Talk:6.5mm Grendel/Archive 1

Performance cruft
I don't even know where to begin with the performance section. People have been piling sentences in there and it's starting to read like a schizophrenic hodgepodge. I'll get to this later if someone else doesn't first. Crimson30 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Solidpoint
You changed the first line from "The 6.5 Grendel (or 6.5mm Grendel) is a fairly new rifle cartridge that was developed by Bill Alexander of Alexander Arms and Arne Brennan of Competition Shooting Sports." to "The 6.5 Grendel (or 6.5mm Grendel) came into existence in 2002 with the production of the first brass cartridges by Lapua." Problem is, your sentence doesn't tell the average layman what exactly the Grendel is (though the original could use a little work, now that I look at it). It mostly says it came into being... but what is it, really? It's good info, but should go into the History & Development section. Remember, this is an encyclopedia.

Also, in regards to this quote of yours from the forums at www.65grendel.com:

"Wikipedia could be a great sales tool."

Yes, it could. But that's not what Wikipedia is for. Again, it's an encyclopedia, not a sales advert. A quote from Wikipedia itself:

"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Spam."

Remember, it's an encyclopedia.... the article should be a neutral source of information, written in as professional and encyclopedic a manner as possible. Crimson30 03:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You have removed important information by removing the citation to Lapua creating the first Grendel-specific brass because what separates a wildcat from an actual production cartridge is the production of brass to a new cartridge-specific standard. Until Bill got the first brass from Lapua the Grendel was just a wildcat round. After that all development bore directly on what is currently the Grendel cartridge.


 * You also have removed the reference to the 6PPC in favor of the 6.5PPC. While not technically incorrect, Arne has made it abundantly clear in his article on the 65Grendel site that he started by considering the 6PPC and the SMK 107 in particular. Beyond this the 6.5PPC is itself an outgrowth so it is more accurate in point of historical fact and in terms of the reach-back of the lineage of the Grendel cartridge to attibute it to the 6PPC than the 6.5PPC. Arne was a competition shooter.


 * The second sentence states very clearly that the Grendel is an intermediate caliber rifle round. Beyond that the user only need look to the top of the page and notice that this page entry is in the assault rifle section to know it is an assault rifle cartridge. In general, I am saying more in less space than you are. That is typical of my writing style and takes a lot of work to make happen. It also added two important dates. The date the first brass was made, and the date the rifle, as a system using the Grendel cartridge, was first demonstrated. All of that information is now lost.


 * To the extent interested readers decide to check out the product, Wiki can be a sales tool. That is not what the Wiki caution is referencing. It is referencing attempts to use Wiki as an advertising site by spammers. Nothing I have written or seen here is of that ilk and I for one think it would be counter-productive to allow that.


 * You have deleted many paragraphs out of this page contributed by a handful of contributors and the page is worse for the effort. The page I found this morning was full of grammar errors, bereft of useful information - save the links - and yet you feel compelled to prune more? There are other Wiki entries that go on for 10-20 pages so I don't see the point in your relentless pruning of others contributions. I will say this. What goes around comes around so be careful. Solidpoint


 * 1. I removed that first bit about the Lapua brass because it doesn't belong in the intro. It is part of the development cycle.  You are correct that I should have moved it instead of deleting it, but I had hoped you would notice the categorization of the article and appropriately re-weave it into the Development & History section.  You are correct, however, in that it was my error not to mention this specific edit on the talk page and my reasons for doing so.


 * 2. Based on this quote by Mr. Alexander:


 * "The 6.5 Grendel is an evolution of the 6.5mm PPC optimized to seat 107- to 130-grain match bullets at an overall loaded cartridge length of 2.255 inches."


 * I used the following sentence in the article:


 * "This cartridge is an evolution of Dr. Lou Palmisano's 6.5 mm PPC case."


 * which you changed to:


 * "The cartridge is an evolution of Dr. Lou Palmisano's 6mm PPC case which has dominated competition shooting for 20 years."


 * I think it was fair to change it back to 6.5mm due to Mr. Alexander's statement, unless you have reference to something else.


 * 3. On this point, you and I simply disagree. I find the information to be more appropriate elsewhere in the article and not the stuff of an introduction.  The intro, as it currently stands, goes right to the punch as to exactly what the Grendel is in only 2 sentences:


 * "The 6.5 Grendel (or 6.5 mm Grendel) is a 6.5 mm caliber rifle cartridge that was developed in 2002 by Bill Alexander of Alexander Arms and Arne Brennan of Competition Shooting Sports. This cartridge is an evolution of Dr. Lou Palmisano's PPC case and was designed with the intent of providing a low recoil, high accuracy, long-range cartridge for the AR-15 platform."


 * It is a fine introduction with no sloppy sentences thrown in. The sentence you appended:


 * "The first demonstration of a 6.5 Grendel prototype rifle took place during an event at the Blackwater training center in May of 2003."


 * My view: It looks awkward and out of place and is more appropriate in the development section.


 * 4. I will do my best to justify any pruning in the talk page from now on so that we can properly discuss it. Most of my pruning has been: removing clunky sentences that don't belong in the section they are added (i.e. "The Grendel is a direct 6.8 SPC competitor" in the Performance section, which should probably mentioned in a more historical context) and what I believe to be excessive load data (The anonymous edit adding velocity at the muzzle, 300 yards, 500 yards, 1000 yards.... I believe that this falls well within the "Wikipedia is not a manual guideline").  How about the "see below for more information"?  Of course you can see below for more information!  I don't believe referring to the external links within the article is entirely approriate.  I will admit that pruning is very lazy on my part (note that I gave two weeks warning on the Performance section).  It is not my intent to reduce the size of the article, merely to cut crutfy and clunky additions.  If you would weave information into the appropriate sections, I have no qualm and really, I do appreciate your effort.  I'm not just saying that.  The paragraph that you added to performance, which by the way had little to do with performance, was excellent and well thought out.  Why?  It isn't an amalgamation of random sentences.  It is informative.  As such, I wouldn't dare delete it.


 * And, by the way, to be fair, you deleted a sentence of mine... why? Perhaps because it was clunky and didn't flow? ;)


 * Believe it or not, we have the same goal: make the article better. But, while you are primarily concerned with adding as much information as possible, I am more concerned with presentation and adherence to wikipedia guidelines.  I'd like the article to be well written.  My primary objection is the weeding out of what I perceive to be awkwardly inserted sentences.  In the future, I will try to be less lazy and move and reword more and delete less.


 * Also, what grammar errors was the page full of? I can see a missing comma... but little else.  You do realize that your edit history is accessible to all, right?  I see no grammar corrections made by you.


 * Crimson30 17:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Development & History
The first sentence I stuck in there doesn't flow well into the next, but I'd like to think someone could expand upon it. The rest of it is very nice, by the way. Crimson30 03:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Timeline
It looks awkward at the moment with only one entry, but I believe with time, it will look decent. I meant to preserve the information while creating a place for random dates and information. Crimson30 03:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I would just like to reiterate: Please use the timeline! Add dates of significant developments as appropriate.  Crimson30 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Derrived from the 22 PPC and 6PPC
''In the past, one of the most notable alternative cartridges for the AR15 has been the 22 and 6mm PPC. In reviewing these two options, the 22 PPC allowed use of heavy 80-grain bullets needed for 600 yards, but in a magazine length loading. This capability gave a considerable advantage because in theory, one load could be shot across the course simplifying ammunition requirements. However, I didn’t feel the 22 PPC using 80-grain bullets would provide the edge I was seeking and it did not fulfill my hunting capability requirement.

In contrast to the 22 PPC, the 6 PPC was able to fulfill my dual role requirement by using bullets such as the Sierra 107 grain Match King for competition and Nosler Partition bullets in 85, 95 and 100-grain weights for hunting. However, one thing bothered me about the 6 PPC. In my research, I discovered it was necessary to seat the 105-107 grain match bullets back in the case to be within the 2.255-inch length restriction or the front of the magazines needed to be notched to optimally seat the bullet and gain the maximum powder capacity. The thought of notching magazines had zero appeal so before going further with the 6 PPC, I decided to think out of the box.

I knew that Sierra made a 6.5mm 107 grain Match King and Lapua made a 108 grain Scenar and due to the increase in bullet diameter, theses bullets were slightly shorter then their 6mm counterparts. Therefore, use of these 6.5mm bullets would not require seating the bullet back in the case or notching magazines. Interestingly, I found that Lapua also offered a 123-grain Scenar that was the same length as the lighter 108-grain Scenar and had a similar ballistic coefficient to the 6mm 105-107 grain offerings. It became clear that by increasing the caliber to 6.5mm, I could equal the ballistics of the 6 PPC with the 107-grain Sierra and do so without notching magazines or seating the bullet back in the case. In addition, 6.5 mm was easily considered an effective hunting caliber with multiple controlled expansion and polymer tipped bullets in the 100-125 grain weight range available. In theory, it would be a perfect multi use cartridge provided I could equal the velocity the 6 PPC achieved with 105-107 grain match bullets.''

As you can see, the use of the 6.5 did not come into play until well into the development cycle. Solidpoint


 * Where is that a quote from?  Crimson30 16:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a quote from Arne Brennan when he published his work at competitionshooting.com in 2001.

Since I am Arme Brennan, I will clarify for the record that this was an overview of my looking at available alternatives and identifying strengths and weakness of those current alternatives.

The actual determination of 6.5mm and the PPC case came from creating a database of bullets from Sierra, Lapua, Nosler, Hornady and Berger in .224, 6mm, .257, 6.5mm, .270, 7mm and .308. The database created contained details such as ogive length, bearing surface length, boat tail length and other measurements. Then, numerous cases were evaluated including the 221 Firebal, 222 Rem, 223 Rem, 30 Remington, 220 Russian, PPC, 6.5 Carcano and even a BR with a rebated rim. Each bullet dimensions were virtually loaded into each case as manufactured and then a calculation was performed to determine changes made to the case needed to allow use of each bullet. It was finally determined that 6.5mm gave the maximum number bullet options when coupled with a 39mm PPC case compared to other calibers evaluated. Keep in mind, that my work was at minimum designed to create a dual purpose cartridge. First, it had to be superior to the 223 Remington in magazine length only loadings for distances out to 600 yards. Second, that it would be considered an ethical and effective medium game cartridge for hunting in Texas (Thats where I am) using currently available bullets. A third goal or more accurately hope was to create a ballistic twin of the 7.62 NATO in a smaller package that would function in the M16.

While there has been considerable enthusiasm that this is the ideal military cartridge, I will state that it is my opinion that the Department of Defense, who possesses the resources to create brass and projectiles from scratch, can create a much better military cartridge than 6.5 Grendel or 6.5 PPC to fill a defined mission requirement. I have stated that opinion to multiple military officers who have contacted me over the years expressing interest in my work and the developments that resulted from my work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tx65 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Heads up on units
"BTW, do we want to standardize on meters/second, feet/second, yards, meters, ft-lbs or joules?" -- Solidpoint at 65grendel.com

I originally had fps on some article, but a bot came by and quickly changed it to what you now see. If you look at other ammunition articles they have a similar format. I personally don't care, but just thought I'd let you know. Crimson30 23:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Organization
Anyone care to organize the info in the performance section? Perhaps something like:

Performance
 * External Ballistics
 * Terminal Ballistics

If nobody objects, I'm going to have at it (just some moving... I see no need to delete anything).

Very, very nice ballistics chart, btw. Crimson30 05:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Position of Gel Test photos
I just moved the gel shots back to where they were. They should be positioned so that they are immediately to the right of the discussion of them. They don't belong up in the common intro section as that info pertains to all off the gel shots.

Solidpoint 23:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just trying to keep them from dipping down into the Notes and See Also. Crimson30 05:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Crimson,

Yeah, I know what you mean. If you change your font size or page width though the whole thing moves around so the only thing that can be done is position to the right and hope the user figures out they might need to change their settings if the page formatting really bugs them. I use FireFox so it's a mess to me, but I have IE set up with all default settings so I can see what the page looks like to everybody else - or at least those with standard settings.

Btw, have you noticed that Yahoo's home page is now set up to monopolize your entire screen on a wide-screen format laptop? They made this change about 4 months ago and I'd really like to cave someone's head in at Yahoo for taking such a self-important decision but short of using Google News I don't know what can be done. Even with Arial Narrow the damned page won't render in the old standard width format - and they wonder why their stock price is in the toilet relative to Google's? Uhhh, clue one Yahoo. If you are losing eyeballs DON'T go out of your way to piss people off.

Solidpoint 03:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On Yahoo: I can only wonder what sort of user studies, if any, that most major companies/corporations make before implementing a new web design, but I have a feeling that it boils down to designs that appeal to a small numbers of high level exec-types, which are viewed only in one browser, the rest be damned. And bandwidth?  Who cares about people with no bandwidth?  Just make it look nice.


 * And those same people are probably scratching their heads about how a company like Google is so successful. Crimson30 23:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture request
Would anybody have a picture of a 6.5 Grendel lined up next to a 7.62 Soviet? The two cartridges seem very similar, so a visual side-by-side comparison would be rather interesting for this article, methinks. CeeWhy2 12:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look over at www.65grendel.com, there are a multitude of pics in the threads and some in the photo section. Reginhild 09:20, 25 November 2006

Copyright Issues
Several members at www.65grendel.com have given stated permission at that website in the www.65grendel.com forum to post material for them as they do not have the time. http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1239 http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1143&highlight=image+release http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1145&highlight=image+release http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1252&highlight=image+release

Individuals include Arne Brennan "TX65" and "Arne", Bill Alexander "Bill" and "Trestles", John Hanka "Grendelizer", Rob Berg "Reginhild", and others such as "Solidpoint". All material that was deleted and belonged to "Grendelizer" had requests to link back to his own home page. The copyright issue also points to another forum site where Grendelizer posted material since he was granted release (along with others) to use those images by Bill Alexander.

There have also been several complaints by the experts on the 6.5 Grendel Cartridge at www.65grendel.com concerning the editing of one "SwatJester" here at Wikipedia. There seems to be a dedicated effort to foil the efforts of those who wish details of the 6.5 Grendel to be known. Notably, in other areas of the forum, references to the 6.5 Grendel have been deleted and replaced with references to the 6.8 SPC a direct competitor backed by big name business - Remington.

68.170.23.223 01:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Issues 2
The malicious charge that SwatJester has made that images and comments regarding terminal ballistics gel testing cross-posted at TheHighRoad by John Hanka, aka Grendelizer at 65Grendel.com, are the property of that site when John is not only the moderator on the 65Grendel.com site, but is in fact paying for its existence, are absurd. John Hanka was granted full use of those images by Bill Alexander, the owner of Alexander Arms, which paid Speer to conduct the ballistic gel testing those images witness. Bill Alexander is on record at the 65Grendel.com site as giving his explicit consent for those images to be used on the Wiki site. There is no such consent given on TheHighRoad site.

Beyond this, SwatJester has a history of destroying the work of well-intentioned contributors on many sites by constantly reverting them to versions he finds more palatable. Such behavior, if allowed to continue by the Wiki staff, will destroy the desire and ability of knowledgeable and well-intentioned individuals to contribute to the Wiki effort.

Solidpoint 02:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The gel test results were posted by John Hanka "Grendelizer" at his own site www.65grendel.com as well as the TheHighRoad site (http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=840, and http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=830). Isn't TheHighRoad another name for AR15.com?

Copyright Issues 3
I give my full consent to use any of my photos or comments from www.65grendel.com here to further the 6.5 Grendel page at Wikipedia. I have always considered my posts on Forums to be public domain unless I explicitly state otherwise.

P.S. did the author John Hanka "Grendelizer" raise a copyright issue with his post at TheHighRoad??? NO. The person who falsly raised a copyright issue on behalf of the author John Hanka should be banned.

Reginhild 02:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Info from WalkerTexasRanger
Any and all information I have posted at www.65grendel.com and at www.ar15.com is in the public domain and Solidpoint, Reginhild, & Grendelizor, are free to use this info here as they see fit.

I personally witnessed Arne's 1.198 5 shot group, it was done at American Shooting Center here in Houston. I will also attest to having personally shot many sub MOA groups at 600 yards. --72.181.23.91 03:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Walker Houston, TX

Copyright release by John Hanka
Copyright release by John Hanka, also known by my online screen name as "Grendelizer." I release to the public domain the entire content of my post regarding 6.5 Grendel gel testing quoted from The High Road website. Any attempt to shut down this Wiki devoted to public information regarding the 6.5 Grendel are presumed by me to be the actions of malicious competing commercial interests.
 * This is a great start, but make sure to, as stated on the top of the page, send an email to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org with an explicit statement licensing your contributions under the GFDL. We want to get this material back in ASAP. --Eyrian 05:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Convoluted discussion order, etc
Please use the + next to "edit this page" if you're going to add a new section. Use the edit link in the appropriate section to add comments and such. Also, please sign your name using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Crimson30 18:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Granting Permission for My Copyrighted Material
I've sent an email granting permission to reprint my copyrighted material from The High Road to the email address: permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

I would like to see this resolved and my material released for inclusion in this Wiki ASAP. Thank you.

66.208.16.210 01:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)John Hanka

Status of removing copyright banner?
The author of the material in question has made statement above and emailed permissions at Wikipedia. When are the portions removed by SwatJester going to be returned??? Reginhild 02:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

When the permission has been confirmed. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's calm this down
Please tone down the discussion here a couple of notches. Some of the acusations which have been flung in the last few days are not reasonable for Wikipedia discussions. Georgewilliamherbert 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously. The world will not end because your precious page was blanked on Wikipedia, and if this is not a copyvio, it will be restored. Grand  master  ka  09:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Calm down?
Permission was released by the Author and documented. How was a copyright issue ever raised in the first place?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk • contribs).

No, it was not verified and not documented, and competing permissions were released. Now please calm down. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  16:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

accusations against me
You people need to cease your accusations against me. I'm not an employee of Remington as some of you claim: I'm a college student with 5 years in the military. I'm not out to get anyone as some of you are claiming: I'm simply following wikipedia's copyright procedures.

Maybe you aren't aware of the copyright implications of wikipedia, so I'll be explicit: Because ALL contributions on Wikipedia are licensed under the GFDL, any copyrighted material, like the stuff that came from 65grendel.com and highroad, is incompatible with being posted on wikipedia unless the original author explicitly releases it as so. He can do this by emailing permissions at wikipedia dot org, as mentioned before. Until said permission has been received, the material CANNOT be allowed back on. Something like 4 or 5 of you from differing IP addresses have claimed copyright ownership on this page: This is precisely why we require email approval from the copyright owner, so anonymous IP addresses like yourself cannot trick Wikipedia into posting copyrighted material and open us up for a lawsuit. Let me reiterate for you: It does NOT matter what you say on this talk page regarding your claims to copyright: since there is no way for us to verify it through this page, it does NOT help you. (And it further doesn't help you when several of you claim the same copyrights). Furthermore, GFDL is not the same thing as Public Domain, and you further cannot release something into the public domain and then limit which people are allowed access to it. Perhaps you all need to study a little bit more about copyright infringement before you go and get your feathers all ruffled. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  16:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous

 * 1) There is not a single verifiable source in the entire article. A pile of forum posts are basically original research. Period. The article should be listed for deletion.
 * 2) If people want to release information pertaining to copyright issues they must SPECIFICALLY list such contributions as GFDL. As it stands, the entire article is a gigantic copyvio. The images are not attributed. Are these websites clearly displaying GFDL licensing and maintaining all aspects of the license to allow such contributions?

Unless and until the Wikimedia Foundation confirms it's recieved email with a "thehighroad.org" domain as the originator, the article is a copyvio. Attacking a good editor like SWATJester simply because you're upset is not assuming good faith. The personal attacks and threats by Solidpoint (75% of edits directly related to this article) and a random IP (68.170.23.223) are completely out of context. Read the policies. Read the rules. Assume that SWATJester is trying to help you. Fix the copyvios or get REAL permission, not some anon posting saying "Oh yes I give permissions". Otherwise, in one week, I intend to list the article for deletion due to copyright violations, and file RfC on Solidpoint on this issue. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 17:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Issues: Comments by Reginhild
How can you say the images are not attributed. How do I post an image I took and uploaded to the site, attribute to myself, photo of all items I own, put licence on pic page at wikipedia, host on my web page as I have done with this article and still be "not attributed"?

All the claims on the deleted material linked to thehighroad.org, state that John Hanka AKA "Grendelizer" is the author (no multiple claims of different authors that I am aware of). How can John send an email from thehighroad.org when he posted the information to the forum there and does not have a thehighroad.org email?

John stated at his website www.65grendel.com that he is not familiar with Wikipedia. I will tell him he needs to set up an account rather than post anonymous with signature. He did state that he did post the wikipedia release in the talk section and email the wikimedia address as instructed in a thread on his website www.65grendel.com. There he is also "Grendelizer" - administrator, the same moniker he goes by on thehighroad.org where he is not an administrator - hence no email at thehighroad.org.

There may be some confusion on gel test photos vs. writeup by John Hanka. John Hanka did the writeup at thehighroad.org and www.65grendel.com although the photos belong to a friend of his, Bill Alexander, whom he received permission from to use.

Other users than John who have posted anon may want to remain anon or they may not be familiar with Wikipedia - which lets them post without creating an account. I started a thread at www.65grendel.com instructing those who had material that was released there for our use to come here and post at the talk page. I will clarify and state that you have to sign onto wikipedia and can't just sign a statement without creating an account.

What do you mean by the post is basically original research and should be deleted? Bill Alexander of Alexander Arms creator of the 6.5 Grendel paid an independent testing facility to conduct the gel tests we are trying to post with his permission. Gel testing for terminal effect is a considerable effort and needed to demonstrate capability of a cartridge. We are in the process of creating a footnote for every sentence since the links at the bottom of the page to verify accuracy apparently are not enough.

Respectfully, "Reginhild" Reginhild 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the copyright issues have been resolved, email received I guess? Now we just have to get the page back in shape again.

Reginhild 00:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * .. I am going to assume, based on the above, that most of the people involved in this article are not familiar with Wikipedia's policy, so I'm going to explain it. Please do not take the below as condescending, but rather as explaining it as plainly and clearly as possible.


 * 1) Copyright Issues: Basically, I hope the issues have been solved, but make sure you look at the Copyright page here.
 * 2) Why we're acting like such dicks about copyright issues: Because there are, quite frankly, people who abuse copyright very blatantly and in ways that could get us (the wikimedia foundation OR individual editors) sued into bankruptcy. The Wikipedia is not backed by big money and thus cannot ever afford any kind of lawsuits, so we (users, admins, etc) are strict in self-policing against copyright violations.
 * 3) Images: The explication of Mr. Hanka's photos belonging to Mr. Alexander cleared that up, although they should be credited to him and released under the GFDL (or for free use). Thank you for clarification.
 * 4) Accounts and anonymity: Actually, it's FAR more anonymous to sign on with an account. You don't have to identify yourself in any way, really, and then only admins with a reason can peer into your IP address. Anons literally can be identified by literally anyone, it wouldn't take most people much time at all, once armed with an IP address, to pin down roughly where you live.
 * 5) Original Research: You state that "Bill Alexander of Alexander Arms creator of the 6.5 Grendel paid an independent testing facility to conduct the gel tests". While I certainly understand the factual nature of these sort of tests in determining a round's characteristics (penetration, etc) this is not what is usually referred to, and there's nothing wrong with the gel tests. Rather, there should be less focus on such testing (which, really, serves mostly to sell the product) than on independent media coverage of the round, or verifiable reports of military usage of such a round. (Sarcasm: killing a buck with it seems a bit excessive, no?) An overview of this is covered at the following links: WP:RS for sources and WP:OR for claims of original research. Unless John Hanka is a widely recognized ballistics and military-spec weapons expert with no connection to the project, then most of his postings, no matter how necessarily factual, will fail to be considered a 'reliable source' and would constitute 'original research'.
 * 6) A few suggestions. Several of the links at the bottom of the page might serve as independant sources, and should be moved to the references section. Typically, external links are more of a "if you're interested in this, read this" type of thing. Second, the more coverage and sources in media or websites NOT connected, even tangentally, to Mr. Alexander, the more likely this round is to appear notable and thus avoid a lot of trouble. Finally, the article still reads somewhat like an advertisement and not yet like an encyclopedia. Mr. Alexander, Mr. Hanka, and anyone else adding/contributing to this article must be made aware that Wikipedia is not here for product placement, public exposure, or to generate interest in a product. I would strongly consider finding applications of this round (such as in the ones that went to Iraq) to broaden the "content" of the article.

Thank you for your calm tone, Reginhild. If you have further questions, you can leave them here, or on my talk page. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information Elaragirl. I would still like to include gel testing info as it was conducted by an independent company that is considered an expert.  John Hanka only pointed out the dimensional measurements taken from the gel tests.  Unfortunately, many in the military are unsatisfied with the 5.56mm NATO round.  Even the military has identified 5.56 shortfalls in a couple of reviews.  The gel tests are the only measure that can be used to quantify possible effect on the battlefield since the military is still using 5.56.  The gel test is fairly important since the round was designed to fit the AR15 platform and can be considered as a possible replacement for the 5.56.  If it still does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia, I guess we would have to do an article somewhere else and just provide a link.


 * Mr. Alexander has not posted any information here to my knowledge. He has authorized release of photographs and data only at our requests.  Suprisingly, those of us who are contributing are unafilliated with the business end and are often published experts in fields relating to ballistics, ammunition, military, and other areas. Being experts in our fields, we have recognized the potential behind this cartridge.


 * Take a trip to www.65grendel.com sometime and look at who is posting - David Fortier, Stan Christ, Jeff Quinn, and others who wish to remain more anonymous (although often are known by other members). I myself, am nearing retirement in the military and have a background in supersonic and hypersonic flow studies as well as published work on ballistics. John Hanka, by the way, is not affiliated with the business end either.  He is just another enthusiast who took it to the extreme and created a website dedicated to the 6.5 Grendel (although he does have an empty store section that has had "under construction" listed for several years - ha! :)

Unfortunately, many of us are old guys with poor internet skills. I consider myself well educated on the internet for a 40 year old! Reginhild 02:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reginhild: I had no problem with the pictures. While I did not check them all, most of them were attributed. The problem is the text. Unless the text on the originating site is explicitly released into a license that is compatible with wikipedia it has to be considered copyright violation because of wikipedia's inherent use of the GFDL license in every contribution. (i.e. it means that when you post the text on here, your clicking the submit button gives you attribution to that submission, which is not compatible with copyrights and non-copyleft licenses). So there are three easy solutions here: you can have the author email the permissions link posted above. You can change the original source page to say explicitly "I, the author, release this material into the public domain", or whatever other license you wish. Or, you can rewrite the wikipedia entry in a manner that is not a copyright violation, and use the original page on the high road as a source through the cite web template. I appreciate your civility on the matter. Wikipedia is a very different system than the rest of the web, and as Elaragirl mentioned, since it is one of the most popular sites on the internet (see www.alexa.com for ranking) it is a target for copyright lawsuits. Wikipedia has to protect itself. I'm not doubting the expert testimony of the people on that site: I'm a semi-regular at AR15.com, and I'm pretty good friends with the owners of a fairly major AR-15 based manufacturer, and I visit shooting sites like snipershide.com and the like. Zak Smith posts on my forums. I know that many of the true experts in competitive shooting and in the development of the firearms and ballistics industry post most of their stuff on the internet, I understand that, and it's a good thing. I agree with it. But unfortunately, Wikipedia works a little different, and there's a little work that has to be done for their material to be added on to Wikipedia. I'm all for them putting their stuff in. It just has to be done the right way, and it wasn't, and when I ensured that Wikipedia would be protected I received a frankly obscene reaction from the people on this page. Once again though, I appreciate your civility on this matter Reginhild. If you guys need any of the policy clarified I'm more than happy to do it for you, just let me know on my talk page. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  03:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Concerning the "copyright source": "You can change the original source page to say explicitly "I, the author, release this material into the public domain", or...use the original page on the high road as a source through the cite web template."
 * I guess that is the crux of the problem. John Hanka just reposted similiar information at thehighroad.com, everyone considered John Hanka, owner of www.65grendel.com, and author of the material the source rather than his multiple postings on other forums.  It seems as if we have to worry about every post made everywhere coming back to haunt the author even though they are all copies.

I agree, this does seem to be the issue that we faced. Reginhild 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing
... particularly, this link here should solve all your WP:RS and WP:OR problems. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoring gel test results
So... have the copyright permissions for the gel tests been received? Can we return the material to the article? --Eyrian 18:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It would appear they have, see article history, and the diff entitled "OTRS desk permissions received" or something to that effect. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

While I'm aware that geltest is the only praticle way to measure performance, does the fact that the company that owns the bullet conducted the testing violate WP:OR or not? -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 22:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Original research refers to publishing novel ideas found only on Wikipedia. --Eyrian 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The company that "owns the bullet" did not conduct the testing. They paid an independent lab that specializes in objective gel testing for law enforcement to conduct the tests just as a law enforcement agency would pay to have tests done. Reginhild 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
I want to add a cartridge infobox to the article. However, I'm not sure about some critical data. I figured some people here could fill in the missing fields. --Eyrian 15:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Fixed some other items too.  Also fixed and sourced the ballistics data.  Thernlund (Talk 05:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just read the article after having fixed up the infobox. I don't want to get into it with with you guys, but except for the first paragraph of the Performance section, the stuff in the section all needs to go.  This isn't a forum for publishing lab results, nor is it a marketing pamphlet.  If all this info is from 65grendel.com, it should be put there.  All that should be here is a link to the lab results there, placed under an External links section.  In fact, I'd have just done it without word had there not been so much diuscussion here.  Thernlund (Talk 06:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited a bit of infobox info. Standard barrel lengths for publishing velocity and energy are 20" or 24" the info you had was from a 14.5" barrel. The cartridge is not a wildcat since it has dedicated production ammo and brass - the parent case is therefore 6.5 Grendel and not any other cases used in the design process.  If it were a wildcat and you had to fireform brass, then it would have a different parent case.  (although you could fireform 6.5 Grendel brass from 4 different cases that I know of)Reginhild 15:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The infobox design should be re-looked by Wikipedia. Not having barrel length next to ballistic info is a bad idea.


 * The source of the ballistics data is given. The infobox is a quick rundown to give an idea of performance (between 2200 and 2600 fps in this case).  Anyone wanting more info sould seek the source of the info.  This cartridge isn't in wide use and as such there is little in the way of variety where ballistics data is concerned.  But take for example the .223 or the .45 ACP.  So many manufactures make these rounds that getting a "one true answer" just won't happen.  That's why when I built this template I put a field in for source information.  But I will concede your point is valid even if I think it's unnecessay.  I will bring it up on the templates take page.  Thernlund (Talk 03:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See here for discussion. Feel free to comment.  Thernlund (Talk 03:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The lab results shown here were conducted by a well known testing facility as contracted by the manufacturer. The round was developed to be used in an AR15 platform as an improvement over 5.56 in capability. The results relate directily to the development purpose of the round.Reginhild 15:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So what? "If all this info is from 65grendel.com, it should be put there.  All that should be here is a link to the lab results there, placed under an External links section."  I still stand by that statement.  Thernlund (Talk 03:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ????? I thought this was Wikipedia and historical information relating to the reason the cartridge was developed and whether or not it was meeting expectations of its development would be normal info. I changed the header to "Terminal Ballistics" as more appropriate for all cartridge discussions.  Gelatin testing is a method to determine terminal ballistics.Reginhild 01:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Terminal ballistics seems appropriate.  Thernlund (Talk 01:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

6.5 Grendel first unveiled in May 2003 at Blackwater per Alexander Arms Reginhild 15:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. Soooo... why didn't you change it to "May 2003"?  Thernlund (Talk 03:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh you did.  Sorry.  Didn't look first.  My bad.  Thernlund (Talk 03:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not 100% positive on the "Designer". I believe Arne Brennan actually came up with the 6.5x39 as a wildcat and Bill Alexander had a dedicated 6.5x39 Grendel produced by Lapua...What really counts as the designer? Reginhild 15:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case after having read a bit about it, I'd say Arne Brennan is the designer.  Bill Alexander just ran with it.  Thernlund (Talk 03:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey... this is obviously your baby. So I don't care to argue it much.  But I think that...
 * The barrel length is not needed, as a source that can provide in depth data is given. You could put that in a Performace section too.  BUT... I will concede your point is vaild even if I think it's unneccesary.  As such, I will bring this up in discussion on the templates talk page.
 * The gel tests should be at 65grendel.com with a link here for "further reading" (as MANY other Wiki articles have). (Struck out.  See above.)


 * Thernlund (Talk 03:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Not quite sure what barrel length your edits pertain to.  So I'll let you add the data.  I'll add the blank field.  Thernlund (Talk 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Test barrel length will be implemented in a couple days. See here for dicussion. So there you go. :-) Thernlund (Talk 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pic positioning
So it it just me, then? It looks really bad in my browser. --Crimson30 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay... I just checked it out in IE and it's a browser thing. It looks like ass in non-IE browsers.  I think the positioning looked a lot better last week, but if that's a minority opinion, so be it.--Crimson30 19:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Consistency
I like the new info box but have a few nit pics.

1.) The barrel length is not given in reference to the ballistics

2.) The ballistics for the 123 Scenar is at odds with that given in the Ballistics section. My RX would be to double check the ballistics section for accuracy, as I think the info box has the correct number, and second, use the ballistics data for the SMK 123 in the info box as that bullet is now a production item, is going to be loaded by Les Baer using Lapua brass, and has pressure-safe load data on the linked .pdf from AA.

You guys have been busy. Looking better all the time. Solidpoint 05:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1.) See above. A barrel length parameter was implemented.  I added the blank parameter to the template.  Someone should fill it in.  I'm not clear on what barrel length those performance figures are based on.  So someone in the know should provide the data.
 * 2.) You could add it. ;-)
 * —Thernlund (Talk 17:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Added barrel length as requested. Also removed redundant bullet types from infobox so ballistics section in main body now adds additional info. --Solidpoint 01:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd measurements
From the "Development and history" section: Firing factory bullets from 90 grains (10 g) to 129 grains (8 g) That can't be right, more grains = less grams? Identity0 09:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

2nd sentence
Is anyone fairly familiar with the development of the 6PPC? I was thinking maybe it's unfair to leave Ferris Pindell's name out. Crimson30 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting year-old News Release tag
I've reviewed this article and I just don't see the problem. So I'm deleting the tag.Trilobitealive (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Today's reference taggings
I'm adding 2 tags, one a general tag since the reader cannot tell which one of the long list of external sources goes with which individual fact in the article. The other is a for the new edits expanding Timeline subsection, which quite frankly look a lot like WP:OR by an expert. If this was a hotly contested article like Hunting every sentence would have to be referenced. Trouble is that if I did that here we'd end up with a 12 line article now wouldn't we? Trilobitealive (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OR tagging 12/21/09
See WP:OR for reasons for tagging article again. Recent series of edits by 2 editors are not fully wikiverifiable and appear to be original research. Gentlemen, this is a wikipedia article and not an original publication.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Trilobitealive,,, I am the original author of the "6.5 Grendel Development Notes" since I happen to be Arne Brennan. I am also the person who shot the 1.198" group at 600 meters that was witnessed by multiple people.. I actually still have the target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tx65 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not making this up to give you a hard time. (I figured out who you were a while ago because of your excellent understanding of both the physics and history of the round. If you ever write a book on the subject I'm a great fan and am looking forward to reading it.) They can go so far as banning someone who doesn't follow their rules. They don't even let the Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales contribute self published information nor original research. This is a major wikipedia sticking point. To avoid indiscriminate deletion all the article edits here have to be verifiable in a non-self-published external source. I've already posted links to the major policies so I won't belabor them here. So, is the target published elsewhere by an independent source? Are the other original research edits published elsewhere? Otherwise they can, according to the rules, be deleted by any anonymous eighth grader who sees them and can't verify them.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This link cuts to the chase about the differences between primary secondary and tertiary sources. I won't belabor it any further. You're a good writer and I do hope that you can keep up the excellent editing, within the boundaries of what the powers that be require.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Arne thanks for taking the time to write something nice, if you have anything in print such as shooting magazines ect that might be a nice addition. I'll see if I can find some citation.

The rest of you need to find something better to do with your time and stop beating people up with rules and hiding behind them try actually contributing citations for a change. Tirronan (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Beating people up? So have you noticed that I have said that I think Arne is a very good new editor and also have you noticed that I haven't been reverting any huge number of these most excellent edits? I'd add citations if I could find them but I can' find them because he is the expert and has access to the references.Trilobitealive (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On another tangent, I want to thank you for expanding my own knowledge of the way Wikipedia works. I did not know that a Mediation Cabel existed until I reviewed some cases of note. We kitchen utensils have lots of time on our hands don't you agree? ;) Have a good day.Trilobitealive (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

First let me say, I have only appeared here to refine some information I saw presented. In late 2006, I sold my company and have enjoyed going back to shooting for the pleasure of it. Today, I seldom shoot AR-15's since I focus my attention almost entirely on F-Class shooting at 1000 yards. For those of you that want to know, I shoot the 6.5x47 Lapua using 130 grain Berger VLD's and I think that is probably the best 6.5mm cartridge made.

Back to the smaller 6.5mm,,, my 1.198" group shot in 2006 was witnessed by Mark Walker who won the 2009 Texas Long Range Championship and David Gosnell who has been a member of the US F-Class team.  This was not shot using an AR-15 nor using a production AR-15 chamber, it was shot using the 6.5 PPCX chambering.    If you want a photo of the target,,, email me at arnebrennan@yahoo.com and I will send it.

Regarding the origins of this cartridge, whatever it is called, the facts are simple. Dr. Lou Palmisano (co-inventor of the PPC) and William Davis, PHD (former head of Aberdeen Proving Grounds) created the 6.5 PPC in 1984 while doing development work for the US Shooting Team.

When I started my project back in 1998, I did my development from a clean sheet of paper and other than the help of Scott Medesha who did machining work, I did it alone and not as any business venture. After shooting the new gun for over a year doing such fun stuff as load development from scratch and figuring out how to make magazines work. I met Dr Palmisano in 2000 and shared my work to gain his insight. Dr Palmisano listened more than he spoke because as he told me later, he was intrigued by the independent thought process and results I came up with. It was only after many hours of conversation taking place over many months that he divulged his work with Bill Davis back in 1984. Dr. Palmisano's ideas were all around light 81-88 grain flat base bullets and using the 6.5 PPC in benchrest shooting. My ideas were all centered around creating a ballistic twin of the 308 Winchester / 7.62 NATO and using the cartridge for highpower competition at ranges from 200-600 yards. As you can see, Dr Palmisano and I were thinking in entirely different directions.

The blown forward shoulder design of this cartridge is not new, if you look in various books like John Feamster's "Black Magic" or Glen Zediker's "the competitive AR-15",, there is reference to Scott Medesha creating blown forward shoulder 6 PPC cartridges out of necessity to make a simple conversion of 7.62x39 brass to the 6 PPC. In John Feamster's book, you can also read about a 6.5-30 Remington wildcat that was done shooting the same 128 grain bullets I was shooting. For those of you that don't know, Scott Medesha and Derrick Martin both spent many years being on the cutting edge of alternative cartridges in the AR-15 for match shooting.

I was introduced to Bill Alexander in the summer of 2002 by Lothar-Walther when I called Lothar-Walther to talk about getting some new barrels since I had shot over 3000 rounds in my original 6.5 PPC AR. I shared my work with Bill Alexander and for about 4 years we had a very positive relationship working together. I have not spoken to Bill Alexander since early June 2006.

In the end, I will use the story of another cartridge... people may call it the 260 Remington, but it was the 6.5-08 decades before someone put a brand on it.

I am glad to see Wikipedia as an independent record and source of information and not merely being a marketing format to promote a single manufacturer.

All the best to everyone in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tx65 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Arne, this is a much better article than it was thanks to you. --Tirronan (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

External links section
Hi folks, I'm just posting here because I've been going through Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup and this is towards the top of the list.

There are a tremedous amount of external links here, but while many of them seem to be notable, most of them seem to be more references to the article.

Ideally, an external links section should not have more than about 2 to 4 links, while a further reading section might have a lot more. External links must be from notable websites. My problem is that as I'm not a subject-matter expert in this field it's hard to say what is notable and what is not notable. We really do need to ensure that we keep external links to a minimum, could I get some feedback here on what can be culled from the list? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference Question
Hello, I was reading this page and noticed that the ballistics chart link (.pdf) is broken. Does someone know the new location, if any, for the chart? I would like to see it. Calvinstrikesagain (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

AssaultRifleCartridgeComparisonChart.PNG and Grendel_MV.JPG
Several months ago I made some comments on "" at its talk page File talk:AssaultRifleCartridgeComparisonChart.PNG, but I see that isn't a very good place for discussions, so I reproduce them here:
 * I don't deny that the Grendel is a fine cartridge. But, I'm worried that your enthusiasm has caused you to become just a little bit too much proselytic, and produce a chart that borders on misleading by exaggerating the features you find especially attractive.


 * In particular I am concerned that the choice of a 30% baseline -- just below the figure for several cartridges at 1000 yd -- greatly exaggerates the visual impression of the Grendel's superiority at long range. Together with scaling all results to the heavier Grendel, so it is always on 100%, the graph gives the impression that the Grendel is still screaming along at 1,000 yd when all the rest are practically spent.


 * In reality, of course, even the Grendel has slowed down a great deal by this point (about 25% retained energy for the 142 SMK, and 21% for the 123 SMK according to ), and the other cartridges are still doing just under half that.


 * It's also a little curious that 7.62 x 51 mm was not included. True, it is not considered an assault rifle calibre, but if you are shooting at 1,000 yd in military or LEO applications, it is the calibre that will be most likely used and hence is the most logical comparison. But 7.62 x 51 mm starts out with 30% more energy than Grendel 123 SMK (40% more than Grendel 142 SMK) and has more retained energy at every range shown in the chart, so including it might make the Grendel look a little less ne plus ultra ...

I also have a couple of remarks about, which plots projectile weight against muzzle velocity in a 24" barrel. First and most importantly, this data is presented as if it is a fundamental property of the calibre. In fact such a chart is a mainly a reflection of the type and loading of powder; a different loading of powder will move the curve considerably, and a different type of powder may even change the shape. Hence giving this curve without the powder data is quite meaningless.

Less critically (but quite annoying to me), why are we bothering with a line of best fit on a data set that is clearly very badly approximated by a straight line? And why do we specify the parameters of that line to 5 significant figures when the raw data is only given to 3, and the R2 value tells us the results are only good to slightly more than 1 ?

Further, where is the source of our data, and their estimates of their uncertainties? It is very difficult to get highly reproducible firing data, yet with modern equipment it is fairly easy for a home hobbyist to create something like this -- and get a different result every time he does it. Consequently, unless we know the data was collected properly we can have very little faith in it. In particular, with all but one of the velocities rounded to the nearest 10 fps, and with 2 examples of a minimal increase in projectile mass causing a much larger increase in velocity, I strongly suspect each data point is from just one firing, or at least a small number of firings, and the bizarre shape of the curve reflects nothing more than typical measurement error. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Impossible Statistics
The chart comparing the 6.5mm grendel to other bullets is impossible to believe. File:AssaultRifleCartridgeComparisonChart.PNG is seriously flawed and should be removed.

3 Reasons 1)A bullet get over 100% retained energy? Even in an ideal situation. Newton's Law which states F=MA, without a force, theres no acceleration. Is the bullet a mini-rocket with propulsion behind it? Or is there a railgun system affecting the bullet by accelerating it? Logically its impossible to get over 100% retained energy without some external force.

2) The decrease in retained enrgy is a straight line instead of a curve? With air resistance which acts as a deceleration, the change in retained energy is more of a curve than a straight line. Even if the graph maker is lazy or data is insufficient, its wrong to do a straight line as its misleading. Modern sabots which was intended for military use at one point could probably boast such a line, but only within a short distance

3) A bullet maintains 100% energy over 1000 yards? Is a bullet getting shot or is it a laser/mini-rocket?

This leads me to believe that the chart provided is seriously flawed and misleading and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloe111 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The chart seems to be based off the 6.5's performance rather than a set standard, which while it explains some of the bizarre graph features (over 100% energy retention, bullets losing and regaining energy) is a severely misleading and flawed way of measuring performance. It should be deleted. --72.92.77.156 (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.65grendel.com/65GrendelReloadingData.pdf
 * In .30 Walker on 2011-05-20 21:36:33, 404 Not Found
 * In 6.5 mm Grendel on 2011-06-19 20:33:45, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.65grendel.com/65g_arammo.htm
 * In .30 Walker on 2011-05-20 21:36:33, 404 Not Found
 * In 6.5 mm Grendel on 2011-06-19 20:34:00, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.65grendel.com/graphics/grendelballistics.pdf
 * In .30 Walker on 2011-05-20 21:36:33, 404 Not Found
 * In 6.5 mm Grendel on 2011-06-19 20:34:17, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not proprietary any more
As of 2011-10-12, the cartridge is not proprietary any more. Finally, Alexander Arms released its trademark, the cartridge got SAAMI approval and all is fine and dandy. Will take a while to get a nice, quotable source for that, for now: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_121/549934_Alexander_Arms_released_6_5mm_Grendel_Trademark.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.6.212.138 (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

6.5mm Grendel Vepr
There was never any Vepr produced in 6.5 Grendel, much less last year. As far as I can be told by Wolf Performance Arms as of November 2012, the importer into the USA, there are no plans for one as far as they knew, and that if there was, MOLOT would take years to produce it.

There is also an advertisement for a 6.5 Grendel Vepr floating around the internet; this has been widely assumed as a false advertisement, since there has been not been any mention by MOLOT ever of a 6.5 Grendel Vepr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.17.51 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Self-published sources
My understanding is that articles can't cite "self-published sources" unless the author is an expert in the field who's been previously published. WP:SPS I see two sources in this article that appear to violate that policy: http://shootersnotes.com/grendelmania/why-the-fuss-about-the-grendel/ http://www.lead-slinger.com/pdf/62OCC.pdf Unless someone can point out how these authors are published experts, I'll go ahead and delete the sources and the text which cites them. Rezin (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking back at it I think I was the one who put up the shooters notes link. I recall at the time thinking that well, the math supporting the statement is self evident but rifle ballistics isn't a subject that a lot of people know, so why not attach a reasonably well written web reference to further illustrate it. If this was a controversial pop culture subject such as Monica Lewinski where every sentence is patrolled and argued for decades I could see deleting the reference, but not in a math based article like this one where anybody can crunch the numbers and come up with their own conclusion. I didn't do the other edit but the reference cited was, (like the one I posted) both reasonable and with no commercial interest. When you come to your final decision whether retaining or deleting them will make a better article I hope that you might consider some more liberal Wikipedia principles than you may have been exposed to in the past: WP:RAP,WP:IAR and WP:RRULE Anyway, have a great day! Trilobitealive (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The wikilinks and the math adequately support my statement so don't delete it if you find the reference inadequate. I did add another reference by Arne Brennan, who is a widely quoted and acknowledge guru, to help folks out if you decide to delete the other one. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't a biography, but we should still follow the rules. I could crunch the numbers and show that this round is heavier than a pingpong ball, lighter than a VW Beetle, and more accurate than a thrown kitten. However even if my math is correct and my conclusions unimpeachable these facts would still violate the Wikipedia prohibition on original research, as I understand it.
 * I didn't mention the wikilinks nor the idea of doing the math to prod you. This is s very concrete subject where everything is calculable and the numerical parameters are there at the various articles. Concerning kittens and Volkswagens I don't understand how sarcasm can be constructive. Let me see if I can explain my stance about what you are calling the rules. They are actually a mostly firm guideline for learning to edit until the editor sees enough good and bad articles to understand the ways to edit to make a better article. WP:FATRAT should be added to the list of helpful links I posted previously in this discussion. It is hard to explain how the rules can be applied differently to BLPs and technical articles but perhaps this can help.
 * One of the other ways of drawing wider attention and help correcting an editing concern such as the one you've expressed is to tag an article with . Trilobitealive (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't see where Brennan makes any comparison between the 6.5mm Grendel and the Winchester rounds. Why would we describe Joseph Smith, the unsigned author of the ShootersNotes website, as a 'neutral' commentator? Rezin (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is a pretty good question. He is talking about rounds which many readers would recognize to be comparable. Others, perhaps not. For an article like this when I post a reference I consider the educational value of the link.
 * "Why would we describe Joseph Smith..." Concerning these various websites, you've probably noticed that the online shooting community is evolving to a huge peer review forum. Unlike biographies, philosophies and political viewpoints, ballistic theories can be proven true or false. All the statement are testable, requiring a load table, a chronograph, a test barrel and precious little else. Some of the most respected experts are people you have never heard of and have never published anything in a paper journal. And some of the more popular published writers would be laughed off the web.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did think of something else after meditating on this conversation for a bit. If you look at the history of .50 Beowulf you'll notice that I came to the opposite conclusion some months ago in that article. So basically I think the only fair thing to say is that you have to look at it and decide which looks better to you. So I am maintaining the gist of my first statement above, "...when you come to your final decision whether retaining or deleting them..." and trust that you'll find which way makes the article better.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this edit? Yes, it does seem like a similar situation with a different conclusion than what you're proposing here. In your discussion above you are suggesting that a variety of essays outweigh a variety of policies and guidelines.
 * I think we can finesse the situation by reducing the commentary and stating the simple facts. It's still not ideal, but this line isn't the worst problem with this article. That'd probably be the over-detailed and totally unreferenced 'timeline', which has been tagged for about 18 months. Rezin (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Archive
Talk:6.5 mm Grendel/Archive 1


 * This archive isn't linked automatically for some reason. Rezin (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)