The 6.8 SPC could have been a winner if...

[Mags]

I think marketing is the true shortcoming of the 6.8. If you could go into Wal-Mart or any other major sporting store and pick up a box of ammo for 12.50 or less per 20 then the 6.8 may catch on. But with only 3 mainstream ammo manufacturers and 2 of them being high end companies the 6.8 is just too expensive compared to other options for civies in the AR platform such as the 7.62x39 and the origimal chambering in 5.56. If you are going to have to look high and low for ammo and then pay a mint you might as well get yourself a 6.5 Grendel,458 SOCOM, or 50 Beowulf.

I am actually kind of bitter that none of the cartridges designed for the AR have taken off into mainstream distribution. I would love to get a different caliber upper for my ARs but due to marketing it is somwhat pricey to take full advantage of the ARs modularity.

What is even stranger is the propietary calibers of the AR10 design are quite popular perhaps due to the fact they were not designed around the parameters of the AR10 but have been rather popular calibers before the AR10 rose to common usage. Calibers such as the 243 Win, 7mm-08, and 338 Federal have only became more popular with the modular capability of the AR10 platform.

Now if the military were to adapt any of the available caliber options other than the 5.56 in the AR15 platform for general mass issue then whatever caliber selected would rise to popularity. But only if it is a fully adopted and not just for special ops use. I just wish they had went with the 6.8 so I would buy myself a nice upper.

 

[Jerry M]

Check out this site, your prayers have been answered.

http://www.6mmar.com/

Good luck

Jerry

 

[Jaws]

What genius was doing the brainstorming for that cartridge...

It was someone much more capable than you think. He did, in my opinion, the best you gould get, out of the cards he was dealt.

in a perfect world, for the same aplication, his other cartridge (7x46mmUIAC) would be as close to perfect as you could get with today's technology.

7.62x39mm case extended to 46mm, necked down to 7mm pushing a 130gr, .411BC bullet at 2650fps out of 16 inch barrel.

 

[Ratdog68]

The 6.8 is the second most purchased AR being made (at present). Thankfully... today's rendition of the chambering/barrel specs is light years better than the pitiful thing that Remington registered with SAAMI. Remington fell flat on it's face with that offering. Instead of following the progress that's been made to overcome what it was and updating it... it tucked it's green tale between it's legs, discontinued what could be a great model 700 offering, and continues to offer anemic loads in their large primered brass that isn't good for much more than a few reloads.

Am I a Remington hater? No, I own six Remington rifles, three center fire and three rimfire. I'm a big fan of the 700. But, from appearances, their R&D team (in it's current form) sucks.

Given the obstacles from the beginning of the round? The 6.8 has become a fine cartridge, and capable hunting round... in spite of Remington.

 

[Matt304]

today's rendition of the chambering/barrel specs is light years better than the pitiful thing that Remington registered with SAAMI. Remington fell flat on it's face with that offering. Instead of following the progress that's been made to overcome what it was and updating it... it tucked it's green tale between it's legs, discontinued what could be a great model 700 offering, and continues to offer anemic loads in their large primered brass that isn't good for much more than a few reloads.

Can you elaborate on what exactly you are talking about?

I would like to know.

 

[Hammerhead6814]

Here's the solution to any 5.56 vs 6.8 vs 6.5 vs whatever debate for the AR platform.

Remove Ar-15 upper receiver. Remove AR-15 lower receiver. Add AR-10 lower receiver. Add AR-10 upper receiver. There, that answers any questions about caliber in the AR platform. The only thing better would be a .30-06 or 7mm Mauser AR. One can dream right?

 

[Maverick223]

As I see it though the SPC is a cartridge that sold it's soul to the velocity devil at the expense of bullet mass, SD and BC

+1, that is my qualms with the 6.8SPC. IMO they should have went with 6.5mm or 7mm. Using .277cal just doesn't make sense to me, when there are such good choices only a few hundredths of an inch away (FWIW 7mm is only 7 thousands of an inch difference, but the bullets offered afford much better ballistic qualities). It seems to me that the best choices are a necked up 5.56NATO (the 6.5MPC or even a 6x47mm), the 6.5Grendel, or a wildcat 6.8SPC (necked to 6.5mm or 7mm). I would buy any of the aforementioned right now if offered in the right platform.

 

[Ratdog68]

Can you elaborate on what exactly you are talking about?

I would like to know.

You can read up on the whole tale with varied stickied threads on 68forums.com. Basically, the 6.8 SPC SAAMI spec chamber was found to generate excessive pressure, blowing primers (even out of Remington factory loads, which are the weakest of the current offerings), and incapable of delivering the terminal ballistics that were being strived for. The Remington 700 offering is a prime example of that version.

A group of people who believed in the potential of the cartridge started to do their homework and did some testing. The leade was changed to what is referred to as 6.8 SPC II and dramatic improvements were achieved with the resulting drop in chamber pressures. Further testing resulted in the determination that since the caliber is limited by the capacity of the magazine's fit in an AR-15 mag well... smaller projectiles were allowing the use of more powder capacity, netting even more velocity (in conjunction with the lower chamber pressures of the new chamber spec). The lighter/smaller bullets showed better velocity with the further change to slower twist rates than the original 1:10 twist barrels of the .270. The change to a different rifling with a land/groove ratio of 70/30% netted a bit more muzzle velocity with the resultant decrease in friction applied to the bullet as it travelled down the barrel.

So... with about five years' worth of efforts put into the caliber... only a couple of rifle manufacturers are still making their offerings with the SAAMI spec'd chamber and original 1:10 barrel/rifling combos. The round, in a correct/up to date chamber/barrel combo will now perform well at close to 3000fps velocities. And, with the newly introduced Barnes 95gr TTSX which was designed specifically for the 6.8... which was designed to open effectively to speeds of 1600fps... the 6.8 SPC II is now capable of taking game to 450yds. It's become a one shot DRT hog killer (provided the shooter does his part), and I know of one individual who took a black bear with two rounds of the Barnes 110 TSX out of his 6.8 AR platform. It's also quite good at dropping deer. SSA offers two types of loads for the 6.8 SPC, "Commercial" for the old spec chamber/barrel combo and "Tactical" loads for the up to date 6.8 SPC II spec'd chamber/barrel rifles.

Simply put... it's like comparing the .223 Remington with the 5.56 NATO chambered rifles. The 5.56 will shoot both, but don't try the hotter 5.56 in your .223.

I've been learning a lot as I haunt that forum. I hadn't even heard of the 6.8 until about February of this year. It sparked my interest and I started digging/reading and asking. Good group of folks over on that forum. To get the best equipment the caliber has available to it... I'd stick with the vendors supporting that forum. They've been the ones to do the research/testing and are keeping themselves on the cutting edge for this caliber. ARPerformance, Bison Armory, Wilson Combat, Black Hole Weaponery, Noveske seem to be the ones leading the charge on the best specs for chamber/barrel product. SSA has been the most active with keeping the ammo up to date with the cartidge's evolution/improvement. Hornady is probably a close second. Remington's large rifle primer pockets seem to be loosening up long before SSA or Hornady's brass... so, even though Remington's brass is cheaper (up front), the longevity of the SSA/Hornady brass nets more value in the end. You'll also want to compare the advertised velocities of the ammo manufacturers. Remington's failed to keep up with the progress.

 

[Shade]

One thing I would like to add to this that others have said but cannot be stated enough is that this is not meant to be the "ultimate round". It's built to give the ar15 more lethality within it's designed range with a shorter barrel, while maintaining low recoil and normal magazine capacity. Thats it.

The ar15 is an assault rifle not a long range sniper rifle. It's seems a lot of people want the 6.8 to do the job of the 5.56 and the 308. The 308 works awesome at long ranges, has for a long time and will continue for a long time.

The 5.56 was designed for longer barreled rifles in which it works consistently effective, in short barreled rifles, however, it seems to have limited lethality. The 6.8 is designed specifically to address this problem.

 

[amprecon]

Quote:
amprecon said:

It's all rather immature.

I don't mind fans of each side touting the attributes of their favorite caliber, what I find immature is when one side poo poo's the other just because....that is immature.

 

[Al Mack 1]

I don't remember where I heard or read this. But because of the royalties Grendel wanted for the use of there 6.5. The 6.8 was designed. Simple as that.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

I'm of the opinion that we have all the cartridges we need and that we don't need any new ones. I tend to be very conservative and don't adopt new cartridges readily. As for rifles, is the 5.56 is under powered for the application, I'd look at either the 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 long before I'd go with something else. Even if you showed me data, I'd still lean towards well established rounds. I suspect there are many like me who think that way. Rather than bullet performance, I think the resistance to a new caliber is the biggest problem.

 

[Ratdog68]

I'm of the opinion that we have all the cartridges we need and that we don't need any new ones. I tend to be very conservative and don't adopt new cartridges readily. As for rifles, is the 5.56 is under powered for the application, I'd look at either the 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 long before I'd go with something else. Even if you showed me data, I'd still lean towards well established rounds. I suspect there are many like me who think that way. Rather than bullet performance, I think the resistance to a new caliber is the biggest problem.

If you've priced the AR-10 platform lately... you'll understand the following of better performing calibers for the AR-15 platform. There's also a fair load carrying difference, both for the weapon as well as for the rounds. Weapon weight being the more important consideration for the hunter, ammo weight/capacity also being of concern for the soldier.

 

[Maverick223]

If you've priced the AR-10 platform lately... you'll understand the following of better performing calibers for the AR-15 platform. There's also a fair load carrying difference, both for the weapon as well as for the rounds.

+1; the AR-10, whilst more powerful, is also larger, heavier, more costly, and doesn't have the universal parts that the AR-15 affords. In many ways the AR-15 with a larger cartridge is superior to its big brother.

 

[PedalBiker]

I think it could be a winner as is. I'd like to see a 7615 pump in 6.8spc from Remington. I'm considering a Ruger mini 6.8, but I don't like semiautos.

Frankly, though, Hornady's Leverevolution 30-30 makes brings the 30-30 up to 6.8SPC territory and a Marlin 336 would be just as handy as a 7615 pump.

 

[Ratdog68]

I think it could be a winner as is. I'd like to see a 7615 pump in 6.8spc from Remington. I'm considering a Ruger mini 6.8, but I don't like semiautos.

Frankly, though, Hornady's Leverevolution 30-30 makes brings the 30-30 up to 6.8SPC territory and a Marlin 336 would be just as handy as a 7615 pump.

At present, Ruger does not use the SPC II chambering, and reaming it would allow you more choices in ammo to use in it.

 

[jmorris]

6.8mm is kind of like owning a Saab, no good reason other than to be different. Less than 8 thousandths of an inch difference between it and a 7mm. Talk about apples to apples….

 

[Ratdog68]

I take exception to that... I would never own a Saab.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

me i would have liked to see a 257spc. give a guy an opition to shoot 87s or 100s for normal work and 120 partitions or ball when you need penetration.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

If you've priced the AR-10 platform lately... you'll understand the following of better performing calibers for the AR-15 platform. There's also a fair load carrying difference, both for the weapon as well as for the rounds. Weapon weight being the more important consideration for the hunter, ammo weight/capacity also being of concern for the soldier.

Your logic is reasonable. It's just not the way I'd want to go personally. Yes, the AR10 and M14's are definately heavier. Having said that, if the 5.56x45 isn't adequate for the needs, I'd be inclined to switch to the 7.62x39 before I'd go to the 6.8 SPC.

I remember once reading a Loui Awerbuck article in SWAT and I there was a lot of talk about some new cartridge. He commented something to the effect, "does anyone remember the 41 magnum?"

When I think of the 6.8, I think of the following cartridges (yes, they're pistol ones so it's not necessarily a fair comparison): 45 GAP, 10 mm, 41 magnum, and dare I say the 357 Sig. Yes you can find them, but they aren't main stream and going to have as steep a discount. Same is true in my mind of the 6.8 round. I have no doubts its better the 5.56, however they are other rounds out there that have prooven over time that they are unlikely to be a fad or flash in the pan.

 

[Ratdog68]

Your logic is reasonable. It's just not the way I'd want to go personally. Yes, the AR10 and M14's are definately heavier. Having said that, if the 5.56x45 isn't adequate for the needs, I'd be inclined to switch to the 7.62x39 before I'd go to the 6.8 SPC.

I remember once reading a Loui Awerbuck article in SWAT and I there was a lot of talk about some new cartridge. He commented something to the effect, "does anyone remember the 41 magnum?"

When I think of the 6.8, I think of the following cartridges (yes, they're pistol ones so it's not necessarily a fair comparison): 45 GAP, 10 mm, 41 magnum, and dare I say the 357 Sig. Yes you can find them, but they aren't main stream and going to have as steep a discount. Same is true in my mind of the 6.8 round. I have no doubts its better the 5.56, however they are other rounds out there that have prooven over time that they are unlikely to be a fad or flash in the pan.

'Cept... the 6.8 SPC is the second most purchased caliber in the AR platform. (Much to the 6.5 Grumble's dismay).

 

[Mr. T]

I still wonder why, if knock down power and punching capabilities are the Holy Grail for the military, why they don't go to the .308 or 30.06 caliber. The 30.06 round did the job in WWII. If we want our guys to shoot through cars or even walls of buildings, the 30.06 did that in spades during WWII. And before someone mentions round carrying capability please answer why I should shoot someone two or three times instead of just once to put them out of the fight.

 

[Regen]

round carrying capability please answer why I should shoot someone two or three times instead of just once to put them out of the fight.

Because most rounds don't hit an enemy soldier. Often, keeping an enemy's head down so that you can maneuver is more important than a one stop shot.

 

[Mags]

And before someone mentions round carrying capability please answer why I should shoot someone two or three times instead of just once to put them out of the fight.

You are going to put more than one in a BG, you are not going to shoot once and wait and see what happens. You are going to shoot until the threat stops.

 

[benEzra]

I will not argue that most battles occur within 300 meters. What my point was supposed to convey was that our troops are being killed by under trained religious fanatics because we don't have the tools to shoot back. We are arguably the richest country in the world and we can't foot the bill for more .308 shooting marksmen? If they can shoot and kill us at long distance then we sure as hell should be shooting back.

We already outrange them; the bad guys aren't hanging back because they outrange our guys, but because if they get any closer they will completely lose any chance to E&E. This is not a 5.56x45mm shortcoming, it's a function of distance, area, and response time.

And generally speaking, if our guys need to engage an enemy force at 600+ meters, they use the appropriate weapons---which aren't, generally speaking, small arms.

My point is that we can afford the training and the weapons, but for some reason we still depend on an underpowered cartridge. Why keep with the .223 when something else exists that can do both close and long range from the same platform?

Because switching to .308 from .223 goes against the shortcomings of 7.62x51mm that led to the switch to 5.56x45mm in the first place.

Soldiers are already maxed out as far as weight they can carry. If you switch to a heavier rifle with heavier magazines that shoots twice-as-heavy ammo, the only way to offset that weight is to carry less ammo and fewer magazines---and the heavier 7.62x51 is slower on target and slower in followup shots than 5.56x45mm. All of the above hurts you in the vast majority of real-world engagements (those at 1 to 200 meters), while not really helping you in the rare long-range engagements beyond 600m because most of those don't depend on small arms in the first place.