock.
+1, I just ordered one from Tim at Cardinal Armory. The only thing the man wont do is make his barrels from 4150, I bought one anyway.
6.8SPC is the ticket. PRI is making reliable mags for them and that was one of the biggest problems. Now that the chamber/twist/rifling issue has been solved it should be a huge money maker.
I would buy this upper from CD in a heartbeat.
I would be interested in a 6.8 upper. It seems to me that the 6.5 is better at longer ranges than what most shooters ever need but the 6.8 excels where most of us regularly shoot.
Ned Christiansen
07-01-08, 18:52
One thing about the 6.5, it has a person attached to it, one single individual who has something at stake, the one guy who made the 6.5 happen. After many conversations with Bill Alexander it's pretty clear to me the guy really, really knows his stuff. I mean, to the point where I feel underqualified to even give him a rating.
Not to say the 6.8 is without merit. Plenty of people who are up to speed and beyond are behind it. To be honest I have not done any kind of exhaustive study of one vs/ the other and if I did, what would it mean? Looks to me like each caliber has an edge, however slight, over the other in certain categories. Both calibers have done a lot to get folks to open their eyes to some "beyond 5.56" possibilities. In 12 years maybe we'll have a better system in a better caliber and if it's neither one of these, whatever it is will have both of these calibers and all the work that's gone into them as part of it's foundation..... no doubt about that.
That 6.5 ammo is quite available is big. To me, that Sabre and Les Baer are making 6.5's r, lends weight. 'Course, some of the outfits that are doing 6.8 uppers and guns are heavy hitters, too....
Was that a sufficiently non-committal opinion? OK then.... final answer, right or wrong.... 6.5.
I have to second Ned Christiansen's opinion and voice support for the 6.5 Grendel. Granted, my information might be outdated, but it was more marketing than technical ballistics that got the 6.8 as wide-spread and as quickly as it did to be tested more. Also, again this could be outdated, but as I remember the SPC had a very narrow range of bullet weights and calibers compared to the Grendel.
For my part, I like the 6.5 bullets, and what I see on paper for the Grendel. That said, I'll also admit interest in the new 6.5 MPC, but that's outside the parameters of the original question. :D
-B
might want to check out the poll on www.tacticalgunfan.com regarding buying an upper in a different caliber. Right now 6.5mm Grendel is in the lead with 6.8 SPC a close second...
When Wolf's steel case Grendel ammo hits later this year, many people will likely be looking at a 6.5mm Grendel upper.
BUT
if you CAN do both why NOT do both???? Then after a year of sales you could either drop the one that doesn't sell well or keep them both if they are both selling well?
Does anyone have any side-by-side data, 6.8 vs. the 6.5?
I can say that right now I would very interested in a CD chambered in 6.8.
Grendelizer
07-01-08, 21:16
Of course, I'm stumping for the 6.5 Grendel. I run a Website devoted to it, so I can't claim to be unbiased.
Here is my "bumper sticker" that sums it up for me: The 6.5 Grendel can do everything the 6.8 SPC can do, but the 6.8 SPC can't do everything the 6.5 Grendel can do.
Now, marketing considerations: Already there are many suppliers into the 6.8 SPC market. Already there are many competitors fighting to divide up available profits.
The 6.5 Grendel market is relatively untapped, and has pent-up demand for a volume producer (other than Alexander Arms, Les Baer, Sabre Defence, and JP Enterprises). Wolf has assisted this by having two 6.5 Grendel loads on the shelves, and by planning the third steel-cased version.
Thus, I would argue that the first volume-producer "big name" to make a splash in the 6.5 Grendel market is going to, for a time, have it to themselves.
John
FlyingHunter
07-01-08, 21:43
I have used the 6.8spc for some time and find it to be a perfect fit for a defense/hunting carbine platform. Great performance and low recoil. I now own 2 of the 6.8 guns. The ammo is readily available and in a wide variety of bullet types.
I have no experience with the 6.5.
Won't CD have to license the 6.5 Grendel from Alexander Arms? No such requirement with 6.8SPC. Also, Alexander Arms is the ONLY source of 6.5 bolts with the correct bolt face... You can source 6.8 bolts from CMT and LMT, with LMT also offering an enhanced 6.8 bolt. AA barrels also have a progressive chamber, so it's not like you can just have anyone ream a 6.5 chamber and have it work with AA bolts. 6.5 is a closed system -- good or bad. If you order 500 barrels, you can get pretty much anyone to do any 6.8 chamber/twist combination you want.
To shoot 6.5, you also need to match bullet weight to barrel length, both for accuracy and for MV. 16" or less, shoot 108s. 18" or more, shoot 120s or 123s. I can shoot my 6.8 115gr handloads in my 12.5" SBR and a 20" DMR. AA gas blocks and barrel extensions are commonly bedded in Loctite at the factory to prevent odd barrel harmonics from messing with accuracy.
As for the Wolf ammo -- the 123s are what you expect from Wolf - dirty, slow, not accurate. The 120 MPTs are better, but not in the same league as the AA or Black Hills factory loads.
Finally, market momentum is really behind the 6.8SPC.
ETA: I do own and shoot both 6.5 and 6.8.
I recall when the 6.8 first came out. I was impressed with the performance, and had a rifle built for it (varmit) and it's one of my favorites. Then the 6.5 came out, ok let's stop bringing this stuff out eh, it's costing me more money! :D
My vote is bring out both pleeeeeeeeeez
rubberneck
07-01-08, 22:30
Why the 6.5 v the 6.8? Both are bloody expensive. I would think that given the current ammo prices that there would be a much larger market for the 5.45.
platypusREX
07-01-08, 22:40
Of course, I'm stumping for the 6.5 Grendel. I run a Website devoted to it, so I can't claim to be unbiased.
Here is my "bumper sticker" that sums it up for me: The 6.5 Grendel can do everything the 6.8 SPC can do, but the 6.8 SPC can't do everything the 6.5 Grendel can do.
Now, marketing considerations: Already there are many suppliers into the 6.8 SPC market. Already there are many competitors fighting to divide up available profits.
The 6.5 Grendel market is relatively untapped, and has pent-up demand for a volume producer (other than Alexander Arms, Les Baer, Sabre Defence, and JP Enterprises). Wolf has assisted this by having two 6.5 Grendel loads on the shelves, and by planning the third steel-cased version.
Thus, I would argue that the first volume-producer "big name" to make a splash in the 6.5 Grendel market is going to, for a time, have it to themselves.
John
I am with you.
Charles Daly
07-01-08, 23:57
Gentlemen, thank you all for taking the time to post in this thread. The information and links you've given me are all good stuff both from a technical and a marketing point of view.
In the next few days I will have some decisions to make so if you think of anything else you would like to add, by all means please do so.
Sincerely,
Won't CD have to license the 6.5 Grendel from Alexander Arms? Not a big deal, AA has gotten fairly mellow about this
Also, Alexander Arms is the ONLY source of 6.5 bolts with the correct bolt face...
Not true, another large manufacturer which will be building Grendels has their own bolt source
6.5 is a closed system -- good or bad.
By being a closed system AA has prevented the problems encountered with the 6.8, such as ammo fit only for some guns, a new chamber and greatly varying rifling twists
If you order 500 barrels, you can get pretty much anyone to do any 6.8 chamber/twist combination you want.
You drop the dime on 500 barrels and you can get whatever you want.....
To shoot 6.5, you also need to match bullet weight to barrel length, both for accuracy and for MV.
This is blatant crap. Sure, lighter bullets will run faster, but the standard 120s and 123s run fine from 14.5 and 16 inch barrels. I let some 19 Deltas from 5/4 Cav play with one of my 16 inch uppers with 123's and they were extremely impressed by it. Efficient high BC projectiles mean you don't need to chase velocity...
As for the Wolf ammo -- the 123s are what you expect from Wolf - dirty, slow, not accurate. The 120 MPTs are better, but not in the same league as the AA or Black Hills factory loads.
Wolf's 123 SP load is an inexpensive deer load, nothing more. Does it foul? Yes, but it got the ball rolling. Their 120 grain MPT is a very good load, especially for the price. I suspect their steel case 110 grain FMJ load will prove to be an excellent inexpensive practice load. Especially if they use the same powder used in their new steel case 75 grain load which is pushing 5.56mm velocity at mild .223 pressures. Whether you like it or not, cheap ammo is the most important thing to make either of these cartridges a hit commercially. Wolf's steel case Grendel load will have a huge impact on the market.
Finally, market momentum is really behind the 6.8SPC.
The 6.8 is a good cartridge with some big companies behind it and a number of vocal writers. But ammo prices are high, and people want to shoot. Momentum will likely change when inexpensive Grendel ammo comes in from Wolf. We are talking a commercial market, cheap ammo sells guns in the US, period.
.
Be interesting to see what happens
I'm a 6.5 guy myself, not knocking the 6.8 honestly I think you'll clean up selling both. Most importantly I'd like to thank you for talking to us peasants ;) seriously though its a good decision business wise and also makes your company more personable for me. If everyone did this maybe we wouldn't have a sig 556 with tapco furniture.:eek:
You drop the dime on 500 barrels and you can get whatever you want.....
Given the small currently-licensed manufacturing base, how long would those 500 true 6.5 Grendel barrels take? It's not like Wilson or ER Shaw will do these for you. My point is that 6.8 barrels can come from anyone with the correct reamer. This is not the case with 6.5 Grendel.
To shoot 6.5, you also need to match bullet weight to barrel length, both for accuracy and for MV.
This is blatant crap. Sure, lighter bullets will run faster, but the standard 120s and 123s run fine from 14.5 and 16 inch barrels. I let some 19 Deltas from 5/4 Cav play with one of my 16 inch uppers with 123's and they were extremely impressed by it. Efficient high BC projectiles mean you don't need to chase velocity...
This is straight from Bill Alexander:
I like to select bullet weights to team with particular barrel lengths and applications. The 123 Scenar while a great load is I feel a little heavy even for the 18" barrels and certainly for the 14.5" The 108/107 grain class does well with the 20" through 14.5" and while still a good choice for a 24" is not at its best in a 28" barrel.
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2910
Of course you can shoot 123s through a 14.5" barrel, but Grendel really wants MV for those high BC bullets to shine at longer ranges. If you're just shooting at, say, 300 yards, it's kind of a horse apiece between 6.5 and 6.8, especially if the 6.5 has less MV.
Bill has also talked in the past about the high BC bullets needing some time to "go to sleep," as some folks were seeing better accuracy at longer ranges than at the typical 100 yard zero/testing distance.
Just like 6.8, Grendel has had its fair share of teething issues...
Gentlemen, thank you all for taking the time to post in this thread. The information and links you've given me are all good stuff both from a technical and a marketing point of view.
In the next few days I will have some decisions to make so if you think of anything else you would like to add, by all means please do so.
Sincerely,
Why not just wait until the new mythical "SOCOM" cartridge is released. In the mean time, make us a Flat-top 9mm AR :D
Lagadelphia
07-02-08, 08:55
Why the 6.5 v the 6.8? Both are bloody expensive. I would think that given the current ammo prices that there would be a much larger market for the 5.45.
I like this idea.
Grendelizer
07-02-08, 08:59
Given the small currently-licensed manufacturing base, how long would those 500 true 6.5 Grendel barrels take? It's not like Wilson or ER Shaw will do these for you.
This is highly amusing on the face of it; I continue to be amazed at the things invented about the Grendel. Stag Arms actually printed in their 2008 catalog, in their section advertising their 6.8 SPC products, that 6.5 Grendel burns out barrels faster than 6.8 SPC. Who approved that copy? :cool:
At any rate, AA is highly supportive of its licensees, and I'm sure Charles Daly would have no trouble sourcing bolts and barrels, as they will discover from a simple conversation with Bill Alexander.
John
Why the 6.5 v the 6.8? Both are bloody expensive. I would think that given the current ammo prices that there would be a much larger market for the 5.45.
Some shooters are much more concerned with terminal performance than ammo prices.
Stephen
As someone who has been watching this debate from the sidelines for a long time, waiting to decide which one to get, I find the whole thing to be rather amusing.
For the VAST majority of those involved in the debate they have already chosen their path (usually, like most AR related purchases, out of total ignorance of the subject) and are now simply stumping for their chosen cartridge to take the lead so that (A) they can look like they knew what they were doing all along and (B) they don't get stuck with the betamax of the 6.x wars.
I do agree with the sentiment in this thread that cheap ammo sells guns. If Wolf comes out with a 6.5 that is even close to their 5.56 prices then I think the 6.5 will make a huge leap forward. What ammo performs best out of SBRs is such a moot point in the larger firearms market that it's not even worth discussing from a business standpoint. 99% of shooters are going to buy 16" guns.
CD, you're either going to have to wait a few months and see if that happens, or decide on a path now and (assuming you offer the same quality as your LE gun) possibly swing the market a bit in one direction or another.
My personal leaning, which is very application-specific, is toward the 6.8 because I believe it performs better out of a 10.5" barrel than the 6.5 and I want something that I can hunt legal game with unsuppressed and vermin, like hogs, with suppressed; both from a 10.5" gun. Told you it was application-specific. :D
I also happen to think that if one cartridge or the other is ever going to have a future in our military, it's the 6.8. That is based totally on conjecture, but from what I have seen that cartridge has more support for military applications.
Another issue, and one that also is causing me to wait, is availability of good quality, inexpensive, reliable magazines. I'm sure they are out there, but from what I have seen they are like 1911 mags; what works for one guy with one ammo in one gun doesn't work for another guy with another ammo in another gun. I'm much more of a "plug and play" guy and I don't want to be chasing magazine demons for the rest of my natural life.
rubberneck
07-02-08, 09:21
Some shooters are much more concerned with terminal performance than ammo prices.
Stephen
I assume that Charles Daly is in the business of selling guns. Much like the price of gas, ammo prices are driving consumer purchasing. Right now both the 6.5 and the 6.8 a niche cartridges and that is reflected in the cost of ammo for both. Not that there is anything wrong with that but I'd be willing to bet that there a hell of a lot more shooters that want to shoot more not less than they are currently shooting than there are guys desperate for better terminal performance out of an AR.
If he is looking to sell more complete guns and/or uppers chances are he'll do it by making a quality 5.45 than with either the 6.8 or 6.5.
I was in the market and read everything I could on both for a few months
In the end I decided to go with a 6.8
the 6.5 is better at very long ranges, but the 6.8 has readily available hunting ammo (for example the 110g SP Pro Hunter load) and mine will be used for hunting... I also (conjecture) feel the 6.8 has more chance of being around longer.. my local LE shop stocks the 6.8 TAP, no 6.5 Grendel, can't find any in Austin and though I do handload, I didn't want to have to always handload or have to mail order ammo
both are good, both will do the job
Again, I own and shoot both 6.5 Grendel and 6.8SPC. My 6.5 is more sensitive to upper/barrel/ammo interactions, the gas block and barrel extension are bedded in Loctite (AA did all the work themselves), etc. My 6.8s have been trouble-free in the accuracy department and do not bother themselves nearly as much about how they're assembled, provided everything is true and torqued correctly.
I think 6.5 is great from 300-900 yards, and 6.8 is great from 0-400 yards. I think 6.5 is great out of longer barrels (18"+) and 6.8 is great out of shorter barrels (14.5" and less).
Performance characteristics aside, it's hard to deny that almost all the market momentum is behind 6.8 right now. Of course, if anyone wants to share something major in the works for the 6.5 world, I'm all ears... :D
i built a 6.5grendel on AA's barrel kit this spring. all i can say is it is shooting fiend--ammo isn't that expensive if you load or use the wolf gold. even with the wolf very tight in the MOA.
i also really like the 6.8spc i have shot it many time in the last few years. in it's latest incarnations of chamber and rifle twist rates it is one fine all around cartridge.
the reason i don't have one myself is due more to ammunition being somewhat expensive and i haven't bought the re loading gear to load that round yet. i may end up with one --but i sort of holding out till the ammunition situation sorts itself out. the 6.8 spc will be around --but a inexpensive ammo version needs to be around to get me in gear with it.
if i was a builder i would build a 7.62x39 upper, in a 16inch or 18inch mid length with chrome bore.
then build the 6.5 grendel upper and have them share the same BCG.
the 6.5 and 6.8spc are great rounds but i don't know how much of the market they will end up with. but the 7.62x39 round is established , versatile , fairly plentiful and still relatively inexpensive---:cool:
I assume that Charles Daly is in the business of selling guns. Much like the price of gas, ammo prices are driving consumer purchasing. Right now both the 6.5 and the 6.8 a niche cartridges and that is reflected in the cost of ammo for both. Not that there is anything wrong with that but I'd be willing to bet that there a hell of a lot more shooters that want to shoot more not less than they are currently shooting than there are guys desperate for better terminal performance out of an AR.
If he is looking to sell more complete guns and/or uppers chances are he'll do it by making a quality 5.45 than with either the 6.8 or 6.5.
If that's the case he should build it in .22LR.
Stephen
This is highly amusing on the face of it; I continue to be amazed at the things invented about the Grendel. Stag Arms actually printed in their 2008 catalog, in their section advertising their 6.8 SPC products, that 6.5 Grendel burns out barrels faster than 6.8 SPC. Who approved that copy? :cool:
At any rate, AA is highly supportive of its licensees, and I'm sure Charles Daly would have no trouble sourcing bolts and barrels, as they will discover from a simple conversation with Bill Alexander.
John
It might help everyone to know who the current 6.5 Grendel licensees are...
AFAIK:
-Les Baer
-Sabre Defence
-Satern Barrels
-Wolf Performance Ammunition
-Lapua (loaded ammo and brass)
-Black Hills (loaded ammo only, and only available through Les Baer)
-Lee (dies)
-C Products (magazines)
-PTG (reamers, headspace gauges)
-Forster (dies)
-L.E. Wilson (dies)
-Redding (dies)
Again, AFAIK, CSS, Lothar Walther, AR15barrels, and everybody else producing 6.5 Grendel-like products are not licensed and it is a no-no to do things like pair an AA bolt with a CSS barrel due to headspacing issues...
Please chime in with whatever info you have.
rubberneck
07-02-08, 10:47
If that's the case he should build it in .22LR.
Stephen
Let's not get stupid here. There is a clearly a market for a gun chambered in an affordable round that also has acceptable terminal ballistics. While the .22LR is certainly cheap I wouldn't say that it's terminal performance is no where near acceptable. If Charles Daly wants to build a gun that caters to a very small portion of the market then they should knock themselves out and go for it. If they are interested in selling more guns it is fairly obvious to me where they should concentrate their efforts.
bullitt5172
07-02-08, 11:12
We are considering adding some additional calibers to our builds, and right now the 6.8 SPC II and 6.5 Grendel are at the top of our "possible" list.
What do you guys think about these? Are both popular enough to warrant our producing them or should we only do one? Or neither?
Your feedback, as always, will be greatly appreciated!
Sincerely,
I think the 6.5 Grendel with a 20-24" barrel would be an excellent addition to the line-up.
actually interest in .22 rimfire AR uppers has taken off due to the cost of ammo....
Let's not get stupid here. There is a clearly a market for a gun chambered in an affordable round that also has acceptable terminal ballistics. While the .22LR is certainly cheap I wouldn't say that it's terminal performance is no where near acceptable. If Charles Daly wants to build a gun that caters to a very small portion of the market then they should knock themselves out and go for it. If they are interested in selling more guns it is fairly obvious to me where they should concentrate their efforts.
Stupid? You obviously have not done the math on how many cases of ammo you'd have to shoot before the investment in a new gun or even upper would pay for itself over your trusty .223.
Let's say the upper costs $685 (probably a little more for a non-standard caliber) and a complete rifle costs $1100 (both numbers from the CD Defense website). Let's say surplus 5.45 ammo is $100 and Wolf .223 is $200 (both on the low end, but it makes the math easy). You'd have to buy almost 7000 rounds of ammo to make the upper conversion worth your while. Add 4 more cases for the complete rifle. Don't forget that 5.45 ammo doesn't feed properly from standard M4 mags either so you'll need some replacement mags as well. CProducts has them for $20 a pop so that's another $200 for just 10 magazines.
Stephen
Licensed?
Can someone give me a nutshell version of this "licensed" talk wrt the Grendel? I'm particularly interested in what legal force that has. A caliber cannot, to the best of my understanding, be patented. Nor am I sure why anyone would want to do such a thing, since the more proprietary a caliber the less likely it is to be successful.
Licensed?
Can someone give me a nutshell version of this "licensed" talk wrt the Grendel? I'm particularly interested in what legal force that has. A caliber cannot, to the best of my understanding, be patented. Nor am I sure why anyone would want to do such a thing, since the more proprietary a caliber the less likely it is to be successful.
The cartridge's name is trademarked I believe. Someone spot me on this if I'm wrong here.
Stephen
rubberneck
07-02-08, 15:01
Stupid? You obviously have not done the math on how many cases of ammo you'd have to shoot before the investment in a new gun or even upper would pay for itself over your trusty .223.
Let's say the upper costs $685 (probably a little more for a non-standard caliber) and a complete rifle costs $1100 (both numbers from the CD Defense website). Let's say surplus 5.45 ammo is $100 and Wolf .223 is $200 (both on the low end, but it makes the math easy). You'd have to buy almost 7000 rounds of ammo to make the upper conversion worth your while. Add 4 more cases for the complete rifle. Don't forget that 5.45 ammo doesn't feed properly from standard M4 mags either so you'll need some replacement mags as well. CProducts has them for $20 a pop so that's another $200 for just 10 magazines.
Stephen
Let's talk about the math for a second. The choice here isn't between the 5.45 and the 5.56 but rather it is between the 5.45 and the 6.8 or the 6.5. In that case the math is so obviously in favor of the 5.45 that only the intentionally obtuse would ignore it.
This entire premise of this discussion is built on the idea that shooters are looking to add another upper/rifle to their collection. In that case any way that you look at it the cost is more or less fixed regardless of the caliber. The only variable here are the ammo and the mags. Even then the math isn't even close.
Doing the math quickly (and using Ammoman's prices) I can shoot nearly 3 rounds of 5.45 for every round of 6.5.
This entire premise of this discussion is built on the idea that shooters are looking to add another upper/rifle to their collection. In that case any way that you look at it the cost is more or less fixed regardless of the caliber. The only variable here are the ammo and the mags. Even then the math isn't even close.
I disagree. I believe the question is whether or not shooters are interested in improving the capabilities of the M4 platform through a better cartridge. The 5.45X39mm cartridge (which wasn't even mentioned in the original post BTW) is a poorer ballistic performer than even the .223/5.56mm (although that is probably splitting hairs between the two).
If someone did not own an M4 and just wanted to break into the market, a 5.45mm might make a little sense because ammo prices are currently low for that caliber, but for someone who already owns a .223/5.56mm M4 I believe it to be a waste of money except as an addition to the collection.
Stephen
rubberneck
07-02-08, 15:50
I disagree. I believe the question is whether or not shooters are interested in improving the capabilities of the M4 platform through a better cartridge. The 5.45X39mm cartridge (which wasn't even mentioned in the original post BTW) is a poorer ballistic performer than even the .223/5.56mm (although that is probably splitting hairs between the two).
If someone did not own an M4 and just wanted to break into the market, a 5.45mm might make a little sense because ammo prices are currently low for that caliber, but for someone who already owns a .223/5.56mm M4 I believe it to be a waste of money except as an addition to the collection.
Stephen
I guess we will agree to disagree.
If someone did not own an M4 and just wanted to break into the market, a 5.45mm might make a little sense because ammo prices are currently low for that caliber, but for someone who already owns a .223/5.56mm M4 I believe it to be a waste of money except as an addition to the collection.
I agree.
Short of selling a 5.56 AR just to go re-stock on a 5.45 version of the exact same thing (and frankly, the only savings are really seen if you shoot the crappy corrosive ammo) there isn't much point.
I'd look for, and still am, a 5.45 AK before I bothered with a 5.45 AR.
Now, an inexpensive 10.5" 6.8 upper that I can configure rather basically for hunting purposes, THAT would be something I'd be interested in.
I would offer both calibers in a 16" midlength version. Standard HG's and fixed FSB as a start. I think that would be a great starting point and then branch out on specialized models if the market would support it. People can then add HG's of thier choice and sighting options.
Me personally, unless you have some deep pockets, it's more of a special use such as hunting.
Either caliber in my opinion bridges that gap between the 5.56 and .308 and offer the shooter a "one gun" option that can perform multiple roles. I do plan to get one or the other one day, which one, I have no idea.
What I do find funny in a sense is 60 years ago a similar caliber was an option.
Mark
Bill Alexander developed it, and it requires a license to produce.
No different than JD Jones and his line of Whisper cartridges.
Think about it this way, if you are in the business, but small, and you spend a considerable amount of money developing and producing a new cartridge and it goes mainstream, the only money you see is what you sell. All the ammo and guns anyone else sells you see nothing of.
Licensed?
Can someone give me a nutshell version of this "licensed" talk wrt the Grendel? I'm particularly interested in what legal force that has. A caliber cannot, to the best of my understanding, be patented.
Winchester has certainly gotten smacked down on a couple of occasions for infringing other folks' cartridge-related IP. John Ricco and Rick Jamison both cashed in over the 9x23mm and Short Magnum cartridges respectively.
Well i suppose you can look at it like this, you want to be a big fish in a little pond, or a little fish in a big pond?
I'm partial to the 6.5 myself, came from what I've read a good guy and has better ballistics. They both arguably fill the same niche role. A fair bit of 6.8 stuff I see out now a days. But not much 6.5 so a name like yours is going to scoop up what interest there is en masse I would think. That said it's likely to be numerically smaller than the 6.8 interest, but also less players. Accuracy guys more likely picking 6.5 a la NRA HP and military aficionados going 6.8 is how I'd guess it'd lay out. Thanks for taking the time to ask your end users, wish more company owners were as considerate. Think I'll go wash my mouth out with soap now for using so many French terms. :D
Bill Alexander
07-02-08, 19:23
As far as CD goes, build what feels good to you, the best product is the one that you believe in and have the guts to stand up and manufacture. If you build something let it be the best you can make not some half ass compromise just to make a few sales in a fashion market.
If you decide that the 6.5 grendel is the way to go then I do have a licence system. Sounds horrible doesn't it, but it carries the whole technical support package behind it. Bolts, barrel extensions are in manufactured with all three of the predominant military suppliers and can be sourced as required. This information forms part of this technical package. We can even advise on the concentration of the chrome solution needed to line the barrels (if needed) and the flow direction to achieve the correct chamber dimensions. The TDP (if required to this level) will reference grain structure standards for the heat treated pressure bearing parts and we are on 24/7 support of the the product if you have any technical or sales inquiries. I have ammo from Lapua, Black Hills and Wolf and we are in discussion with another large manufacturer. The Wolf steel case is indeed runing late but the projected cost aligns it directly with existing steel case 7.62x39. All the ammunition ever made fits all the guns ever made and visa versa and everything is safe.
BUT above all choose the product YOU truly believe in.
Bill Alexander
Jamison got taken advantage of by some big fish who thought they could push him around...they found out he was smarter then they thought, they should have figured that out by his cartridge design....he's a very nice guy and Vietnam combat vet.
I prefer the Grendel.
I like the Grendel's long range ballistics and availability of $0.50/round ammo.
Though the Grendel's magazine situation pointed me toward the 6.8 until I realize what ammo would cost.
regarding the 5.45 ammo surplus market....I dunno how long this will last.
I figure there are about 30 million rounds of surplus 5.45 available, that will probably only last about 1 to 1.5 years.
remember the cheap 7,92 Mauser Century had? They had 80 millions rounds in their warehouse (I stood and lusted at it one day) and it's all gone now...out of mostly bolt guns.
5.45 is cheap now, but I doubt it will last over 1.5 years....
Very interesting re: the licensing. I'l have to look up the history on the Win/9x23 stuff. I would not have thought it possible to patent a cartridge design. Thanks!
Charles Daly
07-02-08, 21:40
As far as CD goes, build what feels good to you, the best product is the one that you believe in and have the guts to stand up and manufacture. If you build something let it be the best you can make not some half ass compromise just to make a few sales in a fashion market.
If you decide that the 6.5 grendel is the way to go then I do have a licence system. Sounds horrible doesn't it, but it carries the whole technical support package behind it. Bolts, barrel extensions are in manufactured with all three of the predominant military suppliers and can be sourced as required. This information forms part of this technical package. We can even advise on the concentration of the chrome solution needed to line the barrels (if needed) and the flow direction to achieve the correct chamber dimensions. The TDP (if required to this level) will reference grain structure standards for the heat treated pressure bearing parts and we are on 24/7 support of the the product if you have any technical or sales inquiries. I have ammo from Lapua, Black Hills and Wolf and we are in discussion with another large manufacturer. The Wolf steel case is indeed runing late but the projected cost aligns it directly with existing steel case 7.62x39. All the ammunition ever made fits all the guns ever made and visa versa and everything is safe.
BUT above all choose the product YOU truly believe in.
Bill Alexander
Bill,
I will call you tomorrow if time permits, if not, after the holiday weekend. I would like to learn more.
Sincerely,
The Grendel is my choice AR 15.
I have been shooting the 6.5 since Bill Alexander first put them out (6 years maybe, I got a brain fart). I got rid of my 24" and currently shoot a 19.5" and 16" m4. The 19.5 is a killer hunting rifle. Has put lots of caribou in the freezer and many wolf skins on my wall. One shot Bou kills out to 300 yards and devastating wolf getter out to 577 (currently my furthest kill with this rifle). I use the 120 TSX and the 120 Ballistic tips. The ballistic tips are shooting 1 1/2" at 200 yards. The TSX's 3 to 4 inch 10 shot groups @ 300. I run a 2.5 x 10 x 50 Swarovski on this rifle.
The 16" M4 configuration really likes the lighter bullets 90-100grain Vmax & BT's. But I was suprized that it shot the 120 TSX consistantly at 1 5/8 @ 100. I run a Trijicon Tri-power with a PVS 14 on this rifle. Haven't killed with it yet, but looking to take it to Texas for some hog shooting this winter.
I suppose the 6.8 is good too, but like someone said the 6.5 will do everything the 6.8 can plus some.
There is an awful lot of bad information in this thread, including information from people who should KNOW better!
People need to check their sources; barrels for the 6.5 Grendel are available from multiple places that are mentioned as not having them, people with reputations riding on their endorsement of one or the other of these cartridges act as if they are completely independant purveyors of information, people who have one or both, (or neither) act as if one is the holy grail of AR based rifles.
These are both good cartridges.
The Grendel has a rigidly enforced design, (due to licensing) requirements that all it's licensees must follow. That essentially means all licensed ammo will fire in all licensed guns. Some don't like that model of business and want open source (so to speak). They denigrate the Grendel for its supposed shortcomings every chance they get. BUT...every Grendel built from day one will fire every round of ammo that is licensed.
The 6.8 SPC is a work in progress, with at least 3 different chamber configurations and at least 2 different ammo specs. There are significant variations in twist rates and chamber design; so much so that the largest ammunition supplier screens the people they sell ammo to so that someone with the old style chamber doesn't get the newer, hotter loads. BUT...there is large group of people dedicated to stretching the legs of the design and making it increasingly better. Those guys seem to share information willingly and have seemed to significantly improve the breed.
The 6.8 started as a small time effort that morphed with some muscle from Remington and Hornady into something much bigger, but has had significant growing pains in doing so.
Some similarities:
Both have had:
Problems with consistent magazine manufacture
Teething problems with ammo availability (You won't find either in small town ammo shops or at WalMart!)
The 6.8 initially had some advantage in ballistic gelatin tests, but with the new bullets available to the 6.5, those advantages are probably more related to gun to gun variances than actual projectile advantages. (Face it guys, if 3/10 of a millimeter makes much difference in wound channels, you can have my paycheck!) 3/10 of a millimeter is about the width of an "l" on my computer!
The 6.5 has a big advantage in length of projectiles, since its short, fat case allows longer, higher BC projectiles than the 6.8 case does. That allows for significant increases in velocity and trajectory at distance, allowing a flatter, faster projectile after 300-400 yards.
So, comparing the 2.
The 6.8 is built by a lot more people, ammo is a little more available, since Remington and Hornady, as well as Silver State ammo produce it.
The 6.5 has fewer manufacturers, with ammo from a smaller group of manufacturers, but has a major, low cost producer in Wolf, that the 6.8 doesn't.
It seems a pretty easy case to me, build my 6.8 like lots of the other guys already do, or build my licensed Grendel, like so few of the other guys do.
Part of the herd or not.
I think that either way, every rifle made will sell, at least I know that all the Grendels will, because everyone is still waiting for Grendels and it seems like plenty of people want 6.8's, too!
My vote would be for the Grendel first, then the 6.8, because more choice is always better, this is the post Heller US of A!!!
My .02 cents!
Number5
I would prefer the 6.5 just my preference.If start with that,you can improve it sooner.
If I am in error and Wilson or ER Shaw do offer true Grendel chambered AR barrels that headspace correctly with the AA bolts, I apologize and stand corrected.
Again, I think a list of Grendel licensees would help everyone see what is and is not available and compatible. I think there is some confusion as to whether someone could just buy a L-W barrel from CSS or a custom barrel from AR15barrels and a bolt from Alexander Arms and just put the two together, whether just using a 7.62x39 AR bolt is just as good as using an AA bolt and licensed Grendel barrel, etc.
To be fair: for 6.8SPC and the current state of the art (SPCII-chambered 1:11 twist 4-groove barrel), any barrel length past 18" is sort of a waste. Bullet selection is limited (but growing) and you can't fit any of the .270cal VLDs into the 6.8 case and still make the finished cartridges fit into a standard AR magazine. 6.8 really works best in barrels 16" and shorter, as that general barrel length (+/- a couple of inches) was exactly what the round was initially designed for. Lots of SAAMI-chambered 1:10 twist 6-grooves barrels are still out there and still being made, but the message is getting out that this is not the ideal barrel setup. Shooting max load or combat load rounds in a SAAMI/1:10 barrel will result in ejector swipes and popped primers, so you do need to make sure you match your ammo to your barrel. Remington's 115gr FMJ 6.8 factory loads are weak and inaccurate (sort of like the 6.5 Wolf 123 soft nose rounds), but are priced much higher than the Wolf 6.5 ammo. Hornady just reformulated the 110gr VMax and BTHP rounds because their initial powder choice resulted in lots of short stroking; these new rounds are just now trickling out and it remains to be seen if Hornady made changes for the better. No one in the civilian world can buy the Black Hills 6.8 stuff. Silver State Armory makes the best 6.8 loads, but they are quite expensive and getting more so over time. No cheap plinking round exists for 6.8, so you have to roll your own to keep ammo costs reasonable over time.
I am not "against" either cartridge. Both have had their share of teething issues, and both have required some tinkering on my part as a shooter. I do enjoy shooting both calibers. I just wanted to counterweight those folks that commonly jump into these threads and claim that Grendel is the better cartridge because it is still supersonic at 1200 yards whereas 6.8 is useless past 300 yards, that Grendel's VLDs are like lasers and 6.8's shorter bullets are like mortars, and that all true Grendels are part of a tightly controlled, plug-and-play rifle/cartridge ecosystem (think Apple's iPod/iTunes) whereas 6.8 is the Wild West where mass confusion reigns and standards are nonexistent (think Microsoft's now-defunct PlaysForSure). Both positions are distortions of reality, and both calibers require qualifiers to get a true picture of capabilities. Again, if I get some of those qualifiers wrong, I am happy to be corrected.
FWIW my 6.5 has a 19" barrel and is set up as an SPR, and my 6.8 has a 12.5" barrel and is set up as a general-purpose carbine. At this time, I'm not convinced I'd shoot 6.5 out of a 12.5" barrel or 6.8 out of a 19" barrel; a role-reversal like this would seem, in my mind, to nullify the advantages of both calibers.
For those of you with experience shooting 6.5 out of 16" and shorter barrels, I'd very much appreciate any new info you have about factory load MVs and overall functioning of the cartridge during relatively hard use (e.g. carbine course). I've only ever taken my 6.8 through a carbine course, and it worked great.
I would say 6.8 is the way to go. there is more magzine options, and surely a lot more ammo to choose from.
Good luck, if they are anything like your 45's then they will do just fine. I keep my Daly in the truck 24/7!
If I am in error and Wilson or ER Shaw do offer true Grendel chambered AR barrels that headspace correctly with the AA bolts, I apologize and stand corrected.
FlDad notes here that one of his recent 6.5 builds is from one of the above: http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4071
Again, I think a list of Grendel licensees would help everyone see what is and is not available and compatible. I think there is some confusion as to whether someone could just buy a L-W barrel from CSS or a custom barrel from AR15barrels and a bolt from Alexander Arms and just put the two together, whether just using a 7.62x39 AR bolt is just as good as using an AA bolt and licensed Grendel barrel, etc.
Except that this thread is not about what is compatible and what is not. It is about what Charles Daly might build. It would seem to me that they will make sure that the parts THEY put together will be compatible.
To be fair: for 6.8SPC and the current state of the art (SPCII-chambered 1:11 twist 4-groove barrel), any barrel length past 18" is sort of a waste. Bullet selection is limited (but growing) and you can't fit any of the .270cal VLDs into the 6.8 case and still make the finished cartridges fit into a standard AR magazine. 6.8 really works best in barrels 16" and shorter, as that general barrel length (+/- a couple of inches) was exactly what the round was initially designed for. Lots of SAAMI-chambered 1:10 twist 6-grooves barrels are still out there and still being made, but the message is getting out that this is not the ideal barrel setup. Shooting max load or combat load rounds in a SAAMI/1:10 barrel will result in ejector swipes and popped primers, so you do need to make sure you match your ammo to your barrel. Remington's 115gr FMJ 6.8 factory loads are weak and inaccurate (sort of like the 6.5 Wolf 123 soft nose rounds), but are priced much higher than the Wolf 6.5 ammo. Hornady just reformulated the 110gr VMax and BTHP rounds because their initial powder choice resulted in lots of short stroking; these new rounds are just now trickling out and it remains to be seen if Hornady made changes for the better. No one in the civilian world can buy the Black Hills 6.8 stuff. Silver State Armory makes the best 6.8 loads, but they are quite expensive and getting more so over time. No cheap plinking round exists for 6.8, so you have to roll your own to keep ammo costs reasonable over time.
I am not "against" either cartridge. Both have had their share of teething issues, and both have required some tinkering on my part as a shooter. I do enjoy shooting both calibers. I just wanted to counterweight those folks that commonly jump into these threads and claim that Grendel is the better cartridge because it is still supersonic at 1200 yards whereas 6.8 is useless past 300 yards, that Grendel's VLDs are like lasers and 6.8's shorter bullets are like mortars, and that all true Grendels are part of a tightly controlled, plug-and-play rifle/cartridge ecosystem (think Apple's iPod/iTunes) whereas 6.8 is the Wild West where mass confusion reigns and standards are nonexistent (think Microsoft's now-defunct PlaysForSure). Both positions are distortions of reality, and both calibers require qualifiers to get a true picture of capabilities. Again, if I get some of those qualifiers wrong, I am happy to be corrected.
FWIW my 6.5 has a 19" barrel and is set up as an SPR, and my 6.8 has a 12.5" barrel and is set up as a general-purpose carbine. At this time, I'm not convinced I'd shoot 6.5 out of a 12.5" barrel or 6.8 out of a 19" barrel; a role-reversal like this would seem, in my mind, to nullify the advantages of both calibers.
For those of you with experience shooting 6.5 out of 16" and shorter barrels, I'd very much appreciate any new info you have about factory load MVs and overall functioning of the cartridge during relatively hard use (e.g. carbine course). I've only ever taken my 6.8 through a carbine course, and it worked great.
Of course both cartridges have their place. However, in the publics hands, it is difficult to see what advantage the 6.8 would have over the 6.5, since the 6.5 projectiles CAN be configured for short barrels, while the 6.8 can't use long range, high BC projectiles.
I also would like to hear from the short barrel Grendel guys, since there appear to be decidely fewer of them out there. But the truth is, Charles Daly is probably not going to build many SBR's, so it isn't very pertinent to this thread, either.
what about 6.5 Creedmoor
DPMS has one and the round seems to be better than the Grendel
in all the reviews i have seen on the net
but it is for the larger frame ar's if i am reading things right.
Does anyone have any side-by-side data, 6.8 vs. the 6.5?
I can say that right now I would very interested in a CD chambered in 6.8.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPWviHLrv_w&feature=related
and here is some info about the 6.5 creedmore
http://accurateshooter.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/hornady-introduces-new-65-creedmoor-cartridge/
The Creedmoor is an interesting round, but too long for the AR15 platform.
The Creedmoor is an interesting round, but too long for the AR15 platform.
yes it is too long for ar15 platform it is in the ar10 platform
308 bolt carrier i believe
Well, I finally decided on what caliber to go with. I called AA and ordered the 16" middy upper along with some extra mags and some Wolf ammo. I'm stoked about this as I've thrown this idea around for about 3 or more years.
I got invited to some private land to hunt this fall, so I know what I'll be taking!
I do have a question on the mag, do they use a standard 5.56 spring? I prefer SS springs.
Mark
After a 2hr phone interview with Bill Alexander this week, here's my two kopeks.
6.5
Cheap(er) ammo is becoming available (Wolf steel case) .35+/- per round
Intermediate cost/performance ammo is available (Wolf MPT and SP brass) .45c per round
High cost precision ammo is available (AA, Les Baer aka Blackhills, etc) .95c per round and up
6.8
Its ALL expensive. Generally .80c or more.
Bottom line, Grendelizer is right, 6.5 does everything 6.8 does and I can actually afford to shoot it.
Of course both cartridges have their place. However, in the publics hands, it is difficult to see what advantage the 6.8 would have over the 6.5, since the 6.5 projectiles CAN be configured for short barrels, while the 6.8 can't use long range, high BC projectiles.
I also would like to hear from the short barrel Grendel guys, since there appear to be decidely fewer of them out there. But the truth is, Charles Daly is probably not going to build many SBR's, so it isn't very pertinent to this thread, either.
Well, I suspect the majority of 6.5 shooters are set up with longer range rifles with 18"+ barrels (I could be wrong). If CD is thinking of producing M4-pattern rifles with 16" or shorter barrels, it would be good to hear from folks shooting 6.5 out of these shorter barrels.
since i built the 6.5 grendel middy back in the spring i have taken to it pretty well. the round can be loaded in most any configuration you could want. it isn't any more expensive to shoot than other hi-power rounds--and in some cases less expensive than some of the smaller hi-power types of ammo rounds. in short it does a lot of work from a mid sized case.
the 16inch length is just about right for my needs--i thought getting about the 18 inch but the 16 seems a better fit for my needs.
i haven't had any problems with the few 6.5 mags i have-- or any function problems at all.
true i haven't shot the piss out of it like my 5.56/7.62x39 and other military type rifles. but this is more of a MOA rather than rate of fire deal for me.
i may hunt with it this fall. and i have a lot of rifles on my rack to pick from!!:cool:
my favorite Grendel is a plane jane 16 inch middie
love it
accurate, very controllable with a MGI buffer in it and pounds the LaRues nicely.
It feels and handles just like my 5.56 16 inch middie but has a lot more punch. Huge difference shooting steel with 77 grain 5.56 loads and 120 grain Grendel loads. Grendel has a lot more visual impact.
I don't get this whole..."Grendel is good from 400 yards out but no good up close"
that is just plane stupid....
I have shot a number of 14.5 and 16 inch Grendels, including 2 piston guns, and they work for my needs. I have hunted hogs with a Grendel middie and it kills them dead.
I can't comment on barrels shorter than 14.5 inches, but 14.5 and 16 inches work well in my experience. I load 25 rounds in the 26 round mags and have no problems.....
I don't get this whole..."Grendel is good from 400 yards out but no good up close"
that is just plane stupid....
Actually, I don't think anyone is saying the above.
What I've been saying, anyway, is:
1. Shorter 6.5 barrels tend to do better with the lighter bullets, e.g. 108 Scenars;
2. Out to 350 yards or so, there is not much to choose between 6.5 and 6.8 in terms of bullet drop, velocity, KE, etc -- for example, out of a 16" barrel, a 6.5 Wolf 120MPT launches at about 2450fps and a 6.8 SSA 115gr OTM combat load launches at about 2550; the 120MPT's superior BC doesn't really make itself felt until about 400 yards;
3. Past 600 yards, 6.8 is pretty much done, whereas 6.5 keeps going out to at least 800 yards.
So, Grendel doesn't really show any advantage over 6.8 until about 400 yards, and really leaves 6.8 in the dust at 600 yards. As far as I can tell, this is not the same as saying that Grendel is not effective below 400 yards... This is why I shoot 6.8 out of a 12.5" barrel from 0-400 yards and 6.5 out of a 19" barrel from 300-800 yards.
I agree that until the Grendel's high BC bullets come into play there is not really much between them and I'm certainly not saying the Grendel is some uber cartridge vastly superior to 6.8. But there are some that, for some unknown reason, think the Grendel is incapable of performing well at distances below 300 yards....I mean we are talking about intermediate cartridges.....
6.8 does its job and does it well and is damn accurate.
They are both a cut above traditional intermediate cartridges such as the 7.62x39, 7.92x33K and similar cartridges of the period. I am still waiting to see if CProducts can actually make a high capacity AR mag that is totally reliable in 7.62x39mm...we shall see...
Two cents:
The 6.5mm seems more like the Rifleman's cartridge (we are a nation of Riflemen right?). All the work on the 6.8mm SPC seem to be done for certain CQC shooters engaging 6" dots using multiple target indexing. Just an observation...
I like the 6.5 because it seems to be able to do everything the 6.8 can do and then some. And, it's the Rifleman's cartridge.
The 6.5 seems more developed with fewer quality control issues.
For the love of God, will somebody make a straight 25rd AR mag in any caliber?! Look at the 25rd mag for the FAMAS F1. It is just about the perfect size and shape. It is much easier to place the index finger in line with the mag and mag well with this sort of straight shape. Unlike straight 20rd mags your finger will not actually hit the mag well.
Does anyone have head to head terminal ballistic data on the 6.8 vs. 6.5?
Two cents:
The 6.5mm seems more like the Rifleman's cartridge (we are a nation of Riflemen right?). All the work on the 6.8mm SPC seem to be done for certain CQC shooters engaging 6" dots using multiple target indexing. Just an observation...
I like the 6.5 because it seems to be able to do everything the 6.8 can do and then some. And, it's the Rifleman's cartridge.
The 6.5 seems more developed with fewer quality control issues.
For the love of God, will somebody make a straight 25rd AR mag in any caliber?! Look at the 25rd mag for the FAMAS F1. It is just about the perfect size and shape. It is much easier to place the index finger in line with the mag and mag well with this sort of straight shape. Unlike straight 20rd mags your finger will not actually hit the mag well.
Does anyone have head to head terminal ballistic data on the 6.8 vs. 6.5?
So far as I know, there is no CURRENT head to head data. The last head to head tests were done several years ago, with bullets that were not necessarily developed for the specific tests they were used in, (at least in the Grendels case.)
FWIW my 6.5 has a 19" barrel and is set up as an SPR, and my 6.8 has a 12.5" barrel and is set up as a general-purpose carbine. At this time, I'm not convinced I'd shoot 6.5 out of a 12.5" barrel or 6.8 out of a 19" barrel; a role-reversal like this would seem, in my mind, to nullify the advantages of both calibers.
For those of you with experience shooting 6.5 out of 16" and shorter barrels, I'd very much appreciate any new info you have about factory load MVs and overall functioning of the cartridge during relatively hard use (e.g. carbine course). I've only ever taken my 6.8 through a carbine course, and it worked great.
I really don't understand what the perceived hang-up is with regard to firing the Grendel from shorter barrels, but I'll try to answer any questions you have if I can. I have an AA 10.5" Tactical that I fire full auto a good bit with a registered sear. It runs like a top, isn't finicky, and hasn't been "tweeked". The Grendel doesn't magically stop working out of SBR's, it just has a lower velocity like any other cartridge. You don't have to use light bullets if you don't want to either. It all depends on what you decide you want. A 100gr. Lapua Scenar will do 2500 fps. from the 10.5" barrel., and the Wolf Gold 120grn. MPTs average 2179 fps. in my upper, etc.... I'm also working on a 160grn. subsonic load to shoot suppressed from the 10.5". It seems stable and on the money so far with 9 to 9.5grns. of trailboss, but I have to shoot it down range more to be sure when I get the time. If speed is what you seek (?), then I will post some 85grn. data when I get a chance to work it up and chrono it.
6.5 Grendel Wolf 120 MPT chrono data from 19.5", 14.5", and 10.5"... (http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3783)
P.S.-- Being able to shoot the same ammo in both my short and long range ARs would seem to be a major plus in my book! One caliber, multiple roles... Suits me really well! :)
I really don't understand what the perceived hang-up is with regard to firing the Grendel from shorter barrels, but I'll try to answer any questions you have if I can. I have an AA 10.5" Tactical that I fire full auto a good bit with a registered sear. It runs like a top, isn't finicky, and hasn't been "tweeked". The Grendel doesn't magically stop working out of SBR's, it just has a lower velocity like any other cartridge. You don't have to use light bullets if you don't want to either. It all depends on what you decide you want. A 100gr. Lapua Scenar will do 2500 fps. from the 10.5" barrel., and the Wolf Gold 120grn. MPTs average 2179 fps. in my upper, etc.... I'm also working on a 160grn. subsonic load to shoot suppressed from the 10.5". It seems stable and on the money so far with 9 to 9.5grns. of trailboss, but I have to shoot it down range more to be sure when I get the time. If speed is what you seek (?), then I will post some 85grn. data when I get a chance to work it up and chrono it.
6.5 Grendel Wolf 120 MPT chrono data from 19.5", 14.5", and 10.5"... (http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3783)
P.S.-- Being able to shoot the same ammo in both my short and long range ARs would seem to be a major plus in my book! One caliber, multiple roles... Suits me really well! :)
What kind of accuracy are you seeing out of your 10.5" barrel? This is all good stuff, thanks.
Not to break away from the original subject to much, but who makes RELIABLE mags for the 6.5 that has good QC.
Quality mag availability is a deal maker/breaker for me.
There would be no sense in buying a AR if I had to wait months for extra mags.
Not to break away from the original subject to much, but who makes RELIABLE mags for the 6.5 that has good QC.
Quality mag availability is a deal maker/breaker for me.
There would be no sense in buying a AR if I had to wait months for extra mags.
Yep!
Again, why not a straight 25rd mag? It would not be any longer than a curved 30rd 5.56 mag. Is the curved mag thing just nostalgia? Unless the cartridge has a tapered wall like 7.62x39, is there really a point to a curved mag? In a straight walled case a curved mag would seem to cause more problems than it is worth.
So far as I know, there is no CURRENT head to head data. The last head to head tests were done several years ago, with bullets that were not necessarily developed for the specific tests they were used in, (at least in the Grendels case.)
Hmm, sort of sounds like this needs to be done before we call the 6.8mm SPC THE replacement cartridge for the 5.56mm.
For my money I think something in a high velocity 100gr out of 16bbl would be about perfect for a general use replacement for the M4 in 5.56.
CP and AA Grendel mags have minimal problems at this point. I haven't had to do anything to the last 6 I have bought since January, nor have I heard of many problems from others.
I have heard similar things about the 6.8 mags.
BUT...we are pushing 50 years into the AR development, and I still hear stories of GI mags which don't work! Mags are always an issue with high volume guns. I have .45's which have been massaged and massaged by highly respected gunsmiths, and I still find magazines from good sources like Kimber and Wilson which hang. I am firmly convinced that magazines are THE weak link in Automatic and semiautomatic weapons and that we will never COMPLETELY solve the issue until we find a better method to load large numbers of rounds.
There are threads on both the 6.8 forum and the 6.5 forums about magazines:
http://www.68forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2545
and
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3143
However, these kinds of questions are not really in the topic as posted by the original poster.
agreed on the mags
I got a batch of early 26 round Grendel mags that had issues
I sent them back and got replacements that work fine
I have about 20 26 round Grendel mags that work fine
I never had any problems with PRI's 6.8 mags, they were well made and functioned flawlessly with no issues....
Has anyone talked with Magpul about maybe producing 6.5 Pmags?
Grendelizer
07-04-08, 13:55
I have, at SHOT Show 2007, I believe. They explained it wouldn't work because the fatter cases of both 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC would require the plastic mag walls to be too thin. Which is too bad, because those are great mags!
John
In examining a Pmag, I suspect that the polymer would have to be made too thin if it was designed for the fat Grendel cartridge, and it then would not survive the rough and tumble that is expected of Pmags.
Possibly you could change the stack angle, placing the cartridges a little more on top of each other and still maintain the wall thickness, but that might also screw up feed geometry, along with decreasing mag capacity somewhat.
I like the thought and use of Pmags, and would love to have some made, though. The toughness demonstrations I have seen are danged impressive!
The 6.5 definitely has it's advantages over the 6.8SPC. The mag issues was a major part of my recent purchase of a Cardinal Armory 6.8 barrel. My purpose is to deer hunt with an AR platform.
With the development of the PRI 6.8 Waffle pattern mags- it made the decision easier for me. I won't buy and AR platform that I cannot use in a defensive situation, and for that I need reliable and durable mags. C-Products has QC issues, and I don't trust USGI-style Aluminum mags anymore.
I have heard only praise for the PRI mags which are stainless steel and come with a Magpul follower, and CS spring.
For this reason alone I wouldn't buy a CD rifle in 6.5. If a reliable mag is developed, I'll be the first in line for a CD in 6.5.
-my last $.02-
CP's and AA mags are also stainless, and as I noted, in the last 6 months or so the issues previously mentioned with Grendel mags seem to have disappeared.
I would like to see another supplier, simply because I think more is better when it comes to options for mags, but it appears that the issue is moot for now.
my only real gripe about the 6.5 and this also goes for the 6.8/7.62x39 is the mags.
the current mags for the 6.5 are not really 6.5 mags ? they look just like 5.56 mags with either 6.5 followers.
the problem is they swell when loaded up to 24 rounds or more. this is a common issue with 7.62x39 mags as well. if the mag didn't swell up you would have room for several more rounds.
we really need a dedicated mag for 6.5 and 6.8 that can hold a full 30 rounds and not swell out and stick in the mag well when full. a tiny bit longer--and a order of magnitude more rigid in the straight portion of the mag is what is needed.
notice the new 7.62x39 ar mag don't look anything like the ar-5.56 mags and is said to solve the swelling mag problems with that round in the AR along with the feeding problems on the curve going to the straight AR mag well.
i haven't tried them yet but i am going to on my next 7.62 x39 build.
my c-products work well in my 6.5 as long as you don't load um up like a 30 rounder. a "real" 6.5 30 rd mag would much better though.:cool:
Simply taking the curve out of the mag would most likely solve the bulging problem.
my only real gripe about the 6.5 and this also goes for the 6.8/7.62x39 is the mags.
the current mags for the 6.5 are not really 6.5 mags ? they look just like 5.56 mags with either 6.5 followers.
the problem is they swell when loaded up to 24 rounds or more. this is a common issue with 7.62x39 mags as well. if the mag didn't swell up you would have room for several more rounds.
we really need a dedicated mag for 6.5 and 6.8 that can hold a full 30 rounds and not swell out and stick in the mag well when full. a tiny bit longer--and a order of magnitude more rigid in the straight portion of the mag is what is needed.
notice the new 7.62x39 ar mag don't look anything like the ar-5.56 mags and is said to solve the swelling mag problems with that round in the AR along with the feeding problems on the curve going to the straight AR mag well.
i haven't tried them yet but i am going to on my next 7.62 x39 build.
my c-products work well in my 6.5 as long as you don't load um up like a 30 rounder. a "real" 6.5 30 rd mag would much better though.:cool:
I haven't heard that complaint in more than a year. My shooting buddy went through 200 rounds in his 26 round mags yesterday without any complaints. All the mags dropped free without any problems, and all loaded without any hangups.
CProducts told me on the telephone that the 6.5 mags WERE redesigned specifically for the 6.5 Grendel. The initial mags had some QC problems, but that they have had very few complaints in the last 6-12 months. Their return policy is great, with replacment of any problem mags without hassle.
As I understand it, they redesigned the ribbing specifically for the 6.5, and if I remember correctly, the 6.8 mags had similar changes made.
Yes, they are 4 rounds short of 30, but GI mags are generally only loaded to 28 anyway, so that is only 2 rounds difference. I can live with that, but understand that others want more. Heck, I've seen guys carrying 90 rounders from MWG or 100 round Beta mags on their AR's, that just looks funky to me!
Bill Alexander
07-05-08, 11:01
6.5 Grendel magazines, if they are correctly dimensioned, allow the rounds within each column to sit directly upon the round below. The lift force thus follows the line of the catridge column and there is no tendency for the rounds to push outwards and swell the magazine. If the magazine is too narrow then the rounds will stagger and the force lifting any particular cartridge can only be passed to the round it touches. In this instance the force is diagonal across the magazine so the rounds will push upwards and outwards, hence the swelling.
While there have been inconsistancies with the production of the Grendel magazines, this was largely the result of demand massively exceeding the production capacity. Production is now well on track and the problems that appeared in the early mags have disapeared.
We are currently working with CP to develop the Grendel magazine to enhance the reliability across the board. Magazine stability in the weapon has been addressed and we are testing a new finish together with a better spring geometry. We are in effect creating a MkII
The curvature of the magazine is required to match the taper of the case body in the double stack. In developing the Grendel case we have a shorter body with more diameter than a 5.56. This allowed a greater case body taper than the 5.56 while following the contour of the 5.56 magazine. Decreasing or increasing the curvature would actually upset the stack and not allow the use of the self leveling follower.
Bill Alexander
Bill Alexander
07-05-08, 11:09
Simply taking the curve out of the mag would most likely solve the bulging problem.
If you get chance you need to spend some time with a couple of magazines cut in half and some dummy rounds stuck together with crazy glue to form a round stack. This is a very simple proceedure but it provides some insight into how mags are set up and what loads are focused at what areas in the magazine. You will quickly find that straightening the magazine body would be counterproductive
Bill Alexander
If you get chance you need to spend some time with a couple of magazines cut in half and some dummy rounds stuck together with crazy glue to form a round stack. This is a very simple proceedure but it provides some insight into how mags are set up and what loads are focused at what areas in the magazine. You will quickly find that straightening the magazine body would be counterproductive
Bill Alexander
Ah, I see. So the current curvature of the 6.5 mags is due to the natural taper of the cartridge case wall? Such as in the more obvious case of the 7.62x39?
we really need a dedicated mag for 6.5 and 6.8 that can hold a full 30 rounds and not swell out and stick in the mag well when full. a tiny bit longer--and a order of magnitude more rigid in the straight portion of the mag is what is needed.
You're out of luck on the 6.5G mag, but the Barrett 6.8mm SPC magazine addresses all your concerns. It is a steel 30 rounder that is probably the finest of the available 6.8mm mags.
Stephen
Let's all keep this an informative thread. I'm not going to go through it and clean up the senseless, biased one line come backs to support one or the other. If you have something to offer that helps out CD form his decision or answer a question someone has, let's hear it.
There's plenty of knowledgeable people on this forum/thread, let's all learn from them
Mark
Let's all keep this an informative thread. I'm not going to go through it and clean up the senseless, biased one line come backs to support one or the other. If you have something to offer that helps out CD form his decision or answer a question someone has, let's hear it.
There's plenty of knowledgeable people on this forum/thread, let's all learn from them
Mark
I apologize if my comments have fallen into that category. I'll make every effort to keep my comments on the thread consistent with CD's intent.
What kind of accuracy are you seeing out of your 10.5" barrel? This is all good stuff, thanks.
Unfortunately I haven't done any accuracy testing with the 10.5" yet. Most of my accuracy focused loading has been in my 19.5", and I've tried a few loads in the 14.5". I sighted the 10.5" in at 50 yds. with an Aimpoint using my 120grn Nosler BT handload (originally for my 19.5") last deer season, and have since resighted it for the Wolf 120grn. MPT. I have mostly just plinked and burned mags through it on auto while at the range. I generally use an "Uncle Bud's 'Bull's Bag'" for accuracy testing with ARs, but a 10.5" is short enough to chop my bag with the blast if I don't watch it real close. The Wolf MPTs print about two inches at 50yds, but that doesn't mean much when you are using an Aimpoint shooting supported barricade in a semi hurry... :) I will try to do some accuracy tests this summer if I get time though. When my form 4 comes back on my AAC 762-SD I'll start getting more serious on the 10.5" Tactical. Sorry I couldn't be of help on that one yet. FWIW, I expect it will be pretty accurate-- the other two certainly are (both sub-moa with a number of different loads)!
yes my 6.5 c-products do have a slight swell when fully loaded to 26 rounds. my solution is to load them to 24 rounds. and the 30 round size mag with only 24 in the can is sort of a waste of space. my old c-ps' run fine once there in the mag well.
my AA mags are the 10 round type and have no problem. i don't have any larger AA's to try yet.
the mag deal is problematic --but it is with any round other than the oe-5.56 and even the 5.56 can have mag problems.
if you think the situation is difficult with the 6.5/6.8 mags you should try the 7.62x39 in the AR!
my only working 30round mags in 7.62x39 are some franken-mags made from a cut and weld job from a straight steel ar mag and a 30rd sks mag bottom 2/3.
the taper in the 7.62 is a real bear in the ar mag well. the only folks making a dedicated 7.62x39 mag --c-products-- i have heard that they work fine--haven't got any yet--and they are currently on back-order.:cool:
Is both a possibility?
The AR platform is so versatile that I think it is too limiting to just choose just one. Otherwise, wouldn't we all just be shooting 223/556?
What I see lacking in the 6.5G camp is an inexpensive upper.
What I see lacking in the 6.8 camp is an optimum inexpensive upper (4 groove 1:11 twist barrel with a SPC II chamber).
Make either one, or both, and I will buy it.
Charles Daly
07-06-08, 18:48
Is both a possibility?
The AR platform is so versatile that I think it is too limiting to just choose just one. Otherwise, wouldn't we all just be shooting 223/556?
What I see lacking in the 6.5G camp is an inexpensive upper.
What I see lacking in the 6.8 camp is an optimum inexpensive upper (4 groove 1:11 twist barrel with a SPC II chamber).
Make either one, or both, and I will buy it.
The short answer is yes, both stand a good chance of making it into our lineup.
Perhaps I should have rephrased my original post to simply ask, "6.8 SPC II and 6.5 Grendel... Is there a market for both? What are the pros and cons of both?" It was never my intention to make it a contest between the two. My bad.
I have spoken with Silver State Armory and am now in possession of the 6.8 SPC II specs, and I have spoken with Bill Alexander to get the ball rolling on 6.5G licensing.
I think that Charles Daly, as a company, may be the perfect size to handle both calibers in our line. We are not so large, nor so small, that we have to commit all our resources to "one or the other". I think if we start with one build in each caliber we should be able to sell enough complete rifles and uppers to make the venture worthwhile. Later we can see if it makes sense to continue with both, one or neither.
So, once again I want to thank all of you that took the time to provide me with the type of information I was looking for. M4C is a great resource. Our entry into the big bore AR market segment will go a lot smoother now, thanks to your feedback.
Sincerely,
I started out looking at the 6.8 and decided on the 6.5 grendell. If you make it right, I would definitely buy it now, and probably get a 6.8 later as well.
The short answer is yes, both stand a good chance of making it into our lineup.
Perhaps I should have rephrased my original post to simply ask, "6.8 SPC II and 6.5 Grendel... Is there a market for both? What are the pros and cons of both?" It was never my intention to make it a contest between the two. My bad.
I have spoken with Silver State Armory and am now in possession of the 6.8 SPC II specs, and I have spoken with Bill Alexander to get the ball rolling on 6.5G licensing.
I think that Charles Daly, as a company, may be the perfect size to handle both calibers in our line. We are not so large, nor so small, that we have to commit all our resources to "one or the other". I think if we start with one build in each caliber we should be able to sell enough complete rifles and uppers to make the venture worthwhile. Later we can see if it makes sense to continue with both, one or neither.
So, once again I want to thank all of you that took the time to provide me with the type of information I was looking for. M4C is a great resource. Our entry into the big bore AR market segment will go a lot smoother now, thanks to your feedback.
Sincerely,
Outstanding! Looking forward to configuration details for both calibers.
I think that Charles Daly, as a company, may be the perfect size to handle both calibers in our line. We are not so large, nor so small, that we have to commit all our resources to "one or the other". I think if we start with one build in each caliber we should be able to sell enough complete rifles and uppers to make the venture worthwhile. Later we can see if it makes sense to continue with both, one or neither.
Sincerely,
Great, now I may have to choose! :D
a gas piston 14.5" 6.5 Grendel would be great!
"I think that Charles Daly, as a company, may be the perfect size to handle both calibers in our line. We are not so large, nor so small, that we have to commit all our resources to "one or the other". I think if we start with one build in each caliber we should be able to sell enough complete rifles and uppers to make the venture worthwhile. Later we can see if it makes sense to continue with both, one or neither."
excellent.
I think that is a very smart move which will serve you very well!
We are considering adding some additional calibers to our builds, and right now the 6.8 SPC II and 6.5 Grendel are at the top of our "possible" list.
What do you guys think about these? Are both popular enough to warrant our producing them or should we only do one? Or neither?
Your feedback, as always, will be greatly appreciated!
Sincerely,
If sell parts & kits etc. you'll do even better.
I think that Charles Daly, as a company, may be the perfect size to handle both calibers in our line. We are not so large, nor so small, that we have to commit all our resources to "one or the other". I think if we start with one build in each caliber we should be able to sell enough complete rifles and uppers to make the venture worthwhile. Later we can see if it makes sense to continue with both, one or neither.
Great news, and great decision too. I was under the impression you were curious about one or the other, but both would be a great option.
-B
The short answer is yes, both stand a good chance of making it into our lineup.
That is great news! I look forward to seeing what you guys produce. What's the best way to keep in the loop?
Charles Daly
07-07-08, 20:55
That is great news! I look forward to seeing what you guys produce. What's the best way to keep in the loop?
I think the best way to stay informed on our latest happenings would be to register on our new forum: Charles Daly Forum (http://www.CharlesDalyForum.com). That way we will have your email address, and when we announce a new product, the CD Forum members will read about it first.
I think the best way to stay informed on our latest happenings would be to register on our new forum: Charles Daly Forum (http://www.CharlesDalyForum.com). That way we will have your email address, and when we announce a new product, the CD Forum members will read about it first.
Between these two I own an AR chambered for the Grendel and it is a joy to shoot. However, I am glad you are looking at both the Grendel and the SPC.
As a sidenote, if you manage to make small boltgun chambered for 6.5 Grendel and costing less than a grand, I will send you check for the first one off the line.
ILya
decodeddiesel
07-17-08, 16:16
Both are fine calibers for the hobbyist shooter or hunter.
At this point, the 6.8 mm is more thoroughly tested and proven to work in a wider array of combat/duty situations and through a wider ranger of barrel lengths.
Have you read this: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf?
6.8 mm works best with a 1/11 or 1/12 twist barrel using the "Murray"/SPCII type chamber.
Great stuff as always Doc. CD I am willing to ber that if you build it you will sell it. An inexpensive, yet well made and featured M4(ish) in 6.8 would sell like hot cakes, especially a factory SBR version (wink wink, nudge nudge).
platypusREX
07-18-08, 19:14
I like the Grendel a little more but I think that the 6.5 would make a excellent SDM rifle and good 20" builds. Both would be cool in the carbine. I am a A4 type dude. I would love to have a A4 rifle that could be decked out like a real A4. M5 rail and all. Just a utility rifle.
BTW do the Daly line use straight or tapered FSB pins.
I would vote for the Grendel - in my experience it's a great round out to 600 meters. The 24 inch barrel version I use shoots MOA out to that distance. What more does one want from an AR?
On one of these forums I heard rumors that the Russians are actively looking at the Grendel as a replacement cartridge. If that's the case, it would be a shame to let a good cartridge like this go.
Great stuff as always Doc. CD I am willing to ber that if you build it you will sell it. An inexpensive, yet well made and featured M4(ish) in 6.8 would sell like hot cakes, especially a factory SBR version (wink wink, nudge nudge).
Agree.
I think there's a definite market for a 6.8 or 6.5 of reasonable price that maybe doesn't pack in every single top-shelf feature but that is a good value and still has the features needed to be reliable.
Personally, I'm interested in 6.8 largely as a potential hunting round, and for a hunting rifle I don't need, or want, to spend $3k on uber-top-shelf parts and pieces. As long as it goes "bang" once. :cool:
Having same in an SBR would be nice to suppress for hogs. Something like a CDM4-LE in 6.8 with a 10.5" barrel that I can slap an Accupoint on top of and stick a 6.8 AAC M41k on it (don't even know if there is such an animal) and have a nice, inexpensive, but wholly functional for the purpose, all-purpose hunting rifle.
in a short barrel the 6.8 makes the most sense to me.
in barrels 16"+ I see the grendel as the superior cartridge.
the 6.5mm projectile diameter really hits a sweet spot in terms of high BC, high SD, low recoil, excellent projectile selection and moderate cost.
The fact that lapua makes 6.5 G brass only sweetens the deal.
I have been looking at adding a 6.5 to my collection for a while.
this is great news that more interest is being shown in the Grendel
I will be buying one soon hopefully:D
mourneblade
03-13-09, 16:16
If CD builds both then so much the better. I love my CD-M4LE was hoping CD would starting selling some uppers in other sizes.
warrior9504
03-13-09, 19:00
I have been interested in the 6.5. It seems to me the best of the "not 5.56" ammo out there. And now that I already have my AR...it may be time to branch out - you know what they say about diversity!:D
Has CD actually made for sale either 6.8 or 6.5 AR upper yet?
EzGoingKev
03-23-09, 19:46
If you look at all the companies selling black rifles 6.8 SPC is pretty common. Ruger is now selling a Mini-6.8 SPC.
Both seem to have their own advantages and disadvantages. My mantra has always been to buy weapons chambered in the current NATO caliber. If the SHTF you will always be able to find ammo.
To me, the biggest if is what the military is going to do. Whatever the military goes with will definitely end being the most popular. The 6.8 SPC has JAG approval for land warfare and is being used in limited quantities by the US Military.
As far as CD goes, build what feels good to you, the best product is the one that you believe in and have the guts to stand up and manufacture. If you build something let it be the best you can make not some half ass compromise just to make a few sales in a fashion market.
If you decide that the 6.5 grendel is the way to go then I do have a licence system. Sounds horrible doesn't it, but it carries the whole technical support package behind it. Bolts, barrel extensions are in manufactured with all three of the predominant military suppliers and can be sourced as required. This information forms part of this technical package. We can even advise on the concentration of the chrome solution needed to line the barrels (if needed) and the flow direction to achieve the correct chamber dimensions. The TDP (if required to this level) will reference grain structure standards for the heat treated pressure bearing parts and we are on 24/7 support of the the product if you have any technical or sales inquiries. I have ammo from Lapua, Black Hills and Wolf and we are in discussion with another large manufacturer. The Wolf steel case is indeed runing late but the projected cost aligns it directly with existing steel case 7.62x39. All the ammunition ever made fits all the guns ever made and visa versa and everything is safe.
BUT above all choose the product YOU truly believe in.
Bill AlexanderThis is the icing on the 6.5 Grendel cake. Thanks, Bill. I really don't know what Charles Daly decided, but in the end, it doesn't matter to me.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.