6.8spc ??

[gkdir]

Not sure where to post this--so here goes. 6.8SPC cartridge. What is it? Whats its origin? What is it comparable to? What is its capabilities as a hunting cartridge? Reason for all this is I know less than nothing, about this round, and may shortly acquire a Bushmaster Varmint with a 24" Match Barrel, chambered in this round. Any info would be greatly appreciated. thanks.

 

[NG VI]

It's a round that originated out of people's love of the AR-15 platform, but desire for options other than .223/5.56mm. I guess it would be most comparable to (I don't know a whole lot about rifle cartridges) 7.62x39mm, but a little different. A little skinnier bullet, so probably a better ballistic coefficient, because it uses bullets in the same roungh weight range and pushed to similiar or slightly faster velocities.


I think it would be good for deer-sized animals in places with woods and things.

 

[amprecon]

The following link should explain everything you'd like know about the 6.8spc.

http://demigodllc.com/articles/6.8-mm-spc-cartridge-history-development-hornady-stag-arms-carbine/

 

[longdayjake]

Its basically an AR cartridge that became popular because a few special forces used them for a limited time in Iraq and then gave it the boot. It will give you better killing performance than just a .223 but there are a lot of new cartridges that do that from an AR these days. Here is a list of just some of the AR 15 compatible cartridges.

6.8spc (good choice)
6.5 grendel (my choice)
30RAR (new but interesting)
25 WSSM
.50 beowolf
"all the WSSM
7.62 x 25 (blowback version)
7.62x39 (great option for short range)
6mm ar
.35x39 (a grendel case necked up to .35)
6.5x43 (just a .223 case with a 6.5 bullet)
6.8x43 (just a .223 case with a 6.8 bullet)


Some of these are known by different names, but these are the names I remember seeing. The 6.8 spc and the 6.5 grendel are the most popular. The 6.8 is great from short barrels, light bullets, and short distances and the 6.5 grendel is great for long barrels, heavy bullets, and long distances. Each cartridge has its fair share of nut job followers that hate the other cartridge, so trying to do a search for either one will get you more hate speech then actual data. The SPC crowd is famous for misquoting velocities whereas the 6.5 crowd is famous for comparing 24" barrel velocities to 16" barrel velocities. In reality both cartridges are great but neither can say that one is better than the other at everything. However, there will be plenty of people to tell you that one is.

Now, I prefer the 6.5 grendel because I like flat shooting long range shooting. So, the 6.8 sucks!!! SARCASM!!!

 

[R.W.Dale]

Now, I prefer the 6.5 grendel because I like flat shooting long range shooting. So, the 6.8 sucks!!! SARCASM!!!

PAH! MOAR BETTAR 30HRT for the win (more sarcasm)

The SPC crowd is famous for misquoting velocities whereas the 6.5 crowd is famous for comparing 24" barrel velocities to 16" barrel velocities.

another one is the SPC crowd is famous for is outlandish range suitability claims for hunting use. 400yd elk and such

the grendelizers like to compare only ONE number, and that's trajectory. You know as in "shoots with 308 out to xxx yards"

 

[420Stainless]

I've read that it compares fairly close to the .257 Roberts. Reviewing ballistics data seems to confirm that. Only problem is that most 6.8SPC rifles have shorter barrels than most of the bolt guns chambering the Roberts.

I've heard that its not bad for accuracy out to 600 yards. However, the speed drops from 2500 ft./sec pretty rapidly - so bullet expansion on game doesn't look like it should be very reliable past a couple hundred yards. I haven't shot any deer with my mini yet, so I can't speak with personal experience.

 

[longdayjake]

I've read that it compares fairly close to the .257 Roberts. Reviewing ballistics data seems to confirm that.

Not even close. Unless by close you mean completely different.

 

[tincanhunter]

A couple of other tidbits. The parent case is the 30 Remington, and it's expensive to shoot if you don't reload. Ammo is $1/round for factory ammo and about $0.40/round if you reload.

 

[Float Pilot]

It was simply an attempt to increase the anti-personnel potential of an M4 sized AR platform with the minimum amount of modification.
The original design request also required that the magazines be the same size and shape, so they would fit into the existing military issue mag pouches and vest pouches.

They eventually settled upon a case based upon the old 30 Remington. Prototypes were tried in 6.5mm (.264), 6,8mm (.270) and 7mm (.284).

The 6.5mm was found to have the best down range ballistics while the 7mm was found to impart the most damage to target medium. So, as in all things government, they settled on something in between.

From my 16 inch barreled Stag (1 in 10 twist, SPEC II chamber) I have consistently chronographed:

90 grain HP (2,850 to 2,900 fps.)
110 grain boat-tail (2,500 to 2,550 fps) 110 grain Accubonds work best
130 grain spitzer (2,200 to 2,250 fps)

A 110 grain .277 caliber Accubond with a B/C of .370, which leaves the 16 inch barrel at 2,550 will still be going 1,902 fps at 300 yards. So the 300 yard impact is about like being shot with a 30 carbine round at close range.

Within realistic combat range for a carbine sized weapon, the 6.8 SPC was a good idea. Plus at very close range, it offers more energy transfer (Hey stop that right now!) than a standard 5.56mm FMJ round.

However, you will not see ANY advancements if infantry weapons during the current political administration. Having dead or disadvantaged troops only advances the agenda of those currently in power.

 

[Tirod]

6.8 SPC can be had for the same price as any other commercial load - same as .308. It's actually cheaper from Silver State than Leverevolution .30-30.

Longdayjake summed it up well. There seems to be a certain partisanship - from my perspective a certain group tends to play up the long distance accuracy and retained energy the 6.5 G has out past 500 yards. I have no complaint with that - out of a 24" inch barrel it's in it's best packaging.

BUT - there will be one who claims it's better than 6.8 out of a 14.5 barrel. At short range, the 6.5 won't demonstrate it's superior ballistic coefficient, but the 6.8 will show it's lethality, which is a completely different subject. Much of that is from getting 3000 FPS out of a short barrel, because of the chamber, case, and rifling that has progressed far beyond the initial flawed Remington introduction.

One thing is for sure, 6.5 or 6.8, the concept excited Remington enough they came up with there own version, the .30. The dust hasn't settled on this scuffle yet.

 

[Shadow Man]

One thing is for sure, 6.5 or 6.8, the concept excited Remington enough they came up with there own version, the .30. The dust hasn't settled on this scuffle yet.

And probably won't for some time to come.

A pretty unbiased look at a 6.8x43 (SPC) platform can be found on Gunblast. They review the Barrett REC-7 (called the M468 at the time, I believe). If you use the cartridge within its designed parameters (increased lethality out to 500yds) then it should perform well for you. That goes for any firearm/caliber choice anyway, though. The only real problem facing any of those newer calibers for the AR is supply/demand. The demand far far exceeds the available supply. Until Winchester/Federal/insert-your-bulk-ammo-provider-here starts running huge batches of the stuff, the prices will make the round impracticle for any serious work...unless you reload.

So: understand the limitations of the round/platform, use the firearm within those design parameters, and you should have no problems.

 

[gkdir]

Thanks guys! This info pretty much has me installing a 20" bull barrel on my DMPS, .223, some new glass, and just shutup and go back to the woods.

 

[amprecon]

I don't have and will not have a .223, especially if I plan to do any kind of hunting of animals larger than a coyote as far as I'm concerned. I see nothing wrong with the 6.8spc and wouldn't let the current "which-is-better" arguments disparage you from at least giving it a fair chance. It is a good effective cartridge in it's own right and has good merit. I like it and plan to own a rifle in that caliber one day. There is always bigger, better, faster, more efficient and whatever else other cartridges out there, but just don't knock it till you try it.
I see this whole 6.8 vs. 6.5 vs. .223 argument in the same light as the 9mm vs. .40s&w vs. .45acp arguments, they each have their merits, good and bad. I was totally turned off by the .40s&w for a long time because of all the negative things said about it, but it wasn't until I tried it myself that I discovered most of the negative things said about it was bunk. Because of the attributes the .40 had I promptly dropped my 9mm's and went to .40 and have been happily satisfied ever since.

 

[rizbunk77]

To me the 6.8 is a bullet too light for caliber stuffed into a case that is too small. The result is a round that has sufficient speed and power for close to intermediate range, then falls off the planet. They should have developed a 6mm SPC for general issue. Now you would have something. Maybe then we could hold off the Chinese when they come through here with their bullpups having longer barrels shooting a 6mm designed to defeat our body armor.

 

[Shadow Man]

Maybe then we could hold off the Chinese when they come through here with their bullpups having longer barrels shooting a 6mm designed to defeat our body armor.

Except the Chinese dropped their QBZ-97 (Type 97) bullpup rifle due to reliability issues. Their newest gun is supposed to replace the QBZ-97 en-masse, and is in standard configuration, with, I believe, a 16" barrel. It's called the QBZ-03 (Type 03). And the Chinese "wonder round" in 5.8x42 is only marginally better than the M855 we use in our M-4/M-16 platforms. And with the newer EXSAPI plates, I'd wager that the 5.8x42 will have a hard time defeating our troops IBA's.

Another plus is that the 5.8 round has, I'm pretty sure, a steel core, so any unarmored targets (grassroots resistance, etc.) would end up with a little 5.8mm hole in their anatomy. Those smaller bullets relied on an inherent instability to cause massive damage. As soon as manufacturers began stabalizing them for superior barrier penetration, they lost that instability and some of their famed lethality (M193 vs. M855 for example).

However, that is all speculation. Let's hope the Chinese don't invade, eh?

 

[longdayjake]

the grendelizers like to compare only ONE number, and that's trajectory. You know as in "shoots with 308 out to xxx yards"

The same could be said about 6.8 fellas and their tendency to look at one number only. You know as in "velocity." Like I said, both sides tend to lean on their advantages and ignore their shortcomings.

Recently I have been looking at hornady's H.I.T.S. numbers. I find it interesting how much more the 6.5 bullets get than the .270 bullets.

130 grain spitzer (2,200 to 2,250 fps)

Doesn't it bother you that a 7.62x39 can do the same thing? Does the SD of the 6.8 help in killing performance over the 7.62 bullets?

 

[R.W.Dale]

The same could be said about 6.8 fellas and their tendency to look at one number only. You know as in "velocity." Like I said, both sides tend to lean on their advantages and ignore their shortcomings.

true true

the latest is claiming that a 6.8dia 85g HP is suitable for large deer species out to 400yds or somesuch for no other reason than the velocity is high

My favorite is the 6,8spc'ers who make velocity claims for a particular bullet weight in a 16"bbl that outdoes 270win. Then when you call them on it they start throwing out words such as "optimized" and start pontificating about some magic twist rate

 

[john paul]

i have two 6.8's that pretty much just kill paper and i love 'em. but..... i built one for my dad and it has become his main hunting rifle. the past two years he has gotten several whitetails and untold number of pig. all fancy terms and ballistic b.s. aside it is an effective round at reasonable ranges for medium game. i have no experience with the 6.5 grendel other than any time someone asks about the 6.8, the grendel-ites hijack the thread!

 

[HoosierQ]

The AR-15 and the 5.56 has transcended, if I count correctly, 9 presidential administrations, 4 Democrats, 5 Republicans. So we're going to blame the current administration for the 5.56 NATO are we? Is there anything to blame the 5.56 NATO for? Post #9 above ends a bit out of kilter I think.

 

[R.W.Dale]

The AR-15 and the 5.56 has transcended, if I count correctly, 9 presidential administrations, 4 Democrats, 5 Republicans. So we're going to blame the current administration for the 5.56 NATO are we? Is there anything to blame the 5.56 NATO for? Post #9 above ends a bit out of kilter I think.

LOL great point


Let me think. Back when 5.56 was in the works Eisenhower was president.

some cars still had flathead engines

and my Mother wasn't even born yet

 

[HGUNHNTR]

It is pretty funny how people are always jumping into and identifying with a group/caliber/sports team etc. etc. like it reflects on them personally as human beings. People are so quick to come to the defense of a calibers mythical capabilities because it is their manhood on a balistics chart. I guess thats the origin of gangs and fanboys.

 

[HoosierQ]

So that makes 10 then...didn't count Ike...started with Kennedy.

 

[longdayjake]

i have no experience with the 6.5 grendel other than any time someone asks about the 6.8, the grendel-ites hijack the thread!

Try posting something asking about 6.5 and you get the 6.8 crowd hijacking as well. Has anyone ever really conclusively shown that one is better than the other? No? Okay then so I have one question that has been getting to me for a long time...

HOW DOES ONE CHOOSE?

What makes some guys like blond girls over redheads? Freud would say its something to do with your mom. So, what is it about my mom that made me buy a 6.5 Grendel?

 

[Shadow Man]

So, what is it about my mom that made me buy a 6.5 Grendel?

Hahaha. Well said.

The 6.5 Grendel is a fine round: as is the 6.8 SPC. However, those two rounds were designed to do two different things. Comparing them is like comparing a Ford F-150 to a Ford Mustang. When used inside of their design parameters, they perform well...it is when more is expected from a round than it was intended to give that people become dissapointed and get their knickers in a twist.

 

[elmerfudd]

To me it seems they were both handicapped by having to fit into an M16 magwell. Give them each an extra 3mm or so of case length and they'd be interesting.

So long as we're talking about changing the caliber of our service rifle, why goof things up by insisting that it work in a rifle that's getting extremely long in the tooth.