Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,383 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
That'll be the day...
Joined
·
3,885 Posts
I love the idea of a 6.5 Grendel.... have wanted one for the past two years in the Howa bolt platform for the wife. (And me!)

Combination of extremely light recoil and lethal to 300 yards on game critters.
 

·
Live Secret, Live Happy
Joined
·
16,074 Posts
FIRST Military 6.5 Grendel Rifle? – 6.5mm Zastava M17 AK DMR in Testing by Serbian Army

Saw this article & thought people would be interested in it, seems like the 6.5 Grendel is getting ready for the big stage. :thumb::D:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/11/22/first-military-6-5-grendel-rifle-zastava-m17-ak-dmr-revealed-serbian-army/


See Justin, militaries do like the 6.5 Grendel.
I think it is very good that they are giving the round a fair go.

I'm not sure it is enough better than the 5.45 or the 5.56 to be worth changing, but the only way to find out, is to test it using real troups.

I think the better cartridge is the 6.5 Creedmore. Perhaps this one will see a real field test sometime soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,383 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I think it is very good that they are giving the round a fair go.

I'm not sure it is enough better than the 5.45 or the 5.56 to be worth changing, but the only way to find out, is to test it using real troups.

I think the better cartridge is the 6.5 Creedmore. Perhaps this one will see a real field test sometime soon.

6.5 Grendel has better BC then both 5.45 & 5.56 @ 400yds & beyond. 6.5 Creedmoor is in a large frame "AR10" & heavier, but i agree with you. Both 6.5 Gendel & 6.5 Creedmoor have better BC then .308 @600 - 800yds. .308 can't keep up with 6.5 Creedmoor past 800yds, not even close.
 

·
Awesome
Joined
·
17,072 Posts
6.5 Grendel has better BC then both 5.45 & 5.56 @ 400yds & beyond. 6.5 Creedmoor is in a large frame "AR10" & heavier, but i agree with you. Both 6.5 Gendel & 6.5 Creedmoor have better BC then .308 @600 - 800yds. .308 can't keep up with 6.5 Creedmoor past 800yds, not even close.
partially true, a 6.5C does have better ballistic coefficients for the given weight than a .308, but when you look at the 75-77 grain .224" bullets theyre pretty close to the 120 grain .264" bullets of similar construction.. given the BCs are similar at these weights you have to consider a 77 grain 5.56 is 2700fps from a 16" barrel whereas a 6.5G is about 2500.. while the 6.5G carries more energy, its not going to have as flat of a trajectory and being both heavier and slower, its not really going to gain much advantage in wind either

personally, id rather hit something at 800 yards with 300ft/lbs, than to miss something at 800 yards with 400ft/lbs.. and the best part is, no need for new rifles, barrels, magazines, brass
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,383 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
partially true, a 6.5C does have better ballistic coefficients for the given weight than a .308, but when you look at the 75-77 grain .224" bullets theyre pretty close to the 120 grain .264" bullets of similar construction.. given the BCs are similar at these weights you have to consider a 77 grain 5.56 is 2700fps from a 16" barrel whereas a 6.5G is about 2500.. while the 6.5G carries more energy, its not going to have as flat of a trajectory and being both heavier and slower, its not really going to gain much advantage in wind either

personally, id rather hit something at 800 yards with 300ft/lbs, than to miss something at 800 yards with 400ft/lbs.. and the best part is, no need for new rifles, barrels, magazines, brass

As far as comparing the 6.5G to the 5.56, its not even close. The 5.56 is not a very good round no matter how you slice it, thats not my opinion its fact. I'm not going down that rabbit hole that is caliber wars lol. Use what makes you happy, thats all. :thumb:
 

·
Awesome
Joined
·
17,072 Posts
As far as comparing the 6.5G to the 5.56, its not even close. The 5.56 is not a very good round no matter how you slice it, thats not my opinion its fact. I'm not going down that rabbit hole that is caliber wars lol. Use what makes you happy, thats all. :thumb:
no, im just bringing sense, numbers, and data where people would clearly rather fantasize about myths and hype, the trajectory on a 77 grain TMK is better than most 6.5 grendel ammo out there and while the 6.5G may impact with more energy at those distances, it isnt enough to make me care enough to go put a lot of money into new equipment and overpriced ammunition.. you need to think more practically, a 6.5 grendel is not the .308 in an AR-15 package people would have you believe it is
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,427 Posts
6.5 Grendel isn't .308, nor is it meant to be .308.

Compared with .308: it's less powerful, but more accurate at long range (believe it or not). I am speaking generally. Wolf 6.5 Grendel is not as accurate as match-grade .308. It has much less recoil. A similar size magazine will hold more rounds. It can be shot from a smaller gun (AR-15 vs AR-10), OR will be more controllable if shot from the same size gun.

Compared with 5.56: It's honestly better at everything, except capacity and availability. It's better at close range and it's better at distance. Again, speaking in broad terms. You can find 5.56 loads that outperform specific 6.5 Grendel loads.

"Worth it" to switch is subjective, but if the question is simply which is a better design, 6.5 Grendel is a better design. It may not be enough better to justify a large-scale switch. But, if cost was no object, a switch would be clearly beneficial.

I have eight ARs and only one of them is 6.5 Grendel, because I don't think it's worth switching unless/until police and military switch.

6.5 Creedmoor is not a real comparison. It's a very different cartridge with different pros and cons. Also a great round, but not for M4s/M16s.

Mentioning 6.5 Creedmoor in a thread like this is a less extreme version of if someone went in a thread about .44 Magnum and said ".50 BMG is way more powerful!!!11" It doesn't make sense in context.

The best comparison is 6.8SPC.
 

·
Awesome
Joined
·
17,072 Posts
6.5 Grendel isn't .308, nor is it meant to be .308.

Compared with .308: it's less powerful, but more accurate at long range (believe it or not). I am speaking generally. Wolf 6.5 Grendel is not as accurate as match-grade .308. It has much less recoil. A similar size magazine will hold more rounds. It can be shot from a smaller gun (AR-15 vs AR-10), OR will be more controllable if shot from the same size gun.

Compared with 5.56: It's honestly better at everything, except capacity and availability. It's better at close range and it's better at distance. Again, speaking in broad terms. You can find 5.56 loads that outperform specific 6.5 Grendel loads.

"Worth it" to switch is subjective, but if the question is simply which is a better design, 6.5 Grendel is a better design. It may not be enough better to justify a large-scale switch. But, if cost was no object, a switch would be clearly beneficial.

I have eight ARs and only one of them is 6.5 Grendel, because I don't think it's worth switching unless/until police and military switch.

6.5 Creedmoor is not a real comparison. It's a very different cartridge with different pros and cons. Also a great round, but not for M4s/M16s.

The best comparison is 6.8SPC.
yes, it sucks at capacity, costs, weight, availability, (all superior advantages for a shtf weapon) and with heavy 5.56 having a flatter trajectory that means it's going to have more drop, higher holdovers, longer time of flight, making it harder to actually be accurate with it in practice.. its only an improvement in ENERGY at distance but whether or not that actually translates into more damage depends on bullets

try to look past the hype and the sales pitch, it is a round solely creates to cash in on the AR-15 aftermarket and considering most, if not all of you probably do not even have the skill to hit targets at that distance with ANY caliber, any small improvements in range (which i contest there is actually any) are completely lost
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,427 Posts
yes, it sucks at capacity, costs, weight, availability, (all superior advantages for a shtf weapon) and with heavy 5.56 having a flatter trajectory that means it's going to have more drop, higher holdovers, longer time of flight, making it harder to actually be accurate with it in practice.. its only an improvement in ENERGY at distance but whether or not that actually translates into more damage depends on bullets

try to look past the hype and the sales pitch, it is a round solely creates to cash in on the AR-15 aftermarket and considering most, if not all of you probably do not even have the skill to hit targets at that distance with ANY caliber, any small improvements in range (which i contest there is actually any) are completely lost
You post one paragraph of hype and sales pitch. Then you ask me to look past hype and sales pitch.

- Sucks at capacity: it has lower capacity, but in the cold light of day, do you think "sucks" is a bit hysterical?
- Sucks at costs: it generally costs more at present due to lacking economies of scale. Wolf steel-case 6.5 Grendel is not very different in cost than steel 5.56, however.
- Sucks at weight: huh? It weighs more than 5.56, less than 7.62x39.
- Sucks at availability: true in terms of finding it locally. Easy to order online.

Now once we're past the many things you believe "suck":

Heavy 5.56 (actually any 5.56) has less drop, but is buffeted more by the wind, resulting in less accuracy potential at long range, and more importantly, much less energy. (Did you know, 6.5 Grendel has more energy at 1000 yards than .308?) For punching holes in paper, this is at least close enough to argue. For more serious purposes, 6.5 Grendel blows 5.56 out of the water.

Do you seriously want to debate longer time of flight as if 1.1 seconds is going to be drastically different than 1.2 seconds, at these 1,000-yard distances you believe nobody can actually attempt anyway?

I notice you didn't attempt to argue 6.5 Grendel's close-range superiority.

Now that said: I agree there is CURRENTLY a compelling case to be made for 5.56 for a SHTF gun due to availability (this is why I have a lot more guns that shoot 5.56, magazines that hold 5.56 and stacked rounds of 5.56), but that is unrelated to technical superiority.

if the U.S. military had a magic wand and could change every 5.56 round to 6.5 G, every 5.56 BCG to 6.5 G, every 5.56 magazine to 6.5 G and every 5.56 barrel to 6.5 G, it would be foolish not to wave that wand. Please note that by saying this, I am not suggesting that such a wand exists.

Similar points could be made about 6.8 SPC, though it's a little better close/a little worse long-distance compared with 6.5 G. Both are better than 5.56 in most ways.
 
Joined
·
970 Posts
I really doubt the 6.5G is going to be a service-wide cartridge for anyone, logistics of changing over aside. As a squad level marksman's weapon, I can see it going places, but as stated, for the average infantryman the 5.56 is superior.

As I understand it, current US (NATO?) near-peer doctrine is to drain/tie up the enemy's logistics to the point fighting is no longer possible. I'm not an expert, nor do I play one on TV, so feel free to correct this civilian if I'm wrong. But, I'm just going to follow that idea out from here.

An effective way to tie up logistics is to create large numbers of wounded. They require food, doctors who require food/equipment/facilities/money, more soldiers to replace the wounded, more equipment to replace damaged gear, people at home to manufacture new things/make food, delivery drivers/pilots/ships and on and on.

Common sense says that lighter/smaller ammo is easier to carry, and the more you carry, the more you can shoot. The 5.56 is smaller in every way than the 308 and 6.5Grendel, so you can naturally hold/carry more in any given device (be that magazine or ammo can), but at the expense of bullet weight and energy. Still, more rounds down range=more enemy wounded. And a 55gr bullet still has as much energy at 400 yards as a 9mm at the muzzle. 350lb-ft (or is it ft-lb? I can never remember) is going to leave a mark! For comparison, Alexander Arms lists a 123gr 6.5 Grendel from Lapua holding that same 350lb-ft to 1000y. Which is why I say the 6.5G has potential as a marksman's rifle at squad level, but not a service-wide level.

In the prepper community, the 5.56 is so ubiquitous because it's cheap, easy to find, AR-15s and parts are everywhere and your average looter when S hits the F is not an enemy soldier who believes in the nobility of his cause and will fight to the last breath to defend his comrades, but instead will run when the first round is sent his direction. Don't get me wrong: I don't want to stand in front of a 5.56, but the reality is it's not as effective as "other" rounds.


That being said, I have 2 5.56 rifles and 0 6.5 Grendels. I plan on getting an upper in 6.5G in the future, and packing away 1000 rounds or so. Because another gun when SHTF is never a bad thing.

--Bobcat.
 

·
Paratrooper X
Joined
·
3,537 Posts
You post one paragraph of hype and sales pitch. Then you ask me to look past hype and sales pitch.

- Sucks at capacity: it has lower capacity, but in the cold light of day, do you think "sucks" is a bit hysterical?
- Sucks at costs: it generally costs more at present due to lacking economies of scale. Wolf steel-case 6.5 Grendel is not very different in cost than steel 5.56, however.
- Sucks at weight: huh? It weighs more than 5.56, less than 7.62x39.
- Sucks at availability: true in terms of finding it locally. Easy to order online.

Now once we're past the many things you believe "suck":

Heavy 5.56 (actually any 5.56) has less drop, but is buffeted more by the wind, resulting in less accuracy potential at long range, and more importantly, much less energy. (Did you know, 6.5 Grendel has more energy at 1000 yards than .308?) For punching holes in paper, this is at least close enough to argue. For more serious purposes, 6.5 Grendel blows 5.56 out of the water.

Do you seriously want to debate longer time of flight as if 1.1 seconds is going to be drastically different than 1.2 seconds, at these 1,000-yard distances you believe nobody can actually attempt anyway?

I notice you didn't attempt to argue 6.5 Grendel's close-range superiority.

Now that said: I agree there is CURRENTLY a compelling case to be made for 5.56 for a SHTF gun due to availability (this is why I have a lot more guns that shoot 5.56, magazines that hold 5.56 and stacked rounds of 5.56), but that is unrelated to technical superiority.

if the U.S. military had a magic wand and could change every 5.56 round to 6.5 G, every 5.56 BCG to 6.5 G, every 5.56 magazine to 6.5 G and every 5.56 barrel to 6.5 G, it would be foolish not to wave that wand. Please note that by saying this, I am not suggesting that such a wand exists.

Similar points could be made about 6.8 SPC, though it's a little better close/a little worse long-distance compared with 6.5 G. Both are better than 5.56 in most ways.
None of that really matters though until some one is ready to engineer a AR with a bolt strong enough for hard use. Grendel is a great cartridge but it could have been better.

Its growth was stunted by trying to stick into a AR15. Extend the case by 1/4ths in, shorten a AR10 upper, lower, and BCG. Then you would really have a worthy platform of an all-around cartridge. Until then, its great for long range accuracy shooting and hunting but not for much else
 

·
Awesome
Joined
·
17,072 Posts
None of that really matters though until some one is ready to engineer a AR with a bolt strong enough for hard use. Grendel is a great cartridge but it could have been better.

Its growth was stunted by trying to stick into a AR15. Extend the case by 1/4ths in, shorten a AR10 upper, lower, and BCG. Then you would really have a worthy platform of an all-around cartridge. Until then, its great for long range accuracy shooting and hunting but not for much else
exactly, concessions, major concessions were made just to force it into the AR, lots of potential was lost doing that, it wasnt made to be any great improvement, it was created SPECIFICALLY to market to the AR-15 crowd who'd quite frankly buy anything.. imagine what 6.5G would be capable of on a CMMG size bolt that could handle 10,000PSI more chamber pressures behind the bullet, then it would actually live up to the hype surrounding it
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top