Nomercy448

There is a ridiculous amount of misinformation and false statements being made in this article:

This is incorrect. Both the 6.5 Grendel and 6mm ARC use the exact same 0.441 - 0.010" rim diameter specification. Reference SAAMI drawings before penning your articles.

Load data is available for the 6 ARC ranging from 55/58grn up to 110grn, and some guys are already loading 112 Match Burners and 115 DTACs.

This might be worse than counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin... 28.5grn 8208 pushes a 123 ELD to 2550 in the 6.5 Grendel, while 28grn 8208 pushes a 108 ELD to 2700 in the ARC... This puts the two within 4% for recoil momentum... 4%... That's not an appreciable difference in recoil.

For Long Range shooting, transonic transition matters, and the "narrow margin" isn't so narrow here. The 6 ARC will hold onto super-sonic speeds with 105 Hybrids, above the transonic boundary, clear out to 1250yrds, while the 6.5 Grendel falls short, dropping transonic at only 975yrds. This means the Grendel gets a smack in the tail by its pressure wave before it even reaches 1000yrds, and groups get squirrelly, almost 300yrds earlier than the ARC... That's around 30% transonic range advantage... Acknowledging here also, the ARC has around 10moa/3mils less drop at 1000yrds, and a quarter second shorter time of flight and HALF of the wind drift at 1000 (2.1MOA vs. 3.9MOA for the Grendel)

Ballistic Coefficient is a measure of aerodynamics. It's redundant to say the ARC has a higher BC because of more aerodynamic bullets - that's how bullet aerodynamics are defined... It's like saying taller people are taller...

Ballistic Coefficient is NOT dependent upon velocity, so the first half of this sentence is just poorly representing relatively simple science.

This statement is completely false, again misrepresenting simple science. Sectional Density is calculated by bullet weight in pounds divided by bullet diameter squared, and has absolutely no dependence upon velocity. SD is ONLY dependent upon bullet weight and caliber.

Both of these claims are steeped in idiocy. Recommending the 6.5 Grendel for Elk, Moose, caribou, and bear while relegating the ARC to coyotes and varmints is just dumb, and illustrates a complete lack of experience by the author with either of these cartridges, or ANY cartridge used for hunting these animals. This is akin to saying a 12oz framing hammer is only suitable for tapping finish nails into trim, while a 14oz framing hammer is suitable for crushing boulders...

These claims also are false. Equivalent models from manufacturers which offer both are priced the same. Savage is offering both the 110 Tactical and Axis II in 6 ARC, under $900 and under $500 respectively, Howa is offering the 1500 Mini action in 6 ARC as well for $1100.

This is more of the author's inexperience showing through. Guys are shooting 140-147grn class bullets typically in 6.5 Creedmoor, while the tiny 6.5 Grendel case and AR-15 Mag lengths tap out in the 125-130 class bullets for the Grendel.

Lots of false on this as well. Primers and powder are exactly the same for the Grendel and the ARC, so if you find one, you've found the other. ARC brass can be made from Grendel brass in a pinch (or from 7.62x39 for either of them). Further, 6mm bullets typically are more easy to find than 120-130grn class 6.5mm bullets. So again, the author is making claims out of inexperience and ignorance.



So... um... Why would you not acknowledge the actual development history? Did you completely miss the marketing and solicitation award announcements which described the origin of the 6 ARC as a DoD solicitation?



Equally as disappointing as the failure to actually describe the 6 ARC's development history is the author's failure here to describe the 6.5 Grendel's history. How can the author even write a "development history" of the 6.5 Grendel without even typing the words "Bill Alexander" or "Alexander Arms"? How can they ignore the 8 years of name game that Wild Bill played which forced so many of us rifle builders and shooters to buy "264 LBC" dies and barrels (Les Baer Custom) until Bill Alexander FINALLY released his trademark of the Grendel name, allowing SAAMI standardization and broad market opportunity...? How can they write a section on “development history” of the 6.5 Grendel and not acknowledge Type I and Type II boltheads, and Black Hole Weaponry’s influence on these in the market?

Both of those "brief development history" sections are exceptionally half-assed.

More inexperience being rolled up into misrepresentations here... The 6 ARC has greater impact momentum, greater penetration from improved sectional density, greater impact energy, and greater impact velocity for reliable expansion at common hunting distances. Neither are a good choice for true big game hunting, but for deer sized CXP2 game, the ARC does anything the 6.5 Grendel does, and does it farther away.

You guys need to hire a content editor which actually knows something about any of these things, because your articles are consistently dumpster fires.