Thread: 6.5 grandel

Originally Posted by 257weatherby

Foot pounds of energy kills nothing. The combination of bullet speed, bc, and bullet construction/type are what gets the result, good or bad. I am running the 95 Berger ( and 95 TMK) at 3000fps and it is dynamite. Do the calculation for 123SST at 2450 vs 95 VLD at 3000 at 300yds. Not really apples with apples. I have a longer barrel that gets 3150 with the same pills, compare that....... If you run the .243 slow and with poor bc bullets, then saying they are similar is valid. At point blank on a pig, the slow SST is going to be better, but once you are out a bit, no.

Hmmm, I hear what you're saying, but next time I try and kill something, I'm not so sure it will fall over from me trying to kill it with some bc...

Pretty sure it will fall over after a good dose of ft-lb though.

But this is all highly subjective. In .243 terms the 95gr VLD and TMK are right on the extreme end of the spectrum, they won't even shoot out of a standard 1:10" barrel if I'm not mistaken.

So if a half decent apples vs apples comparison is made - say 123gr SST in the Grendel vs 95gr SST in the .243, as @berg243 says, there's a gnat's cock of a difference, in killing terms at the ranges my cuzzies use them at for hogs (50-200m), bugger all.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

Hmmm, I hear what you're saying, but next time I try and kill something, I'm not so sure it will fall over from me trying to kill it with some bc...

Pretty sure it will fall over after a good dose of ft-lb though.

But this is all highly subjective. In .243 terms the 95gr VLD and TMK are right on the extreme end of the spectrum, they won't even shoot out of a standard 1:10" barrel if I'm not mistaken.

So if a half decent apples vs apples comparison is made - say 123gr SST in the Grendel vs 95gr SST in the .243, as @berg243 says, there's a gnat's cock of a difference, in killing terms at the ranges my cuzzies use them at for hogs (50-200m), bugger all.

So a poor bc vs a good bc with more weight, both running slow, is an apples with apples comparison? 95 SST has an abysmal bc, run it slow and what do you get? oh right, a fair comparison with a 123 SST out of a Grendel. In case you had forgotten, bc is relevant to retained velocity and the fixation on foot pounds of energy doesn't seem to bother the .223 mob killing deer.

Originally Posted by 257weatherby

So a poor bc vs a good bc with more weight, both running slow, is an apples with apples comparison? 95 SST has an abysmal bc, run it slow and what do you get? oh right, a fair comparison with a 123 SST out of a Grendel. In case you had forgotten, bc is relevant to retained velocity and the fixation on foot pounds of energy doesn't seem to bother the .223 mob killing deer.

Easy tiger! Have a bit of light-hearted banter why not, doesn’t do anyone any harm once in a while.

Yes yes yes and yes I know all that... of course I do. But the reality remains that for most cartridges within conventional hunting ranges sub 250m BC is largely a minor consideration. Some would say largely irrelevant. It’s only when we stretch things out a little, that BC and retained velocity starts to count as a significant factor in the killing equation.

I’ve killed more goats, deer and antelope with a poor BC 6mm soft point than most blokes will shoot with all their rifles in 5 lifetimes... big boast! But true. Fuck knows, a few thousand by now. And I will continue to do so without even thinking about BC, ft-lbs or fps, all I am concerned about is MOA. I know it does the job, no need to work myself up about any metrics that might not be as quite as good as something else. Its me that I need to concentrate on, not the BC.

The only rifle I own that I regularly use a high BC bullet for is the 6.5 Creedmoor, which is the only one I shoot at animals with past 500-600m. I started to use a high BC bullet in my 308 and then just the other day I said hang on a minute, why am I shelling out my hard earned on flash bullets for a rifle I’m only going to use in the woods? So I stopped that folly there and then.

So in the context of this debate - the Grendel compared to other stuff, and will the Grendel do the job, I think BC is largely irrelevant like it is in the 7.62x39 or 30-30 context. Its a conventional short range cartridge. You don’t need high BC for that.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

Easy tiger! Have a bit of light-hearted banter why not, doesn’t do anyone any harm once in a while.

Yes yes yes and yes I know all that... of course I do. But the reality remains that for most cartridges within conventional hunting ranges sub 250m BC is largely a minor consideration. Some would say largely irrelevant. It’s only when we stretch things out a little, that BC and retained velocity starts to count as a significant factor in the killing equation.

I’ve killed more goats, deer and antelope with a poor BC 6mm soft point than most blokes will shoot with all their rifles in 5 lifetimes... big boast! But true. Fuck knows, a few thousand by now. And I will continue to do so without even thinking about BC, ft-lbs or fps, all I am concerned about is MOA. I know it does the job, no need to work myself up about any metrics that might not be as quite as good as something else. Its me that I need to concentrate on, not the BC.

The only rifle I own that I regularly use a high BC bullet for is the 6.5 Creedmoor, which is the only one I shoot at animals with past 500-600m. I started to use a high BC bullet in my 308 and then just the other day I said hang on a minute, why am I shelling out my hard earned on flash bullets for a rifle I’m only going to use in the woods? So I stopped that folly there and then.

So in the context of this debate - the Grendel compared to other stuff, and will the Grendel do the job, I think BC is largely irrelevant like it is in the 7.62x39 or 30-30 context. Its a conventional short range cartridge. You don’t need high BC for that.

Don't let practical common sense get in the way of a perfectly good argument dammit!