01-12-2012, 12:21 AM
This continues to baffle me. The name is the only significant difference in the chamber. Is there not more difference in a 5.56 vs. Wylde vs. .223 chamber than the Grendel vs. .264 LBC? In essence the .264 LBC is just a tighter spec chamber, like a .308 match chamber vs a standard sloppy .308 chamber. The only time you MIGHT be at a disadvantage with the LBC is if you go to war or are hunting dangerous game, neither one of which you are likely to do with the guns discussed on here. I still have yet to hear from somebody that has had actual feeding/reliability issues with a .264LBC chamber, only the conjectures and theories that it won't feed, etc., etc. In the gun industry there are many different specs for chambers and it is dealt with all the time. As long as you know what chamber you are getting, what's the problem with either? How many different chambers are out there for a 6BR? I can think of 1/2 dozen and I'm not a gunsmith.
"Seriously in reply to the OP the chambers assuming they are correct are essentially interchangeable with respect to the ammunition. The Wolf ammunition is probably not a consideration for a high end barrel. Both Hornady and AA ammunition (Lapua) will run fine in either chamber." Bill Alexander on this forum responding to a .264 LBC vs Grendel question.
I respect decisions to support one or the other based on personal relationships, preferences, etc., but let's not pretend it should be based on any more than that.
"Seriously in reply to the OP the chambers assuming they are correct are essentially interchangeable with respect to the ammunition. The Wolf ammunition is probably not a consideration for a high end barrel. Both Hornady and AA ammunition (Lapua) will run fine in either chamber." Bill Alexander on this forum responding to a .264 LBC vs Grendel question.
I respect decisions to support one or the other based on personal relationships, preferences, etc., but let's not pretend it should be based on any more than that.