I am a little slow to get the word on new things. I just noticed a 6.8spc offering by Ruger. I did a wiki search and learned this is supposed to be a compromise between the 6.5 and 7mm in a round that will easily fit a modified service rifle. Heck, they could has gone with standard 270 (ie 277)! Bore diameter of 6.8 seems stupid to me, but now to ask what others think.

My own impression is this is much better mil round than 223, but what wouldn't be?

For a sporting view I am disappointed they did not choose either a 7mm or 6.5mm. I searched the archives and found a very brief discussion here on PM. One reply favored a 7mm. I would probably lean toward the 6.5 with 120 grain and pray that new propellant technology could compensate for the small powder capacity.

I am wondering 4 yrs later (since last PM discussion) if anyone would care to comment on either the military or hunting capability and acceptance of this round.

What can I say, the military is stupid. Necking it down to 6.5 would match the creedmore and make more practical sense so they must have wanted their own creation. The good and bad of it is this, there is not a very large selection of ready made .277 bullets to choose from but if successful this will eventually boost the .277 bullet line up.

quote:

Heck, they could has gone with standard 270 (ie 277)! Bore diameter of 6.8 seems stupid to me, but now to ask what others think.

First off, the 6.8 bore IS 0.277". Does it seem less stupid now? This thread really should be in the Medium Calibers forums, not in Small Calibers.

There were a number of reasons why the 6.8 was developed. (AFAIK it has not replaced the 5.56 and likely never will.) The .277 bore was reportedly the largest which gave a sufficient case shoulder for headspacing in fully automatic weapons. The .277" bore gives higher velocities than a 6.5 mm bore - slightly anyway - and better ballistics than a 7mm. Splitting hairs? Sure, but all cartridges are compromises. Clearly the developers had no intention of making a sporting cartridge - WHY SHOULD THEY?

quote:

I would probably lean toward the 6.5 with 120 grain and pray that new propellant technology could compensate for the small powder capacity.

What exactly is wrong with the 6.8 powder capacity? Do you know the success of the cartridge in combat? Do you know how well it works as a sporting cartridge? Hundreds of hunters regularly use the cartridge on game animals with great success - check out the numerous websites extolling it's virtues. They even know the bullet diameter it uses.



.

quote:

First off, the 6.8 bore IS 0.277". Does it seem less stupid now? This thread really should be in the Medium Calibers forums, not in Small Calibers.

OK, that makes sense. I re-read wiki and see that.

As for the forum, I dont have the power to move it. I guess that is why my search only hit one thread, 4 yrs ago!

quote:

Hundreds of hunters regularly use the cartridge on game animals with great success

Exactly what I was asking. Are there any factory deer loads. Can this be reloaded to spec without any special unobtainable powders? Wiki mentions level II or some such loads? High pressure for new chamber spec only. Any problems there? Well, OK, I guess I should go search the medium bore forum and let this thread die.

I am just curious. I really have no opinion, beyond just being so conservative that I look at anything new with a very critical eye.

Do a Google search for the 6mm WOA. It is the 6.8 SPC case necked down to 6mm. I don't have one but it sounds like some folks are getting some amazing results from the combination.

Another reason the 6.8 Rem was chosen is that 6.8 uppers can replace the current 5.56 without any modifications. The magazines also fit which means the OAL of the cartridge is the same as the 5.56 Nato.
The base cartridge prior to necking it down was the .30 Remington, I believe.

Yes Cliff. You are right. Based on 30 Remington.

I just found it in my Hornady No7 manual. I expected this would be same case diameter as 223, but the case is fatter. About mid way between 243win and 223 diameter at the head.

Hornady recommends 130 gr bullets in bolt actions for deer size game.

I see a new Hornady factory load wth a 120 gr bullet.

Interesting, I dont need it, but it should be a useful ctg. I read several references to CZ527 as a desirable platform but not offered at this time.

This is a tired topic - sort of like magazine articles on single action vs double action or revolvers vs semi-auto's .....

The 6.5 Grendel has been around a long time and mates up to an M-16 lower just fine and gives impressive ballistics and accuracy. The 6.8SPC was an AMU creation to deal with the ineffectiveness of the 5.56 round in an M-4 carbine in urban "door kicker" scenarios. Heck, I've even talked to guys in the sand box that had vehicles roll through checkpoints that they could not stop with their M-4's (they bought 458Socoms, 50Beowulfs, etc. with their own money to avoid suicide car bombers killing them at checkpoints).

Since the 6.5 Grendel, the 6.5 Creedmore, 6.5x47 Lapua, 6.5MPC and probably a few others have been introduced on the heels of the successful 6.5 Grendel.

Then you have the other AR-15 alternate calibers like the 30AR, 30 HRT, 338 Spectre .....

The AR-15/M-16 is a pretty flexible platform but, it is constrained by its small chamber size and the need for controllable full-auto fire. Bolt action .... 6.5x55 ..... ..... ....

I have killed several big midwester deer with it, every time a one shot-bang flop...

quote:

This is a tired topic - sort of like magazine articles on single action vs double action or revolvers vs semi-auto's .....

If 6.8mm is so tired a topic why is there so little in the archive? Hornady and Ruger are offering guns and ammo (new and more), why is it tiring to ask about those? Or a potential CZ527?

I've never been able to figure out what niche that caliber fits ballistically. I think the critical flaw with it is .277 bullets less then 130 gr have poor BC's so you loose all your acclaimed "stopping power" in a hurry. IF you want to shoot 110 gr bullets, 6mm does that with good BC's, if you want 120's, 6.5 mm is the ticket.

It was designed for combat operations and it does very well in that application. It's us, the shooters, hunters and handloaders, who are guilty of asking it to do things beyond the scope of its mission.

I wonder,... we got guys using 223 to kill deer and the 6.8 develops more power with heavier bullets and better retained energy. It should be good for something? Varmint class up to deer. And potentially in a very ultra light short rifle.

I like the 22 hornet and 30/30 so IMHO it is not all about max speed and range for me.

It also seems to me the real practical competition comes from 243win. For sport there is little or at least no reason I have heard stated yet to select a 6.8 over the 243. Like Ruger Compact, it will handle the 243. Why block off the magazine for a smaller round? In the same weight rifle and length of stroke rifle?

I think you all got to admit this is an interesting little bugger.

I like the caliber and if you look at F224's post, it has taken deer with authority. I have a 6.8 but it is not normally what I would use to hunt deer. It is an outstanding round, when used in its capability.

quote:

Originally posted by fourbore:

quote:

This is a tired topic - sort of like magazine articles on single action vs double action or revolvers vs semi-auto's .....

If 6.8mm is so tired a topic why is there so little in the archive? Hornady and Ruger are offering guns and ammo (new and more), why is it tiring to ask about those? Or a potential CZ527?

Maybe it's not such a tired topic on AR but, every gun board I have been on has multiple threads along similar lines to this one. While the US Military will likely never move away from the 5.56, the 6.8SPC was purpose built for that use in the "sand box" when the 5.56 in issue rifles was proven ineffective in some uses. Can it be used outside is original design goal? Sure but, there are better options IMHO.

In regards to Ruger, CZ, others adopting it in their line ups ... it's all marketing to put more safe queens in your hands. It's all about numbers. We already generally own all the rifles we need so, the only way to get most people to buy more is to advertise and promote the heck out of new round so you "gotta" have it and impulse buy. Does the market place really need all these new redundant calibers for main stream use?

quote:

Originally posted by f224:
I have killed several big midwester deer with it, every time a one shot-bang flop...

Saw a 400lb cow elk dropped with it in 2007 using 110gr Barnes TSX.
Fell where it was shot.

Lots of sound and fury in the 6.5 Grendel versus 6.8 SPC II discussion. Grendel does deliver more energy beyond 300 yards for sure. But I have not heard of a single broken bolt with the 6.8.

I have 2 6.8s and am very pleased with them. Much more a hunting caliber than the 5.56.

If you are interested in commercially available 6.8 rifles be sure that you look for the SPC II chamber and a twist rate of 1 in 11 ... this provides higher velocity with lower pressure. Typically Ruger has not adopted that formula in the past.

Mike is dead on. Remington messed up the original ammo which caused early 6.8SPC adopters some issues. With the new chamber and proper barrel twist you will have a good rifle that works in the AR-15 platform.