Looking at the new Remington 6.8mm Sp. the military will be going to. Started me thinging..a dangerous proposition. Is there any source for selection of 6.8 mm bullets (.277) yet. If so, a 135g 6.8 mm might be the ticket. I love the properties of the 6.5x55, and shoot a .308. I have a Ruger VT in .243 I am not happy with and would like to build a really cool custom. SO, how about a 6.8-.08?(Close to a .260 with a bigger bullet) 6.8-06? 6.8x.284?(BR's use a 6.5 for 1000) I would think that with the BR shooters fans of the 6.5 for long range and lower recoil. and the .308 has inherent stability. I M thinking you would not gain much because the 7mm is very close. but the smaller diameter may lead to a better SD and BC than the 7mm and the 6.8 would be lighter than the .30 which you could get better velocities.

Maybe this would be the answer to the "magnumitus" going on in the gun industry. I think it would be a great wildcat.

Just so happens you are in luck,Dana3of5,Winchester has been making a .277 dia. bullet for close to 80 years,it is used in the .270 Winchester{.277/06}.Sierra, alone ,offers 8 different weights and styles of .277 dia.bullets.



The 6.8/08 is more commonly known as the .270/08.



Welcome to the forum.



WC

Yeah, thanks. I saw that After I posted. Exhuberance outstriped research. Have not seen the .277/.08 before. Well, thanks for pointing out. If sure feels silly having the obvious pointed our

That's Okay, don't be embarassed. It's still happening to me and I'm approaching 70 years of age and have been reloading for 55+ years. Exuberance is what life is for, I hope. Think what a hunt would be like if you didn't get at least a touch of buck-fever when you spotted your game...

Just enjoy, and don't worry too much about "face".

(If you'd like to trade ages, I'll throw in 50 rifles of your choice and welcome wearing any "egg" you may have accrued.)

BTW, it's interesting this "new" 6.8 thing is going on at all. The .270/.308 was done somewhere about a week after the .308-Win appeared, maybe sooner. I know it's on the bottom of Page 377 of Ackley's "Handbook for Shooters & Reloaders", which was published in 1962 and it was "old news" even then.

AC

I always wonder about the military changing from the 308. I mean it has been around for awhile has proven itself over and over in more than one "war" or whatever you would like to call it. What is the main reason they want to change to a 270/308? I don't think it will be any more accurate and recoil shouldn't be a real factor. Any idea?
Roadtrash

usually when any military outfit does things that make you question normal thinking they have to burn a large sum of cash. otherwise they wont get more next year
woofer

The 6.8, the army is testing, is the 6.8x43 or 6.8 Rem.SPC{Special Purpose Cartridge}.At this time it is not envisioned that it will totally replace the 5.56{.223}.It can be used in a m16 by changing the upper.



The .270/.308{6.8x51}is an old sporting wildcat and is not

scheduled to replace the .308{7.62x51 Nato}.



WC

What is the new round being developed for? If it is not actually replacing another round is it some sort of specialty thing with a special purpose? I haven't been keeping up with this even though I did hear awhile back that the military was looking at new rounds for whatever reason. In fact I had completely forgotten about it.
Roadtrash

As I understand the situation,the 1st.Gulf War was fought at longer distances than the Vietnam War.The 5.7 did not
produce the wound results desired at the longer ranges,especially from the shorter barrelled weapons.Penetration was not deemed adequate.

The new cartridge had to be usable in the M16 and had to
shoot a heavier bullet for better energy retention down range.

Politics probably play a large part in the 6.8 being named a special purpose cartridge rather than standard issue.

WC

Essentially, wildcat crazy is correct. What happened was this: The M16 replaced the M14 (ie,., 5.56mm NATO round replaced the 7.62 NATO round). Not because it was more effective, which it ain't(!!), but because it was a logistician's dream come true. A lot more of it could be shipped in the same "weight and cube" as 7.62 ammo, and the soldier could carry twice as much or more with the same amount of effort. Then, along comes the middle east wars, and it was discovered, (lo and behold), the 5.56mm is not effective enough at long ranges. Yes, it kills OK, but it does not stop or disable the enemy soldier as quickly as a bigger bullet. So, the military decided to dream up a new round that could (supposedly) disable quicker at the extended ranges.



I understand that a lot of bullet diameters were tried, the main proviso being that the new cartridge has to be able to be put in an M16 magazine, and be of dimensions that can be used in the M16 by just changing the barrel. So they took the ancient .30 Remington cartridge, cut it off to the appropriate length, and tried several different bullets in the reulting case - .257", 7mm, 6mm, .277", and maybe a few others?? The .277" bullet supposedly performed better than all the other sizes (I can't see how it could be better than the 7mm!!, just my opinion), so we now have this 6.8mm thing - the first .270 caliber military round since the 6.9X57mm Chinese Mauser of the early 1900's!!

I think the 223 should be canned. This is a varmit round for heavens sake. I would think a 250 savage would prolly give the military about what it is looking for. in any event the 6.8 spc is a step in the right direction. The military looks down upon the 7.62x39 cause it doesn't shoot as flat, seems kinda ironic we are trying to trump it with the 223. If all engagements are short range like the military claims then the 7.62x39 is the superior round