AR Ballistic Comparisons - Page 3

ar15barrels · #81 07-07-2013, 8:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xcountryrider

Did the good Dr. tell you AR -15's were anemic?

No, but compared to cartridges burning 40+ grains of powder, it's easy to see on your own...

taperxz · #82 07-07-2013, 8:40 AM

O M G!

This? AGAIN???

taperxz · #83 07-07-2013, 8:42 AM

At least I can add that laughter is a very healthy thing for everyone.

AGGRO · #84 07-07-2013, 8:46 AM

I am thoroughly confused. I do know I ain't touching no 16 inch barrel for hunting

toby · #85 07-07-2013, 9:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xcountryrider

Good explanation of theory of why the 6.8 leaves the muzzle faster. Problem is thats not the whole story, this chart we have shows the Grendel more effective at the muzzle do to the fact that it does more damage at impact as expressed with HITS. So while the 6.8 is initially traveling faster what is does once it hits the deer is what counts and the 6.5 does more damage from the muzzle out.

I thought I was getting it or at least what you were believing, wrong on my part but now I know for sure where you stand on this........over the edge, dude you just fell off the planet on this one....

taperxz · #86 07-07-2013, 9:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toby

I thought I was getting it or at least what you were believing, wrong on my part but now I know for sure where you stand on this........over the edge, dude you just fell off the planet on this one....

LOL!!! You need to come back to the hunt forum and hide out with us from XCR.

taperxz · #87 07-07-2013, 9:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xcountryrider

Good explanation of theory of why the 6.8 leaves the muzzle faster. Problem is thats not the whole story, this chart we have shows the Grendel more effective at the muzzle do to the fact that it does more damage at impact as expressed with HITS. So while the 6.8 is initially traveling faster what is does once it hits the deer is what counts and the 6.5 does more damage from the muzzle out.

Put the bottle down and back away from the keyboard.

ar15barrels · #88 07-07-2013, 11:31 AM

I like turtles.

russ69 · #89 07-07-2013, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

I like turtles.

Desert, amphibious, or the candy?

rabagley · #90 07-07-2013, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

I have both 6.5grenade and 6.8spc.
I like to take my 6.5grenade remote controller with me hunting, but I use 308 cartridge in my rifle because both the 6.5grenade and the 6.8spc are anemic hunting cartridges best left to arguing between internet commandos...

I see Randall has already been here. I'll just put it out there that emacs wipes the floor with vim.

rabagley · #91 07-07-2013, 1:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xcountryrider

Interesting opinion coming from a guy wanting to sell AR barrels. You'll never have my business and probably most reading this as well.

He made me an amazing 6.5 Grendel barrel (24" Rock blank). Thing shoots so much better than me I feel bad shooting it. If I lived in SoCal, he'd be helping me with my shrouded suppressed 300BLK (well, except for the suppressor thing). If you are within driving distance of Randall, you're a moron if you don't give him your AR work.

When it comes to AR's, Randall has forgotten significantly more than most people on this board have ever learned. I'm willing to bet that includes you.

If I were you, I'd walk away from this thread. Even if people accept your numbers, the way you argue is alienating people instead of convincing them. I agreed with your conclusion when I came into the thread (IMHO, 6.5 Grendel is a significantly more interesting/somewhat more useful round than 6.8 SPC) but the way you're arguing has me wishing you weren't on the same side with me.

Xcountryrider · #92 07-07-2013, 1:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabagley

I see Randall has already been here. I'll just put it out there that emacs wipes the floor with vim.

He he

Xcountryrider · #93 07-07-2013, 1:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabagley

He made me an amazing 6.5 Grendel barrel (24" Rock blank). Thing shoots so much better than me I feel bad shooting it. If I lived in SoCal, he'd be helping me with my shrouded suppressed 300BLK (well, except for the suppressor thing). If you are within driving distance of Randall, you're a moron if you don't give him your AR work.

When it comes to AR's, Randall has forgotten significantly more than most people on this board have ever learned. I'm willing to bet that includes you.

If I were you, I'd walk away from this thread. Even if people accept your numbers, the way you argue is alienating people instead of convincing them. I agreed with your conclusion when I came into the thread (IMHO, 6.5 Grendel is a significantly more interesting/somewhat more useful round than 6.8 SPC) but the way you're arguing has me wishing you weren't on the same side with me.

When people can't win by logic they attack. A few folks on this thread are against hunting with AR's at all. That includes taperxv and the vlib guy and the AR barrel dude. They are only here to troll. That's leaves a few other folks that are actually interested in the topic. These same trolls have accused me of being biased for the 6.8SPC on a different thread. I'm just looking at the data and making a case on what it shows.

Xcountryrider · #94 07-07-2013, 1:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toby

I thought I was getting it or at least what you were believing, wrong on my part but now I know for sure where you stand on this........over the edge, dude you just fell off the planet on this one....

Sorry if i confused you. What i'm saying is the Grendel has a higher HITS score at the muzzle even though the 6.8SPC is faster at the muzzle. HITS is a measure of the killing power of the round at a given velocity.

vliberatore · #95 07-07-2013, 1:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xcountryrider

When people can't win by logic they attack. A few folks on this thread are against hunting with AR's at all. That includes taperxv and the vlib guy and the AR barrel dude. They are only here to troll. That's leaves a few other folks that are actually interested in the topic. These same trolls have accused me of being biased for the 6.8SPC on a different thread. I'm just looking at the data and making a case on what it shows.

I hunt 'yotes with my AR...

Xcountryrider · #96 07-07-2013, 1:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGGRO

I am thoroughly confused. I do know I ain't touching no 16 inch barrel for hunting

Agreed. I used the Hornady 120ish SST as a comparison because its the only factory ammo that is manufactured that is of similar grain for 6.8SPC and 6.5mm Grendel. The data was for 16in so thats what i used. That said hunting with a 16in 6.8SPC is more common than with the Grendel that tends to benefit more from a longer barrel.

toby · #97 07-07-2013, 1:50 PM

Not confused at all but I think you are. BC's are not all that kills animals, good hit's with the proper caliber works a lot better.

taperxz · #98 07-07-2013, 1:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xcountryrider

When people can't win by logic they attack. A few folks on this thread are against hunting with AR's at all. That includes taperxv and the vlib guy and the AR barrel dude. They are only here to troll. That's leaves a few other folks that are actually interested in the topic. These same trolls have accused me of being biased for the 6.8SPC on a different thread. I'm just looking at the data and making a case on what it shows.

You should refrain from saying things that you know nothing about. I have killed many animals with my modest collection of AR's.

Since you keep hanging on damage done from a bullet, perhaps you could share with all you first hand knowledge of this by showing pics of the animals you shot with these rounds.

Or are you still hiking with a rifle these days

Xcountryrider · #99 07-07-2013, 2:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taperxz

You should refrain from saying things that you know nothing about. I have killed many animals with my modest collection of AR's.

Since you keep hanging on damage done from a bullet, perhaps you could share with all you first hand knowledge of this by showing pics of the animals you shot with these rounds.

Or are you still hiking with a rifle these days

You spent two months arguing against hunting with AR's so please go **&^%%$##%&&!!!!!!!!!!!

taperxz · #**100** 07-07-2013, 2:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xcountryrider

You spent two months arguing against hunting with AR's so please go **&^%%$##%&&!!!!!!!!!!!

No I didn't. I and others were simply pointing out your mis information, lack of experience, insisting on posting you tube videos of infomercials as a weak way to educate and the fact that you refuse to show pics of game you've killed to back up your wild ideas of theses poor choice of hunting rounds. Both of which are some of the least popular to hunt with.

taperxz · #**101** 07-07-2013, 2:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xcountryrider

You spent two months arguing against hunting with AR's so please go **&^%%$##%&&!!!!!!!!!!!

Careful what you say or insinuate. You know what happened in the hunt forum.

Xcountryrider · #**102** 07-07-2013, 2:34 PM

"Do you live in some kind of alternative world or do you own stock in some company that makes 6.8? Your posts are getting old and boring. Not to mention biased and not true."

Taperxz

taperxz · #**103** 07-07-2013, 2:41 PM

Yes I agree in our differing opinions on rounds to use for hunting.

That has nothing to do with the AR platform though. I think the AR rifle is great. Just not in the same way you present your mis information on the rounds you advocate. Let's face it, all you do is copy and paste comparing apples to oranges.

Xcountryrider · #**104** 07-07-2013, 2:41 PM

Now that taperxv is here and trolling i'm done with this thread.

taperxz · #**105** 07-07-2013, 2:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xcountryrider

"Do you live in some kind of alternative world or do you own stock in some company that makes 6.8? Your posts are getting old and boring. Not to mention biased and not true."

Taperxz

Oh, and I stand by this^^^ statement. It is exactly what it appears to be.

You know all you're doing is trying to drive traffic to your FB page anyway.

toby · #**106** 07-07-2013, 2:43 PM

This is a pissing contest and someone is squatting.

advocatusdiaboli · #**107** 07-07-2013, 3:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabagley

I see Randall has already been here. I'll just put it out there that emacs wipes the floor with vim.

<kidding>
What, not man enough to just use vi or too much of a Luddite to use Eclipse?
</kidding>

Now back to the 6.5 Grendel vs 6.8 SPC Cage Match Mixed Cartridge Martial Arts main attraction. And the HITS just keep on coming.

advocatusdiaboli · #**108** 07-07-2013, 3:32 PM

It's interesting to me to watch the debates about AR short-action platform hunting effectiveness because with my limited knowledge I reached the same conclusions as Randall about cartridge size from a purely practical (cost, availability, flexibility) standpoint. I'd favor .308 or .270 for medium-sized game because I think the ammunition would be a lot cheaper and more available and reloading offers a lot more options.

But that said, I understand why some want to use an AR just as some want to use black powder or bows or even atlatls. It different and more of a challenge. And some of them love to immerse themselves in the technologies and favor one tech over another. And we then get into debates about the tech. If Yee and the others get their way, we'll all be shooting bolt-action long guns in a few years anyway.

Now back to lurking...

Metal God · #**109** 07-07-2013, 3:53 PM

I know you left but here is where I get confused with the hit points thing . The bullet in question is the sst and for the most part the same weight . Because it's the same bullet it will do the same thing in tissue so how did Hornady come up with the smaller bullet will do more damage then the bigger bullet . Yes they are very smart over there but they are just numbers being spewed out of a calc that none of us understands how it come up with the info . Saying it's better cus it's thinner , longer and the calc says so is not good enough . We all have been going off mass and energy transfer for many years as are gauge to what works best . It has been proven over and over again in theroy , math and in the field the the bigger the hole and more energy deposited is what works best . I think until you give us exact reasons why and or how a lighter thinner bullet hitting a target with less energy is more effective we all are not going to budge . At this point just saying it's because Hornady's H.I.T.S calc says so is not good enough . Until you show me why they ignore the extra 250 ft.lbs of energy and a lager diameter bullet I will have issues with this .

Like you said or I said they are very smart over there so what your saying may be true , I just can't see it .

advocatusdiaboli · #**110** 07-07-2013, 3:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metal God

Like you said or I said they are very smart over there so what your saying may be true , I just can't see it .

They have good engineers like most ammunition and firearms manufacturers. But HITS is probably more a product of the marketing department based some loosely applied physics from engineering with a bit of waving of hands and P.T Barnum for good measure in my experience with such things. But my suspicions are just that—suspicions based on how companies market their products. I'll like to see the formula for calculating this value—it would be an interesting exercise to dissect it.

DirtyDave · #**111** 07-07-2013, 4:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xcountryrider

No not exactly bullet shape effects what happens when the bullet hits the target as well as what happens on the way to the target.

You know this from all the Deer and Pigs you have killed???

This guy got banned from the hunting section for this crap.
He tried to do a similar comparison with the 6.8 and a .270 Winchester. Saying they were close or even that the 6.8 was better hahahaha

ar15barrels · #**112** 07-07-2013, 4:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xcountryrider

A few folks on this thread are against hunting with AR's at all.
That includes taperxv and the vlib guy and the AR barrel dude.

Where did I ever say I was against hunting with an AR?
An AR chambered in 204 ruger makes an awesome squirrel gun.
I highly recommend one.

rabagley · #**113** 07-07-2013, 5:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGGRO

I am thoroughly confused. I do know I ain't touching no 16 inch barrel for hunting

It all depends on the specifics of the round.

For supersonic 300BLK, you don't get a lot of extra velocity for anything beyond 16". For subsonic 300BLK, you get infinitesimal extra velocity after 10" and start losing velocity between 12-16" (depending on the specific load).

I love my 16" AR in 300BLK for hunting medium game. I'm currently building a 10" 300BLK AR with a 9mm suppressor for 50 yard hunting here in Washington (there's a shroud to bring the barrel length out to 16").

pdq_wizzard · #**114** 07-07-2013, 5:09 PM

WOW is Xcountryrider actually PCH ?????

this looks like his kind of thread .....

advocatusdiaboli · #**115** 07-07-2013, 5:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyDave

You know this from all the Deer and Pigs you have killed???

This guy got banned from the hunting section for this crap.
He tried to do a similar comparison with the 6.8 and a .270 Winchester. Saying they were close or even that the 6.8 was better hahahaha

Well, despite the fact that he seems to be a gadfly and plays loose with some facts, technically speaking he is correct that bullet shape affects flight and energy deterioration due to air drag, nutation, precession, etc. blah, blah, blah. that's the physics of ballistics—you don't have to shoot an animal know a higher ballistic coefficient means a better performing one in flight the longer the distance. But that's not the whole story as Randall pointed out earlier in the thread.

What the bullet does with that retained energy when it hits a target is more an art than science (hence the perennial 9mm vs. 40 S&W vs .45 ACP bickering). So you are partially right too just as he is. His bullet retains mroe energy while the 6.8 starts with a bit more but loses it faster and in the end, bullet shape and composition determines how much of that energy is transferred to the target and how much is wasted punching through and out the other end. I have no idea how those two calibers and loads compare, but I do know a bit about ballistics.

taperxz · #**116** 07-07-2013, 5:58 PM

Hunting rounds are not designed to come out the other side. They mushroom, rip, tear and create havoc internally.

DirtyDave · #**117** 07-07-2013, 6:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

Where did I ever say I was against hunting with an AR?

From our experience in the Hunting forum, if you disagree with him on anything, that must mean you are Anti AR, Anti 2A, and a Democrat

ar15barrels · #**118** 07-07-2013, 6:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metal God

Hornady's H.I.T.S calc says...

I'm pretty sure the hornady hits calculator thing is just a simple way to compare different loads (both exterior ballistics and terminal ballistics) in a single factor.
It is most likely for people that don't even know the difference between the two and it is a way to rank a complete loaded cartridge.
That way, when the guy is standing in front of the ammo shelf trying to decide on 130gr or 180gr load, he has something on the box to help him decide.

It's obviously not for just comparing bullet performance on target as that assumes you know the impact velocity.
The hits factor is combining BC, velocity and energy into a single number.
The issue is that we don't know how they weight each factor.
If you give more weight to a factor that does not matter, you skew the results in favor of some loads, when no real advantage even exists with those loads.

Anyone who knows all these things wouldn't need a simplified (idiot resistant) ranking system to decide what bullet they plan to use...