How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC)

[Trooper]

Just doing a bit of comparison thus research. I have been to a number of sites comparing the 6.5 Grendal to other 6.5mm rounds as well as the .308 and 7mm.

For most 6.5mm rounds, the Grendal is equal. It appears to hold its own against the .308, of course. The real competition comes for the 7mm family.

As a general purpose cartridge (GPC), the big advantage of the Grendal is that it works in the AR15/M4 platform yet gives .308 performance. If we could use a bigger platform (ie AR10), what would be the ideal cartridge? My basic metrics are fps (2500 seems to be the sweet spot), Ballistic Configuration (the Grendal is seem be at .540, not sure what a 7mm would have to be to compete) and performance at 500 to 1000 meters.

[bwaites]

If you go to a larger platform like the AR10, you can shoot 6.5 bullets at about 300-400 FPS better velocities. That's huge at 500 to 1000 yards.

The best two options would be the .260 and 6.5 Creedmoor.

The best balance between size, weight, maneuverability, and recoil seems to be the Grendel. BUT....once you pass 600 yards, the bigger cartridges have an advantage.

[Ridgerider]

What about the 6.5 x 47 Lapua it has an advantage over the Creedmoor

[bwaites]

What about the 6.5 x 47 Lapua it has an advantage over the Creedmoor

The 3 rounds, .260, 6.5 Creedmoor and 6.5 Lapua are essentially equal in all actuality.

Very authoritative review here:

http://demigodllc.com/articles/6.5-shootout-260-6.5x47-6.5-creedmoor/

Conclusion:

Summary - Who Wins?
The .260, 6.5x47, and 6.5 Creedmoor have almost very close ballistic performance. Factory ammunition for the 6.5x47 Lapua is down 100-150 fps versus the .260 and 6.5 Creedmoor, but an experienced reloader with a strong action can match or exceed their performance with hand loads due to the strong case design. I wasn't able to test the 6.5 Creedmoor in an AI-AW like the .260 and 6.5x47. My best guess is that it would match .260 Remington, but the variance would be within what we see barrel to barrel. For the same pressure, the .260 and the 6.5 Creedmoor will have an about 100-125 fps advantage over the 6.5x47 Lapua, with the 140-gr class bullets.

[Allen]

From the Hornady reloading book 8th edition

"One of the biggest advantages the 6.5 Creedmoor has over cartridges like the 260 Remington and the 6.5-284 is the fact that it was designed ground up as a short action cartridge. While the body of the 6.5 Creedmoor is shorter than the 260 Remington the fact that bullets do not need to be seated as deep means that it has as much useable propellant payload capacity AND bullet's can be loaded longer to accommodate different throats and still fit in short action magazines."

[stanc]

As a general purpose cartridge (GPC), the big advantage of the Grendal is that it works in the AR15/M4 platform yet gives .308 performance. If we could use a bigger platform (ie AR10), what would be the ideal cartridge? My basic metrics are fps (2500 seems to be the sweet spot), Ballistic Configuration (the Grendal is seem be at .540, not sure what a 7mm would have to be to compete) and performance at 500 to 1000 meters.

What you are describing is essentially the hypothetical "6.5 GPC" that Guardsman26 and Tony Williams seek to have developed.

[Trooper]

What you are describing is essentially the hypothetical "6.5 GPC" that Guardsman26 and Tony Williams seek to have developed.

How does the 6.5 GPC compare to the 6.5 Grendel?

[Guardsman26]

The Grendel is fine in a controlled environment. But when you make a version of it with military spec FMJ projectiles and powder, expect it to lose performance. You also need tracer and AP. Fitting these requirements within the existing 11.3 x 39 mm case is likely to be a tall order.

Ideally, the perfect GPC provides 6.5 x 47 mm Lapua performance in as near a 6.5 mm 39 mm case.

It also has to have a lead-free round, not because the tree-huggers have taken over the Pentagon, but because steel core rounds provide excellent penetration against body armour.

Finally, as efficient as the 6.5 mm Grendel bullet is, it isn't clear how well it performs in soft tissue in terms of yaw and over-penetration.

[Trooper]

The Grendel is fine in a controlled environment. But when you make a version of it with military spec FMJ projectiles and powder, expect it to lose performance. You also need tracer and AP. Fitting these requirements within the existing 11.3 x 39 mm case is likely to be a tall order.

Ideally, the perfect GPC provides 6.5 x 47 mm Lapua performance in as near a 6.5 mm 39 mm case.

It also has to have a lead-free round, not because the tree-huggers have taken over the Pentagon, but because steel core rounds provide excellent penetration against body armour.

Finally, as efficient as the 6.5 mm Grendel bullet is, it isn't clear how well it performs in soft tissue in terms of yaw and over-penetration.

The 6.5x47 Lapua is then pushing towards the size of the 7.62x51. How does any of the 6.5mm compare to the 7mm UIAC?

I would gather that that 6.5x47 would not fit in the magazine well of the current M4/M16 families.

[JASmith]

Here's a couple of discussions that start to scratch the surface of the topic:

• Grendelmania
• Battle Rifle Cartridge

In brief, the Grendel is an excellent medium game cartridge. For potential military applications, however, the ideal cartridge will depend on the source selection criteria imposed on the process. These criteria are, in turn, dependent on the kind of fighting (or ceremonial value in the case of pistols for most military roles) envisioned by the decionmakers.

[stanc]

Posted on the MG&A forum:

...a 1971 study by the US Army's BRL on the ballistics of different caliber projectiles. One would assume this type of study would be needed as part of exploring a new cartridge:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/882117.pdf

The odd thing (for a 1971 study) is that it models 6.5mm

Because 6.5mm is mentioned, I thought perhaps it might be of interest.

[rickOshay]

And there is this one: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/34132774/Ta...0kilometer.pdf

[jawbone]

a fascinating read, rickO. many thanks for the link.

[LRRPF52]

That is an excellent read, Taking back the half kilometer. Before we go on, I think serious students of Infantry tactics, rifle marksmanship, and the training/environment/equipment balance should be able to answer the following questions:

1) What did the US Army Rifle Qualification Course of 1917 look like? (What 3 engagement ranges was it broken down into?)

2) What significant changes in infantry tactics took place in the Great War, and what were they?

3) What organization was formed in 1919, and what path did that organization take with regard to caliber?

4) What three calibers were tested in the post-WWI period in the US?

5) What was the effectiveness-to-range break-down of each caliber?

6) Which caliber did they conclude would be the Army's new service rifle caliber, and what was the outcome of that decision?

7) If there was one pivotal weapon system for individual infantrymen designed in the last century that changed the face of dismounted warfare forever, what would it be?

8) Which Army employed entire units with one type of weapon system during WWII, and what weapon system was that? How did it work out for them?

9) What was the Tables Of Organization & Equipment of the US Infantry Squad in WWII?

10) What development took place in the US after WWII with regard to the Rifle Qualification Course?

11) How many Tables did the 1949 Qualification Course use, and what was different about them compared to the 1917 Qualification Course?

12) How did the TO&E of the Infantry Squad change after WWII going into the Korean War? What rifle replaced the M1903A4, and what duty positions were lost?

13) What new squad was added to the Infantry Platoon?

14) What lessons were learned in WWII, forgotten institutionally, then re-learned in Korea, then forgotten again, then re-learned in Afghanistan in our day?

15) What era followed the Korean War, and what major developments took place with US service rifle requirements and the rifle training program? What was that training program's name?

16) What were the 2 stated goals of the new training program in that era, and did it achieve both of them?

17) Which US ally began a series of cartridge testing & developments based on the previous Ordnance Board tests of the 1930's, and what were those cartridges?

18) What was the US response to these developments?

19) Which cartridge was developed and adopted as a result?

20) What service rifle emerged as the new US rifle in 1957?

21) What other rifle using modernized manufacturing techniques emerged at the same time, and what was the Army Ordnance Corps' response to it?

22) What rifle was developed from that rifle, and what project laid the conceptual base for its caliber and statement of use?

[stokesrj]

What about the 6.5 x 47 Lapua it has an advantage over the Creedmoor

What advantage do you see in the 6.5x47?

I own all three, .260 Rem, 6.5x47 Lapua, and 6.5 Creedmoor and find the 6.5 Creedmoor to be superior, at least in my uses. If I drive the 6.5x47 to my Creedmoor performance, brass is short lived. I can buy factory loaded ammunition from Hornady in 6.5 Creedmoor that will produce .5 MOA accuracy at half the cost of Lapua factory loaded ammunition and I can buy Hornady Superformance ammunition that while not quite as accurate will obtain 150 fps more velocity. The brass is cheaper and of very high quality, you could argue that it isn't as high of quality as the Lapua which is available for both the .260 and the 6.5x47 but I can obtain the same accuracy and life with the Hornady bass as the Lapua brass. So, although I am fond of Lapua brass, in practical terms it offers no advantage.
But I must admit I'm potentially partial to the 6.5 Hornady and may see things from that slant. And the three cartridges are so close that any advantage is very hard to discover, that is unless you shoot factory ammo and the the .260 is a dog compared to the other two.

Bob