Not long ago I was watching a show that touted the 6 ARC as being the new kid on the block for the military. Now I'm hearing that the 6.8 is the new kid on the block. Is it the 6 ARC is the new 5.56 and the 6.8 is the new .308? The only thing I am sure of is that I am sending Santa a request for the new Vortex XM157-NGSW-FC optic. WOW! $20M contract for these must mean the military also likes them!
6 ARC & 6.8 I'm confused?
- Thread starter gun'sRgood
- Start date
- Status
someguy2800
Member
The 6 arc was never considered as a general issue cartridge. It was only purchased in small numbers for an unnamed special forces unit.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 15,109
The 6.8 isn’t the 6.8 SPC.
The 6 ARC was not solicited as a broad scale replacement for 5.56.
Mods should lock this thread, both misconceptions have been done to death.
The 6 ARC was not solicited as a broad scale replacement for 5.56.
Mods should lock this thread, both misconceptions have been done to death.
Indeed. And there were actually TWO 6.8 cartridges in the running. The 6.8x51mm in the Polymer case, by True Velocity. And the high pressure “277 Fury” donned by Sig Sauer. The Sig was chosen, along with their new weapon to replace the current SAW M249. But we shall see. As of now you still see ALL our armed forces using 5.56.
bfoosh006
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,097
The Gov likes to spend money, Lol
I am confused by the whole idea... moving back to a pretty heavy rifle ( The XM5 weighs 8.38 pounds, or 9.84 pounds with the suppressor, much heavier than the 6.34-pound M4.) , with a probably much short barrel / parts life. I realize it is intended to defeat the ever growing body armors we face but... ammo weighs more, so the average soldier will carry less rounds...
I could understand it if it was a DMR or something like that... but...
Their have been ammunition & weapons trials for the last 2.5 decades! Still here we are using the 5.56 & AR based weapon. While the Marine Corps Standard Issue is now the M27, which is the HK416, it’s STILL based on the M16/AR15. The Army is still using the M4. 55 years running and still going strong!
I've always appreciated your thoughts. If you would point me in the right direction I'd happily remove this myself. My apologies for any ad nauseum I may have caused.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 15,109
The 6.8 cartridge selected in the NGSW solicitation is the .277 Fury, which is poised to eventually displace SAW/M249’s. Not the 6.8 SPC, simply a coincidentally similar bullet diameter.
Search the forum or internet for .277 Fury and NGSW and you’ll find the solicitations and enough dead horse beating to keep you busy for a long, long time.
The 6 ARC was developed as a small scale DoD application, selecting Proof Research barreled Barret Rec7’s. Nothing more. Same same here - searching the forum or internet will give you all of the information you could ever want.
Neither are broadscale M4/5.56 replacements, despite an original desire within the NGSW solicitation, which has largely been abandoned, which has also seemingly largely abandoned the True Velocity product as well.
gun’sRgood, don’t sweat it man. You have as much right to post as any one else! You don’t know & you’re asking a valid question. I’m not sure why that angers SOME people. But, that is why I have SOME people on IGNORE. Because I sincerely don’t care for a single point they make! Especially trying to intimidate less knowledgeable enthusiasts.
I don’t think your thread should be deleted. I doubt many others do either.
I don’t think your thread should be deleted. I doubt many others do either.
Last edited:
CapnMac
Member
6 arc was a separate, civilian, project. A potentially successful one that give 243 performance in a 45mm case length.
The 6.8s (the quintajillion or so out there) have been seesawing back and forth mostly generating paid articles in popular press.
The $20 million is to buy around 2000 to 5000 of the experimental SAW and Carbines, and a huge pile of the 2-3 pound Vortex scopes that do everything but play DVDs.
The whizbang need ammo is 6.8x51, basically a 7.62x51 at some phenomenal chamber pressure. Many are comparing the new round to the 7-08; it very much resembles the .276pedersen (7x51) developed in [drumroll] 1923.
The 6.8x51 is right at twice the weight of 5.56nato. So, a SAW gunner either has to hump double the weight, or only carry 150 rounds. Which also advances the question of why the Squad weapon ought fire the same round as the Platoon MG (7.62x51).
All that is new is old is new again, and again, and again.
There is just no getting around the fact that if you want more performance, you have to go to a bigger case. 5.56 just is what it is. kicking it up to 123 gr. makes a little more capable but nothing like 308 based case or a 30-06 based case. So it really is all about objectives. Defeat body armor? defeat body armor at 500m? It necessitates a more powerful round like the 6.8.
And time marches on. You have to constantly try new things, and give them a serious look. A farmer friend of mine told me if his Grandpa knew the way he was farming today, he would have laughed him off the place. However, he produces more grain than his Grandpa even dreamed of.
And time marches on. You have to constantly try new things, and give them a serious look. A farmer friend of mine told me if his Grandpa knew the way he was farming today, he would have laughed him off the place. However, he produces more grain than his Grandpa even dreamed of.
Thx. I get the idea that the same topics reappear and fully believe that I've asked several issues that are attached to dead horses. I started with THR with the Black Powder forum. At that point I knew virtually nothing. Could not have been more ignorant. That was circa two decades ago. Now days I enjoy teaching the same issues over and over. The how to's are all new to the folks looking for answers. Same questions, same answers brand new OP's. I know that the folks who taught me also had a Hx of answering the same questions I had posted. One of the guys who helped me with my initial entry into BP has become one of my best friends. We share our lives on a near daily basis. We have never met in person but our lives, hobbies, and wife's all share similar interests. Now and then I'll visit the BP forum and recognize familiar names and very familiar questions. I'm not sure, but I think new people coming up with the same issues is an inherent part of why the forum exists. Thanks for your sentiments.
Gottcha! I guess I fell for the segment touting the laurels of the 6 ARC. I think it was a TV segment on Guns & Ammo. A bit more research on my part looks like a good idea. I think a buddy and I are getting closer to getting to go on a hog hunt and I didn't want to take my .308. From my "very superficial" research on the 6 ARC, it seemed to be a great hog gun. Now I fear the ammo my soon not be available. If I catch Steve Hornaday at the NRA in TX, I'll have a few questions for him. Eh, that sounds a bit harsh. Hornaday's booth
Last edited:
I hear ya. It’s very easy to tell those who are helpful, and those looking to stroke their own ego. Most here wouldn’t give me the time of day. I don’t blame them…they don’t know me. But they make the mistake assuming my knowledge level because they see my post count is only low due to only going back to 2019. As if 2019 is when I started, Lol! That is the measure of a true instructor vs one who pretends to be. I’ve never admonished someone who didn’t know, and called for their thread to be closed. Seriously… how narcissistic is that!?
JJFitch
Member
Am I confused? The 6.8SPC isn't replacing the 5.56 NATO it is an improvement for the M4 CQB!!
??
??
someguy2800
Member
I recently heard Elon Musk say something to the effect that people never really change how they think, they just die, and that’s why it’s important to have new people with new ways of thinking.
CapnMac
Member
There was a ton of industry gushing about the 6x45 when it came out. And, there's an excellent case (NPI) to be made for it, too. I mean, really, a 243 that fits a STANAG mag well--what's not to love?
Now, when they were looking for the smaller cartridge to adapt the AR10 "down to" there was not a good existing 6x45, but what did exist was the 222, which was close to what was needed. Now, would Stoner & Johnson have picked the 6 over the 5.56? We will never know. What might have swayed them was getting 20 rounds over 12-16 in the same dimension. Maybe. Perhaps. I really want to build a M4 style carbine in 6x45. Mind, there is nothing wrong with a 20" barrel version as a DMR, either.
6.8SPC is not even in the running.
The adopted (experimental) round is 6.8x51, which is alleged to be offered to the general public as the .277Fury, is the chosen round.
What part of a .308 military round suggests Close Quarters Battle is beyond me. Let alone why running it in a 14" barrel is a great idea. Here, you have to give up your ammo for this stuff that weighs twice as much at close to 175% the volume, too. Current Rifleman issue is 7 x 30, for 210 rounds. That's going to weigh as much as 410 rounds of 5.56nato, and will probably need 9 or 10 magazines.
Like as not, after 2-4 years' study and $200 million (probably closer to $750 million at Program End) TraDoc will reject the notion entire; the remainder will be kept at Crane for distribution to Special Operators--who might have a legitimate need or 240B firepower in a 249-sized package.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 15,109
Thank you for the link. Albeit querulous to your motivation post directive to lock the thread.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 15,109
You were given bad info because the thread remained open.
6 ARC is now being routed as the hot new round that still fits in a standard AR lower. An alternative standard to the 5.56 seems to be the grail to some. After hyping 6.5 Grendel for years Hornady now says the 6 ARC which is just a necked down Grendel is the greatest instead.
Me sentiment EXACTLY MAKster. Someone gives credit to Hornady for “Inventing” 6mm GRENDEL, LOL! Same thing as 300 AAC being a train wreck the first time.. ya know, when it was called 300 Whisper & nobody wanted it? But fast forward several years & release it again with a cooler name & tons of support… all of a sudden it’s the latest & greatest right? Gimme a break! Well, gotta be some Fan boys out there who believe these companies reinvented the wheel I guess. I can’t stand these talking heads! Why I don’t argue with them anymore. Because they literally are nothing to me.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 15,109
When one cave dweller carved a wheel, one cave dweller had a wheel. The mobility of the world did not change.
When factories began rolling wheels out of the door at a few thousand per day, the world was changed.
Ideas don’t become paradigms just because one person had the idea.
I shot a 6mm Grendel variant for a few years before the ARC came out. I couldn’t fit 108 ELDm’s into my magazines, because the ogives were too long. I had to order custom barrels from limited suppliers, and had to manipulate dies to do what I wanted (.269” bushing in a 6.5 Grendel Redding sizing die, and a 6ppc seating die) - or I could have ordered custom dies from CH4D which only shipped once per year or two, based on sufficient volume orders to run the batch. I had to neck down all of my brass, and load data consisted of whatever BS a few of us cooked up together. Now I can buy lower priced barrels from a broader base of manufacturers, even buy factory rifles off of the shelf, buy dies from the shelf, and have published, pressure confirmed, load data readily available - oh, and they also modified the case to fit higher BC bullets into mag length, so I can shoot bullets with a ~.3G7 rather than a .275G7…
There’s no downside. Quit bitching.
When factories began rolling wheels out of the door at a few thousand per day, the world was changed.
Ideas don’t become paradigms just because one person had the idea.
I shot a 6mm Grendel variant for a few years before the ARC came out. I couldn’t fit 108 ELDm’s into my magazines, because the ogives were too long. I had to order custom barrels from limited suppliers, and had to manipulate dies to do what I wanted (.269” bushing in a 6.5 Grendel Redding sizing die, and a 6ppc seating die) - or I could have ordered custom dies from CH4D which only shipped once per year or two, based on sufficient volume orders to run the batch. I had to neck down all of my brass, and load data consisted of whatever BS a few of us cooked up together. Now I can buy lower priced barrels from a broader base of manufacturers, even buy factory rifles off of the shelf, buy dies from the shelf, and have published, pressure confirmed, load data readily available - oh, and they also modified the case to fit higher BC bullets into mag length, so I can shoot bullets with a ~.3G7 rather than a .275G7…
There’s no downside. Quit bitching.
- Status
