How does 6.5 Grendal compare to other rounds (GPC)

[ricsmall]

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

Thanks for that comparison bob. A friend and I are about to build 2 rifles and I had narrowed it down to 6.5 CM and 260 rem. this helps a great deal, though I do have one question. I am a hand loader, so do you have a compelling argument for one over the other in that regard. I must say, I was leaning toward the creedmore, maybe because it's newer, but I think mostly because I prefer the case design/shoulder angle of the CM.

Thanks
Richard

[LRRPF52]

From the hand-loader's standpoint, the .260 Remington wins by leaps and bounds if component selection is an issue, as there are numerous sources for brass, when compared to the 6.5x47 Lapua and 6.5 Creedmoor, which are both single-source really.

The .260 Rem has brass from the following sources:

Lapua
Norma
Nosler
Remington
Sako
Winchester 7mm-08 necked down (feels like necking once-fired brass almost, and is very good brass)

In the context of the OP comparing the Grendel to them for military use, I think discussions involving any case based off the T65/7.62 NATO are counter-productive for an assault rifle or multi-purpose service rifle cartridge, because of weight, space, and recoil penalties, and such cases don't qualify as an intermediate cartridge anyway.

The more I work with the Grendel, especially during DM training, the more I realize how a 16" Grendel, maybe even a 14.5" Grendel, fits the bill very well. It bucks the wind extremely well for such a little cartridge, while delivering substantial energy on-target, with minimal felt recoil.

[stokesrj]

Well, I think it boils down to a few simple characteristic decisions. I'm selling off all my .260 rifles and have had one of my historically important rifles rechambered to 6.5 Creedmoor. So, my decision is made, practical considerations of brass supply aside, I have over 5,000 Hornady 6.5 Creedmoor cases on hand so brass availability is not a serious concern form me, so I chose the 6.5 Creedmoor. But if brass availability was the primary consideration then the .260 has the advantage. So, from a design standpoint the 6.5 creedmoor is superior, from a factory load standpoint the 6.5 creedmoor is superior, and from a brass availability standpoint the .260 is superior. So it depends upon where you place your priorities.

For me it is simple 6.5 Creedmoor wins hands down. For others without the supply on hand the .260 wins, hands down.

Emil Praslic runs the AMU across the course rifle team. He had this same decision to make and chose a turn key solution, the Tubb 2K rifle chambered in .260 Remington. He could have chosen either of the other solutions but his decision was based upon readily available components. McMillan chambered the Tubb 2K in both .260 and 6.5 Creedmoor, Lapua had not yet committed to the .260 for brass, so they moved in with the .260 Rem anyway and that move won a national championship for them.
Sherri Galliger, used the .260 with Sierra 108, and 142 SMK bullets and Hodgdon Varget powder in Remington cases to win the National High Power Championship in 2010.

I have a Tubb 2K in 6.5 Creedmoor and I can say it is superior in all respects on the range, it shoots tighter groups than a .260 in the same rifle, it shoots higher velocities at lower pressure, and gives longer barrel life. But that is not the critical factor, Sherri shooting either caliber would win, because she is a more consistent and talented shooter, not because of the caliber she chose or was chosen for her.

For the record, I have abandoned my Tubb 2K and 6.5 Creedmoor in favor of the AR platform firing a 6mm Hagar, for me it is a more favorable platform, not that the T2K isn't a great platform, it is fantastic. However, I shoot the AR better even at 600 yard prone slow fire. And for the rapid fire strings a semi auto with softer recoil is the ticket. So, that is what I'm campaigning this year.

Back to the subject at hand, let me see if I can boil it down given a few comparisons and rank the choices first to last.

Ballistic performance, 6.5 Creedmoor, 260 Remington, 6.5x47
Factory Load Performance - 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5x47, .260
Factory Load Cost - 6.5 Creedmoor, .260 Remington, 6.5X47
Brass Quality - 6.5x47 and .260, 6.5 Creedmoor
Brass Availability - .260, 6.5x47, 6.5 Creedmoor
Accuracy of hand loads - 6.5X47 and 6.5 Creedmoor, .260

So, it depends upon your rank order of important factors.

I hope this helps, but in the end it comes down to the shooter, not the cartridge.

Bob

[ricsmall]

Thanks for the input LR and Stokes. I'm leaning to the CM, and that's probably the route well take. Now to find some donor rifles. These will be bolt guns, and i already have two SA builds, but I hate to tear either one down cause they are lasers, but something will come along.

Richard

[stanc]

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:

Well, I think this is off topic, and I can't claim to be a serious student of those subjects, but since I'm sitting here in solitary confinement and am bored to tears, I'll take a crack at some of them.

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

.256, .276 and .30 caliber (6.5mm, 7mm and 7.62mm)

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

.276 (7mm) was recommended for adoption, but .30 caliber was retained.

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?

Nothing is forever, but the assault rifle has had an ongoing affect on infantry operations to this day.

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?

The UK, with the .270 British (7x46) and .280 British (7x43)?

18) What was the US response to these developments?

To disregard them, and stick with .30 caliber.

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

7.62 NATO.

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

My all time favorite: The M14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N06ySsT2EKU

[LRRPF52]

Thanks Stan. One thing that is really pinging with me from the article is the 1949 Qualification Course, and the old TO&E of a 12-man Rifle Squad with 2 Scouts and a Sharpshooter (DM), and how the capability was lost and forgotten until Afghanistan. I had been pushing for a DM in the 1990's, but I was way too low on the enlisted rank totem pole to be listened to. I even have TO&E proposals that I had drafted and diagrammed in the early 1990's with most personnel carrying Colt Model 727 Carbines, and DM's with free-floated M16's & SR-25's with optics.

I also suggested to my Brigade Commander in the 82nd that we build representative structures from the Pacific theater, Middle East, South/Central America, and Europe in Area J on Fort Bragg to train on, using Infantry as muscle with our Engineers as the brains, which would double as a cross-training opportunity to get to work with our slice elements. I also drafted a new qualification range arrangement that incorporated piles of rubble, damaged walls, and a whole separate system to address another aspect of combat that was only present on a certain MOUT site at Fort Knox at the time (Universal Studios was contracted to help build it.) I see that the barricades, rubble, and windows had been done before in 1949.

The prone and foxhole positions should be very minimal on the Rifle/Carbine Qualification Course.

[Trooper]

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

One other round is the 6.5 BRM by E.A. Brown It uses a .30-30 case thus is easy to reload. http://www.eabco.com/6.5_mm_cartridges.html

[appleseed-kdc]

Great stuff from Bob Stokes, as always. For people who don't yet know, Bob is a competition shooter.

You have to remember, the Grendel 6.5 was invented to fit the M16/AR15 magazine size.

If you limit the question to rounds that fit the magazine, then it is probably the best.

But if the question is about a future, best all round, for rifles and machine guns, then a totally new rifle at a similar, or slightly higher weight can be considered. We have a what 2 million military with reserves, At $2,000 a pop that is $4 billion. A drop in the ocean really in military budget terms of $700 billion.

That takes us back to weight, recoil, number of rounds carried, etc. but despite the M16 being 7.18lb. the M1 Garand, was around 10lb. so some perspective is required.

[JASmith]

If memory serves and I am not totally confused, the US Army has followed a path that suggests there will be no new mainstream cartridges until caseless ammunition is made feasible for military uses. Failing that, the holy grail will become electromotive or some other Star Wars launching technology.

Tony Williams has it right -- explore projectile diameter, mass, and velocity trades within the constraints of soldier-tolerant recoil levels, on target effectiveness and reasonable trajectories. He also gives special attention to keeping the recoil low enough that even the 5% by body mass solder can handle the rifle/carbine in full auto or burst mode.

One of the benefits of these and other explorations is that a nice data set will have been developed should one or more of the world's military services decide that it is time to move beyond 5.56/7.62 NATO and the more-or-less copycat items in other services.

[Guardsman26]

@JASmith

I don't caseless or cased-telescoped ammunition will proceed much further, especially as polymer versions of conventional rounds are proving capable of saving a comparable amount of weight. If you have a polymer version of the 5.56 mm M855A1 that weighs 8-9 grams instead of 12 grams. which fits all legacy weapons, which carries no risk in terms of weapon efficiency and reliability, then you can see which ammunition type is likely to be preferable.

I think LSAT is deeply impressive on many levels, but the cost of adopting versus polymer 5.56 mm seems very hard to justify. More to the point, if I was asked what I preferred to buy: 5.56 mm LSAT or 6.5 mm Grendel in existing brass case technology, there is no doubt what I would choose. Grendel all the way.

[JASmith]

I was also enthusiastic about polymer -- until I saw more about what happens with prolonged rapid or semi-auto fire.

I think case failure due to heat is tolerable as long as the materials and design are set so that the failure is easily cleared. Even brass will cook-off in a very hot chamber but other than the occasional unfortunate unintended target, the fired case usually can be readily cleared. Get the polymer to that level, even if the individual round is destroyed, and we might see polymer in military firearms.