Grendel Steelcase Ammo Update

[lazyengineer]

LE and Garrett, in my opinion, the defining appeal of the 6.5 Grendel over the 6.8 SPC is its all-around performance. It can do everything the 6.8 can, and more besides. The reverse is not true. Having said that, I certainly understand the huge advantage available cheap steel-case ammo gave to the 6.5.

Brass ammo for both 6.5 and 6.8 is gonna be priced comparably, so there's zero price or performance advantage for 6.8.

I don't understand the mentality that says, "Well, if I really had to choose between the two rounds, I'd default to the lesser-performing round with fewer bullet options."

Someone will say, "Well, the 6.8 does everything I need it to do; I don't need the longer range." OK, fine, perfectly valid argument. But one could just as easily say, "The 6.5 does everything I need it to do; I just don't need the longer range." Why default to the more limited performer? Do you think poorer performance means it's cheaper or more readily available?

You don't pay extra for ammo for the added capability. Guns and parts for the extra capability are just as available and cost the same as guns and parts for the lesser performer.

Help me understand what the "struggle" is, and why you consider 6.8 the default rather than the other way around?

The ban on Russian steel-case is gonna affect every platform that currently uses it: 5.56, 5.45x39, 7.62x39, 6.5 Grendel, 7.62x54, 7.62x51. Unless something changes, everybody's gonna be paying comparable prices for brass ammo.

You are of course correct on all counts. Aside from the cheaper steel ammo, Grendel has the appeal of longer range performance.

6.8 has the appeal of slightly better game-performance at most pragmatic hunting distances, but that advantage (if real at all), is more academic than meaningful. Which is to say essentially any shot taken with a 6.8 that the terminal ballistics of 6.8 made the difference, will also experience the same beneficial result from a 6.5 Grendel in most settings; they are quite close I think. Someone even did a 100 hogs hog-hunt comparison between the two, and found that the 6.8 killed one (1) more hog out of 100 than Grendel, and of course, no way is that not within experimental margin of error anyway. My guess is the flatter trajectory of 6.5 Grendel probably cancels out (if not exceeds), the minor terminal ballistics improvement of a 6.8 dia bullet vs a 6.5 dia bullet.

And (to Grendel credit) the longer range benefits of 6.5 Grendel are real. Somewhat for hunting, with the flatter trajectory and higher energy retention at distance, but really for the gong range, where a 800 -1000+ yard Gong is going to be notably more likely to be hit accurately by Grendel, than 6.8 which is going hard subsonic by then. And as a guy who had (had - **SOB**) access to an area 2000 yard gong range; that was a detail of value to me. In addtion, the Grendel base cartridge 7.62x39, is still in ready supply. Ironically, for reloaders, the Russian ban actually may be a boom, because I would guess the frequency of finding 7.62x39 boxer brass on the ground is likely going to go up. My Grendel loves 7.62x39 brass based ammo, and that stuff is stupid-easy to process into Grendel brass (no annealing, no neck trimming, skip all of that ).

With 6.8, that base brass is always going to be a hard to find exotic. The only other round that uses that base is .224 Valk (that I know of at least?).

Here is what I DO like about 6.8. It's higher pressure and holds more gunpowder. A 6.8 bolt is just going to be a tougher and high pressure rated bolt than a 6.5 Grendel bolt. I think the case body size of 6.5 Grendel is as far as you can go, with very little margin beyond that in the AR15 platform. At first, pushing it to the limit like that created lots of problems with broken bolts, broken extractors, etc. I will say, in 2022, I think manufacturers have just plain gotten better, and Grendel bolts seem to be doing pretty well today. But even with that, the 6.8 Bolt, is just going to be a tougher bolt. I like that.

If I were to decide what cartridge today, starting from scratch, I very probably would stick with 6.5 Grendel, for the longer range ballistics, and I personally consider this my favorite round for the AR-Tactical NRA / CMP High power 600 yard catagory (where you shoot a 20" with mid-power scope from a bipod prone - 20 round strings). But the dirt cheap steel ammo was one of my bullet-list items on why 6.5 Grendel was the obvious ultimate one-and-only gun, such that allowed one to do practice and 3-gun style shooting on-the-cheap still, competing against 5.56 guns, at about the same price-point as cheap 5.56 brass. That's what made Grendel so magical to me, is it was THE one gun for everything gun. Anything you needed a centerfire for, from defence to plinking, to hunting, to targetshooting to precision, in a handy light-weight familiar package, the Grendel was IT. It's a bummer that cool-point is going away, but the rest of the list, as you point out, remains. But what is going away (sort of), is the ability for that 6.5 Grendel rifle to fill the role as all around gun that includes cheap plinker and action shooter gun. Now you have to still include a 5.56 gun, for that role. And if that's the case, it's easier for someone who doesn't really care about >300 yard shots, to select 6.8 over 6.5 Grendel. High pressure rated bolt, and hits slightly harder at closer range. Some cost of ammo operation as Grendel. Me, I want the range and flatter trajectory. Not everybody does.

Personally, I think part of the Genius of Bill Alexander (Man I'd love to meet that guy), was he realized from the start that the route to cheap reliable plinking ammo was a big deal, if he wanted his new idea to reach the critical of mass it needs to be the success he wants it to be. I think he achieved that goal, and this won't be the death of Grendel which is now established. But cheap Wolf Steel was IMHO, essential for the round to gain as much of a foothold as it currently enjoys. FWIW, it's for similar reasons I've nerver really taken 6mm ARC seriously. If I want small diameter fast, for hitting stuff far accuractly, I'll just run something like .224 Valk, which can run high pressure too. If I want terminal ballistics to drop game animals, I'm just not willing to go smaller diameter than 6.5mm, personally; and meanwhile, 6mm ARC is even more exotic than 6.8 is.
There will never be cheap steel 6mm ARC, and nor am I as keen on dropping a free 7.62x39 casings' .311 diameter case mouth all the way down to 6mm. If I want to hit stuff at >500 yard distance game-killing hard, I'll run the 6.5 CM, and actually hit it hard.

Just the postulations of some guy on the internet