6.5 Grendel

[OkieStubble]

https://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?266-SUB-SONIC-Grendel-loads&highlight=sonic

This is actually very informative link. There are several who have loaded Hornady 160’s with 6.5 grains of Unique and was getting 1150 fps. He suggested going down in 10th increments to get below 1100. While that still might not cycle an AR, I wonder what kind of trajectory and knockdown it would have at 200 or 300?

I’m no experienced reloader, but even if we could estimate or project it to have just 9mm ballistics at 300?

I would want more, but if it stayed quiet? I’d still call that a success.

 

[OkieStubble]

That sounds like the ticket. In general, long range shooters want to keep their bullets supersonic all the way to the target because of the instability that occurs when just about any bullet becomes unstable as it crosses the transonic range. Likewise, you don’t want to use super sonic .22LR ammo to shoot long distance because of the instability crossing the transonic barrier. Rather lob a slow.22 with accuracy that an erratic.22 with more velocity.

Agreed. But even if it keyholes the target at 300, I’d take it.

 

[nortac]

This is actually very informative link. There are several who have loaded Hornady 160’s with 6.5 grains of Unique and was getting 1150 fps. He suggested going down in 10th increments to get below 1100. While that still might not cycle an AR, I wonder what kind of trajectory and knockdown it would have at 200 or 300?

I’m no experienced reloader, but even of could estimate or project it to have just 9mm ballistics at 300?

I would want more, but if ot stayed quiet? I’d still call that a success.

I think the deciding factor would be ft/lbs of energy at a given range if we're talking about taking game humanely. A decent ballistics program would tell you all you need to know as long as you have chrono'd the load through your gun.

 

[OkieStubble]

I think the deciding factor would be ft/lbs of energy at a given range if we're talking about taking game humanely. A decent ballistics program would tell you all you need to know as long as you have chrono'd the load through your gun.

Yeah, I can’t see thumping hog with 160 at a 1000 @100?

 

[JCarr]

Reminds me a little bit of a Police Tac rifle. Should be a nice shooter. Best of luck with choosing a scope for it.

 

[OkieStubble]

Reminds me a little bit of a Police Tac rifle. Should be a nice shooter. Best of luck with choosing a scope for it.

Thanks. Hopefully when I’m done with it, it’ll drive tacks like one too!

I’m probably going to change the stock out to Magpul’s Hunter stock which will get the barrel to truly be a free floated barrel. I can already tell, the bolt and chamber needs to be cleaned up and smoothed and Ivwill getting rid of the smallish bolt handle for a bit larger handle with better ergonomics. I can already see my hand bumping into a larger scope with the handle it has now. I will need to get my tax stamp for a suppressor.

I wonder what is the best brand for the most reasonable price? There are some great modern suppressors today, that can make even supersonic calibers sound really quiet other than the crack from breaking the sound barrier.

 

[nortac]

Dead Air seems to be really popular right now. I have no personal experience with them, but others really like them. I see more of those at the range than the older high-end standbys like AAC or Gemtech.

 

[Ad Astra]

This is actually very informative link. There are several who have loaded Hornady 160’s with 6.5 grains of Unique and was getting 1150 fps. He suggested going down in 10th increments to get below 1100. While that still might not cycle an AR, I wonder what kind of trajectory and knockdown it would have at 200 or 300?

I’m no experienced reloader, but even if we could estimate or project it to have just 9mm ballistics at 300?

I would want more, but if it stayed quiet? I’d still call that a success.

It's a little tricky, Okie. I've had trouble getting subsonic BO loads to cycle, but I don't have the right powder, apparently.

The loads sure are quiet, though.


AA

 

[OkieStubble]

Dead Air seems to be really popular right now. I have no personal experience with them, but others really like them. I see more of those at the range than the older high-end standbys like AAC or Gemtech.

I will be checking into this, thanks!

 

[OkieStubble]

It's a little tricky, Okie. I've had trouble getting subsonic BO loads to cycle, but I don't have the right powder, apparently.

The loads sure are quiet, though.


AA

1. I like tricky.

2. I have a bolt action, so no worries with cycling.

3. I just want to know what kind of ballistics and trajectories and distance I will have from a quiet 160 grain Grendel, moving at only 1000 fps?

 

[nortac]

^ I'm sure any ballistic program could put you in the ballpark, but you'd have to confirm MV with a chrono from your gun and confirm the trajectory with your gun and load by shooting targets at various distances. I know that in my experience, the ballistic calculators got me close, but not exact. The proof is in the putting (rounds down range).

 

[OkieStubble]

The proof is in the putting.

Very nice.

 

[nortac]

@OkieStubble , according to the JBM ballistics calculator:
Assuming a 1.5 sight height, 6 in. kill zone, Hornady 160 gr. .264 RN, 1000 FPS MV

Maximum PBR 142 yds
PBR zero 119 yds
Muzzle energy 357 ft/lbs.
100 yd -3.4 in. drop, -3.2 MOA, 935.7 fps, 311 ft/lbs
200 yd -31.4in, -15 MOA, 881.9 fps, 276.3 ft/lbs
300 yd -110.9 in, -35.3 MOA, 835.9, 248.2 ft/lbs

With a "scout rifle" compact scope, looks like you run out of elevation pretty quickly. Terminal energy is kinda questionable to, depending on what you want to do with it.

Up the MV to 1100 and you get a max point blank range of 153 yds and a PBR zero of 129 yds with a ME of 432 ft/lbs. The 300 yd drop is "only" 91.2 in. Looks like it would be worthwhile to get 1100 fps if possible, still subsonic.

 

[nortac]

I just plugged in the 140 gr. A-max into the JBM calc at 1100 fps, it has more energy than the 160 @1000 fps, but less than the 160 gr. @1100 fps. But it shoots a bit flatter. I'm just thinking that with a compact scope without a lot of elevation adjustment, it might be problematic switching between supersonic and subsonic rounds. In any event, I'd want a scope with a reticle with enough stadia for hold overs to avoid cranking on the elevation knobs all the time as I switched loads between super and sub.

 

[OkieStubble]

@OkieStubble , according to the JBM ballistics calculator:
Assuming a 1.5 sight height, 6 in. kill zone, Hornady 160 gr. .264 RN, 1000 FPS MV

Maximum PBR 142 yds
PBR zero 119 yds
Muzzle energy 357 ft/lbs.
100 yd -3.4 in. drop, -3.2 MOA, 935.7 fps, 311 ft/lbs
200 yd -31.4in, -15 MOA, 881.9 fps, 276.3 ft/lbs
300 yd -110.9 in, -35.3 MOA, 835.9, 248.2 ft/lbs

With a "scout rifle" compact scope, looks like you run out of elevation pretty quickly. Terminal energy is kinda questionable to, depending on what you want to do with it.

Up the MV to 1100 and you get a max point blank range of 153 yds and a PBR zero of 129 yds with a ME of 432 ft/lbs. The 300 yd drop is "only" 91.2 in. Looks like it would be worthwhile to get 1100 fps if possible, still subsonic.

Those numbers are a tad bit lower then I expected but not by too much. Still kinda disappointing.

A Federal 147 grain HST 9mm, is a 1053 at the muzzle and 968 @100 yds, and I said I thought it would give me 9mm ballistics.

But I was hoping for good 9mm numbers at 200-300 and not just 150.

 

[OkieStubble]

I just plugged in the 140 gr. A-max into the JBM calc at 1100 fps, it has more energy than the 160 @1000 fps, but less than the 160 gr. @1100 fps. But it shoots a bit flatter. I'm just thinking that with a compact scope without a lot of elevation adjustment, it might be problematic switching between supersonic and subsonic rounds. In any event, I'd want a scope with a reticle with enough stadia for hold overs to avoid cranking on the elevation knobs all the time as I switched loads between super and sub.

See, that’s what’s good about a Leupold. It doesn’t have to be a compact scope to still be lightweight.

 

[nortac]

I'm not seeing that much advantage to using the 160 gr. and I'm thinking 150 yds is going to be the max practical range for subsonic against game of any size and marginal at that. If only you can get a decent reticle in an appropriate Leupold. I think I could probably live with the SS crack with a good suppressor, depending on the application. Sure would simplify things. But I totally understand wanting to play around with subsonic loads, I'll eventually do it with my AR.

 

[Bhugo]

I would guess that the low velocity may not expand a bullet. I have always heard that 1000 foot pounds of kinetic energy is a minimum for whitetail. I don’t really think that is true though. Shot placement and bullet performance is king. You’ll have to get the velocity up to the point that the bullet expands well and still penetrates far enough. People do bullet testing on you tube. I believe “simple minded fella” does a ton of testing of 6.5 mm bullets at lower velocity to simulate long range shots. He can give you an idea of how low a velocity will still make a bullet perform reasonably.

 

[nortac]

If you restrict your shots on hogs to behind the ear, expansion may not matter too much? Just penetration, where the 160 gr. may have an advantage despite marginal ft/lbs of energy and a rainbow trajectory? Dunno. Also, substituting "target" bullets for "game" bullets might perform better as far as expansion at lower velocity because of the lighter jackets?

 

[OkieStubble]

I'm not seeing that much advantage to using the 160 gr. and I'm thinking 150 yds is going to be the max practical range for subsonic against game of any size and marginal at that. If only you can get a decent reticle in an appropriate Leupold. I think I could probably live with the SS crack with a good suppressor, depending on the application. Sure would simplify things. But I totally understand wanting to play around with subsonic loads, I'll eventually do it with my AR.

Excellent points. I agree with your thoughts. But if it is effective at 150, even though it's not 6.5 Grendel efficient? Just as you say, would you want subsonic silent at only 150 yards? Yes please!