Zak Smith
Member
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
-z
6.8 SPC vs. 7.62x39?
- Thread starter Carbon_15
- Start date
- Status
SpookyPistolero
Member
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.
I hope not, because it really made me angry when I heard that was a motivation behind the 5.56 coming about.
Zak Smith
Member
No.
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
Member
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.
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
Contributing Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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
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
Member
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
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
Richardson
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 172
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.
Richardson
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.
Richardson
MLC
Member.
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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?
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
Member
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
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
Member
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 and discussion
forum
MLC
Member.
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.
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
Member
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
Member
Are you asking about velocity from a 24" Grendel barrel? According to their ballistics table PDF, the 108 Scenar shoots at 2700fps from a 20" 6.5 Grendel barrel, and the 123 at 2600fps.
artherd
member
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.
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
Member
115OTM or 110VMAX both have superior terminal effects over Mk262 at any range--
Too Many Choices!?
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 763
Oh my!!!!
If that neck was any shorter I would say the 6.8 bullet "tumbled" before impact! 
.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
If that neck was any shorter I would say the 6.8 bullet "tumbled" before impact!
.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
Member
Check the neck on the 155 AMAX...
- Status
Similar threads
