Hello guys brand-new to the forum. Fairly new to the Ar( 4 months) platform. Have always shot bolt guns for hunting as well as shotguns and pistols. I have a 223 wylde by Falkor defense (Caitlyn model). Well like the guy said that got me involved with the AR's, once the bug bites it bites hard. In my extensive research over the last few months and admitted limited knowledge, I have committed to a 6.5 Grendel build . I want this rifle to be comparable to the Falkor Defense.Which I believe to be high-end . Falkor does not produce a 6.5 Grendel. Some Ex military buddies of mine who are teaching me some Moderat to long-range shooting have told me about citizens rifles . Steve at Citizen Riffles uses Bartlein barrels and he guarantees on his higher in builds 1/2 to 1/4 Moa. Steve is Ex military and comes across as a very standup guy. I understand AR's are a different type of platform. At first I could not understand the build process as I've never ran across it with my bolt guns shotguns and pistols. I have generally shot Beretta's for shotguns and Sakos,Ruger and Remington's for bolt guns . The Internet has exposed a whole new world out there as I didn't know the 204 Ruger 260 Remington 6.5 Creedmore or Grindel even existed until a few months ago . It seems like 270,243 and 308 aren't the superstars or rather standouts as they used to be . Yes they are great, it would be crazy to think otherwise but chronographs bullet design and Technology in general has showed me a whole New World. I like a gun that I can shoot at a range 50 to 100 times like my 223 but still reach out to 3 to 400 yards for average size Whitetail hog etc. also to be able to shoot it from a Bench at ranges is really exciting as I've gotten into it with my 223. (6.5 creedmoor is next) Guys I know I have nowhere near the knowledge as many of you but I do know like scopes you tend on average to get what you pay for. I'm not at the level of building my own rifle yet, nor do I believe I could build a rifle as good as the best manufactures. One thing I have learned is you can buy all the parts but there has to be an art to putting these things together . I would say in SHORT but I've blown that, I would really appreciate input on things I should ask and or want in this build. I feel that 3000 to 3500 should yield me a good rifle based on what I've seen I'm sure that some of yawls $1500 rifles are great , but I'm willing to spend that and would just like some very knowledgeable input . I'm thinking 20 inch barrel as I feel that appears to be the sweet spot for velocity and not too bad to walk around with hunting . Thanks for reading guys I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks in advance
Citizen rifle build question (bartlein)
- Thread starter Todd4591
- Start date
I think that the time taken to do additional research would be particularly valuable at this point in your shooting development. As you say, you are still early on in that process; and I suspect that embarking on a first build at this point could be premature.
First, consider the task. I did not say tasks (in the plural sense). Rifles which are intended for conflicting tasks are compromises, and my definition of a compromise is an implement that does many tasks, none of which are done with distinction.
A hunting rifle is about terminal performance at the desired distance. Stretching that distance to 300 or 400 yards is asking for a significant diminution in that terminal performance. This leads us to to magnum chamberings. I don't like them. I really don't. They demand that the operator depends on massive energy to accomplish the task. But at distance, the prime requisite is precise accuracy. Can magnum shoot precisely? Yes it can, but that same precision requires accomplished marksmanship skills,and this is where the magnum's performance becomes the concern. Magnum recoil is a significant discouragement to the volume of practice needed; and the magnum is also very unforgiving of large volumes of fire where barrel life is concerned. A good hunter package will be lightweight, shorter overall, and places an emphasis on reliable feeding for successive shots.
Defeating the wily paperbeast, etc., is the realm of the target rifle. Terminal performance is far less of a requisite. All that is required is a scoreable hit. Distances get stretched to limits as (at least) a matter of pride, and that's not a fault. But the longer distances are getting harder to find and reach. What I choose to do is to diminish the chambering, in order to be able to shoot at the ballistic limits (thus satisfying the pride aspect), without having to drive greater distances in order to perform the task. Where I could be working hard to achieve accuracy at 1000yd with the 6.5CM or .260 Rem, I can work equally hard at 600yd with the .223, and do it closer to home as well as more economically. The same degree of pride is achieved, and the same skills are honed, IMHO. A good target package is longer, has more mass to eliminate effects of recoil, and employs a barrel contour that s optimized to handle the heating of sustained fire.
Can a single chambering serve in both instances? I think so, but it can do it better in two rifles. I like the 6.5's and my preference is for the .260. This is because I handload, and can use either .260 brass, or neck up/down .243 or 7-08 brass with a minimum of additional steps.
Looking at the next reply; I agree, $3000-$3500 is way over top of what I'd consider a reasonable budget. To build my versions of the two rifles I'd consider owning, I'd be displeased with myself if I were to spend over $2000 for the both, and that's including optics. Yes, I am a cheapskate; but my rifles serve my purposes well enough.
Greg
First, consider the task. I did not say tasks (in the plural sense). Rifles which are intended for conflicting tasks are compromises, and my definition of a compromise is an implement that does many tasks, none of which are done with distinction.
A hunting rifle is about terminal performance at the desired distance. Stretching that distance to 300 or 400 yards is asking for a significant diminution in that terminal performance. This leads us to to magnum chamberings. I don't like them. I really don't. They demand that the operator depends on massive energy to accomplish the task. But at distance, the prime requisite is precise accuracy. Can magnum shoot precisely? Yes it can, but that same precision requires accomplished marksmanship skills,and this is where the magnum's performance becomes the concern. Magnum recoil is a significant discouragement to the volume of practice needed; and the magnum is also very unforgiving of large volumes of fire where barrel life is concerned. A good hunter package will be lightweight, shorter overall, and places an emphasis on reliable feeding for successive shots.
Defeating the wily paperbeast, etc., is the realm of the target rifle. Terminal performance is far less of a requisite. All that is required is a scoreable hit. Distances get stretched to limits as (at least) a matter of pride, and that's not a fault. But the longer distances are getting harder to find and reach. What I choose to do is to diminish the chambering, in order to be able to shoot at the ballistic limits (thus satisfying the pride aspect), without having to drive greater distances in order to perform the task. Where I could be working hard to achieve accuracy at 1000yd with the 6.5CM or .260 Rem, I can work equally hard at 600yd with the .223, and do it closer to home as well as more economically. The same degree of pride is achieved, and the same skills are honed, IMHO. A good target package is longer, has more mass to eliminate effects of recoil, and employs a barrel contour that s optimized to handle the heating of sustained fire.
Can a single chambering serve in both instances? I think so, but it can do it better in two rifles. I like the 6.5's and my preference is for the .260. This is because I handload, and can use either .260 brass, or neck up/down .243 or 7-08 brass with a minimum of additional steps.
Looking at the next reply; I agree, $3000-$3500 is way over top of what I'd consider a reasonable budget. To build my versions of the two rifles I'd consider owning, I'd be displeased with myself if I were to spend over $2000 for the both, and that's including optics. Yes, I am a cheapskate; but my rifles serve my purposes well enough.
Greg
Last edited:
http://www.larue.com/65-grendel-fde
I'd put an order in on one of these guys.. and if the Accuracy isn't there just drop in a Bartlein..
Or this..
www.precisionfirearms.com Arion II 6.5 Grendel
But $3000.00- $3500.00 is just way to much.
I'd put an order in on one of these guys.. and if the Accuracy isn't there just drop in a Bartlein..
Or this..
www.precisionfirearms.com Arion II 6.5 Grendel
But $3000.00- $3500.00 is just way to much.
Last edited:
/\ I agree. 3 - 3.5k better include 1500 or 2k in glass. It's not difficult at all to assemble a lower with a good trigger and just pay to have an upper built with a good barrel if you don't want to do it yourself.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Similar threads
