Steve Gash article in Shooting Times

[JASmith]

The September 2014 issue just arrived in our mailbox. In this issue was an excellent review of Alexander Arms' 6.5 Grendel Hunter by Steve Gash.

As frequently happens, Steve's article gives a lot more than just a simple review of a particular model. In this case, he included commentary on across the board accuracy with a variety of bullets and powders along with a triple handful of his favorite loads. The hunting results were interesting. There was even a mention of the 6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbook.

[BluntForceTrauma]

Good news. Fortier mentioned over on AR15.com that he's got an article on 65G steel-case coming out soon in Shotgun News. Bill A. noted that others are working on articles, as well.

[bwaites]

The New AR-15 mag has a great article on the new AA Hunter by Jason Teague, then another article on AA Grendel ammunition by Tom Beckstrand. The Grendel is getting its second wind, and really taking off with the writers in the gun mags!

[JASmith]

I think folks are beginning to realize this little cartridge works as well on game as the .270 Winchester, is as gentle on the shoulder as the .243 Winchester, and shoots flat enough to count! Al that on top producing outstanding accuracy in the AR-15 and other frames.

[81police]

recoils close to a 223, hits more like a 243

[keystone183]

I think folks are beginning to realize this little cartridge works as well on game as the .270 Winchester,

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

[JASmith]

recoils close to a 223, hits more like a 243

Yes, it is a light recoil, but I have run the numbers. On paper, it is kind of between the 100 gr PowerPoint/Corelokt in the .243 and the 75gr Varmint loads for the same weight of rifle. That is not much more than the heavy bullets in the .223 Rem. And yes, the recoil feels more like that of the .223 Rem in the rifles i use for these three calibers.

Yes, the muzzle energies are close to each other. The .243 Win, however, can't sling 120 - 140 gr bullets so results on game will be more reliable. These weights are also the most commonly used bullet weights in the .270 Winchester. The difference is in muzzle velocity which effects the trajectory and the distance over which the bullet reliably expands.

[tackdriver]

I have recently introduced my uncle to a Grendel, it took over a year to convince him! He said he was gonna use it on coyotes and that he already had a .308 and .270 for deer. I bet him $50 he ends up deer hunting with it this fall. I can see no use to shoot the bigger rifles!

[JASmith]

Tackdriver, has your uncle read through Vol 2 of the 6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbook?

That read through and some serious plinking with the deer loads might ease his concerns about whether the cartridge is up to the task.

Cheers!

[sneaky one]

I agree , keystone- the compare to the .270 was a bit much. Maybe Joe hit a bad keystroke-.

I proof read the ST rag item. Looks good. Look at the energy levels that they state= barely above the 5.56.

That's the main reason that I went lighter in wt., , yet lead free-- in 6.5 Grr--- it sheds no wt.!

I am close to the performance level on game- using Gmx pills, in 95 grn.,, as to compare to the -in between -30-30-+-.308---- it's all thats needed for whtails.

Lead based pills truly are best in 100-123 grn., in the Grendel. I just prefer lead free. By going lead free, you can drop 20-40 grns of wt. Full penetration is awesome too.

We may have a few new wt.'s to be announced later- if it pans out as planned,,on the Gmx idea.
Much more to follow upon this lead free - bullets.

It's going to be an issue in 50 states before you know it= bald eagles. Hawks, duh, the condor, it will never end .

Back to the Grr article, nicely done. It is the best midsize option out there, with a many uses, far beyond the 6.8 SPC's reach.

It's a true duh- moment for our ill congress to see the cost savings for future engagements.- War planes, soldiers on foot- anyone in theater can use the same ammo....

[JASmith]

I agree , keystone- the compare to the .270 was a bit much. Maybe Joe hit a bad keystroke-...

No bad keystroke fellas!

The key item is bullet weight. Muzzle and impact velocity make very little difference as long as the impact velocity is in the recommended range for the bullet. For most lead-core bullets, that range is 2,000 to 3,000 fps. Since both the .270 and the Grendel have pretty close to the same range of bullet weights that can impact within this velocity at reasonable hunting distances, their effect on game is very similar.

The main difference is the .270 has a flatter trajectory and a longer range to the threshold bullet velocity but one pays the price of enduring heavier felt recoil.

Go to this page and read the linked papers for details: Ideal Bullet Weight

[Y85]

That link is a great reference. (Now, for my stupid question.). Why can lead-free bullets achieve the same effectiveness at 60% of the weight of lead-based billets? Is it due to weight retention? (That doesn't seem logical.). Since energy transmission involves both mass and velocity, I don't see how the much lighter all copper projectiles would be as effective. Is a 90-100g TSX really as effective as a 123-125g SST/Partition on whitetails (let's assume Midwestern deer - 175-250 lbs)?

[JASmith]

The papers in the subsequent links help explain a little bit but the differences in permanent wound channel sizes between the bullet design classes was empirically derived.

The methodology looks at the size (area) of the permanent wound channel compared to the animal's weight. The required relationship was essentially established by archeologists working to understand why mesolithic (5,000 10,000 years ago) hunter's arrowheads had particular sizes.

Traditional lead core bullets tend to expand quickly but lose weight starting right after impact resulting in less penetration than might otherwise be the case. The copper alloys in lead-free bullets tend to be very ductile allowing them to retain most or all of their initial weight. They also tend not to expand as much which allows them to penetrate rather deeply compared to lead-core expanding bullets. Logically, the wound channel must first be deep enough, with the actual diameter also an important but secondary consideration.

[JASmith]

...Is a 90-100g TSX really as effective as a 123-125g SST/Partition on whitetails (let's assume Midwestern deer - 175-250 lbs)?

Their performance in wet paper and gelatin suggests that the equivalence is correct between the 90-100gr all-copper expanding bullet and the 123-125 grain partition.

We would be looking at more like a 150 grain SST to get the same equivalence to the 90-100 gr all-copper bullet.

[sneaky one]

Y85, I have shot a few deer using 95-100 GmX pills, that I lathed down from a 120 Gr. The results were Amazing! Awesome performance!

Lately, we tried the same bullet in a few different wts. More to follow, upon the results. The 105 was tested last fall, in GA. The really lite one was tried in April this yr.

Yes,, less wt. in an alloy -equals a std. lead core- heavier pill. I have plenty of shots on game that prove my first idea..- then backed up by Jasmith.


I- we will explain more upon on this later. Plenty of bullet trials to take place. Yet, yes- the coppers can replicate the heavier sst's.

Been there, done that.

[sneaky one]

BTW, once all the states get together on the condor- then the BALD EAGLE's issues ,,, we will all need lead free ammo.

We went lead free in the gasoline in 1975,,,, Funny, not really, china gets to put lead into everything!

[LRRPF52]

I grew up on .270 Winchester. It's my baseline reference for center-fire rifles from childhood as to what a high power rifle is. That said, I think .270 Winchester is overkill for most medium game applications, especially with common soft point ammunition.

.270 Winchester is best employed with dedicated hunting bullets that won't come apart at .270 velocities, which are typically ~3100fps with a 130gr bullet. I think the 140gr SST is a great affordable bullet for the .270 Win., but you still face issues with close range shots. The .270 is a great rifle out West, especially on mule deer, antelope, and elk, but you really need to watch what bullets you use so that they stay intact for the close distance shots.

The .270 Winchester is what spurred Roy Weatherby to push .270 pills to faster speeds by loading it in a necked down .300 H&H Magnum with a double-radiused shoulder, starting the Weatherby line of even more overkill cartridges which SAAMI won't touch, as many of them are loaded to 70,000psi. This is the definition of making a rifle that can't be trained with, especially when looking at youth, budget, recoil, etc.

The 6.5mm's have always had an edge on larger bores.

[Y85]

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.

[keystone183]

No bad keystroke fellas!

The key item is bullet weight. Muzzle and impact velocity make very little difference as long as the impact velocity is in the recommended range for the bullet. For most lead-core bullets, that range is 2,000 to 3,000 fps. Since both the .270 and the Grendel have pretty close to the same range of bullet weights that can impact within this velocity at reasonable hunting distances, their effect on game is very similar.

The main difference is the .270 has a flatter trajectory and a longer range to the threshold bullet velocity but one pays the price of enduring heavier felt recoil.

Go to this page and read the linked papers for details: Ideal Bullet Weight

I am certainly no expert or physicist. But for the last 10 or so years i've probably taken 20+ deer a year (sometimes significantly more) with a variety of calibers, including .270, .257, .22-250, and recently the grendel. The majority have been with the .270. Most of the shots, maybe 80% are with in 100yrds. Try mostly for shots in the neck if the situation allows. In my experience, there isn't much of a comparison. No matter the target area, the .270 has MUCH more knock down power (as subjective as that term may be) than the grendel. Not that the grendel won't put them down, but the .270's terminal effects are very noticeable in terms of speed of kill, and wound cavity/channel.

Again, i love the grendel, and take it out more than just about anything else these days, for the obvious advantages. But, if i were paying for a hunt where it was important to me to get a sure kill.....no question where i'm going...

[stokesrj]

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