The Growing Horde

[gunrestorer]

When I decided to put mine together there were several folks around here telling me to go with the 6.8. The reserch I did told me go Grendel, I'am very pleased I did.Then I found this site and it just confirmed what I discovered.

[Buster]

When I was contemplating an alternative cartridge between 5.56 and 7.62 I had about decided to go with a 6.8 but was steered to the 6.5G by some other folks. I found this forum and glad I did. No looking back and no regrets!

[melensdad]

Put me down for another vote on a sub-section for the BOLT ACTION GRENDEL. I'm in the process of starting one of those based on a CZ 527. When I did a search on these forums for the term "CZ 527" the search engine turned up NOTHING. In fact other members have pointed me in the right direction and the threads do exist. But they are buried so deep the search engine can't find them???

When I decided to put mine together there were several folks around here telling me to go with the 6.8. The reserch I did told me go Grendel, I'am very pleased I did.Then I found this site and it just confirmed what I discovered.

What I don't get is why all the other folks keep talking up the 6.8.

Over at the Indiana Gun Forums it seems like every thread about the 6.5 ends up in a pissing match with a 6.8 booster trying to talk up the 6.8/talk down the 6.5. Every thread about the 6.8, also gets a 6.5 booster posting ballistics data to kill the 6.8 thread. There are plenty of 6.5 Grendel owners on that forum so the shout down ensues, its often fun to watch.

But what the heck is it about the 6.8 that people like? Ballistics are not as good as the 6.5 unless I am missing something. What the heck am I missing?

[Whelenon]

The 6.8 had a leg up from the beginning being developed by Remington in coordination with the military. There priority was terminal performance up to 500 meters. In that regards the 6.8 does better than the 6.5. So you have the military and Big Green promoting it's baby while the Grendel was the brain child of entrepreneurs at Alexander Arms. All around the Grendel is hands down better that the 6.8SPC. For up close and personal work the 6.8 has an edge but not by much and if you want to go long the Grendel shines with better ballistics and accuracy.

There's a lot to be said for both rounds but for the AR-15 platform the Grendel is the best thing out there. IMHO

[Bwild97]

The 6.8 had a leg up from the beginning being developed by Remington in coordination with the military. There priority was terminal performance up to 500 meters. In that regards the 6.8 does better than the 6.5. So you have the military and Big Green promoting it's baby while the Grendel was the brain child of entrepreneurs at Alexander Arms. All around the Grendel is hands down better that the 6.8SPC. For up close and personal work the 6.8 has an edge but not by much and if you want to go long the Grendel shines with better ballistics and accuracy.

There's a lot to be said for both rounds but for the AR-15 platform the Grendel is the best thing out there. IMHO

+1

Industry support is in many cases the #1 factor for people choosing the 6.8 SPC over other chamberings. Even after Remington dropping the 6.8 SPC faster that a shit covered brick, the industry support was such that the cartridge was allowed to thrive. I too, was almost sucked into the 6.8 SPC fad due to all the hype. I hadn't even considered the 6.5 Grendel until the owner of a local gun shop brought its existence to my attention. It didn't take much research to decide that the 6.5 Grendel was the better choice for me.

[melensdad]

The 6.8 had a leg up from the beginning being developed by Remington in coordination with the military. There priority was terminal performance up to 500 meters. In that regards the 6.8 does better than the 6.5. So you have the military and Big Green promoting it's baby . . .

OK but based on the ballistics tables the 6.8 is a MISERABLE performer past about 225 yards, because that is the point at which it drops below 1000 ft lbs of energy and begins to slow down in velocity too. The Grendel, on the other hand, carries 1000 ft lbs of energy out to 400 yards.

[fkleinbu]

When I decided to put mine together there were several folks around here telling me to go with the 6.8. The reserch I did told me go Grendel, I'am very pleased I did.Then I found this site and it just confirmed what I discovered.

<grin> From folks with whom I spoke as well as my research, pointed me to the 6.5 Grednel as well.. I've got ammo and mags, but I am still waiting for mine from Alexander Arms, but did manage to pick up a couple of 6.8 uppers in the mean time.. I can't wait till the temp's in central Texas break a little and I get a chance for some range work.

flk k

[LRRPF52]

I remember all the whispering and hinting at the 6.8, with "SOCOM" or "Special Forces" always attached to the "non-advertisement" advertisement in 2003-2004. I worked on one of the very first 6.8 carbines with a guy from AMU, when mags weren't even available. I learned that it was a project that had been authorized by one Commander in 5th Group to look into, since a Master Sergeant within 5th SFG had done some work with AMU loading the .30 Remington case necked-down to .277 pills, which I thought was interesting since I had always wanted the power of a .270 Winchester in an AR-type platform, but of course the 6.8 ballistics are nowhere near .270 Win.

Another buddy of mine was an instructor at SOTIC and SFARTAETC at Bragg, and is a gun guy. He got one of the very first AA 24" Grendels and said it was the most accurate rifle he owned, and he can't count how many blasters he has, let alone safes. He had nothing but good things to say about the Grendel, and I kept up with him on its development. I got turned onto 6.5mm with .260 Rem, and understood how the 6.5 pills are the ones to beat in any case based on .308 Win. Right after I got my Grendel, this guy was looking to sell his 6.8 and had CZ's custom shop drop a Douglas select match 22" barrel chambered for Grendel in his CZ527, getting insane velocities with the 139gr Scenar.

They both offer increased energy for people looking to hunt, but the 6.5 holds an edge when you look at the projectile selection and sectional density. There are more factory loads for the 6.8, but the number of Grendel factory loads is growing, and more affordable boxed ammo exists for the Grendel currently.

The SAAMI spec for the Grendel is a safe chamber to use, and very accurate.

The SAAMI chamber for the 6.8 is incorrect, with a dangerous 80 degree throat angle into the lands that shears off copper from projectiles, leaving a ring of remaining copper that is there for the next projectile to jam into in many guns. I've seen pics of guns that kaboom'd as result, that have since been scrubbed from the internet, and one in particular sen the bottom of the BCG through a thick heavy duty bench like a comet through hot butter.

The 6.8 followers identified this chamber defect early and do their best to warn people about using the incorrect SAAMI chamber, but it was a major SNAFU that many believe was caused by a rush to get the 6.8 SAAMI-spec'd, while Bill A. was being criticized for protecting the Grendel chamber with strict licensing that required manufacturers not to deviate in the least from the Grendle chamber.

There's a new customer born every minute, so the competition between the 2 only drives the market better for consumers in many ways. Hunters particulalry have benefitted from these improved performance intermediate cartridges. I still see a lot of the false statements about Grendel being:

"Too slow from shorter barrels..."
"Only good for punching paper..."
"More expensive than a 6.8..."
"Not much of a selection in hunting loads..."

When I run the ballistics of equal barrel length carbines shooting as close a weight/type projectiles available, the Grendel has matched the 6.8 for energy at 100yds, then starts to out-gas it. Trajectory is academic out to 225yds between the 2, with better wind drift for the Grendel, and then the Grendel out-gases the 6.8 from 225yds to 250yds onward, depending on the pill. The 6.8 ammo makers have strived hard to make the 6.8 more like a Grendel with the 120gr SST and 140gr Berger loads, while it doesn't make a lot of sense to load the Grendel to 6.8 velocities with varmint loads unless you intend to shoot varmints.

While the ballistics line up within most practical hunting ranges, I think it's fair to say that a higher sectional density bullet provides better penetration, so the terminal performance is really in the Grendel's favor for hunting, even though the "paper-killer" mantra has been sung over and over and over so that many believe it. As scores of members of the forum have proven, the Grendel is no paper-killer alone, but a versatile cartridge that squeezes the most you can out of the limitations of the AR15 receiver set and barrel extension/bolt combo.

[fkleinbu]

<LOL>, I come from a background of shooting cartridges for which no factory loads are available.. Indeed, for many of those cartridges you even have to form your own cases from some parent case.. I have been reforming cases going back to the first cartridge I reloaded – the 7mm BR when it was still a wildcat round a little over 30 years ago..

The bullet selection for the Grendel has a lower ballistic coefficient as a rule than do those for the 6.8.. That was the main point which tipped the scales for me..

Flk k

[fkleinbu]

Boy do I have egg on my face.. I guess that is what I get from posting before I had enough coffee..

I meant to say the 6.5 bullets have an over all higher BC than do the bullets for the 6.8..

Many thanks to the list member who pointed out my error.. flk k

[usmc1371]

i too was looking into the 6.8. i was looking for something close to 308 ballistics. the 6.8 looked like a good choice. then i found the old grendel site. well i never got a 6.8. grendel does everything i was looking for an more. hell it shoot better than i do. i do have to say my stick is one of the most accurate rifles i own.

[JASmith]

Do any of our folks follow the 6.8 discussions?

If so, are there any threads similar to this one?

The question: Do we see as many folks who have looked at the Grendel and, on the basis of solid ballistics assessment, decided to go with the 6.8?

"Solid ballistics assessment" is different than "the cartridge looks cool" or has an interesting connection to history. We all almost certainly have purchased rifles 'just because' we want them. In fact, the 'cool' factor is a major reason I have a couple of rifles that are now safe queens.

Grendel owners tend to use them a lot because the overall hunting ballistics are as good as one can expect in an AR and the rifles are comfortable to shoot!

[fkleinbu]

I am also a member of one the 6.8 forums, and I can't say I have seen many discussions regarding balistics.. But then I have only recently joined as I've only recently picked up a couple of 6.8 uppers (a 16" and 18")..

The 6.8 was mainly chosen to help me fill out a collections of AR's.. I want uppers in 17 HMR (got news mine is due back from AA next week - yippee!!), naturally 5.56, 6.8 SPC II, .300 AAC, 9mm, a Grendel, and lastly a Beowulf (I really don't have any use for the .50, but I just can't see having the Grendel, without the Beowulf <grin>).. As soon as I figure out which of the two 6.8 uppers I have I like the most, I will probably sell the other..

The "Best of the West" range is about 45 miles away, and they have targets out to 1000 meters.. I bought the Grendel to go after the 750 and 1000 meter targets, and perhaps some Hog hunting if I ever get a chance to..

flk

Still waiting on my Grendel, 15 weeks now and counting..

flk k

[Bwild97]

"JASmith"

Do any of our folks follow the 6.8 discussions?

Yes Joe, I do frequent the 6.8 forums when I need a giggle!

Here is a thread from the 6.8 community that we can all enjoy! 68forums.com: Why did you pick the 6.8mm SPC

[JASmith]

Thanks!

I read through the first page -- the posters' thumbnails say a lot about how deeply they think and where that thinking is.

I am not one to criticize folks who fall in love with something and "must have it!"

Cheers!

[Whelenon]

Horde still growing, 280 new members this last month, another 8% increase.

[JDub]

When I first caught wind of another "standard" cartridge for the AR was coming out I was all over it. Of course, the 6.8 spc was first so I researched it extensively. At the time, I was unaware of the "off-list" AR situation here in California so I thought I'd never own another AR. This didn't lessen my interest in the cartridge, however.

Then I heard about the Grendel and it was all over. 6mm PPC derivative in an AR...game over man.

It just seemed like a better cartridge from almost any perspective. Not to say that I think guys who shoot 6.8SPC are unenlightened or anything. I just knew that the grendel would be the one I'd go after. Maybe because I had spent a lot of time reading about cartridges and their history that I felt it had a better bloodline, for lack of a better term, I don't know.

[fkleinbu]

When I was much younger, I used to get into those debates over which cartridge is better.. These days I figure it is best to just get them all..

Just picked up a very sweet .300 AAC


All that is left now is an upper in Beowulf and perhaps a 7.62x39..

Life is good.. flk k

[Whelenon]

When I was much younger, I used to get into those debates over which cartridge is better.. These days I figure it is best to just get them all..

Just picked up a very sweet .300 AAC

All that is left now is an upper in Beowulf and perhaps a 7.62x39..

Life is good.. flk k

I'm with you on that idea, a 17HMR would be sweet or a 9mm would be fun.

[Capt. Morgan]

Horde still growing, 280 new members this last month, another 8% increase.

OK, count me in. Two weeks ago I ordered my Grendel from Precision Firearms. A 16" carbine. It seemed like a better option than 6.8 based on ballistics and SD, and ammo costs seemed close enough. Mark at PF said mid-November, but from the other threads I have a feeling this may be ... optimistic.

One question for the Horde - I ordered both the EoTech and Vortex 1-4x with a QD base for the rifle. My thinking was the scope for the range where I shoot (200 yard max) and the EoTech for all other times/uses.

However, I am wondering if I should not have gotten the 4-16x scope in the event I ever want to hunt, or go to a longer range. But since I won't have room for a bipod, perhaps the 4x optic is better?