quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
I can't figure out how Pac Nor can stamp that barrel "6.5 Grendel" Also I was just on their website and they don't list the "6.5 Grendel" in either their standard chamberings or wildcats.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SmokinJ:
I can't figure out how Pac Nor can stamp that barrel "6.5 Grendel" Also I was just on their website and they don't list the "6.5 Grendel" in either their standard chamberings or wildcats.

quote:

Originally posted by hammer2506:
I see he edited his post, so he must be cautious of it???

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by hammer2506:
I see he edited his post, so he must be cautious of it???

I'm not sure that cautious is the right word. I would rather just say that I prefer to keep certain things my business. Some people can't help themselves and meddle. It is what it is, and worring about it or with it aint' changin a thing. Same goes for the chamber. It's either a match chamber or it isn't. Truthfully, I trust PTG and PacNor to have gotten it right, far more than speculating about this and that. Second guessing is more than annoying, and I refuse to let it become a problem and dwell on it. IMO, if I wanted to worry about it, I would have gotten a LW barrel. Instead, I got a PacNor specifically so I don't have to worry about it.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
Congrats on your new toy KB. The Grendal is a neat little cartridge and I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

I had one done on an AR-15 about a year ago and the results were very satisfying. Mine has shot quite a few 1/2" groups at 100yds when I'm having a good shooting day.


I've got a cute little Mini Mauser in a 7.62X39 with a LOT of custom action work on it by James Anderson. For some strange reason we left the stock barrel on it. Been thinking converting it to the Grendel or .264LBC. I've been taking a break from custom gun projects lately, Just might jump back in with this one.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
The only difference between a 6.5 Grendel and the .264 LBC is forcing cone in the chamber. The .264 LBC has a normal single angle cone whereas the 6.5 Grendel has a double angle cone. Don't let anyone tell you that the double angle cone is more accurate. What it is, is more problematic to bullet seating depth.

In fact just about all the 6.5 clones have basically the same chamber now. More importantly now that the 6.5 Grendel is SAAMI the chambers will be standardized.

Now here is what I would try to do if I were building a 6.5 Grendel on a bolt rifle. I'd try to choose an action that has a magazine long enough that I could throat out the chamber throat so I could load the bullets out of the powder capacity. That is exactly what the 6.5 Creedmore did and why it performs side by side with the 260 Remington....that is unless you throated out the 260 like I did. At any rate you would have one little performing 6.5 Grendel.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
The only difference between a 6.5 Grendel and the .264 LBC is forcing cone in the chamber. The .264 LBC has a normal single angle cone whereas the 6.5 Grendel has a double angle cone. Don't let anyone tell you that the double angle cone is more accurate. What it is, is more problematic to bullet seating depth.

In fact just about all the 6.5 clones have basically the same chamber now. More importantly now that the 6.5 Grendel is SAAMI the chambers will be standardized.

Now here is what I would try to do if I were building a 6.5 Grendel on a bolt rifle. I'd try to choose an action that has a magazine long enough that I could throat out the chamber throat so I could load the bullets out of the powder capacity. That is exactly what the 6.5 Creedmore did and why it performs side by side with the 260 Remington....that is unless you throated out the 260 like I did. At any rate you would have one little performing 6.5 Grendel.

There’s lots of problems with this post. I’ll address them as best I can in the order stated: Actually there isn't anything wrong with this post except your inability and stubborness to grasp what is being said.

So what if the cones in the chamber is different? Regarding accuracy, arguing which is more accurate is useless. Who was it that said only accurate rifles are interesting? P.O. Ackley? The most important thing is that whatever one has it’s not inaccurate. Otherwise we are just arguing over the spelling of bullshit vs bullchit.

Thank goodness for SAAMI standardization. The down side is that some people will have to find something else to harp about. Perhaps that's the upside, depending on which side of the BS one is standing - the spouter or the receiver. It only recently made SAAMI long after you got your barrel chambered for it so you don't have the SAAMI chamber. More then likely knowing Dave Kiff you have what they call a clone or an abandon AA chamber.

I’ve heard the suggestion of finding or modifying an action to allow the bullet to seat out. It's not modifying the action, it's lengthening the throat with a throating reamer. How about the "highly" modified 8mm you recently made and your gunsmith just about messed the barrel up? I strongly reject that idea. The prime reason is that it takes away the main reason for going with the Grendel cartridge in the first place. For your information the reason the 6.5 Grendel has a specific OAL with deep seated bullets is because Bill Alexander chambered in the magazine restrictive AR 15 system. The original concept was on bolt guns. Its best use is in a mini action. My Ruger action is the same size as a normal Ruger short action, but the magazine is blocked, and the follower is shorter, and the ejector bar is moved much further forward. In other words, yours infact...a modified action/rifle. It would take a lot of effort and money to modify it to accept a seated out Grendel cartridge, and for nothing IMO.

Also, it would require cutting a non-SAAMI long throat. As mentioned it only became SAAMI recently so in your case you wouldn't be modifying a SAAMI chamber.

The Grendel will never compete in velocity with the Creedmore, the Lapua, or other 6.5mm cartridges such as the 260. It’s pointless to try to do that. The seating depth, and the ogive of the bullet needs to relate to the length of the throat properly. Cutting a long throat would probably have a detrimental effect on the use of factory ammo, Do you know that for certain and I guess that is why Weatherbys don't shoot small groups huh? for one thing. The magazine length on my Ruger just barely allows the cartridges to fit, which is plenty OK with factory ammo, and handloads of std OAL. I tried seating some bullets out a little, and quickly found that I can’t do that, even if loaded single-shot, because the throat is short, apparently made that way on purpose to mate up with std cartridges of std OAL, which is perfect IMO. All mentioned above with Bill Alexander shoe horning the cartridge in the magazine restrictive AR 15.

The mini-mausers and the CZ 527 have magazines where OAL of the cartridge is critical. Even thinking about a special long throat and seating the bullet out is a waste of time. Another reason is because the Grendel is best, with up to about 125gr bullets. Actually the optimum bullet weight for the 6.5 Grendel is 107 grains. That comes from the man that started this cartridge. IMO, 100 grs may work well. That’s why I’m going with the 100gr TTSX first. It leaves adequate powder space, and seated normally to the top groove, it fits the magazine and the throat perfectly. Plus it provides adequate velocity. When my accuracy load is developed, I’m gonna post the cronographed velocity, which I expect to be between 2700fps and 2800fps. I'll be very satisfied with that kind of velocity from this very efficient little cartridge. Driving a 100 gr bullet at over 2700 fps with about 30-31 gr of powder is efficient in my estimation.

My suggestion is, if you are a speed freak or otherwise retentive, don't get a Grendel. I'll have you know, first I'm not a speed freak, and that I have quite a few different 6.5 caliber rifles in my gun safe and if I want more velocity I pick the appropiate rifle. If you want to use bullets heavier than 125-130 gr, don't get a Grendel. If you want to seat bullets out with the bases about even with the base of the neck, don't get a Grendel. If you like longer actions and heavier rifles, make a Grendel in a benchrest or target type rifle, such as a Ruger PPC. The Grendel, IMO, should be considered a 6.5 PPC cartridge, Isn't that an amazing conclusion since the 6.5 Grendel came about necking up a 6mmPPC case. for accuracy yet adequate for deer. If seating bullets out is a priority, get a Creedmore or a 6.5x47, and put it on a normal short action.

However, if you like mini type rifles, light and compact, like a handy twenty-two, consider a Grendel. If you like an efficient, and well designed cartridge, get a Grendel. If you are looking for a kid's starter rifle, which can be used for a lifetime, and start the kid out right, with something actually adequate, get a Grendel. There's lots of good reasons to shoot a Grendel, IMO, and I haven't even spoken to all the good things about it in the AR. Conclusion: If Kabluewy doesn't agree with anyone he mocks them and tried to tear down their opinions and ideas. Your signature line is proof of that.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:


I've got a cute little Mini Mauser in a 7.62X39 with a LOT of custom action work on it by James Anderson. For some strange reason we left the stock barrel on it. Been thinking converting it to the Grendel or .264LBC. I've been taking a break from custom gun projects lately, Just might jump back in with this one.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Actually there isn't anything wrong with this post except your inability and stubborness to grasp what is being said.

I think I have a very good grasp on what you said, and where you are coming from, and the technicalities of these issues, at least enough to effectively argue with you. We'll let others be the judge of that.

Who was it that said only accurate rifles are interesting? P.O. Ackley?

I think that we all mostly agree with that, so where is the problem?

It only recently made SAAMI long after you got your barrel chambered for it so you don't have the SAAMI chamber. More then likely knowing Dave Kiff you have what they call a clone or an abandon AA chamber.

Why do you aggrivate me with speculation, and info that is of no use or relevance? IMO, what is a relevant inference out of this is that Dave Kiff made a choice, some choice or choices, which were based on considering many factors into his vast experience on the subject. Whatever the basis, and the choice is/was, I trust his reasons were solid, that no one can do it better, only different. Thus, knowing all the data that influenced his choices is of little use to me, and even more useless to second-guess. It's enough to me to know Dave made the reamer, and PacNor used it to make my chamber.

It's not modifying the action, it's lengthening the throat with a throating reamer. How about the "highly" modified 8mm you recently made and your gunsmith just about messed the barrel up?

If you lengthen the throat, and utilize that extra length, then action mods will be necessary, unless you use a single shot. Action mods are what I want to avoid, and if I need the extra powder capacity, I should have gone with a longer action in the first place, and perhaps the Creedmore or 6.5 Lapua.

And another thing, IMO you are intentionally aggrivating me with the mention of the 8mm. Implying that a wildcat is "highly modified" in this context is out-of-place. Any wildcat can be considered highly modified, re the cartridge, but not necessarily in re the action in which it is used. The point is to match the cartridge to the action, to avoid having to highly modify the action to fit. It's my view, and the view of others that the barrel was in fact messed up, but for complex reasons beyond the scope of his gunsmithing skills.


For your information the reason the 6.5 Grendel has a specific OAL with deep seated bullets is because Bill Alexander chambered in the magazine restrictive AR 15 system. The original concept was on bolt guns.

That's good to know. It's a very good coincidental thing, IMO, that the restrictions of the AR system came into play, because the same restrictions are in part what makes the cartridge great on a mini bolt action, and useful in the bullet range weights appropriate, and for other reasons. Making this cartridge into something it isn't is a mistake, IMO.

Its best use is in a mini action. My Ruger action is the same size as a normal Ruger short action, but the magazine is blocked, and the follower is shorter, and the ejector bar is moved much further forward. In other words, yours infact...a modified action/rifle. It would take a lot of effort and money to modify it to accept a seated out Grendel cartridge, and for nothing IMO.

The "rifle" as a whole is modified. It has a new barrel, and a sporter stock, rather than the original 6mm PPC heavy barrel, and the varming type stock. The action was modified only by replacing the factory trigger with a Rifle Basix. I'm opposed to modifying magazines, feed rails, bolt faces, followers, etc., if it can be avoided, and generally it can be avoided.

As mentioned it only became SAAMI recently so in your case you wouldn't be modifying a SAAMI chamber.

Moot point. Plus I don't care, and doubt that others do.

The seating depth, and the ogive of the bullet needs to relate to the length of the throat properly. Cutting a long throat would probably have a detrimental effect on the use of factory ammo, Do you know that for certain and I guess that is why Weatherbys don't shoot small groups huh?

We're both entitled to "guess" - right? After all, this is the internet. What I'm not guessing about, however, is when I have a reamer made, I have it throated for the bullet I plan to use. I do not have it made long, just in case I change my mind later. It's the general concensus of those I talk to that the shorter the throat, closer the lands beginning,(within a few thousandths) the better. And that hasn't necessarily been proven, in my limited experience, but it hasn't been disproven either, and I'm gonna keep doing it that way until further notice.

because the throat is short, apparently made that way on purpose to mate up with std cartridges of std OAL, which is perfect IMO. All mentioned above with Bill Alexander shoe horning the cartridge in the magazine restrictive AR 15.

He did a good thing, IMO, and by coincidence it will also work in a mini bolt action, which it shoe-horns into quite nicely.

Another reason is because the Grendel is best, with up to about 125gr bullets. Actually the optimum bullet weight for the 6.5 Grendel is 107 grains. That comes from the man that started this cartridge. IMO, 100 grs may work well. That’s why I’m going with the 100gr TTSX first.

I just figured that perhaps Hornady revisited that when they offered the 123 gr, and AA offers a variety of ammo in the 123gr approximately. Anyway, I figured I was on the right track with the 100gr for starters.

My suggestion is, if you are a speed freak or otherwise retentive, don't get a Grendel. I'll have you know, first I'm not a speed freak, and that I have quite a few different 6.5 caliber rifles in my gun safe and if I want more velocity I pick the appropiate rifle.

Ok, I was being nice - drop the word "speed", and we have it. (really just kidding) I realize that you have lots of experience and knowledge, and I'm not arguing that. I am arguing the inferences and conclusions you draw from that experience and knowledge.

The Grendel, IMO, should be considered a 6.5 PPC cartridge, Isn't that an amazing conclusion since the 6.5 Grendel came about necking up a 6mmPPC case.

Some people may not be aware of that. Anyway it's symantics to argue about the parent case, whether PPC, 220 Russian, or 7.62x39.


Conclusion: If Kabluewy doesn't agree with anyone he mocks them and tried to tear down their opinions and ideas. Your signature line is proof of that.

I'll have to think up a line for you now. I don't mean to mock you. I do mean to argue with you, because I don't agree with you, and I state my reasons. Also, you have a way of setting a guy off, by making all these claims of potential and speculative problems, including perhaps legal problems. It kinda grinds my grits.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Now want you to do something. First tell me what brand of reloading dies you have. Then tell me if when you size your cases down with the sizer dies set in the normal fashion, that is not camming over the ram excessively, if the case chambers easy. In fact tell me if you can re-chamber a fired case easy.

quote:

Originally posted by Phatman:
If I were to build any kind of AR-15 I would start with a WSSM upper.
Why hadicap your self?
Cheers, John

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by Phatman:
If I were to build any kind of AR-15 I would start with a WSSM upper.
Why hadicap your self?
Cheers, John

I didn't know they made such a thing, but I don't know much about the AR. Seems to me that if the larger head/bolt face size with the Grendel is an issue, compared to the 223, then the even larger size of the WSSM would be even more of an issue, especially since I'm thinking those cartridges are high pressure.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
There is one builder that I know of that makes WSSM uppers. Your choice of barrel profiles etc is very limited to nonexistent. The WSSM's are less popular in AR's than they were in bolt guns . You aren't handicapped in the least going with a Grendel over a WSSM.

Terry