The Accurate Reloading Forums
Re: 6.8 rem
30 November 2004, 09:32
<eldeguello>Re: 6.8 rem
Quote:
Is that out of the 14" barrel? With a compact 20" and 130gr. bullets, 2800fps should be possible then..
I doubt it. I think that 2800 is out of a 22" barrel......
16 November 2004, 17:09
RMillerAny new news on this cartridge?
I saw that barnes has a new for 2005 ,110 Grain triple shock. Labeled 6.8 caliber- .277 dia.
16 November 2004, 17:58
SCGunNutRemington is going to offer a 6.8 hunting load in '05 with a 115 gr. Core-Lokt Ultra and are suppose to chamber it in the model Seven AWR. Hopefully they'll offer it in a standard production Seven as well.
16 November 2004, 18:15
rugeruserAnyone know why they differentiate between 6.8mm and 277 if they're both .277" dia? I've been using 110 ProHunters in my 270, and love 'em for what I do, I reckon that Triple Shock could be a real goer!!
17 November 2004, 01:42
JimmypIt is rumored that CZ is considering offering this chambering in their light weight carbine. I am interested. A light weight gun, light weight round, better trajectory than a 30-30, something different than a .243. Good whitetail cartridge for those days you feel like shooting something different.jimmyp
17 November 2004, 06:02
bartsche""It is rumored that CZ is considering offering this chambering in their light weight carbine.""
It perplexes me that they don't offer a 6.5x54!!!!!
roger
18 November 2004, 06:59
<eldeguello>It (6.5X54) would not fit in the 527 action, which is 7.62X39mm length.....
Too bad, too, because the 6.5X543 is a lot more cartridge than those that DO fit in the 527....
I'd like to see CZ make one that is just right for the .250 Savage, .300 Savage, and .35 Remington, like those made several years back by Cascade Arms!!
18 November 2004, 15:36
bartscheForget the actionX39mm
roger
19 November 2004, 05:40
Bob MehaffeyI emailed CZ yesterday asking them when they would be taking orders for the 6.8 SPC 527 carbine. They replied this morning, "we're working on it."
19 November 2004, 07:00
RedlanderIf they build one, I will buy one - more quickly if it is in the "American" version. The 6.8 Rem SPC is basically a 250-3000 Savage in new clothes. In a small action firearm, there will probably not be a much better choice for that youngster or small-framed female just getting into shooting/hunting.
19 November 2004, 08:21
Bob MehaffeyMy thoughts exactly Red, I have two 527s rebbled to 6 mm PPC and 6.5 Grendel. They are really handy little rifles. A pleasure to carry.
19 November 2004, 16:47
johnnyrebBob, who did the barrel work on your 6.5 Grendel? I recently stumbled across the 6.5 Grendel web site (
www.65grendel.com), and decided I would like a rifle in this caliber as Grendel is the name of my German Shorthair Pointer...
That web site mentioned that Brockman's is going to offer complete rifles as well as rebarreling for the 6.5 Grendel, but Brockman's has not responded to my email that I sent to them yesterday. If you don't mind me asking, what are the details on your 6.5 Grendel CZ527? Barrel length? Are you making your own brass? I see the Lapua 6.5 Grendel brass has not made it to the US yet...
23 November 2004, 16:05
johnnyrebHey Bob, thanks for the reply. I did get a reply back from Brockman's, and they are indeed rebarreling CZ527 carbines in 7.62x39 to 6.5 Grendel. In his reply, Jim Brockman stated that they have done a few so far, and were getting groups as small as 5/8". I think I may have to find a 527 carbine in 7.62x39 and send it off to Brockman's for a rebarrel...
24 November 2004, 02:59
Bob MehaffeyHey Johnny, If you continue to communicate with Brockman ask him if he has any thoughts about doing the same reblling job for the 6.8 SPC. Did he give you a price for reblling to the Grendel?
24 November 2004, 04:26
LeftoverdjQuote:
I think this thread will have a longer life than the 6.8mm Rem. It is a lack luster ,fills no gap, also ran.It would appear that fire arms marketing people are running out of ideas. It looks like they still catch a few though.Oh my! 
roger
You might be right about the life. Seems the really useful cartridges die the death, while the cartridges designed by the marketing boys have some chance. .358 Win died mostly because Remington wouldn't chamber the the 600 for it where it really would have shown and the Savage 99 got too expensive to make. .357 Max died because nobody bothered to chamber a light lever carbine for it. .250-3000 is dying for the lack of a really suitable rifle for it.
6.8 Rem and the CZ 527 look like a marriage made in heaven to me. There are still a few of us with enough sense to know that you don't need a lot of weight and bang to get the job done.
24 November 2004, 07:34
bartsche"" There are still a few of us with enough sense to know that you don't need a lot of weight and bang to get the job done.""
Me too!!! This cartridge's performance was aquired many times over in the past 80 years. The list is like a who's who in intelligent cartridge design and this units smaller than 06 base diameter carries no weight at all. A .270 Savage might be nice or a 7mm International or what makes more sense the 280 British. I still op for the 6.5X54 Mannlicher or Mauser or even the 6.5 Carcano for that matter. And that's only part of the short list. Trying to justify the existance of this cartridge in any rifle other than having a new toy,seems strange to me at the very least.
For the life of me I can not see what makes these cartridge attractive. 
roger
24 November 2004, 10:36
RedlanderAs stated by others many times in the past, this cartridge was developed for the AR-15 platform (with 14-inch barrels - as used by Special Forces units)to improve killing power, above that of the 5.56mm Nato, while still being effective out to about 300 yards, above that of the 7.62x39mm. Thus the designation, Special Purpose Cartridge (SPC), as it has a "special purpose". The fact that it would help make a handy little whitetail rig when paired with a micro-Mauser action is a bonus. It will, without a doubt, be a more effective chambering than either the .223 Rem or 7.62x39mm for whitetailed deer.
That CZ is willing to do the work, and make a $, should be applauded, not condemned. Maybe Ruger will do the same with the Mini-14. No, this catridge will not kill deer any better than a 250-3000 Savage, but it will fit in a modern, micro action.
24 November 2004, 11:24
bartsche""That CZ is willing to do the work, and make a $, should be applauded, not condemned.""
You just let me know who is condemning CZ or Ruger and though I can't afford it I'll give them a piece of my mind.
Do you think someone could make a 1/2 modern 1/2 micro action to half way facilitate some of the modest energy level, existing, [[[well designed cartridges????]]]
The 250-3000 would be OK; especially with a fast twist and a long throat to accommodate a 120grain plus bullet.
roger
28 November 2004, 17:11
SlowHandI think this cartridge will take off because of the military status. It's powerful and fast enough to make a good deer cartridge.
Once ruger starts selling a mini-14 6.8 I think people will adopt it.
29 November 2004, 05:01
DigitalDanYou're probably right about that but I'm with Bartsche on this one I think. YAWN.......
I'd much prefer to see platform compatibility over the counter for the .250/.300 Savage class of cartridge, or perhaps some of the equally petite Remington rounds, rather that reinventing the wheel. For that matter I find the 6.8SPC idea totally bizzare in the first place. Let me see, a 14" barrel with the desire to be effective out to 300 meters or so...Hmmmm, I don't get it, and doubt any particular advantage over the 5.56 NATO in that scenario. Which is to say that in truth it will be employed at much closer ranges typical for those "special people" that are doing "special deeds". Ho hum, they would probably be just as effective with a CAR15 in 5.56. Of course I assume original twist rates that gave the bullet marginal stability in the first place.
Color me uninspired by the whole deal. There are better ways and means.
30 November 2004, 18:24
wallywQuote:
At the risk of sounding repetitious, the 5.56 NATO exists in the most effective man killing caliber that case can support. My observations are influenced by experience in Viet Nam, and I realize the rifle/cartridge has been changed since then. OTH, I've not run into a lot of people that used it in combat that would change a whole lot, at least not from that era. Don't know much about the "new and improved" models.
Blather OFF.
Don't know where you served but my fellow Marine infantrymen would have those responsible for the M-16 shot.
01 December 2004, 17:40
prescottThe 6.8 shoots a 110 grain, same as a 30 carbine. During the Korean war the carbine would have a hard time penetrating Chicom winter clothing.
Wonder if the 6.8 will have the same problem at some distance?
01 December 2004, 18:23
courtney platerQuote:
The 6.8 shoots a 110 grain, same as a 30 carbine. During the Korean war the carbine would have a hard time penetrating Chicom winter clothing.
Wonder if the 6.8 will have the same problem at some distance?
I doubt it would have the same problem. It will leave the muzzle 800+ fps faster and has a much greater sectional density. The supposed magic of the round is the frangible bullet technology that is claimed to remain like a solid on armor and the such but when it hits warm flesh, comes apart. That's the claim anyway.
01 December 2004, 22:35
Dave James6.8 is based on th 30 Remington case not the 300
02 December 2004, 03:04
DigitalDanOkay, I misunderstood the case design. That pretty much blows my thoughts out of the water.
Still don't care much for it though, not in that platform anyway.
Wallyw, RVN - 1969, 70, 71, 72. I have yet to suffer a malfunction in the -16, don't recall knowing anybody that did. During the first tour I did NOT clean the gun until it was turned in, and sometimes shot over 1000 rounds in a day. It did not have much in the way of rifling left in the throat area by then, but still functioned perfectly. I am aware of the early problems with jams/malfuntions etc. and they were not caused by design problems, but rather substitution of a different powder(ball vs. stick) than was initially spec'd by the designer. Your mileage may differ. I have no experience with variations made to the gun after that time, but I look at all the klugged-up after market add-ons that our troops are toting around today and say WTF?
I also think the conversion to the heavier bulets and quicker twist is a mistake, but that is a function of predjudice borne of my experience.
B/2/17th Air Cav - 101st ABN (5-69 Hue/Phu Bai)
B/2/17th Air Cav - 101st ABN
HHT/2/17th Air Cav 101st ABN
B/1/9th Air Cav 3rd BDE/1st CAV
B/229th AHC 3rd BDE/1st CAV (Bien Hoa/Da Nang)
B/7/17th Air Cav 3rd BDE/4th ID(IIRC)(12-72 Pleiku)
Aero Scouts, Aero Weapons, Aero Lift, Assault, NightHawk, Test Pilot, Combat & Transition Instrutor (AS), Aviation Satety. See how easy it is to do a resume'?
If you'd like particulars PM me. I was not in the mud that much, but worked with our own internal infantry and a lot of others as well, including 1st Marine Recon out of Phu Bai a great deal, mostly in the A Shau Valley. They pretty much had their choice of weaponry and with one exception that I recall, they ALL carried CAR-15's as a primary firearm. The exception was one fellow that had a Swedish K IIRC.
SIMPER FI!