Ok, I'm starting to see this a bit -- but a lot of this is "empiric" as JA (?Joe?) stated earlier. I read thru the ShootersNotes site (great stuff, btw). And now I begin to see why we have spilled so much electronic ink on bullet design (Sneaky, I've read your posts with interest over the years.). If, as appears likely, we are slouching toward a lead-free future, what are we looking for in a hunting projectile in the 6.5G? I understand Joe's empiric connection between projectile type (based on constituent parts, shape, and construction) and wound channel (although, unless I missed it, most of what is written on ShootersNotes emphasizes permanent wound channel).
When I was stationed at Bliss (now, that is a misnamed duty station), one of my colleagues was doing comparative research on wounding patterns using standard issue military weapons from the course of the Army's history and I had the opportunity to look over some of his data. (Brief synopsis, you do not want to be shot with a Minie ball.) We know that temporary wound cavity is also important in the ethical taking of game. Not to mention that expansion velocity floors for lead-free projectiles are -- depending on what you read -- somewhere around 1600-1800 fps.
What is going to be the intersection point between construction material, weight, BC, HITS score (which takes into account velocity retained at impact and is thus, somewhat, derivative of BC without using it), and cartridge length to make the 6.5G an effective and reproducible (based on shooter skill) 400-600 yard caliber for medium game (up to and including mule deer or Canadian whitetails) in a rifle that can be carried in the field (18" bbl, fluting, etc, etc etc)?
(And as a corollary, does anyone know if Barnes or Nosler or Hornady or whoever, is near-to-market with an all copper projo that expands at lower velocities (like the Accubond-LR does)? I spoke with Barnes about the LRX and they strongly recommend 1800 fps at impact -- which limits range in the Grendel -- and the 127g LRX is very long for an AR-magazine based round.)
This is not just a theoretical exercise -- my son and I have a Colorado mule deer hunt this autumn and I was thinking of taking our Grendels. But the guide says be ready to shoot to 400 or a bit longer. I have no concerns about my 300WM at long range (although I have concerns about the old man behind the rifle) or my son's 338FED (no concerns with those young nerves and eyes). Just curious what people think -- Joe, Sneaky, LR52: any thoughts?
Lastly, on the 270 comparative discussion, I concur that it is wonderful to see the increase in published interest in the 6.5G and the articles in the new Book of the AR-15 and Shooting Times are excellent but, IMO, what this cartridge needs (indeed what the entire AR-15 hunting community needs) is the 6.5G version of Jack O'Connor. We need someone to write with skill and poetry about the beauty of the wild hunting places, the thrill and heartbreak of the chase, the celebration and sadness of the harvest, and the utility and grace of the caliber.
I nominate LR52.
When I was stationed at Bliss (now, that is a misnamed duty station), one of my colleagues was doing comparative research on wounding patterns using standard issue military weapons from the course of the Army's history and I had the opportunity to look over some of his data. (Brief synopsis, you do not want to be shot with a Minie ball.) We know that temporary wound cavity is also important in the ethical taking of game. Not to mention that expansion velocity floors for lead-free projectiles are -- depending on what you read -- somewhere around 1600-1800 fps.
What is going to be the intersection point between construction material, weight, BC, HITS score (which takes into account velocity retained at impact and is thus, somewhat, derivative of BC without using it), and cartridge length to make the 6.5G an effective and reproducible (based on shooter skill) 400-600 yard caliber for medium game (up to and including mule deer or Canadian whitetails) in a rifle that can be carried in the field (18" bbl, fluting, etc, etc etc)?
(And as a corollary, does anyone know if Barnes or Nosler or Hornady or whoever, is near-to-market with an all copper projo that expands at lower velocities (like the Accubond-LR does)? I spoke with Barnes about the LRX and they strongly recommend 1800 fps at impact -- which limits range in the Grendel -- and the 127g LRX is very long for an AR-magazine based round.)
This is not just a theoretical exercise -- my son and I have a Colorado mule deer hunt this autumn and I was thinking of taking our Grendels. But the guide says be ready to shoot to 400 or a bit longer. I have no concerns about my 300WM at long range (although I have concerns about the old man behind the rifle) or my son's 338FED (no concerns with those young nerves and eyes). Just curious what people think -- Joe, Sneaky, LR52: any thoughts?
Lastly, on the 270 comparative discussion, I concur that it is wonderful to see the increase in published interest in the 6.5G and the articles in the new Book of the AR-15 and Shooting Times are excellent but, IMO, what this cartridge needs (indeed what the entire AR-15 hunting community needs) is the 6.5G version of Jack O'Connor. We need someone to write with skill and poetry about the beauty of the wild hunting places, the thrill and heartbreak of the chase, the celebration and sadness of the harvest, and the utility and grace of the caliber.
I nominate LR52.