The 6.5mm bore has enjoyed a steady increase in popularity in the United States in the last few years. Despite what some say, there is nothing new or revolutionary about it. There is no voodoo or magic that exists in modern 6.5mm cartridges that wasn’t first perfected in the World War era.
What we have today with the 6.5mm is a reawakening, a rebirth of knowledge that was forgotten or disregarded along the path of arms development. There are two 6.5mm cartridges at the top of the heap today and we will be looking at the good and bad of what each has to offer: the 6.5 Creedmoor and the 6.5 Grendel.
The first widely adopted 6.5mm cartridge still in popular use was the 6.5x55mm. This round was designed for the Swedish M96 Mauser and Scandinavian Krag service rifles. The round, introduced the mid 1890’s, served in both World Wars and became one of the most successful European hunting and sporting cartridges ever.
The chambering is currently offered by virtually all European arms makers and is arguably the most popular centerfire sporting rifle cartridge on that continent. The 6.5x55mm is relevant to the American 6.5mm discussion because the 6.5 Creedmoor is essentially identical to the 6.5x55mm in all ways aside from case dimensions. Both typically fire a 140gr bullet at about 2700fps.
The major reason that the 6.5 Creedmoor became successful was that it was an immediate ‘upgrade’ to a .308 Winchester base rifle. I use the term ‘upgrade’ in an oversimplified way, as the 6.5 CM and .308 Win are very different and each has pros and cons depending on the end use.
The 6.5x55mm never gained good traction in America because it has, to us, a non-standard case head diameter and a non-standard cartridge length. This means that the little round has to be chambered in larger and heavier long-action rifles instead of the more compact short-action common to the .308 Win.
The popularity of the 6.5 CM comes from the fact that it readily fits into anything originally made for .308. This meant that there was very little development time when it came to making rifles. The explosion of popularity was aided substantially by a myriad of host systems. The 6.5 CM shares the same case head and overall length with .308, making it just a barrel swap to alter chamberings.
Just like the old Swedish round it copies, the 6.5 Creedmoor enjoys long-for-caliber, very aerodynamic bullets and low recoil. The recoil alone is a consideration for weak or young shooters as well as people who like to play games like PRS. Gun Gamers today like the 6.5 Creedmoor because it is an accurate cartridge that is great for shooting steel plates at long range. Cost of entry is comparatively low for these game guns, as match ammo for 6.5 Creedmoor is fairly affordable and acceptable rifles are readily available. The 6.5 Creedmoor is one of the best and most accessible target shooting cartridges introduced in recent years, but it’s not all roses.
Editorial: It should be noted that, despite what you read online and in magazines, the 6.5 Creedmoor isn’t considered an ethical long range hunting cartridge by many hunters. I completely disagree with any type of hunting that adds variables to the shot, as adding uncertainty is tantamount to adding cruelty.
There is nothing victorious or glamorous about wounding an animal and having it die suffering of infection or worse. It is the duty of the sportsman to be responsible to the animal, and in my opinion, long-range hunting is irresponsible. Think of it this way: one small puff of wind is enough to make a heart shot into a gut shot at 800+ yards.
The 6.5 CM is similar in power to a .243 or .257 Roberts and, regardless of what marketing companies push you to believe, this is a 200-300 yard cartridge for deer-sized game. It isn’t a great choice for anything bigger unless you move to a larger and heavier bullet, which begs the question why you wouldn’t just get an acceptable larger chambering to begin with. End of soap box speech.
Unlike the 6.5 Creedmoor, which began life as a paper-punching round, the 6.5 Grendel started out as a project to improve upon the performance of the AR-15 over 5.56mm NATO. The cartridge fits into a standard-sized AR-15, where the 6.5 Creedmoor needs a larger AR-10-type rifle. The round was designed to use 90-130gr bullets and match or better the 5.56mm NATO inside 800 yards. Using a heavier bullet, it is comparable in retained energy to a 147gr 7.62mm NATO (.308 Win) at those same ranges, but is handily outclassed when heavier .30 caliber bullets are used.
The Grendel is a round that has struggled to gain widespread acceptance for a variety of reasons. Unlike the 6.5 Creedmoor, which is only a barrel change, the 6.5 Grendel needs a new barrel, magazines, and bolt to adapt a 5.56mm AR rifle to it.
Up until 2011, the 6.5 Grendel wasn’t a standardized SAAMI-accepted cartridge and its name and commercial production were restricted by copyright. Most people are hesitant to invest in cartridges that are so strictly guarded, and as a result, it didn’t quite catch on like wildfire.
Compared directly to the 6.5 Creedmoor, the 6.5 Grendel is a bit of an odd duck. While the Creedmoor makes good use of long-favored 140gr bullets, the Grendel struggles with them and instead does well with lighter bullets, thus making it less effective at every distance that the 6.5mm bore has an advantage at. While it does very well in terms of ballistics when compared directly to 5.56mm NATO, it suffers in terms of increased ammunition weight and reduced magazine capacity.
Another strike against the 6.5 Grendel is that it does best from long barrels that allow it to launch bullets faster. While it does okay from a 14.5-16” barrel, it really needs something in the 20” range to reach peak performance, thus negating much of the advantages of the compact AR-15 platform.
This is a consideration when looking at rifle weight. A lightweight 6.5 Creedmoor AR-10 isn’t that much heavier than an AR-15 in 6.5 Grendel and it does just about everything better at all ranges.
An area where 6.5 Grendel really shines is in compact bolt actions. The little cartridge is excellent inside 200 yards on small to medium sized deer or other small game. There are many companies that make compact bolt actions for this purpose and they are quite light and accurate. These rifles are very good for new or young hunters due to their low recoil.
Overall, the 6.5 Creedmoor and 6.5 Grendel are very, very different cartridges that share only one thing: bore size. There’s not much else that they have in common. They vary greatly in ballistic performance, bullet weight range, effective distance, platform weight and cost, and theory of use.
One was designed for target shooting as a stand-alone, and does well at it. The other was designed to boost the performance of an existing weapon platform, but only does so marginally. I’m not the biggest fan of 6.5 Creedmoor, but I have to say that it offers the most benefits of any cartridge in the modern 6.5 family to the average American shooter.
Do you have your own thoughts on this? State your case for the 6.5 Creedmoor or 6.5 Grendel and let me know what you think.
.260 Rem.
Duh.
feel better?
Exactly 260rem now I feel bette.
A little secret with that steel wolf ammo is to oil the rounds lightly and load them in mag . They will cycle easily ! 6.5 grendle out 20 inch barrel can easily hit hard at 500 yards ! I’m going put some pork out there and watch it go clean threw it.
‘…this is a 200-300 yard cartridge for deer-sized game.’
For most hunters 300 yards should be the limit regardless of the cartridge you shoot. Beyond that your estimation of range, angle and wind speed become much bigger factors. But in defense of the Creedmoor (and thus my .260) 1300-1400ft/lbs of energy and 2200 fps at 400 yards seems sufficient for deer. Otherwise handgun hunting would be unethical and a .30-30 wouldn’t be past 50 yards.
Right on.
I use a .243. I limit my maximum shot range to 300 yards. For a number of reasons. Some of which you pointed out. I have a bog standard Ruger American topped with a Redfield 3×9 scope. Not top of the line or state of the art. No extra bells and whistles. Which places restrictions on the equipment at range.
And the ethical hunter has to be honest with himself. At my age and skill set 300 yards is the longest shot I’m comfortable with. Going longer than that really ups the risk of a wounded, lost animal.
.243 for Me
30/30 is plenty. Capable of way more than 50 yards lol! not a whole inch drop at a 100 yards! Past there it drops fairly quickly but if you know that and are able to adjust accordingly a 30/30 is great at 200 yards and all this is with standard round or flat nose projectiles. If you go with Hornady leverevolution it’s comparable to 308. I wouldn’t hesitate to take a shot with my 30/30 at 300 yards
I think you need to go back and reread the comment . . .
6.5 Grendel has a chamber pressure of 45,000psi. The difference in barrel erosion between the two rounds alone is a sizeable advantage in it’s favor, and besides which, it does have noticeably less recoil.
It’s the same sort of preference difference given by a 7.62×39 or 30-30 over a .308.
Brass lasts forever too but let’s not forget the 6.5 rem mag in the Remington 600 an awesome combination
A POF P6.5 Edge in 6.5CM with 16″ barrel will be my next rifle, for a good “multi-use” platform
Check your ballistics table, a 16.5″ barrel CM is the equivalent of a grendel. You handicap the bigger cartridge with a short barrel.
You might want to do the same. A 16.5″ 6.5 CM still outperforms a 16.5″ .308, though one should still opt for a longer barrel in either case.
I thought the same thing, except I went with the POF Hunter in 6.5CM to get a 20″ barrel.
After putting about 300 rounds through it, I know what it will do, I have carried it plenty to experience how much it WEIGHS vs. what it can do. And now I’m going to sell it and replace it with a 6.5 Grendel.
I’m keeping both my 6.5×55 Swedes, a milsurp m96 and a CZ 550. I’m keeping my Savage 111 in 6.5-284 NORMA.
I am dumping the POF 6.5 Creedmoor because: It’s freaking HEAVY and doesn’t do what it is supposed to do better or even as well as my other 6.5 rifles as already are doing. They don’t tell you this at POF catalogue, but for accuracy? These semi autos wabt to be loaded towards the LOW end of recomended powder range.
I have a more accurate and higher velocity long range rifle in the Savage 6.5-284 bolt gun. I have at LEAST the velocity and accuracy equivalent of the 6.5CM in either of the 6.5×55 Swedes, and can load the Swedes to longer OAL cartridge lengths and/or with heavier bullets than the AR10 mags and POF throat will accept if I want to.
So, while I MIGHT want a 6.5mm bore semi auto rifle, I’d prefer one that weighs less than 13 lb. scoped and loaded.
I agree ! If the US Army took 6.5 and put it in that 43 casing they have for 6.8 ( Sami 7mm ) it would be a winner in the AR . 6.5 gren is a 6.7 Sami . Haaaahaaaa! 6.5 Gran foes out to 500 yards easy out 16 barrel with just a meter up on cross hairs . What you have to really adjust for is crisswind but for elevation it’s Bulleyes !
Everything does better in a longer barrel. 6.5 Grendel makes an exceptional short-barreled hunting gun.
Read the 5th post from the top, by LRRPF52.
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?15462-The-rush-to-short-barrel-Grendels
Of particular interest, “With 123gr, you’re anywhere around 2280-2350fps with factory ammo from an 11.5″, 12″, or 12.5″ Grendel.
Guess what an AK’s 16.3″ muzzle velocity is with a 123gr? 2290-2360fps”
^ That. Right there.
I have assembled Grendel uppers in 12.5, 16, 20, and 24. I have to say, I really, really like the performance of the little 12.5.
That would depend entirely on the brand of ammo. Hornady, for example, states that their 123-gr. V-Max Grendel reaches 2,350 FPS from a 16″ tube.
^THIS!!!
The thinking that 6.5 grendel must be used in 20″ barrels to be effective is outdated and flat out wrong. Sure, it might have better performance in longer barrels but that is not to say it must be shot from long barrels only. Many loadings of 6.5 grendel shoot around 2300 fps from 12″ barrels!
I have two 16″ Grendels and only 1 24″ one for range use. I find myself using the 16″ ones way more. They’re just more fun, way easier to take on a hike with into the field, and you really don’t lose enough speed to make a huge difference. Not inside a few hundred yards, anyway, which is most of my recreational shooting.
LOL! 6.5 Creed is only a 2-300 yard Deer cartridge? I disagree, it’s definitely a 4-450 yard Deer killer.
I am a grendel fan. Steel cased ammo is 30 cents a round for plinking. Hornady has 123 grain sst ammo that is 1000lbs energy out to 300 yards in a 16 inch barrel. It stays super sonic long beyond what I shoot. So I can plink, hunt, varmint, and have an ok fighting gun all in one tiny ar15 package. Guns are compromise and I really like where the grendel sits.
You do hit on some very important points. Those are some of the reasons I’ll be likely building a Grendel AR in my near future. The fact that it does pretty well out of a shorter barrel for my intended ranges is a plus as well. I was thinking a 12.5″ barrel limited to maybe 200yrd shots max and if I need anything else I’ll break out the 308 bolt gun with more magnification anyway. But the point is follow up shots, decent energy, and all in a package that doesn’t look like a type 99 with bayo attached by the time I throw an 8″ can on the end.
I built my Ultimate Gun and its a AR15 with a BSF 20” 6.5 Grendel with a 3.5-25×56 scope the gun is just over 10 lbs. Its a tack driver. Kills come easy with it and This year I will try some elk with it. Funny how head shots don’t care if it 308 or 6.5. Clean kills is all I’m looking for.
Combine a Howa 1500 Mini Action in 6.5 Grendel, an MDT stock, left-over lying-around furniture from an AR, and a halfway decent scope (a Redfield Revolution 3-9×40 in my case) and for under $1k, you have a lightweight, accurate, fun little paper puncher. Or deer rifle if you happen to hunt. The only downside I found so far, and it’s a relatively minor one, is that nobody seems to make mags with more than 5 rounds capacity.
But be warned … this made it easy for me to get 300-yard hits on a gong, something I had never done before. It feels … addictive. 🙂 On the downside, our local range only goes out to 300 yards, and now I want to go further.
Anyway, for my purposes (making the world safe from pie plate targets out to 300 yards) a $0.30/round Grendel makes a little more sense than a $0.60/round Creedmoor. (Both prices from Ammoseek, just pulling off the least expensive per-round cost right at the top.)
No one of consequence: I had a Howa 1500 Mini Action in 6.5 Grendel, but I sold it and went back to 300 Blackout because of several things, namely:
1) I thought, as you did, that it would be great to be able to shoot cheap, steel-cased Wolf ammo for 30 cents per round. But when I tried the steel-cased ammo, the bolt was very hard to open (compared to when shooting brass-cased). I contacted Legacy Sports/Howa, and they said the Howa 1500 should not be used with steel-cased ammo. The problem is, 6.5 Grendel ammo is hard to find, there are very few choices of ammo manufacturers, and the brass-cased 6.5 Grendel ammo costs as much or more than 300 Blackout.
2) The magazines for the Howa 1500 did not feed well. As you mentioned, they only come in 5-rounds, too, but the fact that they didn’t feed well (and are only made by one or two manufacturers) was the second deal-killer for me.
3) Compared to 300 Blackout, the 6.5 Grendel has more noise, more recoil, more flash, and requires a longer barrel to get the advertised specs from the bullet (24″ barrel rather than 16″ barrel for the 300 Blackout). That is, if you look at the advertised specs for 6.5 Grendel ammo, those are from a 24″ barrel, but if you look at the advertised specs for 300 Blackout ammo, those are from a 16″ barrel!
4) Ammo for 300 Blackout is much more readily available (and as I said, there’s no price advantage to 6.5 Grendel if your rifle requires brass-cased ammo, like the Howa does according to the manufacturer and my own experience).
5) 300 Blackout bolt-action rifles accept 10-round magazines, and some (the Ruger American Rifle Ranch) accept standard AR-15 magazines that hold 10 rounds, 20 rounds, 30 rounds, etc.
6) And if you want the option of subsonic, 300 Blackout is obviously better than 6.5 Grendel.
7) The Ruger American Rifle Ranch 300 Blackout is only 36″ long, very lightweight, threaded barrel, and takes standard AR-15 magazines in any capacity, as I mentioned!
The downside of 300 Blackout compared to 6.5 Grendel, of course, is its shorter range, as 300 BLK ballistics are similar to 30-30, but I’m not using it for long-distance shooting (my gun range is only 100 yards). You can easily target-shoot with 300 Blackout at 300 yards, simply by using the holdover marks on your scope (e.g. Nikon P-300, which is designed for 300 Blackout), but don’t use it for hunting deer at 300 yards or any range longer than you would hunt with a 30-30.
Well shoot Dave… if 100 yards or less is what you are restricted to, you could just use a dang handgun! My point is… comparing 300 Blackout to 6.5 Grendel without any consideration of longer ranges is not very logical. These are rifle rounds. They are intended to be used at extended ranges. 6.5 Grendel in particular is great at retaining energy at longer ranges. 300 Blackout, not so much. Which is fine! Neither is “right” or “wrong”. Simply very different applications. In your case, 300 Blackout obviously suits you better. More power to you. But those of us looking for a more multi-purpose rifle which can stretch its legs a bit if desired, 6.5 Grendel quite literally leaves Blackout in it’s dust.
LOL there is truth to that. My .40 S&W AR pistol with a 5.5″ barrel and an RMR on top can hit a little 6″ gong at 100 yards reliably. .40 is cheaper than either Grendel or Blackout!
Wow, what a demonstrably false statement about it being only “200-300” yard deer cartridge. This past weekend, a huge elk was taken in Utah at 1550 yards with 6.5 CM (one shot). The energy is a non issue, it is the skill of the shooter and luck. Most shooters are not skilled enough to ethically and reliably put down an animal quickly after 400 yards or so. Be it a 243 or 300 WM.
Translation: this past weekend, a huge elk was irresponsibility shot at by a person who has no business being a hunter. Luck is for cards and playing make-believe sniper for made-up points, not hunting living things. To anyone reading this as a novice, this is a terrible and unethical butchery of the spirit of hunting.
Word.
The rande at which you choose to kill an animal is your own ethical choice. So in some cases you wouldn’t shoot to 100 yards and in other cases you would shoot to easily be on a thousand yards depending on your ability and confidence level in the conditions. Typically you want 1000 foot-pounds of energy for large game. That will take both of these cartridges well beyond what the author hear claims that they are good for. This author is relatively clueless when it comes to the capabilities of these rounds. This author is a writer, not necessarily a great shooter
You’re right, I’m not necessarily a great shooter or even that great of a writer, but I am prolific in many types of shooting and hunting and have had much success given my abilities. I’ve won 17+ medals in national competition at Camp Perry and at state and local matches, have participated in many long range sports, hunted many kinds of game all over the country, and have been active in reshaping the industry prospective about long range shooting and rifle barrel length and the needs of disabled shooters. You can see some of that work here: https://www.wideopenspaces.com/the-truth-about-barrel-length-muzzle-velocity-and-accuracy/
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/09/josh-wayner/carrying-disability-telling-survey/
I know my way around rifles and bullets better than most people, and I have a different point of view when it comes to hunting than many I know and it’s not always welcome.
What you need to understand, and I mean this constructively, is that there is a very large difference in ethics and technological capability. Rifle accuracy isn’t a set thing, despite what you may believe. The accuracy of a rifle and ammunition is literally a game of predictive statistics. Accuracy isn’t a point, it’s a like a cone comprised of previously recorded shots. Just because we can shoot that far doesn’t mean we should, as the further out you get, the less of an ability you have predict point of impact with certainty (which is paramount to cruelty).
If you are a true and ethical hunter, not a sociopath, you are morally obligated to reduce anything that would do unnecessary harm to a living thing. In the context of hunting, we are talking about the deliberate act of fairly killing an animal where the animal has the ability to escape. Luck has no context in hunting. Seeing an animal may be ‘lucky’, but taking a ‘lucky’ shot means that you gambled with something’s life. I find it despicable that a person can sit at 700-1,500 yards, well beyond the senses of the animal, and fire at them with small-caliber bullets meant for target shooting.
The fact that the industry and other writers encourage these practices shows that we are getting farther away from the true nature of the hunt and instead are focused on the marketing of the kill. I will go so far as to say that these writers capitalize on their ‘skills’ to appeal to an instant-gratification, game-playing audience that lack any real hunting experience. It takes far, far more skill to wait until the animal is at 50 yards, or even 50 feet, than it does to plink at them at long range.
I enjoyed the article and usually do with Josh’s writing. His work on barrel lengths is excellent. I envy his sweet little 13.5 rig and might build something somewhat similar (in 6.5 CM!). That being said, there may be a happy medium to be found between Josh’s opinion on longer range hunting and Dan’s and other posters here. Humanely killing the animal should always be the primary goal above all else. This cannot be compromised on. There are still shooters out there very capable of taking deer sized game cleanly and humanely with a 6.5CM past 300 yards. Personally, where I live the likelihood of such a shot is nearly zero. But if I were in another region I could see a 400-500 yard shot being possible for someone more capable than I at such ranges. 200-300 yards is probably a good rule of thumb for all hunters to keep in mind. There are still some hunters/shooters out there that can exceed such a rule of thumb under the perfect circumstances. There are exceptions to every rule. It’s really a bit of semantics I suppose. As you were gents!
Josh seems to know a thing er two about a thing er two… which is all the more why I am puzzled on his lack of love for short barrel 6.5 Grendels. For such a proponent of shorter (13.5″) 308s I would have thought he might have heard recent developments with 6.5 Grendel out of 12-12.7″ barrel AR pistols. These can be extremely handy and very capable hunting tools to at least 300 yards with good ammo. Some forum members are seeing chrono speeds around 2300 FPS from 12″ barrels. Not too shabby! Look into it…
“It takes far, far more skill to wait until the animal is at 50 yards, or even 50 feet, than it does to plink at them at long range.”
QFT
This is a very valid point worth consideration. I truly love bow hunting and greatly respect those that are highly skilled at it for this very reason!
Thank you Josh. Words to remember
Which is truly why I love to bow hunt deer and only rifle hunt when I don’t get one harvested at the beginning of the season. But I do coyote hunt, and my 223 as well as my 224 for either are only used for 100 yards and in. I love in Oklahoma I don’t have much of the long range capabilities. So I tend to stay close a personal. I believe in what you say, long range shots keep to paper! There is no honor in taking a risky 1000 yard shot for your ego only to watch the animal suffer! Great read though thank you! Been wanting to build a grendel or creedmoor but still not any closer on choosing which one yet!!
Exactly so, Josh, exactly so!
“Most shooters are not skilled enough to ethically and reliably put down an animal quickly after 400 yards or so. Be it a 243 or 300 WM.”
Precisely why virtually no one should be attempting such a shot. The fact that someone made an extremely marginal shot is not a reason for more people to attempt marginal shots. After all, a man has to know his limitations. (My limitations move about 50 yards closer to me each decade as my eyes age) I live in olympic city USA and spend my days around many people who are stronger than, can run faster than and jump higher than the overwhelming majority of the people on the planet. That certainly does not mean that I should judge typical performance against those individuals.
1550 yards is pretty insane. I don’t mean that in a flattering way. That animal literally had no clue what the hell was going on at that range. Not to mention questioning of ballistics and lethality. I can’t really imagine a rational instance of this making sense. Maybe at HALF that distance – if terrain absolutely dictated it like sheep or mountain goats or something. Even then… 700 yards is pretty unsporting if you ask me. A wise man once said, just because you can don’t mean you should. We forget that too easily.
I call “BULLSHIT” on this one.
I have to agree on the BULLSHIT call
I hunt with a 6.5-284 NORMA and I wouldn’t try shooting with that cartridge at an elk (or even a deer) past 400 yards. Yes, people do 1,000 yard target competition with both this and the 6.5CM. No, neither has enough energy left at such a range to be effective on large game. Yep, BULLSHIT on killing elk at 1500 yards with a 6.5CM.
I own one 6.5 Creedmoor, two 6.5 “Sweedmoors” (6.5×55), and two 6.5 Grendels and I love shooting them all. One Grendel rifle is 22″ and the other, a pistol, is a 14.5. I haven’t stretched the 14.5 out, but the 6.5 Grendel 22″ made 400 yard shots on an 8″ plate almost automatic. This was of course using good ammo. The Wolf Grendel ammo seems to be a 2-2.5 MOA round, but being around 20 cents is great for plinking. Shooting .308 and 5.56 at the same plates too more correction and were more prone to wind issues. Of course these were not the same rifle, but I found the 6.5s easier to get hits with. My preference is to shoot Grendel due to the cost. 6.5 Creedmoor is much more avilable than Grendel at stores however.
6.5 Grendel has never interested me, It is just another intermediate round, albeit a quite expensive one compared to 5.56 NATO. However, the 6.5 Creedmoor did interest me because I was looking for a long range rifle when it was becoming popular. I intended to get a.260 Remington but my friends that are competitive rifle shooters that uesd the .260 Remington were trading to the Creedmore. So I started there. Very accurate, love the cartridge.
Is there a specific reason why they’d switch? The .260 has a thicker case at the mouth and should be more durable for reloa ding.
Accuracy, they told me that the Creedmoor is inherently more accurate. I can’t speak to that but the 24″ AR10 I got in 6.5 Creedmoor can do about 2.5 / 3″ group with federal premium at 600 yards.
DG mentioned a while back that there used to be a lack of quality brass in .260 but that problem doesn’t exist anymore. My guess is that inherent accuracy of the cartridges is a wash, but since everybody’s on the Creedmoor bandwagon there’s probably a better selection of higher end hardware for it.
Mike in Oregon,
I REALLY want to see video of you shooting 3 inch groups at 600 yards.
Also, what scope do you use?
This isn’t even a fair comparison. It’s like comparing a 308 to a 300 win mag. They shoot the same bullets, but it pretty much ends after that.
The 6.5 Grendel with a 20 inch barrel is very capable of hitting targets out to 1000 yards. You’re not going to do that with a 5.56. You’d need a 90gr smk in 224 cal to match ballistics of a 123 gr 264 cal. Regular AR mags work with 6.5 Grendel. You just have to replace the little plastic follower. I’ve bought 20 round Grendel mags at mag warehouse or alexander arms though. Howa and Ruger both make bolt action rifles in 6.5 Grendel.
For the 6.5 creedmoor? In 2017, the creedmoor was the number one selling bolt action center fire rifle in the US. Every major rifle manufacturer makes a rifle chambered in 6.5 creedmoor. Every ammo company sells creedmoor ammo.
I also have a 6.5 PRC that shoots 143 eldx at about 3100fps, and 147 eldm at over 3000 fps.
Gotta go with the Creed. It has moor right there in the name.
Meh. .308 over both. Now get off my lawn.
His Garand fired .30-06..
Don’t forget barrel life. A .308 can have about 10,000 rounds of accurate barrel life and a few more of good enough.
A 6.5 will typically burn out the barrel in about 3500 rounds. Pushing 40+ grains of powder down a 6-6.5mm hole comes at a price and that is throat erosion which will kill a 6.5mm barrel long before the rifling gives out.
Southern Cross,
I chose my long-range bolt-action rifle in .270 Winchester because bullet velocity stays above 2,200 fps far past .308 Winchester and even .30-06 Springfield. However, I never thought about throat erosion. Any idea how many rounds I can fire through that before throat erosion will degrade accuracy?
I don’t know the exact formula, but the smaller the bore and the higher the velocity the faster the wear on the barrel. .270 is probably in line with 6.5×55/Creedmoor/Remington. On the other hand, a .30-30 will not only last virtually forever, but it even allows for Marlin’s micro-groove rifling, which according to a couple of sources I’ve read achieve muzzle velocities from 20″ barrels that exceed the manufacturers’ published velocities for 24″ barrels.
It will depend on how you treat your rifle as much as how “overbore” the cartridge is.
The .270 Win is a bit overbore, but it isn’t as bad as (eg) a 6.5-284, 7mm RemMag, .220 Swift, etc.
Basically, you can look at the amount of powder behind a bullet in the case. Look at cases for most American rifles as falling in the .308-ish capacity case (50-odd grains water capacity), or the ’06-ish capacity case (65-ish grains water capacity), and then “magnums,” (80+ grains water capacity) and then the “I have so much money, I don’t care what I do with it” range of cartridges like the .338 LM, .50 BMG, etc (100+ grains WC).
If you have something like a .308, you don’t have much to worry about. It’s a big hole relative to the smaller amount of powder the case holds. Neck a .308 down to the 7mm-08, and you’re still not especially overbore. If you increase the case capacity to the .280 Rem (which is a ’06 necked down to 7mm), now you’re starting to get a bit overbore. But by the time we’re talking of shoving a 7mm RemMag’s worth of powder down the 7mm hole in the barrel, now we’re overbore and then serious throat erosion starts, even if you’re shooting slowly, but especially if you’re banging away on the rifle without allowing it to cool off between rounds.
A .308-sized case can give you a quite overbored cartridge, if you neck down the bore size small enough. eg, a .243 Win is a barrel burner, as is a .22-250 Ackley Improved.
If you want to see a cartridge where your barrel can last a long time, look at the cartridges the benchrest folks like to use – eg, the 6mm PPC, or similar cartridges. Sure, they’re shooting down a small bore, but look at how much less powder they’re using. One of the reasons why those benchrest cartridges have such small powder stacks is that they’re trying to extend their barrel life. They’re not using these rifles for hunting of any sort; they’re worried only about putting a bullet through paper. So they’re not seeking “holy crap!” velocities – they just want their pills to stay supersonic at the range they’re shooting (eg, 1200+ fps).
The .270 Winchester is, IMO, mildly overbored cartridge, along with the .280. They’re not especially bad, but they won’t have an especially long barrel life (eg, “especially long” being more than 4,000 rounds with good accuracy). But since most .270’s/.280’s are used exclusively for big game hunting, most .270/.280 owners will never, ever shoot the barrel out of such a rifle. It comes out of the closet every hunting season, maybe a box of ammo goes through it between sighters and hunting, it gets cleaned and put away. No problem – the barrel life of maybe 2500 to 3000 rounds will last several generations of hunters.
Now, something like a .22-250 AI, or a .243 Winchester, used for shooting p-dawgs or yodel yappers, plus target practice… you’re going to burn those barrels up quickly. A rifle cartridge that was designed for high pressure, and which is used in strings of fire against the clock, eg, the 6.5-284 – those barrels might have some very short lifespans. Maybe they won’t even make 2,000 rounds before the throat is burned up.
On the flip side of things, a cartridge like a .404 Jeffery, .45-70 or .458 Winchester? They might have a dump truck full of powder to burn, but their bore is of such a large diameter that it will take awhile to burn the throat. Your shoulder won’t hold up long enough to allow you to burn up these barrels.
So: moral of the story is: Look at the case capacity. Compare that to the bore cross-section. You could do something like, oh, I dunno – divide the case water capacity (or your load’s actual powder measurement) in grains by the bore diameter or the cross-section area of the bore if you want. The higher the resulting number, the more apt you are to burn out a throat.
How to know how to rate your cartridge? I don’t have a quantitative answer for you, but I do have a qualitative one. I’d put loads like the .220 Swift, .22-250 AI, .243 Winchester, 6.5-284 in the category of “very apt to burn barrel throats,” and I’d put .223’s, .30BR, 6BR, 6 PPC into the category of “barrels that last a long time” – and you could compare the numerical results you get from dividing capacity or powder load by bore diameter or cross-section for those rounds vs. your round and get an idea where you are.
That said, remember the enemy is heat, so if you’re banging away on a less overbore rifle and not allowing it to cool off, you can still get a non-overbore cartridge to damage the throat.
I had a chart that gave estimated barrel life for standard diameter projectiles and various grades of powder from very fast to very slow. The general rule was the smaller the bore and the slower the powder, the shorter the barrel life, provided you were trying to reach a certain chamber pressure.
Thank you gentlemen (especially Dyseptic Gunsmith) for the information. Now I have an idea of how many rounds I can expect to put through my barrels!
I am a little disappointed to hear about .243 Winchester characteristic to wear out a rifle’s throat/barrel so (relatively) quickly: that has become my favorite caliber and I recently purchased an inexpensive (although somehow crazy accurate) bolt-action rifle for it. And, because my target shooting trips are somewhat infrequent, I tend to shoot fairly fast without allowing the inside of the barrel to cool down between shots. (I have finished shot strings where the outside of the barrel borders on too warm to touch — which must mean the inside of the barrel is easily a few hundred degrees.)
u_s, one solution would be to bring 3 or 4 rifles to the range and rotate them. Personally I tend to shoot the .308 first then shoot one of my lighter recoiling rifles (.303, .260, .30-30, .22LR) but it sounds like it would be better to shoot a five shot group with one, set it aside with the bolt open and shoot another.
There’s also this; http://barrelcool.com/product/barrelcool/
I don’t own anything in 6.5 – not because I have a reason to dislike ’em, they’ve just never been to my house. I’ve checked out the tales of the 6.5 CM online, not so much the Grendel, and since I’m not doing any kind of long range shooting and since I wouldn’t likely pull the trigger on a mulie or pronghorn that was more than 300-350 yds away, I don’t see what either would do for me that my .270 Win won’t do. I’m aware that the honorable Gov. Le Petomane believes the .260 rem does everything the 6.5 CM does – I have no reason to doubt that. Is there something I’m missing? Other than long range paper punching, is there a reason I should add the 6.5mm to my collection?
To be honest I got the .260 for the rifle not the cartridge – https://www.lipseys.com/itemdetail.aspx?itemno=RUKM77RSI260REM
My biggest beef with the Creedmoor is the .260 came a decade earlier and accomplished the task of making a 6.5×55 Swede fit the .308 platform (it’s simply a necked down .308) + a few extra fps. Ballistics are identical.
Nice shooter though. Rifle and scope weigh in under 7.5 pounds and the recoil is minimal. The only reason to switch from .270 is lower recoil though.
Like I said, I don’t have any experience with 6.5mm anything. I’m only acquainted with one bench rest guy and his go-to gun is a .260 Rem but he also plays around with some oddball wildcats. I don’t know him well enough to have gotten more than a brief exposure to his rifles and interests. That said, from looking at available ballistics info, it seems I would agree with you that .260 Rem does what 6.5 CM does and comes with the benefit of easily resized brass laying about everywhere.
I can see why you like your rifle – spiffy. I dig the Mannlicher stock. I have an M77 in 30-06 (from back when the blueing Ruger did was still really shiny, standard stock though) and I love it – it was a bargain at the price I paid.
Vis-a-vis the recoil of the .270, that hasn’t been an issue for me – I’ve got plenty solid shoulders. My eyes are getting old but my torso seems to be holding up.
S,R&Co only makes 250 of those each year in a different caliber. If you jump on one when they’re first out you can get a good price, but after a couple months everyone wants a grand for them. I’ve seen a couple used ones (previous calibers) on GB go for double what I paid for mine new. I’d kind of like to add another blued one with the RSI stock.
I’ve never shot a .270 but my .308 doesn’t bother me at first but gets a little tiresome after 30 or so rounds and it’s nice to back it off to the .260 or my .30-30 for a while. If I shot 100 rounds with the .308 I’d probably have a headache for the rest of the day. If you like prolonged shooting sessions a 6.5 might be nice. But a .243 might be even better.
That’s an interesting rifle. I’ll keep my eyes peeled.
I’ve thought about a .243 just to have something a bit different than my other rifles (pretty much every centerfire rifle I own is between .270 and .30 caliber). I passed on a BAR in .243 a while back at a gun show – it was pretty nice – I may have made the wrong choice.
.270 recoil with 130 or 140 gr bullets is definitely lighter than 170 grain rounds out of my 30-06 even though the 06 is a bit heavier rifle.
According to Chuck Hawks ( https://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm ) the .308 and .270 are pretty similar. .30-06 a half step heavier. .260 and .243 cut the recoil nearly in half.
Also might make a nice choice in a lightweight rifle for packing up and down hills. The .270 might be a little punishing in a 6 lb rifle.
See, now, this is how it happens. Now you have me thinking that I need (need, I tell you) a Mannlicher stocked Ruger M77 in .243 Win. Great, now I have to explain this to the wife.
Ha, ha! Well, if you’re really serious about it… I think the new ones come out around January. I bought mine in March when I realized that all but one of the online retailers I could find no longer had them, so I jumped on it. Full disclosure it set me back almost 9 bills with shipping. (Yea, I’ve seen used ones go for $1800. Could have saved a little off that if I jumped on it earlier.) But, you’d have to settle for whatever cartridge they’re offering in it next year. On the other hand, there is a small but steady diet of used ones on GunBroker, most of them blued and the older model with the tang safety. You’ll probably have to pay $750-1000 for something that’s not banged up much.
Also, the rear si ght limits the use of certain scopes. I bought a Leupold AR 3-9×40* They come with #4 and #5 rings respectively and I can’t get a cover on the scope. If you like them back a ways you might be fine, but the stock rings aren’t good for more than a 40mm objective. Anyway, I ended up ordering a #6 ring which I have yet to install and resight. Those are the highest rings, so without removing the rear si ght you probably can’t run a 50mm scope. Otherwise, no complaints.
*Made for .223/5.56 but has MRAD adjustments. I can easily remember how to dial it in out to 800 yards. Just in case the SHTF.
9 bills doesn’t actually sound too bad for that – I’ll have a chat with my favorite FFL.
Way back in the day when mil surps were cheap and plentiful the 6.5 Swede and the 7mm mauser were the bomb. They were pleasant and good performing rounds. And in those days they were fairly cheap to get into.
I’ve always thought that a Ruger no. 1 in either caliber would be a great hunting rifle.
6.5 Creedmoore is god and 6.5 Grendel is baby Jesus…. WTF do you mean pick one? They are part of the holy trinity!! The holy spirit being .375 H&H fir some reason…. Oh well…. 6.5 Creedmoore works in mysterious ways.
Maybe im partial because I own one, but a 260 rem just seems to make alot more since…if you reload it even makes more since.
Doesnt the swede and the 260 both go best in long action rifles?
.260 is just a necked down .308 and shares the overall cartridge length. The Swede on the other hand won’t fit in a .308 length action, however the .257 Roberts, based on the 7×57 Mauser will, although it’s usually for some reason chambered in .30-06 length rifles anyway. Maybe it requires a different magazine follower in a .308 action?
The 6.5×55 is too long for most “short” actions, so you need a ’06-length action to shoot it, unless you have something like one of the “shorter long action” Mauser actions.
Actually, I advised a friend/coworker to get both. He was debating on whether to get a .270 or 30-06 hunting rifle and I said he should go for 6.5 creedmoor. He’s really tall and thin (6’5, maybe 150 lbs) so I suggested 6.5 creedmoor for a bolt action and he could also get a 6.5 grendel upper for his AR-15. They use the same bullets so it’d be easy to load for them both. He hunts deer and there’s good hog shooting in north texas. So Creedmoor for the dear, Grendel for the hogs and coyotes, and you can buy the same bullets and powder. The only difference in loading is the cases.
This is a well-thought-out compare and contrast article, although I do disagree on one or two points. That said, this is why I come here. I really would like to see more of this type of article, and less fearmongering about “gun grabbers” and whining about “the left”.
wikipedia:
“Fearmongering or scaremongering is the spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of an impending danger or the habit or tactic of purposely and needlessly arousing public fear about an issue.”
theres none of that going on here
we have every reason to have legitimate concern about our gun rights
the left has given us an immense amount of feedback about exactly what they have in store for the 2nd amendment
and if the trump era hath shewn us one thing its this:
they hate us
they see us as deplorables and even more scary as irredeemables
as in not worth keeping around
and they want our guns
it requires only a cursory look at the history of the 20th century to ascertain exactly where were heading with all this
sorry if our concern about the existential threat to our liberties and freedoms and our very lives interferes with your desire for nice gun articles to read
if our seemingly endless caterwauling about the left somehow bothers you i suspect you are one of them anyway
go elsewhere
you wont be missed here
Go fuck yourself, you big crybaby. How’s that sound?
yep a lefty
a big one
i called it
the irrational overreacting is a dead giveaway
People have taken elk at 400 yds with one shot with 6.5 Grendel. And by people, I mean Mark Larue. It hits above its weight class like all the 6.5s with the right bullets.
People commonly take sheep at twice that distance with 20″+ Grendel ARs, too. “Ethical” distance is what people have practiced and are confident about, as long as they know exact distance, minimal fps for selected bullet expansion and how far they can shoot before going below that. 6.5s also have so much less drop and wind-defiance that group sizes are much smaller given the same shooter, vastly increasing hit probability vs .308 (Creedmore AND Grendel), which is why the military is switching to Creedmore for sniper/DMR roles. 6.5s punch above their weight in retained velocity and accuracy (drop and wind deflection) and have great sectional density for better penetration vs. same weight .30 cals. Nothing not to like, except not having one.
Up here in the Northwoods you would be unlucky if you had a 200 yard shot so it really doesn’t matter what round you choose. If it’s legal it’s good. I choose the..243 Winchester or a 12 Guage slug gun.
Would have to go with the Creedmoor, especially in an AR-10/SR-25 pattern rifle. I could easily convert it between the Creedmoor and .308 with a simple upper swap, or merely a barrel swap if I want to make it permanent. This is because I don’t like having to shoe-horn cartridges into an undersized AR-15 that was never meant for them. Only leads to headaches with broken bolts and other such issues, which does happen more often with calibers other than 5.56 NATO, and I rightly don’t give a rat’s ass whatever any fanboy says. The physics don’t lie (but the fanboys will: I’m calling it now).
Personally, I’d rather wait until Grendel AKs actually became a thing (and I’m still flabbergasted it hasn’t happened yet). Y’know, something that’s actually properly engineered to accommodate such a cartridge. Even then, I’d still op for an M+M M10x.
Otherwise, the only real way to make the Grendel take off would be to overhaul an AR-15 to give it proper 30-round magazines that will actually feed reliably. LWRC did something similar with their Six8 series, and I still don’t see people flocking to it for the 6.8MM SPC. In fact, few people realize it even happened, or even care. lol
If I were to pick any wildcat round for an AR-15, it’d be the .25 SPC. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/05/jon-wayne-taylor/wildcatting-new-caliber-25-spc/
“I’d rather wait until Grendel AKs actually became a thing (and I’m still flabbergasted it hasn’t happened yet).”
Actually, Russian Molot VEPR rifles in 6.5 Grendel started to be imported in 2016 (I think), but that stopped due to sanctions on Russia.
Killed my deer with a 123 grain 6.5 grendel hornady sst last year. I shot at 173 yards and it made it 30 ish feet. Thank you larue tactical and thank you 6.5 grendel
Derp… too obvious. Do you want to make everyone lug around an AR-15 or AR-10 size rifle for several hours every day.
Military should immediately got to the 6.5 Grendel.
I own both! I love my 6.5 CM for PRS and hunting but I love the Grendel in my Custom Thompson G2. It’s lightweight and has more than enough knock down power. When I hike a good distance to my stand I prefer the Grendel because it is so light. I love the 6.5 CM for competition because I know I have to make 1100 yard shots.
I’d consider 6.5 CM to be OK for larger game, like elk and black bear, at reasonable ranges with the right bullet. Folks will tell of Larue dropping an elk at 400+ yards with 6.5G, but I don’t think anyone recommends it for that work except fanboys. But, 6.5G seems to be a solid medium range medium game option.
I don’t see the appeal of mini-bolts in 6.5G or similar unless you already have a semiauto in that chambering or you’re extremely recoil sensitive. And I do think the trend of lightweight 308-based ARs will hamper the future growth of 6.5G and other “oddball” intermediate cartridges.
Two completely different rounds. If you are looking for better knock down performance in the AR-15 platform, the Grendel is an upper swap away. If you want something in a medium length bolt action, the Creedmoor is the obvious choice. One complaint with the article. You complain that the Grendel requires barrel, bolt, and magazine swaps from a standard AR. Then you recommend the Creedmoor that requires an entirely different platform! The Grendel is simple upper swap for any AR-15 owner. I never change calibers in a AR by swapping the barrel, or barrel and bolt. I swap the entire upper. I am currently building a Grendel for medium size game hunting using the AR-15 platform.
Creedmoor’ vs Grendel. With the Creedmoor’ you have to lay on you back to shoot it and with the Grendel you have to dress like an ogre.
Minor correction.
“The first widely adopted 6.5mm cartridge still in popular use was the 6.5x55mm. This round was designed for the Swedish M96 Mauser and Scandinavian Krag service rifles.”
Should be “… Norwegian Krag service rifles.”
The Danish Krag–Jørgensen rifles used the unique 8×58mmR Danish Krag, not the 6.5x55mm, and “Scandinavia” commonly refers to Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
ill take one of each please
a 20″ creedmoor
and an 18″ grendel
Wow, so wrong. Seriously shaking my head.
The 6.5X55 has a cult-like following. My Ruger 77MKII in this cartridge is just amazing on East Texas deer and hogs. The 140-grain blue-box Federals are also awesome. The combination has very manageable recoil and is as accurate as I ever hope to be.
The 6.5×55 should have a better following. It is an excellent cartridge, and, like other cartridges of the same vintage (eg, the 7×57 Mauser), it can be loaded a bit warmer than the original military pressures, which are typically in the mid-to-higher 40K PSI range (eg, 45 to 47K PSI).
The biggest reason the 6.5×55 doesn’t have a larger following in the US is that the cartridge’s head diameter is .480″, whereas “American” centerfire rifle cartridges have a .473″ case head diameter (.308, .30-06 and all derived cartridges). The issue of requiring a long action for the 6.5×55 isn’t really an impediment.
Now, on well-designed rifles with proper extractors (eg, Mauser, pre/post-64 Win70’s, Ruger M77 and similar rifles), it is no trouble to open up the bolt face just a tad (at either the factory or at a gunsmith’s shop) to accept a 6.5×55 cartridge and you’re off and running.
But seeing as how the Remington 700 and similar rifles are so popular because they’re cheap, and because they’re cheap they come from the factory with that flimsy bit of spring riveted into the bolt’s nose as their extractors… now opening up those bolt faces to accept a .480 case head is a problem and a much more expensive job.
With very few exceptions, we don’t need any new cartridges. Almost everything that could be addressed in a new cartridge has already been tried and done in a prior cartridge. From here on down the road, it’s all marketing.
I have both. My main predator hunting rifle is a 18in 6.5 Grendel using either a 90gr HPBT or 123gr SST depending on what I am hunting. My 6.5 creedmoor is my long range steel hitting rifle. If I go after anything larger then deer, the venerable .308 178gr ELDX is my personal choice.
Damn the author has some real passive aggressive hate for PRS. Since when was there anything wrong with having fun shooting? Any type of shooting that gets people out training and practicing is cool with me. Why do we have to marginalize any portion of our community. If it brings people in or makes them better/more passionate shooters, I am all for it.
Nah. I didn’t take it that way at all. Seems to me he is simply making the completely rational point that such competition shooting does not translate directly to hunting. It doesn’t. Once you have to consider energy, lethality, and clean humane kills you start to realize how simplistic it is simply shoot for hits. That’s not a ding on PRS. More like a compliment to skilled hunters and showing respect for how much more difficult it can be to do correctly.
There’s a place for both.
6.5 G – less power
6.5 CM – more power
As long as .308 and .300WM are military calibers they rule because of ammunition availability in event of worst case scenarios.
Afraid of a little recoil?
Sup broski…. get your point. There are a number of ways to look at it.
If ammo availability is your focus, 308 wins. (Notice, I did not say ammo *cost*, because good match ammo always costs money in any caliber!)
If long range supersonic performance and BC is the focus, 6.5 wins.
If energy on target is the focus, 30 caliber becomes more practical in most instances.
I think the recoil considerations are pretty overblown. Especially if we are talking about gas guns – which we usually are these days let’s be real!
The Author in one breath admits both cartridges were invented for very different purposes and then at the end of the article tries to start an argument among his viewers over which is better. Sorry I will not play that game.
Well put Vlad. I also am a bit puzzled how 6.5×55 is praised as an adequate round for elk and moose according to many real world experiences, yet this author says the equivalent 6.5CM is only good for deer within 200 yd. Uhhhhh…. whut…?
I’ve loaded and shot a lot with 260 rem and the grendel. The grendel really needs the 123gr bullet, to enjoy the ballistics of the 260 you have to step up to 140gr pills. Ballistically, the drop and windage is nearly identical to 400 yards. I tried to use the 129gr bullet for both rifles to save on reloading room space but it was a bust. Slower and not really accurate on my Grendel and lacked punch in 260. I’ve found the grendel to be very finicky in every rifle I’ve loaded it for and a good load in one rifle isn’t good in another. But once you get a good load in the grendel its pretty impressive for a tiny cartridge. I’ve shot a ton of hogs with it and it really does the job. The 260 is just outright amazing. With the 140gr pill or the 143 eld-x its and all around great cartridge, in a pinch you can also neck down plentiful 308 brass, or neck up 243 brass which makes it more utilitarian in my opinion. On the side of honesty, if you shoot game at or under 3 to 350 yards any popular cartridge will do
I’ll just split the difference between the Grendal and the Creedmore with the 6.5×47 Lapua! While the brass is more expensive, it is easiest to reload and that SAKO/Lapua brass can be reloaded forever before it deteriorates. In an 18″ barrel, it carries to the 600m mark with the same force that either of the others can. Just my 2 cents worth of opinion.
I shot the lapua a few times, it’s a stupedously accurate round. While the lapua brass is a buck apiece it’s fairly reasonable. In my 6br I get 15 reloads, with annealing.
I have absolutely no desire to get into any of these newfangled, long range 6.5’s and I will tell you why.
The longest range available to me within a nearly 2 hour drive is 200 yards. At 2h or so there is a 500yd range, but that’s 2 hours! The range I belong to is 200 yard for rifle located <10 minutes from my house. At these distances blasting away with rimfire or maximum handguns is about all I can do to feel moderately challenged. Even pistol caliber long guns when scoped or "old" cartridges like 30-30 are pretty easy to hit targets repeatedly at 200yd, anything with more velocity or energy like even 223 or 556 is not even stretching out its arms to yawn.
If I had access to 500+yd, especially 800+yd ranges I'd be singing a different tune but in my current geographic setup I don't see spending the extra money on a nicer gun, nicer more expensive ammo, when I can consistently hit tiny fragments of a clay pigeon on the berm at 100 or 200yds or shoot groups small enough to be minute of (name your animal), with most "traditional" and "old" guns I own blasting away cheap rimfire, milsurp or lower grade target/hunting ammo.
I really laugh at people who spend upwards of $3,500 on a 6.5 build scope and all to mostly shoot it indoors at 25yd!!!!
Not much difference in weight? WHAT? I just did a 6.5 Grendel build with an 18″ H-BAR and it weighs 7 pounds 10 oz with a scope. My 20″ .308 with an H-BAR is 11 pounds 9 oz with a yes heavier by about 8 oz’s scope. The same 6.5 barrel in 20″ is only 3 oz’s heavier. And I looked at lighter barrel options for the 6.5 in those lengths but it came down to price.
Your scale is off. 7lb 10oz 18″ hbar… with a scope? Nah.
If you’re going to shoot game animals from extreme range you may as well sit in a chair and shoot them remotely from a drone. You’ve lost the connection with the animal and pitting your skill against the animals senses. The game should be honored in hunting not picked off. You’re not hunting them in their environment, you’re shooting them from a different environment. As was said, introducing more chance for not killing cleanly is introducing cruelty. I couldn’t agree more!
I built a Grendel after comparing the cost for an AR platform. The Grendel is cheaper and lighter than an AR 10. Just an upper with a BCG swapped out in seconds at the ready. I bought a 16″ barrel and a 24″stoner from Midway, they perform very well off of a bench… both of them. Punching paper out to 600 yards. It will damn sure do what a 5.56 won’t in a matter of seconds changing the upper. Nope its not a 308, or my sacred model 700. 270 that i bought when I was 12 from sellin my first steer ( I’m 57 and so far have not aimed any other weapon in my gunsafe at an animal but my 270 thank you Mr O’Conner).That’ll start a pissin match! Brass for a Grendel is not expensive and reloading while not for everybody is very satisfying. They all have their pluses and minuses, we all have our expectations and superstitions. Like the time i drove back to the house to get my .270 because the 30-06 i brought… well I just didn’t know very well, nothing wrong with it just rather have my old friend along i guess. Anyway my 2 cents worth. They all do something and the difference fellers, ain’t worth fightin over.
I stumbled on the Grendel after a near fatal wreck. Injury has left me very recoil sensitive. Is it all that and a bag of chips? No. Is it what the AR should have been? I think so, and am quite a 5.56×45 fan. It has a lot of advantages, and only weight seems to be a downfall, but then, take that crap the politicians are putting on our fighting men, and the disadvantage would be minimal, to moot. I digress.
I much prefer a bolt rifle for hunting, and the Creedmoor fits that bill nicely. I also prefer a little heavier round for hunting, it fits that niche, too.
All in a package that allows my recoil sensitivity an audience. I can play on a range or go afield with it.
Love them or not, they both have a place and allow a broken body the ability to enjoy old hobbies.
Why don’t you look at making the 6gt?
The 6.5 Grendel should have been the 6mm Grendel (actually 6.2mm or 243cal). The 90 to 103gr 6mm bullet will perform much better with the limited powder of the Grendel Casing.
Mr Whitley has proven this with the 6mmAR Cartridge. It’s a shame it’s not being produced commercially.
Comments are closed.