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 Remington
justright58
Member Posts: 333 ✭✭✭
Good Day Forum,
Does anyone out there have one of the new AR-type rifles in 6.8 rem? I have a list of 'gotta haves' before the next prez-election and am wondering if this should be added to the list.
Thanks to all who reply.
John
Does anyone out there have one of the new AR-type rifles in 6.8 rem? I have a list of 'gotta haves' before the next prez-election and am wondering if this should be added to the list.
Thanks to all who reply.
John
Comments
I will be buying the 6.8 lower ($270)from Stag shortly to have a complete Stag rifle.
I have a question. Could you define 3 inch swing?
I went to Hornady's website and they show this for ballistics:
6.8MM SPC 110 GR BTHP/WC (16" Test Barrel)
8146
Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft-lbs)
Muzzle 100 yd 200 yd 300 yd 400 yd 500 yd
2550/1588 2313/1306 2088/1065 1877/860 1680/689 1500/550
Trajectory (inches)
Muzzle 100 yd 200 yd 300 yd 400 yd 500 yd
-2.4 2.1 0.0 -10.1 -30.0 -62.4
That looks more like a 12 inch swing to me.
I must say I am glad the military is finally moving away from the .223 but the ballistics you gave are better than a 7mm Rem Mag. What ammo are you shooting? If different let us know as I could see somewhat lighter bullets making a better trajectory showing than does the 110 A-max.
EDIT:
Frogbert,
I completely agree that this could be a very much needed change for our military. But we need to call the shots where they land. If zero'd using 2850 as an initial velocity The 280 yd drop only comes up 2". I worked that up on JBM trajectory. You have to start with a higher zero to get flat at 300. Come to think of it when I was in and shot M193 from an 'A1 we were told to hold at the shoulder to hit the body at 300. Our zero with those was 1/2" low at 25m. That zero equated to a 2"-3" high at 100m. So, at 300m(or yds) you still have to contend with drop.
And yes, I've known about the round for nearly four years...It's time the military made the move.
Data released by Remington that they gathered with the US miltary said the following (and I would imagine they were using Remington ammunition?). For gun sighted at 100 yards the following occured:
50 yards - .5 inch low
100 yds - dead on
150 yds - dead on
200 yds - 1.8 inches low
Then they determined that at 278 yards the bullet they were shooting
was exactly 3 inches low. For some reaon that was like an issue they were pushing (maybe?). But anyway the difference in trajectory changes no more than three inches from barrel to 278 yards. That is better than some of use can shoot any way at 278 yards.
But guys, if you are looking for a target rifle, your going in another direction. These are "fun guns". See a running coyote at 100 to 150... he doesn't want to stop... he's mine.
Look at your numbers. How do you drop 1.8" in the 50 yds from 150 to 200, and only drop 1.2" after that. Not unless you have a bullet that flies on it's own. I also ran those numbers on JBM and that comes up with a 13" drop at 280. Try going there, or using any other ballistic calculator. Then, go out and shoot the ranges you calculated. You will not have a 3" drop you will more than likely have a 13" drop. I know what was published, but maybe we need to look and see if that was a typo.
All that said that is actually pretty close to the M193 trajectory. And that trajectory is within military accuracy needs.
I just got finished shooting this cartridge for the second time the last few weeks in an AR configuration and I wasn't terribly impressed. But since the military and our gubment doesn't bother to check with me on decisions such as this, my guess is that we (the taxpayers) will be saddled once again with a billion dollar ammunition and firearm decision for a cartridge that is mediocre at best. We did this once not too awfully long ago with that 9mm decision and we are now getting ready to convert BACK to the original .45 ACP.
I shouldn't blame the ammunition because it's the entire concept of trying to create a 'do-everything' firearm and ammunition. The bean counters and the logistic experts want one type of ammunition and they want it to do every job that might occur for our soldiers. I don't think this cartridge or any of the other 1/2 dozen on the testing circuit right now are the answer either. These cartridges solve the Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) and the 'urban landscape' portion of the problem but the designers are spending millions in the attempt to convince the military community that the same cartridges will be the answer for moderate distances out to 600 meters. IMO, I don't think so. I see it as another pig-in-the-poke and once again there will be two losers; the biggest is the soldiers of course and to a significantly lesser extent, the taxpayers.
The "other" alternatives:
6.5 Grendel (Alexander Arms)
6.5 MPC (SSK Industries)
6 x 35 KAC (Knights Armament)
6.5 x 25 CBJ
This is an article to read for some analysis:
http://www.65grendel.com/art002arammo.htm
This is a chart that compares several of the current crop:
http://www.65grendel.com/graphics/grendelballistics.pdf
Best.
I'm kind of disapointed to hear that your results were mediocre at best. But I do believe your methodology is objective therefore accurate. Sometimes I really wish they (the gubmint) would consult with about 50 people that do seome serious shooting out in the civilian world before they adopt another round.
My biggest hope with the 6.8 is that it provides more knockdown to the oncoming antagonist than does the 5.56mm. So far as what I've seen is the 115 gr. has poor ballistic characteristics. Certainly nothing close the 6.5 Grendel. So I agree with you that reaching to 600m with this cartridge is going to be more difficult than with the 62 gr. 5.56.
The only other advantage I've seen with this round is that is takes the least amount of conversion on the AR platform to convert. Not that I'm in love with the platform as a battle rifle, but it can be made extremely accurate. The Grendel as I understood took a little more work. But it too was readily adaptable to the AR platform.
Just as an aside, could you chrono the rounds from the various length barrels you have tested and let us know what those are. At least we can get some ballistic information that way. I know what is published but I also know that I have never gotten published velocity out of any factory ammo except Hornady.
The topic was "does anyone have one of the new AR's in 6.8mm"? My answer basically was yes and I believe it to be, according to my research, a flat shooting cartidge to 300 yards. I shoot mine at 150 and less as a coyote gun. All this debate about and inch or two here and there...the gun shoots better most of us hunters even care about. So if you don't like it...buy your 6.5 or whatever. It is a "fun gun" for me.
And as for the government.. the 6.8mm project is dead. It is not under consideration at this time at all.
Living in North central Florida, I can only shoot 5 to 600 yards without worry. Basically I was looking for a middle of the road between 5.56 and .308. Never shot a .270 and the old .3030 is the only other one I have currently.
I wish to express my sincere thanks to all of you who participated in this discussion.
John