6.8 SPC vs. 7.62x39?


PDA






Carbon_15
March 15, 2005, 12:33 PM
In glancing over the ballistics of the new 6.8SPC it looks like we have (at great expence) succesfuly reinvinted the wheel. Why is the 6.8 better than the good ol' 7.62commie?

If you enjoyed reading about "6.8 SPC vs. 7.62x39?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kor
March 15, 2005, 12:58 PM
1) Because it's newer, costs more, and is more tactical than that cheapo steel-case Commie round that you can buy for $80/case. :rolleyes:

2) The 6.8mm bullet has a better ballistic coefficient than the 123gr .311 bullet of the 7.62X39, which yields a flatter trajectory and better downrange performance/terminal ballistics at ranges in excess of 4-500 meters.

3) The 6.8mmSPC cartridge was designed to allow existing M16's and M4's to be readily adapted to fire it without modifying existing M16 magazines - IIRC, all that needs to be swapped are the barrel and bolt, standard 30-rd 5.56 mags will hold 24 or 28(not sure) rounds of 6.8mm.

ks_shooter
March 15, 2005, 12:59 PM
About 20% more energy at the muzzle and about 33% more energy at 200 yards. Because of a better bullet BC, it holds its energy better, drops less and drifts less in the wind. No magic. Its not "Thor's Hammer" :rolleyes: . Just an honest, significant improvement. It also has a straight case body so you don't need those stupid curved commie mags :)

The 7.62x39 lethality could be improved with a better buller design. I think the commie round is known for uncomplicated wounds if bone is missed. At 2400 fps with a stubby bullet its hard to get tumbling or fragmentation. A good soft-point would be an improvement, but there's that problem of the Hague (sp?) convention.

Fumbler
March 15, 2005, 01:00 PM
They should have made it with a rebated rim so they wouldn't even have to change the bolt.

Master Blaster
March 15, 2005, 01:07 PM
Its very accurate and you can hit something smaller than a 9 inch circle at 100 yards, Unlike the commie round, which has to be the most innaccurate rifle round ever developed in the 20th century.

Lonestar.45
March 15, 2005, 01:24 PM
"Unlike the commie round, which has to be the most innaccurate rifle round ever developed in the 20th century."

If you can't hit a 9" circle at 100 yds with 7.62x39, then I'd say there's a problem with either the gun, the quality of the ammo, the shooter, or all three. :confused: I can do 2-3" all day long with my SKS open sights, and I've seen AK's that can do the same thing. I think the round gets a bad rap on accuracy because guys go buy the cheapest possible dirty 30 year old ammo that's been stored in an outhouse in Romania and shoot it through guns made by communist slave labor.

The round itself, when shot through a quality gun (like a CZ 527 Carbine), with quality ammo, is just as accurate as anything out there. That said, the 6.8spc is ballistically superior to it, with better bullet design, giving it longer range accuracy and energy.

Zak Smith
March 15, 2005, 02:47 PM
Comparison of some typical loads:

_Bullet_ _BC_ _MV_ 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 | YARDS
223 77OTM 0.362 2670 > -2.60 -0.00 -3.28 -13.66 -32.72 -62.44 -105.35 | drop (inches)
0.00 0.92 3.86 9.12 17.05 28.04 42.51 | wind (inches)
6.8 110VMAX 0.370 2630 > -2.60 -0.00 -3.44 -14.16 -33.74 -64.16 -107.94 | drop (inches)
0.00 0.92 3.86 9.10 17.00 27.92 42.26 | wind (inches)
7.62x39 Fed 0.289 2300 > -2.60 -0.00 -5.86 -22.69 -53.83 -103.65 -177.36 | drop (inches)
0.00 1.46 6.20 14.84 28.02 46.23 69.43 | wind (inches)

Zak Smith
March 15, 2005, 02:48 PM
3) The 6.8mmSPC cartridge was designed to allow existing M16's and M4's to be readily adapted to fire it without modifying existing M16 magazines - IIRC, all that needs to be swapped are the barrel and bolt, standard 30-rd 5.56 mags will hold 24 or 28(not sure) rounds of 6.8mm.
Incorrect. Please consult the 6.8SPC FAQ (see below). USGI M16 mags do not work.

Bigfoot
March 15, 2005, 04:24 PM
"I think the round gets a bad rap on accuracy because guys go buy the cheapest possible dirty 30 year old ammo that's been stored in an outhouse in Romania and shoot it through guns made by communist slave labor."

That's some of the better ammo. I've had some that must have been stored UNDER the outhouse. Yes, it shot like crap.

beerslurpy
March 15, 2005, 05:04 PM
I paid under 80 bucks for 1000 rounds of uly match (nipple round) and it is clean and accurate. All of my bullets go into a 3" circle at 100 yards and I am using a scope with a 3MOA dot. That is what happens when you pay 550 for a good AK instead of expecting bushmaster accuracy from a 250 dollar weld job made in a barn in hungary.

Spend 700 dollars on an AK (an insanely high amount) and you will get a gun that is every bit as accurate as good AR15 (good luck finding one that cheap) out to 300-350 yards. The only downside to the 7.62 round is that beyond 350 yards it is impossible to hit anything with it due to bullet drop. The 6.8 seems to combine most of the positives of the 7.62 (good momentum and better sectional density) with most of the accuracy of the 5.56. The AK is probably overkill in terms of barrier penetration, so its not really a big loss to get the extra accuracy.

The downsides of the russian round are only bad if you are fighting at long ranges with only batallion level snipers. If at least one person in every squad had something in 308 or 3006, there would be no problem from the weak long range performance.

That being said, I cant even find a 300 yard range around here, so my 7 cents a round AK is definitely more than enough gun for my satisfaction. I also live in a relatively hilly and populated area, so the odds of me having to take > 300 yard shots in a SHTF situation are slim. And I have a scoped 7mm rem for long distance shooting (again, wishing I had some long distance ranges here).

Zak Smith
March 15, 2005, 05:09 PM
A Honda Accord will get you to work, but it's no BMW M3.

First-round hits on steel at 500 yards are pretty easily doable with 5.56 or 6.8.

-z

Malamute
March 15, 2005, 11:40 PM
First I heard of the 6.8, they were wanting a round that would have as MUCH range as the 7.62x39, the 5.56 doesn't hold up well in mountainous areas at long range, and being a bit sensitive to wind. They were being outranged by 7.62x39 rounds in those conditions. I'm not sure how the bullet falls so much it's impossible to hit with it past 350 yards, most guns have sights that adjust to longer ranges, so this isn't an issue unless one isn't able to judge range. Still, getting within 100 yards of the proper range setting will get you pretty close. If you hit low, add another notch up on the sight. I've plinked at rocks etc out to 500 yards with 7.62x39's, and with the sights set to that range, they hit right on POA.

The stamped receiver Kalashnikovs aren't the best shooting guns. A milled receiver gun is another story. Cheap Wolf ball ammo did 2 1/2" @ 100 yards with no problem. This with Valmet type sights.(peep rear)

BTW, those funny looking curved magazines are a result of the taper in the 7.62x39 case, and one reasons for the reputation for reliability. The taper helps feed and extract easier than a straighter case.

As I understand it, the 7.62x39 round performs pretty similar to the 7.62 Nato round in terminal performance. They tend to swap ends in soft targets. Both seem to have improved wound potential when they have a steel jacketed bullet, as they tend to be more brittle, and hence, fragment more redily. I've seen various tests that show sometimes conflicting info. If I'm mistaken on this point, anyone with more information on the matter feel free to correct me.


I guess I'm in the camp of "they are reinventing the wheel" with the 6.8. They already have 7.62x39 AR's, wonder why they didn't just use those conversions?

Having said all that, we (they, US Military) already have very good medium to long range guns, the M-14. I've seen pictures of scoped H-K G3's being used in open areas also. Having lived in fairly open country most of my life, I like having a gun that can shoot way out there. The reason given for going to the 5.56 was controlability in full auto fire. If we don't shoot full auto and we don't have the controlability problem. Don't need all the extra ammo either if not using it up on full auto shooting. Let the belt fed guns take care of that job.

Zak Smith
March 15, 2005, 11:53 PM
the 5.56 doesn't hold up well in mountainous areas at long range, and being a bit sensitive to wind. They were being outranged by 7.62x39 rounds in those conditions.
Let's look at the data:

>> 7000 elevation, absolute drop (identical sight over bore)
_Bullet_ _BC_ _MV_ 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 | YARDS
M855 0.324 3100 > -2.60 0.00 -1.64 -8.25 -20.73 -40.18 -67.97 | drop (inches)
XM193 0.243 3254 > -2.60 0.00 -1.45 -7.91 -20.62 -41.25 -72.00 | drop (inches)
7.62x39 Fed 0.289 2300 > -2.60 -0.00 -5.45 -20.81 -48.43 -91.27 -152.96 | drop (inches)

>> Wind deflection, 10mph 90 degree
M855 0.324 3100 > 0.00 0.68 2.80 6.55 12.12 19.76 29.75 | wind (inches)
XM193 0.243 3254 > 0.00 0.86 3.58 8.49 15.94 26.41 40.45 | wind (inches)
7.62x39 Fed 0.289 2300 > 0.00 1.17 4.91 11.61 21.69 35.54 53.44 | wind (inches)

Hey, it looks like M855 has less than half the drop and 45% less wind drift than 7.62x39 at any range out to 600 yards.

Try again?

The trajectory of 6.8SPC is superior to 7.62x39; it happens to be almost identical in drop and wind drift to 168gr 308 or 75-77gr 5.56mm. 6.8's terminal effects are vastly better than anything 5.56 or 7.62x39 can offer.

-z

cracked butt
March 16, 2005, 12:16 AM
I think the round gets a bad rap on accuracy because guys go buy the cheapest possible dirty 30 year old ammo that's been stored in an outhouse in Romania and shoot it through guns made by communist slave labor.

Thanks.

I am now wiping what was my late night snack of ramen noodles off my monitor screen. :p


I have a friend who has one of the newer CZ bolt actions chambered in 7.62x39 and from what I've seen, its very accurate.

Malamute
March 16, 2005, 12:27 AM
The trajectory issue is moot unless you can't adjust your sights. They will all do the job of gettting to the target with the sights set to anywhere near close to the range. Flatter trajectory helps, but they all will do.

The wind drift may indeed be less of an issue that they were saying, I was relating what I'd read when first hearing of the 6.8. I've heard about the wind problem with the 5.56 for a long time, from target shooters, varmint hunters, and soldiers.

I'm not saying the 7.62x39 is necesarily better, just covers most of the same ground, and is already available.

I would still prefer a 7.62 Nato to any of the smaller rounds. Just me.

Zak Smith
March 16, 2005, 12:36 AM
The trajectory issue is moot unless you can't adjust your sights.
No way. Trajectory is absolutely not moot.

If you're shooting on a known-distance range at even intervals, I agree that you can dial your sights up and down (or your optic), though iron sights will be limited by their adjustment quantum (typically 100 meters for AK sights).

However, when you're shooting at unknown arbitrary distances, the flatter shooting cartridge has the advantage because ranging errors cause fewer misses.

At any range, 7.62x39 is dropping at over twice the rate of M855:

>> Drop rate inches per yard
M855 0.324 3100 > 0.05 0.01 -0.04 -0.09 -0.16 -0.23 -0.32 | drop per yard (inches)
XM193 0.243 3254 > 0.04 0.01 -0.04 -0.09 -0.16 -0.25 -0.37 | drop per yard (inches)
7.62x39 Fed 0.289 2300 > 0.06 -0.01 -0.10 -0.21 -0.35 -0.52 -0.72 | drop per yard (inches)


This basically means that for the same target area, the M855 can "tolerate" over twice the ranging error of 7.62x39, and still get hits.

6.8SPC was designed to have dramatically better terminal effects from 0-300 meters with an acceptible long range trajectory, while running reliably in an M4 platform.

-z

rbernie
March 16, 2005, 07:48 AM
6.8's terminal effects are vastly better than anything 5.56 or 7.62x39 can offer. This statement bothers me a bit, if only because I believe that the terminal effects are largely governed by the bullet construction and not by the caliber of the chambering that shot it. What I hear you saying, presuming that you have seen gelatin tests of all three, is that the 6.8 was loaded with a bullet that had better terminal performance. That's wonderful, but that's also an issue of what's loaded with what. I have no doubt that you could load any of these calibers with a bullet of a design such that they would all give reasonably similar performance in ballistic gelatin.

Malamute
March 16, 2005, 09:37 AM
Ok Zak, it sounds like you have a tremendous amount of theoretical knowledge. You've done your homework. Bravo.

In my experience shooting in the field, I find it is not hard to make hits with a 7.62x39 at various unknown ranges out to 500 yards.

I'm pretty indifferent to the 6.8 in particular, and the m-16 platform in general. Good for you if you like it and are the champion of the 6.8. I just don't care enough about it to argue about it.

I still prefer a 7.62 Nato round. Have a nice day.

Master Blaster
March 16, 2005, 11:27 AM
You know if the question had been 6.8 spc vs. 30-30 win I would be reading how terrible and old fashioned the 30-30 is and how unsuitable it is as a military round compared to 6.8 SPC, 5.56 nato, .308 nato, 30-06, or 5.56 russian, or any other military round in use today. 30-30 is an old obsolete marginal performer would be what the Ubber commandos here would be writing.

Yet somehow when the topic of 7.62X39 round comes up its an ubber zombie killing round that vaproizes tanks at 600 yards, and it the best round that was ever devised. This is despite the fact that the soviets who developed the round only ever considered it to be a close range intermediate cartridge, AND THEY Abandonned it in favor of a 5.56 round 20 years ago.

Even the lowly .30-.30 win outperforms 7.62x39.

The ammo I bought for my one AK is wolf and barnul, it didnt come from under an outhouse, Like I said all the aks I have seen and shot are 9" 5 shot groupers at 100 yards. I keep reading about all those ubber accurate $1000+ custom AKs that can do 1" for 3 shots at 100 yards, but the 2 customs I see at my club can do 5" sometimes on a good day. Must be why no one uses aks in 7.62X39 for competition.

JMHO YMMV

Zak Smith
March 16, 2005, 11:38 AM
What I hear you saying, presuming that you have seen gelatin tests of all three, is that the 6.8 was loaded with a bullet that had better terminal performance. That's wonderful, but that's also an issue of what's loaded with what. I have no doubt that you could load any of these calibers with a bullet of a design such that they would all give reasonably similar performance in ballistic gelatin.
I have seen gel tests of all three. 5.56 and 7.62x39 are available on http://www.ammo-oracle.com , the best terminal ballistics information source on the web. I don't know if any 6.8 data is there yet, but there was a .mil powerpoint presentation leaked a while back which contained a lot of 6.8 data. The best terminal performer for 5.56 is the 75gr Hornady bullet or the 77gr Nosler bullet, neither of which is as good as the 115gr OTM 6.8 offering. You do have a point that I haven't seen extensive tests of non-military-loadings of 7.62x39. These have probably been dismissed because of the trajectory issue. They might be out there somewhere.

Ok Zak, it sounds like you have a tremendous amount of theoretical knowledge. You've done your homework. Bravo. In my experience shooting in the field, I find it is not hard to make hits with a 7.62x39 at various unknown ranges out to 500 yards.
Malamute, being refuted with data at every turn, resorts to ad hominem insults. If you'd like to put 7.62x39 against 6.8 in a practical rifle test, come down to our monthly precision rifle field match in Raton (details in the competition forum).

-z

Onslaught
March 16, 2005, 12:21 PM
Ok Zak, it sounds like you have a tremendous amount of theoretical knowledge. You've done your homework. Bravo.
Zak's knowledge is a TAD more than "theoretical". He's an AVID Ar15 collector and shooter, and one of the PIONEERS of reloading for the 6.8 SPC...

For someone who doesn't like the AR15 platform or the 6.8 enough to argue about it... :scrutiny:

SpookyPistolero
March 16, 2005, 12:41 PM
Hear, hear!

I would be slow to bash the cartridge or Zak's knowledge of it. I'd say he's forgotten more about the relative ballistics of these cartridges than I will ever know.

I am a proponent of the AK and the 7.62x39, and will be for a long time, but can still see the value of this cartridge. It looks to be, in my eyes, the best small arms cartridge we have seen yet. It seems the last test would be how it rates, in the field, as a man stopper. I imagine it will do quite well.

The only disadvantage is the cost at this time, and I don't know enough about the ammunition industry to guess when prices will drop. That's why I am sticking to my 7.62x39, 1000 rnds for $80. That equals lots of practice for a poor college student. The cartridge suits my 'needs' well. However, those with more specialized needs would almost certainly be better served by the 6.8.

-Spooky

(PS- I intend to forgoe both cartridges and switch to .308 if my Saiga ever arrives...)

Zak Smith
March 16, 2005, 12:51 PM
Cost and availability are big problems with 6.8SPC ammunition right now- there's no denying that.

LeonCarr
March 16, 2005, 01:34 PM
Not to sound morbid, but have there been any confirmed kills with the 6.8 SPC? How did it perform? Have any actually been used in combat, ie Iraq or Afghanistan, that anybody knows about? For right now, it seems like it is THEORETICALLY better than the 5.56 or the 7.62x39, but it is still just academic until somebody gets shot with it, witness statements on its performance are written, and autopsies are performed.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr
P.S. I have a milled receiver Bulgarian AK that shoots five shot, two inch groups off of sandbags at 100 yards with Wolf ammo, so I know of at least one decently accurate AK :).

Mike Hull
March 16, 2005, 02:12 PM
Yet somehow when the topic of 7.62X39 round comes up its an ubber zombie killing round that vaproizes tanks at 600 yards, and it the best round that was ever devised. This is despite the fact that the soviets who developed the round only ever considered it to be a close range intermediate cartridge, AND THEY Abandonned it in favor of a 5.56 round 20 years ago.

Selective memory is a wonderful thing. ;) :D

Even the lowly .30-.30 win outperforms 7.62x39.

Agreed, and people have been badmouthing the 30-30 for decades as a hunting round, at least till TC put it in a pistol. I'm still scratching my head over how, all of a sudden, a round that supposedly isn't even good for deer, in a rifle, is suddenly transformed in a pistol to be a superior hunting round.

MB, there's no rationallity to the whole thing. Don't even try to figure it out. ;) :D

Zak Smith
March 16, 2005, 02:16 PM
To be fair, the terminal ballistics desired in a hunting round are somewhat different from the optimum anti-personnel terminal effects. I have this from a expert in the field...

-z

SpookyPistolero
March 16, 2005, 02:33 PM
Can you describe any specifics or general reasons as to why that is Zak? I don't have any doubt that it is the case, but I'm definitely not an expert in the field and would like to learn more about the differences. Does it have anything to do with the idea of wounding, instead of killing, and enemy soldier so that when another soldier steps in to rescue him, he too is removed from combat?

I hope not, because it really made me angry when I heard that was a motivation behind the 5.56 coming about.

Zak Smith
March 16, 2005, 03:01 PM
Does it have anything to do with the idea of wounding, instead of killing, and enemy soldier so that when another soldier steps in to rescue him, he too is removed from combat?
No.
Can you describe any specifics or general reasons as to why that is Zak? I don't have any doubt that it is the case, but I'm definitely not an expert in the field and would like to learn more about the differences.
I am not a professional in this field (terminal ballistics) so I can't articulate as well as they can, but I've remembered a thing or two from talking to them. Don't mistake my arguments here for the authoritative explanation. With that kind of lame disclaimer--

Basically, the human body is a different shape and size with different structures protecting (or not) vital organs than deer-shaped game animals.

In the leaked "Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT Report" (which you can find if you google around), an ideal wound profile for stopping humans was described. Basically, it desires a shorter neck region in the wound profile before the explosive fragmentation, which ought to occur quickly and sort-of keep going, then some significant fragments should continue to 12" penetration.

If you shoot a bullet that meets those optimal characteristics into a game animal, there is a good chance it will not give sufficient penetration, because of bone structures in the way of the vital organs and the different relative size of structures in the game animal.

When you throw in barrier penetration and a LEO aversion to egregious overpenetration, it just gets more complicated.

-z

SpookyPistolero
March 16, 2005, 03:09 PM
Gracias! Makes a lot of sense and is fairly intuitive from a biological design perspective.

So Zack, if you dont mind me picking your mind all afternoon, do you have any thoughts on the likely future of the cartridge? Do you think it will remain available but relatively expensive and uncommon?

Like I said, I haven't been much on AR's, much of which is due to the 5.56 caliber, but if 6.8 became a bit more 'feasible', I'd really consider one.

Thanks again.

rbernie
March 16, 2005, 03:10 PM
If you shoot a bullet that meets those optimal characteristics into a game animal, there is a good chance it will not give sufficient penetration, because of bone structures in the way of the vital organs and the different relative size of structures in the game animal. And it's perfectly acceptable for a hunting bullet to overpenetrate and for the hunter to rely upon 'bleed out' of a wounded game animal over time. When dealing with an armed adversary, I would probably prefer a more, ah, immediate effect.

Malamute
March 16, 2005, 03:14 PM
Zak, and anyone else that has taken offense at my lack of enthusiasm for the 6.8 or AR platform, My apologies, I had no desire to insult. Please don't take my lack of enthusiasm for being critical, it's not, my point was to simply add to the conversation, and express an opinion on the matter. I think some are missing my point, that I've pointed out in about every post on this subject, I prefer the 7.62 Nato round. I'm not attempting to hold up the 7.62x39 as any sort of wonder cartridge, I simply don't get excited about it either way, just wanting to balance the conversation and point out my experience.

Zak, you appear to be fairly passionate on the subject, good for you, I have passions and strong interests in the gun world, modern military cartridges simply aren't interesting to me in the same way as they are to you. I'm sure my interests would not excite you the same way. My posts are simply that my opinion is that they are not enough different to excite me, and I prefer the 7.62 Nato anyway. I fully agree that the 6.8 is a ballistically improved round over either 5.56 or 7.62x39. Just not enough to excite me, since I prefer the 7.62 Nato.


Or in other words, I have no horse in this race. I prefer the 7.62 Nato anyway.

Correia
March 16, 2005, 03:15 PM
No offense Master Blaster, but some of us do use 7.62x39 in competiton. I use it regularly in our local 3guns because our maximum range is limited to 200 yards. And I can practice for cheap.

And by the way, I can shoot 2 inch groups with my Vepr all day, so if the best 7.62x39 group you can get is nine inches, you need a better gun, or you need to learn to shoot better. :)

With that said, 6.8 is better in pretty much every way ballistically speaking. I think that it is an exciting development, and I'm interested to see how it turns out. In the mean time, I'm glad that there are guys like Zak who are willing to step up and spend their money on the new stuff to test it out first the rest of us cheap competitors. :)

Master Blaster
March 16, 2005, 03:37 PM
No offense taken Correia, I have a romanian AK, I didnt expect it to be a match gun, it is what it is. Alot of the accuracy problem is its poor stock fit to my frame, the fact that I grew up shooting American style guns, its poor sighting system and ergonomics with a scope mount that requires floating a chin weld if you are lucky, lack of good reloading components etc.

I like my Ars and my .308 30-06 bolt guns better. I have no problem shooting minisule groups .5 moa or better on a regular basis with them, or even any of my .22lr rifles at 100 yards.

My two saigas are no better than the romainian even though they are .223 and .308, due to issues with the ergos and sights. If I could do it over the saigas and the romanian money would have been spent on another good bolt gun, or another quality .22lr. rifle .

The thing that gets me is the idea that the 7.62X39 is the hammer of thor,and 5.56 nato is worthless by comparison. to me 7.62 is just a slightly weak .30-.30 ballistically, and the AK design doesnt work for me.

Zak Smith
March 16, 2005, 03:38 PM
SP-

Right now it's a boutique round, but one with a lot of interest. You can look at all the vendors selling complete uppers and rifles, even without much ammo available, as an indicator. It is my belief that once ammo starts flowing from Black Hills, Barrett/AA, Hornady, and maybe even Remington, it will take off. I am not optimistic about it being adopted by the military just because of beaurocratic inertia.

Malamute,

I get frustrated when bad info continues to be repeated as "fact", and that was one of the reasons I wrote the 6.8 FAQ in the first place. Lively debate is great 'cause it ought to improve what we know. Dismissing what I'm saying by alleging that it's "theoretical", "book knowledge", "homework", or somehow not related to real experiments or field use is not only poor debate (technically ad hominem), but it's false. I am not offended in the least if you don't like 6.8 or any other caliber, but don't make assumptions about my character or experience.

7.62NATO / 308WIN is moot to this thread anyway because it won't fit in an assault rifle.

-z

TheDutchman
March 17, 2005, 11:02 AM
To get off topic for a moment. I am a little offended by Malamute posts. Zak is one of the more knowledgeable member, on this board not just on the 6.8spc. There is no need to insult Zak just because you prefer the 7.62 NATO.


Back on topic

Ballistics are great the 6.8 spc throws a 115gr Bullet and the same speed as a 5.56 throws a 77 gr bigger hole heavier weight same speed sound good to me

Malamute
March 17, 2005, 11:14 AM
Dutch,
I didn't intend to insult, just express another opinion. Maybe didn't use the best words. My apologies if I insulted.

Zak and I have talked, we're cool.

Richardson
March 17, 2005, 11:42 AM
It sounds like some in this thread are like me, and would be asking, "What does 6.8 SPC do that I can't pretty much do with either 5.56 or 7.62x39?" Like me, they ask the "Can't you pretty much do that with something we already have?" I asked a gunstore owner why one would need a single action pistol in 17 HMR & 17 MACH2 when it's available in 22lr & 22 Magnum, to which I was answered, "A boy needs a new toy!" I laughed and recognized that there's always room for improvement.

For this 6.8 SPC vs 7.62x39 debate, I tend to see 5.56, 7.62x39 & 7.62x51 as covering the based pretty well. Even so, if the 6.8 SPC were to catch on, perform well, and become affordable, I might get rid of my 5.56 and my 7.62x39. I keep tryin' to simplify things down to "essentials". Owning a .308, I'm thinking I should ditch my .30-06 in favor of something bigger.

I guess if weapons development were left up to me the debate would be between long bows and artillery. :rolleyes:

Richardson

MLC
March 17, 2005, 12:12 PM
Something to consider in the Afghanistan (mountainous) theater is the massive amount of Enfields that were sold to the Mujahaddin during the conflict with the Russians.
It's not like they sold them all back after the Russians pulled out.
PKM's and other machine guns would also make longer range rifle fire a necessity.
I have one question regarding the 7.62x39 and longer range engagements.
I was under the impression that the Russians issued SVD's as a DMR to compensate for the AK's lack of effective range.

On the actual topic of the thread, I think the 6.8 is a step in the right direction(away from the 5.56).
If creating an effective intermediate range assault rifle cartridge is reinventing the wheel, perhaps teh original wheel didn't roll so well.

TheDutchman
March 17, 2005, 02:25 PM
I thought the 7.62x39mm effective range was around 300m. The 6.8 spc has a effective range 600m with 475fp of energy. At 600m thats about a 125gr .357 mag energy at its muzzle hitting the target.

Langenator
March 17, 2005, 04:29 PM
Most of the BGs in Afghanistan aren't going to be able to make use of the max range of their weapons for one simple reason: they don't see too well in a lot of cases. Doesn't matter if the rifle is effective to 500m if you can only see clearly to 100m.

It has a lot to do with a lifetime of not so hot nutrition. Our guys training the AFghan Army had to have a lot of glasses made.

rauchman
March 17, 2005, 05:25 PM
Greetings,

This would be directed to Zak or anyone "in the know". I understand the motivation for creating the 6.8SPC round was primarily from the military. Wondering if the military is still interested in this round. From the rumor mill of the net and 2nd hand accounts, the gist that I have gotten is that the military has given up on this round. Again, this all based on the non-fact based rumors from the net and what not. I think it's a shame since from what I have learned about the round, it probably would be the best "assault rifle" round created to date. I've read about 2nd hand rumors that the military is tossing about different 5.56 bullet design ideas.. something along the line of the 5.45x39 round the Russians use. Can anyone verify this?

Zak Smith
March 17, 2005, 05:30 PM
I don't think we have concrete evidence either way at this point.

The 5.56 ammunition you're thinking of is the "Mk262", "mod0" and "mod1", which is more or less a hot-loaded 77gr projectile.

-z

Tony Williams
March 18, 2005, 10:15 AM
For this 6.8 SPC vs 7.62x39 debate, I tend to see 5.56, 7.62x39 & 7.62x51 as covering the based pretty well. Even so, if the 6.8 SPC were to catch on, perform well, and become affordable, I might get rid of my 5.56 and my 7.62x39. I keep tryin' to simplify things down to "essentials".

The 6.8mm is pretty close in real-world performance to the 7.62x51; the trajectory is the same to 500m (ever shoot any further?) and the FMJ bullet is more destructive as it tumbles faster and fragments. Of course, expanding hunting bullets would change the equations somewhat.

If you really want to shoot a long way, there's always the 6.5mm Grendel :)

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

MLC
March 18, 2005, 12:40 PM
The difference between the 6.8 and the Grendel is that the 6.8 was engineered to work in an M-16/M4 and succeeded.
I personally would not consider the 6.5 Grendel an option.
I had hands on a some Grendel ammunition and Grendel magazines the other day.
The magazines were inadequate to put it nicely.
The gentleman who had them, and a Grendel uppered AR, had yet to get any of the 5 AA magazines to function reliably and had gone so far as to buy some PRI 6.8 magazines in hopes that the rifle would feed better.
His ammunition was loaded with 120g Sierras seated to just fit in a magazine.
It was obvious that the base of the bullet was seated well into the powder.
With the longer "1000 yard" bullets often associated in the Grendel hype the base of the projectile would be getting awfully close to the primer.
A bolt action rifle or a rifle with room for a greater OAL would be a much better home for the Grendel than an AR-15 in my opinion.

TheDutchman
March 18, 2005, 03:49 PM
Not to start a 6.8 spc versus a 6.5 Grendel debate but I notice that most the Grendel uppers has 24'' barrels to achieve the documented 2800fps. Is this correct

Zak Smith
March 18, 2005, 04:12 PM
Are you asking about velocity from a 24" Grendel barrel? According to their ballistics table PDF (http://www.65grendel.com/graphics/grendelballistics.pdf), the 108 Scenar shoots at 2700fps from a 20" 6.5 Grendel barrel, and the 123 at 2600fps.

artherd
March 18, 2005, 06:44 PM
Zak is one of the most knowlegable precision rifle shooters I've ever conversated with. He's forgotten more about just the AR platform than I will likely ever know.

The 6.8SPC is a great improvement in woulding effectiveness over the standard M885 62gr 5.56mm load.

It is less signifigant an improvement over the very new 77gr OTM Mk262 Mod 1 load. Infact, their trajectories are near identical, and both do exibhit good gelatin results, though the nod definately goes to the heavier 110gr OTM of the 6.8 at nearly the same velocity. The 6.8's 110gr OTM may also fragment furthur out than the 5.56's 77gr.

Both rounds seriously eclipse what is possible from 7.62x39 in nearly all areas. Especially at any range beyond 300yds.

Zak Smith
March 18, 2005, 06:53 PM
It is less signifigant an improvement over the very new 77gr OTM Mk262 Mod 1 load. Infact, their trajectories are near identical, and both do exibhit good gelatin results, though the nod definately goes to the heavier 110gr OTM of the 6.8 at nearly the same velocity. The 6.8's 110gr OTM may also fragment furthur out than the 5.56's 77gr.115OTM or 110VMAX both have superior terminal effects over Mk262 at any range--
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/docgkr/myhomepage/556_68_762_comparison.jpg

Too Many Choices!?
March 18, 2005, 08:53 PM
If that neck was any shorter I would say the 6.8 bullet "tumbled" before impact! :) :evil: .308 is just down right scary......

If someone has the ability, will you please post a pic of the four rounds next to each other? 7.62x39, 5.56x45, 6.8mm, and the 6.5 grendel......I have never SEEN the last two bullets or case dimension and would like to know what all the hype is about......If not too much trouble maybe with and without the cases :)

Zak Smith
March 18, 2005, 09:01 PM
Check the neck on the 155 AMAX...

JohnKSa
March 18, 2005, 09:39 PM
The trajectory issue is moot unless you can't adjust your sights. They will all do the job of gettting to the target with the sights set to anywhere near close to the range. Flatter trajectory helps, but they all will do.Only if you ignore the fact that flatter trajectory also means less wind drift. Adjusting the sights for distance doesn't correct for wind drift--the 6.8 has a tremendous advantage in this respect.

Zak Smith
March 18, 2005, 09:46 PM
Only if you ignore the fact that flatter trajectory also means less wind drift. Adjusting the sights for distance doesn't correct for wind drift--the 6.8 has a tremendous advantage in this respect.
JohnKSa,

Your point is definitely correct in 7.62x39 vs. 6.8SPC.

However, it does not always hold true. For example:
_Bullet_ _BC_ _MV_ 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 | YARDS
300WM 155 Scenar 0.508 3300 > -0.00 0.00 3.27 7.42 12.33 18.13 25.01 | drop (moa)
300WM 210gr VLD 0.640 2900 > -0.00 0.00 4.20 9.29 15.13 21.82 29.48 | drop (moa)

300WM 155 Scenar 0.508 3300 > 0.00 1.64 6.84 16.15 30.26 50.00 76.41 | wind (inches)
300WM 210gr VLD 0.640 2900 > 0.00 1.53 6.35 14.91 27.71 45.34 68.49 | wind (inches)


The 155gr load is 4.5MOA flatter at 1200 yards, but has 8" more wind.

regards
Zak

JohnKSa
March 19, 2005, 09:13 PM
Ok, Zak, educate me--I'm trying to draw some general conclusions and I've jumped the track somewhere.

Here is my (mis?)conception.

Assuming muzzle velocities in the same general neighborhood, flatter trajectory is a result of shorter TOF which is a result of better BC.

Better BC and shorter TOF results in less wind drift.

Therefore flatter trajectory = less wind drift.

Where did I go wrong?

Zak Smith
March 19, 2005, 10:36 PM
JohnKSa,

Let me briefly diverge. There are several levels at which we can "model" these ballistics. 1 We can measure data in the field and record the salient features. 2 We can use the best numerical physics models developed over the last 150 years for predicting trajectory of symmetric projectiles. 3. We can use our intuition. (There are more of course, but we're already talking about these 3.)

The first is really "no model", just a reporting of what actually happened. The second and third are predictive models. The former (numeric physics models) have proven so accurate that the field has been dead since the 80's. It's done all that it can be asked to do, which is predict the actual POI within an extremely small margin of error. The last, our intuition, is a kind of model, but it relies on a small set of general rules to obtain vague answers.

If we assume the work of all numeric ballisticians in the last century was not for nothing, then that example of a faster bullet (also with shorter flight time!) having more wind drift is a fact. It's not really a hypothesis, but more a conclusion of a proven predictive system. (Since I haven't actually shot those two loads at 1200 yards and instrumented everything!)

Here are some intuitive rules:

If we keep the BC's the same, the faster of the two bullets will have less wind drift and drop.

If we keep the velocities the same, the higher-BC of the two bullets will have less wind drift and drop.

If both aspects are increased vs. the "control" bullet, the result will again be even less wind drift and drop.

However, in this case, one bullet has a higher BC but a lower MV than the other. This plays the general rules listed above against each other.

The aspect that enables the non-intuitive behavior of the 155/3300 vs. 210/2900 case is that the drag in any direction is modulated by the BC. Even though the 155 Scenar takes 0.10 sec less long to travel to 1200 yards, the wind affects it more per time because its BC is significantly less than the 210VLD's BC.

Hope this helps. The best way to get a good understanding of this stuff is to play with a quality ballistic computer for a long time.

-z

Malakai44
March 20, 2009, 04:05 AM
last time i went to shop for a rifle, and i must say it's been awhile. an ar-15 was quite a chunk of money. and nobody can tell me a 5.56 round can hit as hard up close as a 7.62x39. so the introduction of this 6.8 is no good news to me. i might agree that it outperforms the 39. but not enough for me to go out and spend a grand plus on a good ar-15 and then convert it. i gave 200 bucks for my sks. i am not an awesome shooter, but it performs pretty decent. show me a 6.8 on the market for even 300 bucks. and we will talk about the really slight edge in performance it provides.

Snowdog
March 20, 2009, 04:21 AM
1,460 days later... so what's it like working for the DMV?

R.W.Dale
March 20, 2009, 07:46 AM
holy dead thread batman

Cohibra45
March 20, 2009, 10:00 AM
Welcome to the 'High Road'!!!

Way to go with your first post........finding a 2005 thread and stirring the pot on anything 6.x vs 'name it'....

BTW, I'm sure your $199 SKS, which is $100 more than I paid for mine back in the day will shoot just fine. Don't worry yourself about any new calibers or the rifles that shoot them.;) You can kill deer very well with it I'm sure.

Seriously, the SKS is a fine rifle for what it was intentioned to be. It even works well as a fairly close in deer/black bear rifle with the right ammo. It eats up the cheap steel cased stuff and is an all around fun gun.

It is not, and can never be, brought up in the same breath as an AR however...two totally different animals. That is why there is at least a $500 difference between your SKS and any baseline AR. The AR can easily be brought up to an accurate Long Range shooter (see 1000yd range Camp Perry) whereas your SKS will be stretching it to shoot 300yds.

It's not that your bullet choice isn't accurate.....we're talking rifles here. The 6.x vs 'name your round' has been discussed and argued, fought and died for here and on other sites about long enough. Suffice it to say that for practical purposes, your rifle and cartridge (for the price you paid) should suit you just fine. Others like myself have sold off their SKSs and moved up in quality with the AR platform.

Just don't come on here and expect to start another rant........although I'm some here will surely oblige you.

Lucky
March 20, 2009, 06:26 PM
Looks like a timely resurrection: http://demigodllc.com/articles.php
7.62x39 Ammunition: Improving the Military Standard - It's sometimes hard to look past the most common loading to see a cartridge's full potential. The 7.62x39 mm is a good example of this phenomenon. The ubiquitous military loadings of the 7.62x39 were state of the art in the 1940's but have lackluster performance today. In this article I'll show you three strengths of the 7.62x39 which are largely ignored by its users: good performance in short-barreled rifles (SBR); the use of modern and heavy projectiles which have near ideal terminal performance; and heavy subsonic loads for suppressed use. (2009 Book of the AK-47)

Zak Smith
March 20, 2009, 07:28 PM
The 2009 Book of the AK-47 is out now, with my full article in it (the abstract Lucky posted above). If you look at the directions I suggest for getting best use of, and improving, the 7.62x39, they do not relate directly to 6.8's strengths.

-z

amprecon
March 20, 2009, 08:38 PM
As I've opined before on this subject, the 6.8SPC practically duplicates the terminal behavior of the .276 Pedersen and .280 British rounds, the former being developed in the early 30's, the latter being developed after WWII based on lessons learned during that war. The Pedersen round was really on to something and the British developed their pratically duplicated version afterwards realizing their .280 retained the best traits of what they wanted in a combat round.
As both "ideal" rounds both were trounced by Americans, the .276 nemesis being McArthur and the .280 nemesis being the U.S. Military's stubborness in adopting the 7.62X51 (a .30-06 in tighter fitting clothes).
So as the bull in the china cabinet, we are again witnessing the stubborness of the American Military to make questionable choices. Of course, we'll never know the political tangled webs involved in any governmental decision-making.
I say though, that if the 6.8 and related rifles were as prevelant in the market as the 7.62X39 and AK variant rifles were, I'd of been all over it over the 7.62X39.
But I think what we all really missed out on was the reduced-sized .276 Pedersen Garands, that gun would've been a hoot.

HorseSoldier
March 20, 2009, 11:32 PM
+1 what amprecon said.

soullight
March 21, 2009, 04:12 PM
Having owned all of the calibers in question, I'll add my observations. 7.62x39 ballistics are very similar. there is little comparison in stopping power between 7.62 comlboc to 7.62 nato as the nato round from a good rifle will hit accurately and kill at 800 yards. I have an lwrc gas piston gun in 6.8. It is very reliable, though I would not put it up there with ak's or g3's. The principal piston gun out there being used in the field was the hk 416 which seemed to do just swell. the 6.8 with the hornady v-max out of my gun will shoot 1 inch groups using a millett 1-4 dot scope. I believe the groups could possibly get tighter using a conventional scope. I never was a fan of .223. The special forces invented 6.8 to give a carbine weight rifle more reach and hitting power. Reports from afghanistan and Iraq confirm the 6.8 does the job. I still have 308 rifles I like. but i have no reservations on the 6.8

magicdave
November 24, 2009, 06:13 PM
I found the information regarding the attributes of various primarily military ammunition very interesting indeed. I came to this forum to find out what I could about the 6.8 SPC and have decided that based on what I have read so far my next weapon purchase will in fact be a Robinson XCR cambered in 6.8 SPC.

I am not a range shooter and neither do I any sort of competitive shooting but I am a deer hunter and have bagged deer with a multitude of weapons including primitive weapons but most have been taken with the venerable win. 30-30. I saw a couple of derogatory comments about the 30-30 and found myself questioning this derision. If the 30-30 is so bad then why have so many deer been taken with the various versions of an excellent "brush gun?" I grew up in the Catskill Mountains in upstate N.Y. where the need of a long range weapon is not as much of an issue.

Ballistic data shows the 6.8 SPC to be a "better mousetrap." I am one of those "paranoid" about the coming days of "societal breakdown" when defending one's family and property will become a personal matter. Having a weapon that can serve multiple needs is paramount. Having taken a couple of deer with an AK I would say that overall performance favors the 30-30.
Now to the argument that "on paper" the 6.8 SPC is superior to both the 5.56 and the 7.62x39 and that the only way to really know is with real time real life uses to see if it will kill a human as well as either of the those two that are now in common use i would have to say that I read another article about a "road test" using the 6.8 on a 150 lb. mule deer. A one shot kill. That tells me all I need to know.

From my standpoint, I love the 7.62 NATO but at my advancing age the recoil has become a bit much. I think a .243 is another good deer rifle but aren't we really discussing military weapons? If I had my choice of the 3 calibers being discussed here the 6.8 SPC wins hands down.

magicdave
November 24, 2009, 06:22 PM
I found the information regarding the attributes of various primarily military ammunition very interesting indeed. I came to this forum to find out what I could about the 6.8 SPC and have decided that based on what I have read so far my next weapon purchase will in fact be a Robinson XCR cambered in 6.8 SPC.

I am not a range shooter and neither do I any sort of competitive shooting but I am a deer hunter and have bagged deer with a multitude of weapons including primitive weapons but most have been taken with the venerable win. 30-30. I saw a couple of derogatory comments about the 30-30 and found myself questioning this derision. If the 30-30 is so bad then why have so many deer been taken with the various versions of an excellent "brush gun?" I grew up in the Catskill Mountains in upstate N.Y. where the need of a long range weapon is not as much of an issue.

Ballistic data shows the 6.8 SPC to be a "better mousetrap." I am one of those "paranoid" about the coming days of "societal breakdown" when defending one's family and property will become a personal matter. Having a weapon that can serve multiple needs is paramount. Having taken a couple of deer with an AK I would say that overall performance favors the 30-30.
Now to the argument that "on paper" the 6.8 SPC is superior to both the 5.56 and the 7.62x39 and that the only way to really know is with real time real life uses to see if it will kill a human as well as either of the those two that are now in common use i would have to say that I read another article about a "road test" using the 6.8 on a 150 lb. mule deer. A one shot kill. That tells me all I need to know.

From my standpoint, I love the 7.62 NATO but at my advancing age the recoil has become a bit much. I think a .243 is another good deer rifle but aren't we really discussing military weapons? If I had my choice of the 3 calibers being discussed here the 6.8 SPC wins hands down.

wishin
November 24, 2009, 06:54 PM
A very detailed review of the 6.8SPC

http://demigodllc.com/articles/6.8-mm-spc-cartridge-history-development-hornady-stag-arms-carbine/?p=11

-v-
November 24, 2009, 08:35 PM
If you are preparing for societal breakdown, selecting a rifle firing a very niche and hard to get cartridge seems like a recipe to be left without ammo and with a very expensive club. I think Napoleon once said "Amateurs talk of tactics, professionals talk of logistics."

Maverick223
November 24, 2009, 09:04 PM
Well at least this recent resurrection wasn't 4 yrs. old. Dave, Welcome to THR.

:)

sthomper
November 21, 2010, 12:52 AM
those with more specialized needs would almost certainly be better served by the 6.8........

i have seen the round and a mini ruger at a store claiming to be the 6.8spc.

as a stand alone weapon i dont know that it makes any more or less sense (except for cost) than near-by calibers.
if the round can be put through an m4-ish platform without having to buy two rifles and just some interchangable rifle components at lower cost than two rifles - a 5.56 doing what it does best and the 6.8spc with its set of ballistic advantges (or legal deer hunting issues...-so i have read- in some states) then it seems like a neat offering in the cartridge dept. and not such a specialized round after all. if what i have read is true. i am not sure. hopefully it isnt all a lie.

amprecon
November 21, 2010, 04:18 PM
The trajectory of the 6.8 is very similar to the trajectory of the .223 and .308. The 6.8 is said to have at least 40% more energy on target than the .223 with almost half the recoil of the .308. We won't compare the trajectory of the 7.62X39 to any of those listed above, but it is deadly and accurate enough within 100yds without much sight adjustment.

longdayjake
November 21, 2010, 09:02 PM
Rise!!! RISE!!! IT'S ALIVE!!!!

Welcome back ancient thread.

Kind of funny to see all the misinformation that was tossed out a few years ago.

Omaha-BeenGlockin
November 22, 2010, 12:40 AM
Well---at least the newbies are using the search function.

R.W.Dale
November 22, 2010, 12:49 AM
Yet 5 years later where are we?

Still with two or three diffrent chambers, underperforming SAAMI spec guns and loads and a select few factory load offerings with no cheaper plinking ammo.

Has anything changed?

68wj
November 22, 2010, 08:48 AM
Yet 5 years later where are we?

Still with two or three diffrent chambers, underperforming SAAMI spec guns and loads and a select few factory load offerings with no cheaper plinking ammo.

Has anything changed?
That's almost as many chamber options as .223 :) . At least Barnes and Hornady have taken notice with new offerings (Hornady 120 gr SST just announced). Everything else is just rumor for now. The only thing that can be certain is plinking rounds are a pipe dream. The 6.8 will never be a mag dump cartridge.

Tirod
November 22, 2010, 10:05 AM
Looking over the last five years, the 6.8 is a huge success. It's the #1 alternative caliber for the AR15.

It takes millions of rounds a year to achieve cheap plinker status, those who look to any non military caliber for that - other than .22 - are being intensely naive or worse. But, then again, some people thought Bushmaster or FN would get them new designs for the price of the 45 year old AR.

The 6.8 is doing great with those who demand terminal results. It now has dozens of suppliers of barrels, uppers, ammo, and finished guns. All the Tier One makers offer it. Hunters buy it because it makes the AR "legal" to hunt. It offers enough power to take down game, with reputedly fewer losses than 5.56. Apparently, there aren't that many feral French hunting canines to be controlled, hogs and deer are more likely.

So far the only other competitor would be the newly released .300 BLK, a Whisper copy. It can use standard bolts and magazines, but there really isn't much savings, if any. It's promised to have cheap plinker ammo made for it, and the supersonic ballistics are promised to be just like the 7.62-39. Which makes it a .30-30, at best.

Talk about reinventing the wheel.

I don't expect 25c a round, it's not a military surplus caliber, either.

GunTech
November 22, 2010, 01:12 PM
I was wondering when 300 Blackout would be mentioned. The marketing engine is really working overtime on this one and I've noticed there a lot of buzz on a lot of gunboards about how this is THE next AR round . I am seeing it being recommended as the best AR round for SD even. :)

Who's actually seen a loaded round, let alone shot one.

The 6.8 seems to have earned a place as a legitimate round. It has real utility particularly for those who want to hunt with the AR but can't or won't use 223 on medium game animals. Quite a number of manufacturers build rifles, and it's even offered in a non-AR platform.

300 Blackout might succeed, if it can fill a similar niche. As a cheap plinker, it will never be able to compete with 7.62x39, 5.45x39 or even milsurp 5.56. As a game or SD round its competition is the 7.62x39 and while the 300 can use standard magazines, this isn't a particularly compelling argument since ammo is by far the largest cost over the life of a firearm and 7.62x39 AR magazines are available. The AR in 7.62x39 also gives the owner the option to shoot premium ammo, or cheap blasting ammo.

jimmymorocco
December 3, 2010, 01:06 AM
I killed a nice buck @ 250yds with a Saiga 16" bbl. this year, open sites brown bear ammo. He was pretty dead alright. The x39 has its limits like any other caliber but all of them can be pushed to find what their extreme limits are. I really don't care what kind of weaponry my enemy has all I care about is can he use it to the extreme limits? If so I better be better with mine!!

Tirod
December 3, 2010, 11:27 AM
In mentioning the .300 BLK, accessory cost and availability come to mind. Not everyone shoots so much ammo 25c a round becomes their upper limit. With .300 BLK, the standard bolt and GI mags will do. With the 6.8, a specific bolt and mags must be used, increasing the acquired costs. With the 7.62x39, again, a specific bolt, and frankenmags to feed tapered cases into the straight mag well are required. That means losing a major reliability factor for the AK round, the superior mag feeding system.

Some do ok, many report that alone is what turned them off 7.62x39 in the AR. Guaranteed reliable money back magazines don't exist. Talk of ballistics advantages forget the case has to feed into the chamber reliably. Mess that up - like hollowpoints in a 1911, it's a dog. Feed ramps, polishing, tweaks, whatever it takes, but it's a compromise to get it to work.

6.8 or .300 BLK works in the gun with less mods, ammo cost isn't everything when the end result is superior ballistics. If blasting ammo is the goal, don't bother with them. It's contradictory. High round count guns don't usually need uber ballistics pinging off steel plates or punching paper.

If you enjoyed reading about "6.8 SPC vs. 7.62x39?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!