Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by TEX, Jul 27, 2007.
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 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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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?
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.
They are being produced in three calibers.
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.
In metric, it's 6.8mm.
Separate names with a comma.