6.5 Grendell OAL /throat, NO FIGHT please)

[M9Powell]

no one in their sane mind would machine out the face of a bolt.

Bill Alexander

Hmm, so I guess all the thousands of gunsmiths that have opened up bolt-faces from the .473" size of 30-06 & similar ctgs to the .532" size of the belted mags are insane? I know a lot of 6mm PPC converted ARs were converted this way. It didn't pan out very well. I'm not suggesting 6.5 grendels are converted this way if that's what you are thinking. I would hope that you use a bolt originally machined & heat treated to fit the .447" dia of the 7.62 X 39 based family of ctgs. I guess I'll have to be added to the list of the insane. I just had a bolt-face opened on a 98 Mauser action that was originally a commercial Mauser in 270 that uses a .473 rim to accommodate a wildcat I'm working on
based on the 376 steyr which has a rim dia of .494". The gunsmith that did the work is one of the most respected in the country & he didn't see a problem with it, since he has already converted many to accommodate the .532" rim of the belted mags. M9

 

[dantec]

my motivation is very simple mister Alexander

I dont understand WHY following my proposal of FREE pressure test in my lab, share a reamer drawing for test purpose make a so big problem ? and specialy when that for these pressures trials will be done without any money charge for YOU and without why not any public or customer possible reading ?

for reader information off of the begining of this story
:
I work since now three years on a pressure system with strain gages and a special design profile barrel, close to Lame equation ) to make more trials I make comparaison between family case and I have start to work on 6PPC so 6.5 Grendell, same case family ) was a perfect study to compare side by side two case with the same base diameter and NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS

MY GOAL : Is to develop a pressure barrel system solution able to get TRUE PRESSURE values close to piezo gauge but without the need of piezo barrel and by the way allow small company to be able to get serious pressure data and make chamber design comparaison without the request of costly piezo barrel and more costly piezo gauge and publish a complete article in Precision Shooting

so I try to understand myself where can be located the problem or perhaps what secret is hide by the fact to doesn t want to share, even with a contract for NOT RESALE and keep datas confidential if that necessary ) a simple reamer drawing

I agree you have make a licence proposal without any information on true cost of your licence BUT IF, logical word ) I can remenber you I really still doesn't understand why I am contrain to pay YOU something to give YOU a report of trial for FREE .

and when I read that

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=667

I just need to search more deeply on 6.5 Grendell pressure true facts and publish soon trials results I am sure that will be very interesting to read .

ON your personal inquiry of WHY I DO THAT

I am just interesting by engineer facts and not by making $$$$ by all the way possible even to sale unchecked product, the fact to order case from Lapua is not from my point of view a proof of any thing, with a lot of $$$$ anybody can order case from Lapua with his name on headstamp and ???, italian 30/357 revolver ammo was in the past a perfect exemple of this .

Note : I have at the begining write than I doesn t want or need fight on this board but it seem that to want to get true informations on 6.5 Grendel even accuracy report information on two diffrent loads is a true probelm ?

It s seem that is not possible on the 6.5 Grendel subject and that very strange to see how high is your energy to doesn't want to share trues information even if that not reamer drawings

good shooting and sorry to spoil this board with seely NO WAY posts but that surely help to get true informations

DAN TEC

 

[TX65]

no one in their sane mind would machine out the face of a bolt.

Bill Alexander

Hmm, so I guess all the thousands of gunsmiths that have opened up bolt-faces from the .473" size of 30-06 & similar ctgs to the .532" size of the belted mags are insane? I know a lot of 6mm PPC converted ARs were converted this way. It didn't pan out very well. I'm not suggesting 6.5 grendels are converted this way if that's what you are thinking. I would hope that you use a bolt originally machined & heat treated to fit the .447" dia of the 7.62 X 39 based family of ctgs. I guess I'll have to be added to the list of the insane. I just had a bolt-face opened on a 98 Mauser action that was originally a commercial Mauser in 270 that uses a .473 rim to accommodate a wildcat I'm working on
based on the 376 steyr which has a rim dia of .494". The gunsmith that did the work is one of the most respected in the country & he didn't see a problem with it, since he has already converted many to accommodate the .532" rim of the belted mags. M9

The 6.5 Grendel bolts are new production made specifically for the Grendel's head diameter and then properly heat treated. In addition, the extractor is also made for the Grendel.

One of the issues with 6 PPC's failing was due to the elevated bolt thrust levels as people sought to push the Sierra 107 faster and faster. Unfortunately, in 7.62x39 bolts, there are the Colt bolts, there are the DPMS bolts and then there are others out there. Colt for many years only offered the complete bolt and bolt carrier as a part for many hundreds of dollars so often people ended up with bolts other then COLT. In the end, the wide variety of bolts were not designed to handle the pressures and the resulting bolt thust people were running. Some made or make the mistake of machining open a .223 bolt and I have even heard of people machining open 7.62x39 bolts to accomodate cases like the 6 BR. Doing this effects the surface hardness of the bolt and in the case of machining it even wider, the material left in the bolt to handle the pressures and bolt thrust people end up generating. The result is often locking lugs breaking off.

Functioning in one off guns was a major problem with the 6 PPC and those that made a 22 PPC found the problem was even worse due to the larger shoulder area on the 22 PPC. As you have noted, the barrel extensions were entirely wrong and then when combined with either trying to use a .223 magazine or one of the many attempts at making a 7.62x39 magazine led to a tempermental beast.


The 6.5 Grendel was a total solution in the AR15, it combines new parts in the bolt, extractor, barrel extension and magazines all designed to work together. The other part of this equation has been development of the gas system and the chamber to work with the wide range of 6.5mm bullets in magazine length loadings. Of course, recognizing the application in highpower competition, the chamber had to be able to accomodate bullets such as the 130 VLD for long seated ammo to gain velocity all while keeping pressures in check.

 

[M9Powell]

The 6.5 Grendel bolts are new production made specifically for the Grendel's head diameter and then properly heat treated. In addition, the extractor is also made for the Grendel.

Though I'm sure someone will be on here shortly to correct me that they are made out of some classified ubersecrect metal alloy gotten out of ore from a meteorite & forged & machined on the eve of the summer solstice by brownies & they have some secret machining process. I'd hazard a guess that they are 7.62 X 39 AR bolts which have been a std. catalog item for years & should work fine in this application. M9

 

[rcw3]

As I read this thread I am troubled by what I see and read. The 6.5 Grendel is a great cartridge for the AR-15 and other rifles, and I feel that Alexander Arms has done a great thing bringing something new to market for shooters to use and enjoy.

What is right is a positive and honest discourse concerning the 6.5 Grendel by all involved.

Robert Whitley

 

[dantec]

dear RCW3

We doesn t speak of cartridge, cartridge is assembly of components, after the fact to shoot the cartridge is another story, that the same than the 308 WIN family

from surplus ammo in surplus mil specs chamber
to high grage ammo in tight match chamber
to dedicated specialized ammo, from light hunter flat base from heavy VLD ) shoot in special purpose chamber

you can read that a 308 WIN and 308 Win is a very good cartridge for sure but but what 308 Win exactly ?

We speak of chamberings, with a S because it s seem there are more than one chambering in 6.5 Grendel ) and for unknow reasons original AR15 6.5 Grendel is a secret and with this secret chambering that posible to get:

high velocity with heavy bullet
keep pressure at 50 KPSI level, max pressure or average pressure ?)
and get accuracy

so

why need another chambering for bolt action IF, logical word ) the AR15 chambering is so good ?

why I doesn t see target results, accuracy ) made with an AR15 in 6.5 Grendell with a full report on ammao, OAL, bullet, load velocity, temp ) rather to see tight group with bolt action in 6.5 Grendell

why doesn t want to share usefull and important information as bullet jump, bullet jump are one of the most important factor for accuracy as sson as all the other components are take from quality brand, Lapua for case, big major for primer and powder ...) and bullet jump is very important for safety concern to because pressure vary a lot with this parameter.

I have never write that 6.5 Grendell was or is junk, I have just ask tecnical questions I have never get clear answers except you need to pay for ?, unfortunetly I am not in the US so get a 6.5 Grendel upper is impossible
But I doesn't agree to read :
Because lapua make case that a proven solution
or because some guy reach the speed of the light with heavy bullet that safe and the solution of the century.
and I dont agree to get fight assson as I ask a question, the beginning of this post was does all bulet shape, old and new match bullet ) are compatible in accuracy level, nothing more and nothing less

My point of view all this story is that a very strange way to promote a new caliber.

6BR

 

[rcw3]

Dantec

Here's how I see it:

Alexander Arms invested a ton of money to bring the 6.5 Grendel to the marketplace and work things out. They want to recoup their investment and make a profit which they are entitled to do in America. They feel they have proprietary information relative to the 6.5 Grendel which they feel they need to retain and not disclose. After all why should they invest all the money and effort, just to give it all away for free so that everyone else can copy what they have and go into business as a competitor?

TX65 is the principal of Competition Shooting Sports who is a main vendor and proponent of 6.5 Grendel products so this should give you a good idea of why those postings leave you with that frustrating feeling you are not getting the whole story. Frankly I think these postings are not helping, but that's just my opinion.

From your postings it seems to me you feel you should be given what Alexander Arms considers its proprietary information. I don't know what your agenda is and why it's so important to you to get this, but if I was Alexander Arms I would be concerned too. How do they know what you have for testing equipment and whether what you have will provide correct information relative to their cartridge? You're a smart guy, take one of their brass cases, reverse engineer your own 6.5 Grendel and pressure test it to your heart's delight and publish your findings.

That's my take on things here, and in my opinion, all this swirling controversy is tainting what I see as a great new addition to the shooting marketplace. Keep it nice and give it a rest!

Robert Whitley

 

[Bill]

Reading Mr.Dantec's post carefully he keeps repeating the work "true". By inference he is therefore calling me a liar and is also implying that all information concerning the Grendel is falsified.

I am indeed now somewhat concerned about this rabid need to expend so much time, money and energy on a cartridge, that we already publish load data for, have dies available and are working with a number of propellent manufacturers to present yet further load data.

And while I would wish to respect Mr. Dantec's request that this thread does not descend into an augument I have noticed that he has neglected to inform those who might be reading, that his initial approach regarded him taking the Grendel and submitting it for CIP under his companies name.

In the spirit of this board which should be for better things and rubbish such as this should remain the preserve of AR15.dimwit, I would ask that the moderator either lock or remove this thread forthwith.

Bill Alexander

 

[dantec]

Dear mister Alexander

I have NOT write you are a liar or anything else I perhaps write a poor english I agree that

but my concern is just to say :

when I have request true technical information on 6.5 Grendel and I get no clear answers from your company or from Mister Arnes.
When I have try to understand more deeply true technical facts on 6.5 Grendel the results was the same and I have even be insulted by some unknow forum member just because I am a french citizen ?? or surely more !!!
I have make you a proposal of real pressure trials FOR FREE so where is the problem or WHERE /WHAT the risq for you ? you have take all the time as possible to !!! try to sale me a licence !!! I have already write and say that unacceptable to sale something to get something FREE !
I still doesn t understand WHY make pressure trials on 6.5 Grendel is a so big problem ?
I still doesn t understand why velocity are not link with pressure datas and chamber design because you seems to have sevreal chamber design ? and chamber design change pressure curve ; right isn't it
I still doesn t understand why you claims to have make thousand shots of 6.5 Grendell test ammos without to be able to publish true pressure curve ?
I still doesn t understand why IF you have the best 6.5 Grendell chamber design, stay a very protected secret at this time you need severals other chambering to get better performances?
I still doesn t understand why you doesn t want to share usefull informations not only for me but for all shooters, I am not interesting to read that the best of ? that over perform ? I am interesting by datas ONLY !
I still doesnt understand why when I post on a board for ONE technical point question as :
WHAT is the gain or losse in accuracy to shoot lod or new bullet ogive IN THE SAME GRENDEL chamber that request to make lot of noise and get at least no answer at all ? to a it s seem very simple question load X make X group size and load Y make Y group size in the same chambering /barrel
I still doesn t understand Why you try by all the way to show as a dummy or as a unhonnest people as only answer to simple questions ?
I still doesn t understand why you Mister Alexander doesn t try or want to find a technical solution to this problem or ven honnest solution ?
I still not understand why you say that lapua will make pressure test, lapua use only Vita powder and by the way not the broadest choice in USA available brand so why in this case other powder company doesn t publish load with pressure data get in a true piezo barrel, as Hodgon )they do that for 6.8 SPC

from my point of view for a ammo designer and ammo maker that not a impossible thing to publish TRUE DATAS and I really don't care to read that Lapua have or will ....... where is the CIP file ??? 6.5x47 LAPUA is already available isn t it and 6XC will be too soon

as bullet weight/load in powder /weather datas /velocity and chamber pressure link by the way to a fixed chamber drawing with all specs, because make test in one design and make adds for another is a bit questionable

I works since year on pressure facts, pressure tests, chamber design I am really tired to need to spend no much energy to explain the basics of cartridge dev and see some much energy to avoid serious answering.

nothing more nothing less mister Alexander, and if you try to make money I respect USA is graet country to make money that but if you try to show me as the dummy of the year I never accept that Mister Aexander

as conclusion
that make lot of noise to avoid sharring a simple reamer drawing even under confidential contract, AND NOT licence sale for dummy ) for use ONLY in pressure chamber test, but If you enjoy make noise and more noise why not .

my pressure trials are now in process and I will not see any problem to publish them with all details an options as barrel lenght throat lenght, bullet jump and anything you can dream so at this tme I will never need your secret reamer chamber but I will be very happy to check this drawing when that will a public information in CIP file, I am not sure that your specails ecret reamer drawing /chamber will change a lot the pressure trails results

and a last comment try to make remove this posts and lock the subject is a very simple way to close the story without the need to make true answers

I have write I doesn t want fight, but it s seem that not possible on 6.5 Grendel but now time is running for pressures test publishing

with all my best mister Alexander.

DAN TEC

 

[Bill]

Dear Mr. Dantec

How about we start this on a different basis.

I have read your post very carefully and will try to reply in a brief and objective manner.

i)I operate a single defined chamber design that is specific to the semi automatic rifles that I build and sell to make my living. I am very happy with this chamber as it has the ability to adapt to shoot bullets from 6 dia ogive to 19 dia ogive all loaded to magazine length with very good accuracy. I will qualify accuracy as a relative term for a semi automatic rifle ie 0.3 MOA. While I regard this as excellent for the rifles I am building I would not consider this for a bench rest gun and an alternative much tighter chamber should be developed. I have no interest in such a design as I am not a good enough shot to compete.

ii)I operate a very extensive pressure testing facility and hold a total of three different barrels just for the 6.5 caliber in question. I do not need anyone to perform additional tests I am quite happy with the results I have produced and I feel that in the light of the fact I pay the very substantial liability insurance to manufacture and sell both rifles and ammunition my results have a minor grasp on reality.

iii)Consumer choice. I do not care how good your offer is or that it is free. I do not want your results as I have my own.

iv)You openly proclaim that you are a designer of ammunition and by remit chambers. As above I have a very good chamber I am very happy with. As your first question is how do we get accuracy from many bullets at magazine length, and we are in effect in competition, why should I solve your problem. You state that you do not wish to take a licence but you now want to know quickly how to solve the problem you have.

v)Refering again to your position as a designer. How can I be assured of your impartiality regarding your results. Given a free market economy would it not make sense for you to try and create the demise of the Grendel and then submit your own product ie 6.5 DTC? My My it appears that you are already trying.

vi)I already publish many loads that are safe to use in my rifles <50,000 psi. While I freely admit that I am far from being able to show all the possible combinations of bullets and powders, I am working with the powder companies to expand this base as quickly as possible.

vii)What is the advantage of you publishing your results which at best are not calibrated. You state you use a strain guage method but without calibration ammunition you can only approach an answer. If you are wrong you are encouraging many people to put themselves in danger with a load that has to much pressure for the gun it is intended to be used in.

iix)You have a right to ask technical questions. I have a right to not tell you. It does not concern me that you are disappointed/unhappy/upset.

ix)I am informed that you have published two chamber prints which are being distributed and represented as a Dantec chamber which you can use for Grendel. In the absence of pressure results for factory ammunition in your chamber do you not think this is somewhat irresponsible. A gun maker competing directly with myself might think it is a good idea not to have to ask Alexander Arms and the result could well injure someone. Or you might be trying to stop Alexander Arms making any money so you can sell your design?

x)I am awaiting the arrival of clear copies of your prints which I obtained at the SHOT show. My initial inspection indicates that your design has a number of flaws. Trust me you really need the licence. Your current designs will either group like a shot shell or violently explode possibly killing several bystanders.

xi)Let us for an instance assume that you did take the licence and that I furnished you with a complete technical data pack which would include not only the chamber design but also the correct set up for the pressure barrel internal geometry. I would still not be interested to have you perform pressure tests and publish load data. You are not in the position to be able to judge the extremities of the tolerance that a powder manufacturer may operate within. This is why I am relying on the powder makers to do much of this work.

x)I take it from your action regarding your prints and your comment above that you are going to publish pressure data from your chambers regardless.

xi)Given the above, I will excercise my right to inform anyone who might be even vaguely interested that your testing at best wrong, that your pressures results are bad and that your chamber designs truly suck.


I do not know how to express myself nor to clarify this situation any better. However at the risk of repeating myself I will state as follows.

I DO NOT NEED YOU TO DO ANY,bad)TESTING ON THE 6.5 GRENDEL, NOR DO I HAVE ANY INTENTION OF JUSTIFYING MYSELF TO YOU.

If you wish to satisfy you own idle curiosity I am happy about this, but do not expect me to simply hand out information because you demand it.

I find this public display somewhat distastefull. I will not be posting again.

Bill Alexander