longdayjake
Member
6.8 and .300blk shouldn't even be mentioned in the same thread. They are so far different that one should not be competing with the other.
6.8spc Round's Future?
- Thread starter Mr.Blue
- Start date
- Status
1stmarine
Member
Things should be compared as curiosity or reference and not to compete. Every round has its place, purpose and a number of users that hopefully will have a defined purpose too (or not).
I think you are right so the threads do not fall into the typical this vs. that, mine vs. yours and all that nonsense going around these days that sounds like a broken record and nobody learns anything.
I think you are right so the threads do not fall into the typical this vs. that, mine vs. yours and all that nonsense going around these days that sounds like a broken record and nobody learns anything.
Z-Michigan
Member
I think a comparison among the non-5.56 cartridges that will fit into an AR magazine and work in an AR15 carbine is quite valid. 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel and 300BLK all came about to provide options compatible with the AR15 platform. There is nothing wrong with comparing them. I do agree with 1stmarine that a lot of the "mine is better" stuff is useless bickering worthy of grade school.
As I said early in the thread, I think 6.8 SPC has a good future, and I do not think it has anything to do with military adoption.
I've been looking intently at both 6.8 SPC and 300BLK in the last week and will probably get one or the other in the near future. Here is what I see in short:
-supersonic loads for 0-300 yards: very little difference
-use past 300 yards: significant advantage to 6.8 SPC due to higher muzzle velocity and generally higher BC bullets
-use with a suppressor: huge advantage to 300BLK with ability to use long, heavy, high-BC bullets of common types at subsonic speed
-use in PDW or other very short barrels (under 10"): moderate advantage to 300BLK as it loses little velocity in short barrels, but 6.8 SPC does very well also (relative to 5.56 NATO, etc.)
-cost: unpredictable. The promised pricing for 300BLK supersonic ammo is $13 or less per 20, but lately 6.8 SPC is coming down in price and I've seen as low as $15/20 for 6.8 in recent browsing.
-platform durability and reliability: not yet proven, but likely benefit to 300BLK since you can use standard dimension bolts and magazines. Quality 6.8 bolts seem OK but there aren't many makers to choose from. 6.8 is handicapped on the magazine side between $40 each quality mags from Barrett or PRI and $15-20 each mags from C-Products/ASC if you can even find them right now. 300BLK is supposed to work in any 5.56 compatible AR mag and has been demonstrated regularly in Magpul Pmags. The 6.8 option would really benefit from another quality magazine option that costs less than $20 each. Supposedly D&H has a steel 6.8 mag coming out any day, but I haven't found any actually for sale.
I believe the cartridges are directly comparable if you want to use an AR for deer hunting, which a lot of people do. If instead you want to use a suppressor, or you want an AR15 that will do 90% of what an AR10 will do, the choice is obvious either way (300BLK for the former, 6.8 SPC for the latter).
As I said early in the thread, I think 6.8 SPC has a good future, and I do not think it has anything to do with military adoption.
I've been looking intently at both 6.8 SPC and 300BLK in the last week and will probably get one or the other in the near future. Here is what I see in short:
-supersonic loads for 0-300 yards: very little difference
-use past 300 yards: significant advantage to 6.8 SPC due to higher muzzle velocity and generally higher BC bullets
-use with a suppressor: huge advantage to 300BLK with ability to use long, heavy, high-BC bullets of common types at subsonic speed
-use in PDW or other very short barrels (under 10"): moderate advantage to 300BLK as it loses little velocity in short barrels, but 6.8 SPC does very well also (relative to 5.56 NATO, etc.)
-cost: unpredictable. The promised pricing for 300BLK supersonic ammo is $13 or less per 20, but lately 6.8 SPC is coming down in price and I've seen as low as $15/20 for 6.8 in recent browsing.
-platform durability and reliability: not yet proven, but likely benefit to 300BLK since you can use standard dimension bolts and magazines. Quality 6.8 bolts seem OK but there aren't many makers to choose from. 6.8 is handicapped on the magazine side between $40 each quality mags from Barrett or PRI and $15-20 each mags from C-Products/ASC if you can even find them right now. 300BLK is supposed to work in any 5.56 compatible AR mag and has been demonstrated regularly in Magpul Pmags. The 6.8 option would really benefit from another quality magazine option that costs less than $20 each. Supposedly D&H has a steel 6.8 mag coming out any day, but I haven't found any actually for sale.
I believe the cartridges are directly comparable if you want to use an AR for deer hunting, which a lot of people do. If instead you want to use a suppressor, or you want an AR15 that will do 90% of what an AR10 will do, the choice is obvious either way (300BLK for the former, 6.8 SPC for the latter).
300 BLK has other advantages for a SBR/PDW. Why?
30 round mags.
Normal mags.
Much less powder for less blast/flash/noise even with supersonic ammo due to higher efficiency.
The $15 a box of 6.8 ammo is a sale price. The $12.99 300 BLK price is MSRP. Street price could end up in the $11 range. This won't be realized until the end of the year.
For now, the 220 and higher priced 125 Match ammo is finally available in large quantities. Dealers, distributors, military, rifle companies, etc - if you need 200 rounds or a million rounds, it can be delivered quickly.
30 round mags.
Normal mags.
Much less powder for less blast/flash/noise even with supersonic ammo due to higher efficiency.
The $15 a box of 6.8 ammo is a sale price. The $12.99 300 BLK price is MSRP. Street price could end up in the $11 range. This won't be realized until the end of the year.
For now, the 220 and higher priced 125 Match ammo is finally available in large quantities. Dealers, distributors, military, rifle companies, etc - if you need 200 rounds or a million rounds, it can be delivered quickly.
IdahoShotgun
Member
Rsilvers, will .300BLK ever be able to kill as well as 6.8? I don't handload. If I am looking for knockflat power out to 300-350 yds, but don't want to worry about special mags and bolts, is the blackout a real substitute for 6.8? If it is, then why hasn't it ousted the 6.8 as most popular? Z-michigan said roughly, "directly comparable for deer hunting" then he said that Blackout was better for suppression, (I don't care about suppression) and that 6.8 could do 90% of what an ar-10 could (.308 I assume).
I'm rambling. Sorry. Basically, for average deer hunters, is 300 Blackout going to kill as well as 6.8? Really?
I'm rambling. Sorry. Basically, for average deer hunters, is 300 Blackout going to kill as well as 6.8? Really?
Once the expanding ammo is out, it will kill at as well as 6.8, but maybe not at 350 yards.
"then why hasn't it ousted the 6.8 as most popular"
Because 6.8 has been out for 8 years and 300 BLK less than 1 year. We have not run a single ad for it yet. Will it become more popular than 6.8? Yes, but it could take another few years for that.
"then why hasn't it ousted the 6.8 as most popular"
Because 6.8 has been out for 8 years and 300 BLK less than 1 year. We have not run a single ad for it yet. Will it become more popular than 6.8? Yes, but it could take another few years for that.
If you believe all the Frackler and disciples ammo recommendations that 193/m885 is not much better than a .22lr compared to the 5.56 bonded FBI loads then only logical choice is the 6.8. Why? Well you can't buy the bonded 5.56 fbi loads, but I have seen nosler 6.8 remanufactured ammo for 50 cents per round, you can buy 100 rounds for $500 this isn't much more expensive than M885. Only thing available even comparable in 5.56 would be BH 50TXS for $1500 per thousand.
With the 6.8 you get barrier penetration, much longer range usefullness with shorter barrels. I was thinking of building a light weight 12-14" SBR AR and it really doesn't make much sense to use a 5.56 barrel unless you just dismiss Frackler. I just don't know about 6.8 reliability and I don't know about barrels in 6.8, doubt there is a CHF pencil barrel made in 6.8. Sometimes I think the studies on the ineffectiveness of the nato 5.56 were angled to draw the conclusion that 6.8 is the only way to go.
Now we have the .300BLK, which in a few years should be available from ammo remanufactures for even less than the 50 cent per round 6.8. All in all it is a very confusing time for a guy who just wants a reliable short light weight AR that is effective for a decent range.
With the 6.8 you get barrier penetration, much longer range usefullness with shorter barrels. I was thinking of building a light weight 12-14" SBR AR and it really doesn't make much sense to use a 5.56 barrel unless you just dismiss Frackler. I just don't know about 6.8 reliability and I don't know about barrels in 6.8, doubt there is a CHF pencil barrel made in 6.8. Sometimes I think the studies on the ineffectiveness of the nato 5.56 were angled to draw the conclusion that 6.8 is the only way to go.
Now we have the .300BLK, which in a few years should be available from ammo remanufactures for even less than the 50 cent per round 6.8. All in all it is a very confusing time for a guy who just wants a reliable short light weight AR that is effective for a decent range.
That's the glass half empty way to look at it.
It's a great time since there are some many options developing. The 6.8 is great for that and still developing, but if it doesn't suit you, choices abound. The .300 Whisper is making a resurgence due to extensive marketing from the .300 BO. Within the past year you have the .300 BO itself and about a few months later the 7.62x40 WT. Big bores like .50 Beo, .458 SOCOM, and .450 Bushy and a number of other .338 or .308 options, all tailored to that little black rifle.One thing that does get confused is comparing an adopted round with millions made each year, plus the infrastructure of supporting them, to the commercial variants that have to justify their cost to a consumer.
Milsurp is cheap because we subsidize it's manufacture and purchase with tax dollars, and receive the "benefit" of it's overproduction - largely due to it not making specification. That means the ammo makers need to get it out of inventory and off the warehouse floor. Since production is base on millions of rounds of contract ammo being profitable, moving the rejects at low prices is an easy solution to recover costs, and maybe even make a buck. 5.69 for 20 at Palmetto is a good example.
On the commercial side, the alternates have to be cost effective to the consumer. They have to offer a substantial difference in performance or we just won't bother. That's why most of the successful alternates offer variations of speed or power well above 5.56. Something that was similar - just a bit improved - won't cut it.
For the shooter considering an alternate, ballistic performance of the 5.56 and it's cheaper pricing is generally found wanting in some particular characteristic. One is that 5.56 isn't always a legal hunting caliber for medium game. Therefore, it's simply NOT an option. For those with minimum power levels to certain distances, 5.56 is also found wanting by some hunters. Another consideration is it's ability to keep a shot animal down, and the emphasis is on having a humane kill and not losing the animal. Larger caliber bullets are more likely to do it, even with misplaced shots.
In military calibers, you get a choice of 5.56, or .308, and NOTHING in between. Next step up is .50 BMG. Obviously, the hunter is left with some gaps in his available range of choice. For those who continue to emphasize the military calibers as being a baseline standard, take it with a grain of salt. They may not be recommending them from the perspective of a hunter. And hunting is the main driver of sales for alternative calibers in the AR15.
Milsurp is cheap because we subsidize it's manufacture and purchase with tax dollars, and receive the "benefit" of it's overproduction - largely due to it not making specification. That means the ammo makers need to get it out of inventory and off the warehouse floor. Since production is base on millions of rounds of contract ammo being profitable, moving the rejects at low prices is an easy solution to recover costs, and maybe even make a buck. 5.69 for 20 at Palmetto is a good example.
On the commercial side, the alternates have to be cost effective to the consumer. They have to offer a substantial difference in performance or we just won't bother. That's why most of the successful alternates offer variations of speed or power well above 5.56. Something that was similar - just a bit improved - won't cut it.
For the shooter considering an alternate, ballistic performance of the 5.56 and it's cheaper pricing is generally found wanting in some particular characteristic. One is that 5.56 isn't always a legal hunting caliber for medium game. Therefore, it's simply NOT an option. For those with minimum power levels to certain distances, 5.56 is also found wanting by some hunters. Another consideration is it's ability to keep a shot animal down, and the emphasis is on having a humane kill and not losing the animal. Larger caliber bullets are more likely to do it, even with misplaced shots.
In military calibers, you get a choice of 5.56, or .308, and NOTHING in between. Next step up is .50 BMG. Obviously, the hunter is left with some gaps in his available range of choice. For those who continue to emphasize the military calibers as being a baseline standard, take it with a grain of salt. They may not be recommending them from the perspective of a hunter. And hunting is the main driver of sales for alternative calibers in the AR15.
You know I was just thinking today that a 257/6.8 shooting a 100 gr spitzer would be awesome for deer and coyotes. I am envisioning either an 18" free float or for optimal velocity a 20" light rifle. That would be pretty cool. I am thinking close to the 250-3000 Savage. Nipping at the heels of the Roberts. Should be enough velocity to cause the bullet to expand. If you wanted to go light with it you could go 87 grain or even 75 grain for coyotes.
I'm not sure that "every round has its place". While every round might shoot is it needed? Okay a old time worn argument, but the ammo companies can only make so many rounds, right?
I think the 6.8 does have its place, since it makes an AR a different rifle with different capabilities.
I've got a 1965 Shooter's Digest. As I peruse its pages I keep saying to myself, "We could have stopped in '65". They had all of the guns, IMO that we need. They also had many wonderful guns, like the Colt Woodsman that we no longer have. All stocks were of wood. I like wood stocks. They had scopes...sorta. Weaver K-4's. All of the scope that I've ever needed. They had others too.
I think the 6.8 does have its place, since it makes an AR a different rifle with different capabilities.
I've got a 1965 Shooter's Digest. As I peruse its pages I keep saying to myself, "We could have stopped in '65". They had all of the guns, IMO that we need. They also had many wonderful guns, like the Colt Woodsman that we no longer have. All stocks were of wood. I like wood stocks. They had scopes...sorta. Weaver K-4's. All of the scope that I've ever needed. They had others too.
Sheepdog1968
Member
I personally won't buy a weaon in it. I'd go with 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 first before the 6.8. My prediciton is you will still be able to get it down the road but it won't replace the other calibers in popularity.
Sheepdog1968
Member
I agree with you regarding stopping in 65 for rifles and shotguns. Pistols I like my Sigs so I need to go into the 70s.
What's funny is that people get so up tight about a specific round. All rounds are a compromise of some sort. Nothing is perfect for everything. The 6.8 is a compromise as well. It does somethings better than the 5.56 and 6.5 but falls short to the .300blk. It also does some things better than the .300blk but falls short compared to the 5.56 and 6.5. In the end you have to determine what is most important for you and to pick the round that most closely fits your needs.
To me, all of the non 5.56 rounds are niche rounds. None of them are mainstream (at least yet). I personally find the 6.5 loads to be a better fit for my needs, though not good enough to warrant a purchase. I'd probably go with one of the 6mm turbo rounds if I wanted a specialty AR, but that's because I'd be looking for flat shooting high bc over most other features.
To me, all of the non 5.56 rounds are niche rounds. None of them are mainstream (at least yet). I personally find the 6.5 loads to be a better fit for my needs, though not good enough to warrant a purchase. I'd probably go with one of the 6mm turbo rounds if I wanted a specialty AR, but that's because I'd be looking for flat shooting high bc over most other features.
lwrkeysfisher
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 18
Interesting, but not everyone sees it that way. I think there are many advances to be made in cartridge design, propellants, bullet composition, design, and other areas that will continue to make new cartridges useful (just look at the advances with the 6.8 over the last five years). What's holding the industry back is the general dislike for the unproven beyond a few enthusiasts. If the market decides to accept change wholesale, the advances that will come will far exceed any of our dreams. Innovation can come, but it takes open minds to make it happen. Many of the big firms are basically at capacity selling current (1965 models), so I don't expect true innovation from them anytime soon.
What advances have there been in 6.8? The way I see it, a few non-SAAMI companies decided to load over max pressure. Not really an advance as you can do that to any cartridge. The Hornady ammo is probably as hot as you can get without going over 55,000 psi.
Any insight as to what advances you see coming that aren't done today? While new powders may improve, I don't see them advancing much, certainly not by more than 10-20% in capability. Case design can be altered, but in the end, it still comes down to burning powder in a brass case. If you need it to feed reliably it can only be so fat. Bullet design may become better suited for game/target shooting, but again, nothing more than small increases. I personally feel the self contained cartridge is near it's peak potential. It will take something as big as the step from black power to smokeless to have much change from what it is today. I don't think you are going to see anything major from there.
Truthfully, the 6.8 isn't much different from a 6.5 or a 7mm in the same case. While new cases may be made to fit different rifles, they aren't a revolutionary change. It's a case made to fit a given gun topped off with a common bullet. Not much more than what wildcatter's have been doing for years.
Have there been claims otherwise? The question posed for this thread is what is the future of the cartridge, not if something revolutionary was created.
The AR15 style rifle is a popular and growing market, and there are many options within it. Working within the parameters of the AR's magazine well and bolt size, there are many wildcatter and industry creations to fill the demands of a diverse consumer base. This is one of them, and a good one too.
In the context of hunting (a significant area of 6.8 adoption), several 6.8 specific bullets rather than those for .270 Win. Especially considering the 6.8's lower velocities compared to its older long-action cousin, I would say this is progress.
It is the same problem for other smaller cartridges that attempt to use commonly available bullets designed for faster cartridges. The math says the energy is good at a given range, but the velocity is too slow for the bullet to expand or fragment.
Powders too, since the re-released AA2200 seems to be getting even faster speeds without signs of pressure on the case and very good accuracy.
As for some ammo makers not belonging to the SAAMI club and allegedly making unsafe ammunition, that is what the tort system is for.
lwrkeysfisher
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 18
I guess the 95gr TTSX isn't an advancement, different copper alloy, different design allowing it to expand effectively at range and close up. The .300 Whisper (or whatever were calling it this week) has a bullet like that, right? How about several new powders that have hit the market allowing much faster velocities from short barrels, I guess these powders were designed in a vacuum, not for a specific market, right? There are also several small manufacturers out there looking for ways to create high BC/lower weight projectiles for the 6.8, with some success to date. But, yeah your right, most of the innovation is coming from non-SAAMI companies. Begs to question whether SAAMI is enhancing or holding back the industry. But you know, big name companies re-branding products from smaller companies and pretending they are their own qualifies as innovation too---I guess.
1stmarine
Member
There are some pretty decent bullets for the 6.8 caliber. the 110 grainers accubond, v-maxes and the TSX are more than adequate for what they are needed for.
Great options that give great power withing the 300 yards range that most average folks will never use anyway. There are trade offs with any AR-15 system, what folks need to know is exactly what they need the system for.
So 6.8 is, and will continue to be a great hunting deer/hog/black bear rifle. The facts are there so no doubt about that.
Are the 6.8 bullets the nicest super high BC bullets in the market? No, and they do not need to be as this is not the purpose the round was designed for.
Is the 6.8 in several ways superior to the standard 5.56 caliber rounds? hell yeah!
Anything with a TSX, even a 55grainer out of a basic .223 rem is a deadly one. TSX at moderate range are very effective so in a 6.8 no doubt it is going to take down whatever one aiming at assuming one knows what is doing.
Great options that give great power withing the 300 yards range that most average folks will never use anyway. There are trade offs with any AR-15 system, what folks need to know is exactly what they need the system for.
So 6.8 is, and will continue to be a great hunting deer/hog/black bear rifle. The facts are there so no doubt about that.
Are the 6.8 bullets the nicest super high BC bullets in the market? No, and they do not need to be as this is not the purpose the round was designed for.
Is the 6.8 in several ways superior to the standard 5.56 caliber rounds? hell yeah!
Anything with a TSX, even a 55grainer out of a basic .223 rem is a deadly one. TSX at moderate range are very effective so in a 6.8 no doubt it is going to take down whatever one aiming at assuming one knows what is doing.
What advances have there really been? Bullet design has slightly caught up to the rest of the market? Regardless, many 6.8 fans act as if the 6.8 is a remarkably better round than anything else when it's pretty similar to what's on the market. I think it's mass appeal is limited as it really doesn't do much/any better than a handful of other rounds. It's a niche round designed specifically to fit one rifle, as popular as it may be. Same as the Grendel and BLK. I could see the 6.8 fading if someone big in the AR world decides to push a 6.5 or 7mm option. The grendel has issues with patents. If someone decides to make a large push for a 6mm, 6.5mm or 7mm AR round I could see the 6.8 and it's niche popularity falling off. Might not. It might stay the popular alternative round for the AR. It really depends on who pushes ammo.
Z-Michigan
Member
6.8 SPC is severely handicapped by 3 things:
1) Performance - original Remington claims were 2800fps (115gr) and just under 2000 ft-lbs. That may have been for a 24" test barrel, but I've never heard of anyone with a 24" bolt action 6.8 getting such velocity and energy. It seems that Remington screwed up the spec that was submitted to SAAMI, further handicapping it. To get good performance you need a barrel with the "SPCII" chamber and slower twist; all the good makers are now doing both of those, but for years most were not.
2) Ammo cost - until very recently you just couldn't find 6.8 SPC for less than $1/cartridge. Now, on sale, you can find some for 75-80 cents/rd, which is still expensive. For quality hunting or match ammo that's OK, but most people want to do some more casual and inexpensive shooting with their AR (etc.) and unless you reload it's not happening.
3) Magazines - last I checked, only 3 companies were making compatible magazines: PRI ($40 each!), Barrett ($40 each!), and C-Products (you take your chances). Supposedly D&H is coming out soon with a 6.8 magazine that may be more affordable and still reliable - we hope. There are no polymer mags and Magpul has gone on record saying they can't make a Pmag for 6.8 due to its dimensions. A bit of a downer.
Points 2 and 3 don't matter much if you just want to hunt and do nothing else, but if that's your plan, why not stick with a bolt action, a lever action, or one of the slightly more expensive really hard hitting AR options like 450 Bushmaster, 458 SOCOM or 50 Beowolf? Or the 30 Remington AR, which limits you to single stack loading and therefore low capacity, but offers near .308 Win performance in an AR15 package.
Point 1 is less of an issue if you're starting now with a properly spec'd barrel, but many other options provide serious competition in performance. Points 2 and 3 could be fixed if a manufacturer wanted to make a gamble on volume, but it doesn't appear that any do. Until then I view it as being somewhat like the AR version of a "short magnum" - reasonably good at what it claims, but a fair bit of extra cost and hassle for a small improvement.
1) Performance - original Remington claims were 2800fps (115gr) and just under 2000 ft-lbs. That may have been for a 24" test barrel, but I've never heard of anyone with a 24" bolt action 6.8 getting such velocity and energy. It seems that Remington screwed up the spec that was submitted to SAAMI, further handicapping it. To get good performance you need a barrel with the "SPCII" chamber and slower twist; all the good makers are now doing both of those, but for years most were not.
2) Ammo cost - until very recently you just couldn't find 6.8 SPC for less than $1/cartridge. Now, on sale, you can find some for 75-80 cents/rd, which is still expensive. For quality hunting or match ammo that's OK, but most people want to do some more casual and inexpensive shooting with their AR (etc.) and unless you reload it's not happening.
3) Magazines - last I checked, only 3 companies were making compatible magazines: PRI ($40 each!), Barrett ($40 each!), and C-Products (you take your chances). Supposedly D&H is coming out soon with a 6.8 magazine that may be more affordable and still reliable - we hope. There are no polymer mags and Magpul has gone on record saying they can't make a Pmag for 6.8 due to its dimensions. A bit of a downer.
Points 2 and 3 don't matter much if you just want to hunt and do nothing else, but if that's your plan, why not stick with a bolt action, a lever action, or one of the slightly more expensive really hard hitting AR options like 450 Bushmaster, 458 SOCOM or 50 Beowolf? Or the 30 Remington AR, which limits you to single stack loading and therefore low capacity, but offers near .308 Win performance in an AR15 package.
Point 1 is less of an issue if you're starting now with a properly spec'd barrel, but many other options provide serious competition in performance. Points 2 and 3 could be fixed if a manufacturer wanted to make a gamble on volume, but it doesn't appear that any do. Until then I view it as being somewhat like the AR version of a "short magnum" - reasonably good at what it claims, but a fair bit of extra cost and hassle for a small improvement.
1stmarine
Member
All Good points. please read below.
1) Performance -
Every single manufacturer inflate their numbers, sometimes never publish the barrels and never will explain in detail how those charts were achieved. On average expect less than advertised with any round from the manufacturer data (there are a few exceptions). Even the numbers in AAs website about the Grendel everyone is having a heck of a time reproducing them w/o getting in the red. Go figure.
Lets talk more about the actual real life data:
This is form my load with AA powders and 110gr vMax 20" barrel.
It is hot but it can go faster w/o getting into the red.
Range Velocity Impact Drop Energy
0 2700 -0.5 0 0 1781
100 2455 0 2.78 0.12 1472
200 2230 -5.31 11.37 0.25 1215
300 2016 -17.65 26.99 0.39 993
400 1815 -38.61 51.23 0.55 805
500 1630 -70.17 86.07 0.72 649
Obviously a great hunting rifle up to 300 yards. The .223 fall short that far even if they are legal to use in your area. The 6x45, .25-223, grendel and many others are great options too but I don't see why the 6.8 would not be. it is a substantial improvement over the .223 and this w.o even counting terminal ballistics that are excellent.
2) Ammo cost - A little pricey, yes. Same goes for most ammo that is not military standard including the Russian puffins. The .308 can be even cheaper but that is not the subject of this discussion or the same category so the .223 that is standard issue and can be bought for way less. Still pretty competitive compared to many ammo options for special calibers and pretty adequate for hunting, Home defense and other things. on the positive side of the alternative cartriges, there is great brass and re-loads well.
I only see ANY AMMO prices going up, the gass, food, everything but salaries.
3) Magazines - You can buy the magazines or use GI magazines. followers are cheap and there are gauges to easily adapt the lips. Not for everyone but should not be a problem for most folks to acquire 8 to 10 magazines that should consider must have with any system if that is to be used in a defense/tactical situation, I mean for that purpose magazines must be tested, loaded and ready.
Those 450 Bushmaster, 458 SOCOM or 50 Beowolf are in the single stack category and they are even more expensive to feed. The 30 Remington AR is a amazing round but a marketing disaster from the marketing 'brains' in Remington.
Some folks rather to have more rounds and less horse power in each round. There are dozens of wildcats that one can make for an AR and many with even more power than the 30RAR, you also have the OSSM, WSSM, etc..
Again all single stack so we cannot fairly compare.
AR-15 is always a trade off of some sort.
Furthermore the 6.8 can be shot in full auto (for those with a license) and is very controllable with the extra punch at the average engagement range.
Now, since you brought up heavier, slower moving bullets let me give you the chart for the following:
.277 130gr Nosler Ballistic tip. out of the 6.8 case in a 20 inch barrel...
That bullet is a nice coyote round all the way to 500-600+ yards.
Range Velocity Impact Drop Energy
0 2415 -0.5 0 0 1684
100 2220 0 3.42 0.13 1423
200 2038 -6.6 13.94 0.27 1199
300 1864 -21.62 32.88 0.43 1003
400 1702 -46.7 61.88 0.6 836
500 1551 -83.82 102.92 0.78 694
600 1414 -135.42 158.44 0.98 577
700 1294 -204.37 231.32 1.2 483
This outperforms any AK-47 round in any level for hunting. The AK rounds are another great option for almost everyone for almost anything but here the number do not lie. The 6.8 can take more PSIs and it shows.
I don't see many situations in the woods here or in many other places where average folks need more and they like to have a good hunting + defensive simple system that shoots very well out the box with the fun of the AR.
Every gun is what you want that gun to be. More times than not, less is more.
If you want simply raw power get any of the WSSM wildcats in 308 or .338 caliber but I do not consider those good defensive system and rarely needed for hunting nor the best option for sending that type of mail, but there are people who like them and feel they need them. I can understand that. Above anything, they are fun.
The 6.8 is an improvement over the standard AR and AK (which again are awesome systems with many roles and functions) and that is an irrefutable fact.
Myself, I like all ARs and AKs too, no matter what caliber. they all have a reason for being here.
Cheers,
E.
1) Performance -
Every single manufacturer inflate their numbers, sometimes never publish the barrels and never will explain in detail how those charts were achieved. On average expect less than advertised with any round from the manufacturer data (there are a few exceptions). Even the numbers in AAs website about the Grendel everyone is having a heck of a time reproducing them w/o getting in the red. Go figure.
Lets talk more about the actual real life data:
This is form my load with AA powders and 110gr vMax 20" barrel.
It is hot but it can go faster w/o getting into the red.
Range Velocity Impact Drop Energy
0 2700 -0.5 0 0 1781
100 2455 0 2.78 0.12 1472
200 2230 -5.31 11.37 0.25 1215
300 2016 -17.65 26.99 0.39 993
400 1815 -38.61 51.23 0.55 805
500 1630 -70.17 86.07 0.72 649
Obviously a great hunting rifle up to 300 yards. The .223 fall short that far even if they are legal to use in your area. The 6x45, .25-223, grendel and many others are great options too but I don't see why the 6.8 would not be. it is a substantial improvement over the .223 and this w.o even counting terminal ballistics that are excellent.
2) Ammo cost - A little pricey, yes. Same goes for most ammo that is not military standard including the Russian puffins. The .308 can be even cheaper but that is not the subject of this discussion or the same category so the .223 that is standard issue and can be bought for way less. Still pretty competitive compared to many ammo options for special calibers and pretty adequate for hunting, Home defense and other things. on the positive side of the alternative cartriges, there is great brass and re-loads well.
I only see ANY AMMO prices going up, the gass, food, everything but salaries.
3) Magazines - You can buy the magazines or use GI magazines. followers are cheap and there are gauges to easily adapt the lips. Not for everyone but should not be a problem for most folks to acquire 8 to 10 magazines that should consider must have with any system if that is to be used in a defense/tactical situation, I mean for that purpose magazines must be tested, loaded and ready.
Those 450 Bushmaster, 458 SOCOM or 50 Beowolf are in the single stack category and they are even more expensive to feed. The 30 Remington AR is a amazing round but a marketing disaster from the marketing 'brains' in Remington.
Some folks rather to have more rounds and less horse power in each round. There are dozens of wildcats that one can make for an AR and many with even more power than the 30RAR, you also have the OSSM, WSSM, etc..
Again all single stack so we cannot fairly compare.
AR-15 is always a trade off of some sort.
Furthermore the 6.8 can be shot in full auto (for those with a license) and is very controllable with the extra punch at the average engagement range.
Now, since you brought up heavier, slower moving bullets let me give you the chart for the following:
.277 130gr Nosler Ballistic tip. out of the 6.8 case in a 20 inch barrel...
That bullet is a nice coyote round all the way to 500-600+ yards.
Range Velocity Impact Drop Energy
0 2415 -0.5 0 0 1684
100 2220 0 3.42 0.13 1423
200 2038 -6.6 13.94 0.27 1199
300 1864 -21.62 32.88 0.43 1003
400 1702 -46.7 61.88 0.6 836
500 1551 -83.82 102.92 0.78 694
600 1414 -135.42 158.44 0.98 577
700 1294 -204.37 231.32 1.2 483
This outperforms any AK-47 round in any level for hunting. The AK rounds are another great option for almost everyone for almost anything but here the number do not lie. The 6.8 can take more PSIs and it shows.
I don't see many situations in the woods here or in many other places where average folks need more and they like to have a good hunting + defensive simple system that shoots very well out the box with the fun of the AR.
Every gun is what you want that gun to be. More times than not, less is more.
If you want simply raw power get any of the WSSM wildcats in 308 or .338 caliber but I do not consider those good defensive system and rarely needed for hunting nor the best option for sending that type of mail, but there are people who like them and feel they need them. I can understand that. Above anything, they are fun.
The 6.8 is an improvement over the standard AR and AK (which again are awesome systems with many roles and functions) and that is an irrefutable fact.
Myself, I like all ARs and AKs too, no matter what caliber. they all have a reason for being here.
Cheers,
E.
Last edited:
Z-Michigan
Member
Good info 1stmarine. Just two comments:
1) I certainly think 6.8 SPC is powerful enough for a lot of uses - I was only saying that it has never quite equaled the original Remington hype. And I agree that manufacturers' test barrels tend to be miraculously fast. The fact that the hyped 2800fps then went to about 2400fps with initial runs of their ammo was, IMHO, a total disaster.
2) I understand the economics of military cartridges, but I would note that .30-30 has never been a military cartridge and uses as much or more material as 6.8 SPC, yet costs about half as much. Also .30-06 hasn't seen military use in 40+ years and uses a lot more metal, but it can also be found, as new production ammo, for less. Both of them have volume going for them, and there is a chicken and egg problem there - make the ammo cheaper and volume will follow. If it doesn't get cheaper, people won't buy it.
1) I certainly think 6.8 SPC is powerful enough for a lot of uses - I was only saying that it has never quite equaled the original Remington hype. And I agree that manufacturers' test barrels tend to be miraculously fast. The fact that the hyped 2800fps then went to about 2400fps with initial runs of their ammo was, IMHO, a total disaster.
2) I understand the economics of military cartridges, but I would note that .30-30 has never been a military cartridge and uses as much or more material as 6.8 SPC, yet costs about half as much. Also .30-06 hasn't seen military use in 40+ years and uses a lot more metal, but it can also be found, as new production ammo, for less. Both of them have volume going for them, and there is a chicken and egg problem there - make the ammo cheaper and volume will follow. If it doesn't get cheaper, people won't buy it.
- Status
