6.8, what have you guys seen out there?

[Vultite 57]

Well, i've been looking around and i noticed something i thought i wouldn't see. 6.8 hasn't gone away yet, in fact i have been noticing more gun makers starting to offer guns chambered in it. Whats pushing this drive? Have you guys seen people buy this up? anyone know of agencies using this? i thought it would just fade out quickly...now i find myself eyeballing a 6.8 rifle at a low price....

[mstranglr 9]

A change will be in the works, just bad timing right now. The military can barely keep up with its needs right now. No matter how much I think .223 sucks for what it is being used for, changing battle rifles and ammo in the middle of this shit storm would be a horrible idea. Even the other NATO members are pretty strapped militarily right now. The change will happen when things settle, and I think 6.8 will be the new norm, then the pentegon can stop ignoring its own data.

[7.62smith 1]

6.5 Grendel outperforms it and Wolf is now making ammo for it which makes me wonder what's going on with that cartridge.

[Havoc308 3]

I went over to the dark side! I bought a 6.5 Grendel Alexander Arms Tac 16 upper for my AR. I chose it over the 6.8 because of the variety of bullet weights available and better long range ballistics.

[mstranglr 9]

The 6.5 Grendel is ballisticly superior to the 6.8 SPC because the 6.5 is a high ballistic coefficient target round. The 6.8 has been (is being) tested by special forces extensively in Iraq, and the 6.5 Grendel has been (is being) tested in Afghanistan. Also extensive terminal performance testing has been done on both rounds.

 

Conclusion; everyone liked both rounds much better than the 5.56. Operators in Iraq love the CQB performance of the 6.8 SPC. Operators in Afghanistan love the ability to accurately hit at 500 yards with carbines chambered in 6.5 Grendel.

 

But, there have been some key problems found with the 6.5 Grendel that may seriously limit its probability of military adoption:

1) Case shoulder and location prevent it from being used in current designed belt-fed weapons.

2) Recoil and full-auto controllability are more problematic than 5.56 or 6.8

3) 6.5 is more problematic in box magazines than 5.56 or 6.8 due to shoulder design

4) Ballistic testing of terminal effects is substandard due to the long slender projectile. It gives the "ice pick hole" effect. In testing it went three times the failing standard for terminal effect.

5) Remington has massive domestic production capability for 6.8 production, Alexander Arms does not have domestic production capability on close to the same scale.

 

Because of the above reasons, I do not think the military will consider 6.5 Grendel for a replacement for the 5.56.

 

The REAL future in military ammo will be plastic cased or case-less ammo. This stuff has amazing potential. Depending on what stage this development is in, the military may hold off on any changes until this entirely new technology is perfected.

[superA 289]

The 6.5 Grendel is ballisticly superior to the 6.8 SPC because the 6.5 is a high ballistic coefficient target round. The 6.8 has been (is being) tested by special forces extensively in Iraq, and the 6.5 Grendel has been (is being) tested in Afghanistan. Also extensive terminal performance testing has been done on both rounds.

 

Conclusion; everyone liked both rounds much better than the 5.56. Operators in Iraq love the CQB performance of the 6.8 SPC. Operators in Afghanistan love the ability to accurately hit at 500 yards with carbines chambered in 6.5 Grendel.

 

But, there have been some key problems found with the 6.5 Grendel that may seriously limit its probability of military adoption:

1) Case shoulder and location prevent it from being used in current designed belt-fed weapons.

2) Recoil and full-auto controllability are more problematic than 5.56 or 6.8

3) 6.5 is more problematic in box magazines than 5.56 or 6.8 due to shoulder design

4) Ballistic testing of terminal effects is substandard due to the long slender projectile. It gives the "ice pick hole" effect. In testing it went three times the failing standard for terminal effect.

5) Remington has massive domestic production capability for 6.8 production, Alexander Arms does not have domestic production capability on close to the same scale.

 

Because of the above reasons, I do not think the military will consider 6.5 Grendel for a replacement for the 5.56.

 

The REAL future in military ammo will be plastic cased or case-less ammo. This stuff has amazing potential. Depending on what stage this development is in, the military may hold off on any changes until this entirely new technology is perfected.

 

 

 

 

Where are you getting your info for the 6.5 being tested in Afgan.? Ballistic gel has produced great results from the Grendel. Go over to the sight, they are showing new pics of various loads tested and penetration because of the sectional density is off the hook. And if I remember correctly, the belt fed problem is just garbage. I'm a member over there and I believe they talked about that. But I realize that that sight is not the only place for Grendel info.

[mstranglr 9]

The 6.5 Grendel is ballisticaly superior to the 6.8 SPC because the 6.5 is a high ballistic coefficient target round. The 6.8 has been (is being) tested by special forces extensively in Iraq, and the 6.5 Grendel has been (is being) tested in Afghanistan. Also extensive terminal performance testing has been done on both rounds.

 

Conclusion; everyone liked both rounds much better than the 5.56. Operators in Iraq love the CQB performance of the 6.8 SPC. Operators in Afghanistan love the ability to accurately hit at 500 yards with carbines chambered in 6.5 Grendel.

 

But, there have been some key problems found with the 6.5 Grendel that may seriously limit its probability of military adoption:

1) Case shoulder and location prevent it from being used in current designed belt-fed weapons.

2) Recoil and full-auto controllability are more problematic than 5.56 or 6.8

3) 6.5 is more problematic in box magazines than 5.56 or 6.8 due to shoulder design

4) Ballistic testing of terminal effects is substandard due to the long slender projectile. It gives the "ice pick hole" effect. In testing it went three times the failing standard for terminal effect.

5) Remington has massive domestic production capability for 6.8 production, Alexander Arms does not have domestic production capability on close to the same scale.

 

Because of the above reasons, I do not think the military will consider 6.5 Grendel for a replacement for the 5.56.

 

The REAL future in military ammo will be plastic cased or case-less ammo. This stuff has amazing potential. Depending on what stage this development is in, the military may hold off on any changes until this entirely new technology is perfected.

 

 

 

 

Where are you getting your info for the 6.5 being tested in Afghan.? Ballistic gel has produced great results from the Grendel. Go over to the sight, they are showing new pics of various loads tested and penetration because of the sectional density is off the hook. And if I remember correctly, the belt fed problem is just garbage. I'm a member over there and I believe they talked about that. But I realize that that sight is not the only place for Grendel info.

 

6.5 being used by US Army marksman's unit and US Air Force shooting team. I have also read about contractors using it in Afghanistan, and Blackwater's keen interest in this round.

 

Grendel cases may be compatible with reusable belts (have never seen it tried), but are NOT compatible with M27 disintegrating links. The 6.8 is compatible, so is an easy transfer to a current LMG weapon. This has been tried many times, and is easy to try yourself at home.

 

I would much rather hunt with the 6.5 Grendel, but the 6.8 is winning the "popularity contest". Real troops are using it to kill bad guys and reporting great results to the military brass. Everyone is making a 6.8 gun, H&K - and now even a 6.8 Ruger Mini 14!

 

The 6.5 IS ballistically superior to the 6.8 IMO, but unfortunately, the feds do NOT care about independent testing paid for by Alexander arms with bullets provided by AA. JSWB-ITP reports suggest the 6.8 over the 6.5. The feds follow advise from tests like the following NDIA test that concludes that the 6.5 lacks the lethality of the 6.8 at close range:

 

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

 

The fix may or may not be in (like it was with the 5.56 round), but who one knows for sure? People seem to have the love hate thing going with the 6.5 Vs 6.8 (like the Glock vs XD fights). Here is a conflicting point of view on 6.5 testing taken from a guy who does ballistic gel tests (not my opinion, and sorry the pics did not load):

 

"Only those that present documentation get cookies. All independent testing of the two say the opposite when it comes to terminal effects. If you are going to bring up the data on AA's sight, Billy compares the most expensive and refined of 6.5 bullet designs against the cheapest and most unrefined of bullets designs in the various other calibers and calls this fair. Then he makes outlandish claims on the terminal effects of his product with nothing concrete or objective to back it up. What independent tests that we do have of the Grendel show it to do poorly in comparison to the 6.8 SPC when it comes to terminal effects due to its slow upset. The 6.8 SPC is capable of the earliest upset of any current assault rifle cartridge beginning at around the 2" mark, the Grendel in FMJ form upsets around 8" of penetration usually exiting the body before significant trauma can be caused. Dr. Martin Fackler determined that the ideal maximized terminal effects window for fragmenting load should be around the 4" penetration mark in order to achieve maximum trauma to the internal organs of the human body. The Grendel cannot achieve this, while the 6.8 SPC was designed to meet this requirement.

 

Here's the 6.8 SPC OTM profile in comparison to other assault rifle loads. The 6.8 FMJ loads still upset within 2" of penetration and fragment, although not as well as OTM:

 

 

Here we see the 6.8 SPC in gel. Notice the early upset and maximized fragmentation around the 3-4" penetration window where the vital organs are. The second SMK load is an early, 1st generation 6.8 SPC load:

 

Here's the latest generation 6.8 SPC OTM SMK which upset at 1.5", and reached maximum terminal effects at 3". THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT:

 

Here we see the best of the Grendel FMJ loads. Notice the greatly delayed upset and fragmentation effects after about 9" of penetration. This bullet has exited the body in a frontal shot before it has caused fragmentation:

 

Just to be fair, here is the Grendel in the latest generation SMK OTM with maximum terminal effects around 6-7" meaning that it has overshot the optimum penetration window by 2-3". This is probably the best combat OTM load on the market for the Grendel:

 

The 6.5 Grendel tests that you see here were not done by CCI Speer as had been touted in past posts on THR, but by an independent Speer ammunition distributer who was not familiar with accurate rifle testing protocols and data interpretation. Testing by the National Defense Industry Association did proper testing with larger blocks which showed the Grendel to do even worse that you see in the tests above. Barrier tests such as windshields have also demonstrated the 6.8 to be superior when using similar loads. The 6.8 SPC can effectively be loaded with bullets between 80gr and 130gr making it highly versatile. The 115gr bullet weight was deemed ideal for a combat load due to specific bullet profile and weight distribution allowing for rapid upset, yaw, tumble, and fragmentation. Tungsten penetrators of 97gr are also available from Silver State Armory. The fleet yaw of 6.8 SPC rifles is also superior to that of the 6.5 Grendel in that as you go from rifle to rifle, the 6.8 SPC exhibits more consistent performance as small differences in ammunition and platform characteristics can make the difference between good incapacitation and weak incapacitation of your target. Making the load less dependent on angle of attack was also a criteria in the creation of the 6.8 SPC. Impact energy is only 10% of the equation. Any ammo/caliber peddler that touts impact energy extensively is either ignorant of terminal effects science, or is purposely trying to trick you into drinking the Kool Aid.

 

Silver State Armory makes brass for Lake City Munitions and the two work hand in hand on many defense industry products. If the 6.8 SPC gets full adoption by the US military, Lake City would likely be contracted in conjunction with SSA to mass produce 6.8 SPC. Last I checked the Grendel was a proprietary cartridge by AA and any such mass production for the US military would require full production rights to the US govt to contract any company they want to produce it regardless of the inventor's opinion. Billy ain't about to give up that much royalty money. Mr. Alexander also designed the Grendel with bench shooting in mind and later advertised it as an alternative to the 6.8 after he learned that it was a contender for 5.56 replacement. He did a good job on creating a target shooting cartridge, however it is very evident that he had no understanding of established wounding mechanisms nor the problems associated with using cases with steep case shoulders and short body lengths in relation to military needs."

[Paladin 37]

IMO the military will not switch to either caliber (outside of SF units). No matter how much 5.56 sucks, they will wait until something revolutionary comes along, ie caseless, not evolutionary like the 6.5G or 6.8spc.

 

Nato is driven by the US, and the US military is more focused on big ticket items not small arms.

 

In the interest of full disclosure, I have a AK in 6.5 Grendel. I picked it over the 6.8 because it performed well in penetration, CQC and long range. The 6.8 did better in CQC, but that doesn't mean the 6.5 didn't do well.

 

Now, the data I studied was from almost two years ago and there seems to have been more development on the 6.8 side of things.

 

I was waiting for the steel cased Wolf to show up to make the 6.5 a viable goto for me. But they announced that it was coming out at the '06 shotshow and it's still not here.

 

Right now it's safe queen.

[Vultite 57]

I've heard different about the 6.5....

http://cardinalarmory.com/cardarm-pcart/pc...nt.asp?idpage=4

 

6.8 SPC was developed by the 5th Special Forces group at Fort Campbell, working with technical support and assistance from the US Army Marksmanship Unit at Fort Benning. The only actual "support" that Remington offered for 6.8 SPC is 1) the .30 Remington case and 2) getting 6.8 SPC standardized by SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunitions Manufacturers Institute.)

 

The 6.5 something cartridge case was developed from the line of Palmisano-Pindell benchrest cartridges, which began with the 7.62x39 Russian cartridge. The case walls were straightened to fix the taper problem, but relieving the bolt face to accommodate the case head still leaves the breech wall too thin to be strong. Bolt problems (breakage) accompany higher-pressure loads in this cartridge.

 

The main selling point of 6.5 something is that on paper one of the bullets available has an impressive ballistic coefficient if it is fired at high velocity (ballistic coefficient is dependent on velocity; i.e. the slower it flies, the lower its actual ballistic coefficient.) In reality the case of the 6.5 something has less volume than 6.8 SPC. The smaller case volume limits the true velocity of any bullet fired out of a 6.5 something cartridge.

 

Besides this, the 6.5 something was designed by a benchrest cartridge designer. Its main selling point is its theoretical accuracy (not its practical accuracy) as measured by holes on paper. In contract, 6.8 SPC was designed by people who have seen combat and measure their lives by the effectiveness of their weapons. Which would you rather trust?

Edited February 12, 2009 by Vultite

[superA 289]

I guess a lot of the speculation side depends on which reports you trust and which ones you don't. I would be shocked if the 6.8 could penetrate better than the 6.5. The 6.8 otm does seem to tumble and frag earlier than 6.5 otm. The feeding problem is not an issue so much as it is to get C-Products to produce a reliable mag, some work great and some don't. I feel that if the 6.5 had as much attention given to it as 6.8 has it would prove to be superior in almost every category. But I also feel that this difference would be so slight it almost doesn't matter. I also don't understand the fights over these two rounds. They are both a step up from 556 and they seem to do very well for a round intended to work in an AR-15 size platform. As far as which one to get, do you load your own, how much do you shoot, etc., I feel they will both be around for a long time but loaded ammo will probably become more available over time and it already holds an edge to the 6.5 in that area now.