65 Receiver Set with Polymer mags from PF (HOPEFULLY)

[Drifter]

...creating a whole new receiver set will be the death knell for the cartridge...

Oh my.

[stanc]

P.S. Bill, your fears may be for naught, anyway. The demand for a Six8-type, Grendel-specific receiver set and P-Mags seems far too small for any company to invest the time and money to bring it to market.

So, unless the Six8 P-Mag itself is dimensioned to allow proper stacking of 6.5 Grendel cartridges -- which I doubt is so -- then Horde members are stuck with the standard AR15 receiver and metal magazines, like it or not.

[bwaites]

P.S. Bill, your fears may be for naught, anyway. The demand for a Six8-type, Grendel-specific receiver set and P-Mags seems far too small for any company to invest the time and money to bring it to market.

So, unless the Six8 P-Mag itself is dimensioned to allow proper stacking of 6.5 Grendel cartridges -- which I doubt is so -- then Horde members are stuck with the standard AR15 receiver and metal magazines, like it or not.

Seems like I already made that point above. "The volume of mags would be miniscule without a government contract, which will drive the price too high."

As for my statement about the death knell of the cartridge, I was being a bit hyperbolic, but......where are all the 30 RAR fans? A huge marketing campaign by a huge company, and..... Gone, just gone! Even when it was Americas darling 30 cal!

The Grendel is a more specific and smaller base. Even with Hornadys support, we haven't seen another major manufacturer jump on board. Splitting the market with another AR platform will create big issues, just like a small number of poorly cut barrels created a big issue.

[stanc]

As for my statement about the death knell of the cartridge, I was being a bit hyperbolic, but......where are all the 30 RAR fans? A huge marketing campaign by a huge company, and..... Gone, just gone! Even when it was Americas darling 30 cal!

:confused: Now I am confused. I have no idea what relevance .30 RAR has to this discussion.

The Grendel is a more specific and smaller base. Even with Hornadys support, we haven't seen another major manufacturer jump on board. Splitting the market with another AR platform will create big issues...

There would be no "splitting" the ammo market. A Six8-type platform would fire the same ammo as standard-receiver Grendel AR15s.

That's like saying no company should bring out a bolt-action or single-shot Grendel rifle because it'd split the ammo market. Most illogical.

[cory]

:confused: Now I am confused. I have no idea what relevance .30 RAR has to this discussion.

There would be no "splitting" the ammo market. A Six8-type platform would fire the same ammo as standard-receiver Grendel AR15s.

That's like saying no company should bring out a bolt-action or single-shot Grendel rifle because it'd split the ammo market. Most illogical.

I agree on all counts. Anything from Remington should be disregarded. Are they not known for crap like the 30 RAR. Bringing something to market only to turn their back on it and offer no support 6 months down the road.

[aclark]

I still don't get how this is a good idea. The design of the Grendel was to get an effective intermediate range round that would work in current AR-15s and use the same magazine. If you want a whole new mag and receiver then get a different round. I really think that in the end you have to remember how the design of the Grendel came to be.

[Variable]

I decided to sit back and let everyone else argue this one for a change.

That being said-- Before I started my current lightweight build I was staring pretty hard at some stripped Six8 receiver sets that were for sale. Only two things held me back from buying a set to make a Grendel with.

1.) The receiver sets were pretty expensive.

2.) I had no concrete knowledge about wether the Six8 Pmags would plug and play flawlessly with the 6.5 Grendel round as-is, or if it'd be a sub-par waste of time.


Good, bad, or ugly.... If a nice receiver set (that I liked) was available AND there was a Lancer or Pmag that ran 6.5 flawlessly in that set, then I'd likely buy it.

I'm guessing it'd be a pretty hard row to hoe to get there, but I would bite if it were on the table.

That is all.

[cory]

I still don't get how this is a good idea. The design of the Grendel was to get an effective intermediate range round that would work in current AR-15s and use the same magazine. If you want a whole new mag and receiver then get a different round. I really think that in the end you have to remember how the design of the Grendel came to be.

The Grendel was designed to maximize the AR15 platform. As a result there is still performance left on the table. Whether that's negligible is arguable, yes.

Bottom line is the Grendel case is to wide for the thin magwell of the AR15. This platform would be more for an optimized magpwell than anything, then to be able to utilize the maximum tolerances of the SAAMI Grendel, and if Mark wanted to enlarge the extension enlarging the bolt, well that'd be a big plus for me too.

In regards to the latter, I don't know the difference in AR15 and AR10 dimensions off the top of my head. That being said I'd do so by utilizing an AR10 extension and modified AR10 bolt (to accept the grendel case and work in an AR15 carrier) if that wouldn't cause the upper to be enlarged.

[cory]

I didn't start this thread looking for those who would admittedly bash a new idea because they simply don't like it.

If you have legitimate concerns they're WELCOMED here. Please list them in bullet form preferably and let's discuss if we can design around it or not. "I don't think this is a good idea," is not a legitimate concern but a biased opinion that helps nothing. We NEED your thought out why.

Right now is not the time to discuss whether or not the costs are worth it, we're not even close to a prototype. This brainstorming is free (well maybe it costs Hanka something).

Let's debate what the optimal AR based platform is for the Grendel in terms of dimensions. THEN we should talk cost of what we've come up with and see if we can compromise to bring down the cost. THEN is the time to discuss the commercial viability of the notional platform, when it approaches the prototype maturity phase.

Ridiculous hyperbole does nothing to help anything.

It seems some are concerned that a new platform would cause a ridiculous notion that the Grendel is as a round that needs a specific platform for the shooter to take advantage the round. I do see where you're coming from, because there are a lot of ridiculous notions that narrow down the applicability of the Grendel in the heads of some shooters (as has been seen somewhat in this thread. I don't mean that as an attack, the fact is what it is).

However, I've seen no example of this with the LWRC 68 platform. If anyone can find a specific example please post it. Otherwise, lets put this notion to rest please.

[stanc]

I still don't get how this is a good idea.

It's the only way to get a P-Mag that is correctly dimensioned for the 6.5 Grendel cartridge.

The design of the Grendel was to get an effective intermediate range round that would work in current AR-15s and use the same magazine. If you want a whole new mag and receiver then get a different round.

So, if someone wants a bolt-action or single-shot rifle, he should get it in a different caliber than 6.5 Grendel???

I really think that in the end you have to remember how the design of the Grendel came to be.

Well, if you want to restrict the round to use in AR15s, that will rule out the possibility of Grendelized Tavors, SCARs, and a host of other firearms including the light machine gun that some Horde members would like to have created. How does that benefit the Grendel community?

Just because 6.5 Grendel was originally created for the standard-receiver AR15, doesn't mean its use shouldn't extend beyond that platform.

[bwaites]

I didn't start this thread looking for those who would admittedly bash a new idea because they simply don't like it.

If you have legitimate concerns they're WELCOMED here. Please list them in bullet form preferably and let's discuss if we can design around it or not. "I don't think this is a good idea," is not a legitimate concern but a biased opinion that helps nothing. We NEED your thought out why.

Right now is not the time to discuss whether or not the costs are worth it, we're not even close to a prototype. This brainstorming is free (well maybe it costs Hanka something).

Let's debate what the optimal AR based platform is for the Grendel in terms of dimensions. THEN we should talk cost of what we've come up with and see if we can compromise to bring down the cost. THEN is the time to discuss the commercial viability of the notional platform, when it approaches the prototype maturity phase.

Ridiculous hyperbole does nothing to help anything.

It seems some are concerned that a new platform would cause a ridiculous notion that the Grendel would be perceived as a round that needs a specific platform for the shooter to take advantage the round. I do see where you're coming from, because there are a lot of ridiculous notions that narrow down the applicability of the Grendel in the heads of some shooters (as has been seen somewhat in this thread. I don't mean that as an attack, the fact is what it is).

However, I've seen no example of this with the LWRC 68 platform. If anyone can find a specific example please post it. Otherwise, lets put this notion to rest please.

Interesting. If I say that I see problems with an idea and believe it will fracture a somewhat fragile market and cause confusion you tell me it's my opinion and don't slam your idea. But if your opinion is different than mine you are free to continue the discussion because, well, my opinion is ridiculous.

I gave you multiple legitimate concerns:

1) Minimal performance advantage with a new design, you simply don't have powder space to significantly increase performance.
2) Cost. No government contract to support cost of development of a new mag. The Saudis paid huge money to support that development, and the Six8 receiver sets and mags are still about twice the AR price. (At LWRC the mags are 3 times the normal PMag price.)
3) Even with Hornadys support of ammunition (and now cheap Wolf steel case) no major manufacturer has stepped up and started building the Grendel.
4) Installed customer AR base gains no backwards compatibility.


Cory, you haven't been around long enough to remember this, but we debated the optimal platform for the mid cartridges about 8 years ago during the great 6.5 vs 6.8 debate. We all recognized that you could build a whole new rifle and maximize each cartridge, but that doing so would cost a ton of money and gain you well under 10 % in performance. The point of diminishing returns was reached using the AR15 platform.

How many 6.8 rifles are out there? How many Grendels? I've never seen a 6.8 at our range, but I know a couple owners. I've seen 3 Grendels besides mine. I haven't heard of a single Six 8 sale in my state. I can't find a mention on the local or state boards, though I obviously can't know about all the sales, I don't see them in stores.

I'm all for innovation. I just see no REAL advantage to be gained except the use of PMags. Of course that's just my OPINION, and I'm sure it's ridiculous!

[Sputnik]

Bulletized it is:

- Is it the love of the platform or the love of the round that is so appealing? For me it is both.

- I can't speak for the majority of the Horde, but my feeling is most of the comments on this forum are aimed at getting reliable performance from their builds, and/or enjoying the complete uppers and rifles presently easily/not so easily available.

- Would this be a hybrid/anomaly? How is the group buy of the short barrel Grendel going in comparison to other standard group buy efforts?

- If there is extra R&D money floating around, I would LOVE to see more economically available Grendel single shot rifles, bolt action barrels or complete bolt action rifles; or even semi auto standard rifles. What? Too small of a market?

- If this were "The Shark Tank", I would say too confusing, too many cooks in the kitchen or not enough depending if you are a consumer or a manufacturer, too many recipes, and I don't see the value added for us regular guys. For that reason, I am out.

- Good luck, innovating thinking is gift, I hope you get what you are searching for.

[stanc]

It seems some are concerned that a new platform would cause a ridiculous notion that the Grendel is as a round that needs a specific platform for the shooter to take advantage the round.

However, I've seen no example of this with the LWRC 68 platform. If anyone can find a specific example please post it. Otherwise, lets put this notion to rest please.

On 68forums there were members who voiced the same objections to the Six8 platform as seen by some Horde members in this thread. However, those who did buy Six8 receiver sets seem pleased with their acquisition. Here is a thread on the subject: http://68forums.com/forums/showthread.ph...m-Feedback

The following article on the Six8 by David Fortier is informative and addresses the issues raised in this thread: https://www.lwrci.com/articles/SGNLWRCsix8.pdf

As for applying the same approach to 6.5 Grendel, the demand is simply not there to justify any company spending the necessary time and money to create Grendel-specific receivers and magazines. If it's going to be done, it will have to use the already-in-production Six8 receivers and P-Mags.

So, the logical first step would seem to be acquisition of a Six8 P-Mag, determine how many rounds of 6.5 Grendel ammo it will hold, and if the cartridges stack properly. If the results prove unsatisfactory, then any further effort would be pointless.

[stanc]

1) Minimal performance advantage with a new design...
2) Cost. No government contract to support cost of development of a new mag.
3) Even with Hornadys support of ammunition (and now cheap Wolf steel case) no major manufacturer has stepped up and started building the Grendel.
4) Installed customer AR base gains no backwards compatibility.

1a) Irrelevant. Performance increase is not the intended purpose.
2a) Concur. If the existing Six8 P-Mag is not usable with 6.5 Grendel, the idea is not feasible.
3a) Not sure what you mean by "the Grendel." If you mean rifles, then eliminating the P-Mag option won't help get more gun makers onboard.
4a) Irrelevant. The installed AR customer base has gained no backwards compatibility with any other Grendel platform that has been introduced.

I'm all for innovation. I just see no REAL advantage to be gained except the use of PMags. Of course that's just my OPINION, and I'm sure it's ridiculous!

No, that opinion is not ridiculous. It is correct. The only advantage is the ability to use P-Mags.

Your opposition, however...

[bwaites]

1a) Irrelevant. Performance increase is not the intended purpose.
2a) Concur. If the existing Six8 P-Mag is not usable with 6.5 Grendel, the idea is not feasible.
3a) Not sure what you mean by "the Grendel." If you mean rifles, then eliminating the P-Mag option won't help get more gun makers onboard.
4a) Irrelevant. The installed AR customer base has gained no backwards compatibility with any other Grendel platform that has been introduced.

No, that opinion is not ridiculous. It is correct. The only advantage is the ability to use P-Mags.

Your opposition, however...

1b) if performance isn't the reason....then.....
3b) I mean rifles. If having Hornady building good target and hunting ammo, and Wolf delivering cheap plinking ammo doesn't get a major on board, there is no likelihood that someone will go to the expense of developing a specific mag.
4) My Grendel lowers work just fine with my .22, 5.56, and Beo uppers. That would not be tru with a Six5 upper. They also work just fine with every AR mag I've tried.

As for trying a Six8 mag, I think it's a great idea, what rifle are we going use to check feeding? It's a chicken/egg thing. They may go in fine, and not bulge the mag, but also not feed right because of the feed lip alignment or some other issue. But...I'm willing to give it a whirl, I just ordered a mag.

[stanc]

1b) if performance isn't the reason....then.....
3b) I mean rifles. If having Hornady building good target and hunting ammo, and Wolf delivering cheap plinking ammo doesn't get a major on board, there is no likelihood that someone will go to the expense of developing a specific mag.
4) My Grendel lowers work just fine with my .22, 5.56, and Beo uppers. That would not be tru with a Six5 upper. They also work just fine with every AR mag I've tried.

1c) ...the reason is use of PMags.
3c) Concur.
4c) Yes, but I said, "The installed AR customer base has gained no backwards compatibility with any other Grendel platform." Having bolt-action, single-shot, and Mini-30 conversions available gives no backward compatibility to AR15 Grendels, so I don't see this as a real issue.

As for trying a Six8 mag, I think it's a great idea, what rifle are we going use to check feeding? It's a chicken/egg thing. They may go in fine, and not bulge the mag, but also not feed right because of the feed lip alignment or some other issue.

Sure, but I figure ya gotta start somewhere. Besides, I think it's unlikely that the fatter cartridges will stack properly, or the mag will hold anywhere near 30 rounds. If I'm right, there'll be no need to check feeding.

But...I'm willing to give it a whirl, I just ordered a mag.

Wow. That's really going above and beyond. I was thinking that maybe somebody could borrow a Six8 PMag. Didn't expect anybody to go buy one. (I also posed the question on 68forums, but I have little expectation of getting an answer.)

[cory]

Interesting. If I say that I see problems with an idea and believe it will fracture a somewhat fragile market and cause confusion you tell me it's my opinion and don't slam your idea. But if your opinion is different than mine you are free to continue the discussion because, well, my opinion is ridiculous.

Come on man, I addressed that directly at the end of my post, at least I tried to. I didn't blow it off or say your opinion on that wasn't valid, I simply stated that evidence suggested otherwise. And asked that we were to continue down that road, you provide evidence to support your arguably radical hypothesis.

I gave you multiple legitimate concerns:

1) Minimal performance advantage with a new design, you simply don't have powder space to significantly increase performance.
That's not the driving factor in this new platform.
2) Cost. No government contract to support cost of development of a new mag. The Saudis paid huge money to support that development, and the Six8 receiver sets and mags are still about twice the AR price. (At LWRC the mags are 3 times the normal PMag price.)
Again, this is not the time to let cost drive the design. Let's figure out what we want, and then if we can make it affordable. I don't know what the LWRC receivers are running off the top of my head. How does their price compare the MATEN receiver sets?
3) Even with Hornadys support of ammunition (and now cheap Wolf steel case) no major manufacturer has stepped up and started building the Grendel.
Which is likely due to this BS bolt breaking myth. Another reason for this platform.
4) Installed customer AR base gains no backwards compatibility.
I'm lost on this, please elaborate.


Cory, you haven't been around long enough to remember this, but we debated the optimal platform for the mid cartridges about 8 years ago during the great 6.5 vs 6.8 debate. We all recognized that you could build a whole new rifle and maximize each cartridge, but that doing so would cost a ton of money and gain you well under 10 % in performance. The point of diminishing returns was reached using the AR15 platform.
Fair enough. I ask you this though, how much is the market paying to save mere ounces in the light weight world. How much does the high power world pay for top end glass where that extra $1k gets you less than 10% gain in performance? This isn't uncommon in our world here to see diminishing returns, while paying more.

How many 6.8 rifles are out there? How many Grendels? I've never seen a 6.8 at our range, but I know a couple owners. I've seen 3 Grendels besides mine. I haven't heard of a single Six 8 sale in my state. I can't find a mention on the local or state boards, though I obviously can't know about all the sales, I don't see them in stores.

I'm all for innovation. I just see no REAL advantage to be gained except the use of PMags. Of course that's just my OPINION, and I'm sure it's ridiculous!
It'd make me happy. What more advantage do you need. HAHA

See above in red.

[cory]

Bulletized it is:
Thank you and welcome to the conversation.

- Is it the love of the platform or the love of the round that is so appealing? For me it is both.
Me too. I think we can do this with minor changes to the receivers, keeping all of the common AR15 parts, with a possible exception of the bolt and extension.

- I can't speak for the majority of the Horde, but my feeling is most of the comments on this forum are aimed at getting reliable performance from their builds, and/or enjoying the complete uppers and rifles presently easily/not so easily available.
I'd agree with that assesment

- Would this be a hybrid/anomaly? How is the group buy of the short barrel Grendel going in comparison to other standard group buy efforts?
It's going a little bit slower, but not as much slower as it'd appear. In the original group buy, there was half a dozen different barrel contours to choose from in the 16" to 24" range. In this one there's only 1 contour to choose from in a barrel length that is uncommon to the Grendel at this time. A few weeks ago we were right on course if you compared our group buy to any one barrel option of the original group buy excluding the very popular AR740. It has slowed down a bit though. I'd also say the traffic on this forum has slowed down a lot since last spring.

- If there is extra R&D money floating around, I would LOVE to see more economically available Grendel single shot rifles, bolt action barrels or complete bolt action rifles; or even semi auto standard rifles. What? Too small of a market?

- If this were "The Shark Tank", I would say too confusing, too many cooks in the kitchen or not enough depending if you are a consumer or a manufacturer, too many recipes, and I don't see the value added for us regular guys. For that reason, I am out.

- Good luck, innovating thinking is gift, I hope you get what you are searching for.
Thank you. This country has been paved by those who saw a market for something no one else did, but pushed ahead to it anyways.

See above in Red.

[cory]

...As for applying the same approach to 6.5 Grendel, the demand is simply not there to justify any company spending the necessary time and money to create Grendel-specific receivers and magazines. If it's going to be done, it will have to use the already-in-production Six8 receivers and P-Mags.

So, the logical first step would seem to be acquisition of a Six8 P-Mag, determine how many rounds of 6.5 Grendel ammo it will hold, and if the cartridges stack properly. If the results prove unsatisfactory, then any further effort would be pointless.

Elander just released a Grendel specific magazine. It looks like the demand was there and still is.

I'd agree we should acquire a 68 mag, but if it won't work I don't think this will be pointless. Is Magpul not expanding it's production capacity as we speak in a pmag market that has drastically diminished?

[bwaites]

Hard to argue with it makes you happy!