+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Build-It-Yourself & Custom Builds (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: A R Perfomance (/showthread.php?tid=6683)
A R Perfomance - Tedward - 11-11-2013
Ok, never knew but got it. So when Woohoo chambered his barrels he basically bored them .010 deeper. That actually makes more sense than making the type II .135 Bolt.
Wonder why they did that? Sure sounds easier if the 7.62 and Grendel had the same bolts...
I just can't understand why manufactures make things proprietary so people have to buy from them only, especially when that can't keep up with supply and demand. Seems like AA does that on everything they develop. Hate to see what niche is in the bag on there new 338.
A R Perfomance - bwaites - 11-11-2013
Tedward Wrote:Ok, never knew but got it. So when Woohoo chambered his barrels he basically bored them .010 deeper. That actually makes more sense than making the type II .135 Bolt.
Wonder why they did that? Sure sounds easier if the 7.62 and Grendel had the same bolts...
I just can't understand why manufactures make things proprietary so people have to buy from them only, especially when that can't keep up with supply and demand. Seems like AA does that on everything they develop. Hate to see what niche is in the bag on there new 338.
And yea, verily, I say unto you, before there was Grendel, there was Beowulf. And Beowulf required a bolt, for it was a rebated case, and Bill Alexander did search high and low, and went hither and yon, and did labor greatly to find a bolt that would make Beowulf a usable cartridge. For Beowulf was the first of the large bore cartridges for the AR15, and as yet, no one had found a bolt.
And he did peer into the archives, and found the work of Colt, for Colt had done much work with the 7.62x39. And Bill Alexander did note that the rebated rim of the Beowulf could be designed to be like unto the diameter of the 7.62x39. And Colt had discovered that the rim of 7.62x39 was thicker than the rim of 5.56. And Colt did recognize that rim thickness was important, and they did make the depth of the face greater than the bolt of the 5.56, and this did allow the extractor to have greater purchase, yea and that did allow the bolt to work more effectively. And Bill Alexander saw that it was good, and he did design the bolt of the Beowulf to be like unto the bolts that Colt did produce in the past. And he did make some enhancements, for verily, verily, there were enhancements to be made. And it was good, and thus Beowulf came to be, and it became much desired. And Alexander Arms did begin to sell many of the Beowulfs and great was the demand for ammunition and rifles.
And Bill Alexander did begin to desire a hunting cartridge for the AR15. And he did believe that a short, fat cartridge would be good and that a 6.5 mm bullet would be optimal for the case capacity. And he was introduced to Arne Brennan, and Arne Brennan had many similar ideas, and had begun shooting a 6.5mm cartridge based upon the 6mm PPC cartridge, which was itself based upon the .220 Russian cartridge, which itself was based upon the 7.62x39 cartridge. And Bill Alexander saw that it was good. And he worked with Arne Brennan, and then with Lapua, and they made changes and improvements, for verily there was indeed room to make changes, and to improve upon the long neck of the PPC cartridge. And so the neck and shoulder geometry was improved with the help of the Finns. And Bill Alexander did pay greatly for the tooling to build the cases in Finland. And the new cartridge was called the .264 Grendel, and David Fortier did say unto Bill Alexander, "No way Dude, it should be the 6.5 Grendel!" and he did argue persuasively, and thus it was.
And because Bill Alexander had based the Beowulf rim upon the earlier work done by Colt upon the bolt for the 7.62x39, and because Colt had far more experience with the AR15 designs, and because the 6.5 Grendel case was based upon the .220 Russian, and the .220 Russian was based on the 7.62x39, verily the bolt had come full circle and now it was seen that the same bolt could be used for 2 different cartridges, without changes.
But others did not have access to the Colt designs, or they did not do sufficient research and simply opened up 5.56 bolts and used the same face depth and called the bolts "7.62x39", and many of them broke easily, while others worked well. But there was great confusion, and it continues to this day. And often, those who are not aware of the history cry out, "Why, oh why, did Bill Alexander design a proprietary bolt for the Grendel?" For they fail to seek out the answer, yea, verily, even though the facts are available on the internet!
And thus it is that the Grendel bolt came to be, for it is not, in reality, the Grendel bolt, having been designed BEFORE the Grendel came to be. Yea, it should indeed be called the Beowulf bolt, and then all might easily understand the history!
A R Perfomance - nincomp - 11-11-2013
AMEN, Brother!
Now we will pass around the offering plate. Give generously to spread the word of the bolts and to relieve the anguish of those who do not understand the depths thereof.
A R Perfomance - dmsims21 - 11-11-2013
Bwaites, one of the greatest posts ever.
A R Perfomance - LRRPF52 - 11-11-2013
Hilarious!
A R Perfomance - Bill Alexander - 11-11-2013
Tedward Wrote:I just can't understand why manufactures make things proprietary so people have to buy from them only, especially when that can't keep up with supply and demand. Seems like AA does that on everything they develop. Hate to see what niche is in the bag on there new 338.
Now just think carefully about what you posted.
The 338 gun uses a different operating system for a cartridge that is nearly as big as an AR15 carrier and runs at close on 68,000 psi. WTF parts do you think are going to be common? The bolt, the magazine. Come on, you tell me exactly what mechanism parts in a new design 338 Lapua semi auto can possibly be common to an AR15 so you can buy the parts from existing suppliers. You think I go through all this cost and problems for fun!
As to the bolt for the Beowulf/Grendel. Just shave out a 0.080 groove in an existing extractor. Back of the groove has to sit at the bolt face and the rim can drift up to 0.065 thick. How much hook is left. Is that sliver of steel that remains going to hang on for long. I followed what was done before, because it was there for a reason. And remember you are only forwarding such criticism because we did the 6.5 Grendel when the rest of the industry was running on the shirt tails of the 6.8. "Screw those Alexander Arms people, doing a different cartridge when they should have just done the 6.8 which would have been compatible with everyone else's parts."
Bill Alexander
A R Perfomance - Tedward - 11-11-2013
Yes, thanks for the eye full of reading and history. I thought as Arney and Bill came to the US and the Beowulf was the design from the .499 LWR? But that's another story too so please don't write that book. And does the .264 Grendel have any link to the .264 Les Baer Custom? Were all of these guys doing the same thing together back then and Bill got the final rights or something?? I guess that might need a new topic..
Anyhow, thanks for all the info and I'll need to read that one a few more times to absorb all the input.
I thought I was more asking the difference in bolts, not the evolution of the cartridge.....
A R Perfomance - Tedward - 11-11-2013
Bill Alexander Wrote:Now just think carefully about what you posted.
The 338 gun uses a different operating system for a cartridge that is nearly as big as an AR15 carrier and runs at close on 68,000 psi. WTF parts do you think are going to be common? The bolt, the magazine. Come on, you tell me exactly what mechanism parts in a new design 338 Lapua semi auto can possibly be common to an AR15 so you can buy the parts from existing suppliers. You think I go through all this cost and problems for fun!
As to the bolt for the Beowulf/Grendel. Just shave out a 0.080 groove in an existing extractor. Back of the groove has to sit at the bolt face and the rim can drift up to 0.065 thick. How much hook is left. Is that sliver of steel that remains going to hang on for long. I followed what was done before, because it was there for a reason. And remember you are only forwarding such criticism because we did the 6.5 Grendel when the rest of the industry was running on the shirt tails of the 6.8. "Screw those Alexander Arms people, doing a different cartridge when they should have just done the 6.8 which would have been compatible with everyone else's parts."
Bill Alexander
I guess you didn't understand my English (Virginia Slang), I was not saying they had anything in common. I was saying about your supply for the demand of the Grendel Barrel, Bolts, Rifles and ammo. And WTF?? Sounds so professional BILL!!!
Second, what you said about making the extractor a sliver, I AGREE, makes sense to make the head space deeper to keep the material on the extractor. I can add and subtract, thats what I was trying to understand. I was wondering how Woohoo was using the 7.62x39 bolt to work without having the thin extractor like you said. I was agreeing with what you were doing, just wanted confirmation. And you did a good job with the Grendel thats why we have them, thanks!!!!
I will not engage in your WTF behavior. Good day and take a chill pill Bill...
A R Perfomance - bwaites - 11-11-2013
Tedward Wrote:Ok, never knew but got it. So when Woohoo chambered his barrels he basically bored them .010 deeper. That actually makes more sense than making the type II .135 Bolt.
Wonder why they did that? Sure sounds easier if the 7.62 and Grendel had the same bolts...
I just can't understand why manufactures make things proprietary so people have to buy from them only, especially when that can't keep up with supply and demand. Seems like AA does that on everything they develop. Hate to see what niche is in the bag on there new 338.
So I'm confused, no one should make proprietary parts, or no one should make new things, or what exactly are you saying?
The .338 is a completely new design, or rather completely new take on an old design. It's HUGE, there isn't thing on it that interchanges with anything else on the market, with the possible exception of the mags, which I'm not sure about.
But Remington 700 bolts don't fit Winchester 70's and neither fits a Savage action, so those are all proprietary, too. If you come up with something new, and find that no parts on the market fit it, you are sort of stuck in the "make something no one else is making yet" issue. You then order as many as you think you can sell and go from there.
The 7.62 bolts designed by Colt had deep faces, because Colt recognized the need for more metal on the extractor, as did Bill. Thus he used a bolt that took care of that issue. It so happened that he took advantage of previous work. He improved upon it, and voila, the Beowulf bolt which became the Grendel bolt.
Manufacturers make things proprietary because they are following the American Dream and they want to make money! Thats why! AA is a small company, I'm sure if you'd be willing to invest a couple million that they would be more than happy to increase their orders to parts makers and hopefully avoid the bottle neck!
A R Perfomance - bwaites - 11-12-2013
Tedward Wrote:Yes, thanks for the eye full of reading and history. I thought as Arney and Bill came to the US and the Beowulf was the design from the .499 LWR? But that's another story too so please don't write that book. And does the .264 Grendel have any link to the .264 Les Baer Custom? Were all of these guys doing the same thing together back then and Bill got the final rights or something?? I guess that might need a new topic..
Anyhow, thanks for all the info and I'll need to read that one a few more times to absorb all the input.
I thought I was more asking the difference in bolts, not the evolution of the cartridge.....
The 499 LWR never ran right, and Bill took that idea and developed it into the Beowulf, and managed to make it run.
Arne Brennan is from Texas, he didn't come to the US with Bill. The .264 Grendel was what Bill Alexander intended on calling the Grendel, because the US market has not liked metric designations, apart from the 7mm Magnum and the 9mm Parabellum. David Fortier, the gun writer, convinved Bill that 6.5 Grendel would work better, and thats how it ended up the 6.5 Grendel. The .264 Les Baer is a Johnny Come Lately take on the Grendel, named by Les Baer for himself. He made Grendels for several years before switching to making .264 LBC's. I'm not sure why he chose that, and after some initial advertising with that name, he really hasn't chosen to advertise lately. I haven't seen a .264 LBC ad from him in at least 2 years. He still offers it if you call, but they aren't in ads anymore.
Arne Brennan owned CSS at the time, which he later sold to Lothar Walthar USA. CSS was the initial mass marketer of the Grendel. Arne and Bill had some differences of opinion regarding that marketing, and split. Bill always OWNED the Grendel trademark, and it was Alexander who convinced Lapua to make the brass and then paid for the tooling to get it done. Even when CSS was the mass marketer, AA built and sold guns. My original Grendel was a combination of AA parts with some parts that were intially specced for CSS rifles, but which were special ordered on an AA rifle.
A R Perfomance - Tedward - 11-12-2013
Bill W. Thanks for the info on the Grendel above. I still don't understand. The question about the bolt is still not clear. Does the 7.62x39 have the same case rim thickness as the Grendel? I read it is .059 on a Google search for "7.62x39 rim thickness". If that is the same as the Grendel or the Colt, why is the 7.62x39 using a .125HS and not have extractor issues? Or do they??
As for the 338, it was a rhetorical comment. Not WHY, but IF Bill makes them and they are his own and he has the "Hold" on them, then we MIGHT have a supply issue with his small size company. Not saying there will be and he is a great developer, but his production is not as good as his ideas and success in developing a proprietary product. That being said, once it hits the market and is a go, then when 10,000 people want one, it will be a 10 year wait, MAYBE. He might have plans to work with another manufacture to speed up production but with the supply and demand of his other products, I don't see it happening.
So enough said about the 338.
A R Perfomance - woohoo - 11-12-2013
I made the 264 barrels I produced with a 5/8-24 muzzle thread so people buying them would have more choices in flash hiders. I used the .125 recess because there is more material backing the lugs and a 7.62x39 bolt and extractors can be used in a pinch. We don't get very many calls about broken extractors. As long as the rifle isn't over-gassed there isn't much stress on the extractors... I don't make ANY carbine gas barrels not even the 12.5" barrels.
A R Perfomance - Tedward - 11-12-2013
woohoo Wrote:I made the 264 barrels I produced with a 5/8-24 muzzle thread so people buying them would have more choices in flash hiders. I used the .125 recess because there is more material backing the lugs and a 7.62x39 bolt and extractors can be used in a pinch. We don't get very many calls about broken extractors. As long as the rifle isn't over-gassed there isn't much stress on the extractors... I don't make ANY carbine gas barrels not even the 12.5" barrels.
Woohoo,
So let me ask you this, is a 7.62x39 case the same thickness as the Grendel from the back to where the extractor will catch?? I can't seem to get that answer and don't have a 7.62 case to measure.
A R Perfomance - bwaites - 11-12-2013
Tedward, if you are talking about rim thickness, for all intents the answer to your question is yes. The Grendel, the PPC cartridges, the .220 Russian, and the 7.62 all have the same rim thickness. There is of course some variation by manufacturer and lot, but they ae essentially the same, which is why you can make Grendel brass from 7.62 cases in a pinch.
A R Perfomance - Tedward - 11-12-2013
bwaites Wrote:Tedward, if you are talking about rim thickness, for all intents the answer to your question is yes. The Grendel, the PPC cartridges, the .220 Russian, and the 7.62 all have the same rim thickness. There is of course some variation by manufacturer and lot, but they ae essentially the same, which is why you can make Grendel brass from 7.62 cases in a pinch.
That is why I said what I did at the beginning of my comment before I got the WTF from Bill A. Last time he called me an Uter Idiot and all I was doing was asking a question. So if the case is the same, that is what I was inquiring about. If they work for the other calibers you listed it could have worked for the Grendel. But the extractor had to be thinner according to Bill A and will break. If it doesn't break for the other calibers you listed, why does it break on the Grendel. More pressure? OK then. I still don't understand why the change from Type I (.125HS) to a Type II (.135HS).
like woohoo said, if they were all .125, then you could use that size and there would only be one bolt for all of the calibers. Even though its to late and it is what it is, that life. I just wanted to know if there was that reason.
That was my second part of the question I never got out.
A R Perfomance - bwaites - 11-12-2013
Tedward Wrote:That is why I said what I did at the beginning of my comment before I got the WTF from Bill A. Last time he called me an Uter Idiot and all I was doing was asking a question. So if the case is the same, that is what I was inquiring about. If they work for the other calibers you listed it could have worked for the Grendel. But the extractor had to be thinner according to Bill A and will break. If it doesn't break for the other calibers you listed, why does it break on the Grendel. More pressure? OK then. I still don't understand why the change from Type I (.125HS) to a Type II (.135HS).
like woohoo said, if they were all .125, then you could use that size and there would only be one bolt for all of the calibers. Even though its to late and it is what it is, that life. I just wanted to know if there was that reason.
That was my second part of the question I never got out.
Did you actually read my earlier post? The developmental work for the 7.62 in the AR was all done by Colt. Colt, who has more experience with the AR than all the rest of the manufacturers put together. They found that the deeper face was required for the longevity of the extractor. Sometimes the .125 bolts work just fine for a long time, other times they don't. They had a terrible reputation for breaking 10 years ago when when Bill Alexander was working on the Grendel, AFTER developing the Beowulf. He had a bolt that was consistent with all the work Colt had done with the 7.62 and thus chose to use it.
This whole Type I, Type II thing isn't even a a real construct. Black Hole Weaponry started with the .125 bolts, then switched to .136 bolts and in order to help themselves keep track, they started calling the .125 bolts Type I and the .136 bolts Type II. That way when someone wanted an extra bolt it was easy to figure out which they needed. But call a manufacturer and they'll probably have no idea what you are talking about if you use that nomenclature. They can look up the SAAMI specs for a Grendel bolt.
The 7.62 bolts have improved, but there are still a fair number out there that are 8620 steel or are otherwise not so great. Those other calibers are not generally used in the AR15. Until a couple years ago there were not even dependable mags for 7.62x39 in the AR. Grendel mags won't work for it, and demand wasn't great enough, so there were a lot of "Frankenmags" out there. So there was no real reason to use any other bolt but the one he was already using for the Beowulf. There were essentially NO 7.62x39's in the AR15 10 years ago.
A R Perfomance - Drifter - 11-12-2013
From a previous post by Bill Alexander regarding Grendel bolt design:
Bill Alexander Wrote:The change of 0.011" of depth of the bolt recess (3 sheets of writing paper) has significantly less bearing upon the life of the bolt than surface finish, let alone the geometry. What it will adversely effect is the extractor strength. The Grendel bolt design is not a simple opening up of the 5.56 bolt as typified by what is now referred to as the 7.62x39 bolt. The bolt is a balance of the extractor and the bolt geometry with the steel type used and the heat treatment. The pressure limit was set to 50,000 psi to provide a wide margin of error and also allow for an exceptional cyclic life. It also balances the recoil generated with weapon controllability in a platform weight conducive to the small platform the cartridge was intended to fit.
Link to source: http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?2167-AR15performance...&p=23076#post23076
A R Perfomance - Tedward - 11-12-2013
Thanks bwaites and Drifter. Now it all come together. The Grendel bolt is stronger and that is why it was made. I didn't know the 7.62x39 was inferior.
Has the 7.62x39 adapted to the Grendel Bolt and started using them to improve the reliability? Seems like that would be a move to make if that were the issue. Then we would be back to one bolt and the .125 would become obsolete and production for one bolt would be simplified.
A R Perfomance - woohoo - 11-12-2013
Tedward Wrote:Woohoo,
So let me ask you this, is a 7.62x39 case the same thickness as the Grendel from the back to where the extractor will catch?? I can't seem to get that answer and don't have a 7.62 case to measure.
Lapua brass has thicker rims and does not have a chamfer on the bottom.
Many civilian bolts 5.56, 6.8 and 7.62x39 are 8620, they are weaker than bolts made of C158 or 9310. If the bolts have the same design and are made from the same material with the same heat treat the bolt with the .125 recess will be stronger. A 5.56 bolt with a .125 recess has .153 of solid attachment. The Grendel bolts have .142" solid attachment. Only a difference of 7.2% but still more attachment and more strength.
Many 7.62x39 extractors were MIM. Now that DPMS has stopped producing 7.62x39s other companies have started machining 7.62x39extractors that are stronger than the MIM extractors.
A R Perfomance - Tedward - 11-12-2013
woohoo Wrote:Lapua brass has thicker rims and does not have a chamfer on the bottom.
So the AA brass is the same as the Lapua and thicker than Hornady and does Hornady have the chamfered base??? What does that do to the function?? Seems like the Chamfer would be easier to get into the bolt.