That was a relevant response and not a praise of any certain "stunt" kill. I think I know the elk you are referring to though, but it was no stunt. The hunter is an AR maker that stands behind his product and was hunting with it. Nothing wrong with that. If I ever get a chance to go west for larger game, I however will be leaving the AR for something long action. Capability and performance are not always the same.
6.8spc Round's Future?
- Thread starter Mr.Blue
- Start date
- Status
I clearly recall when the M-16 came out. I also recall the controversy. They told us they didn't need to be cleaned. They told us that if one hit an enemy in the arm it would blow the arm off. We hated giving up our M-14's.
I never did like the little .22 bullet. The military uses as a test a steel helmet. They decided that after 400 meters the little 5.56 bullet would not penitrate. This stimulated the work on the 6.8 which myself and a lot of active duty guys hoped we'd adopt. We did not. Nor did we like the 9mm pistol round. Lots of guys said they'd take a personal .45.
Eventually, after having been "out" for about a decade I decided out of nostalgia to by an AR and I did. It still spits out little tiny bullets. I have been wondering if I should buy one of these new uppers in 6.8. Should I? Really, how well do they shoot? How accurate is it when fired from a standard HBAR? Does it reach out farther than the 5.56?
Thanks guys.
I never did like the little .22 bullet. The military uses as a test a steel helmet. They decided that after 400 meters the little 5.56 bullet would not penitrate. This stimulated the work on the 6.8 which myself and a lot of active duty guys hoped we'd adopt. We did not. Nor did we like the 9mm pistol round. Lots of guys said they'd take a personal .45.
Eventually, after having been "out" for about a decade I decided out of nostalgia to by an AR and I did. It still spits out little tiny bullets. I have been wondering if I should buy one of these new uppers in 6.8. Should I? Really, how well do they shoot? How accurate is it when fired from a standard HBAR? Does it reach out farther than the 5.56?
Thanks guys.
Like the .270 short - but why that's considered slow when an honest 2900fps from a 16" barrel is possible with hand loads, I don't know.
Really, the comparisons should all be made vs. 5.56, which is exactly what the originators did. The 5.56 does just fine in combat to incapacitate - stop - another soldier fighting. That's an entirely different concept from the humane kill of a game animal and preventing it's loss from poor shot location, the real issue.
Larger calibers have no guarantee they will stop and put down an animal - it's difficult to measure or even quantify "knock down" power in any sort of meaningful way. What we do know is too little, and the animal won't quickly bleed to death, too much, and the shooter does, can, and will anticipate the recoil in a negative manner.
Anyone who's shot magnums, or got hit with a scope bell knows exactly what I'm talking about. Shooting "main battle rifle" calibers can even do it. That negative perception of what a "big" gun does is a documented and proven distractor that causes the shooter to second guess his shots and use shooting methods that impede accurate shots at moving targets.
Hunting is a lot about shots at targets that don't simply pose or graze (at least in my experience with whitetail deer.) Having hunted for decades being the only semi auto gun seen in a conservation area or during chance encounters in the field, I know for a fact that there are a lot of manual action gunners out there spraying the woods trying to knock down a running deer. Having attempted to use a bolt or lever gun, I know it impedes a quick and accurate second shot following up the first.
I'd rather use a self - loading action in a caliber that can humanely put down the animal if the first shot is off, and use that gun more confidently to get a good shot knowing I won't inadvertently eat a scope bell or get whacked by excessive recoil awkwardly tracking a deer in a tree stand. It's not easy to maintain your balance on a 18" square platform made from a few sticks of welded tubing 12' up a tree traversing a 150 degree arc.
If it makes the difference in placing another round to humanely put down the animal, why do so many misunderstand and get a gun that's too big and causes MORE problem? Bluntly, they don't think, they let testosterone make the decision, the same as when they chose a homecoming queen or buy a truck instead of a car. It's image, societal pecking order, or just plain lust, but it's not common sense.
God forbid we buy something adequate, and learn to use it well. The typical situation is to buy something in excess, and then never really learn to or need to use it.
I hunted with a .308 HK91, and Aimpoint, it worked ok. Then I tried a .30-06 with scope, it wasn't ok, moved to a .30-30 lever, nice and light, but still didn't load itself. Back to a semi auto in the AR, I've used it 22 years, know it, know the 6.8 is every bit as good as the .30-30, America's #1 deer caliber, just trimmed to fit the AR action. A little faster with a much flatter trajectory, more range, even better optics, and NO PUNISHMENT. It rewards the shooter with so little recoil you concentrate ON THE SHOT, not on getting bruised.
That's why the AR in 6.8 IS the huge success it is less than ten years from it's introduction, rocky a road as it's been. Really nothing more than most other cartridges, if anything, less so. The .30x.223 has been a very minor player since the '70s, and most PPC cartridges are doomed to stay on the target range, guilty by association with precision shooters - the truly glorified ones spoken in reverent tones are always military. It cuts both ways, not getting adopted doesn't help them either.
If what 5.56 offers isn't enough, you move up, 6.8SPC offers it in the best package the least expensively in a commercial caliber for the hunter.
Really, the comparisons should all be made vs. 5.56, which is exactly what the originators did. The 5.56 does just fine in combat to incapacitate - stop - another soldier fighting. That's an entirely different concept from the humane kill of a game animal and preventing it's loss from poor shot location, the real issue.
Larger calibers have no guarantee they will stop and put down an animal - it's difficult to measure or even quantify "knock down" power in any sort of meaningful way. What we do know is too little, and the animal won't quickly bleed to death, too much, and the shooter does, can, and will anticipate the recoil in a negative manner.
Anyone who's shot magnums, or got hit with a scope bell knows exactly what I'm talking about. Shooting "main battle rifle" calibers can even do it. That negative perception of what a "big" gun does is a documented and proven distractor that causes the shooter to second guess his shots and use shooting methods that impede accurate shots at moving targets.
Hunting is a lot about shots at targets that don't simply pose or graze (at least in my experience with whitetail deer.) Having hunted for decades being the only semi auto gun seen in a conservation area or during chance encounters in the field, I know for a fact that there are a lot of manual action gunners out there spraying the woods trying to knock down a running deer. Having attempted to use a bolt or lever gun, I know it impedes a quick and accurate second shot following up the first.
I'd rather use a self - loading action in a caliber that can humanely put down the animal if the first shot is off, and use that gun more confidently to get a good shot knowing I won't inadvertently eat a scope bell or get whacked by excessive recoil awkwardly tracking a deer in a tree stand. It's not easy to maintain your balance on a 18" square platform made from a few sticks of welded tubing 12' up a tree traversing a 150 degree arc.
If it makes the difference in placing another round to humanely put down the animal, why do so many misunderstand and get a gun that's too big and causes MORE problem? Bluntly, they don't think, they let testosterone make the decision, the same as when they chose a homecoming queen or buy a truck instead of a car. It's image, societal pecking order, or just plain lust, but it's not common sense.
God forbid we buy something adequate, and learn to use it well. The typical situation is to buy something in excess, and then never really learn to or need to use it.
I hunted with a .308 HK91, and Aimpoint, it worked ok. Then I tried a .30-06 with scope, it wasn't ok, moved to a .30-30 lever, nice and light, but still didn't load itself. Back to a semi auto in the AR, I've used it 22 years, know it, know the 6.8 is every bit as good as the .30-30, America's #1 deer caliber, just trimmed to fit the AR action. A little faster with a much flatter trajectory, more range, even better optics, and NO PUNISHMENT. It rewards the shooter with so little recoil you concentrate ON THE SHOT, not on getting bruised.
That's why the AR in 6.8 IS the huge success it is less than ten years from it's introduction, rocky a road as it's been. Really nothing more than most other cartridges, if anything, less so. The .30x.223 has been a very minor player since the '70s, and most PPC cartridges are doomed to stay on the target range, guilty by association with precision shooters - the truly glorified ones spoken in reverent tones are always military. It cuts both ways, not getting adopted doesn't help them either.
If what 5.56 offers isn't enough, you move up, 6.8SPC offers it in the best package the least expensively in a commercial caliber for the hunter.
There is only one 6.8 SPC cartridge, with bullets factory loaded from 85 to 120 gr. There are 2 manufacturers making hot loads that are not recommended for older, tighter chambers due to pressures, but if you have the 6.8 SPCII, AR Performance 6.8x43, or Noveske Mod1 chamber you are good for ANY commercial loading.
ETA: Noticed this in the banner ad below. http://www.venturamunitions.com/6-8-spc-115-grain-bthp-match-cannelure-silver-state-armory/
Last edited:
lwrkeysfisher
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 18
6.8's are a lot of fun; however, I think the .223 is likely more accurate [better put, there are more .223 barrels built purposefully for accuracy; whereas, the 6.8 is more hunting/weight/max velocity focused]. Both cartridges are the about the same when it comes to distance shooting---subsonic at ~800 yards with mag length ammo. However, the 6.8 stands head and shoulders above the .223 when it comes to hunting and terminal ballistics. Also the 6.8 achieves ~95% of its potential velocity out of a 16" barrel.
With all that said, if you are looking for a heavy/longer barreled rifle (20"+ barrel) and your primary goal is accuracy, I would recommend sticking the .223 or getting a 6.5 Grendel. The Grendel is tough though as good ammo is somewhat hard to come by and fairly expensive.
On the other hand, if you want a carbine that is light weight, very effective on medium game, and that is pretty dang accurate (my Noveske and WOA uppers held 3/4 MOA groups to 300yards) I recommend the 6.8. Also 6.8 ammo is getting fairly easy to come by, and prices have come down a little over the last year.
There are many options for the AR these days---I keep both .223 and 6.8 uppers. The .223 was built for accuracy and the 6.8 was built to be a handy carbine for hunting. I use bolt guns when I want something more, but I find myself not using them very often anymore.
I hope this helps.
The two 6.8 rounds are no more interchangeable than shooting a +P loaded cartridge - or not - in a pistol that is rated for +P. The rated guns - SPCII - can handle the TAC loads, the SAMMI guns - Remington - can't.
Most commercial loaded ammo is SAMMI. It's not an issue. The TAC loads are clearly spelled out with cautions about their use, just like pistol ammo.
And the first elk I heard put down with an alternate caliber was Larue with a 6.5Grendel. That was thrown into discussions for months by those koolaid drinkers.
The X vs. X caliber wars are really the problem, what's wrong is considering one cartridge to be "superior" when it's really which one fits the criteria of need more. And for some reason, no one argues that .22 or .50BMG is the anointed "best." It's a discussion of near equals, where the differences are actually not much more than a candy wrapper at 500m, that seem to get people's underwear in a twist. Funny, because most of the time, the target caliber - in this case 5.56 - is in a well defended position as the stakeholder for the whole class of firearms.
Most commercial loaded ammo is SAMMI. It's not an issue. The TAC loads are clearly spelled out with cautions about their use, just like pistol ammo.
And the first elk I heard put down with an alternate caliber was Larue with a 6.5Grendel. That was thrown into discussions for months by those koolaid drinkers.
The X vs. X caliber wars are really the problem, what's wrong is considering one cartridge to be "superior" when it's really which one fits the criteria of need more. And for some reason, no one argues that .22 or .50BMG is the anointed "best." It's a discussion of near equals, where the differences are actually not much more than a candy wrapper at 500m, that seem to get people's underwear in a twist. Funny, because most of the time, the target caliber - in this case 5.56 - is in a well defended position as the stakeholder for the whole class of firearms.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
The 6.8 is an appropriate tool for dangerous game in the 200 pound class, especially the two leg variety.
300 Whisper(R) was never a SAAMI cartridge. 300 AAC BLACKOUT now is:
http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Rifle/300 AAC Blackout.pdf
The primary use of 300 AAC BLACKOUT is for normal, full power, supersonic ammo - just as it is with 7.62x39mm. The advantage of 300 AAC BLACKOUT is that it works well in an AR and is still 30 caliber with 30 round capacity in normal magazines.
300 AAC BLACKOUT will not be as expensive for factory ammo, is cheaper to reload, uses a normal bolt, holds 30 rounds in a normal magazine, and uses popular 30 caliber bullets - and, so if you plan to stay within 300 meters - is a good choice.
lwrkeysfisher
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 18
You are making the classic mistake that most people care about that extra edge in power over all else. If that were true, 10mm would be more popular than 40 S&W. The key is to balance important features and keep ammo prices as low as possible. 300 AAC BLACKOUT brass will always be cheaper:
25 cents a case:
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=919812
Or free if you make it from picked-up 5.56mm brass.
300 AAC BLACKOUT is significantly more powerful than 5.56mm, yet still retains the full 30 round capacity in normal magazines and uses popular 30 caliber bullets.
25 cents a case:
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=919812
Or free if you make it from picked-up 5.56mm brass.
300 AAC BLACKOUT is significantly more powerful than 5.56mm, yet still retains the full 30 round capacity in normal magazines and uses popular 30 caliber bullets.
lwrkeysfisher
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 18
Not really, just commenting on the fact that there is a specific market for both cartridges and they don't really overlap as much as it seems.
There were three issues that killed the 300BLK for me: rainbow trajectory, lack of useful subsonic projectiles, and mediocre supersonic performance for a .30 cal. Again it is probably a lot of fun to run suppressed sub-loads through a SBR, but that's not really my thing. In the end the 6.8 is a better hunting cartridge and the .223 is a better all around performer when it comes to target/range shooting. I prefer to read (learn) and not post; however, so I'll let you have the last word then we can move on and see what others think about the future viability of the 6.8.
There were three issues that killed the 300BLK for me: rainbow trajectory, lack of useful subsonic projectiles, and mediocre supersonic performance for a .30 cal. Again it is probably a lot of fun to run suppressed sub-loads through a SBR, but that's not really my thing. In the end the 6.8 is a better hunting cartridge and the .223 is a better all around performer when it comes to target/range shooting. I prefer to read (learn) and not post; however, so I'll let you have the last word then we can move on and see what others think about the future viability of the 6.8.
The bullets coming out are set up to be optimal for the 300 AAC BLACKOUT velocity, so they penetrate to the right depth and expand correctly. The trajectory is the same or better than 7.62x39 - the bullets are about a 0.320 BC which is higher than what an AK shoots.
If 6.8SPC was available near Brown/Silver Bear surplus 7.62x39 prices, I'd have no need for a ComBloc AK. As it stands, current 6.8SPC prices stop me from building an AR platform to support it. But I would love to 'standardize' on 6.8SPC. It can take the place of 7.62x39 and even .30-30 in some cases.
Strykervet
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,610
Well, I wanted a larger calibre for the AR, and I wanted long range performance. Since the 6.8 and 6.5G both need new bolts and mags, I went with the one that had the best BC. 6.5G. I load, so availability isn't so much an issue. I still have the 5.56 anyway. I also have a .50Beowulf and I like them all. I just like the M4 platform.
The army isn't changing calibres anytime soon. They test stuff all the time. I used to test stuff myself (for Bde. level adoption, not army wide). SF used all kinds of stuff. Just because they asked for a new cartridge doesn't mean the whole army is changing over. Be for real. And the whole fused grenade launchers under the rifles? I saw OICW's dating from the 60's in the infantry museum. They are always taking applications, they just aren't hiring.
For myself and my own armory which I have to supply, I can go with whatever I want. So I do like the wildcat stuff. .300BLK upper is next on the list. I only have to adopt something for myself, the army needs a one size fits all.
I'm also not so sure I want the army spending even more money to outfit a force in a financial climate like this. It is bankrupting us, these perpetual wars, and it IS what brought down the Soviet Union. Reagan didn't do it, they did it to themselves trying to keep up. The sad thing is we have nobody to keep up to, just an out of control military industrial complex that can't survive without more and more contracts which equals more war --to equal more contracts. This can only go on for so long. I think they've spent enough already, I'd like to see some of our defense budget go to schools and making a better future for the next generation. They blew mine already. If they did have cash to blow, they'd be better off spending that on training their soldiers better when it comes to shooting. They can have all the gear in the world, but if they can't use it what is the point?
Until there is an entirely new breakthrough, I don't see a change happening anytime soon, but I could be wrong. They'll be needing some new contracts here soon, and those companies want your tax dollars pretty bad.
The army isn't changing calibres anytime soon. They test stuff all the time. I used to test stuff myself (for Bde. level adoption, not army wide). SF used all kinds of stuff. Just because they asked for a new cartridge doesn't mean the whole army is changing over. Be for real. And the whole fused grenade launchers under the rifles? I saw OICW's dating from the 60's in the infantry museum. They are always taking applications, they just aren't hiring.
For myself and my own armory which I have to supply, I can go with whatever I want. So I do like the wildcat stuff. .300BLK upper is next on the list. I only have to adopt something for myself, the army needs a one size fits all.
I'm also not so sure I want the army spending even more money to outfit a force in a financial climate like this. It is bankrupting us, these perpetual wars, and it IS what brought down the Soviet Union. Reagan didn't do it, they did it to themselves trying to keep up. The sad thing is we have nobody to keep up to, just an out of control military industrial complex that can't survive without more and more contracts which equals more war --to equal more contracts. This can only go on for so long. I think they've spent enough already, I'd like to see some of our defense budget go to schools and making a better future for the next generation. They blew mine already. If they did have cash to blow, they'd be better off spending that on training their soldiers better when it comes to shooting. They can have all the gear in the world, but if they can't use it what is the point?
Until there is an entirely new breakthrough, I don't see a change happening anytime soon, but I could be wrong. They'll be needing some new contracts here soon, and those companies want your tax dollars pretty bad.
bottlerocket
Member
Whats with all the talk about "surplus" 5.56? Last I checked there is no such thing since the military does not sell surplus. The only cheap ammo you see from places like lake city are rejects and the like.
Now surplus 7.62x39 is a different story
Now surplus 7.62x39 is a different story
1stmarine
Member
6.8 has its place like many other calibers including the modern 5.56. If I wanted a great round for hunting deer, hogs, black bear and even bigger depending on the range 6.8 is a great option specially one can keep barrels with moderate length in 16 and 18 inches and still enjoy plenty of energy down range.
Anything like this has also a great tactical and military potential.
For long range this is not the best round and anyway most of the AR-15s are limited by the from factor issue.
WSSMs are there but are not that popular and versatile. Too much for the little carbine that could.
What the military could do or not with this is all pure speculation.
The military is looking to maintaining around 650,000 AR platforms and there is no decision on any one solution that fits all.
In fact there are many great choices in many casings depending on what you want to do with the upper in question.
God saves us from the government and military choosing another great next caliber all by themselves! We hope they are looking what rifleman, gun enthusiast and other professionals are doing.
Anything like this has also a great tactical and military potential.
For long range this is not the best round and anyway most of the AR-15s are limited by the from factor issue.
WSSMs are there but are not that popular and versatile. Too much for the little carbine that could.
What the military could do or not with this is all pure speculation.
The military is looking to maintaining around 650,000 AR platforms and there is no decision on any one solution that fits all.
In fact there are many great choices in many casings depending on what you want to do with the upper in question.
God saves us from the government and military choosing another great next caliber all by themselves! We hope they are looking what rifleman, gun enthusiast and other professionals are doing.
Big Bad Bob
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2011
- Messages
- 388
Going back to the original question:
Does 6.8 have a future?
Yes, why? Because people who fall in the love with Cartridge X, for whatever reason will continue to shoot and load it, regardless if they can find factory ammo or not. I cant begin to type out the number of obscure cartridges that guys i know handload because they love them, have confidence in their performance with it and performance of it.
6.8 v. .308?
.308 hands down, BUT here lies the problem. Big Bore AR's are heavy, I have one, and i love it, I have a DPMS LR-308 with a 24" bull barrel. That thing shoots awesome groups and I can accurately and humanely pop deer on beanfields and long firebreaks out to 300-400 yards. But its not something I wanna carry all day long. Could you get a 16'' .308 upper thats lighter? sure. Go for it. .308 is a great cartridge.
I am currently building an AR-15 swamp carbine, for brush work and all around light truck gun. I thought long an hard over 6.8 or others. I am a ballistics nerd and i handload so obscurity of factory ammo was never an issue. I looked at 6.8, 6.5G, .300BLK, .458 SOCOM, .50 Beowulf and even 7.62x40WT.
So what did I choose .300BLK? An this is what I think is most important when comparing cartridge X to cartridge Y.
What are you using it for? what range, what game, plinker, fun shooter? showoff piece? etc.
For my brush carbine, i wanted a light, short, semi auto, that could kill cleanly hogs and deer at ranges not to exceed 100 yards and be a fun shooter from time to time. I believe 6.8 and .300BLK both respectively meet those requirements, so why .300BLK?
A. its cheaper to load
B. its .30 caliber, and I am an admitted fan of .30 cal.
C. since i was building an AR-15 platform and I wanted ease of modularity between a .223 upper, the idea that .300BLK performs on the same bolt and magazines as the .223 was the deal breaker.
Some would argue the last point not significant, that bolt and magazine swaps aren't that hard. BUT i am on a budget, as all of us typically are, and go price another bolt and magazine. The cost added up that .300BLK was the most economical and still fulfilled the role that i was building for.
To me arguments about which round vs that round is better comes down to how it is used and what it is used for. Each has its place at the table its own category.
On a side note, I would like to say thanks to Rsilvers for coming on here and providing info on AAC's products. Its not to often that you have R&D reps of major companies on message boards talking their products and having legit conversations about them. I have never seen that happen, and I think its pretty cool.
Does 6.8 have a future?
Yes, why? Because people who fall in the love with Cartridge X, for whatever reason will continue to shoot and load it, regardless if they can find factory ammo or not. I cant begin to type out the number of obscure cartridges that guys i know handload because they love them, have confidence in their performance with it and performance of it.
6.8 v. .308?
.308 hands down, BUT here lies the problem. Big Bore AR's are heavy, I have one, and i love it, I have a DPMS LR-308 with a 24" bull barrel. That thing shoots awesome groups and I can accurately and humanely pop deer on beanfields and long firebreaks out to 300-400 yards. But its not something I wanna carry all day long. Could you get a 16'' .308 upper thats lighter? sure. Go for it. .308 is a great cartridge.
I am currently building an AR-15 swamp carbine, for brush work and all around light truck gun. I thought long an hard over 6.8 or others. I am a ballistics nerd and i handload so obscurity of factory ammo was never an issue. I looked at 6.8, 6.5G, .300BLK, .458 SOCOM, .50 Beowulf and even 7.62x40WT.
So what did I choose .300BLK? An this is what I think is most important when comparing cartridge X to cartridge Y.
What are you using it for? what range, what game, plinker, fun shooter? showoff piece? etc.
For my brush carbine, i wanted a light, short, semi auto, that could kill cleanly hogs and deer at ranges not to exceed 100 yards and be a fun shooter from time to time. I believe 6.8 and .300BLK both respectively meet those requirements, so why .300BLK?
A. its cheaper to load
B. its .30 caliber, and I am an admitted fan of .30 cal.
C. since i was building an AR-15 platform and I wanted ease of modularity between a .223 upper, the idea that .300BLK performs on the same bolt and magazines as the .223 was the deal breaker.
Some would argue the last point not significant, that bolt and magazine swaps aren't that hard. BUT i am on a budget, as all of us typically are, and go price another bolt and magazine. The cost added up that .300BLK was the most economical and still fulfilled the role that i was building for.
To me arguments about which round vs that round is better comes down to how it is used and what it is used for. Each has its place at the table its own category.
On a side note, I would like to say thanks to Rsilvers for coming on here and providing info on AAC's products. Its not to often that you have R&D reps of major companies on message boards talking their products and having legit conversations about them. I have never seen that happen, and I think its pretty cool.
This has been a interesting dialog and it has helped me to make a decision. I was wondering whether or not to buy the upper an 6.8 to put on my early Colt HBAR. I own a Winchester M100 in .308 and a Remington Model 81 in 30 Remington. Both rifles work just fine. Neither are scoped, but I'm not a fan of scopes. I find that most (nearly all) game, except for small varmits, are close enough to see w/o glass. I call my M100 my civilian M-14. Four quick shots with the same M14 round, and it shoots about as well and is lighter and easier to hump than the old M14. The little, chunky M81 shoots fine and while not a tack driver it's okay for short range work.
Therefore, I'll pass on the 6.8. I don't think I need it. I could scope the M100, but what I'll do is to find some kind of an appeture sight. The open sights on the M100 line up perfectly for me, but I'll do better with a peep.
Frankly I shoot my AR with my kids and grandkids telling them that it's similar (not exact) to what we used in VN and even today in Iraq, etc. I have in the past used it as a varmit rifle but since it's not scoped, today; I use a Savage 17 HMR with glass. Sage rats.
Therefore, I'll pass on the 6.8. I don't think I need it. I could scope the M100, but what I'll do is to find some kind of an appeture sight. The open sights on the M100 line up perfectly for me, but I'll do better with a peep.
Frankly I shoot my AR with my kids and grandkids telling them that it's similar (not exact) to what we used in VN and even today in Iraq, etc. I have in the past used it as a varmit rifle but since it's not scoped, today; I use a Savage 17 HMR with glass. Sage rats.
1stmarine
Member
The AR can be a great hunting rifle in many offerings. Like Big Bad Bob well said consider what you need it for and keep it simple.
A .224 70gr barnes TSX bullet (like any TSX in any caliber) can pop deer and hogs like they are hit by lightning. Very far from the days the .223 rem rounds and powders were invented.
In those areas where .223 is not allowed you could go with 6x45 that will give you a huge assortment of hunting an varmint bullets at very good speeds. A significant and simple improvement over the .223 w/o braking the bank. Simple, very accurte and inexpensive to reload.
Same thing with the 6.8spc, one could pickup one on sale with a 16" or 18" light barrel and then get to work. Great pig and deer gun.
Grendel, 6mmAR, WSSM, etc... lots of options for different tastes out there.
Even the simple 7.62x39 (in 308) can fulfill both .308 supersonic and subsonic needs very well and next day use surplus value packs for fun.
So 6.8 is here to stay like many others that do have a clear role, are popular and, specially the ones based on military cartridges, are extremely cheap to reload.
A .224 70gr barnes TSX bullet (like any TSX in any caliber) can pop deer and hogs like they are hit by lightning. Very far from the days the .223 rem rounds and powders were invented.
In those areas where .223 is not allowed you could go with 6x45 that will give you a huge assortment of hunting an varmint bullets at very good speeds. A significant and simple improvement over the .223 w/o braking the bank. Simple, very accurte and inexpensive to reload.
Same thing with the 6.8spc, one could pickup one on sale with a 16" or 18" light barrel and then get to work. Great pig and deer gun.
Grendel, 6mmAR, WSSM, etc... lots of options for different tastes out there.
Even the simple 7.62x39 (in 308) can fulfill both .308 supersonic and subsonic needs very well and next day use surplus value packs for fun.
So 6.8 is here to stay like many others that do have a clear role, are popular and, specially the ones based on military cartridges, are extremely cheap to reload.
Big Bad Bob's post is the point - you build or buy a gun because it fits what you need it to do. Too many fixate on an action or caliber, then do all sorts of workarounds to either justify it or keep it in use.
All my firearms purchases have been centered on live target use. I started with an HK91 as a hunting rifle in the mid '70s - with a first gen Aimpoint. THEN I tried a .30-06 bolt, a lever .30-30, and all the while used the M16 in the Reserves.
It became a long term comparison, and the AR in 6.8 won hands down for me.
The selection of a gun and caliber are interdependent - but the caliber is first, not an afterthought. It has to match the task. In hunting, there are choices for a medium game intermediate - especially when the .223 is recognized as a varmint. 6.8SPC covered some important ground better than others: More vendors, more ammo selection, more available makers of parts. It delivers from a paperless legal barrel - 16" - longer than what it was designed for, the M4 14.5".
From there, the average hunter is used to specific mags for a gun. And a hunter doesn't need a lot of them, one or two legal capacity can serve for literally decades. If you get a 6.8 for hunting, interchangeability with other calibers is really moot. It's likely a purposed non modified won't swap out gun - dedicated for the use, just like a bolt or lever. That the AR CAN is nice, but the hunter doesn't need it. And AR builders know a caliber specific upper tends to grow it's own lower soon enough.
If it's a first AR, for hunting, the "cost" of a caliber specific bolt, barrel, and magazine is what you had to get anyway. It's the shooter flush with a rack of guns who might need to justify a bit of frugality - but if the caliber is chosen to do the job, why go cheap to accommodate what amounts to sharing about $100 worth of parts? In building an AR, that barely covers the freight on parts shipments when it's built to a specific list of desired items. Why compromise the longer range performance and increased holdover to save a few bucks on magazines?
It's a bit ironic to suggest not focusing too much on comparable power levels - it's rare in the gun industry, most of the time SPEED is the benchmark. What the 6.8 offers is a flatter trajectory than a .30 cal and 40% more power than 5.56. In typical hunting ranges out to 300, ballistic coefficient is a minor player, and the calibers that feature it also need both a longer barrel, AND a longer shot to "save" the energy. They don't exhibit it at closer ranges. The larger calibers will have more close range power - largely from the heavier mass of the bullet - but also more drop at 300m, which most hunters don't appreciate. It takes more practice to accurately place the shot. It's the biggest compliant about the .30-30. Somewhat moot, as it ranks as the #1 game cartridge in sales the last hundred years - which goes to the .300x.223 as being viable, and the high BC bullets not being needed.
Time will tell, the .300x.223 has already been around since the '70s, invented to skirt the rules in three gun shooting as long ago as that. AR's were not welcomed back then. Nonetheless, it's an old wildcat that has only received scant notice until now, even the Whisper variant remained a suppressor gun alternative. I doubt the new version will get much traction unless suppressor availability and pricing can meet the average shooters budget, constrained as it is with high gas prices and ridiculous cell phone charges they obviously prefer to pay.
If there is a market in AR's for the frugal shooter, the 6.8SPC is still a good choice - budget shooters can't and don't blow thousands of rounds away yearly, they hunt - and actually shoot just a box or two. The cost of surplus at 1000 rounds a pallet isn't even a consideration. 6.8SPC is no more expensive than any other commerical caliber - maybe cheaper when compared at $18 a box vs. .30-30 Leverevolution at $24.
For the long term, a great choice - it's got legs, the others, no major advantage that isn't offset by disadvantages. No one cartridge can do it all, but the 6.8 does more for what a hunter needs without making him look bad, which counts for a lot.
All my firearms purchases have been centered on live target use. I started with an HK91 as a hunting rifle in the mid '70s - with a first gen Aimpoint. THEN I tried a .30-06 bolt, a lever .30-30, and all the while used the M16 in the Reserves.
It became a long term comparison, and the AR in 6.8 won hands down for me.
The selection of a gun and caliber are interdependent - but the caliber is first, not an afterthought. It has to match the task. In hunting, there are choices for a medium game intermediate - especially when the .223 is recognized as a varmint. 6.8SPC covered some important ground better than others: More vendors, more ammo selection, more available makers of parts. It delivers from a paperless legal barrel - 16" - longer than what it was designed for, the M4 14.5".
From there, the average hunter is used to specific mags for a gun. And a hunter doesn't need a lot of them, one or two legal capacity can serve for literally decades. If you get a 6.8 for hunting, interchangeability with other calibers is really moot. It's likely a purposed non modified won't swap out gun - dedicated for the use, just like a bolt or lever. That the AR CAN is nice, but the hunter doesn't need it. And AR builders know a caliber specific upper tends to grow it's own lower soon enough.
If it's a first AR, for hunting, the "cost" of a caliber specific bolt, barrel, and magazine is what you had to get anyway. It's the shooter flush with a rack of guns who might need to justify a bit of frugality - but if the caliber is chosen to do the job, why go cheap to accommodate what amounts to sharing about $100 worth of parts? In building an AR, that barely covers the freight on parts shipments when it's built to a specific list of desired items. Why compromise the longer range performance and increased holdover to save a few bucks on magazines?
It's a bit ironic to suggest not focusing too much on comparable power levels - it's rare in the gun industry, most of the time SPEED is the benchmark. What the 6.8 offers is a flatter trajectory than a .30 cal and 40% more power than 5.56. In typical hunting ranges out to 300, ballistic coefficient is a minor player, and the calibers that feature it also need both a longer barrel, AND a longer shot to "save" the energy. They don't exhibit it at closer ranges. The larger calibers will have more close range power - largely from the heavier mass of the bullet - but also more drop at 300m, which most hunters don't appreciate. It takes more practice to accurately place the shot. It's the biggest compliant about the .30-30. Somewhat moot, as it ranks as the #1 game cartridge in sales the last hundred years - which goes to the .300x.223 as being viable, and the high BC bullets not being needed.
Time will tell, the .300x.223 has already been around since the '70s, invented to skirt the rules in three gun shooting as long ago as that. AR's were not welcomed back then. Nonetheless, it's an old wildcat that has only received scant notice until now, even the Whisper variant remained a suppressor gun alternative. I doubt the new version will get much traction unless suppressor availability and pricing can meet the average shooters budget, constrained as it is with high gas prices and ridiculous cell phone charges they obviously prefer to pay.
If there is a market in AR's for the frugal shooter, the 6.8SPC is still a good choice - budget shooters can't and don't blow thousands of rounds away yearly, they hunt - and actually shoot just a box or two. The cost of surplus at 1000 rounds a pallet isn't even a consideration. 6.8SPC is no more expensive than any other commerical caliber - maybe cheaper when compared at $18 a box vs. .30-30 Leverevolution at $24.
For the long term, a great choice - it's got legs, the others, no major advantage that isn't offset by disadvantages. No one cartridge can do it all, but the 6.8 does more for what a hunter needs without making him look bad, which counts for a lot.
- Status
