6.8 vs 7.62x39

Status
Not open for further replies.

TEX

Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2003
Messages
90
Is the new 6.8 round the military is looking at a better cartridge than the 7.62x39? I heard that Ruger will be offering the Mini in 6.8, and they already offer the rifle in 7.62x39. So would it be a step up or just something between the 7.62x39 and 5.56?

Thanks
 
You know it all depends on what you think is "better". The 6.8 (same caliber bullet as the famous .270 but less powder in the cartridge) was to replace the 5.56. IIRC it shoot flatter and farther than the AK round but is not as large or as heavy. The 6.8 has better terminal performance than the 5.56 but short range I believe the AK round is better. So I guess it all depends...
 
I'd say the 6.8 was probably a better choice if you will shoot at any distance at all (over 100 yds), but the 7.62x39 has the advantage of much cheaper ammo floating around if you wanted to stockpile for the zombie wars ;P
 
I love my AK's, but the freakin arc that the 7.62x39 has in flight is ridiculous.
 
My understanding is that the 6.8 is not in consideration for anything but special purpose use. It appears to be a very efficient intermediate round, but I wouldn't look for the wholesale abandonment of the 5.56 anytime soon.

--usp_fan
 
I don't think anyone should go into a 6.8 with the idea that it will be adopted by the military and cheap ammo will be abundant. However, the round is doing very well in the civilian market, and is a nice medium round with alot to recommend it in it's own right. I just purchased a 6.8 AR upper I plan to use as a foul weather deer gun myself. Haven't had a chance to shoot it/sight it in yet because of rain and a busy schedule--hope to get it out soon if it'd stop raining!
 
Ruger displayed the Mini in 6.8 at SHOT (January) or NRA (April) or maybe both. I have one on order, but haven't seen it yet.

Although the 6.8 was allegedly developed by Special Forces to solve lethality issues with the 5.56, don't hold your breath on ANY new cartridge development coming out of DOD any time in the near future. There has been some SpecOps use of the 77 grain Sierra in the 5.56, but I haven't seen anything in writing showing improved lethality there either.
 
The 6.8 will perform better on large game than 223, and will be legal is states that ban the 223 for hunting. The 6.8 launches a 115 gn bullet at around 2650 versus the 7.62x39 at around 2400. I've been shootiong the 6.8 for a while, and it is a decent intermediate cartridge. I'd like to see it in a few lightweight rifles, and the Ruger would help popularize it.

The 6.8 is exactly the opposite of the big ultramags. It's a light recoiling, short range cartridge that perfect in a light weight rifle on medium game at shorter ranges. It is superior to the 7.62x39. It beats any commercial 30-30 load at 100 years, while some 30-30 loads have marginally better energy at the muzzle.
 
Hmmm...

Domestic barrel in 6.8 SPC milled to same profile as Galil barrel

Galil mag adaptor for AR style magazines

bit of mill work...

Could be trouble... or the start of a 6.8 SPC Galil...
 
External ballistics on the 6.8mm are much better than 7.62x39, and you only give up less than ten grains in bullet weight with military loads (115 grain 6.8 versus 123 for the AK round). Downside on the 6.8 for hunters and such is that you can't run much heavier bullets due to the requirement to feed through the AR mag well (Grendel has the same problem to an extent) -- but the 115 grain weight should work for deer in any case.
 
The bullet weight issue is only a problem if it has to fit in AR mags.

I'd have to look at a Galil, but to convert to 6.8 you have to open the bolt face. 223 has a 0.383 bolt face, the 6.8 has a 0.422 bolt face and the AK around 0.45 It may or may not be possible to get the extractor to work, thanks to the way the AK derivatives mount their extractor.

A copuiple of years ago I converted a Kel-Tec SU-16 to 6.8. It was not trivial.

http://www.ktog.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1101766471
 
6.8 SPC was designed specifically (or, more accurately, it was the outcome of a project to design a cartridge-) to provide optimal terminal performance from an M4 with minimal changes to the platform. Specifically, the barrier penetration ability of 7.62x39 was desired.
Cartridge assessment began with the 6mm PPC case, necked up to 6.5mm. The 5th
SFG soon discarded the fat PPC case due to poor magazine capacity and
insufficient reliability in the M4. Their attention then turned to the .30
Remington case, which is essentially a rimless .30-30 Winchester. Its head and
body diameters are larger than 5.56 (0.378 inch), but smaller than 7.62x39mm
(0.445 inch). This thoroughly obsolete cartridge was chosen as the parent case
because its smaller head diameter (0.422 inch) required less metal to be cut
from the bolt head compared to the PPC or 7.62x39mm cases, which improves bolt
service life. Several rebated-rim prototypes were created with an SPC body but
5.56's rim (0.378 inch) to utilize unmodified M4 bolts. After trials, it was
clear the full-diameter rim helped extraction as compared to the rebated rim
design.

Once the case dimensions were tweaked to fit and work in M4-compatible
magazines, the project team quickly turned their attention to bore size.
Derivative wildcats from 5.56mm to up 7.62mm diameter shooting bullets from 90
to 140 grains were subjected to a battery of tests, and a sweet spot emerged.
The 6.5mm bullets showed the best accuracy and the 7mm bullets were the most
destructive, but the 0.277-inch bullets showed almost the same accuracy and
trajectory as the 6.5mm and almost the terminal performance of the 7mm. When
necked down to 0.277-inch and shooting 115-grain bullets, it provided the best
combination of combat accuracy, reliability and terminal performance for up to
500 meter engagements. This cartridge was deemed 6.8 Remington Special Purpose
Cartridge (SPC), because 0.277 inch is 6.8mm in metric and .30 Remington
provided the parent case.

Numerous articles and Internet rumors have suggested that the SPC designation
means 6.8 is good only for Close Quarters Battle (CQB), but not distant targets.
This is incorrect, and contrary to the intent of the project and capabilities of
the cartridge. The SPC designation was assigned based on the intended
integration into the Mk12 Special Purpose Rifle (SPR). The SPC was designed
from the ground up to provide increased energy, barrier penetration, and
incapacitation from the Mk12 SPR, from contact distance to 500 meters.

Based on their experience with 7.62x39mm, the project team set a velocity goal
of 200fps faster than the AK-47 ammunition from the same barrel length, with a
projectile that provided a better ballistic coefficient (BC) and terminal
performance. This was achieved very soon into the project using Sierra
115-grain and Hornady 110-grain Open-Tip Match (OTM) bullets. Using Ramshot
1660 powder for initial development, the team easily exceeded the 200fps goal.
Shooting from an 18-inch SPR barrel, these loads shot 2635 to 2650fps, 300fps
faster than the AK-47.
 
Hey Folks – Thanks for all the input.

Here is what started me thinking about this. I have an older Mini-14 that has been super reliable for me and, believe it or not, shoots nice groups at 100 yards, which is just about the maximum urban range I figure I would have to ever use it at. The only drawback for me is that the 5.56 is weak when it comes to barrier penetration. I have seen treated 2x4s sometimes turn the bullet into basically rat shot down range. I had considered replacing it with a Mini-30, especially now that a few changes have been made to improve accuracy and come up with a nice set of iron sights. Then, being the gun enthusiast that I am, I heard it would be available in the 6.8 and thought hummmm, ya know what, may I should ......

This carbine would end up being a truck or vehicle defensive tool and would be sighted in at about 50 yards with a maximum expected range of 100-150 meters. I prefer the Mini over the AR variety because of the small distance between sight line and barrel axis. At 10 yards, I can hold dead on, where with the AR I have to hold a little high. I also don’t have to be as cognizant of the muzzle clearing cover along with the sights. The Mini also does not have as much of an “evil gun” appearance as the AR or an AK does. A plus in case some tree hugger accidentally catches sight of it.

It would seem that the 6.8 would give more punch and less drop at 300+ yards than the 7.62x39, but this is not where I expect to use it. I guess the availability of less expensive practice ammo leans me towards the 7.62x39. I figure if I went with 6.8, that at least for a while I would have to reload or buy expensive ammo. I think Corbon could come up with a 115-grain solid copper DPX for the 7.62x39 and get it to do almost as well as the 6.8

Thanks Again - TEX
 
samx, you are right on the grendel, the neck / shoulder is short, and it goes right up the end of a feed pawl, on a 249 saw, which means, either the round case has to change a bit, or they have to modify, the feedpawls of the 249 a bit, which is a big no go, do not pass this station. that being said, it's performance actually surpasses the 308, after about 500 or 600 yds.
 
The big problem I see is that everyone is tryiong to make a better cartridge and stuff it into a platform that was built around the 5.56x45mm. For a combat cartridge, 6.5 Grendel has the feeding problem, plus a case that doesn't have enough taper for a truly reliable auto weapon. One of the big advantages of the M43 7.62x39mm is that it's extreme body taper makes for superb feeding and even better primary extraction. Such an extreme taper may not be necessary for high reliability, but the essentially non-existant taper of the Grendel is a liability in a weapon that may be exposed to extreme conditions.

The 6.8 may be a little better, but it is still a baling wire solution. If we are really looking for a better cartridge, we need to start with the round, and build the gun around it, not the other way around.

I picked 6.8 over 6.5 Grendel because Remington was backing the 6.8, and Alexander Arms was being very propriatary with their round. At one time, you could not buy 6.5 reamers, but had to get barrels from an AA approved maker. Right now, I can walk into my local gun store and buy 6.8 ammo. They keep saying 6.5 is coming from Wolfe, but I have yet to see it.

If either round is ever going to be something other than a niche cartridge, they need to be loaded into suitable rifles. Remington's 700 variant ain't it. Why buy a rfile in a puny cartridge, when the same rifle can be had in something far more effective. I'd like to see the 6.5 or 6.8 in something like a CZ-527 - a small, light rifle sized for the small cartridge.

Then again, you'd still be fighting the supermagnum trend. I have people contantly tell me that the .260 and the 7x57 are under powered for hunting. Where does that leave a cartridge like the 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC?
 
The big problem I see is that everyone is tryiong to make a better cartridge and stuff it into a platform that was built around the 5.56x45mm.
BINGO.

If this, or any other cartridge, is just going to be a supplement to 5.56 NATO, this makes sense. However, if they're looking to move beyond the M16/5.56 family of weapons, it makes no sense to do what they're doing. They are, simultaneously:

A. Designing a new round, intended to fit in the M16/M4 magwell. Sources vary on how much effort is being put into this by the military, with most of the credible ones saying "none at all". Others will know more than me, however.

B. Desiging a new rifle, to shoot 5.56 NATO (SCAR).

Now, if I were serious about making a step forward in small-arms development, I would remove the constraints of the one from the other. Design a new round and a new gun to shoot it. The fact that they're not doing this tells me that the military is not ready to make any major step just yet.

Mike
 
What is the actual metric of the 6.8s bullet? I'm reading here it is .277 but the Ruger website says .270. Obviously the confusion is that the .270 Win bullet is .277.
 
Years ago i was looking at the hot new item 10mm vs standardizing on 9x19.
I went with 9mm luger because it was more available and has been around a while. It is much easier to keep my 9mm's feed now than 10mm.
 
"Metric" means a measurement whether it is expressed in inches or the "metric" system. Again, the question is: .270 or .277? Maybe no-one knows? I think it is .277 since that is closer to a true 6.8mm, but it is being called .270 all over the place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top