Why haven't the 6.8 SPC/6.5 Grendel caught on?

For the 6.8, the fact that it is overrated (JMHO), and the people who would buy it are smarter than that. The 6.5, AA has so many legal safegurds on it, nobody can make a rifle for it....without a lot of fees. Same for ammo, IIRC.

People who get an AR find it being in the NATO caliber an attractive point. Since 6.8 or 6.5 isn't used by any major military blocks (NATO & former Warsaw), it isn't as attractive.

-- John

.

They have caught on with certain shooters.

NO cartridge is going to take the shooting
fraternity by storm at this stage of the game.
There is just too much diversification and the
performance "gaps" are minimal.


Both 6.5G and 6.8SPC are specialty rounds primarily for the AR platform
and both perform well, giving good downrange performance
increases over 5.56 and more effective "smack down" at closer ranges.
6.8SPC was developed by the 5th Special Forces Group for these performance
criteria and it IS used by certain troops. It was NEVER intended to
replace 5.56 in all troop environments.

I have an M700 Police Tactical with a 20 inch barrel in 6.8SPC.
I like it a lot and it makes a good hunting rifle for deer
or varmints.

dxr

the US military will never get either of those cartridges as long as NATO does not agree with it and also starts useing them.
that also means that both Remington and Alexander Arms would have to give up there patents because no NATO country will be willing to pay the Fees for useing those cartridges.

I cant say which you would like better, but I just ordered a 6.5 because I wanted to hunt deer with mine and I chose it over the 6.8 because the 6.8 has terrible ballistics. You might as well shoot 7.62 x 39. The 6.5 grendel has better ballistics than the .308 but the .308 hits a bit harder. Go to 6.5forums or go to ar15.com and search ar15 variants to see the difference between the two.

5.56 is good enough for SWAT. While people claim it won't work as a man-stopper for the military, civilian cops think it's great, apparently. So why would someone want a rare cartridge to do a job that a standard one does?

Both have potential as deer rounds, of course, but the AR isn't the most attractive hunting rifle. It's bulky and heavy for that, since neither round has impressive ballistics, compared to standard hunting rounds currently used.

Ruger's Mini 14 in 6.8 is a far more intriguing hunting carbine than an AR, IMO, but a lot of people hear "Mini 14" and think it can't hit the broad side of a barn.

Either way, these are expensive rounds for a "fun gun", and offer nothing a hunter can't get from a .243 in a lighter, handier, cheaper package.

None of that suggests that either cartridge isn't a good one. However, "catching on" has to do with a lot more than ballistics and case length.

Ruger's Mini 14 in 6.8 is a far more intriguing hunting carbine than an AR, IMO, but a lot of people hear "Mini 14" and think it can't hit the broad side of a barn.

Click to expand...

I was thus intrigued and got me one. Haven't shot it yet, but I'm betting I'll be able to hit the broad side of a deer with it.

I was thus intrigued and got me one. Haven't shot it yet, but I'm betting I'll be able to hit the broad side of a deer with it.

Click to expand...

Only if you're shooting it from the inside out

sorry the devil made me do it

In my younger days I figured the perfect deer round would be a 120 grain bullet moving at 2600 to 2800 ft/sec. I came to that conclusion after hunting with a .243 a couple of years, and taking a few deer with it. Most of the time the 100 gr. .243 entered as one hole and if it exited, it was in several pieces. The message being the bullet needed just a bit more mass to be truly effective.

Well I understand that the 6.8 and 6.5 perform near that range so they both have my interest. BUT, while I would like to get one or the other - I have other priorities right now and already have a very effective deer rifle in 7mm.

If I can convince my teenage daughter to go hog hunting with me, then I may have the excuse I need to buy one. Of course that would mean dies and a stock of bullets and brass to go along with the rifle.

Why haven't they caught on better commercially or with the military? Is money the main object?

Click to expand...

Pretty much so. Cost to the miltary includes overhauling a huge supply chain (which includes NATO and 'Partner for Peace nations). Not fun or easy.

Cost to the civilian shooter is, on a round-for-round basis, more than 5.56 or 7.62x39. You pretty much really have to want them to be willing to get into them.

Only if you're shooting it from the inside out

sorry the devil made me do it

Click to expand...

Easy there. A fella could get his feeling hurt thinking you were refering to the skill level he brings to the game.

Others don't like the ballistics the 6.8SPC brings. I might not either after I see some real world results on the deer, but on paper it looks like a round that suits a short, light rifle like the mini. Seems like a short range cartridge with energy numbers similar to the 30-30. Whether the lighter bullets will perform effectively remains to be seen. But some folks are already saying it performs well in the field.

I have been playing around with the 6.8mm in an effort to justify how much I spent.
This is my third session in colder temps, (at least colder than the guys shot at while making the reloading data in the books.)

The 110 grain Nosler Accubond and the 110 grain Barnes Triple Shock seem to be nice performing bullets. I have tried them with a few powders and H-322 seems to be the best so far.

From a 16 inch carbine you are still talking about only 2,550 fps at 15 feet past the muzzle. So at 300 meters you do not really have a real fireball on your hands.

They just wanted something slightly better than the 5.56mm in a M4 carbine size weapon. Something that would allow them to retain the magazine size for the web gear and not require any major rebuilding of the m16/m4 system.


6.8 x 43mm Remington SPC Page Three

Conditions:
Rifle: Stag 16 inch flat-top, 1 in 10 twist SPCII chamber, A2 buttstock with Tubbs flat spring
Sights: Fixed 6 power Leupold. FXIII 42mm Heavy Duplex
Range 100 yards
Temp: +05 degrees F , Negative 15 C
Light: Flat fading light on snow.

LOADS:
A:
Bullet: 100 grain Remington sp, flat base
Powder: 26.1.0 grains, Reloader #7
Primer: CCI-400 small rifle, hand seated
Brass: SSA
COL: 2.242 inch Lee Factory Crimp
Velocity average: 2,437fps 42 fps ES
1.25 inch group with last shot flyer to 2.0 inch. No pressure signs, Should have been much faster.

B:
Bullet: 110 grain Barnes Triple Shock Boat Tail HP
Powder: 29.0 grains, H-322
Primer: CCI-BR-4 bench rest small rifle, hand seated
Brass: SSA
COL: 2.260 inch med roll crimp.
Velocity average: 2,584 fps 29 fps ES
0.75 inch group with flyer to 1.0. No Pressure Signs, Shot 3 inches higher than the Nosler 110 grain.


C:
Bullet: 110 grain Nosler Accubond Boat-Tail
Powder: 29.0 grains H-322
Primer: Winchester Small Rifle hand seated
Brass: SSA
COL: 2.260 inch Lee Factory Crimp
Velocity average: 2,463 fps 24 fps ES
1.0 inch group, NO Pressure signs


D:
Bullet: 110 grain Nosler Accubond Boat-Tail
Powder: 29.0 grains H-322
Primer: CCI BR-4 Bench Rest Small Rifle hand seated
Brass: SSA
COL: 2.260 inch Lee Factory Crimp
Velocity average: 2,554 fps 14 fps ES
1.0 inch group, NO Pressure signs


E:
Bullet: 110 grain Nosler Accubond Boat-Tail
Powder: 28.0 grains H-322
Primer: CCI 450 MAGNUM Small Rifle hand seated
Brass: SSA
COL: 2.260 inch Lee Factory Crimp
Velocity average: 2,460 fps 41 fps ES
1.5 inch group, NO Pressure signs. Firing pin dragging on primer face


F:
Bullet: 110 grain Nosler Accubond Boat-Tail
Powder: 29.0 grains H-322
Primer: Federal 205 , Standard Small Rifle, hand seated
Brass: SSA
COL: 2.260 inch Lee Factory Crimp
Velocity average: 2,483 fps 33 fps ES
0.5 inch group, with flyer to 1.5in NO Pressure signs. Some firing pin dragging on primer face

The mini-14 is a good rifle, Ive had one for many years now. Its not very accurate, its reliable, it can hit anything you aim at within reasonable distances for a semiauto ranch rifle. As long as you arent trying to get tight groups of more than 2 rds at 100 yds, you are fine.

Alaska;

I'm given to understand that the 6.8 had an "interesting" development process. There were all sorts of velocity/accuracy problems that made calculaters smoke. I don't need one, I know that.

The Grendel seems to be purely a money problem. The cartridge performs, but Alexander wants more than the gummint is willing to pay for the rights to it.

900F

Cost. The biggest reason is cost, especially so in the case of the 6.8SPC.

wolf is producing 6.5 ammo with a brass case for $500/k. That puts it ahead for the moment.

Personally, if I was buying new ARs today I'd pick up a Colt 6920 in 5.56 and a Noveske 6.8 upper to outfit identically to the Colt, and use the factory upper for training/competing/plinking and the Noveske for hunting/defense.

I would also say cost... which seems to be directly dependent on whether the military adopts it or not, and since they will not, I think both are about as popular right now as they are ever going to be. The proprietary rules enforced on the 6.5 by AA don't seem to be helping its case either; though I would like to shoot it. I want to shoot it in my XCR rather than build up a whole AR for it. If and when the parts are released for that rifle, I will probably do it.

I consider both to be a handloading-only proposition.

In terms of military usage, both the 6.8 and 6.5 are specialty rounds as doctorxring noted. Given the cost of changing calibers, the military is unlikely to do so in the near future unless there is some great technological breakthrough in small arms development. Cost is also a factor for civilian shooters since more established cartridges will suffice quite well for hunting.

Finally, I must address the issue of the Mini-14. Some years ago, a friend of mine who was armed with one challenged me to a shooting match at 100 yards. I was armed with a Knight muzzleloading rifle. He lost badly. After that incident, my impression of the Ruger Mini-14 was not too high, but I gained a great respect for Knight muzzleloaders. To be fair, I understand Ruger now offers target barrels for the Mini-14 and this may improve their accuracy greatly. At least I hope it does.


Timthinker

I'm testing a 7.62 X 39 upper mounted on my M-4 lower. What I basically am doing is marrying up a type of semi-automatic carbine like an M-4 design with the 7.62 X 39 ammo. I got the upper from Model "1" and am using a Bushmaster lower assembly for the base. I am using magazines from C Products, LLC to make this thing work. I just got it all together the way I wanted it and now bitter cold weather has hit my area. For those of you who don't know about weather in central Illinois that means temperatures below zero with snow, ice and sleet covering the ground, trees and roads. Now I have to patiently wait until things thaw out to where it is comfortable enough for my old bones to go shooting again...

WRT the Mini, I've read reviews that the new, beefed up and tighter-spec'd models in 6.8 can shoot well under 2 MOA consistently, right out of the box.

I haven't tried one myself, though.

420, please report back.

If it shoots as I've read it does, the Mini-14 in 6.8 would make one hell of a hunting carbine. I love the way the Mini handles as a practical shooter, and the gray stainless/nylon stock combo makes for a great knockaround gun that will take a lot of abuse.

I've got AR's, and they're fun guns. But I am not all that excited about them as hunting rifles. A lever gun is a better-carrying, lighter, cheaper gun, and 6.8 doesn't seem to offer anything a .30-30 can't do. But a Mini-14 that shoots straight would be very tempting.

I'm testing a 7.62 X 39 upper mounted on my M-4 lower.

Click to expand...

That's been working fine for many a year.