I’m missing something here.
Looking at the attached ballistics chart, I’m seeing that 6.5 Grendel is superior to 6.8 in many ways -high velocity, less drift, less recoil, more energy on target. So if this data is correct, why is 6.8 more prevalent than 6.5 Grendel?
I have the same question. The Grendel is clearly better at longer ranges and I can’t image that they are all that different up close.
My guess is it’s something besides the external ballistics. I’m not implying anything negative I’ve just never understood why 6.8 when the 6.5 will give you just a little more range. There is also a better selection of bullets for the 6.5 at this time.
One of those things I guess.
You need to look back at the development histories of both. Having the SF community behind one over the other can make a huge difference.
From what I can remember they tested 6mm,6.5mm &7mm.
The 6.5 has the better BC but the 7mm had better terminal performance. The 6.8 was supposed to pretty close to the 7mm in terminal perf.
The 6.5 Grendel is ballistically superior, but Alexander Arms the owner/creator of the cartridge has certain licensing restrictions concerning the round and firearms for it. Most of the major players do not appear interested in dealing with the licensing issues.
The 6.8 was originally produced/created by Remington and I’m not aware of any licensing issues that prevent other ammuntion companies or firearms manufacturers from designing products around the cartridge.
I recall being told that the Grendel round had extraction and ejection issues in full auto and was not amenable to being used in a belt-fed weapon but can’t remember who told me this. Wasn’t the Grendel round originally developed for bolt gun applications?
Top tier guns are not available in 6.5 Grendel.
Also, mag capacity issue.
this is what I always heard when I was deciding between the two.
The 264 LBC AR is one route around the AA lic issue.
There are pros and cons to each round. Ultimately it comes down to which one you think best suits you, looking at factors as ammo, mags, barrel options etc etc etc.
Either one will should suit 90% of shooters just dandy. :big_boss:
Just to be clear, are you asking why more people choose the 6.8 or why you should choose it? Your question seems clearly to be the former to me but some of the responses seem to address the latter.
Of those that address the former, I think the issues with licensing and who makes what come into play pretty heavily. I know that when I was on the fence I waited to see what Noveske picked up and they went with 6.8, which I can only assume was at least partly based on having to pay a licensing fee for the 6.5 chamber. So, the reason I think you hear more about 6.8 than 6.5 is:
[ol]
[li]6.5 is hamstrung by a licensing fee
[/li][li]more, “better” makers choose 6.8
[/li][li]the idea, whether real or perceived, that there is military involvement in the 6.8
[/li][/ol]
This is why I eventually went with the 6.8. At first I was hesitant until I researched the chamber issues. I did have a 6.5 early on but sold it after waiting 6 months for a bolt and 5 more for 17 rounds of ammunition(the number of rounds is a joke-but you get the point).
Ammo availability and price, along with a wider selection of manufacturers was what sent me to the 6.8SPC.
…and there’s always that outside chance that the military will adopt the 6.8…officially…6.5, not so much.
it doesn’t make sense to me that a cartridge would be supported by the industry and a small portion of the military over a similar cartridge with superior performance so I was asking for some reasoning behind the madness.
What I’m gathering is that, in essence, the reason 6.8 rifles are more prevalent is due to the fact that 6.5 would cost a few bucks extra for companies to produce since AA owns the rights to the 6.5 design.
Reasoning? If rationality was all that was required VHS would have died and the Sony Beta system would have been the dominant VCR. Also, we would all be using Macs.
Licensing problems have long been the bane of market share.
I don’t think it’s just about the “few bucks extra”. There is also a LOT of debate all over the internut about which caliber is “better” ballistically (the fact that your linked pdf includes four Grenel loads vs. one from all others, and qualifies the results that they came from a 24" barrel, would be cited as evidence of bias by many, FWIW. What is the source of that document, if I may ask?). But put them in a close heat and make one more difficult for a manufacturer to deal with and they’re going to choose the less difficult path. Licensing isn’t just about the fees you have to pay up front but the cost of other logistical nightmares. See mark5pt56’s post above and imagine trying to deal with that on a production/sales level.
The other issue, perceived use by “real deal” shooters will also play into a manufacturer’s choice. It’s the reason we still see M4 profile barrels on store shelves; manufacturers think it’s what we want because they think we only want what the military is using. And in many cases they are right.
so you have a caliber that may be better in certain conditions, that’s harder to support and more expensive to support and less likely to sell, and the choice from a money-making standpoint is pretty clear.
I think you’re adding too much weight to the paper superiority of the 6.5.
In real world conditions, you wont see the difference.
I had several people try to tell me how much better the 6.5 was at 600+ yards.
I asked to see their comparison targets. Im still waiting…
This may take a bit of explaining.
When Alexander Arms first came out with the Grendel, I had an interesting talk with Bill Alexander. He designed a round for almost exclusive use by the military. He wanted a round that fit the standard AR mag, was super accurate, and had far better downrange ballistics than 5.56, plus a larger caliber. He knew the bench rest guys liked rounds based on the 7.62 x 39 case. Only Lapua was going to make the brass and did for a while. The 6.5 was a niche cartridge.
I told Bill that he was making a huge marketing error by not getting the 6.5 into mass marketing to civilians, but he wasn’t interested.
Then, a few years later, I saw him and it was now clear the military was wedded to the 5.56 and of course his idea was copied by Remington with the 6.8. This is a big problem.
Next thing I know Wolf is going to import it though PP makes it, but supplies have been erratic for reasons I can’t fathom, and it is still an expensive round but the Privi helps a lot.
Then we get to the trademark issues. AA licenses to control quality and consistency and safety as 6.5 is a hot round. Trouble is, the world is not beating a path to AA to get a license, and others like Les Baer are making nominally different 6.5s to work around the trademark issue.
Sabre Defense makes a very high quality upper in 6.5, I know because I have one. The cartridge is very pleasant to shoot, and it does what it was designed to do.
IMHO, the primary reason 6.5 Grendel hasn’t crushed 6.8 is the lack of low cost ammo and overly restrictive licensing.
The Grendel was designed from the onset as a whitetail cartridge. The design consideration was for hunting and the initial weapons were all 24" barrel free float varmint models. The 6.8 SPC shares no dimensional similarity with the 6.5 Grendel other than it fits within the AR magazine space allowance.
Ammo is now more available than every and will continue to increase. We have high end Lapau based loads from ourselves and Black Hills. Hornady has stepped in with its first well executed loading, we expect to see several more, and there is ammunition available from Prvi Partisan through Wolf, which while delayed by a plant explosion is now firmly back on track.
With the requirements of the market, several manufacturers including ourselves, have shorter barrel chrome lined options available and the performance of the caliber with the correct loadings from these short barrels is exemplary.
Testing for roles other than civilian has been restricted but we have ammunition natures that will easily penetrate the current generation of ESAPI plate at ranges of +100 meters. Blind to barrier natures are assisted by the generous payload capacity and we are now well placed to respond to requests that emanate beyond the hunting field.
Bill Alexander
The 6.5 Grendel is a mild cartridge that exists within the constraints of the weapon platform. Safety of any system is paramount as a rifle that transitions to a fragment grenade is not beneficial. Current weapons will happily run 12,000 round durability which I feel is adequate.
Control of the build standard is ultimately to the benefit of the customer as it precludes the proliferation of different chambers matching the number of different manufacturers and it helps when the ammunition fits the gun! The Grendel will smoothly transition to SAAMI in the near future.