If I was looking for a subsonic suppressed SBR I would choose the 300 AAC for sure. If looking for a target rifle and choosing between these 2 I would choose a 264LBC over the Grendel. Hunting or combat I would choose the 6.8. 3 gun, a 5.56.
- Thread starter Flex686
- Start date
Do you have a point, or do you just want to insult everyone? The Whisper was a perfectly good niche cartridge. AAC broadened its scope, taking it into a market that was asking for options. They copied the Whisper, and added a supersonic load that people could use when it fit their needs.
The point is that any conversation about it begins and ends with 16" or shorter barrels, thus the discussion about SBR's.
The BO is ONLY unique in its SBR and subsonic capabilities, otherwise its just a 7.62x39 in a 5.56 blanket.
At this point, though, everything is pretty much useless to the OP. Hopefully he can sort through and get the information he needs.
PS--My last official IQ test put me short of Benjamin Netanyahu's, but in front of Bill O'Reilly, so I think I'm Ok there. LOL
As far as cognition, I deal everyday with something like 2 to the 20th power variables several times an hour. I've yet to be sued for making a mistake doing that for the past 20 years, so I think my cognitive powers remain relatively undiminished as well.
Sorry to disappoint you on both counts.
Ignore the troll that lives in his moms basement.
Pat
I chose the 155gr A-MAX for the .308 to give it some speed. I didn't honestly think anybody would be letting 190gr Berger's loose from a 12" .308 SBR gasser, but it's a free Country. I could then step up the 6.5 to a 130gr Berger or 129gr ABLR factory load if I wanted to, but I was focusing on readily available and affordable projectiles for both, not Berger's. There's also a 130gr Berger Hybrid VLD factory load for the 6.5 Grendel.
I wouldn't consider the 155gr A-MAX a bad projectile either. Looking at your data, and comparing to Hornady 22" bolt gun data for 190gr, you're right at the same speeds of a 22" barrel with your 12" barrel. I used to run the .308 gassers hot with Lapua brass, and know a little bit about pushing the envelope with the .308 gassers, to include using Palma brass, but 2285fps with a 190gr Berger from a 12" bolt gun sounds way over the edge to me from a reloading and pressure containment standpoint.
jasonfaz suggested the .308 SBR, so I ran a comparison between the 2. I also agree that a .308 SBR is a fire breather and not practical, with a lot of wasted case capacity for the performance, but I'm open to anyone's real world data and experience to counter my opinions.
I was actually quite surprised to see that I lose only 200yds of supersonic performance between my 16" 6.5 Grendel with a factory loaded 123gr A-MAX, compared to my 22" .260 Remington GAP AR10 with a hand loaded 123gr A-MAX. The Grendel carbine is supersonic for me out to 1318yds with that Hornady box ammo, while the .260 Rem is supersonic out to a little over 1500yds, both at 4400ft elevation, 80 degrees F.
These are both effective ranges well outside of the capabilities and range limitations of more than half of the shooters in the Country. If I go with a 20" Grendel barrel, I close that 200yd gap between .260 Rem and Grendel. I honestly thought my 16" Grendel carbine was a 700yd at most little fun target gun, but it opened my eyes when I was challenged by some retired Feds out kicking up dirt at distance to make an attempt at a 1200yd target they were shooting at out at one of my long range shooting spots.
I can push the 130gr VLD from my .260 Rem and beat that, but running the same bullet from an equal barrel length Grendel will not be that different than the .260 Rem at distance. The .260 Rem pays off at closer range in competition simply due to speed. There is a noticeable difference when you center punch a plate within 600yds with the .260 Remington, versus a 16" Grendel. I haven't compared a 22" Grendel side by side with the .260 though.
I recall that the small rifle primers of the Palma brass achieve more consistent ignition, hence lower standard deviation of velocity, but I do not understand the connection to "pushing the envelope." Can you edify me/us in that regard?
This encapsulates one reason why I look forward to our Desert Tech MDR in .308, full-length barrel in a bull pup configuration, perhaps not as light as an SBR, but compact.
Yes, there is also some buzz that the MDR may be available in 6.5 Grendel and .300 BLK, so that fight may continue
6.5 has decent subsonic choices. Lee makes a 175 grain SWC in .265'' perfect for subsonic work in a 6.5mm. Also 160 grain round nose bullets aren't too hard to find. A 175 grain .264 cal projectile has roughly the same sectional density as a 240 grain .308 cal projectile.
Dude, youre killing me with this shit. Look back at when I made that comparison in response to Variable's fan-fucking-tastic idea of a 12.5" Grendel in the context of a......wait for it.....HUNTING application. I was nice and specifically stated how i could drop 1100+ fpe on a target at 400 yds. Clearly, considering the application being discussed within that comparison was hunting, I was using a hunting bullet while running the numbers. It wasnt until you decided to re-run your own comparison using a .435 BC 155 gr projo that i decided to cherry pick my own data as that was clearly what you were doing.
With all of the wealth of knowledge you've spread on this forum, I would find it hard to believe that you:
1. Just conveniently forget about the context with which the comparison was originally made. People with experience don’t just unintentionally fuck up like that.
2. I’d find it hard to believe that you simply didn’t know about the 9 other 150-155 gr .308 projos that have a significantly better BC than the AMAX. Hell, there's probably more, but i don’t shoot that weight very often. I prefer 178s over anything. It’s a happy medium for me. If i wanted pure speed for no apparent reason id just go buy a few boxes of 110 grain factory Hornady Tap.
It’s glaringly obvious that you shoot paper and steel, and maybe that’s why you overlooked the entire basis of my comparison and the fact in was in the context of hunting. You could use the 129 gr ABLRs and I could use the 190s with a .640 BC. I actually bought a box and plan to do so as the expansion threshold for those is down at 1300 fps. I can get those going 2000 fps easy. Minimum velocity needed for expansion is important for my uses as – once again – my application is hunting. Not long range paper punching. You should take that into account next time. I haven’t seen Hornady’s published data on the 190s and, hence, won’t comment on it. But I’d love to see it and get that you’re implying I’m full of shit. So I’ll go ahead and step down to 178s. Hopefully your righteousness agrees that this is a doable projo weight in a 12’ 308? What weight bullet did you use in your 12’ 308 BTW?
POF chrono'd factory FGM 178s at an avg of 2311 out of the 12". I actually get an avg around 2330-2335 fps when shooting the same factory ammo suppressed. But let’s throw my BS out the window and stick with the 2311 just so you’re good with the legitimacy of the comparison. Federal publishes 2600 FPS out of 24" pipes, while factory 178 Hornady Superformance BTHP Match factory loads have a published velocity of 2775 out of the same 24" barrel length. I can shoot those all day pushing damn close to 2400 fps, but I’ll just bury that too and defer to the 2310 levels. Using 38-40 grns of IMR4895, Benchmark, Varget and a host of others I get 100% powder burn in under 10.85" of barrel, 95% in 8.78" of barrel and under, so let’s dispel that issue real quick. You get fireballs as a result of using factory ammo with faster powders or trying to push the velocity envelope with heavier projectiles when velocity seemingly everything.
I’ll be using a 123 gr, .527 BC 6.5 (Lapua Scenar) and a 178 gr, .530 BC .308 (Hrdy BTHP). Both are very common, high BC projectiles for each respective caliber, both come in factory loads at essentially the same price off the shelf. Like I said, I’ll piss on the 308’s velocity just to ensure you’re not whining about it later. I’ll include the results of my 20” Grendel along with those from my 12” 308 and also incorporate the 12.5” 6.5G using the random numbers previously suggested. I’ll use std baro pressure at 29.53 Hg and a full value 10mph wind from 3 o’clock. I’ll use the same exact input data for both cartridges that I used the last time I went out (and I shoot both of these projectiles) at 300, 500 and 800 yds using chrono’d averages for each:
Location: Woodland Park, CO
Altitude: 6712 ft
Temp: 54 degrees
Humidity: 52.2%
Clearly, the .308 SBR outperforms the 12.5” Grendel in the context of a hunting scenario. Im putting well over 100 fpe on target at nearly twice the distance. Im accounting for less than an inch of additional wind adjustment at 800 yds. Once you start using hunting bullets or .308 cal bullets like the apparently super uncommon 185gr Berger Classic Hunters for example this begins to get worse. Youre not jamming a 1.35” ABLR into the Grendel case without getting shitty enough velocity out of a 12.5” 6.5G that makes this discussion really fucking stupid. What is all the fuss about at the end of the day? A fucking pound of weight? No thank you pussies. As I have said all along, the value of the 6.5G lies in the external ballistics advantages in gives you in the AR15 platform AT FUCKING DISTANCE in a barrel that is long enough to take advantage of the velocity benefits achieved with the high BC projos – specifically in the elevation dept. Recoil? There’s a lot of ways to reduce recoil outside of comparing the cartridge itself.
Did I ever mention versatility? I can go from 110 gr to 200 grains in a single cartridge based on my firing schedule and application? Can’t do that with the ole 6.5G my friend…
Last edited:
I hear ya man. Just pointing out that SBR comparison.
How do the numbers run when you get into the higher BC .260 pills?
LRRP52 plays these games all day long.... He knows he is being misleading and spreading half truths.... It's his M O to help sales of his pet cartridge.... I don't even read his long winded bs.... He lives by the saying "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bullshit." If you pay attention he only does this on Grendel threads vs any other cartridge or tries to turn threads into that... I swear he searches the net for every 6.8 spc II thread to do it.... It's funny stuff.
I was never able to get the 178gr Superformance factory ammo to work reliably out of any of my AR308 gas guns... Blown primers and poor accuracy were the order of the day. I did not have any 12.5" guns but I did own a range of AR308s with barrels from 14.5" to 22".
Are you using a tuned gas block, a specific .308 chambering, or...?
Not so good. 123 is the comfy zone. 130-140gr bullets don't go fast enough given the case capacity to get any real advantageous use out of the higher BC. Now if you long throated a bolt gun and seated them at neck-depth, you might have better luck.
Yep, adjustable gas, significant machining to the receiver and carrier to add about 1.8 ounces to the carrier and increase lock time, A5 length buffer tube, and either the 8.5oz heavy buffer and custom spring from Slash's or a JP SCS with 110 tension spring and the derlin spacer cut down about .70" or so.
I'd throw a picture up, but I just finished completely sand blasting it in prep for Cerakote. So it's going to look like an alien gun.
So you're making these comparison to the Grendel, based on .308 rigs with your custom machine work???
I'm not saying it doesn't fix a problem and isn't a good solution, but the majority of shooters don't have access to these solutions.
Why are you comparing 178gr class of projectiles to the 123gr class of projectiles? You should be using the 140gr or 130gr at the very least.
"It’s glaringly obvious that you shoot paper and steel, and maybe that’s why you overlooked the entire basis of my comparison and the fact in was in the context of hunting."
Yet you choice target projectiles. While completely over looking the fact that manufacturers put a minimum impact velocity on their projectiles as opposed to minimum Energy for a reason. As I've stated before it takes a specific amount of Energy to open a specific bullet. Typically it takes more energy to open the larger caliber bullet when using comparable bullets.
You can impact with 2000 ft lbs of energy, but if your bullet doesn't open up and transfer that energy to the target then it's all but useless to you. you might as well shoot it with a 9mm FMJ.
In your "hunting" comparison of the 2 rounds, not considering similar rounds and their specific required impact velocity is either pure ignorance of hunting projectiles and physics or a blatant attempt to massage the data in your favor.
Moral of the story, if you hit your target above the required impact velocity, both platforms will sufficiently get the job done to comparable distances, with respect to hunting. It's weight savings/platform of choice vs range of projectiles.
Last edited:
Yes, and the machining has zero effect on external ballistic properties. You don't have to have anything super duper special to pull it off. I've met a few others running 10.5" 308s. Not hard to pull off with some very basic upgrades as long as you understand what you need to address gaps you see in performance.
Read my initial post in response to variable. It was given in the context of hunting. My second post used a VLD HUNTING projectile. Sure as shit, someone had issues. As stated in my comparison, I tried to find the bullets with closest BC possible, that were readily available (as it was suggested Bergers are not - but they are), and specifically pointed out that shit only gets worse if I were able to pick a better hunting bullet to compare.
I did mention expansion thresholds, minimum velocities in above post. Read slower.
Here's the point my man, I can use whatever 6.5 projo you want, but think about how many other choices I have with the .308. Again, AS I MENTIONED ABOVE, it only gets worse for the Grendel using the best hunting bullets available for the .308 that will seat at mag length. You don't have much more room in that case. The 6.5 Scenar is a damn good projo for the Grendel. Probably the best right now. I, however, can do much better with the 308 as 178 isn't anywhere near as close to the weight (really length) ceiling as the 123 gr Scenar is to the max length/weight you'll be jamming into the 6.5G case.
If a 20" 6.5 can't even hit energy on target equal to the 12" 308, then how the fuck is a 12.5" 6.5G going to do it? Please do educate me. I very much do hesitate to speculate for fear that I may deviate from the true course of rectitude...
Firstly, I'm conversing as if we were face to face. I guarantee you wouldn't speak to me this way if that was the setting, so I'm not really sure where all the profanity and vulgarity is coming from, but it certainly isn't on my end. I respectfully have addressed your numbers straightforwardly. I honestly didn't think anyone would even consider using 185gr Berger Hybrids in a 12" .308 gasser. I'm not being sarcastic, and I'm not your typical "me" generation kid who resorts to foul mouthed tirades in a what should be a gentlemanly conversation and technical discussion.
In short, all I'm saying when I compare any .308 load, barrel length, rifle weight, and footprint to 6.5 Grendel is that the extra ~200ft-lbs of energy on target are not worth the rest of the penalties that come along with .308 Winchester. I've spent literal decades launching and spotting 7.62 NATO and .308 downrange, and I'm more familiar with its performance than I am with the 6.5's. It's a cartridge that I would have killed if I could have placed myself in Army Ordnance in the 1950's in a position of influence.
I rid myself of all .308 reloading components as I have no practical use for it anymore. When I was loading for .308, I used the 155gr Scenar as my go-to bullet, running 2820fps from a 22" barrel. When I'm running long range training, I see good results from 175gr SMK's and 178gr A-MAX's out to about 700yds, and on no wind days, I have hit out to 1118yds with 175gr SMK, but that's at higher altitude.
I think you've read into my tone in ways that I don't even recognize, which makes responding a questionable effort at best. But like I said, I guarantee you wouldn't speak to me that way face to face.
I've been one of the only people to counter the false claims by people with financial interests in 6.8 about the Grendel for years now. Those claims seemed reasonable at face value, but research and real world data exposed that they were all fabrications out of some type of insecurity about competition.
We saw statements about how 6.5 Grendel sucked for hunting, how it needs a 24" barrel to get any decent velocity, it's only a mediocre target round that fits in the AR15, the designer is handicapping it, it isn't reliable because of the 30 degree shoulder, it doesn't have any good hunting bullets for it, you get the point.
Every single one of those statements turned out to be financially motivated by guys who bought deep into the marketing lies that launched the 6.8 SPC. So basically what I've seen is that all the accusations like yours are true for you, not me. Why not just compete, rather than resort to having to smear your competition? It reeks of insecurity, very low intellectual capacity, and childishness when you step back and look at it.
I recall that the small rifle primers of the Palma brass achieve more consistent ignition, hence lower standard deviation of velocity, but I do not understand the connection to "pushing the envelope." Can you edify me/us in that regard?
This encapsulates one reason why I look forward to our Desert Tech MDR in .308, full-length barrel in a bull pup configuration, perhaps not as light as an SBR, but compact.
Yes, there is also some buzz that the MDR may be available in 6.5 Grendel and .300 BLK, so that fight may continue
You can get away with more pressure using Palma brass, without the same issues you would have with standard .308 brass, but no way was I going to invest in Palma brass for my gassers to not even be competitive still. Even hot-loaded Surgeon action bolt guns pushing the 155gr Scenar super fast have been all over the place for me at 1000yds, where the soup just has too much influence on the .308 Winchester. It's just not the cartridge that meets my needs for efficiency, even at higher altitudes, when talking much past 600yds.
There's an excellent thread posted here by one of the Finnish snipers and personal friend of mine, who did a nice comparison between Lapua Palma vs. Lapua .308 brass in the AR10. Short story was all the primer and ejector swipes went away with loads that exceed book maximums.
There's already a 129gr ABLR factory load, and has been a 130gr Swift Scirocco factory load for 10 years now. People can just order it, load it up, and shoot it from their rifle without doing any hand loading, or trying to find powders and combinations that will work well in a .308 gasser. In all the years I used .308 gassers, I never really found a happy place to be in terms of performance and brass/primer condition, which meant I was running well on the hot side of pressures, max book loads, low brass life, etc.
With the Grendel, we're looking at 20+ loads on brass, because the pressures are much lower. That's why for guys like me, it makes sense to put .308 away. Yes a 12" .308 put on a diet would make a nice little SBR hunter, especially with a can. Most people aren't going to go through the red tape for either just to go hunting. A little AR15 Grendel carbine with readily available common parts that your kids can shoot, and still drops large game DRT makes a lot more sense from a consumer perspective. The only thing .308 really has going for it is shelf availability after 60 years of being on the market.
As to weights of the two, I recently built a 20" Grendel that weighed 6.35lbs, so consider the 7lb 12" .308 in that light.
Maybe we need a new thread comparing .308 Winchester and 6.5 Grendel in that context.
Last edited:
Yes, and the machining has zero effect on external ballistic properties. You don't have to have anything super duper special to pull it off. I've met a few others running 10.5" 308s. Not hard to pull off with some very basic upgrades as long as you understand what you need to address gaps you see in performance.
Read my initial post in response to variable. It was given in the context of hunting. My second post used a VLD HUNTING projectile. Sure as shit, someone had issues. As stated in my comparison, I tried to find the bullets with closest BC possible, that were readily available (as it was suggested Bergers are not - but they are), and specifically pointed out that shit only gets worse if I were able to pick a better hunting bullet to compare.
I did mention expansion thresholds, minimum velocities in above post. Read slower.
Here's the point my man, I can use whatever 6.5 projo you want, but think about how many other choices I have with the .308. Again, AS I MENTIONED ABOVE, it only gets worse for the Grendel using the best hunting bullets available for the .308 that will seat at mag length. You don't have much more room in that case. The 6.5 Scenar is a damn good projo for the Grendel. Probably the best right now. I, however, can do much better with the 308 as 178 isn't anywhere near as close to the weight (really length) ceiling as the 123 gr Scenar is to the max length/weight you'll be jamming into the 6.5G case.
If a 20" 6.5 can't even hit energy on target equal to the 12" 308, then how the fuck is a 12.5" 6.5G going to do it? Please do educate me. I very much do hesitate to speculate for fear that I may deviate from the true course of rectitude...
"significant machining to the receiver and carrier to add about 1.8 ounces to the carrier and increase lock time,"
WTF??? really??? It may not have any effect on external ballistics, but none of that really matters until you can get your rig running reliably.
Because they have BCs that are close does not make the bullets similar for a hunting comparison.
Comparing an SST to an SST or Sierra GK to Sierra GK are comparable bullets in different calibers.
I don't care if you have a million different choices to do the same thing. What option do you have that'll do what a Grendel option won't do in respect to hunting???
Read very slowly. Energy on impact has very little to do with the effectiveness of the round. It's the energy that's transferred to the target that counts. If the bullets are going in one side and out the other without opening you're not transferring much energy. I'll give you that you are SLIGHTLY more likely to hit an artery with a .308 round as opposed to a .264.
To further clarify, my definition as used above regarding "commonly available factory loads" was geared to one being able to walk into a Bass Pro or something and pick a box up. I'm aware that AA will sell you 20 rds w/130 gr Sciroccos for $40 and Precision Armament loads the 129 ABLRs, Bergers, etc. I picked up some of the 129s to see how my 20" likes them. Curious what 2400 fps in a 24" is going to translate into out of my 20". Even more interested in what powder they've concocted up for this one.
At the end of the day, I hear where you're coming from. I get the value add a 6.5G translates into. In my opinion, that value doesn't extend into the SBR realm. It's a different story at distance. There are many advantages to 308 - availability, energy with heavy for caliber boolits, cost, and versatility - my kids actually shoot the .308, albeit after I've popped the gas to OFF and throw in a mag of subs.
With respect to weight....it's nothing more than a trade off. Am I good with trading 35-40% of energy output for 9 ounces in weight? No. But that's based solely on my intended use and personal preferences within that specific context. Generally speaking, I think chasing weight reduction has become incredibly overblown as of late. Don't get me wrong, I love a light rifle, but there's a point where (for me) the negatives outweigh the positives.
For example, I've always been a heavy barrel guy for reasons around barrel harmonics and the fact I'm running cans. My first 6.5G had an 18" heavy barrel. That bastard weighed 3 lbs 7 oz. It was accurate as hell, but that one component made it as heavy as anything else I have after 30 mins of trekking up a mountain. Sold it, replaced with a med contour 20" Proof CF weighing 25.8oz. Had a PRS on it, ditched it for a Luth-AR which saved another 1lb+. That's about where it stops for me from a weight standpoint. Case in point, I have a 16.7" Noveske NSR on it which some feel is unnecessary. However, I prefer my bipod as close to the muzzle as possible for better, faster range of movement in prone. Is getting a 12" handguard saving me 5oz worth it? No. Maybe in 20 yrs, but not now. You could go through every part weighing the pros and cons, but it ultimately will be based on the varied, subjective preferences of the person behind the rifle. It's a never ending argument to start a discussion proposing that a lighter rifle is always going to be better than a heavier one. That's not a meaningful conversation IMO.
I'll bow out with that. But know my beef has never been with the 6.5G, it's always been with the inference made that 6.5G in an SBR config would be anywhere close to the effectiveness of a 308 in same config as a hunting rifle. That's it. The titanium carrier, pencil barrel, 4.5 lb thing made it significantly worse.
Anyway, I'm good if you're good brotha!
Your understanding of wound ballistics is weak to non-existent. What's next? Shooting watermelons?
Alas, a variety of search terms did not locate that discussion for me. What's the upshot (pun intended) of the discussion? Why does a small rifle primer result in lower pressure? More consistent ignition, but lower pressure, lower velocity, lower performance?
So long story short, a 12.5" 308 AR with extensive machine work will run 200-300FPE more energy than a 12.5" 6.5 Grendel with no serious mods and both will peter out about the same range. And someone out there claims the 308 can be made as light as the grendel but we've not seen it yet. Or wait, was that the same guy that called us pussies for wanting a pound of material knocked off the weapon?
Why haven't we discussed the price difference between the 308 platforms and the AR-15? I want pie charts!
Why haven't we discussed the price difference between the 308 platforms and the AR-15? I want pie charts!
It has nothing to do with the primer itself, and everything to do with the increased mass of high quality brass at the bass that isn't as displaced as much as a Large Rifle Primer pocket would do.
I asked Janne P. at Lapua why they didn't do Small Rifle Primer for the .260 Rem vs. the 6.5x47 Lapua (which has a SRP), and the answer was edgy performance when it came to consistent powder column burning with slow powders in extreme cold temperatures. The 6.5x47 Lapua has a shorter powder column, less case volume, and more consistent burn characteristics in extreme cold.
Close. More like 500-600 fpe with something like the 185 gr Berg Classic Hunter before you hit minimum impact velocity around 530 yds (there you go Cory).
Never said you were a pussy, just said I'm not.
My build was under $2k. Unfortunately, I'm fresh out of pie charts.
Good shooting...
Maybe I did say you were pussies. But know that I meant it in a really nice way.
?
?
How so? You do understand the first law of physics don't you?
Have you read—or <b>published</b>—<i>anything</i> in the peer-reviewed wound ballistics literature?
People. predators and game animals, their circulatory systems, central nervous systems, their other organ systems, and the behavior of various projectiles in living tissues are not modeled by some pendulum and gong apparatus. We have about a half-century of medical and wound ballistics literature demonstrating that killing and wounding are not modeled by a high school physics equation.
People. predators and game animals, their circulatory systems, central nervous systems, their other organ systems, and the behavior of various projectiles in living tissues are not modeled by some pendulum and gong apparatus. We have about a half-century of medical and wound ballistics literature demonstrating that killing and wounding are not modeled by a high school physics equation.
Last edited:
Hahaha! I was thinking the same thing..."aww, fuck me. What now?"
But don't let me discourage you Nukes. School us on wound ballistics. Seriously, I'd be interested in your thoughts around the key aspects of what drives appropriate terminal performance of a projectile on soft targets of varying size.
I became tired of answering the same questions over and over, and hence, didn't reply to the last Corym babble. However, if I were to do so - in addition to minimum impact velocities - I would have mentioned things like bullet construction (material & design), angle of bullet path, expansion parameters (rate & range), bullet frontal area and impact surface, sectional density vs bullet diameter, target-specific variances and the logical correlation that can be made to projectile selection at various distances and velocities that might delineate between what's important and what's not when it comes to ensuring your projectile of choice behaves as one might expect as it relates to terminal performance. Hell, maybe throw in some momentum aspects and little Taylor KO formula just for shits and giggles.
But I'm no expert and would sincerely enjoy reading some educated feedback on the topic for a change!
Last edited:
Go with a 6.5G as it is proven caliber and very all around cailber.
First the punch line: There is no meaningful mathematical or quasi-mathematical model.
One can only offer a few generalities. In general, it is the size and location of the wound that determines the lethality (or incapacitation) of penetrating injuries. Whether ice-pick or firearm, a small low-velocity wound in a vital area can be nearly instantly deadly where a much larger high-velocity wound in a non-vital area may only injure with “high speed acupuncture.” A larger wound, of course, increases the probability of encountering and injuring a vital structure. For firearms, larger wounds are more likely from larger bullet diameter (“caliber”), from expanding bullets, and, in certain cases, from tumbling, yawing, or fragmenting bullets. It is the location and size of the permanent wound channel, the vital tissue actually destroyed, that primarily determines lethality. The effects of temporary stretching (“cavitation”) of <i>elastic</i> tissues or the sonic “shock wave” from a bullet’s passage have been greatly exaggerated. That said, cavitation in <i>solid</i> tissue (e.g., brain, bone, liver) is potentially devastating, especially in the central nervous system.
Obtaining a wound in a vital area, of course, depends upon shot placement which is a reflection of marksmanship mitigated by chance; the more skillful the marksman, including the marksman's understanding of the exterior ballistics, the smaller the role of luck. Discredited theories emphasizing—and even sometimes equating—kinetic energy or velocity with killing/wounding/incapacitation potential have no place in informed discussion. Myths about “high velocity” bullets, “shock waves,” and “cavitation” have been definitively dispelled in the medical and wound ballistics literature. Consider. The average Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (pulverizing kidney stones with ultrasound pulses) utilizes about 2,000 shock wave pulses, each of which is approximately three times the energy of a “high velocity” bullet, without any evidence whatsoever of soft tissue damage.
These general considerations multiply exponentially in complexity in an impossible-to-model matrix accounting for the variety of game animals (and humans), their sizes and physiological variations, what elastic and solid organs are encountered by an infinity of possible bullet tracks, and the behavior of different projectiles striking at an infinite multiplicity of angles, distances, and velocities.
So, to reiterate the punch line: There is no meaningful mathematical or quasi-mathematical model.
Put the biggest hole you can in the most vital structure you can hit—period.
One can only offer a few generalities. In general, it is the size and location of the wound that determines the lethality (or incapacitation) of penetrating injuries. Whether ice-pick or firearm, a small low-velocity wound in a vital area can be nearly instantly deadly where a much larger high-velocity wound in a non-vital area may only injure with “high speed acupuncture.” A larger wound, of course, increases the probability of encountering and injuring a vital structure. For firearms, larger wounds are more likely from larger bullet diameter (“caliber”), from expanding bullets, and, in certain cases, from tumbling, yawing, or fragmenting bullets. It is the location and size of the permanent wound channel, the vital tissue actually destroyed, that primarily determines lethality. The effects of temporary stretching (“cavitation”) of <i>elastic</i> tissues or the sonic “shock wave” from a bullet’s passage have been greatly exaggerated. That said, cavitation in <i>solid</i> tissue (e.g., brain, bone, liver) is potentially devastating, especially in the central nervous system.
Obtaining a wound in a vital area, of course, depends upon shot placement which is a reflection of marksmanship mitigated by chance; the more skillful the marksman, including the marksman's understanding of the exterior ballistics, the smaller the role of luck. Discredited theories emphasizing—and even sometimes equating—kinetic energy or velocity with killing/wounding/incapacitation potential have no place in informed discussion. Myths about “high velocity” bullets, “shock waves,” and “cavitation” have been definitively dispelled in the medical and wound ballistics literature. Consider. The average Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (pulverizing kidney stones with ultrasound pulses) utilizes about 2,000 shock wave pulses, each of which is approximately three times the energy of a “high velocity” bullet, without any evidence whatsoever of soft tissue damage.
These general considerations multiply exponentially in complexity in an impossible-to-model matrix accounting for the variety of game animals (and humans), their sizes and physiological variations, what elastic and solid organs are encountered by an infinity of possible bullet tracks, and the behavior of different projectiles striking at an infinite multiplicity of angles, distances, and velocities.
So, to reiterate the punch line: There is no meaningful mathematical or quasi-mathematical model.
Put the biggest hole you can in the most vital structure you can hit—period.
.........well, very good then. Probably a good time to wrap this whole shenanigan up.
What was this thread about again, I forget.
Alright it looks like we're all saying the same thing here. I agree there's far to many variables for any meaningful mathematical model.
The KE at impact is meaningless in wound ballistics.
It comes down to shot placement and the size of the hole. However, you don't get the big exit hole for free. It requires energy. The size of the hole is a function of the size of the projectile as it EXITS, how much of the impact KE is transferred to the target, and other variables most of which are out of the shooters control.
The .308 will enter the target with a larger hole, but if it doesn't open, the .264 projectile can easily be the larger projectile as it exits, assuming it opened per design.
There may be to many variables for a full mathematical model. However, it still comes down to basic physics. Energy can not be created, nor destroyed.
Nice try for a "save."
Consider the energy of an ice-pick through a leather jacket and the sternal border of the left 4th intercostal space penetrating into the right and left ventricles.
Consider then the energy of a much-marketed frangible projectile in precisely the same location that might get through the jacket to make an ugly, but ineffectual, skin wound.
I respectfully suggest that you give "energy" a rest and start reading Dr. Marty Fackler's seminal work from the US Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory:
Fackler ML, Malinowski JA, Hoxie SW, and Jason A. “Wounding Effects of the AK-47 Rifle Used by Patrick Purdy in the Stockton, California, Schoolyard Shooting of January 17, 1989.” Am J Forensic Medicine and Path. 1990; 11(3): 185-90.
Fackler ML. “Wound Ballistics: A Review of Common Misconceptions.” JAMA. 1988; 259: 2730-6.
Fackler ML. “Wound Ballistics.” in Trunkey DD and Lewis FR, editors. Current Therapy of Trauma, vol 2. Philadelphia: BC Decker Inc. 1986. pp. 94-101.
You might also read back issues of <i>Wound Ballistics Review–Journal of the International Wound Ballistics Association</i>.
Consider the energy of an ice-pick through a leather jacket and the sternal border of the left 4th intercostal space penetrating into the right and left ventricles.
Consider then the energy of a much-marketed frangible projectile in precisely the same location that might get through the jacket to make an ugly, but ineffectual, skin wound.
I respectfully suggest that you give "energy" a rest and start reading Dr. Marty Fackler's seminal work from the US Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory:
Fackler ML, Malinowski JA, Hoxie SW, and Jason A. “Wounding Effects of the AK-47 Rifle Used by Patrick Purdy in the Stockton, California, Schoolyard Shooting of January 17, 1989.” Am J Forensic Medicine and Path. 1990; 11(3): 185-90.
Fackler ML. “Wound Ballistics: A Review of Common Misconceptions.” JAMA. 1988; 259: 2730-6.
Fackler ML. “Wound Ballistics.” in Trunkey DD and Lewis FR, editors. Current Therapy of Trauma, vol 2. Philadelphia: BC Decker Inc. 1986. pp. 94-101.
You might also read back issues of <i>Wound Ballistics Review–Journal of the International Wound Ballistics Association</i>.
Last edited:
Assuming! Most .264 bullets were designed for the 260 Rem and will not expand at the slower velocities the Grendel pushes them to especially in a SBR. The 120 TSX is a great bullet in a 260 but it is a poor choice in the Grendel because they do not expand. Sure they'll penetrate like no other...because they are basically a solid. Hornady's 123 SST and the Barnes 100gr TTSX may be the 2 best bullets for use in the Grendel. A 100gr TTSX in a Grendel SBR would be pretty bad ass.
308 bullets are well... 308 bullets we can be more sure they will expand since they were designed for use in the 308 unless talking about the 190gr + bullets made for the 300 WM.
Being base heavy, as a bullet encounters the beast, it will yaw and tumble. At 2.245" in length the 6.5mm 123 gn Hornady A-MAX and 129 gn SST can do plenty of damage yawing and tumbling through tissue without any expansion whatsoever. If an initially longer (2.750") .308 Hornady 165 gn SST expands to less than the 6.5mm's yawing and tumbling 2.245", the non-expanding projectile may do more, less, or the same damage as the expanding .308 projectile.
There are far too many variables to be dogmatic, rather than probabilistic, about what "will" happen.
One of the things I admire about Bryan Litz's exterior ballistics work is that he approaches long range accuracy as a probabilistic phenomenon affected by a multiplicity of factors, some of which are lost in the "noise." I think that we would do well to approach wound ballistics is an analogous fashion.
Assuming you were talking about a Grendel SBR, I agree a 120gr TSX would be a poor choice for hunting and the 100gr TTSX from an 11.5" Grendel would be bad ass.
However there's a time and place for everything. There's really no 6.5mm projectile I know of that can't be effective from a Grendel if you recognize your limits and use it appropriately.
If the time ever comes that lead projectiles are banned, I'd probably rely on the 120gr TSX from a Suppressed Grendel SBR as a home defense round.
Last edited:
If it tumbles. Bill Waites posted a photo of a 120TSX recovered from a deer. The tip had expanded to apx 1/4" dia...roughly the same dia as the body of the bullet. I have no idea what stopped the bullet. Except for the tip it looked perfect. I've seen little 85gr TSXs pass through hogs end to end. I even positioned a large hog Sean Cody shot on an angle so I could shoot it in the front shoulder, it exited the rear ham...corner to corner through the thickest part of the shoulder blade.
I did? Where was that? I don't hunt deer, so I don't know where I would have gotten that picture! (I have to use wwaites here, bwaites is taken.)
I'm assuming from your sig line that you are Constructor/Builder etc. elsewhere?
I have no idea where you got the photo but it was on arfcom years ago. I said the same thing then... The 120 TSX will not expand properly out of the Grendel. Remember that little exchange?
So the 120gr TSX that has been used to kill elk (piled it up) at over 400yds from a 20" Grendel won't expand enough? The BC sucks on that bullet as well, but it has proven to be a large game killer from the Grendel at distances most wouldn't even try. Maybe just a fluke. I ran the ballistics, and it looks like at the altitude Mark was at, impact velocity would still be ~1838fps to 1850fps with 900-921 ft-lbs. I guess he put it where it needed to go.
I'm looking at our terminal ballistics testing right now on the 100gr TTSX, and this is how it played out:
At 2021fps impact, it opened to .410".
At 2176fps, it opened to .416".
At 2744fps, it opened to .530".
With about 2000fps impact, you still get about .400" expansion. Penetration was 29" at that impact speed. The 120gr TSX is still a good 250-275yd expander if run at 2450fps mv, but not my top choice of bullets either. It's still going to expand at Grendel velocities. You aren't going to get the petals to peel around on themselves like a .260 Rem. at 100yds, but they will still open up fine within common hunting distances.
And that's one of the lowest BC pills for the 6.5mm in that length, with it being 1.252" long. It just goes to show that even one of the low performers has proven to be a killer at over 400yds on elk from a 20" rifle. Barnes also makes the 120gr TTSX, which is a factory load for the Grendel now from PF, and that has a BC of .412 G1.
We're going to be testing some of the GS Custom solids at high velocity from short barrels, with BC's in the low .4 region, but I'm totally happy with what I've seen from the 123gr SST. It's affordable, kills well on big game out to 400yds from an 18" barrel, DRT'd a caribou at 275yds the day before, kills hogs, deer, does twofers on hogs and deer, and then does awesome as a target bullet with its .510 BC. What's not to like about that?
I'm looking at our terminal ballistics testing right now on the 100gr TTSX, and this is how it played out:
At 2021fps impact, it opened to .410".
At 2176fps, it opened to .416".
At 2744fps, it opened to .530".
With about 2000fps impact, you still get about .400" expansion. Penetration was 29" at that impact speed. The 120gr TSX is still a good 250-275yd expander if run at 2450fps mv, but not my top choice of bullets either. It's still going to expand at Grendel velocities. You aren't going to get the petals to peel around on themselves like a .260 Rem. at 100yds, but they will still open up fine within common hunting distances.
And that's one of the lowest BC pills for the 6.5mm in that length, with it being 1.252" long. It just goes to show that even one of the low performers has proven to be a killer at over 400yds on elk from a 20" rifle. Barnes also makes the 120gr TTSX, which is a factory load for the Grendel now from PF, and that has a BC of .412 G1.
We're going to be testing some of the GS Custom solids at high velocity from short barrels, with BC's in the low .4 region, but I'm totally happy with what I've seen from the 123gr SST. It's affordable, kills well on big game out to 400yds from an 18" barrel, DRT'd a caribou at 275yds the day before, kills hogs, deer, does twofers on hogs and deer, and then does awesome as a target bullet with its .510 BC. What's not to like about that?
The only 120 TSX I've ever seen talked about post game animal was the one Mark Larue used to pile up an elk at 400 yards. And that one wasn't recovered. Its possible I'm forgetting something, though, since I'm getting old!
I think thats what I said. They don't open the way they were designed to do in a 260.
The GS bullets BCs are highly exaggerated and very tough to get great accuracy out of. Faster than normal powders must be used and most need to be jammed into the lands. The small drive bands are the only thing that touch the groove. I've been shooting the 80HV since 2007. The whole front end comes apart. We had him make some 99gr SP and HVs. After the front comes apart they have more left over weight to penetrate but they are bullet diameter, they do not have petals like a Barnes. Barnes perform better for hunting IMO and are less expensive.
Bryan Litz is in the process of redesigning all of Bergers bullets to a Hybrid ogive design, they will be the one to watch for high BC and accurate bullets. I would like to see them make a mono bullet like Barnes but use Litz's design...Hybrid ogive and body formula with a 7 degree boat tail. Using his design formula I came up with a 120gr mono as long as a 139 Lapua with a G7 BC of .250 for the 6.5x45 I was working on. I haven't had time to turn any yet.
I've been trying to get Barnes do a similar thing dating back for 2 years now. Hybrid ogive, long boat tail, but we were looking at a weight between 105-117gr. It would put the G1 in the mid .4's like a 110gr Banded solid.
I think Barnes is so slammed for orders, it isn't a big deal to them right now. When we drove down for SHOT, we passed by their Mona plant along I-15 sometime around midnight, and the parking lot was slammed packed full. They're running 2 shifts, if not 3.
GS Customs seems to go by the wounding theory that a blunt cylinder does more damage. I only have experience with their .338 pills for military target work, including armor penetration, so I can't compare real world between theirs and Barnes TSX/TTSX line, but the 4 petals spinning through tissue at supersonic speed doesn't look conducive to a healthy lifestyle.
For the guys down in Texas that shoot a lot of hogs with the Grendel, who have also shot them with the 123gr SST, they prefer the Barnes 100gr TTSX. More DRT's and always get an exit. Both kill them fine, but the Barnes seem to do it faster.
I think Barnes is so slammed for orders, it isn't a big deal to them right now. When we drove down for SHOT, we passed by their Mona plant along I-15 sometime around midnight, and the parking lot was slammed packed full. They're running 2 shifts, if not 3.
GS Customs seems to go by the wounding theory that a blunt cylinder does more damage. I only have experience with their .338 pills for military target work, including armor penetration, so I can't compare real world between theirs and Barnes TSX/TTSX line, but the 4 petals spinning through tissue at supersonic speed doesn't look conducive to a healthy lifestyle.
For the guys down in Texas that shoot a lot of hogs with the Grendel, who have also shot them with the 123gr SST, they prefer the Barnes 100gr TTSX. More DRT's and always get an exit. Both kill them fine, but the Barnes seem to do it faster.
I have been hunting for over 40 years and I have always preferred a bullet that would penetrate. In my experience, a well placed shot with an entrance and exit hole has always led to a quick and clean kill. Having a well placed shot with a bullet that wont penetrate has led to a couple of kills I would not call quick and humane. The wounds were horrific with all the so called energy absorbed in the animals but they were still able to cover great distances . The Barnes bullets have performed outstanding for me in my Grendel rifles with in the 250 yard range I have shot deer.
The thing is I must stand behind the advice I give. I can't do like LRR does and say there are 65 bullets that you can kill big game animals at 465 yds with a Grendel. No ones going to call him up and say "hey that bullet didn't expand and the biggest deer I have ever seen ran off and wasn't recovered." I've lost trophy deer at 500yds + using a 300 win mag and Noslers and I didn't like it a bit. I don't like to think I just killed a massive buck or bull and it's laying in the woods rotting somewhere.
If a bullet drops below it's expansion threshold at a certain velocity and distance I won't recommend using it past that distance. There's a big difference between a big elk and a 120lb(dressed) deer. What works great on an elk may act like a FMJ on a deer. I took an elk at 378yds with a 110 Accubond, it mushroomed just like it should have going through 22" of meat. It may have zipped right through not expanding on a 14" wide deer at that velocity unless it hit a rib going in. Out to 250yds it should have had enough velocity to expand on a deer though. Penetration isn't an issue with deer, expansion is. I can't depend on "it might tumble" or "it might hit a bone"
Both Mark LaRue's elk shot at 406yds and the Alaskan caribou at 275 and 400yd shots last year were all done with factory ammo, one shot deals. There's a guy on AR15.com whose wife killed a big bull elk with a handloaded 125gr Nosler Partition at close range, DRT from a 20" Grendel. Others have shot cow and bull elks at closer ranges with quick kills. I would prefer to be closer, but it isn't hard getting a Grendel to hit within a 10" plate out to 400yds, even in wind, especially at altitude.
6.5 Swede has been killing hundreds of thousands of moose for over a century in Scandinavia and Alaska. The ratio of gilding material to core on the 6.5's is such that they seem to hold together really well, when compared with larger diameter bullets, and are much less velocity sensitive on both ends, resulting in boringly predictable through and through kills.
The nice thing about the Grendel is that you have a very low-recoiling round that can be practiced with affordably, especially now with the steel case, and still get performance on game that doesn't make a lot of sense when you look at the small case. When researching and testing for the Terminal Ballistics chapter, we compared both recovered (from game) bullets like the 123gr SST to the ones shot through gel, and they were almost indistinguishable.
If shooting at altitudes common to where elk are found out here in the West, even a 14.5" Grendel and 16" Grendel keep the 123gr SST really fast out to more than 500yds. With mercury at 21.4"/9000ft elevation, 59 F temp, a 14.5" Grendel mv of 2420fps will keep the 123gr at 1961fps at 400yds.
In our testing across a realistic spectrum of impact velocities for many different hunting pills, the 123gr SST expands to between .389" (1884fps) and .460" (2084fps), with between 30" and 23" of penetration depth. Below 1800fps, we saw the expansion basically disappear, with only the polymer tip lost.
From an SBR 14.5" carbine at 9000ft elevation, that would keep the 123gr SST over 1800fps out to 480-550yds, if you account for a 2350fps-2420fps mv range. From an 18" Grendel with avg. 2500fps mv, you have 1819fps at 600yds, 2032fps at 400yds in those same higher altitude conditions.
As to advice, I can only really give that one-on-one when it's asked. I can stand solidly behind the above data though. What each individual marksman and hunter do is a personal series of decisions based on a life path that may be totally different than mine, many of which will result in great experiences. I personally have gotten away from anything .30 bore, as I feel it requires too much energy and recoil to generate the kinds of trajectories I prefer to see. I have more experience watching .308 bullets going downrange, and continue to accumulate that experience year after year because of the popularity of people shooting .308's, but I just like less recoil and better wind deflection for my purposes. It makes hitting things easier.
6.5 Swede has been killing hundreds of thousands of moose for over a century in Scandinavia and Alaska. The ratio of gilding material to core on the 6.5's is such that they seem to hold together really well, when compared with larger diameter bullets, and are much less velocity sensitive on both ends, resulting in boringly predictable through and through kills.
The nice thing about the Grendel is that you have a very low-recoiling round that can be practiced with affordably, especially now with the steel case, and still get performance on game that doesn't make a lot of sense when you look at the small case. When researching and testing for the Terminal Ballistics chapter, we compared both recovered (from game) bullets like the 123gr SST to the ones shot through gel, and they were almost indistinguishable.
If shooting at altitudes common to where elk are found out here in the West, even a 14.5" Grendel and 16" Grendel keep the 123gr SST really fast out to more than 500yds. With mercury at 21.4"/9000ft elevation, 59 F temp, a 14.5" Grendel mv of 2420fps will keep the 123gr at 1961fps at 400yds.
In our testing across a realistic spectrum of impact velocities for many different hunting pills, the 123gr SST expands to between .389" (1884fps) and .460" (2084fps), with between 30" and 23" of penetration depth. Below 1800fps, we saw the expansion basically disappear, with only the polymer tip lost.
From an SBR 14.5" carbine at 9000ft elevation, that would keep the 123gr SST over 1800fps out to 480-550yds, if you account for a 2350fps-2420fps mv range. From an 18" Grendel with avg. 2500fps mv, you have 1819fps at 600yds, 2032fps at 400yds in those same higher altitude conditions.
As to advice, I can only really give that one-on-one when it's asked. I can stand solidly behind the above data though. What each individual marksman and hunter do is a personal series of decisions based on a life path that may be totally different than mine, many of which will result in great experiences. I personally have gotten away from anything .30 bore, as I feel it requires too much energy and recoil to generate the kinds of trajectories I prefer to see. I have more experience watching .308 bullets going downrange, and continue to accumulate that experience year after year because of the popularity of people shooting .308's, but I just like less recoil and better wind deflection for my purposes. It makes hitting things easier.
