What a diff, a barrel makes

[lazyengineer]

Sorry to tell you but I haven't seen anyone post on this board in the last 24 hours that they are having a feeding issue due to a so called case design problem.

I can do you better I can put 26 rounds of each in steel body ar15 mags. And nope they come out as easly as the next.

No mag material used does not matter. Steel mag bodies are better in all ways compared to aluminium. Case in point does anybody make a aluminium mag except 556 mags? To my knowledge if you ask someone that runs 556 what mags they like best they are going to say polymer first, steel second and aluminum last. If they even would entertain useing a aluminium mag.

Thus same argument has been run for years and years by 6.8 guys and it was proven time and time again to be false.

So I will say again if your having feeding issues. It's because of your mags are your lower is out of spec some how.

I have run every 6.5 grendel mag on the market and the only mags that gave me trouble were elanders. And yea elanders in my book are garbage. Asc/arstoner are servicable, CPD is the best of the metal grendel mags.

Bottom line is your assumption is wrong and just that a assumption on what's causing your issue.

Provide me 5 links that have data that is less then 5 years old showing imperial data to prove otherwise that the grendel case design makes it harder for the bcg to strip a round.

Well.. this thread (Which I just now read in the last 24 hours) for starters. My own experience. And this thread at AR15.com.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/precision-ri...3/&page=18

which I read 24 hours ago. Note how the tip of the round is clear and not being visibly bound anywhere, yet won't feed.

I guess that doesn't fit your made-up criteria for 5 postings that I'm supposed to research and post; so I guess you can stop here if you like.

I like Grendel - that's why I'm here. I think it's the most optimized round that will fit in 5.56 and think it's genius engineering.

But supporters seem to dismiss the reality that all designs are compromise; and Grendel pushes the boundary's in order to fit its excellent performance in an AR platform. It's within boundaries and works - it's a good design; but it's pushing things enough that it's less forgiving to problems. The extractor just straight up has less metal in it at the main stress point. So, it's not as strong - it can't be. Sure enough, I broke one already - maybe a bad manufacturer; but that's just it, with Grendel there's just less room for error. The case design is fatter than a 5.56 round, so the magazine ribs are more shallow. Steel isn't the standard or accepted norm for 5.56 AR magazines anywhere, it's specialty for 5.56 AR's, and I'm not sure where that comes from.

As to force balance, I sometimes wonder if the shallow ribs of a GI mag are actually quite wide enough, to yield the same double-stack force balance profile 5.56 has, or if there is a lateral/side force component. Or maybe since the round is sitting wider, the top of the round is further out, and more fully engaged with the lips, where in 5.56 the lips encounter the round maybe half was down it's radius..... Hmmm, I wonder... Anyway, maybe you're right about E-Landers - though when I asked everyone said were the best at the time and to stay away from ACS and other brands. The fact that whatever brand there is, a lot of people rail about how crappy it is and XX is so much better, says something on its own. But anyway, my E-Landers run 100%, I don't get jams when i'm shooting, and I've run it 3-gun with in-field fast-reloads just fine. But I will say, they are swelling some - and none will drop free anymore. I'm getting wear on the exterior back of my Elanders now. But they function 100% when in play. Or maybe it's something else, but yea - in my experience 6.5 Grendel casings have way WAY more force on the magazine lips than 5.56. And this is hardly a new item, people complain about how hard it is to load Grendel mags much more than 5.56 mags - this is hardly all coming out of a vacuum from just one random guy here.

My point of replying was to help out to the OP on methods and practices to manage that. Methods and practices I do, that give me 100% reliability.