Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

6.8 vs 7.62x39

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by TEX, Jul 27, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TEX

    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
     
  2. rdaines

    rdaines Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Messages:
    191
    Location:
    St. Charles County, Missouri/ Pinal County, AZ
    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...
     
  3. scubie02

    scubie02 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    916
    Location:
    ny
    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
     
  4. ndolson

    ndolson Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    164
    I love my AK's, but the freakin arc that the 7.62x39 has in flight is ridiculous.
     
  5. usp_fan

    usp_fan Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    977
    Location:
    Bismarck, ND
    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
     
  6. scubie02

    scubie02 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    916
    Location:
    ny
    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!
     
  7. ChestyP

    ChestyP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA
    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.
     
  8. rangerruck

    rangerruck Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    8,374
    Location:
    Texas, baby!
    the 6.8 smokes them for various reasons, but the 6.5 Grendel would be better.
     
  9. GunTech

    GunTech Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,878
    Location:
    Helena MT
    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.
     
  10. SaMx

    SaMx Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,064
    Location:
    back and forth between PA and VA
    my understanding is that the 6.5 has more range, but there were problems getting the rounds to feed in belt fed guns, which is a major negative for military use.
     
  11. MD_Willington

    MD_Willington Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,692
    Location:
    Canuck in SE WA State.
    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...
     
  12. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    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.
     
  13. GunTech

    GunTech Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,878
    Location:
    Helena MT
    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
     
  14. kungfuhippie

    kungfuhippie Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,440
    Location:
    PRK
    Is this going to turn into the rifle version of the 9 vs 45 debate?
     
  15. Zak Smith

    Zak Smith Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,037
    Location:
    Fort Collins, CO, USA.
    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.
     
  16. TEX

    TEX Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    90
    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
     
  17. rangerruck

    rangerruck Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    8,374
    Location:
    Texas, baby!
    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.
     
  18. GunTech

    GunTech Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,878
    Location:
    Helena MT
    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?
     
  19. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,109
    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
     
  20. Zak Smith

    Zak Smith Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,037
    Location:
    Fort Collins, CO, USA.
    The SCAR was intended to shoot multiple calibers.
     
  21. Quiet

    Quiet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,061
    Location:
    bouncing between the 909 & the 702
    They are being produced in three calibers.

    5.56x45mm
    7.62x39mm
    7.62x51mm
     
  22. woof

    woof Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Location:
    central Ohio
    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.
     
  23. forrestdweller

    forrestdweller Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    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.
     
  24. Quiet

    Quiet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,061
    Location:
    bouncing between the 909 & the 702
    In metric, it's 6.8mm. :neener:
     
  25. woof

    woof Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Location:
    central Ohio
    "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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page