I think remington is being foolish by blowing off existing cartridges to invent their own. Don’t reinvent the wheel!

From that statement Dave, it seems you have a copy of the IP & licensing. Many people have wanted to see that for years.

Time to ‘put up’

Small shops have done it, big shops have done it, (Les Baer, JT) big companies (notably Wolf, Hornady, Sabre) have done it. The little guys have said the fees aren’t onerous, the big companies obviously don’t think they are either.

There is a lot of stuff out there that would be libelous if printed, but very little of it is true.

And now, with Hornady on board, I suspect we’ll see a lot of neat things happening with ammunition, which has been a weak spot in the Grendel world.

Many, many advantages to the Grendel:

- Excellent ballistics in reasonable bullet weights for the AR platform. 6.8 can argue muzzle velocity, but the grendel is close there, and wins once you get downrange.
- Sub-moa accuracy is easy in the AR platform. Case design closely matched to the optimum bullet weight/design/pressure for the AR platform.
- Mags widely available (C-product, I have about a dozen of them)
- Already loaded by Wolf, black hills, and now Hornady
- Reloaders can use commonly available 7.62×39 brass
- could use common bolt with 7.62×39 if co-designed

Seems like the soviet’s had no problem with belt-fed MG’s using the case angles on the parent 7.62×39 case…

Licensing is reportedly reasonable, several mfg’s have done it, and based on the difference between their Grendel & 6.8 offerings can’t be much. IE: the license is not adding much to the cost of the rifle/ammo/mags. With Remington they’d have enough buying power it should be no-issue.

I agonized very hard over 6.8spc, Grendel, and some of the .30 variants. A year later I’m a hard-core Grendel fan, and am converting my 5.56 carbines over as well. I watch the arguing over the 6.8 chambers, specs, etc and feel like I dodged a bullet (no pun intended).

Remington, don’t shoot yourself in the foot again!

The FN SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) that has been deployed in small numbers with U.S. Special Forces will finish an initial deployment in December. Jane’s is reporting that a much larger follow-on order of 15,000 5.56 SCAR-L(i…

The former, because the longer case dimension of the SPC vs. the Grendel (43 vs. 39mm) means that useful weight 6.5 bullets (105-123 gr) are too long to fit in AR length magazines.

The latter, because the 30AR case is so fat it single stacks in AR magazines, so 15 rounds would be a “big” magazine.

6.5-30RAR COULD be interesting in an NRA OTC Space Gun, but if you go that route, why not go for the already developed and commercially available 6mm AR Turbo.

Just my two cents.

http://www.65grendel.com/65g_25rdmags.jpg
–
Alexander Arms also offers a 26-round stainless spring steel magazine, complete with an anti-tilt follower, a chrome silicon spring, and a black teflon coating.
—

Twenty six rounds that perform well enough to threaten 308 fans seems good to me!

An M-1 designed for the .250 Savage might have been lighter than the M-1903 rifle, and eliminated the perceived need for the M-1 carbine and the .30 Carbine cartridge.

I could see a .250 Savage chambered FAL becoming the post-WWII NATO standard weapon which could actually have been controllable firing full-auto. That could have short-circuited the .223 cartridge and the AR-15.

I’m still with TOM on this one. Modern combat is a <500yd exercise, and all of the 6mm family's improvements at ranges that are not relevant. Just looking at the case size, I don't see how you could carry more. It may have better penetration numbers, for now, but don't think that won't take long correct.

It might make a good round for a special purpose weapon, but I doubt any of these rounds will hit the mainstream.

And Tom, soldiers are concerned about recoil and how much ammunition they can carry and how often they need to change the barrel.

I’m not concerned with recoil because none of my rifles are fully automatic, and I like to take time to aim, even with semi-automatics, I think I’ll keep shooing 7.62×51mm for now so I can be sure whatever needs to be dead, ends up dead.

People are always like “Oh goodness look at the 6.5’s energy retention at 1000 yards! it’s as good as the thirty!”

Yeah, except I’m never going shoot anything that I need to kill at 1000′ more like 400 tops. 200 yards is even long.

Not to mention the cost and availability of high quality 7.62×51mm.

Sure 6-7mm rounds let you carry more ammunition and have a quick follow up shot. However I don’t have to carry more than 50 ever, and it’s not like I can’t do that .338 Magnum let alone 7.62×51mm. I don’t need 100 rounds, not even for defense against humans, not even in crazy SHTF scenarios.

Maybe we should all be cambering in 5.8×42mm in case the Chinese invade? Rrriiiggghhttt.

Being an early adopter of anything, be it ammunition, weapon systems, or software, is a quick way to waste resources on a dead end. That’s why nobody is really jumping on board with all these new rounds. Changing all your tooling is too expensive a gamble. Even buying a new rifle is a risky proposition because if you can’t get ammo for it, it’s a club.

http://www.65grendel.com/faq.htm

http://www.65grendel.com/gallery/65G_Energy_16_458.gif

Can the 6.5mpc or the “new” rem round match that?

Hey, no biggie, the ACR’s supposed to be able to take modified AR barrels anyway. Just combine a 6.5mm Grendel barrel with a 7.62×39 bolt, and there you go.

If you’re buying a 6.8 SPC, get either a SPEC II or a DMR chamber and the slowest rate of twist you can find.

That said, a 6.5 SPC might be just the ticket to correct the mistakes they made with this chambering that even they must be aware of by now.

If they base it on the original .284 Winchester case (like the .450 Bushmaster and the .30 RAR) then it will simply be a miniature 6.5-284, which might become popular, but I can’t see how that’s a good idea.