In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
6.8 SPC
zreese45
Member Posts: 5 ✭✭
Whats the Deal with this rifle? There are a lot of these on the Auction side but i dont ever see anyone bidding on them.
Comments
what is the status of the 6.8 spc round that remmington was testing for military aplication.
have heard both good and bad things about it. is it stil being tested, has the idea been dropped? is it available camercialy.
on an end note in one of the gun mags this topic was covered to some extent and they threw out the idea of a scaled down m1a1 designd to fire this new round. any thaughts on that.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
i personaly do not beleive that you need to carry an anti tank rifle for personal protection.
it doesn't matter how big your gun is, it's what you do with it when it counts
13 Foxtrot . . .greatest Job in the Army Period
Best
EDIT 1
Sandwarrior,
The US military already had a round available that produced the ballistics, plus some of the 6.8. It was/is also readily available in the lands in which they are fighting. It had been chambered in the AR-15 platform, LONG before the advent of the 6.8 also. While I do realize that the longest .224 bullets that can be used in a magazine, and that match the 1:7-1:9 twist rates in use today hold more energy out to 500-600 yards or so, the short range TKO factor is what was being saught after. The 7.62x39 provided that extra surface area, for better energy transfer. It is just my opinion that the 6.8 is another round that will find obscurity quickly.
Best
EDIT 2
Sandwarrior,
I know it was you, and no offense was taken on my behalf. You have never offered offensive postings(unlike myself), and you express your views, opinions, and expertise, in a very professional manner, always.
Best
It is called GIMMICK...they were developed for Uncle Sam trials. It appears that even Uncle Sam does not wantr them.
Best
My opinion exactly. People rushed out and bought the newest and greatest thing out and realized what a dog it is. I took one look at the ballistics and have zero interest in that thing. It pushes a 110 grain bullet at 2500-2600fps. Why develop a new round that has 60-80-100 year old performance levels? To me that's akin to taking a brand new Kenworth and "developing" a new modern engine that has a whopping 220 horsepower just like the engines of 50-60 years ago.
Edit:
No offense taken at all sandwarrior. I can truly see the need for a new cartridge myself. I guess I think that the need to "develop" a new round is just somewhat on the trendy side. If a person looks at a list of already existing cartridges, the list is 6 feet long. Surely the requirements for a US military round can't be so narrow and specialized that several of the already existing chamberings won't fill the requirement well. One can always give it a more trendy/worldly/military name such as it's metric dimentions as opposed to 257 Roberts, for example.
It is called GIMMICK...they were developed for Uncle Sam trials. It appears that even Uncle Sam does not wantr them.
Best
No gimmick what-so-ever! This round was developed by military personnel (5th grp SF) who were tired of civilians telling them what they needed, and were gonna get. A reloader amongst them happen to have reloaded for the .30 Rem, off which this case is based. The initial goal of the project was to create a round with more punch at all ranges the 5.56 could reach. This round accomplished this.
The real debate came up when the 6.5 Grendel was not only capable of doing what the 6.8 SPC could do, but be a viable 1k yd. round....from an AR-15 platform.
The round produces a lot more energy on target than does a 5.56. And, up to the point the best BC bullets can perform it stays right up with the 6.5 Grendel. Where it starts to lose is, the bullets that could be high enough BC won't fit in the case and a magazine, like the 6.5 Grendel.
But, for all intents and purposes this round is a fantastical leap in the AR-15 world. The 6.5 just leaped a little farther.
Edit:
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
It is called GIMMICK...they were developed for Uncle Sam trials. It appears that even Uncle Sam does not wantr them.
Best
EDIT 1
Sandwarrior,
The US military already had a round available that produced the ballistics, plus some of the 6.8. It was/is also readily available in the lands in which they are fighting. It had been chambered in the AR-15 platform, LONG before the advent of the 6.8 also. While I do realize that the longest .224 bullets that can be used in a magazine, and that match the 1:7-1:9 twist rates in use today hold more energy out to 500-600 yards or so, the short range TKO factor is what was being saught after. The 7.62x39 provided that extra surface area, for better energy transfer. It is just my opinion that the 6.8 is another round that will find obscurity quickly.
Best
I will agree that the 7.62 has more TKO at close ranges. However, the trajectory is abysmal. Generally speaking the accuracy of the rounds available in foreign lands wasn't the best either. That was part firearms used and part ammunition. The original spec was to provide higher TKO at all ranges of M855 Ammunition. Shooters were getting hits @ 300m +, but not taking the bad guys out of the fight. That's why the 6.8 came to be. It happened to be first on-line and used.
I will agree with you that the 6.8 is probably going to go away as it's limitations show up glaringly at longer ranges. Several cartridges entered into the same competition as it did, have proven to be equal or more powerful, and have longer range capability.
Bottom line, there is better out there. But, the round itself was conceived in earnest and not a gimmick. Will they work? Certainly. Can you do more from an AR-15 platform? Certainly.
Added:
In my original post the way I underlined and boldened my response it may come across as hostile. It is not meant to be and I will apologize to any who felt that way without this explanation. It is simply that I feel very adamant about the U.S. at least adopting a new round if not also making the proper improvements to our main battle rifle. This round has it's shortcomings but it's a step towards improvement that may take place.
Advanced Member
USA
4049 Posts
Posted - 10/26/2010 : 10:29:47 PM Show Profile Email Poster Reply with Quote
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
It is called GIMMICK...they were developed for Uncle Sam trials. It appears that even Uncle Sam does not wantr them.
Best
No gimmick what-so-ever! This round was developed by military personnel (5th grp SF) who were tired of civilians telling them what they needed, and were gonna get. A reloader amongst them happen to have reloaded for the .30 Rem, off which this case is based. The initial goal of the project was to create a round with more punch at all ranges the 5.56 could reach. This round accomplished this.
The real debate came up when the 6.5 Grendel was not only capable of doing what the 6.8 SPC could do, but be a viable 1k yd. round....from an AR-15 platform.
The round produces a lot more energy on target than does a 5.56. And, up to the point the best BC bullets can perform it stays right up with the 6.5 Grendel. Where it starts to lose is, the bullets that could be high enough BC won't fit in the case and a magazine, like the 6.5 Grendel.
But, for all intents and purposes this round is a fantastical leap in the AR-15 world. The 6.5 just leaped a little farther.
+100
Gimmick Yesh
The 30-30 has killed more North American game then any other cartridge so just what is wrong with that??
That said I know a company based in Illinois that works almost exclusively with the 6.8 AR's. The owners have a pretty good class three shoot every now and again.. Yes even in Illinois.
The "problem" with the 6.8 is that it was developed by line troops, and not through the pentagon brass. They took as much off the shelf stuff as they could. 270 barrel blank, the 30 Remington brass is close to 7.62x39 head size so they could use an off the shelf bolt. Attempts at regular mags were found to be lacking, so special mags are now made. Other than that it is a good round, heavier than the .223/5.56 that does nor have the knockdown from the stubby M4 barrel. This is where the 6.8 shines-short barrels. It was not designed as a target round for ridiculous ranges only killing the enemy ar reasonable ones.
A guy I know who has been there put it this way: want to punch holes in paper with an ar at long range? Get a 6.5. Want to kill the enemy with an ar out to about 450-500 yards? Get a 6.8. Need to kill the enemy farther out. Get a 308.
The "problem" with the 6.8 is that it was developed by line troops, and not through the pentagon brass. They took as much off the shelf stuff as they could. 270 barrel blank, the 30 Remington brass is close to 7.62x39 head size so they could use an off the shelf bolt. Attempts at regular mags were found to be lacking, so special mags are now made. Other than that it is a good round, heavier than the .223/5.56 that does nor have the knockdown from the stubby M4 barrel. This is where the 6.8 shines-short barrels. It was not designed as a target round for ridiculous ranges only killing the enemy ar reasonable ones.
I'll agree. The 6.8's problem is some congress-people didn't get a kickback from some manufacturer to go with this round. Saying it doesn't necessarily meet the needs our servicemen and women should have, when we send them to foreign lands to fight on our behalf. I believe if this was all we could get to advance ballistics of the AR-15 I would be happy enough to get it in.
However, I'd like to set a few things straight. The 6.8 case head is .422 and the 7.62x39 case head is .442. So, no they didn't just "grab a bolt off the shelf". They opened up the bolt face with a lathe. Yes, they grabbed a .270 barrel off the shelf. But, they still had to calculate what the gas pressures would be. And, if that was safe. The round was developed for a standard 20" barrel not a short barrel. Energy loss is apparent, but ballistic loss out of the 6.8 (and 6.5) is big from the short barrels. Same with the 5.56 as well. And it has been found the only way not to have "fail-to-feeds" is to have magazines specially made for each round. In the 6.5 and the 6.8's case this is hugely apparent.
Yes, the 6.8 was brought about so we would have more energy on target at all ranges the current (and still) in use round is capable of, the M855. That would be nominally out to about 600 yds. The 6.8 round accomplishes this.
However, when results from that competition, held years ago, start hitting the market, it gets a more and more frustrating when we watch better options go by the wayside. After much research I went with the 6.5 Grendel because, like the 6.8 SPC, it provides much more energy on target though all ranges the M855 is supposed to shoot, it provides better ballistics and energy than what we field for the 7.62x51 NATO (.308) past 600 yds. I know people have a hard time believing this but it's true. It's about bullet efficiency at long range not power. And the 6.5G has as much power as the 6.8 all the way out to 500 yds. where ballistically it overwhelms the 6.8 Two reasons. There are no really high BC .277/6.8mm bullets. And the ones that are good can't fit in the longer case in an AR-15. But, I certainly applaud the fact this round got the creative juices flowing that are so long overdue.
Lastly, now there are other choices that may even beat the 6.5 Grendel. Those would be anything based off the BRX cases. An improvement of the 6/6.5/7mm Remington Benchrest cases. These cases/calibers can be fired from an AR with the right modifications to bolt, barrel extension, magazine, and in some cases bolt carrier. but the basic AR-15 platform can continue to serve our troops.