Whats the best AR Caliber and why?

[melensdad]

Have fun stocking up on 1,000 rounds of 6.5 Grendel. $$ Cha-ching!!

I paid just over 50 cents a round for a mixture of 1500 rounds of 6.5 Grendel, that included 1000 rounds of low priced Wolf Gold and 500 rounds of Alexander Arms premium long range/target grade rounds.

On the other hand the 6.8 Rem SPC seems to running about $1.00 per round, with premium stuff running close to $2 per shot and cheap plinking stuff running closer to 80-cents.

223/5.56 seems to run the gamut in price from about 25-cents to about 50-cents per round at Cheaper Than Dirt and none of that was target grade rounds.

 

[rhino]

And make sure you get a 5.56x45 chamber (or at least a .223 Wylde). A .223 Remington chamber is not the same (even though the ammo casing is externally identical). You can safely fire .223 Remington in a 5.56x45mm chamber, but the converse is not always true.

 

[Prometheus]

5.56 all the way.

I also just bought a 5.45x39 upper for cheap plinking fun, threw it on a extra DPMS lower I had laying around.

If you're getting a AR, buy one as it's intended. If you want something in a caliber other than 5.56/.223 buy something else.

Once you get your AR in 5.56 and you feel the urge to get other uppers ect. go for it.

FWIW if you're shooting other calibers (like .22lr and 5.45x39) you might want a dedicated platform to shoot it from. .22lr is filthy and the cheap 5.45x39 is corrosive.

 

[AllenM]

+1 for 6.5 Grendel

 

[Bill of Rights]

If we can ever get one here in the US, I want this one:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buZLlYOpqQ4]YouTube - Safir T14 (shotgun) Atis Testi[/ame]

.410 shells or slugs aren't going to be too hard to find nor too expensive. 12g would be better, but won't fit in an AR15 magwell.

Blessings,
B

 

[mconley]

ahhhhhhhhh need a full auto of that

 

[indyjoe]

If you are just shooting slugs, .410 isn't that great of a round. Pretty low pressure. .458 is more powerful, I believe. A .410 slug is around or under 100 grains. .458 are up to 300 grains. Velocities have to be pretty close.

 

[RogerB]

And make sure you get a 5.56x45 chamber (or at least a .223 Wylde). A .223 Remington chamber is not the same (even though the ammo casing is externally identical). You can safely fire .223 Remington in a 5.56x45mm chamber, but the converse is not always true.

Thanks Rhino, thats the kind of reply I was looking for. I still appreciate everyone else's replies/opinions!

I would think the ammo versatility would be a benefit....

 

[Bill of Rights]

If you are just shooting slugs, .410 isn't that great of a round. Pretty low pressure. .458 is more powerful, I believe. A .410 slug is around or under 100 grains. .458 are up to 300 grains. Velocities have to be pretty close.

You gonna volunteer to be shot with one? Me neither. I'm pretty sure there aren't too many people who would.

If I do end up with one of these, I'm thinking of shot for home defense and slugs for the range. (My (indoor) range doesn't allow shotguns for a variety of reasons.)

Blessings,
B

 

[melensdad]

Thanks Rhino, thats the kind of reply I was looking for. I still appreciate everyone else's replies/opinions!

I would think the ammo versatility would be a benefit....

Well it is and it is not. For example if you get a high quality target barrel it is very likely that you'll see it marked as chambered for 223 only. Why? Because 5.56 is not made to target grade tolerances. Really you need to define what you want to use the gun for. I have some guns that I'll use with steel case Wolf ammo and other guns that I'd never consider doing anything like that with because it could ruin the match grade chamber.

For a 'zombie' (or Liberal Democrat) gun, get a 5.56 chamber and a chrome lined barrel. You won't get high accuracy but it will be hard to destroy. For long range shooting go for a 223 match chamber, or better yet go for a different caliber! But for precision varmint shooting I'd much rather have a 223 match chamber than a 5.56 chamber, and I sure wouldn't want chrome lining in the barrel.

Any of this make sense?

If so then start with your "to do" list. Prioritize it based on what you want to achieve, not on the features you want on the gun! You may find out that some of what you want to use the gun for will mandate the type of barrel, caliber, stock, sights, etc that you will end up with. I ended up with multiple guns but each is different, designed for a different task.

 

[epsylum]

Well it is and it is not. For example if you get a high quality target barrel it is very likely that you'll see it marked as chambered for 223 only. Why? Because 5.56 is not made to target grade tolerances.

There is one that caught my eye as far as long range AR-15s go. The Stag Super Varminter that just came out has a SS 1:8 twist bull barrel with a 5.56 chamber, not a .223. Most magazines have reported getting 1/2 MOA accuracy with them with factory loaded (albeit match grade) ammo. I want one just because it has the versatility to shoot 5.56 surplus if needed. Plus, it is a heck of a lot cheaper than many other varmint style ARs.

That being said, I agree with bigcraig's opinion. 5.56 first, the other calibers later.

I like the idea and ballistics of the 6.5 Grendel, but ammo and parts availability and price is a problem.

 

[indyjoe]

I like the idea and ballistics of the 6.5 Grendel, but ammo and parts availability and price is a problem.

I'm hoping big time adoption will happen, so that the price will fall. We shall see.

 

[epsylum]

I'm hoping big time adoption will happen, so that the price will fall. We shall see.

Unfortunately I don't see that happening. The main reason for the 6.8 is the fact that externally it is closer to the 5.56. The 6.5 case is so different that it would take some big modifications for almost anything other than ARs. I am specifically talking about anything belt fed as the belts would have to be completely different and would have to feed in a different location as the 6.5 case is stumpier (for a lack of a better word) than either the 5.56 or 6.8 SPC.

But yes, ballistically the 6.5 Grendel wipes its butt with the 6.8 SPC.

 

[melensdad]

I'm hoping big time adoption will happen, so that the price will fall. We shall see.

As someone who is really loving the 6.5 Grendel, I don't see the round being adopted by the military. Further, I don't see any current round being adopted by the military in the near future. It is my bet that the next military round will be a next generation caseless round. The cost to change away from 5.56 is simply too high. It is likely the military will adopt another battle rifle in the future, it seems likely it will also be chambered in the 5.56 chambering. BUT at some point there will be a new round adopted, when that happens it is probably going to be completely different than what we have now. JMO

 

[agentl074]

The Armalite AR-10 has my vote. One of the reasons why I bought this is the strong action of the .308 I recommend the AR-10 as the best AR for the reasons of: full power, strength, and no need for forward assist

 

[42769vette]

5.56

5.56

 

[ar15_dude]

Obviously the AR platform has been developed for 5.56x45, and all the mil-spec stuff supports 5.56 .
All other cals have issues:
-mag availability
-ammo availability
- more cost effective platforms for the cal (9x19 or 7.62x51),
- spare part availability
- ammo price (all but 9x19)

If you are serious about the rifle potentially saving your life or for SHTF, stay with the correct/proven/milspec config.

If you want to experiment, knock yourself out with 6.5 Grendel or .50 Beowolf

 

[melensdad]

Obviously the AR platform has been developed for 5.56x45, and all the mil-spec stuff supports 5.56 .
All other cals have issues:
-mag availability
-ammo availability
- more cost effective platforms for the cal (9x19 or 7.62x51),
- spare part availability
- ammo price (all but 9x19)

If you are serious about the rifle potentially saving your life or for SHTF, stay with the correct/proven/milspec config.

If you want to experiment, knock yourself out with 6.5 Grendel or .50 Beowolf

I have to partially disagree with your thesis.

The AR15 platform was built around the 223/5.56, and all the milspec stuff is built around that. To that much we can agree.

However there are several rounds that have been built specifically for the AR15 platform that function just as reliably in the platform, and use the same magazines as the standard 223/5.56 magazines. Yes, cost to shoot does go up a bit, but not always substantially, and while cost to shoot may be higher, performance is also higher. Sure, its harder to find some of these ammo flavors at the local gunshop but if you have a computer or a telephone you can order anything you need and it will be delivered to your doorstep in about 3 days.

Take the 6.5 Grendel, it was specifically designed for the AR15. I bought 1500 rounds at a cost under 50-cents a shot, that included 500 rounds of Alexander Arms 123 grain Laupua target loads and 1000 rounds of Wolf Gold. So it is possible for the 6.5 Grendel to be price competitive per shot, but I grant you it usually costs a bit more. I feed my Grendels with standard AR15 magazines. I do have a bunch of Grendel specific magazines but I find they feed reliably with stock magazines. The advantage of the Grendel is you get near 308/7.62 Nato performance out of an AR15 with only 1/2 the recoil.

Take the 6.8 Rem SPC, again, it was specifically designed for the AR15. This does cost about a buck a bullet and does not give the same performance of the Grendel, but it beats the living snot out of a 223/5.56 in terminal ballistics. It feeds reliably out of 6.5 Grendel magazines or 6.8 Rem SPC magazines. I have not yet tried it with 223/5.56 magazines but I suspect it will feed without problems.

Want a totally awesome cartridge that was designed for the AR15 and designed to use non-modified AR magazines . . . take a look at the 458 Socom. It will shatter concrete blocks, and is "deer hunting legal" here in Indiana. There are a whole bunch of bullet choices from light to heavy and the round is awesome. The 450 Bushmaster and the 50 Beowulf are two others, also specifically designed to function in the AR15. Neither are deer legal in Indiana.

My point in all this is that when you open my safes and look at the guns, there are a whole bunch in there that look the same. At least 95% of the parts interchange between my 9mm AR carbine and my 223 AR rifle and my 6.5 Grendel rifle and my 223 carbine . . . etc, etc, etc. Once you get past the bolt carrier and the barrel, the guns are identical. Want to swap handguards or buttstocks or sights or rails . . . feel free they all interchange from model to model.

Spare Parts Availability was cited as an issue, but with 95+% interchangeability I really don't see that as an issue. How often do you have to change the barrel on one of your guns? Or the bolt carrier? Honestly everything else is the same. Same trigger. Same safety. Same internal springs, same buffer tube assembly, same everything else.

I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that we should all have mil-spec M4 clones. I'll admit they make great plinker rifles but unless you compete with them then they really are not that useful.

The mil-spec guns are not as accurate as the varmint version of the same guns, so long range plinking or popping ground squirrels at long range is much more difficult. Chrome line a barrel and you destroy the inherent accuracy, but its great if you don't clean your gun.

The mil-spec guns have crappy triggers. For only a few $ more you can get a very good 2 stage National Match trigger, and for a whole bunch more you can get an amazing trigger, but the mil-spec triggers are 'lowest common denominator' devices and crude by comparison.

Of the 7 AR15s I've currently got, none are currently configured as Mil-Spec and I don't see a lot of reason to buy one. They are simply too limiting. My only advice on ARs rifles is for people to open their eyes to the possibilities of what these rifles can be. Figure out what you want to do with the gun and then build the gun for your uses. If you want a plinking gun or a tacti-cool gun that's fine with me, get an M4. If you want something different, that is good too. I just find that many people seem to think that "Mil Spec" is the best, and while it may be the best for humping around in Iraq, I don't see it as the best for many shooters needs.

By the way, "Mil Spec" is generally referred to as the specs for an M4 style carbine. It should be noted that there are at least a dozen different M-16 variants in use by the military today, all of them are Mil Spec. But the rifles are dramatically different guns in many ways. So if someone recommends a Mil Spec gun, I suppose the first thing to do is ask which one!

 

[anewrnn]

5.56

5.56 is relatively cheap compared to the 6.5. Depends on the range you need. I am a big fan of .308 too.

 

[Lakerat]

OK - I'll revive this old thread. I've always been interested in owning an AR but now, with the current political wranglings, I am moving past being interested. At present, I only own pistols, a few .22 rifles and a 12 gauge. I sold off some older rifles that we had in our family (1903 Springfield 30.06, 30-30, 30 cal. carbine...etc.).

After reading several threads here and elsewhere, seems like a good (AR) starting point would be the 5.56. I just want to plink around and am not looking for any one thing in particular (SHTF, HD, range, accuracy...) just a good, all around, entry level AR.

Considering this, I could see getting a chrome lined barrel. I'm fighting with myself on this one. On one hand I figure I should "train" myself right and clean my weapon religiously - I mean that's how to keep it dependable, and I figure I may get lazy if I have the barrel lined - but I also know it may save me at times. I could then get another for higher accuracy at a later date. I haven't completely made my mind up on this. I then need to look at all of the other equipment, accessories & modifications but any thoughts on a basic, stock 5.56? Is there one modification I should make immediately and then save the rest for later? Or is there a stock that is dependable and good straight out of the box, so to speak.

I like the idea of having the same basic "platform" with interchangeable parts. That, combined with readily available and fairly inexpensive ammo, seems to be a safe bet. That way, at a later time I could build on my collection and know many of the accessories would fit several different guns.

I guess my question at this point is, has there been anything since this post went dormant that may change anyone's opinions above? The last post was more than 4 years ago. I know a lot hasn't changed in 4 years but has there been anything to dampen or bolster your thoughts above? Keep in mind - I'm a newbie and a lot of what you've discussed here is over my head - but I'm learning.

Thanks