Steve Gash article in Shooting Times

[45r]

Yes, the higher initial velocity of a .270 Winchester is noticeable at short range compared to the Grendel. But I don't think that will hold true at longer range. The bullets available for the .270 winchester are poor ballistically, they are designed for 0-300 yards and within that envelope they perform well indeed. But once the .270 has dropped below the velocity threshold of a massive temporary wound cavity it be comes just another chunk of metal through the vitals.

Also, I would find another guide, if he tells me be prepared to shoot 400 yards, he is telling me he has a poor area, or poor techniques. Most guides worth their salt will be advising the opposite, and plan to get you in close, unless they observe you really have the skill for a 400 yard shot, they won't even permit it.

I'm a long range hunter and a short range hunter, I would not hesitate to use my 6.5 Grendel out to 400 yards on a mule deer, whether it be a meat hunt or a trophy hunt makes no difference, I don't want to wound either. I find the 6.5 Grendel far more effective than the .243 and lots and lots of trophy mule deer have been taken with the .243. I even let one of my sons use our .243 on the Kiabab, and that is a hard to get tag. He killed a nice buck at 275 yards with a 100 grain Speer Grandslam from the little Remington model 7 .243. The 6.5 Grendel would have been more effective, and if I had one then, he would have used it. But dead is dead, and a 270, .243, or 6.5 bullet throughout the thorax makes them very dead.
Bob

Very well said.
The ability to place the bullet where it should go is most important.
Lots of practice and an accurate rifle helps.
The 6.5Grendel is very accurate with little recoil in a great platform.
After seeing how well it shoots if I wanted to shoot way out there like 600 yards and beyond I'd get a 260 rem or 6.5 creedmore.

[stokesrj]

I have a .260 and a 6.5 Creedmoor and a 6.5X55, they perform marginally better than my Grendel, but If I am purposefully going to shoot long range, I take my 6.5 STW which launches a 140 grain Berger Hunting VLD at 3350 fps. For the majority of situations I'll take my 6.5 Grendel just because it is handier and most shots are not 600 yards or more, they are 300 yards or less. Even Antelope in the wide open plains are shot at less than 300 yards 90+% of the time.
I've been concentrating on hunting in Europe lately and my AR's aren't welcome in most places. I wind up taking my Blaser R8 with a 6.5X55 and a 9.3X62 barrel with me mostly. Seems like I always have the wrong one on the gun. Here is a little Roe Buck I shot with the 9.3X62 using a 286 grain RWS TUG bullet. It killed him and didn't destroy much meat. My 6.5 Grendel would have killed him and not destroyed much meat either. The shot was only 117 meters and there, they think that is a long shot. Most game is taken well within 100 meters and in some places it's illegal to take a shot more than 200 meters.

[45r]

I don't shoot bolt guns much anymore and I sold my 308 since the 6.5grendel will work for most hunting.
It was getting too heavy compared to mouse guns.
The lighter weight guns like the DPMS G2 and H's nextgen seam to have made them lighter.
I think the 6.5SLR is the best 6.5 off the 308 case but hasn't caught on yet.
How do you like your 260rem and 6.5creedmore.
I'm leaning towards the 6.5creedmore for use with the 140 hunting VLD's.

[stokesrj]

I like the 6.5 Creedmoor really well. It is superior if you don't hand load as the Hornady factory loads are uber accurate, single hole at 100 yards. If you hand load there isn't much difference, you really couldn't tell them apart in the field. Same goes for the 6.5X55 except it takes a long action. The AMU went with the .260 for their NRA match rifles which are McMillan 2000 rifles also available in 6.5 Creedmoor. Emil Praslic the coach of the Army Marksmansip Unit told me they tested them extensively and could tell no difference and Lapua agreed to make 260 brass but not Creedmoor. So they chose the .260. Carl Bernosky also tested both and chose the 6.5 Creedmoor but later moved to the 6mm Hagar. So there you have it the best of the best the AMU and Carl looked at the same situation and made opposite choices. It really is six of one or half a dozen of the other. Unless you intend to shoot factory loads, then the 6.5 Creedmoor wins hands down, 260 factory loads are poor at best.

Bust just to keep this on topic, I don't think either the .260 or the 6.5 Creedmoor are any more effective in the field than the 6.5 Grendel. On paper yes, but not in real life.

Bob

[keystone183]

On paper, how would you compare the creedmoor to the .270?

[stokesrj]

The classic .270 130 grain factory load starts our with more speed and energy, but at 450 yards the 6.5 Creedmoor 140 grain factory A-max load has overtaken the 270 and caries more energy with a growing lead as the range increases. The 6.5 Creedmoor also allows a short action, the .270 requires a long action, and the .270 produces significantly more muzzle blast and recoil although the recoil is manageable in both.
Bob

[Butterbean]

Count me as someone who loves the grendel.....but lets not get carried away here.....

Yup.

[sneaky one]

Right guys, RJ has spent more time afield - everywhere than most of us- so he has seen more bullet damage upon game animals. That's why he is such a great informer on this forum, we love his posts.

But the the new monos are a new bullet, still under design, testing also by a few of us. I'm going lead free from here on out, a few more dollars per yr., are worth it to me, & my family. I am sure that us guys from the past , ate much lead in our diets- I'm done with that now.

Moving forward in the lead free realm, think of your kids, as to what we all know now days on lead. Look to china, they include lead into Every thing..... sad

[Paul45LC]

Yes, the higher initial velocity of a .270 Winchester is noticeable at short range compared to the Grendel. But I don't think that will hold true at longer range. The bullets available for the .270 winchester are poor ballistically, they are designed for 0-300 yards and within that envelope they perform well indeed. But once the .270 has dropped below the velocity threshold of a massive temporary wound cavity it be comes just another chunk of metal through the vitals.

Bob

I hate to burst your bubble on this, but, the .270 Winchester has access to the complete array of Accubond, Ballistic Tips, Gameking, Interbond, SST, Scirocco, and TTSX bullets up to 150 grains where applicable. This means plenty of low drag selections. The .270 earned its reputation as a flat shooting long range hunting cartridge by being exactly that, a flat shooting long range hunting cartridge.

I love the Grendel because I'm fascinated by its ability to do so much with so little, but sir, it is no .270.

[JASmith]

I hate to burst your bubble on this, but, the .270 Winchester has access to the complete array of Accubond, Ballistic Tips, Gameking, Interbond, SST, Scirocco, and TTSX bullets up to 150 grains where applicable. This means plenty of low drag selections. The .270 earned its reputation as a flat shooting long range hunting cartridge by being exactly that, a flat shooting long range hunting cartridge.

I love the Grendel because I'm fascinated by its ability to do so much with so little, but sir, it is no .270.

Low drag selections coming into the .277 stable? Yes.

The kicker is that the span of bullet weights for the 6.5 caliber is about the same as for the .277 lineup. That automatically means a larger sectional density for smaller diameter bullets of the same weight. Hence it will be difficult to find a .277 bullet with superior performance to a 6.5 caliber bullet in the same weight. With the range of bullet weights being roughly the same, we see the 6.5 caliber has the edge bullet for bullet.

This means that, when using cases of equal volume, e. g., 6.5-06, the 6.5 will give superior performance with that superiority increasing with range for similar bullet designs of the same weight.

Turning to the Grendel, load data is available for bullets ranging from 85 grains to 156 grains. As long as these bullets are going fast enough to reliably expand, they will perform as well on game as the same weight .277 bullet even when the larger bullet is going a few hundred fps faster. Further, the slower bullet can outperform the faster one when it is going so fast that the bullet fragments instead of simply expanding.

This behavior was established in tests referenced in the Ideal Bullet Weight papers. This means that the only difference is the range over which the two bullets are within their impact velocity envelopes and the trajectory. Bottom line, as long as both bullets are above the expansion threshold and below the fragmentation ceiling, there is essentially no difference in average permanent wound channel between .264 and .277 bullets.

Further, as stokesrj points out, the 270 tends to drive bullets of classic design a bit too fast for reliable performance in game. Yes, there are spectacular wounds, but these are too often on the surface but with not much penetration because the bullet blows up, or a lot of meat is ruined by multiple fragments and ripping because of the near-explosive encounter.

The Grendel does not have this problem.

[keystone183]

Further, as stokesrj points out, the 270 tends to drive bullets of classic design a bit too fast for reliable performance in game. Yes, there are spectacular wounds, but these are too often on the surface but with not much penetration because the bullet blows up, or a lot of meat is ruined by multiple fragments and ripping because of the near-explosive encounter.

The Grendel does not have this problem.

Again, i am certainly no ballistics expert nor do i have any high speed video in to ballistics gel. But visuals on wounds internally and externally on actual animals, i have lots. On whitetails from 60 to 140 lbs dressed weight, there is NO comparison. Same on mulies to 350lbs. Shooting 130 gr to 150 gr noslers or soft points of some flavor, i've never had any problems with under penetration at any of the distances i've shot (25- 300 yds). Fragmentation and ruining some meat? Yep, but never under penetration. But, that's why i prefer neck shots. But to the point. Is the grendel deadly? Yes. Does it have less recoil? Yes. Does it fit in my AR? Yes. Does it provide a much larger margin for error, and provide faster kills? No.

[stokesrj]

Guys, I think the point is being missed, yes the .270 is more powerful to start with, it also requires a long action, an overall longer and less ergonomic gun, produces more muzzle blast and recoil than the 6.5 Grendel. I've personally shot a lot of game with a .270 and with a 6.5x55. The .270 is noticeably more authoritative up close, but when the range is extended, that edge is lost, the performance between the two are indistinguishable beyond 300 yards. The 6.5 Grendel is indistinguishable from the 6.5x55 so far with the limited number of animals I've shot with the Grendel at extended range.

I'm a fan of Jack O'Conner, read everything he ever wrote and discussed guns and hunting with him face to face on multiple occasions, he was a professor at ASU where I attended college. What he did not write a lot about was his favorite rifle, a 30-06. He felt it had an edge over the .270 but it was far more interesting to write about the .270 since a 30-06 was old hat. That is the way of gun writers, there is no money in writing about what works reliably over the long haul. The result is that we have an image in our head formed by what we hear about this caliber or that caliber, I'm the same. That is why I started out with a .270 in Alaska, shot my first bull moose with one. It worked, but I eventually switched to the 30-06 for the same reason Jack O'Conners favored it. But what I found was it didn't kill any more quickly or surely at longer distance than the 6.5x55 did. I eventually used the 6.5x55 more and more.

Here is a real world example of how a rifle performs at long range. In 1984 I drew a coveted Desert Bighorn Sheep tag for the Kofa range north of Yuma, Arizona. I scouted the area for 31 days prior to the hunt, rented a plane and flew the entire hunt unit. It was a bad year for the Kofa range, surrounding units had more rain and most of the sheep had moved out. I located one mature ram, an 11 year old that was heavily broomed on his right side but he was the best ram in the unit. So, I decided to go after him.
Once the season opened, I made a stalk to the closest point I could without him detecting me and waited for him to bed down, which he did, but not in a place I could get closer. Finally after waiting four hours, he got up and fed right back to where he had come, still no chance for a closer stalk, so I decided to take him from there, a long shot in those days before laser range finders and everything we have today. My optical range finder read 457 yards but we had discovered it some times lies. I was shooting my Steyr Model M professional hunter loaded with 165 grain Nosler Partition bullets and 57 grains of IMR4350. This rifle routinely shot this load into .5 MOA or there a bouts. I was shooting a 6x42 fixed power scope but I had practiced much with this rig and knew precisely how to hold for 450 yards. My friend Roger was on the spotting scope, and I was laying prone, shooting from a bipod.

The Ram and his Ewes were calm, the had no idea we were in the area.
At the shot the ram didn't react so I turned to Roger who shrugged and said "I didn't see and impact". So, I said same hold, watch closer and fired again. Roger shrugged and said "you must be hitting him" but all the ram did was calmly walk across the open hill side. So, I shot again, this time Roger said, "he is hit, he's limping and I see blood running down his front leg". So, I held the same and let rounds huber four and five go. Finally he laid down, just as he would if he was bedding. Eventually, his head dropped and he rolled over.
It took us a good 30-45 minutes to climb to where he was and when we got there, all five shots had gone through his chest cavity, but you could not tell which were entrance and which were exits, if you didn't know which way he was standing at the shots. Rifles just don't pack much punch at longer ranges, they kill by removing vital organs, not by shock. The 6.5 Grendel would have produced the exact same result under these circumstances with the same bullet construction, or perhaps faster results with a more lightly constructed bullet and of course so would the 30-06.

To take it a step further, Rick Reakoff was a master guide who lived in Wiseman Alaska. I met him and his family when I was a young hunter there, his daughter Hedi was 11 years old at the time and had just killed a monster bull moose with Ricks rifle, a 30-30 Savage model 99. Rich killed many moose, black, polar, and grizzly bears, Dall sheep, and caribou with that rifle and often said I don't know why all these gun writers think you have to have a .300 magnum, the 30-30 kills everything up here just fine.

Rick was very experienced and practical, he was a subsistence hunter as well as a master guide, he understood the limitations of his rifle and used it within those limitations. Although we may argue the relative effectiveness of the .270, I think we could agree that the 6.5 Grendel certainly out performs a 30-30 and the AR outperforms a Save Model 99. Used within it's limitations the 6.5 Grendel will take any animal in North America. I know that is heresy, and contrary to what the gun press would have us believe, but, I've seen the 30-30 do it with my own eyes. It wouldn't be my first choice for heavy game, that's why I have the 9.3X62 pictured earlier, it provides more margin of error in situations like driven game. When the game is running, precise shot placement is more difficult and with it, I can reach the vitals from any angle on any animal in North America, and with proper shot selection take any animal that walks the face of the earth. I also have a .375 for those few African countries that won't allow the 9.3X62 but seldom use it any longer.
Bob

[keystone183]

I believe i agree with everything you just said. My entire purpose was, let's not get carried away or be hyperbolic. Over selling and under delivering never works out well. Again, two years ago i had one .270 and no grendels. Now i have one .270 and three grendels. I would guess the vast majority of game is taken under 200 yds in this country, and a very very small percentage is taken over 300. So, just so people know, the grendel doesn't pack the punch the .270 does at those ranges, but it dang sure does the job, and has so many advantages, i now own three.