This would be good news indeed for the Grendel and I await a time when DocGKR can verify a load that does perform like this in the Grendel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Alexander
Printable View
This would be good news indeed for the Grendel and I await a time when DocGKR can verify a load that does perform like this in the Grendel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Alexander
I think we have all performed a rather pitiful job of answering the question from Pheonixtac that started this thread.
Here is my take.
I would choose a 6.8 because it provides an ability to use the rifle as a hunting weapon as well as providing a whole lot more confidence that the rifle will serve well as an all round peice. I spend a reasonable amount of my spare time outdoors as far away from the crowds as I can get so the ability to deal with a wide variety of North American mammals is important if they take more than a passing interest in my calorific value as a foodstuff or my wallet. Currently there are a number of well made rifles available but I would search out either an LMT or Barrett as I know I can trust these and if there is any problems both companies treat customers very well. I have used the Barrett on several occasions for test work. For ammunition I would go straight to Remington for the soft point offering. The ammo is well made, reliable and runs at safe pressures. Rifle cost is comensurate with the quality you get.
I manufacture the Grendel so obviously my choice is predetermined (I already own the parts needed) but in the absence of this I would not hesitate to consider a 6.8. I have little use for a 5.56.
Bill Alexander
Bill,Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Alexander
Where would you draw the line for game weight given your advice? What is the max range you feel it's suitable for hunting? And what barrel lengths are you assuming?
My particular application assumes the animal in question is about to either eat or rob me so I would not really care about the weight. I am assuming that the first two rounds will distract/frighten the crap, and gain time to empty the rest of the mag or at least keep shooting until the enthusiasm for my person or possesions has wained.
Given the application I would be looking for a barrel that is reasonably easy to carry, either a 16" or better a 14.5" with the flash suppressor permanently attached. (I know it only drops the length by 1/2" overall)
If it was to double as a hunting rig proper I would go with an 18" or 20" but not a heavy profile. At this I would be happy with the rifle out to 200 yards (the limit that I can garantee good shot placement, If those reading will excuse the rant I subscribe to the idea that hunting should encompass a higher degree of field craft and substantially less "long range snipping" I have much greater respect for the hunter who took a shot at 20 yards because he could get that close than the idiot who boasts of 500 yard kills)
For ammunition I would handload as I still regard 110/115g fragmenting .270 cal bullets as varmint loads that can blow up on a shoulder blade or rib. Ideally I would like a 130 grain. With this I would be happy for game up to 400 lbs including pigs.
Bill Alexander
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Alexander
I obviously hit a nerve regarding the 6.8 SPC/6.5 Gendel, I hope ALL of you gentlemen can discuss the pro's and con's of both cartridges. The Internet gives us the opportunity to do just that, while moderated for extreme opinions verses substantiated fact, simple as that.
I have been shooting AR platforms for over 20 years, both Militarily, and otherwise, I'm currently evaluating cartridges that will enhance the Warfighters ability to use this platform with enhanced results. I have seen many situations where the limitations of the .223 cartridge has placed the user both civilian, and military in a position of attempting to engage targets at medium to long range, "lets say for the sake of argument 300 to 600 yds", using a weapon that has diminished returns.
I welcome all the opinions, that simply is why I asked the original question in this thread.
Very good. Glad to see you are not recommending sniping and are viewing things realistically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Alexander
The Bergers we have tested in other calibers have generally performed well. A 6.5 mm Grendel with a 120 gr Berger OTM has good potential! I personally would also like to get a chance to fully assess the potential of the 123 gr SMK, as the 120 gr SMK has been a bit disappointing in terminal performance.
The Swift Scirroco is indeed a superb bullet for intermediate barriers, like auto windshields, as well as for hunting. (For further discussion of intermediate barrier penetration with Scirroco and similar style bullets see: http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bi...;f=78;t=001277) I suspect a 6.5 mm Grendel 130 grain Swft Scirroco PT would be just the ticket for game up to 300 lbs or so.
A molybdenum disulfide exterior coating on the bullet jacket does not change projectile terminal performance. However, many of the marksmanship folks recommend that if you choose to use moly bullets--then ONLY shoot moly bullets from that barrel. Beginning in the mid 1990's we began seeing and testing some military ammunition coated with moly and other surface treatments.
We'd love to be able to more thorougly test 6.5 mm Grendel performance in 16" and under barrels!
In direct answer to the thread's initial question, I'd choose the 6.8mm because to date, it has proven to offer the best terminal performance in a compact carbine/assault rifle we have ever tested. Period.
Some random thoughts on the terminal performance characteristics of some of the more common projectiles in 6.8 mm is available here: http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bi...;f=78;t=001273
I'm guessing Doc is bound by NDA as to why he is mentioning that the 6.8 saga came out of a search for a better combat cartridge. They tested rounds between 5.56-7.62. While I have no vested interest in either cartidge I have seen a lot more data supporting the 6.8 choice. 6.5 was looked at as well BTW.
I am not criticising the 6.5 Grendle -- I will eventualy own one.
Having shot and killed folk with 5.56mm - and seen the military at war -- I would recommend markmanship practice be job #1. More than half the kids these days dont hit the tgt regardless what round you give them. Even Group SF marksmanship is IMHO terrible -- the conventional side an embarrasment (with notable exceptions in those who do a lot of shooting and courses on their own)
I have to agree with Kevin. Shot placement is everything. I have also attended many a carbine class with Military SF, Secret Service, State Dept., SWAT, etc, etc and a lot of them just couldn't shoot.Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinB
My main question and the question that prospective buyers should ask is the 6.8 VASTLY superior to the 5.56 in a heavy bullet configuration (75/77) or is it just somewhat better. IMHO, if it is not vastly superior to the 5.56 in say 77gr, then it really isn't worth it. I know that I can kill someone with a 5.56, hell I can do it with a .22! I want a cartridge that will reach out and touch someone at 800M and do it with authority. This is why the 6.5 looks to be the better choice to me.
C4