Author Topic: Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?  (Read 1840 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MeatAxe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?
« on: March 22, 2017, 11:21:17 PM »
That's what I'd like to see -- it would seem to be a natural chambering for the Bren, especially with Wolf 6.5G ammo as cheap as it is.

Of course, I would take one in 7.62x39 if offered, but 6.5 Grendel is the wave of the future!

Not sure how to contact CZ about this, would like to put a buzz in their ear.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2017, 11:22:53 PM by MeatAxe »

Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3156
Re: Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2017, 04:35:01 AM »
Scroll down and read earlier posts regarding armoredman's advocacy for the same (one of the mods here). 

But remember 6.5 Grendel was designed for 20-24" barrels, which is about the same as 5.56.  But vs 7.62x39 which was designed for 16" barrels, so pretty easy to see which cartridge is best suited for "the wave of the future" which has been and continues to be shorter and shorter barrels...  Why SOCOM is looking at 300 BLK for instance rather than 6.5 G. 

Futher 6.5 G was constrained by design necessitating that it fit an AR15 magwell; w/o that constraint I think you'd see a very different design...

Regardless, where I see a 6.5 G applying is if wanting the long range performance of .308 but wanting the recoil of a 5.56 and needing an AR weapon/mag constraint...  Long range being where the 6.5 G really excels vs other options. 

Offline czgunner

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2017, 02:45:27 PM »
I'd rather see the 6.8 spc. It does very well out of short barrels.
Disabled combat veteran

Offline MeatAxe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
Re: Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2017, 09:50:08 PM »
Scroll down and read earlier posts regarding armoredman's advocacy for the same (one of the mods here). 

But remember 6.5 Grendel was designed for 20-24" barrels, which is about the same as 5.56.  But vs 7.62x39 which was designed for 16" barrels, so pretty easy to see which cartridge is best suited for "the wave of the future" which has been and continues to be shorter and shorter barrels...  Why SOCOM is looking at 300 BLK for instance rather than 6.5 G. 

Futher 6.5 G was constrained by design necessitating that it fit an AR15 magwell; w/o that constraint I think you'd see a very different design...

Regardless, where I see a 6.5 G applying is if wanting the long range performance of .308 but wanting the recoil of a 5.56 and needing an AR weapon/mag constraint...  Long range being where the 6.5 G really excels vs other options.



I think 20" is supposed to be the optimal barrel length for the 6.5 Grendel, although Bill Alexander himself has been known to advocate for an 18" bbl. Even from a 16" bbl., 6.5 G doesn't look too shabby (scroll down):

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/uncategorized/6-5-grendel-evolution/

The good thing about 6.5 Grendel is the availability of Wolf fmj ammo, as cheap (or cheaper) than the cheapest Russian 7.62x39, which is about 1/3 the cost of the cheapest 6.8 SPC available, which to me is a consideration.

Offline armoredman

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17358
Re: Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2017, 02:16:43 AM »
Thank you for the link. I would love a BREn in 6.5 Grendel, but I would also love a CZ 527M in the same caliber. ;)

Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3156
Re: Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2017, 03:10:58 AM »
I think 20" is supposed to be the optimal barrel length for the 6.5 Grendel, although Bill Alexander himself has been known to advocate for an 18" bbl. Even from a 16" bbl., 6.5 G doesn't look too shabby (scroll down):

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/uncategorized/6-5-grendel-evolution/

The good thing about 6.5 Grendel is the availability of Wolf fmj ammo, as cheap (or cheaper) than the cheapest Russian 7.62x39, which is about 1/3 the cost of the cheapest 6.8 SPC available, which to me is a consideration.

Agree, but when the trend generally is for long military carbine barrels to be 14-16", and standard carbine length barrels to be in the 8-12" range, I primarily take exception to a broad "wave of the future" claim.   I think a 6.5 Grendel would make a very interesting SPR to DMR type variant (18-20"), but their are probably other calibers that could do the job better if you aren't constrained to a 5.56 dimensioned receiver... 

Secondly, the main selling feature of 6.5 G is its better ballistics and according accuracy...  Shooting russian shooter grade stuff completely negates much of that accuracy advantage.  I wouldn't be surprised if a quality mass produced 5.56 m193 load like IMI (~1.5 - 2 moa) was a notably more accurate at longer ranges than the wolf/barnaul russian 6.5 G loads which seem to run ~3-4 moa from reports I've seen...  At best, the lack of consistency in their 6.5 G cancels out its superior ballistics and puts it and quality 5.56 surplus on equal accuracy footings and w/in 20% of each other on price...

If keeping a 5.56 receiver, it's my belief that something in the 6mm range is probably where we'll end up for a general purpose or improved gp caliber...  Pushing most likely an 80-100 gr bullet, it'd be great for most continental US hunting as well...  Effectively, a smaller and lower velocity 243 win cartridge...
« Last Edit: March 25, 2017, 03:19:59 AM by RSR »

Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3156
Re: Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2017, 03:15:32 AM »
Thank you for the link. I would love a BREn in 6.5 Grendel, but I would also love a CZ 527M in the same caliber. ;)

Bolded portion is just the ticket!

Offline MeatAxe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
Re: Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2017, 06:29:35 AM »
I think 20" is supposed to be the optimal barrel length for the 6.5 Grendel, although Bill Alexander himself has been known to advocate for an 18" bbl. Even from a 16" bbl., 6.5 G doesn't look too shabby (scroll down):

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/uncategorized/6-5-grendel-evolution/

The good thing about 6.5 Grendel is the availability of Wolf fmj ammo, as cheap (or cheaper) than the cheapest Russian 7.62x39, which is about 1/3 the cost of the cheapest 6.8 SPC available, which to me is a consideration.

Agree, but when the trend generally is for long military carbine barrels to be 14-16", and standard carbine length barrels to be in the 8-12" range, I primarily take exception to a broad "wave of the future" claim.   I think a 6.5 Grendel would make a very interesting SPR to DMR type variant (18-20"), but their are probably other calibers that could do the job better if you aren't constrained to a 5.56 dimensioned receiver... 

Secondly, the main selling feature of 6.5 G is its better ballistics and according accuracy...  Shooting russian shooter grade stuff completely negates much of that accuracy advantage.  I wouldn't be surprised if a quality mass produced 5.56 m193 load like IMI (~1.5 - 2 moa) was a notably more accurate at longer ranges than the wolf/barnaul russian 6.5 G loads which seem to run ~3-4 moa from reports I've seen...  At best, the lack of consistency in their 6.5 G cancels out its superior ballistics and puts it and quality 5.56 surplus on equal accuracy footings and w/in 20% of each other on price...

If keeping a 5.56 receiver, it's my belief that something in the 6mm range is probably where we'll end up for a general purpose or improved gp caliber...  Pushing most likely an 80-100 gr bullet, it'd be great for most continental US hunting as well...  Effectively, a smaller and lower velocity 243 win cartridge...

I'm getting 1.5 MOA with the Wolf 6.5G fmj out of a Vepr, so it's not that bad. I would think a CZ Bren would be even more accurate, especially with the more expensive Hornady, Alexander, etc. match/hunting loads.

I don't have any NFA guns, so 16" is the minimum bbl length for my rifles. Might get a pistol with a brace just for fun. Anyway, the way I see it, 6.5 Grendel is an improvement ballistically over both 5.56 and 7.62x39 and still very affordable to shoot and stockpile. I don't see any downside to the 6.5 G other than mag availability for AKs at the moment.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2017, 06:32:57 AM by MeatAxe »

Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3156
Re: Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2017, 04:02:19 PM »
What shot size groups?  Eliminating flyers?  Etc...  I've never seen any russian steel case do 1.5 MOA as I call it, but maybe you have a special combo.

I read your wave of the future comment to mean "next gen military small arm rifle/carbine" as this is a military rifle, which is quite different from the US consumer flavor of the month...

Offline MeatAxe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
Re: Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2017, 11:02:22 PM »
What shot size groups?  Eliminating flyers?  Etc...  I've never seen any russian steel case do 1.5 MOA as I call it, but maybe you have a special combo.

I read your wave of the future comment to mean "next gen military small arm rifle/carbine" as this is a military rifle, which is quite different from the US consumer flavor of the month...


I think 6.5 Grendel or something similar would be a great step forward as a medium powered military rifle cartridge over the existing calibers.

However, now that Trump is in office, people aren't scared of a gun ban, so commercial arms sales in the US have faltered, which is a pretty big and lucrative international market. That's why gun and ammo manufacturers need to come up with new and improved products to pique the interest of us hard-core "super" gun junkies, to buy and keep the industry flourishing!

I'm already set with existing calibers, I need something new and mo' bettah!

Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3156
Re: Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2017, 04:10:02 PM »
6.5 G is good but not great for military use.  Again, attempting to maximize performance when feeding through a 5.56 magwell so definite tradeoffs...

For general purpose civilian hunting, self defense, recreation, etc, its definitely one of the more appealing options, but again barrel length keeps it best in a rifle not carbine role...

For military, I think a 6mm bullet is where they'll find middle-ground based on current military thinking.  Cartridge weight and recoil much closer to 5.56 but with long range trajectory and energy very close to the bigger boys.  Smaller diameter bullets also better against body armor worn by near peer miiltaries. 
For DMR, SPR, general purpose (possibly light but definitely) medium machine guns (SAW or IAR , etc, I think sticking w/ something in 6mm, same ammo as rest of squad), etc --  I think something in 7mm is pretty intriguing, but recoil and ammo weight make it a tough sell with today's military beyond those uses.
So 6mm replacing 5.56 and 7mm replacing 7.62. 

*EDIT: The reason why barrel length is important to modern military thinking:
1) Shorter barrels allow the use of suppressors in much greater range of circumstances.  Shorter barrels allow for overall length closer to existing largely unsuppressed small arms.  And suppressors only really exhibit substantial flash through night vision (flash hiders alone don't hide muzzle flash from night vision) on the first shot.  Subsequent shots have much lower signature.  Now FLIR is another issue but much less commonly available to enemies.
2) Shorter barrels are all things equal more accurate than longer barrels and w/ computer assisted optics become more and more sustainable for a military role each year, it is only a matter of time -- and eliminating as much error as possible from the machines is an important consideration.
3) If you have a cartridge that cannot burn all powder in a given barrel length, then that is wasted material and wear and tear on assets used for transport -- from soldiers backs and knees to fuel and cargo space. 
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 05:01:39 PM by RSR »

Offline mig1nc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2017, 04:50:13 PM »
Modern 5.56 rounds are very good. You won't see wide scale military adoption of any other AR caliber, except maybe the new SOCOM PDW and SURG solicitations for .300blk. Even that won't be for average Joe's as far as I can tell. Not yet anyway.

The next big thing after that will be 6.5CT in a completely new platform.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 04:52:02 PM by mig1nc »

Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3156
Re: Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2017, 04:58:44 PM »
Like the flechette shooting SPIW, I think the cased ammo is another bean counter wet dream that likely won't ever come to fruition... Much more likely to see lower pressured rounds running aluminum or steel cases IMO. 

.300 BLK is precisely b/c of the muzzle blast and flash and terminal performance concerns of 5.56 -- why double to triple taps are often taught for military CQB.  My understanding is that is going to be a PDW configuration... 
5.56 terminal performance is also why 5.56 bullets keep getting heavier and heavier, but to get optimal performance from those loads standard 5.56 mags and magwells are simply too short (more powder capacity is needed than loading setback long/heavy bullets allows). 

.300 BLK also has substantial kaboom risk.  B/c of that risk factor alone, I am surprised that big military is allowing it to proceed...  I would think an AR variant shooting 7.62x39 would be a less dangerous but equally capable call.

And I agree 5.56 is very good (at least better than many internet rumors might lead one to otherwise believe), but I don't think it's ever been good enough alone, and that is a problem when our soldiers won't always enjoy air, sea, armor, artillery, etc, superiority and will have to fight relying much more substantially on their (currently insufficent) small arms, which much of the time are currently used to fix the enemy in place to then kill by other means (bombs, missiles, artillery, mortars, etc). 
One fo the best reads on this general subject: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008/Intl/Schatz.pdf
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 05:27:17 PM by RSR »

Offline mig1nc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2017, 08:16:37 PM »
Yeah. But when I said 6.5CT (6.5CTLD actually) would be the next big thing, I want referring to next week our anything like that. It'll be years, decades maybe. But the weight reduction of CT is very real and badly needed. While at the same time providing for downgrade overmatch.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


Offline RSR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3156
Re: Bren 805-6 in 6.5 Grendel?
« Reply #14 on: March 29, 2017, 10:59:28 PM »
Weight reduction on the CT is actually less than you might think.  210 round 5.56 loadout brass vs CT you're looking at a 1/3rd, ~4 lb savings...  About the same for 7.62N. 
But 6.5 CT ammo weighs ~1/3rd more than brass 5.56...  And to compensate for the reduced reliability of CT loads, a big driver of the theory of use is that infantry weapons would have an effective engagement range of 1200m, which seems misguided to say the least -- to defeat an enemy w/ superior technology for any serious engagement (other than potshots at range as is seen in Afghanistan), one is always best to engage the superior tech enemy at the closest range possible in order to mitigate many of those tech advantages.

Because of the weight noted above, I do believe we're far more likely to see a 6mm and 7mm dual use system (if powers that be are smart and go for incremental change) than any of the 5mm or smaller PDW rounds, or anything larger than 7mm for standard issue...  .300 win mag can and should stay, and .338 lapua is already replacing .50 bmg in most uses as is good and proper.  But neither of these harder hitting rounds are suitable for building into a general issue weapon...

My belief is that we're more likely to see energy weapons before CT comes to reliable fruition, but I've been wrong before...