Sniper & Sharpshooter Forums banner

6.5 Grendel

13100 Views 26 Replies 9 Participants Last post by  Shuggerz
I was wondering if anyone knew anything about this. I've heard that its a pretty potent little gun, and the ones that Alexander Arms are selling are pretty cheap for an AR style rifle. Also, what does anyone who has experience with this cartridge think of it?
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
I have no personal experience with it, but have talked pretty expensively with one of the guys who worked on getting it adopted as a potential US Military round (he is located in Houston, and his site is

Cartridge length is teh same as the .223 recoil about the same, but ballistics that exceed the standard .308 with 175 GMM Match ammo at 1,000 yards. I know some benchresters have picked up on it, as have some of the Highpower rifle guys.
The 6.5 Grendel is an interesting round, and I think its a better choice then the 6.8 SPC for M16 type rifles, and would be a better all around caliber choice for military applications. The Grendel does perform better at 1000 then the M118LR or Fed GMM 175gr .308. But, it isn't significantly better, and hits with less energy. I personally kind of like the cartridge and hope to explore it some more, but not until there is more commercial backing in terms of ammo. I'm actually not sold at all on the 6.8 and would rather see the Grendel used. I seriously doubt either one will be adopted universially.... hope I'm wrong.

For sniping/long range work, I still think that a 6.5 with ballistics as good as the .300 Win Mag at 1000 with recoil the same as .308 and in a short action is the ideal. And is what I'm attempting to acheive with the SC2 in .260 or 6.5x284.

Thanks guys! This is definantly a cartridge that i will continue to research, so far it sounds like a winner. I definantly agree with Mel though, it needs some more commercial backing before it will become a major cartridge.
Thanks again.
It may not have a lot of visible support, but Lapua is making and shipping brass for it now. Once Lapua decides to make brass for it, you know its not going to go away any time soon.
Could someone tell me the case lengths of the 6.5mm and 6.8mm rounds?
Yimmy said:
Could someone tell me the case lengths of the 6.5mm and 6.8mm rounds?
I don't know about the 6.5mm but the 6.8 SPC specs are 6.8X43mm I do believe.
Yep I found it 6.5x39. Go here for more information:

The 6.5mm grendel does indeed look like a very nice round; but then so does the 6.8mm, which I would assume has a bit more energy to it down range.

Either would be very nice if adopted by NATO.
They may even be good enough to drop the age-old 7.62mm round all together, and have one main rifle/machinegun round, however I doubt they are that good.
all i know about 6.8 vs 6.5mm is that 6.8mm was chosen over the 6.5mm Grendel
6.8mm ballistics: 115 gr OTM at 2800 fps, BC of .34 so obviously vastly superior in terminal performance to the 5.56mm NATO and kicks less than the 7.62*39mm Russian i hear
Honestly, sometimes I totally do not understand the criterium of some of these selection processes. The 6.5 range of bullets out perform the 6.8's in every aspect of exterior ballistics. Now, perhaps the 6.8 is better in terminal ballistics... I hope we hear why the 6.8 was chosen

Don't hold your breath - we are still waiting to hear why they picked the Barrett 50 as a sniper weapon over the Bolt Action 50 that kicked it butt in most every category. :evil:
i know its a lil off topic but... what was the rifle that the XM107 was goin up against, and who made it?
dont know what the Barrett M82 or XM107 whatever its calleed now was up against but i know that Barrett makes a bolt action M95 which ive herd is a fine rilfe and accurate (w/ match ammo im guessing)... if they wanted a bolt action rifle from Barrett they could have gotten one
even hear that the M82 even has jamming problems but this isnt a first with any gun... one person doenst like what they got, bought a 'bad' one etc

Talking about .50 cal rifles, I don't think you can beat what the british have.

Our Snipers have the Accuracy International Arctic Warfare Rifle in 7.62mm NATO; as platoon level support weapons we have the same rifle in .338 Lapua Magnum; and our Royal Engineers have basically the same rifle in .50 cal. We also have a silenced version of the sniper rifle.

I don't think you will find a rifle family which can beat that...

Sorry, is off-topic.
6.5 grendel

i found a couple of charts on the 6.5 grendel vs. the 6.8. According to these charts, (found in issue # 27 of Special Weapons for Military and Police) the 6.5 beats the 6.8 in velocity and energy everywhere except the muzzle. heres the difference in energy

0 200 400 600 800 1000

6.5 123 grain 1726 1140 726 455 307 237

6.8 115 grain 1693 1260 955 713 531 404

velocities are also considerably higher in the 6.5, so this brings me to the real question....why was the 6.5 beat out by the 6.8? :shock:
I think in your chart there, you have the 6.5 and 6.8 mis labeled, as you show the 6.8 being superior beyond the muzzle.

The 6.5 has superior ballistics, and I have no clue why the 6.8 was selected. Again, perhaps the terminal ballistics were better, but I'm not even sure how you would measure that


When you say the 6.8mm was selected, what exactly do you mean?
Just that the American army decided it was better than the 6.5mm, and are testing it, or more than that?

I really can not see either round being adopted in the near future; America has upset many of NATO's members too much recently to have the political clout to force a new standard round on them; especially given the vast quantities of 556 in dumps.
if the US adopted it i dont see any reason for the rest of NATO to adopt it too but simply stupid politics would stop the US from adopting it unless NATO changed thier standards
shame it doesnt seem to be that simple when you include politics
i believe that the 6.8mm was chosen by the US Army and i dont know why they chose it over the 6.5mm id have to guess termianl performance but im not entirely sure
Nothing is official. The US Army has simply said, "we will test the 6.8 as a possible special situation round for the M4 carbine, we think its the best". Supposedly they evaluated EVERY caliber and decided on 6.8, which is where my questions come into play. But I'll admit that I do NOT have the criteria that they were evaluating for.

There is no replacement for the 5.56x45mm NATO any time soon.

1 - 20 of 27 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.