A fork in the road...

[k-space]

Greetings! 1st post here.

I'm trying to decide on one of two paths to take with my AR15. I bought a Grendel upper several months ago from PSA and have taken it out a few times for some casual long range shooting with a couple of friends who shoot 6.5cm bolt guns. The Grendel has a 20" barrel on it and I'm getting around 1.5 moa with Hornady American Gunner, so it's enough to have some fun with until I start missing at the longer distances. I'm looking for something better.

So here's where I am with this: a) I can replace the barrel with a quality barrel, most likely a Bartlein, but in 6mm ARC if I try to make it a dual purpose gun. Out to 1000 on the range, then take it to the blind for white tail hunting/hog control, or b) keep the Grendel as is for hunting only and pick up either a Tikka CTR 24" or a Howa barreled action with a KRG Bravo for range fun only. Caliber would be 6.5 cm. The scope I'm using is a Gen 1 Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50 ffp. It's old, but it's paid for. It's mated to an American Defense QD mount, so it's easy to switch from one rifle to the other.


Curious to hear your thoughts on this idea.

 

[hlee]

Do you reload? Have you tried ammo other than american gunner in the 6.5 grendel? The 123 is a lot more mass on target than even the heavy 6mms, and I'm not sure the ARC is going to meet the hype. Maybe it will, there are plenty of posts in the ARC thread(s) on both sides. But, mo' mass means mo' target reaction, whether those targets are steel or meat. I've got two 6.5 grendels and compete with one and hunt with the other. But, I'm not married to the caliber- I'm having a fling with a 224 predator, and am in a pretty serious relationship with a 300 BO too.

I wish Hornady was still making their match load for the 6.5 grendel. That was a sweet load in both of my guns. "Hornady Black" is pretty good, and maybe it is just my imagination and they are relabeling their match offering as black, but the "Hornady Match" labeled load was better.

Anyway, I'd run a few different loads through the grendel before rebarreling, but if it were me I'd stay with the grendel until I had a compelling reason to change. It's a fine cartridge and long range capable- even if it runs out of legs before 1000 at sea level. (Its kind of funny to send one down range and have the spotter surprised with the delayed target reaction...

Bang!
....
....
...
"Um, no call...
Oh wait, impact!"

"It takes a while for it to get out there, doesn't it? Ha!"

 

[k-space]

No reloading yet. I've got a Dillon 550B that I have set up for .45ACP as I pistol shoot mostly, so I'll need to read up and buy the stuff for rifle reloading. American Gunner and SST are what I've been using, but SST has been a little disappointing. I recall the AMAX being much better in my first Grendel, since sold, from about 6 or 7 years ago.

 

[jbailey]

so the mission is to hang with buddies who are causally shooting 6.5cm's at "Long Range" targets... 1000yds ish.

I would select option (b), buy the bolt gun, keep the Grendel for short and mid range hunting.

Rationale:

1. A 140gr is going to outperform at 1000, fairly wide margin (they are closer at 500, but you will start to slip past that range).
2. 108 is harder to see impacts.
3. Bolt gun is a much easier platform to shoot with - better precision, better stocks, faster trigger lock time.

All in, you are tired of having the lowest hit percentage of your buddies and you want to change that. A 6 ARC will help, but you will only be modestly ahead of where you were. Just get the 6.5CM bolt gun and stop always starting 10ft behind your budds.

 

[k-space]

That's a good summary. We're all too old to shoot competitively, but are competitive within our little group. Next question: would a Tikka CTR without a stock change work well enough mainly off a bench? Shoulder problems keep me from shooting prone much.

 

[jbailey]

. Next question: would a Tikka CTR without a stock change work well enough mainly off a bench? Shoulder problems keep me from shooting prone much.

Sorry, I don't have enough experience to intelligently answer that. I would GUESS yes, based on the strong reputation the system has (at lease I believe it does).

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I would keep the Grendel as is and load it with the Federal Fusion MSR 120gr 6.5 Grendel load to maximize hunting effectiveness. It's likely excellent on deer, and especially hogs in the AR. I'd stay within 200 or maybe 250yd on them. The Grendel is primarily a fix intended to add to the distance and terminal performance of the AR-15 and may be better suited to 20" or so barrels. Reach out and touch is only so far with the 6.5 Grendel.

I am still working on load development in the 20" 6.5G AR using the Speer 120gr God Dot, which is very, very similar to the bullet used in the MSR Fusion load. Dang these lockdown restrictions. I do my loading with the 550B.

I also have a 24' 6.5G AR-15. Testing indicates that hot loads can be trouble in the longer 24" AR barrel; I broke an extractor, and I suspect that the extra 4" may have been part of the problem. My 24" is being repurposed for varmints with the 90gr TNT.

There is also a 140 Gold Dot which I'm preparing to test in the 260. It could also be useful in the 6.5CM.

The 6.5 CM is definitely "more", and probably has much more usefulness in a bolt gun.

There is this possible exception. Bolt construction limits higher potential loads for the 6.5G in AR's. This may not be as big an issue with bolt rifles.

The 6mm ARC may be an improvement over the 6.5 Grendel for the AR-15, but I can't speak from experience about the new chambering.

Switching the Vortex will likely entail re-entering dope for different chamberings. That could become a chore.

Greg

 

[k-space]

I would keep the Grendel as is and load it with the Federal Fusion MSR 120gr 6.5 Grendel load to maximize hunting effectiveness. It's likely excellent on deer, and especially hogs in the AR. I'd stay within 200 or maybe 250yd on them. The Grendel is primarily a fix intended to add to the distance and terminal performance of the AR-15 and may be better suited to 20" or so barrels. Reach out and touch is only so far with the 6.5 Grendel.

I am still working on load development in the 20" 6.5G AR using the Speer 120gr God Dot, which is very, very similar to the bullet used in the MSR Fusion load. Dang these lockdown restrictions. I do my loading with the 550B.

I also have a 24' 6.5G AR-15. Testing indicates that hot loads can be trouble in the longer 24" AR barrel; I broke an extractor, and I suspect that the extra 4" may have been part of the problem. My 24" is being repurposed for varmints with the 90gr TNT.

There is also a 140 Gold Dot which I'm preparing to test in the 260. It could also be useful in the 6.5CM.

The 6.5 CM is definitely "more", and probably has much more usefulness in a bolt gun.

There is this possible exception. Bolt construction limits higher potential loads for the 6.5G in AR's. This may not be as big an issue with bolt rifles.

The 6mm ARC may be an improvement over the 6.5 Grendel for the AR-15, but I can't speak from experience about the new chambering.

Switching the Vortex will likely entail re-entering dope for different chamberings. That could become a chore.

Greg

Thanks for the info on the Speer 120gr Gold Dot and the link to the Ruger American. I don't think a Grendel bolt gun will work for my purposes due to the quick follow up shots I need for hogs.

I got the Grendel as a step up from my previous .223 Wylde chambered upper for better hunting capability and should probably forget about chasing more distance with the 6mm ARC. Trying to stretch an AR15 gas gun into a 1000 yd shooter is a big ask.

As I think through this, I'm leaning toward the Tikka CTR 6.5cm and shooting it plain jane stock for a while. Another plus to that is my brother has mule deer on his property out in West Texas and I'd feel more confident in a 350+ yd shot with that than with the Grendel.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Speer rifle reloading data. The 6.5 Grendel/120 Gold Dot data assumes a 24" barrel, deduct 20fps per inch shorter than 24", or 80fps loss for the 20"; according to the Speer manual.

I am beginning with a ballpark load for the 20" AR and the 120 Gold Dot of 28.0gr of W748. Meters nice, and I am using WSR primers in Starline brass. If the budget ever permits; the RCBS Chargemaster Lite is a really good addition to the loading bench.

While the quick followup may be unavailable from the Ruger American, it's probably likely to also be so for the other bolt guns, too. Shooting them beyond 200yd is probably unreasonable anyway, once the first shot goes off; they're pretty fast of foot.

You already have the better gun for hogs, the 20" AR. Load development will probably refine the groups considerably.

Greg

 

[want2learn]

I know some don't like Savage rifles but i've seen a lot of nice reviews as well. I recently saw one at the range, the gentleman was shooting it really well and was very pleased with his purchase.

This rifle sure seems like a pretty darn good value to me at $1122.33 brand new for a 6.5 Creedmoor:

Savage 57564 10/110 Precision 6.5 Creedmoor 24' 10+1 Black Adjustable MDT ACC Aluminum Chassis Stock

<p>Short Action, MDT LSS XL Chassis with FDE Cerakote, Adj. Comb and LOP, 1-Piece 20 MOA Rail, Muzzlebrake, 10-rnd AICS Magazine, Carbon Steel Heavy Barrel, Threaded 5/8-24.</p>

battlehawkarmory.com

Had i not just purchased a barrel for almost $800 i would have purchased this rifle complete.

Our local gun shop also has it on sale albeit for a bit more so they must be pushing it.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

The 10/110 Series is a new line of products which represents innovation built upon a long history of accuracy out of the box.

A lot has changed in the nearly two decades SH has been in place, and Savage Rifles have been visible here since our beginning. Our first project rifle was a Savage 10FP 260, and that was not the last Savage based SH Project rifle.

As the field of rifle accuracy has evolved, so has Savage; and this rifle was out beyond the horizon, unimagined during the initial stage of the SH evolution. It conforms to a pattern that has become popular, which is the path most Savage innovation follows. It is part of a proliferation of concepts and features that the users have demanded, and the company has provided in succession over the two-plus decades I've been looking into, and occasionally acquiring.

Savage has its fans and its non fans. Each has valid reasons for their viewpoints. The non fans point out shortcomings, and they are valid. It used to be easier to reconcile them when Savage rifles were a cheap alternative, but time has made that excuse less valid. They are not nearly as cheap, and the shortcomings, many of them, would have required design revisions that go to the very core of the economic reasons why Savage rifles are made the way they are. But those reasons also support the equally valid reputation that Savage rifles continue to be so accurate. In order to satisfy those critics, the Savage rifle would need to become essentially identical in scope and concept as the rest of the market, and that would be a genuine loss. This is especially so when we can now see Savage innovation being already incorporated by those competitors in their own products.

In the end, design concepts vary, products exhibit differing flaws and excellences, and we get to choose.

That choice is yours and not that of either the critics or the advocates.

Greg

 

[want2learn]

i love reading your posts....always very thoughtful and well articulated

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but compliments live on far longer...

Thank you...

...And...

I already know which Savage rifle will be my first chassis rifle; if time, cash, and SWMBO allows.

It will be the .30-'06, to complement the Axis II .30-'06 Deer Rifle I already own. I will also eventually buy a really long 260 barrel for it.

Greg

 

[k-space]

In the end, design concepts vary, products exhibit differing flaws and excellences, and we get to choose.

That choice is yours and not that of either the critics or the advocates.

Greg
[/QUOTE]
I think in the end, it's as Peter Drucker wrote when he stated that quality in a product or service is not what the supplier puts in. It is what the user gets out of it. Or more precisely, what he perceives to get out of it.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I agree; it's a valid viewpoint.

The buyer/user needs to look closely at items that are, first and foremost, affordably available. That establishes the boundaries limiting what is realistically usable.

I tend to set my cost limits lower than many here. I neither seek to mimic others, nor drive my purchases on the judgement of others.

This requires a clear understanding of what a component needs to accomplish for you, and what capacities are being bought whose utility could be marginal. I think this is the part that most clearly echoes your perception.

Throwing money at a problem is a luxury which I can't afford.

Greg