PDA

View Full Version : AR Style 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel?


shyfireman
09-04-2010, 4:24 PM
Wanting to build a new AR in either 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel. Looking for input from those who know best. Looking to use it for a mid-range deer and pig rifle. Thanks

brushfire21
09-04-2010, 5:01 PM
If you haven't had a chance try doing a little googling or searching here as it has been discussed a few times in the past.

With that said I made the decision to go 6.5g because it shoots flatter, but alot of people swear by the 6.8spc.

Rogu3
09-04-2010, 5:08 PM
for the 6.5 sierra infinity says 120 gr. Nosler ballistic tip SP, supersonic too 1055 yds @2500 fps MV, 1078 ft/lb @300 yards.

6.8, 115 gr. Sierra MK supersonic to 705 yds @2600 fps MV, 923 ft/lb @300 yards.

russ69
09-04-2010, 6:24 PM
6.8 for hunting or a 6.5 for target shooting. I have two 6.8s but lust for a 6.5 (I'm a target shooter).

Thanx, Russ

C.G.
09-04-2010, 7:18 PM
Midrange either will do fine; I went with 6.5 Grendel.

Sky_DiveR
09-04-2010, 7:20 PM
Midrange either will do fine;

+1

I went with the 6.8x43mm SPC.

capitol
09-04-2010, 8:21 PM
Grendel

dont try this with 6.8 at 550 yards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48W7NfyT6xg

k1dude
09-04-2010, 10:32 PM
For short to mid range hunting either will do. For long range, choose Grendel.

Sick Boy
09-04-2010, 10:40 PM
I like the 6.8 for hunting and mid/range shooting.

I love my 6.8 AR. Yeah if you wanna be shooting long-range, then the 6.5G is for you, but mid - short-range, I like the 6.8SPC. It's a hell of a fun gun to shoot!

ar15barrels
09-05-2010, 10:39 AM
Wanting to build a new AR in either 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel.
Looking for input from those who know best. Looking to use it for a mid-range deer and pig rifle. Thanks

Define mid-range.
Everyone's definition is different.
I prefer to use the NRA definitions for the different types of rifle matches.

Short range: 200yds and closer.
Mid range: 300yds to 600yds.
Long range: 800yds to 1200yds.

The distances between 200 and 300 would be short to mid.
The distances between 600 and 800 would be mid to long.

shyfireman
09-05-2010, 11:39 AM
Define mid-range.
Everyone's definition is different.
I prefer to use the NRA definitions for the different types of rifle matches.

Short range: 200yds and closer.
Mid range: 300yds to 600yds.
Long range: 800yds to 1200yds.

The distances between 200 and 300 would be short to mid.
The distances between 600 and 800 would be mid to long.
Im thinking more along the lines of 300-600. I also want the power in case I go beyond that. I havent checked into what either caliber is going to cost either. I think they are about the same comparably. Im also curious as to what the more popular is right now in for the simplicity of parts and ammo. I read some old threads on here that were posted around 2007 and people were talking that the military will not go with the 6.8, therefore mil-spec designs will not be there... right? I suppose this is correct in regards to the 6.5 but... The idea originally was an AR-10 but the cost is enormous and i was being told that the military is finding that the performance of the 6.8 is better if not the same as the 308.

Rogu3
09-05-2010, 11:42 AM
.....6.8 is better if not the same as the 308.....


Woah woah woah.....no.

ar15barrels
09-05-2010, 11:51 AM
Im thinking more along the lines of 300-600. I also want the power in case I go beyond that.

I suspect you have not spent much time in the field.
Do you realize how far 300yds is?

Most in-experienced people will double or triple range estimations.
The stop sign at the end of my street is 100yds from my garage.
When I have customers over and we start talking about range estimation, most people will estimate the range at 200yds or more.

http://ar15barrels.com/gfx/thespot4.jpg

I would be willing to bet that your estimation of needing to shoot to 300-600 yds realistically translates into 75 to 250yds.
I have been at the range many times when people put targets up at 50yds and thinking they are shooting at 100yds.

If you want an eye-opening experience, buy a laser rangefinder.
Drive around with it.
Every time you are at a signal, start ranging things and note the distances.
Then start walking around in the field and range things with it.
You should do this when you are scouting a potential hunting area.

shyfireman
09-05-2010, 2:55 PM
Woah woah woah.....no.
Not my quote... This was coming from a buddy who is saying the military is going away from the AR-10 in the 308 obviously and looking at making the 6.8 the round of choice. From what Im understanding, that doesnt make much sense as the 6.8 seems to be more of a short to mid range round.

shyfireman
09-05-2010, 3:09 PM
I suspect you have not spent much time in the field.
Do you realize how far 300yds is?

Most in-experienced people will double or triple range estimations.
The stop sign at the end of my street is 100yds from my garage.
When I have customers over and we start talking about range estimation, most people will estimate the range at 200yds or more.

http://ar15barrels.com/gfx/thespot4.jpg

I would be willing to bet that your estimation of needing to shoot to 300-600 yds realistically translates into 75 to 250yds.
I have been at the range many times when people put targets up at 50yds and thinking they are shooting at 100yds.

If you want an eye-opening experience, buy a laser rangefinder.
Drive around with it.
Every time you are at a signal, start ranging things and note the distances.
Then start walking around in the field and range things with it.
You should do this when you are scouting a potential hunting area.
I completely agree with your opinion. I wouldnt say Ive spent a lot of time, a fair amount and enough to the know the difference between 100 and 200 yards. Yardage was a real eye opener when I started hunting out of state in Idaho and Montana so with that I did do what you had recommended. I have a Leupold Range Finder that goes out to 1000 yards. Most of my shots out of state have been between 300-400 yards with either a Remington 7 Mag or 300 WSM, but distance is nice out of state. California is a different story. Shots usually around 75-200 yards if that. I spend about 3 hours every other weekend working on shooting, typically milling targets to about 300, but thats with a bolt action. Im no expect, but if I am going to spend the money on another AR, Id like something with distance as well as punch at that distance. Nice range by the way. Wish I had area to play with like that on a daily basis.

SLYoteBoy
09-05-2010, 3:16 PM
I have no experience with the 6.8 so I couldnt tell you. From what I have seen/done with my dad's 6.5 upper , Id say it would fit the bill for mid range 3-600 yds and still have enough to go beyond. Its quite accurate and recoil is still minimal.

ar15barrels
09-05-2010, 3:22 PM
Wanting to build a new AR in either 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel. Looking for input from those who know best. Looking to use it for a mid-range deer and pig rifle. Thanks

I would not build an AR as a hunting gun.
Go with a lighter weight bolt gun.
Make good hits and you don't need fast followup shots which is the primary reason to shoot a semi-auto.

k1dude
09-05-2010, 4:09 PM
Not my quote... This was coming from a buddy who is saying the military is going away from the AR-10 in the 308 obviously and looking at making the 6.8 the round of choice. From what Im understanding, that doesnt make much sense as the 6.8 seems to be more of a short to mid range round.

The Grendel most closely approximates the performance of the .308, not the 6.8. Perhaps you confused the two or your friend did.

k1dude
09-05-2010, 4:18 PM
I would not build an AR as a hunting gun.
Go with a lighter weight bolt gun.
Make good hits and you don't need fast followup shots which is the primary reason to shoot a semi-auto.

I look at it differently. Why have a hunting specific gun and a SHTF gun (2 guns) when you can have both in the same package (1 gun)?

The AR platform makes an EXCELLENT hunting platform. It's tough, light, reliable, weatherproof, powerful, accurate, and small. My bolt guns are heavy, unwieldy, and comparably fragile.

I'll take a 6 pound 16" Grendel over my 8 pound 28" .30-06 anyday and everyday for deer and boar.

thegrayham
09-05-2010, 6:02 PM
This is really just a pipe dream but I had planned on doing a 6.8 AR type gun for this purpose too. I am basing that mostly on ammo availability, which seems to be an issue for either round. I feel like most people who shoot with either a lot seem to be reloaders (which I am not yet).

gorblimey
09-05-2010, 11:09 PM
I suspect you have not spent much time in the field.
Do you realize how far 300yds is?

Most in-experienced people will double or triple range estimations.
The stop sign at the end of my street is 100yds from my garage.
When I have customers over and we start talking about range estimation, most people will estimate the range at 200yds or more.
[]



My distance estimation is pretty bad, and consequently I'm practicing with a range finder. What I initially observed was that I would underestimate in an urban environment and overestimate in the country.

Perhaps it has something to do with familiarity and the peculiar distance/time relationship of motorized travel, versus the lack of familiarity combined with travel on foot.

And certainly, the more built-up an area is, and the taller the buildings, the shorter the distances feel given the oversized backdrop and the feeling of being in a rat maze.

ar15barrels
09-05-2010, 11:37 PM
I look at it differently. Why have 2 guns when you can have 1 gun?

I don't understand this concept.
Why have one compromise tool when you can have two better tools?

k1dude
09-05-2010, 11:54 PM
I don't understand this concept.
Why have one compromise tool when you can have two better tools?

Because if the time ever came to bug out, I'll be carrying one gun and you'll be trying to carry 2.

And how is the AR a compromise tool? It's better in every way than my heavier bolt hunting guns. They are tougher, lighter, shorter, and just as accurate. My bolt guns with their fine walnut sure look pretty sitting in the safe though.

If you think the bolt gun shoots better than the AR, you should read some of the threads by our own Calguns National Champion long range shooter that shoots with ............yup, AR's.

ar15barrels
09-06-2010, 12:03 AM
If you think the bolt gun shoots better than the AR, you should read some of the threads by our own Calguns National Champion long range shooter that shoots with ............yup, AR's.

Who would that be, Lane?
You realize he won the F class championship with a bolt gun right?

Or were you talking about Sheri Gallagher that just won the high power national chamionship?

Sherri Gallagher Uses .260 Rem to Win National HP Championship
Following SGT Sherri Gallagher’s record-setting victory in the 2010 NRA High Power National Championship, many readers have asked what caliber (chambering) Sherri was shooting. Well, Sherri was shooting a .260 Remington at all yardages, as confirmed by SFC Emil Praslick, USAMU rifle coach. Runner-up Carl Bernosky was shooting a 6mm Hagar in an AR-platform rifle.

To capture her first High Power Championship, with a record 2396-161X score, Sheri used a Tubb 2000 bolt gun chambered in .260 Rem. According to Praslick: “[the rifle has] the same barrel as last year. I believe it has close to 2000 rounds on it.” To our surprise, Sherri’s ammo was loaded in relatively inexpensive Remington brass. Praslick explained: “We use Remington brass, Federal 210Ms, and Varget powder. For the 300/600 yard lines we use the Sierra 142gr bullet. Her 300RF load is around 2650 fps, the 600SF load approximately 2750 fps. At the 200 [yard line], we use a reduced recoil load using the Sierra 107gr MK.”

Accuracy Trumps Raw Velocity
Praslick noted that Sherri’s load, while not particularly fast, is ultra-accurate: “All these loads rely much more on accuracy than they do velocity. SGT Gallagher’s rifle has been tested repeatedly at 600 yards. It will easily shoot 3″ to 4″ groups all day long. This is evident by her X-count.” Praslick added: “I am a big believer in the .260 for High Power shooting. [It offers] easy load development, ballistic advantage, and long barrel life.”

k1dude
09-06-2010, 12:43 AM
Who would that be, Lane?
You realize he won the F class championship with a bolt gun right?

Or were you talking about Sheri Gallagher that just won the high power national chamionship?

Yes, Lane. From another recent thread where he was saying AR's were every bit as good as bolt guns:

Just got back from Camp Perry a couple of weeks ago. We, 6-man team, shot the rattle battle: 600 yards - 27 shots in 50 seconds, then 500 yards - 28 shots in 50 seconds. Service rifle configuration (picture M16).

AR's can be extremely accurate, it's the cartridge/bullet that give up significant wind drift at longer ranges. That's why there is the 6mmAR, 6mmTurbo, 6BR-AR, etc...

No, you said an MOA target. We can put a buttload of hits in a short time on an MOA target. And no, we did not shoot 5 shots in 10 seconds. We shot 26-28 shots in 50 seconds. At 500 yards, half of us put EVERY shot on target. This is with iron sights, a sling, laying on the grass, after "marching" from the 600 yard line, etc.

If you can hold .5 MOA at any yardline, you need to shoot at the national and international level.

Todays AR's, if built properly, are extremely accurate. From someone who shoots competitively with a bolt gun, a space gun, and a service rifle.

Actually, I suck with the service rifle, but am fairly handy with a spacegun and a Palma rifle. My point is that AR's are accurate, and by simply putting together a premium upper, one can go out and shoot. Having a bolt gun put together takes a long time and is quite costly. They're all fun to shoot!!

I have been fortunate to shoot on teams with the best shooters the U.S. has to offer. I have also shot against all of them individually, and also against the best shooters in the entire world. In the Sacramento area, we have a group of about 10 world-class shooters. It's fun to be able to shoot against some of the best in the U.S., on a monthly basis.


For Randall, from what I can remember:

2010 Washington State Palma Champion
2010 U.S. F-Class TR National Champion
2010 U.S. National Team
2010 Dean Alley Memorial Champion
2010 Soldier of Marathon National Team Champions
2010 Leatherneck Trophy National Team Champions
2009 U.S. Long-Range Team to South Africa
2009 U.S. Long-Range Team South African Champions
2009 South African National Championships - 12th place
2009 Canadian/American Fullbore Champion
2008 CA State Fullbore Champion
2008 CA State Palma Champion
2008 America's Match Team Champions
2007 Canadian/American Fullbore Champion
2007 U.S. Palma Team - shooter
2007 Long-Range World Championships in Ottawa - 18th place
2006 U.S. F-Class TR National Team Champions
2006 U.S. F-Class TR - 4th place
2005 Spirit of America Champion
2005 Brick/Martin Champion
200? CA Distinguished
etc...

Mrskylinetou
09-06-2010, 5:53 AM
An ar is an gas assisted rotary action bolt gun. It's just as accurate as a bolt gun, sure u can buy a bolt gun a little cheap for the same accuracy as a bold gun but the ar platform is much better in my opinion.

I really like the grendle, I'm thinking if building mine ak improved but I'll just start with grendle. I love the ballistics, I know someone who is a pro shooter and asked him why the grendle. He simply said it was the best.

tenpercentfirearms
09-06-2010, 8:58 AM
I was going to do a Stag Model 7 for my coyote gun, but ended up going with a Sabre Defense 24" and 18" 6.5 Grendel instead. I think the ballistics on the Grendel are definitely better, but finding ammo is not as easy. Luckily my father likes to reload.

Pick either one. It won't matter.

ar15barrels
09-06-2010, 10:53 AM
Yes, Lane. From another recent thread where he was saying AR's were every bit as good as bolt guns:

I know all that.
You were hinting that Lane actually USED AR's though.
He does not shoot them a lot.
I try to have dinner with Lane a few time a year.
How often do YOU have dinner with Lane?

Nathan Krynn
09-06-2010, 10:54 AM
I am using my 6.8 AR with a 20" Bison Armory barrel this year and the new load I am using is the new bullet from Barnes 95gr TTSX with 29.5gr of 10x and I am getting around 3000 FPS muzzle velocity out of it. It's pretty flat out to a little over 300 yards and while it has taken some hog it's not deer season here yet.

k1dude
09-06-2010, 11:24 AM
I know all that.
You were hinting that Lane actually USED AR's though.
He does not shoot them a lot.
I try to have dinner with Lane a few time a year.
How often do YOU have dinner with Lane?

Then you misunderstood what I wrote. I was pointing out Lane shoots AR's and thinks they are extremely accurate. I do not know Lane and have never met him. But having had dinner with Lane means nothing to this thread. His own words in writing carry more weight than your occasional dinners. Heresay.

shyfireman
09-06-2010, 12:17 PM
Come on people... The forum is suppose to be a positive one. Lets not compare lengths here. I can see everyones points. ARs (semi-autos) have their place. Shot to shot acquisition with a semi-auto is a bit better than a bolt, and I completely see Mr Rauschs' point of a bolt gun. You dont need a lot of ammo and shooting when you have good shot placement. I think I also just wanted to hunt with my AR but in California, hunting with a small 223 caliber is illegal for deer (per Fish/Game). I kind of wanted the lightness of the AR but with the kick of a high caliber bolt. When hunting pigs, I seem to be up and down canyons and hills a lot more than while hunting deer, so the AR would be nice for that. You guys have all been great in presenting different opinions. It gives a lot of foresight and background in what you're all familiar with. Im new to the AR world here and the negative and positives both help. Thanks

k1dude
09-06-2010, 1:10 PM
but in California, hunting with a small 223 caliber is illegal for deer (per Fish/Game).

I don't believe there are caliber restrictions in California using .223 for deer. You can use a .223 for deer if you want. But that's another topic altogether. I personally think .223 is fine for our small Blacktail if you're an experienced hunter. For pig (other than Javelina) I'd definitely want a bigger caliber.

Rogu3
09-06-2010, 6:36 PM
If you want an eye-opening experience, buy a laser rangefinder.
Drive around with it.
Every time you are at a signal, start ranging things and note the distances.
Then start walking around in the field and range things with it.
You should do this when you are scouting a potential hunting area.



I sorta do this, but with mil-dots, more fun that way too.

Sick Boy
09-07-2010, 2:47 PM
I am using my 6.8 AR with a 20" Bison Armory barrel this year and the new load I am using is the new bullet from Barnes 95gr TTSX with 29.5gr of 10x and I am getting around 3000 FPS muzzle velocity out of it. It's pretty flat out to a little over 300 yards and while it has taken some hog it's not deer season here yet.

Nice, I have a 16" barrel from Ben at Bison Armory on my AR and a few boxes of the Double Tap Barnes 95gr TTSXs as well, hoping for a hog hunt later this year.

Bill Wilson (Wilson Combat) and a few other guys with hog ranches have been putting the 95gr TTSxs through it's paces for Barnes before they went on sale and they have been retaining 95-97% of their weight and been expanding from about 0.50-0.60".

And ita pretty damned accurate to boot!

wash
09-07-2010, 3:59 PM
First thing, not all 6.8 SPC's are created equal.

If you make sure you get an SPC II chamber with a 1 in 11" twist, you get much better performance than if you make the mistake of getting a SPC with 1 in 9.5" twist.

When grendel fans compare their cartridge to 6.8 SPC, they always use outdated information...

With the best ammo 6.8 SPC has an energy advantage from the muzzle out to about 300 yards when both the 6.8 SPC and Grendel start falling below the amount of energy required for a consistent clean kill on deer sized game.

The advantage is bigger when barrel lengths are short, 6.8 was designed for 16" barrels and people get the most out of it with hand loads in a 20" barrel. You need a 24" barrel to get the most out of a grendel.

Past 300 yards the SPC velocity falls off faster than the grendel and the grendel does have higer B.C. bullets that buck the wind better for really long range shooting but that advantage is not really useable unless you're hunting paper or people.

6.8 SPC has the advantages of better magazines, more factory loaded ammo available and no one is trying to create a monopoly on 6.8 SPC uppers.

Since grendel's advantage lies out where I wouldn't really use it, I chose 6.8 SPC.

I haven't taken it out hunting yet but the animals others have taken are impressive, check out 68forum for pictures.

The one real disadvantage for the 6.8 is bullet sellection, there are a handfull that work, while I hear grendel has dozens. Luckily that handful for the 6.8 work pretty well, from 85 grain solids to 115 grain ball, with more bullets being developed all the time.

p.s. if I wanted a real wildcat AR to hand load for, I would try 6*42, a cat created by necking down the 6.8 to 6mm. It can use the good 6.8 SPC magazines and all of the high B.C. bullets from the 6mm PPC at very high velocity.

ar15barrels
09-07-2010, 4:08 PM
The one real disadvantage for the 6.8 is bullet sellection, there are a handfull that work, while I hear grendel has dozens. Luckily that handful for the 6.8 work pretty well, from 85 grain solids to 115 grain ball, with more bullets being developed all the time.

There are only a few 6.5 bullets that are consistently used for long distance shooting.
123 scenar, 139 scenar, 123smk and 142smk.
There are of course others, but these are the standby's.

sd_shooter
09-07-2010, 4:27 PM
The advantage is bigger when barrel lengths are short, 6.8 was designed for 16" barrels and people get the most out of it with hand loads in a 20" barrel. You need a 24" barrel to get the most out of a grendel.

Really? I thought Bill Alexander's favorite barrel length was 18" (read somewhere on the Grendel forums.)
(Google confirms that many other people think this too, but I don't have a better reference.)

ar15barrels
09-07-2010, 4:59 PM
Really? I thought Bill Alexander's favorite barrel length was 18" (read somewhere on the Grendel forums.)
(Google confirms that many other people think this too, but I don't have a better reference.)

Though Bill Alexander's favorite length is 18", you are not getting the most out of the cartridge at that length.
Barrel length is ALWAYS a compromise.
Short is handy.
Long is fast. (faster is better)
Pick your poison.

C.G.
09-07-2010, 5:07 PM
6.8 SPC has the advantages of better magazines,



Fairly good write up except for this.
6.5 Grendel and 6.8SPC magazines are the same, only the markings differ.

ar15barrels
09-07-2010, 5:20 PM
Fairly good write up except for this.
6.5 Grendel and 6.8SPC magazines are the same, only the markings differ.

He should have said that 6.8SPC has the better cartridge shape, not magazines. ;)

C.G.
09-07-2010, 5:49 PM
He should have said that 6.8SPC has the better cartridge shape, not magazines. ;)

That makes sense now, I did not have my read between the lines glasses on earlier.:D

Rogu3
09-07-2010, 5:52 PM
I doubt you'd get much going from 20/22" to a 24" with these cartridges' case capacity.

shyfireman
09-07-2010, 10:10 PM
First thing, not all 6.8 SPC's are created equal.

If you make sure you get an SPC II chamber with a 1 in 11" twist, you get much better performance than if you make the mistake of getting a SPC with 1 in 9.5" twist.

When grendel fans compare their cartridge to 6.8 SPC, they always use outdated information...

With the best ammo 6.8 SPC has an energy advantage from the muzzle out to about 300 yards when both the 6.8 SPC and Grendel start falling below the amount of energy required for a consistent clean kill on deer sized game.

The advantage is bigger when barrel lengths are short, 6.8 was designed for 16" barrels and people get the most out of it with hand loads in a 20" barrel. You need a 24" barrel to get the most out of a grendel.

Past 300 yards the SPC velocity falls off faster than the grendel and the grendel does have higer B.C. bullets that buck the wind better for really long range shooting but that advantage is not really useable unless you're hunting paper or people.

6.8 SPC has the advantages of better magazines, more factory loaded ammo available and no one is trying to create a monopoly on 6.8 SPC uppers.

Since grendel's advantage lies out where I wouldn't really use it, I chose 6.8 SPC.

I haven't taken it out hunting yet but the animals others have taken are impressive, check out 68forum for pictures.

The one real disadvantage for the 6.8 is bullet sellection, there are a handfull that work, while I hear grendel has dozens. Luckily that handful for the 6.8 work pretty well, from 85 grain solids to 115 grain ball, with more bullets being developed all the time.

p.s. if I wanted a real wildcat AR to hand load for, I would try 6*42, a cat created by necking down the 6.8 to 6mm. It can use the good 6.8 SPC magazines and all of the high B.C. bullets from the 6mm PPC at very high velocity.
Thanks for the information. I appreciate all the time and knowledge that you guys have put into your responses. It really helps with the ideas of where I want to go. I think I'll be doing a lot more thinking on this one. I checked into the other forums on both and most seemed to be a bit out dated with information, as you so described. Everything changes so fast and while people are coming out with better configurations I could really see why they are outdated. Anyways, I wanted to say thanks. Dont really want any valuable responses to go unnoticed. You provided a pretty good amount of information on both. I liked that you and Randall Rausch didnt seemed swayed by either one but seemed to speak on the different aspects and characteristics expected from each. Thanks

ar15barrels
09-07-2010, 10:21 PM
I liked that you and Randall Rausch didnt seemed swayed by either one but seemed to speak on the different aspects and characteristics expected from each.

I have both.
I don't really shoot either one of them though.
I'd rather shoot a 243...

DannyInSoCal
09-07-2010, 10:35 PM
I did the same comparison - I went with the 6.8 Spec II 1/11.

#1 reason: Cost. I found a brand new complete upper for $525. Ammo is cheaper also.
#2 reason: Shooting. My skill set maxes out around 350 yards anyway. Going further just means I miss by a wider margin. ( At least I'm honest... )
#3 reason: This article helped me decide: http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Documents/Roberts_2008NDIA.pdf ( This is from 2008 and the newer uppers and cartridges are even better now. )

Build what you want - If you dont like it sell it - And build the other one...

Thats what I'm doing...

Thanx, DF

Southbay
09-07-2010, 10:54 PM
I was at Rifle Gear today doing a PPT with another Calgunner. There was a guy touting the merits of the 6.5, he claimed he can hit steel at 1700 yards, is this possible?

ar15barrels
09-07-2010, 11:13 PM
I was at Rifle Gear today doing a PPT with another Calgunner. There was a guy touting the merits of the 6.5, he claimed he can hit steel at 1700 yards, is this possible?

Did you ask him where he was able to shoot at steel buildings?
He's full of crap.

No 6.5 grendel loading will keep the bullet supersonic at those ranges.
Heck, not even any 308 loads will do that.
Even the 300 win mag is running out of steam at 1700yds.
That's well into 338 Lapua range.

He's probably like most people in that he can not judge distance well.
Most people would look downrange and guess double the actual distance.
That being the case, his 1700yd shot was probably 850yds.

Southbay
09-07-2010, 11:51 PM
Did you ask him where he was able to shoot at steel buildings?
He's full of crap.

No 6.5 grendel loading will keep the bullet supersonic at those ranges.
Heck, not even any 308 loads will do that.
Even the 300 win mag is running out of steam at 1700yds.
That's well into 338 Lapua range.

He's probably like most people in that he can not judge distance well.
Most people would look downrange and guess double the actual distance.
That being the case, his 1700yd shot was probably 850yds.

Thanks Randall,

It sounded crazy to me, he claimed 5 shots on an 8” steel at 1700 yards, I would pay to see that.

C.G.
09-08-2010, 12:58 AM
Thanks Randall,

It sounded crazy to me, he claimed 5 shots on an 8” steel at 1700 yards, I would pay to see that.

Impossible, and this is from a guy that owns a 24" 6.5 Grendel. As AR15barrels said that is .338 LM range.

Unfortunately, on both sides of the camp you will read a lot of half truths or article repetitions that will have notthing to do with the capabilities of either round.

BTW, 6.8 SPC is not going to be the replacement for 5.56 anytime soon if ever, no matter how many times it is touted as such on the internet.

jwb28
09-08-2010, 12:59 AM
Thanks Randall,

It sounded crazy to me, he claimed 5 shots on an 8 steel at 1700 yards, I would pay to see that.

So would a lot of people. Maybe he ment 170.0 yards:D

k1dude
09-08-2010, 8:07 AM
The advantage is bigger when barrel lengths are short, 6.8 was designed for 16" barrels and people get the most out of it with hand loads in a 20" barrel. You need a 24" barrel to get the most out of a grendel.

The difference between a 16" barrel and a 24" barrel isn't that significant with a Grendel. For example, shooting Lapua 123 grain Scenars at 300 yards, the difference in energy is 1127 out of a 16 to 1270 out of a 24. The penalty for a 16" isn't as bad as you'd think.

ar15barrels
09-08-2010, 9:30 AM
So would a lot of people. Maybe he ment 170.0 yards:D

Probably 1700ft.

javalos
09-08-2010, 11:52 AM
6.8 SPC for hunting
6.5 Grendel for long range target shooting.

I am more than impressed with the 6.8 SPC which I might add was developed to be shot from a carbine length barrel. It was made with the collaboration of Special Forces and Remington. When I zero'd my 6.8 SPC at the 100 yard range, I was astounded at its accuracy, shot out the orange circle which was the size of a quarter. To say that I'm stoked over this cartridge is an understatement.

Scorpiusdeus
09-08-2010, 1:04 PM
I've long desired a rifle in 6.8 SPC. It seems to me to be a great caliber for def/hunting purposes. A nice all around caliber.

DannyInSoCal
09-21-2010, 12:21 AM
I was at Rifle Gear today doing a PPT with another Calgunner. There was a guy touting the merits of the 6.5, he claimed he can hit steel at 1700 yards, is this possible?

I'll bet his dime against my mortgage - That he can't hit 1 out of 10...

Capt. Speirs
09-21-2010, 7:15 AM
Grendel

dont try this with 6.8 at 550 yards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48W7NfyT6xg

6.8 was not designed for 500 yards plus. Can't compare 6.8 to 6.5, two different applications.

wash
09-21-2010, 9:02 AM
What's on the video?

I can't watch it here.

If you look around you can find a 5-6" group that Bill Wilson shot at 500 yards with one of his 6.8's.

Grendel might do better at that distance but not by much and 6.8 just wasn't designed for that (but it does pretty good any way).

goodlookin1
09-21-2010, 9:25 AM
The Grendel cartridge just looks cooler, so it must be better.

:p



In all seriousness, I chose the 6.5 because of the choice of bullets (I reload), the higher BC for long range shooting, and the ability to shoot heavier bullets than the 6.8, if desired.

Drawbacks for the 6.8 (for me) were that there wasnt an official chamber spec...SPCI, SPCII, different typed of rifling, some ammo was dangerous to load in earlier spec'd chambers, etc. I didnt want to worry about that when I was reloading.

Cost for retail rounds are about the same, so both are still expensive and hard to find. In the end, I found the longer range potential of the Grendel to be more appealing than the (arguably) minimal benefot of the close range of the 6.8

YMMV