My rebarreled Ruger M77MKII in 6.8 SPC just came back from Rosco's Custom Pistols.

Anyone have any favorite load data for this one yet? I am working with new brass from Hornady with the small rifle primers.

Well you'll have to be the test platform for others it looks like!

I'm curious about it as a youth rifle for deer. Just not enough to drop coin yet. Nate

Yeah Nate, I can see a 6.5 TCU or 7 TCU before I could see myself running to the 6.8 SPC....

Case Availability would be kinda neat as I love the old 30/30 or 30 Rem case size...

curiosity tho there Dave... did your Ruger have a .308 bolt face or a 223's bolt face to begin with???

Cheers
seafire

For a youth rifle, I would just go with a .270 and use the reduced recoil rounds from Remington or Federal or load your own. As they grow, they would be use to the same rifle.

I cannot understand the rush to the new cartridge which MIGHT be adopted by the military.... as far as I've heard it hasn't been adopted YET.

Frankly I don't understand why they didn't go the other
0.2mm and simply make it a 7mm cartridge, atleast that way we'd likely get some decent 7mm Varmint bullets out of the program....

AllanD

Evertime I see the 6.8 mentioned I think why? Nothing wrong with someone choosing it, but I just know how I would prefer the 6.5 Grendel so much more.

The military would be foolish to select the 6.8 over the 6.5 in my opinion and lives are on the line.

Heck, just read in a gun mag that I believe the maker of SSK, is making a 6.5 x 45 to try marketing to the military.....having smaller/lighter ammo, etc. etc.

In my mind I could have seen a 6x45 and years ago I believe this was considered by the military. I believe a 70-90 grain would have been much better than a 5.56

None the less a 6.5 Grendel is more, and a 260 could be downloaded by handloaders or loaded up, so for me there are better options. For a plinking/varmint gun a 6x45 or tcu would be ok, but I have no interest whatsoever in the 6.8, that is just me.

A 250 savage, 6PPC, the BR's, all appeal more to me and have good performance and light recoil. Remington wanted something to 'market' to the military and I don't personally think this is what we need, it may be better than a 5.56, but the Grendel 6.5 puts it to shame and I don't see any Cons it has vs the 6.8

I think the 6.8 name has been touted a lot in press, and the problem with lack of more 6.5 Grendel interest is that many people have not hear about it, or know the facts between the two.

http://www.65grendel.com/

Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes but this is something that has agitated me, just compare the facts and see for oneself and then pass judgement.

I do recall somewhere, I believe someone working with Bushmaster that they thought a 7BR would be neat in an AR platform. The 6.5 G is nearly as good, perhaps better downrange. I shoot a 7BR rifle, 120's at 2878 mv, 21" bbl

Not bad for a 'little cartridge', see how the 6.8 compares, not even close. Yes, the BR is a little more in recoil so you cannot shoot full auto perhaps, without a little training. Funny recoil is a topic of debate as didn't they use 308's a lot in some wars in full auto weapons?

I guess our troops get 9mm's and 223's and risk getting killed for lack of reliable stopping power in rounds that were the standard i.e. 45's and 308's.

I'll stop my rambling. 6.8 vs 223, yes 6.8

6.8 vs 6.5 G, no contest for me. My .02

I agree BR, The Grendel is probably the the best"new" choice. Thing is, if the military does adopt the 6.8 then the 6.5 Grendel will stay realativly unknown.
The reverse is also true! It would be fun to build a collapsable stocked AR in 6.5 Grendel and let my boys shoot it. Heck, the 10 year old has been popping off rounds with the .30-30 and .257! Has yet to master either but he's having fun. The small 6.5 on the AR would have less recoil, and the collapsable stock would probably fit. Nate

You know, I don't have a military background, but to think that a round used by hunters to shoot varmints through coyotes for the most of its hunting use, is entrusted by the military to defend soldiers against the enemy, well, I just don't get it.

I know early reports in vietnam supposedly talked of the deadly effects of tumbling 5.56 at close range, high vel. but I know I would pay for my own weapon if given the choice, vs carrying that round in combat. Firepower or not, I want some real stopping power and if not for the cost of transition, I would hope the military would adopt a 'better' manstopper cartridge to protect our troops who put their lives on the line. Not that I want the soldiers to lose confidence in what they carry, but I have read reports of soldiers hitting enemies and the 5.56 failing to put them down.

To me, that is a problem.

You know, CZ makes a 7.62x39, and that same platform would work fine with 6ppc and 6.5 G

I really hope that politics don't come to play if the military makes a change, an inferior cartridge vs a better alternative should not be chosen for any reason. Our soldiers deserve good equipment for the job at hand.

I am sure Remington wants to cash in, and so do the patent owners of the Grendel, but regardless, the tests being performed need to be used to determine the best round. To me it is very clear what is best. The 6.8 is not bad to 200 yds or so, but the 6.5 Grendel has the power to reach much further where needed, and I for one would not want to give that option up if I were in combat.

The little 5.56 is shooting a FMJ bullet at high velocities and makes tiny holes. The "knock down power" is greatly hampered by the NATO agreement to use FMJ bullets. A M16, M4, AR15 would be much better with 60gr Nosler Partitions; it won't happen.

When I was in the service, USN, I served in the middle east during the last go-round. I used a M1A1 and had quite a bit of confidence in it over the 5.56. But, IIRC, we were using either 147gr or 165gr bullets. More weight, bigger holes. As a designated marksman it worked well, and is currently in use again. Urban combat is a different row to hoe. At times it's CQB, and at others it's picking a careful shot to take out one guy peaking from inside a room shooting out a window. It's not a good place to be by any stretch of the imagination.

If they really wanted to make a bigger impact, they'd have 10x more "snipers" and be a little more ruthless. Thing is there are plenty of folks here in the states that don't think anyone should die during a war except our own soldiers. They exploit everything to sensationalize the news. Look at the total numbers of deaths now compared to single battles in WWII. We really are doing pretty well considering the constraints being placed on our troops.

I don't feel bad about collateral casualties. In fact if we were to handle things with less concern for them, we'd be better off. Nate

Just to answer a couple of questions.

I started out with a 223Rem Ruger 77MKII and added a set backed Remington mountain contour barrel. It has two set's of sights, a Trijicon 3-9 Accupoint but I may change that to the low powered version and an XS Sights front blade with a NEGC Ruger rear peep sight for pickup truck duty.

I choose this caliber because (1) it's interesting and available at my local big box gun retailers, (2) easy conversion (3) quality components are available with small rifle primers.

I don't dispute the 6.5 Grendel is a better platform. I have on hand and still do shoot 223Rem, 6mmBR Norma, 6.5x55Sweed, 308Win and others.

Having retired from the Army years ago and having shot over a million rounds of 7.62 NATO through Mini-Gun's, I will always love the 308Win.

What would I like to see the Army adopt? How about a mid-bore in the 6.8 or 6.5 range, change every squads TO&E to include at least one bolt gun in 7.62NATO and another 12 Gauge for urban operations then bring back the 45ACP. But they won't ask me and I did not personally sign the Geneva Convention. So I can load my AR15's with Trophy Bonded Bear Claws and my Socom 16 with soft points and API's and carry my own 1911's.

Thanks for the input, I love to see the lively discussions.

Great info, agreed with all, never meant to flame anyone.

I would LOVE to see the military adopt something that is better for 2 legged and 4 legged varmints, cheaper brass and ammo would be nice.

I am not sure about feeding but a 6ppc or BR with 107's would do wonders at long range with less recoil than a 308, but CQB needs a fast stopper, whether more mass, or more destructive bullet. The little 5.7x28 or whatever that FN round is has been 'trialed' in covert missions with good success, no recoil to speak of and very high rate of fire, but its range is best kept very short, not for the everyday infantry.

I cannot imagine how many and the percentage of 'enemy kills' we have had by our snipers as I have heard reports, and they seem to very rarely miss.

Yes, it is good that combat casualties in today's time are very low considering. I just think you cannot and should not allow 'additional casualties-something that just goes with war no matter what' if you can help it.

One thing, I meant 'more mass' as in more than a 5.56, and a frangible bullet in a 6.5 or 6.8 is a better stopper than an fmj as we all know if penetration/armor is a non-issue. Hell, I guess they could alternate rounds to have a combo of both in a magazine but that is too complicated likely for real world use. I know tracers were used intermittently it seems in some auto applications in war in the past to track to target.

I just read what I wrote and I guess I sound a little blood-thirsty. Not meant that way but my point is this. When the locals aren't out on the street it's because they know somethings up. An IED, ambush, ect. has been placed, they know about it. They are no longer inocient by standers, they are now camoflaging the fact. If our guys can shoot who they believe to be involved without all the second guessing by arm chair experts ther'd be more bodies but ther may also be less major attacks.

I love the idea of alternating rounds between AP and frangibles. A Grendel would make a lot of good sence. I also agree with getting back to the .45, and would even bet the .40 wouldn't be too hard to swap over to. The 9mm with ball ammo is nearly pointless as a stopper.
Also agree a 12ga. with buckshot is the ultimate entry weapon.

I know the USMC has deployed a fair number of M24's I believe they're called. There's a lot to be said for precise slow fire. Ultimately a squad could deploy with a few CQB/entry weapons, a few SAW's, and the remaining guys should be equipped much like marksmen, at least one bolt gun with scope, and the others with the scoped M1A1(M21?). I kind of don't see the point in everyone being equipped with an M4. They're pretty good for a variety of situations, CQB being one, but having an extra SAW or two would make me comfortable with dropping some M4's in favor of M21's. Espescially if the guy's sportin' M21's could also pack a USP .45 acp! It would make resupply harder though. Nate

Big Nate: Your not blood thirsty, just a realist. The fact is, in an operation this size, causalities are unavoidable, both ours and there's. That's the nature of war, some people are ill equipped to deal with this reality and they should not be allowed to make decisions that affect the future of free nations.

That said, my 6.8SPC project gun is a sub 1/2moa shooter with factory Hornady 110gr V-max bullets. I just hope it shoots sub-moa with the 110gr Triple shocks. I will be taking it to Africa to use on the minis and jackals next year. It does feed a bit funny and I may try the 7.62x39 magazine parts to see if that improves it's feed reliability.

I'll jump down off the box now! I guess these kind of things cause my BP to shoot up! Nate

Its interesting, considering how much research has been done in the past, how our military accepted the 9mm and the .223/5.56. I worked with R&D in the USAF Marksmanship School back in the late 60s and 70s. The 9 wasn't our first choice for a handgun, but we were replacing the .38Special and that was that. We had also selected a different bullet form, but the army rejected it. (You do know the army is the sole purchasing agent for small arms ammo didn't you?)

The cartridge used by the AF in the M16 was different from the ammo used today. Yeah, the bullets tumbled, the ammo didn't foul (long story there), and the guns worked, taking the place of the .30 carbine. The army took over control of the ammo procurement and made this the standard military rifle and there went capability.

The 6.5 and 7mm calibers have been known to be the most effective foot soldiers' ammo for a century. The data for this is available from over a dozen countries. Why we ever went to the 5.56 as the standard is beyond me. And, I was in 'Nam and have the wounds to show for it.

As you no doubt understand, the 6.8 SPC was created to work in an AR-15 length magazine (as was the 6.5 Grendel). As such it is much more restricted than a round for a bolt action rifle (which may also have a longer magazine). I am aware of conversions from 7.62x39 rifles that have, apparently worked with either cartridge.

Places where you may find more information about loads and so on would be

http://ar15.com/
http://tacticalforums.com/
http://lightfighter.net/groupee/forums
http://www.68spc.com/

Here is some load data

http://www.hodgdon.com/data/rifle/68mm-rem-spc.php

http://www.imrpowder.com/data/rifle/68mm-rem-spc.php

http://www.accuratepowder.com/reloading.htm

http://www.subguns.com/boards/reloading.cgi?noframes;read=13280

When not restricted by the requirement to stay within what the gas operating system will tolerate there is much more flexibility in developing loads.