These numbers come in a 22 inch Savage with 26.1 grs of R15 and a 1 in 9 inch twist. So does 0.35 MOA, a sectional density of .214 and a BC of .435. Pressure is modest, recoil is nil, and you really have to work to get the bbl hot. Terminal performane is WAY out of proportion to this small cartridge, which can go 2.400 COL in the Savage magazine. The 75 gr Hornady HPs are shorter and load to the mil spec 2.25 COL, dropping only to a BC of .385.

So why are we investing all this $$ in the 6.8 SPC?

Sounds good to me. Have you shot any critters with that load?

Very interesting!!

I have a Douglas barrel short chambered for 22-250 with a 1:8 twist looking for a large ring mauser action.

I'd like to know what kind of performance you get on deer or larger with the 75 gr HP. I want to use my .22-250AI reamer and should be able to push that bullet at 3300 fps.

I thought the 6.8SPC was kinda dead...or it should be!!

I have a 223 with a 1 in 8 twist that I was going to have rechambered to a 22.250....

I would recommend the 75 grain AMax over the 75 grain HP on deer sized stuff....

As far as the 6.8 being dead, I hope not!

As far as wildcatting goes, I was looking at that case as a basis for several cartridges that would be better performers than being based on a 223, but a 223 sized bolt action could still be used....

actually, I'd like to see the old 25 Rem, 30 Rem, and 32 Rem back out in the field... for small &/or young shooters, those rounds would be excellent in size and capability for deer sized game.....moreso than these dopey Short Mag craze going on!

6.5 Grendel makes more sense to me.

25 Rem is a really neat round to put in a little gun, kinda like the 25-35 in a 94 Winchester.....I'll take one!!

quote:

So why are we investing all this $$ in the 6.8 SPC?

Because the special operators we've dumped in the sandbox want something that hits even harder than the 77 grain "MK 262 Mod 0" but still fits in their M4s?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sabot:
These numbers come in a 22 inch Savage with 26.1 grs of R15 and a 1 in 9 inch twist. So does 0.35 MOA, a sectional density of .214 and a BC of .435. Pressure is modest, recoil is nil, and you really have to work to get the bbl hot. Terminal performane is WAY out of proportion to this small cartridge, which can go 2.400 COL in the Savage magazine. The 75 gr Hornady HPs are shorter and load to the mil spec 2.25 COL, dropping only to a BCof .385.

same set up(single shot)75 grBTHP Horn match, oal=2.385 26.5gr. WCC846 cci MAG.3036 to 3084 fps. 4 shot 1/4" GROUP 50 YDS. GOOD BULLET. ROGER

quote:

Originally posted by mb:

quote:

So why are we investing all this $$ in the 6.8 SPC?

Because the special operators we've dumped in the sandbox want something that hits even harder than the 77 grain "MK 262 Mod 0" but still fits in their M4s?

There is NO WAY a 115 gr .277 bullet at 2650 fps will penetrate as well as a 75 gr .224 at 2950 fps (both FMJ).

quote:

here is NO WAY a 115 gr .277 bullet at 2650 fps will penetrate as well as a 75 gr .224 at 2950 fps (both FMJ).

That may be so, but too much penetration - at the cost of terminal effectiveness - is the problem the 6.8 SPC is intended to address in the M4. The shorty's barrel reduces the velocity of the 62 grain M855 5.56x45mm ammunition to the point that the bullet does not reliably pitch over on impact and fragment as intended. The 6.8 SPC is intended to provide the desired terminal effectiveness (more bang-flop, less "better hit him again") over the 300 meter effective range of the M4 while using as much of the original platform as possible. Count me with those who think the 6.5 Grendel looks like a better solution across a range of weapon systems. My 223 has a 1:9 twist so I'm working with with bullets in the 60-70 gr range. Good hunting!

Hey, if the military would switch over to the Speer 70 grain SMP, you wouldn't see any problems with terminal performance.....

Read what the Soviets did with their 5.6 x 39 and their bullets....They were not concerned with making the Geneva Convention happy... they were just looking at terminal performance...

Besides terrorists are not part of the Geneva Convention... they don't recognize or honor it... so why should we when engaging them?

Whgy doesn't the military switch to an Auto Version of the AR 10 instead of screwing around with the AR 15?