This will be my first post on this site, and I hate to get into the middle of a pi$$ing contest. That being said , I will. The best thing about the net is also the worst thing. Anyone can say anything about anyone , or anything, be assured that there is not risk and there be those that listen.I'll bet there are a couple of flat earth sites out there somewhere . My name is Dennis Reilly and I have both feet firmly in my mouth. I own and like 6.5 Grendels. ;D
264 LBC-AR Cartridge
- Thread starter TX65
- Start date
Grendelfreak said:Tiger said:Top Ten Reason The .264 LBC-AR Will Succeed
10. No stupid licensing contract.
Yeah!! Now EVERYONE can screw with the chamber! Can you say 6.8?
9. No barrel vendor conflicts.
Tha's a biggie! With everyone cutting different chambers, who cares?
8. No silly mythical monster name to the cartridge.
Now its named after someone who wants to take credit for something he had no hand in developing and STILL wants his name on it! That's a BIG step up!
7. Supply and demand will be met.
Of course, by the most expensive AR manufacturer out there! Way to go!! I mean Les Baers backlog for the Grendel was only 8-12 months, they are REALLY cranking them out!
6. No promises of things that never materialize.
Hmmm...Do you mean like the 3 different Grendel loads promised by Les Baer when they took on the Grendel?
5. Safe pressures developed by one of the leading industry’s ammo manufacturers.
Interesting, is that pointed at AA? I haven't heard of a lot of ammo issues with factory ammo, and the numbers that AA posts match pretty close with Hodgdon/IMR/Winchester. Guess their data is all off, too!
4. No more broken or fatigued bolts.
Interesting, since he's using the same bolts!
3. REAL FACTORY loaded ammuniation.
Wolf doesn't count? Even discounting AA factory loads, Lapua brass doesn't exist except for AA. Hornady brass doesn't exist, unless AA works with Hornady. They weren't going to build brass for LB unless they were also doing AA. In fact, this whole thing reeks of behind the scenes maneuvering by Les Baer, without Hornady's knowledge.
2. Same manufacturer on major components for the rifle.
That's definitely nice! Les Baer builds great products. Of course in doing this to the Grendel he earns a lot of dissatisfied customers, (the ones who previously bought Grendels from him.) On top of that, now every other manufacturer will be VERY careful in their dealings with Les Baer, wondering if he will do the same to them.
And Number One!
1. Manufactured by an American, not a foreigner.
WOW!! That REALLY is pretty low. Of course your ancestry must be Native American! Otherwise, you're a foreigner just like Bill Alexander! Oh...you aren't Native American? That makes you a bigot, and nothing but a bigot! Good luck to your chances of ever regaining any respect with that kind of attitude!
Bill A is over here on a green card, I for one was born here so where my parents.
The bolts aren't the same as from the beginning. In fact it's not been that long ago that the steel has been changed to the new 9310 which Bill didn't come up nor invent.
Maybe you should call Hornady and discuss which them the pressure testing of AA's loads.
Hate to say it but you're just a groupie that doesn't now squate.
rcw3 said:
I think you mean if it weren't for Arne and Lothar Walther the 6.5 Grendel wouldn't be with us. Arne started development on the 6.5 PPC cartridge long before Bill got a hankering for. Lothar Walther put Bill and Arne together. Then the final cartridge was submitted to Lapua who changed the dimensions in order to facilitate production.
Tiger said:
Actually Joe, it's obvious that your grasp of the English language is subpar at best. Arne MAY have been the FIRST promoter, and I certainly would not diminish his role in development of the cartridge, but he never developed a company based upon the cartridge and the rifle, he never contacted, contracted, and developed the relationship with Lapua to get the brass made, which is the CRITICAL step that allowed the Grendel to go forward. No STANDARDIZED brass, and the cartridge is nothing more than the wildcat it was when Arne first developed it.
As I understand it, when Alexander Arms couldn’t provide appropriate bolts, Arne decided to go his own way with bolts. He certainly had the right to do so, it was a business decision on his part, and neither of us is party to all that happened with that situation. So, unlike you, I choose to not take anyone’s side. You know ONE side of the story and have decided that side is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I suspect that both sides of the story have SOME truth, and would love to hear someone lay out both sides. I have no idea who was right and who was wrong.
But regardless of your feelings about Bill Alexander, he WAS the one who carried on and kept the Grendel going. That makes him the foremost promoter of the cartridge regardless of your poor understanding of the word.
As far as the moderator comment, I have NO idea what that was intended to mean. So far as your cute use of the diminutive (oops, that’s a pretty big word, better look it up!) of my name, it is still used by many among my family and friends, so it has no pejorative (oops, another big word, better keep the dictionary handy!) value.
Bill
First off...the Grendel case is a very good case.
Second...Lapua makes the best 6.5 Grendel brass in the World, and for that we owe thanks to Bill Alexander for making it happen.
Third...the only thing officially protected about the cartridge, to my knowledge, is the Grendel name is copywrighted. That does NOT protect a cartridge design.
If Les Baer has come out with a chambering for the same cartridge and calls it something else, he is within his rights to do so, as my understanding is that ONLY the name is protected by copywright laws.
When I designed my 30 Major, I spent several hours on the phone with Bill Alexander. He told me specifically, that as long as I didn't call my cartridge a Grendel anything, that I could do as I wanted with it. I thought about the patent process, and contacted patent lawyers about this, and my personal decision was to not patent it. That's the same decision that Bill made with the 6.5 Grendel. There are a number of reasons, but that's a whole nother subject.
Defending a patent, and defending a copywright, are two TOTALLY different things.
While I hope Bill the best, he has no leg to stand on as I understand it.
I do hope that the cartridge continues to gather a following though, as it it a GREAT design that is worthy of consideration on several different levels.
I can only hope that this doesn't become a "we vs. them" debate, as we are putting our noses where it doesn't belong.
Another supplier for "Grendel" dimensioned brass and cartridges will only foster more and more support for the overall cartridge design, and will benefit us all. It is a PROVEN design to wildcat from in different configurations.
Bill Just made a business decision not to patent it. It's not Les Baer's fault!
I have never met or spoken to Les, but I wish him the best as well. It's all about marketing. Bill named the cartridge for that purpose and decided not to protect the cartridge itself...which I can understand why after my research into the subject. Patents have been granted to cartridge designs that envelope just about anything you can imagine because of a lack of knowledge on the part of the deciding parties. Craig Boddington was granted a patent that was so vague, that it covers just about anything with a bottleneck design! Now consider that the average cost of defending a patent is about
$100,000, you can begin to understand why a patent on a cartridge is an uphill climb for it's return on investment.
Just be thankful that the design is there. It is one of the best that we have to date, IMO. I mean no harm, or disrespect for anyone with this post. I'm just tellin' ya what I know about the subject, which is more than most, because of my research into it.
-----Mike Ezell
Second...Lapua makes the best 6.5 Grendel brass in the World, and for that we owe thanks to Bill Alexander for making it happen.
Third...the only thing officially protected about the cartridge, to my knowledge, is the Grendel name is copywrighted. That does NOT protect a cartridge design.
If Les Baer has come out with a chambering for the same cartridge and calls it something else, he is within his rights to do so, as my understanding is that ONLY the name is protected by copywright laws.
When I designed my 30 Major, I spent several hours on the phone with Bill Alexander. He told me specifically, that as long as I didn't call my cartridge a Grendel anything, that I could do as I wanted with it. I thought about the patent process, and contacted patent lawyers about this, and my personal decision was to not patent it. That's the same decision that Bill made with the 6.5 Grendel. There are a number of reasons, but that's a whole nother subject.
Defending a patent, and defending a copywright, are two TOTALLY different things.
While I hope Bill the best, he has no leg to stand on as I understand it.
I do hope that the cartridge continues to gather a following though, as it it a GREAT design that is worthy of consideration on several different levels.
I can only hope that this doesn't become a "we vs. them" debate, as we are putting our noses where it doesn't belong.
Another supplier for "Grendel" dimensioned brass and cartridges will only foster more and more support for the overall cartridge design, and will benefit us all. It is a PROVEN design to wildcat from in different configurations.
Bill Just made a business decision not to patent it. It's not Les Baer's fault!
I have never met or spoken to Les, but I wish him the best as well. It's all about marketing. Bill named the cartridge for that purpose and decided not to protect the cartridge itself...which I can understand why after my research into the subject. Patents have been granted to cartridge designs that envelope just about anything you can imagine because of a lack of knowledge on the part of the deciding parties. Craig Boddington was granted a patent that was so vague, that it covers just about anything with a bottleneck design! Now consider that the average cost of defending a patent is about
$100,000, you can begin to understand why a patent on a cartridge is an uphill climb for it's return on investment.
Just be thankful that the design is there. It is one of the best that we have to date, IMO. I mean no harm, or disrespect for anyone with this post. I'm just tellin' ya what I know about the subject, which is more than most, because of my research into it.
-----Mike Ezell
Hate to be the one to break it to you but the Grendel has more chambers than the 6.8 LOL
Grendel
6.5CSS
6.5x39
6.5AR
264LBC
6.5 sporter
6.5 Gremlin
Grendel
6.5CSS
6.5x39
6.5AR
264LBC
6.5 sporter
6.5 Gremlin
Grendelfreak said:Tiger said:Top Ten Reason The .264 LBC-AR Will Succeed
10. No stupid licensing contract.
Yeah!! Now EVERYONE can screw with the chamber! Can you say 6.8?
9. No barrel vendor conflicts.
Tha's a biggie! With everyone cutting different chambers, who cares?
8. No silly mythical monster name to the cartridge.
Now its named after someone who wants to take credit for something he had no hand in developing and STILL wants his name on it! That's a BIG step up!
7. Supply and demand will be met.
Of course, by the most expensive AR manufacturer out there! Way to go!! I mean Les Baers backlog for the Grendel was only 8-12 months, they are REALLY cranking them out!
6. No promises of things that never materialize.
Hmmm...
5. Safe pressures developed by one of the leading industry’s ammo manufacturers.
Interesting, is that pointed at AA? I haven't heard of a lot of ammo issues with factory ammo, and the numbers that AA posts match pretty close with Hodgdon/IMR/Winchester. Guess their data is all off, too!
4. No more broken or fatigued bolts.
Interesting, since he's using the same bolts!
3. REAL FACTORY loaded ammuniation.
Wolf doesn't count? Even discounting AA factory loads, Lapua brass doesn't exist except for AA. Hornady brass doesn't exist, unless AA works with Hornady. They weren't going to build brass for LB unless they were also doing AA. In fact, this whole thing reeks of behind the scenes maneuvering by Les Baer, without Hornady's knowledge.
2. Same manufacturer on major components for the rifle.
That's definitely nice! Les Baer builds great products. Of course in doing this to the Grendel he earns a lot of dissatisfied customers, (the ones who previously bought Grendels from him.) On top of that, now every other manufacturer will be VERY careful in their dealings with Les Baer, wondering if he will do the same to them.
And Number One!
1. Manufactured by an American, not a foreigner.
WOW!! That REALLY is pretty low. Of course your ancestry must be Native American! Otherwise, you're a foreigner just like Bill Alexander! Oh...you aren't Native American? That makes you a bigot, and nothing but a bigot! Good luck to your chances of ever regaining any respect with that kind of attitude!
I hate to see this, this has always been a civil sight where opinions can be stated and we can agree to disagree without getting nasty.
Lets keep it that way guys. If you don't agree with someone else thats fine just state your facts and reasons and the reader will decide who he believes. You only bring down yourself and your opinions when you get nasty about it. So play nice or take it off line. Just my opinion and of course we know what people say about opinions.........
Lets keep it that way guys. If you don't agree with someone else thats fine just state your facts and reasons and the reader will decide who he believes. You only bring down yourself and your opinions when you get nasty about it. So play nice or take it off line. Just my opinion and of course we know what people say about opinions.........
Alexander Arms held the Grendal design as proprietary when all it is, is a 6.5mm PPC. After all the hype, finished rifles were not available, were expensive when they were, loaded ammo was scarce to non-existant, and everything was expensive.
Les Baer developes a cartridge just enough different that it does not infringe on the Grendal, does not hold the design proprietary and thus it is available to everybody free of royalty payments, has advance ordered a bunch of brass, has other major brass and/or ammo makers getting on the bandwagon once again royalty free. No doubt a lot of other AR makers will look favorably on this and would not be surprised to see four or five start offering uppers in short order.
I was surprised when Alexander Arms made the design of the Grendal proprietary when they first announced it. I had never heard of a proprietary cartridge design being succesful in the long term. Looks like it will remain that way.
Come to think of it, that's probably why the military went with the 6.8 SPC. The military doesn't do proprietary in small arms, and doesn't like to rely on ammunition components being made outside the US.
Les Baer developes a cartridge just enough different that it does not infringe on the Grendal, does not hold the design proprietary and thus it is available to everybody free of royalty payments, has advance ordered a bunch of brass, has other major brass and/or ammo makers getting on the bandwagon once again royalty free. No doubt a lot of other AR makers will look favorably on this and would not be surprised to see four or five start offering uppers in short order.
I was surprised when Alexander Arms made the design of the Grendal proprietary when they first announced it. I had never heard of a proprietary cartridge design being succesful in the long term. Looks like it will remain that way.
Come to think of it, that's probably why the military went with the 6.8 SPC. The military doesn't do proprietary in small arms, and doesn't like to rely on ammunition components being made outside the US.
Rust,
You haven't quite got the facts straight:
The Grendel is three things:
1) The name of the 6.5 cartridge derived from the PPC. It is somewhat different, or everyone would have been making brass from 6 PPC brass instead of whining about the problems associated with a lack of brass for the cartridge.
2) A trademarked, (not patented) name for that cartridge.
3) The specific chamber developed by Alexander Arms and Lothar Walthar which chambers the round.
It is not a proprietary (or patented) cartridge. The ONLY thing restricted is the use of the Grendel trademark.
Les Baer didn't develop anything to do with the cartridge. Their cartridge IS exactly the same as the 6.5 Grendel cartridge. Les Baer has done NOTHING with the specs of the actual cartridge itself, so it's almost comical that they are headstamping 6.5 LBC on their ammunition, since it will just cause confusion. And if you think Alexander Arms designs/builds were expensive, have you checked out Les Baers?
The difference in the designs is STRICTLY the chamber/throat design, where Les Baer is using an essentially traditional chamber and throat, in place of the compound chamber developed by Alexander Arms in conjunction with Lothar Walthar, who was building the barrels at the time. From what I have read, (no one I know of has actually received a Les Baer AR 6.5 other than writers that I can tell) It has a slightly longer leade than the Alexander Arms Grendel, and does not have a compound throat. It is specifically designed to work with the 123 AMAX, though it may very well shoot other bullets well.
I'm not sure what comprises your definition of success? The Grendel has been in the market about 5-6 years, and is chambered by J&T Distributing, Sabre, Alexander Arms, Satern, and many smaller AR builders, none of whom seems to have any problems with paying the small royalty that AA deems appropriate. I've called several of the smaller guys, and they all say it is no big deal. BUT...as far as success in the market goes, the Grendel seems to have done fairly well for such a cartridge, with a major discount ammunition builder offering ammo, (Wolf), and now Hornady stepping into the market with Grendel ammunition as well. Do you have any beliefs that Hornady would have built brass for LBC if they weren't going to be doing it already for the Grendel?
The military went with the 6.8 SPC? When? That's major news, and I would think Remington would be screaming it from the rooftops if it were so. If that is the case, where did you find that information, can you please provide links?
Constructor...
As you well know, there is only ONE Grendel chamber, the one used by Alexander Arms and Lothar Walthar and which may be called the Grendel. The others are 6.5 chambers, but they AREN'T Grendels, anymore than the 6.5x55 is a Grendel.
You haven't quite got the facts straight:
The Grendel is three things:
1) The name of the 6.5 cartridge derived from the PPC. It is somewhat different, or everyone would have been making brass from 6 PPC brass instead of whining about the problems associated with a lack of brass for the cartridge.
2) A trademarked, (not patented) name for that cartridge.
3) The specific chamber developed by Alexander Arms and Lothar Walthar which chambers the round.
It is not a proprietary (or patented) cartridge. The ONLY thing restricted is the use of the Grendel trademark.
Les Baer didn't develop anything to do with the cartridge. Their cartridge IS exactly the same as the 6.5 Grendel cartridge. Les Baer has done NOTHING with the specs of the actual cartridge itself, so it's almost comical that they are headstamping 6.5 LBC on their ammunition, since it will just cause confusion. And if you think Alexander Arms designs/builds were expensive, have you checked out Les Baers?
The difference in the designs is STRICTLY the chamber/throat design, where Les Baer is using an essentially traditional chamber and throat, in place of the compound chamber developed by Alexander Arms in conjunction with Lothar Walthar, who was building the barrels at the time. From what I have read, (no one I know of has actually received a Les Baer AR 6.5 other than writers that I can tell) It has a slightly longer leade than the Alexander Arms Grendel, and does not have a compound throat. It is specifically designed to work with the 123 AMAX, though it may very well shoot other bullets well.
I'm not sure what comprises your definition of success? The Grendel has been in the market about 5-6 years, and is chambered by J&T Distributing, Sabre, Alexander Arms, Satern, and many smaller AR builders, none of whom seems to have any problems with paying the small royalty that AA deems appropriate. I've called several of the smaller guys, and they all say it is no big deal. BUT...as far as success in the market goes, the Grendel seems to have done fairly well for such a cartridge, with a major discount ammunition builder offering ammo, (Wolf), and now Hornady stepping into the market with Grendel ammunition as well. Do you have any beliefs that Hornady would have built brass for LBC if they weren't going to be doing it already for the Grendel?
The military went with the 6.8 SPC? When? That's major news, and I would think Remington would be screaming it from the rooftops if it were so. If that is the case, where did you find that information, can you please provide links?
Constructor...
As you well know, there is only ONE Grendel chamber, the one used by Alexander Arms and Lothar Walthar and which may be called the Grendel. The others are 6.5 chambers, but they AREN'T Grendels, anymore than the 6.5x55 is a Grendel.
Those chambers all shoot 6.5 grendel or 264LBC ammo. You can try to stick a 6.5 x55 in a Grendel chamber if you want but I can tell you now it wont fit, The Grendel ammo will fit perfectly in those other chambers, like they were made for each other.Grendelfreak said:
SOF have been using the 6.8 for a few years now, Canada's SOF has too.
They even have SAWs in 6.8.
constructor said:
Well, I'm jumping into someone elses argument, but won't a 5.56 fire .223 and vice versa, but they aren't the same thing?
SF gets whatever they want, but they no more indicate adoption than the AMU using Grendel indicates adoption.
Having SAW's in a caliber doesn't mean anything either, since the military is one big experiment in arms development anyways.
Something messed that post up.
My point on adoption is that the .45 is not the issue sidearm for the military anymore, but SF uses them extensively, and some even use the .40! That doesn't mean that they have been adopted or that the military is "going with them", just that under certain circumstances, some members of the military are authorized to use them.
When you seen a contract for 250,000 rifles, then you can be assured that something is being adopted!
My point on adoption is that the .45 is not the issue sidearm for the military anymore, but SF uses them extensively, and some even use the .40! That doesn't mean that they have been adopted or that the military is "going with them", just that under certain circumstances, some members of the military are authorized to use them.
When you seen a contract for 250,000 rifles, then you can be assured that something is being adopted!
.bwaites said:
The guy started something about the 6.8 chambers being a bad thing well if thats bad the fact that the Grendel has more chambers makes it worse from his point of view.
Who said anything about adopted by the big green? SOF is Military and they are USING the 6.8.
I have never heard of a 6.5 G SAW as a matter of fact it seems a famous writer that hangs out on the Grendel forum said it couldn't be done.
I predict the 264 LBC will go on to take over the "6.5 whateveryouwanttocallit" market ;D
It seems a few companies have already changed over to the 264LBC other than Les Baer of course.
Hmm...well, we'll see.
So far as I can see, only Les Baer is building rifles, all the rest are barrel makers, or upper builders.
It will be a LONG time before those few guys catch up to Sabre, AA, J&T, and all the others building actual Grendels.
As for the 6.8, no one seems to be stepping up and trying to get one of those multiple chambers approved by SAAMI, so its highly unlikely that any of the major manufacturers will build the higher pressure ammo.
As for the use of the 6.8 by SF, it was Rust who said, "Come to think of it, that's probably why the military went with the 6.8 SPC." The military HASN'T gone with the 6.8 SPC. A few units may use it, but the military as a whole certainly isn't using it.
So far as I can see, only Les Baer is building rifles, all the rest are barrel makers, or upper builders.
It will be a LONG time before those few guys catch up to Sabre, AA, J&T, and all the others building actual Grendels.
As for the 6.8, no one seems to be stepping up and trying to get one of those multiple chambers approved by SAAMI, so its highly unlikely that any of the major manufacturers will build the higher pressure ammo.
As for the use of the 6.8 by SF, it was Rust who said, "Come to think of it, that's probably why the military went with the 6.8 SPC." The military HASN'T gone with the 6.8 SPC. A few units may use it, but the military as a whole certainly isn't using it.
I'm going to jump into this cat fight, which may be a mistake on my part as there seems to be a lot of emotionalism about the 6.5 G both on this forum, and the 6.5 Grendel forum.
I think the 6.5 G is a great cartridge. I've built a "space gun" AR15, in 6.5 G, to use for NRA HP XTC matches. It is an accurate round once you found the correct combination of reloading components.
My only complaint about the Grendel is that the AA compound leade/throat is short for 123 gr. bullets. and I'm having to seat a variety of 123 gr. bullets deeply into the case, which affects powder capacity, and thus velocity.
I had an e-mail discussion with Steve Satern and Bill Alexander about the short leade, and his response was that yes that could be an issue. Bill's additional response was that yes, I could lengthen the leade/throat to accomodate any bullet that I wanted to use, just don't call it a "Grendel."
Bill
I think the 6.5 G is a great cartridge. I've built a "space gun" AR15, in 6.5 G, to use for NRA HP XTC matches. It is an accurate round once you found the correct combination of reloading components.
My only complaint about the Grendel is that the AA compound leade/throat is short for 123 gr. bullets. and I'm having to seat a variety of 123 gr. bullets deeply into the case, which affects powder capacity, and thus velocity.
I had an e-mail discussion with Steve Satern and Bill Alexander about the short leade, and his response was that yes that could be an issue. Bill's additional response was that yes, I could lengthen the leade/throat to accomodate any bullet that I wanted to use, just don't call it a "Grendel."
Bill
That problem crops up now and again, and I've never seen a satisfactory explanation of why.
I load all my 123's at mag length, and have no problems, (I loaded 500 rounds last night of 120 Bergers, 123 Lapuas, and 120 Nosler BT's), checking each load for function, and had no difficulties at all. None were in the lands or had any difficulty chambering.
Admittedly, I have 4000+ rounds down the pipe, so maybe I have a little erosion helping me out, but I've loaded everything the same since I got the rifle 3 years ago!
How do they shoot, is that lost powder room causing any velocity or accuracy issues?
Bill
I load all my 123's at mag length, and have no problems, (I loaded 500 rounds last night of 120 Bergers, 123 Lapuas, and 120 Nosler BT's), checking each load for function, and had no difficulties at all. None were in the lands or had any difficulty chambering.
Admittedly, I have 4000+ rounds down the pipe, so maybe I have a little erosion helping me out, but I've loaded everything the same since I got the rifle 3 years ago!
How do they shoot, is that lost powder room causing any velocity or accuracy issues?
Bill
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.