6.8spc Rifle Options

[amprecon]

Alright, I've got the 6.8spc bug and want a rifle in that caliber pretty bad. But as I go a searchin', I find that they're all way too expensive. I've even considered the Ruger Mini-14 in 6.8spc and even they're going for around $780, so an AR based 6.8 is way beyond my reach right now.
For some reason the Mini just isn't doing it for me and want an AR style rifle, but I've never been a fan of the DI gas system and prefer the piston driven variants, but it may be the only way I can afford a 6.8 AR at all.
I've even considered selling off what I have to fund it, but just can't bring myself to do that.
Of the piston AR 6.8 rifles I really like either the XCR or the LWRC, and am leaning more towards the XCR rifle, but both are listed at over $2K.
So I guess my options are to just save up and get what I really want the XCR....that is of course, unless you guys can change my mind or convince me of other cheaper alternatives.

 

[dfloomis]

I am personally not a fan of piston AR's. Unless you are going to SBR it or shoot suppressed, you will not see an advantage. From an engineering standpoint, the bolt carrier is designed to be pushed back horizontally. Using the piston it puts a downward force to the BCG, which the AR was not designed for.

Go for the time proven DI and save some money.

 

[MJR007]

Why the 6.8? I got one for the kids a few months back, set up for deer. Do not believe the fps some people say they get.

 

[kanook]

Buy the Ruger in 6.8, If you like the AR platform get the ATI tacticool stock. Now you're around $900 to a grand.

 

[Float Pilot]

Last year I bought a 16 inch Stag 6.8spc (270 Kurtz) and 1,000 round of SSA brass. I have loaded, shot, reloaded and shot again about 500 rounds of brass. So about 1,000 experimental hand-loads have gone through my stag.

I installed an A2 solid stock and a Tubbs flat recoil spring. I have been impressed with the groups I obtained after I modified the upper with M4 style feed ramps.

The direct gas system has never been a problem with any of the powders I have used.

While it was an interesting experiment, I will probably sell or trade mine off since the 6.8spc does not really have enough power for most Alaskan hunting.
Wolf, and yotes yes, and maybe marginally on Arctic Caribou, but I can't really see me using it for much of anything now that I have satisfied the questions I had.

 

[rbernie]

I have built a number of 6.8SPC AR15s. If you piece the build part-by-part, the pain of the cost isn't all that bad. I tend to buy parts when they're on sale or on discount, like the recent Bison Armory 6.8SPC barrel buy...

 

[amprecon]

So have you all been satisfied or disatisfied or indifferent about this round? Did it turn out to be what all the hype claimed it to be? I currently have a M1A, M1 Garand and SLR-95, I wanted a 6.8spc to be the intermediary, trajectory of .223/.308 and punch of 7.62x39 within it's effective range.

 

[rbernie]

Depends on the hype that you read, I guess..... I didn't read Remington's hype, but I did read the write-ups that Zak and other early adopters authored. I also have been handloading for a very long time, and I was well-grounded in how much performance you could get out of a case with less than 36 grains of water capacity. So I guess I'd say that I entered into it with performance expectations that have absolutely proved out.

I, like you, wanted the punch of 7.62x39 in a less-tapered round. I also wanted bullet interchangeability with my hunting rifles, something that the 7.62x39 didn't give me once I stopped shooting 303R. The 6.8SPC uses the same pills as my 270 varmint loads, and it works swimmingly through my AR magwells using a variety of inexpensive mags.

Since I handload, I never entered into the 6.8SPC with the notion that I'd eventually be shooting $6/box ammo through it or that ammo availability would be an issue. I have enough bullets and brass purchased and set aside to conceivably last me for the remainder of my days.

I guess you could say that I am sold on it, because it delivered exactly what I wanted. If I could get a compact Ruger 77MkII in 6.8SPC, it'd probably be my favorite all-around rifle in all the world.

 

[longdayjake]

I wanted a 6.8spc to be the intermediary, trajectory of .223/.308 and punch of 7.62x39 within it's effective range.

I went with the 6.5 grendel for this purpose. I bought the absolute cheapest one I could from J&T distributing. It ended up being a total of $615. I have since put a match trigger on it. The 6.5 grendel is an awesome round in that it can shoot bullets with really high BC values and it can launch bullets with a flatter trajectory than a .308. That said, I am not a good enough shooter to completely take advantage of those bullets. The 6.5 grendel takes A LOT of reloading experience before you can get bullets to go where they should. I started reloading .30-06 and went to .223 from there. If all reloading was as simple as those two life would be great. The 6.5 grendel is a very difficult round to get right. The ogives on the bullets are so different from grain to grain that seating depth is hard to figure out. There is almost no GOOD published data out there for it. You can shoot heavy bullets in it if you want to, but you almost have to since lighter bullets are hard to come by. I like that I can use 7.62x39 brass to make brass for it, but finding out a good load has taken me a lot of time. Once I thought I had a good load so I made about 200 of them to use for varmint shooting. The third time I shot them there was a blown primer. Cleared it out and pulled the trigger to get another blown primer. I went through 6 or so before I realized that I would have to pull them all down and start over. In hindsight, I really could have been happy with a .223. The price is so much cheaper and they are so much easier to handload for that its hard to justify loading up 6.5 stuff. That said, I am taking my 6.5 grendel out on the deer hunt this year to see what it can do with 120 grain TTSX bullets. Thats something I wouldn't do with a .223. I think that R Bernie has the best reason to own an intermediate round in his AR. Don't expect them to work miracles. They can only hold so much powder and trying to get more from them than you should will give you more headache than good results. I have since gone from "how much velocity can I get?" to "how accurate can I get?" If you go 6.8 you will be tempted to try and make it shoot like a .270, but it just isn't going to happen. That said, I am thinking about buying a 6.8 and a more "expensive" 6.5 because I seem to enjoy the headaches that come from learning new stuffs.

 

[rbernie]

I gotta admit - if I'd been a 260 shooter instead of a 270 guy, I might very well have moved toward the Grendel instead and tried to put up with the poor market adoption of the round. I will say that I am gratified that the 6.8SPC is at least available in several non-AR platforms and its status as a viable intermediate round is fairly well set.

6.8SPC may be a boutique round compared to 223 or 7.62x39, but it's far more available and supported than the other rounds in its class.

By the way, amprecon - you might wanna check with Carnaby and see if anyone backed out of a barrel in his 6.8SPC GenII barrel buy. He was offering very very nice prices on Shaw barrels...

 

[Zak Smith]

My favorite whomping caliber in the AR-15 is now the .300 Whisper/Fireball. From a 10.5" SBR, it can shoot 240's subsonic at 1100 fps, or full-power 150gr loads at 1850+, 125gr @ 2100+ fps.

 

[GunTech]

I've done both 6.8 and 6.5 grendel. At less that 200 yards, it's hard to see a real difference. At over 200, the Grendel beats the 6.8 hands down.

In my experience it's hard to find 6.8 ammo locally. It's impossible to find 6.5 Grendel. The Grendel gives you a much broader selection of bullet weights, but many of them are geared towards match shooting.

I stupidly passed up a chance at a 6.8 Mini-14 NIB for $550 because I had lost my interest in 6.8. It's a decent round for a light rifle like the AR or Mini-14. In anything else, I don't see the point.

In states that ban 223 for hunting, it makes an attractive package for someone who want to use their AR.

I would definitely look around for a used gun. I've seen a lot of people try the 6.8 and then move one because it's a glorified 223 that shoots more expensive ammo.

Both the 6.8 and 6.5 grendel have inflated reputations. Most of the published velocity figures are from 24 inch bolt guns, not 16-20 inch service rifles.

I second the notion of sticking with a DGI system on an AR. IMO, the piston guns are a solution to a (mostly) non-existent problem, particularly for the non SOCOM shooter restricted to 16 inch barrels an no suppressor.

 

[nhm16]

I've done both 6.8 and 6.5 grendel. At less that 200 yards, it's hard to see a real difference. At over 200, the Grendel beats the 6.8 hands down.

In my experience it's hard to find 6.8 ammo locally. It's impossible to find 6.5 Grendel. The Grendel gives you a much broader selection of bullet weights, but many of them are geared towards match shooting.

Agreed. I went with 6.8 because from a practical standpoint of relatively available brass and commercial ammo. I too have seen 6.8 ammo here and there, Cabela's definitely has it, but have never seen 6.5. I am building a bolt action .260 for long range shooting, I don't need a do-it-all AR, that would mean I'd only have one gun

In states that ban 223 for hunting, it makes an attractive package for someone who want to use their AR.

It seems to be the go-to semi-auto round for hog hunting.

Both the 6.8 and 6.5 grendel have inflated reputations. Most of the published velocity figures are from 24 inch bolt guns, not 16-20 inch service rifles.

I don't have a chrono yet but the people on 68forums have been getting impressive velocities out of much shorter barrels (90gr, > 3,000 fps out of a 16" barrel). In fact you don't seem to get a whole lot by running a 20" barrel in 6.8, and you conversely on SBRs you still get pretty good velocity compared to 5.56. I have read that 6.5 is equally good in SBR's but that round does seem to benefit from longer barrels, as befits its more target shooting heritage.

 

[MJR007]

I get with my 6.8spc around 2600fps, 110 pro hunters, 16" barrel no brake, 26gr Reloader 7, small primer. There is still room and no signs of high pressure. I stay from 68forum.

 

[tincanhunter]

The 6.8 is a fun round to shoot and is plenty accurate. I have a Bushmaster M4 carbine in 6.8. Feed it the correct ammo and you can get excellent grouping. Here's a 10 shot 100yd group using 115gr Sierra Matchkings and 27.5gr of Benchmark.



I also get about the same accuracy using 110gr Hornady V-Max bullets with 27.1gr of H4895 (this is a relatively lite load).

 

[Tirod]

As the numbers of users increases and reloading data improves, the choice of 6.8 SPC is amplified. The early introduction of Remington loaded ammo and the SAAMI chambers with short leades - shorter than developed buy the AMU - just point out the lawyered up and liability issues of new product introduction in American today.

As currently used by the knowledgeable, a minimum 16" barrel with four lands, and 1 in 10" rifling or slower, is a much improved product. With the SPC II chamber allowing a full .100 leade, cartridges at maximum loads actually have less pressure and move well above 2800 fps. Obviously the quick brush off some would give the 6.8 is undeserved - as you can get deer rifle performance out of a lighter, shorter rifle than previously offered.

Looking at the real point of the 6.8, it's an easily accomplished conversion that still shoots through the platform with it's restricted magazine length and lack of major revision. It does exactly what it was designed to do - increase lethality at a max range of 3-400 yards. It was NOT meant as a more accurate, or longer reaching projectile. We already have those, in other rifles that can accomodate the longer OAL of those cartridges. That's where the comparison to 6.5 Grendel falls short - it wasn't meant to compete - literally - in competition on a range.

It's meant to shoot down live animals, two legged or four, and lots of hunters are taking up the round because it delivers - in a smaller package more easily used in the field.

My 14 year old noted the other day that deer hunting with Dad last year had it's moments, but one of them wasn't lugging a Remington 700 in .30-06 all day. This year he gets the .30-30, and I think he'll appreciate it. Me - I'm going AR in 6.8. It will be a huge change from an HK91 in my semi auto experience.

It's not just about the caliber, and it's not fully developed yet.

 

[GunTech]

I'd really like to see a micro rifle in 6.8. The Cz-525 comes to mind. With an 18 inch bbl and a synthetic stock I am sure you could slip under 5 pounds. Wouldn't that be a joy to tote in the field.

 

[rbernie]

I've heard it complained that there was little value in a 6lb rifle chambered in 6.8SPC when you could already get a 6lb rifle chambered in 7mm08. Why bother to use the weak sister, seemed to be the argument, when you could get more OOOMPH from the full-power cartridge?

Having shot both - I'm a fan of the intermediate chambering when available. Both have proven to have more than adequate power for hunting whitetail deer and feral hog inside of 300 yards, and the intermediate chambering does it with far less drama. I'm a big fan of regular practice with my field rifle from field expedient/offhand positions, and frankly a range session with a 6lb 7mm08 is not nearly as productive as the same session with an intermediate chambering.

 

[longdayjake]

As currently used by the knowledgeable, a minimum 16" barrel with four lands, and 1 in 10" rifling or slower, is a much improved product. With the SPC II chamber allowing a full .100 leade, cartridges at maximum loads actually have less pressure and move well above 2800 fps. Obviously the quick brush off some would give the 6.8 is undeserved - as you can get deer rifle performance out of a lighter, shorter rifle than previously offered.

Remember that you wont get these velocities from heavy bullets. One thing I have noticed about 6.8 shooters is that they like to print their velocities, but not the bullet weights. It makes it hard for me to judge what kind of deer rile performance they offer. That said, even at 2,500 fps a 110 grain bullet is more than enough to kill any deer. If you can get around 2,800 fps with a 110 to 120 grain bullet then why use anything else? I just wish I knew what grain they are getting these amazing velocities with.

 

[rbernie]

If you can get around 2,800 fps with a 110 to 120 grain bullet then why use anything else? I just wish I knew what grain they are getting these amazing velocities with.

They're using 90gr pills, and they're likely using much more barrel than 16". A moderately stiff load using a 115gr pill will get you 2550 fps out of a twenty inch tube and a bit less out of a eighteen or sixteen inch. I normally loaded for brass life and reliability moreso than for max velocity, and once I hit 2500fps with the Hornady 115gr OTMs I was happy.

I have some 150gr RN bullets that I've been meaning to try (for close-range hog loads) but I haven't done much rifle work lately in favor of shotgunning. Maybe now that they weather has turned, it's time to start working up some loads again...

 

[TurboFC3S]

Go checkout 68forums bernie, there are a few people getting ~2800fps with 110gr Accubonds out of 16" barrels. Out of my 16" Noveske, SPC II chamber, 1:10 twist, poly rifling barrel I was able to get 2720fps before any pressure signs.

I don't normally load for max velocity either, but it's nice to know it's there

 

[GunTech]

I wonder what the pressure is at that velocity. People tend to forget the max chamber pressure for the AR is well under the typical 223 bolt gun.

 

[Zak Smith]

It does exactly what it was designed to do - increase lethality at a max range of 3-400 yards. It was NOT meant as a more accurate, or longer reaching projectile.

Its designers actually intended it to "provide increased energy, barrier penetration, and incapacitation from the Mk12 SPR, from contact distance to 500 meters"

 

[SammyIamToday]

I look hard at the 6.8 pretty frequently, but just haven't gotten myself to buy it yet. I really like the interesting intermediate cartridge aspect, but it just doesn't seem to offer me much field-wise on my DPMS 308 AP4. I'm pushing 168gr pills at 2500ish fps using 43.0gr of win 748 from a 16" barrel.

The 2 or so lbs in rifle weight savings just don't seem to justify it yet. I'm sure I'll talk myself into it in the future, but it just doesn't seem to be around the corner. I think if CZ offered that short bolt-gun version they do for 7.62x39 and .223 in a leftie action, I'd really really look at it, but that's probably a dream.

 

[rbernie]

Go checkout 68forums bernie, there are a few people getting ~2800fps with 110gr Accubonds out of 16" barrels. Out of my 16" Noveske, SPC II chamber, 1:10 twist, poly rifling barrel I was able to get 2720fps before any pressure signs.

I was on the 68forum prior to their move to vB but have not moved over to their new vB forum yet (simply out of sheer laziness on my part)....

Look - anyone can post some superduper load and I'm all OK with that. But I tend to filter that data if the performance claims are not readily achievable across a reasonable spectrum of the available platforms and environments. In my opinion, to be a useful benchmark of performance, the data must be repeatable and safe for the majority of users. In other words, I tend to filter the max and min and gravitate towards the mean as the true measure of expected performance.

I have owned and extensively used one commercial 6.8SPC AR15, two (2) gen 1 uppers, and five (5) SPCII uppers. These uppers had barrels ranging from 16" to 20" in length. Every round that I shot was a handload. And in my opinion, ~2800fps with 110gr Accubonds out of 16" barrels is simply not achievable across a reasonable spectrum of the available platforms and environments. It's a happy and fortuitous occurrence for the lucky shooter that built that platform and achieved that performance on that day under those conditions without blowing anything up or causing functional issues with the rifle - nothing more.

One of the reasons that I never really got heavily involved as a participating member of the 6.8Forum discussions was because it got wearying to constantly try to talk folk off that ledge of trying to make the chambering more than what it was. If I want 270 Winchester class performance, I'll use a 270 bolt gun. If I want that kind of performance in the AR platform specifically, then I'll use a 260 chambered lightweight AR10 (which is still no lightweight). If I want an intermediate chambering that has effective terminal performance on a range of game animals (and presumably if needed for social use) and can be had in very light and handy carbines, the 6.8SPC is a good choice.