Free Republic

Two well known bolt action rifle manufacturers have expressed interest in offering regular production 6.5 Grendel bolt action rifles.

The availability of low cost surplus ammo of the 5.56 and 7.62 has to do with NATO adoption and manufacture on a global scale. Adoption of a new cartridge by NATO is not a short process and is very political. Reaching the level of bargin prices would take years to realize as it did for both the 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO.

There is no contest between the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC other then the one created on the internet.

Given the phone calls I have received from various military commanders wanting to learn about the 6.5 Grendel, the 6.8 SPC is far from having handwriting on the wall in favor of it. The idea that the 6.8 SPC will replace the 5.56 NATO is pure scuttlebutt and "marketing speculation".

It is quite telling that Remington released the 6.8 SPC cartridge at the SHOT show with very little emphasis and did not show a rifle chambered in the 6.8 SPC or announce a tenative date of any such release. Given that it would have taken Remington all of 2 days to have a Rem 700 in 6.8 SPC to show at the event, it is quite interesting they didn't have one.

Have you seen the 6.5 Grendel? Like the 6.8 Rem SPC it operates in the AR15 / M16, but has a decided ballistics advantage giving the AR15 / M16 true 800 M aimed fire capability and supressive fire capability beyond 1,000 yards.

For comparison (velocities all from 24 inch barrels for fairness)

6.8mm 115 Grain Sierra MatchKing = .340 BC (2800 fps)
6.5mm 108 Grain Lapua Scenar = .481 BC (2850 fps)
6.5mm 123 Grain Lapua Scenar = .542 BC (2750 fps)

The 6.5 Grendel is a 1,000 yard aimed fired cartridge. A 16 inch barrel AR15 version fired the 123 Lapua at Fort Knox on the 900 yard tank range and scored 6.5" groups at that distance. Best of all, the 6.5 Grendel has 50% less recoil then the 7.62 NATO and 32% less ammunition weight.

To see learn more about the 6.5 Grendel

http://www.65grendel.com

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/2004/03/65mm_grendel_ak.html

If you would like to see a ballistics chart comparing the 6.5 Grendel to the 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO and 6.8 Rem SPC, email me at akb@competitionshooting.com and I will email back a pdf file for your review.

if anyone would like a ballistic comparison chart on the 6.5 Grendel comparing it to the 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO and 6.8 Rem SPC, email akb@competitionshooting.com.

In reference to the 6.5 Grendel, the cartridge is based on the PPC family of cartridges with a case length of 1.505 inches. Operating within a magazine length loading restriction of 2.255 inches, the cartridge can be loaded with a wide range of bullets from 80 to 144 grains.

As far as military consideration of the cartridge, various elements of the military have seen test rifles demonstrated out to 1,000 yards over the past 6 months. It would be fair to say that they have been impressed with the demonstrations. However, it will be 2004 before production rifles and ammunition are able to be presented to the military for formal evaluation, consideration and application for their mission uses. Therefore, it would be premature for any party to form any conclusions as to a military role for the 6.5 Grendel.

For civilian use, the rifle has excellent capabilities for competition (highpower and benchrest), hunting (deer, antelope, wild hogs, sheep) as well as people who just want a highly accurate cartridge for casual target shooting. In addition, the cartridge has outstanding properties for law enforcement use.

I am the author of competitionshooting.com and a contributor to the 6.5 Grendel project.

As a testament to the capability of the cartridge, Dr. Lou Palmisano, the inventor of the original PPC cartridge and one of the foremost experts in the world on ballistics and shooting has expressed his enthusiasm and support for the work accomplished and the application of the cartridge in the AR15 platform. It has been a great honor to gain the support and input of a legend in the world of shooting such as Dr. Palmisano.

The 6.5 Grendel comes to market on February 12, 2004 at the SHOT show in Las Vegas. Orders will be accepted shortly thereafter.

Anyone having questions about the 6.5 Grendel, can email me through competitionshooting.com.

TX65

Hi Long Cut,

It will be interesting to see what develops in the next 9 months as the clock ticks down. While I would like to be optimistic that an ineffective gun restriction will go the way of prohibition, I will be quite content if it remains in it's current form with NO changes. To do my part, I have been writing elected officials including Bush to show him my opposition to this law that is a waste of the paper it is printed on.

TX65

I just came back from the polls...

What made my final decision was the direct mail piece I received yesterday from Metro.

What I saw was that by 2012, the only thing MetroRail intends to accomplish is connecting primarily low income areas to downtown and the current soon to open downtown - medical center - reliant center rail line. This 2012 phase does nothing to address Houston real transit problem - commuters from outside the Beltway getting to and from major business centers.

Looking further into the future, other then connecting to Bush or Hobby Airports and the Galleria, the plan does nothing but continue expansion to primarily low income areas. Of course, the question begs to be asked "How many business travelers, convention visitors or tourists would want to ride a train that take them from the airport to downtown with multiple stops in low income areas?" Answer is few if any will ride a train like this. This reasoning has nothing to do with the racial make up of these low income areas,,,it has to do only with the fact that these areas are ugly , run down and have high crime rates.

Only when looking at future rail extensions does Metro even begin to service suburban commuters going to and from Houston Business Centers. How many billions and more importantly how much time will be have passed by the time any of the future rail extensions come into operation that even begin to address Houston true transit problems?

My take is that I graduated from high school in Houston in 1983, I graduated from U of H in 1992, I am now 38 years old. Passage of this metro rail plan would mean that by the time rail offers true services to commuters I will be close to retirement.

Needless to say, I voted against Metro's plan. I am not against rail in any way, but I am against spending billions of tax dollars by an unelected entity on a rail system that does nothing to address Houston's real mobility problems.

My suggestion to gain my vote would be a two level plan with heavy commuter rail making use of exisiting and enhanced BNSF and UP rail lines combined with light rail operating in selected areas. Following, I have listed some of these ideas. Look at a map and see what you think.

Heavy Commuter Rail Lines -

Kingwood / Humble - Downtown
Conroe / Woodlands - Downtown
Tomball / Willowbrook - Downtown
Clear Lake - Downtown
Richmond / Sugarland - Downtown
Katy - Downtown
Fairfield / Copperfield - Downtown
Bush Airport - Downtown - Hobby Airport (Airport Link)
Pearland - Downtown

Heavy Commuter Rail Lines would have no stops closer to downtown then Beltway 8 before going to / from downtown other then at intersections of light rail lines inside of the Beltway as outline below.

I would like to add that the enhancement of BNSF and UP lines has a side benefit. During late night hours when heavy commuter trains dont run, the BNSF and UP freight railroads can use these tracks to move products in and out of Houston more efficiently strenghtening Houston from a business perspective.

Light Rail Lines

Downtown - Med Center - Reliant Center - Post Oak / Main Transit Center

Post Oak / Main Transit Center - Galleria - NW Transit Center

Downtown - U of H - Hobby Airport

Downtown - Greenway Plaza - Galleria

Northside Light Rail Line connecting Tomball Heavy Rail - Greenspoint - Woodlands Heavy Rail - Bush Airport - Kingwood Heavy Rail

Only when I see a true solution will Metro gain my support. I would also like to see Metro become an elected board rather then a club of appointees from Houston City Council and County Commissioner courts.

Glad I found this site,

There are many cartridges out there, some have been around for years, others are new wildcat developments. People will always have their preference for a caliber, whether it be 5.56, 6, .257, 6.5, 6.8 , 7 or 7.62 and will think that the future should be something in that dimension. Reality is that some cartridge developments will remain in the wildcat world and others advance into varying degrees of acceptance and a select few will enter commercial production.

The 6.5 Grendel is going into commercial production and will be available for ownership by the people in early 2004. Fortunately for the average person, availability of the 6.5 Grendel is not dependant on the DOD doing anything unlike a round developed with the military market as it's focus and commercial production only coming after military adoption. As far as the 6.5 Grendel and the military, the DOD isnt blind and will most likely test it and consider possibilities. Of course, the benefit for the DOD of a commercial product is it is not something they have to form a consensus opinion on designing.

People have varying opinions about the AR15/M16. Some opinions are based the 5.56 NATO, others are based on comparing it to what they believe is a better rifle or a better operating system.

As far as the rifle, any new rifle development will be tested and measured against the AR15 / M16. To pass muster, it will have to meet the criteria you mentioned and do it better then the AR15 / M16. The very level of testing it will have to endure means it wont be coming out anytime soon. A new rifle will come at some point in the future, whether that be in 5 or 20 years is unknown. The cartridge it is chambered in will probably be what the military has discovered is the best of the available options out there and it will more then likely something that already has been working in the the AR15/M16 platform.

Glad I could stop by,,, you seem to be correct on "firearms-friendly" people,,,, not often you find a board where you have 412 responses to one thread.

Glad I could provide some additional info,

The website you found is mine. I occasionally do a search for my own domain name and see where people are linking from and found your posting here.

The 6.5 PPC in an AR15 project you read about really had to with having a vision of something and taking a leap of faith. The original 6.5 PPC itself is not new since it was one of the original developments of the Palmisano and Pindell when they created the PPC cartridge family way back when.

Alexander Arms had been thinking of the concept on their own and through some twist of fate, our path's collided and I was happy to share what I had done with them. The evolution of the vision (s) has become the 6.5 Grendel which will improve on the 6.5 PPC performance.

With the buzz about the 6.8x43 cartridge, people are trying to make comparisons between the two. In some respects, the rounds can be compared, but in reality, I consider the 6.5 Grendel to be a ballistic twin of the 7.62 NATO (.308 WInchester). If you compare a .308 168 gr HPBT to a 6.5mm 108 gr HPBT, you will find they are almost ballistically identical. The 6.5mm 123 gr HPBT is a ballistic twin of various .308 185 gr HPBT bullets. However, in the 6.5 Grendel, velocity runs 100-200 fps higher then the 7.62 NATO for comparable ballistics bullets.

Only differences between the 7.62 NATO and 6.5 Grendel are recoil and terminal energy. The 6.5 Grendel has less recoil then the 7.62 NATO and the recoil of the 7.62 NATO has been and still is one of the issues of this round in military rifles. The 7.62 NATO does have more terminal energy due to greater bullet mass, but the increased terminal energy comes at a cost of higher recoil and increased weight of rifles and ammo. Of course, the really edge of the 6.5 Grendel is it is a drop in swap in an AR15 or M16 and doesnt require a different platform to operate.

Since this thread is really about XM8, the 6.5 Grendel can be used in any rifle with 5.56 NATO magazine dimensions just like the 6.8x43 can. Real question when comparing the two will be, would you rather have a 115 grain HPBT with a .352 BC at 2650 fps or a 108 grain HPBT with a .473 BC at 2650 fps in a 16 inch barrel rifle? Of course, in the 6.5mm, you can also crank up the ballistics going to a 123 grain or 128 grain bullet and still operate from the magazine... In contrast, using bullet data direct from Sierra, their 6.8mm 135 grain HPBT would have a minimum cartridge length of 2.475" which wont fit an AR15/M16 magazine and the bullet still doesnt equal the 6.5mm 123 grain ballistics.

The search for a better mousetrap continues....

Flynet,

The 6.5 Grendel round loaded with a 123 grain bullet will weigh approximately 60 grains more per round then the 5.56 Nato loaded with a 77 grain bullet. As far as weight load for a solider carrying 10 magazines, this would transulate out to slighty over 2 additional pounds. Obviousally, the majority of the 60 grain increase per round is the 46 grain increase in bullet weight. When you consider the increased terminal effectivness, the extra 2 pounds becomes acceptable.

The 1,000 ft lbs at 1,000 yards is based on a 128 grain bullet at 2750 fps. The bullet is a VLD (Very Low Drag) design with a .560 Ballistic Coefficent. If you have access to a ballistics computer, simply enter the parameters making sure to use the proper G7 drag profile for VLD projectile designs.

If you havent seen it, there is a video clip from Armed Forces Journal Int'l of the 6.5 Grendel in action. This video clip can be found at defensereview.com. In addition, Shotgun News had a 4 page article on the cartridge and rifle in the full color October 6,2003 issue.

The cartridge and rifles will be commercially released in February 2004.