Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/2/2006 1:26:08 PM EDT
i'v been away awhile what's the general concenses on the spc?
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 1:46:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 8:21:25 AM EDT by DaveS]

Originally Posted By vortex_19:
i'v been away awhile what's the general concenses on the spc?



That if you don't buy a 6.8 upper from Bravo Company or Eagle Firearms before you take a hike...



you'll be the sonofabitch that ruins it for the rest of us!

Have a safe one,

Dave S

Leaving my above mistake. My da-da-damn eyes and brain took it that you were going away for awhile.

Now, go get that upper.

OOGAH, OOOGAH, DIVE...DIVE...

UPDATE EDIT 01-08-06
DO NOT PURCHASE ANY UPPER THAT USES E.R.SHAW BARRELS. DETAILS ON PAGE THREE AND FOUR.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 1:49:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DaveS:

Originally Posted By vortex_19:
i'v been away awhile what's the general concenses on the spc?



That if you don't buy a 6.8 upper from Bravo Company or Eagle Firearms before you take a hike...



you'll be the sonofabitch that ruins it for the rest of us!

Have a safe one,

Dave S



WTF
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 2:08:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JBowles:

Originally Posted By DaveS:

Originally Posted By vortex_19:
i'v been away awhile what's the general concenses on the spc?



That if you don't buy a 6.8 upper from Bravo Company or Eagle Firearms before you take a hike...



you'll be the sonofabitch that ruins it for the rest of us!

Have a safe one,

Dave S



WTF



+1
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 3:47:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vortex_19:
i'v been away awhile what's the general concenses on the spc?



There's no way to know. The 6.8 lovers see the situation through rose covered glasses so you can't trust them for a fair and unbiased opinion.

The Grendel lovers think anything not Grendel is just stooopid. If you don't have a Grendel you're stooopid. If you don't love the Grendel you're stooopid, etc. They really hate the 6.8. It makes them gnash their teeth.

The 5.56 lovers don't know why you need anything else except more cheap ammo and mags.

The 7.62X39 guys just say 'nyet' to the 6.8.



I can't wait for a chance to bust a hog or yote with my 6.8
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 4:49:19 PM EDT
+1
I Think you pretty much summed it up. I fall into the "5.56 category". I guess you could call me a 5.56 apologist, I think its an effective round, especially in heavy HP form....So I cant think of one good reason to buy a 6.8 SPC, especially when you could have a 6.5 Grendel or 7.62 NATO. For the military, the SPC makes sense*maybe* For civilians, its inferior compared to other alternatives. The 6.5 Grendel is a ballisticly optimized cartridge as opposed to optimised to fit into a 5.56 lower, like the SPC. Its performance is outstanding, even when compared to 7.62 NATO. The SPC is dead. It was simply an expirement and "knee jerk" reaction to a perceived

need. Besides the few Mk12's that are in service, thats as much use as it will see. The SOCOM units who have Mk12's in service have access to all the ammo the need. What are you going to do for ammo? In a few years, you will be making your own because there won't be any manufactures that are making it for you. Just like people now are saying, " Remember the .41 AE?"....people in a few years will be saying "Remember the 6.8SPC?" Don't waste your time/money....unless you have plenty of both, then be my guest.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 7:27:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ryno_the_wyno:
. The 6.5 Grendel is a ballisticly optimized



The 6.5 Grendel is commercially optimized. That's why I won't have one. I have a 5.56 M16 upper for burning ammo. I have a 6.8 upper for hogs and yotes. The 200 rds of 6.8 I currently have should last me a few years when you consider that it will be used for hunting and that I reload. If the 6.5 is so awesome then it won't be long until you see lots of AR10's in .260 Rem which will of course hand the Grendel it's ass at any distance.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 11:29:19 AM EDT
If you like the SPC, you have to love the decision to keep the Grendel proprietary. If you could easily build your own G, the SPC's ammo shortage would have buried it. As it stands, you can now buy all the 6.8 ammo you want - but you still can't build a 6.5 upper. That may have been a marketing mistake.

Maybe not. Only time will tell. But I see the 6.8 as an effective CQB alternative and the 6.5 as an excellent long-range accuracy round. There's room for both in this world - doncha think?
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 11:38:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rjay: If the 6.5 is so awesome then it won't be long until you see lots of AR10's in .260 Rem which will of course hand the Grendel it's ass at any distance.

I'm in neither camp, but let me let you in a secret, AR10 and SR25s in 260 Rem were made by several very serious highpower shooters (including David Tubb) and were found to be unreliable in the extreme.

David Tubb shot a 6.5-08 SR25 for three years and managed to win the Nationals just once. That after being used to win it year and year with a Model 70. He gave up on the SR25/AR-10 idea, went back to shooting his Model 70, took what he liked about the AR platform's ergonomics (which are superior to a traditional bolt gun), combined with a from-the-ground-up-new bolt action design and came up with this:

McMillan Brothers TUBB 2000
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 11:49:08 AM EDT
The 6.8 has more muzzle energy at 200m than the 5.56 has at the muzzle! Its design mainly for CQB and as far as the eye can identify a target >300+<m. It can be used in the machine gun because the case has enough room in front if the links that the paw can feed properly. The Grendal does not have this room, therefore will not be used in the SAW, etc.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 12:15:28 PM EDT
There is a tacked thread at the top of the AR15 page that will give you plenty to think and read about.

Thos of us that have one really like them.

Try AR15barrels.com for a great custom build at a great price.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 12:16:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dead_Nuts:
. But I see the 6.8 as an effective CQB alternative and the 6.5 as an excellent long-range accuracy round. There's room for both in this world - doncha think?



You know. I have finally seen the fallacy of the 6.5G. What is the point of an excellent long range accuracy round if you don't have the following:

High power scope

Freefloating handguard

Nice trigger

Nice bbl.

Tight chamber.

None of which your average combat M16 is going to have.

rj
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 12:26:33 PM EDT
RJay wrote: "I have finally seen the fallacy of the 6.5G."

Nice try, RJay. In response, let me quote from military writer Stan Crist: "Because German paratroopers had been outranged by British riflemen and machine gunners during the early stages of the 1941 airborne assault on Crete, the paratroopers reasoned that it was decidedly better to have long-range capability and not need it, than to desperately need it and not have it!"

John

P.S. I'm sure all those in this thread who have brought up the Grendel here don't really want to turn this into a 6.5G vs 6.8 SPC thread. So I invite all the cantankerous ones to the other current thread regarding the survivability of the 6.5 Grendel.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 12:45:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rjay:

Originally Posted By vortex_19:
i'v been away awhile what's the general concenses on the spc?



There's no way to know. The 6.8 lovers see the situation through rose covered glasses so you can't trust them for a fair and unbiased opinion.

The Grendel lovers think anything not Grendel is just stooopid. If you don't have a Grendel you're stooopid. If you don't love the Grendel you're stooopid, etc. They really hate the 6.8. It makes them gnash their teeth.

The 5.56 lovers don't know why you need anything else except more cheap ammo and mags.

The 7.62X39 guys just say 'nyet' to the 6.8.




I can't wait for a chance to bust a hog or yote with my 6.8




i plan on having the 6.5 grendel,6.8 spc, the mouse bullet aka .223 and the .50 beuwolf in the near future.so which one do i fall under.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 12:59:44 PM EDT
They still have yet to solve the problems of 6.5 terminal performance, everyone quotes these awesome ballistic coefficients and huge downrange energy. But the bullet that does this also overpenetrates like bitch, and does little more than poke a 6.5 mm hole at any range, so you'd better hit something vital or they aren't going down fast enough.. You can go the other way and load it with light varminters to get fragmentation, but then you lose almost HALF of that magic BC, so you lose the long range performance that the 6.5 is valued for. Until someone invents a 6.5 mm bullet with both a super BC(like the lapua scenar) and decent fragmentaton at short to intermediate ranges, the 6.5 will be a range cartridge as far as i'm concerned.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 1:02:47 PM EDT
I walked into a gunshop & almost fell over in the ammo isle. Low & behold, 20 boxes of Remington 6.8

Had to buy a box just to go home & see if I wasn't dreaming when I wake up. It's finally starting to show up in the marketplace which is probally the greatest negative when people consider buying a 6.8 & there is no ammo to be had.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 1:08:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:
i plan on having the 6.5 grendel,6.8 spc, the mouse bullet aka .223 and the .50 beuwolf in the near future.so which one do i fall under.hr


DING DING DING!

I'm going to the wide variety too!
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 1:21:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:
i plan on having the 6.5 grendel,6.8 spc, the mouse bullet aka .223 and the .50 beuwolf in the near future.so which one do i fall under.



Just make sure when you grab your AR in a time of dire necessity [sp] that you stick the right mag with the right ammo in the hole !!! I caught myself leaving the 6.8 upper mounted up. Doh !

rj
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 1:25:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Grendelizor:
RJay wrote: "I have finally seen the fallacy of the 6.5G."

Nice try, RJay. In response, let me quote from military writer Stan Crist: "Because German paratroopers had been outranged by British riflemen and machine gunners during the early stages of the 1941 airborne assault on Crete, the paratroopers reasoned that it was decidedly better to have long-range capability and not need it, than to desperately need it and not have it!"

John
.



Were the Germans repulsed ??

rj
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 1:33:22 PM EDT
I am not sure if investing in 6.8 spc for AR-15 shooters will ever become popular. You need a completely new rifle for shooting the round. Ammo is still expensive and since the US military will stick to NATO standards, which is 5.56mm and won't change for a LONG TIME, so cheap surplus ammo won't happen. So, in my opinion, if you want more powerful ammo, go for 7.62mm, which is relatively cheap and readily available in the surplus market. However, the development of new ammo is always exciting to follow, so you early adopters go ahead :-).

Link Posted: 1/3/2006 1:47:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By smangs:
I am not sure if investing in 6.8 spc for AR-15 shooters will ever become popular. You need a completely new rifle for shooting the round.



That's funny, I don't remember having two lowers., I popped my 6.8 upper off my RRA NM lower, pinned on my AF M16 upper, slid in a 20 round mag and started busting out 5.56 just last Sunday.

All you really need is a bbl and a bolt. The 5.56 mags will hold a few 6.8's. 5.56 mags might take a little tweaking to feed.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 1:54:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2006 1:54:47 PM EDT by smangs]
rjay,

thanks for the info. I just assumed you also need a 6.8 lower because I saw one offered by Stag Arms.

http://store.stagarms.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=46&category_id=a6627a9d060b4e8423b34c97348d320a&

Link Posted: 1/3/2006 1:57:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By smangs:
I am not sure if investing in 6.8 spc for AR-15 shooters will ever become popular. You need a completely new rifle for shooting the round. Ammo is still expensive and since the US military will stick to NATO standards, which is 5.56mm and won't change for a LONG TIME, so cheap surplus ammo won't happen. So, in my opinion, if you want more powerful ammo, go for 7.62mm, which is relatively cheap and readily available in the surplus market. However, the development of new ammo is always exciting to follow, so you early adopters go ahead :-).





Could you explain your statement. I bought a barrel and a bolt to build my 6.8. How is that a "completely new rifle"?


Link Posted: 1/3/2006 2:04:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2006 2:07:39 PM EDT by smangs]
I already explained myself. Also, my main point was about the ammo not going to be used by the military due to NATO standards, so it will never be cheap. So, its future in the AR community is unsure. That's all.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 2:14:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By smangs:
rjay,

thanks for the info. I just assumed you also need a 6.8 lower because I saw one offered by Stag Arms.

http://store.stagarms.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=46&category_id=a6627a9d060b4e8423b34c97348d320a&




That's just a way for Stag to zap us for an extra few dollars . The whole purpose of the two 6.x is to be able to use the existing lowers so that the end user { hopefully the armed forces } does not end up will zillions of dollars worth of obsolete inventory. Bbl, bolt and a mag and you are in business .... if you can find ammo !!!! Which is not a problem anymore with 6.8.

If the Grendel consortium thinks the US gov is going to pay them millions of dollars in royalty fees I personally think they are dreaming.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 2:17:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rjay:

Originally Posted By vortex_19:
i'v been away awhile what's the general concenses on the spc?



There's no way to know. The 6.8 lovers see the situation through rose covered glasses so you can't trust them for a fair and unbiased opinion.

The Grendel lovers think anything not Grendel is just stooopid. If you don't have a Grendel you're stooopid. If you don't love the Grendel you're stooopid, etc. They really hate the 6.8. It makes them gnash their teeth.

The 5.56 lovers don't know why you need anything else except more cheap ammo and mags.

The 7.62X39 guys just say 'nyet' to the 6.8.



I can't wait for a chance to bust a hog or yote with my 6.8



You forgot the 6.2 and 7.9 lovers!
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 2:20:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 3:06:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2006 3:12:20 PM EDT by smangs]
Thanks for the welcome and believe me, I learned my lesson and will read up on that subject before I post again. However, what else should I guess (ASS U ME) when you see 6.8 lowers offered by a reputable manufacturer. Again, the main point was about the ammo and not how much about what it would take to turn your stock AR into an 6.8 version. My entire post was reduced to that first sentence
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 3:22:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2006 3:23:31 PM EDT by Randall_Rausch]
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 5:43:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2006 5:44:30 PM EDT by dutchman74]
As of late I have had no problem finding 6.8 SPC ammo. Two local gunshops have the Remington FMJ and OTM. Also a vendor at the gunshow had 12 cases of Remington and 7 cases of Silver State ammo both $13 a box of 20.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 6:27:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Paradude54:
You forgot the 6.2 and 7.9 lovers!



Whazzat ??

rj
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 6:30:05 PM EDT
Same hear dutchman, not only can you buy 6.8 at my local gunshop, but you can buy the rifle to shoot them, WTF will thy think up next!
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:25:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 1:27:00 AM EDT by TonyWilliams]

Originally Posted By Ryno_the_wyno:
Just like people now are saying, " Remember the .41 AE?"....people in a few years will be saying "Remember the 6.8SPC?"



Well, IIRC the .41 AE failed because the .40 S&W arrived, doing exactly the same job but pushed by a major US manufacturer. If that's taken as a guide, then the Rem 6.8 should be able to see off the 6.5...

I hadn't heard the designation 'Mk 12' for the 6.8mm Barrett before - when was that adopted? And have any reports of combat performance been published?

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:30:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
They still have yet to solve the problems of 6.5 terminal performance, everyone quotes these awesome ballistic coefficients and huge downrange energy. But the bullet that does this also overpenetrates like bitch, and does little more than poke a 6.5 mm hole at any range, so you'd better hit something vital or they aren't going down fast enough...



That shouldn't be too difficult: take the outer envelope of the Scenar, fit it with a lighter tip filling (preferably a hard steel penetrator) and a cannelure and the thing will tumble fast and fragment, provided that the jacket is thin enough. The BC will go down a bit, but it can afford to...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:41:49 AM EDT
Tony...come to SHOT! There's a minor TN I&I going on.

Simon
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:09:44 AM EDT
I'm still putting most of my eggs in the 5.56 basket. But I have built a 6.8 upper. I'd love to build a 6.5, but I can't. So, I'm still waiting. I like variety.

One point that many in my camp (5.56) make is that of cost. Well, if you're talking mil-surp ammo, I have to agree. But it seems that many AR shooters with shorter barrels are moving toward the MK-262 for it's improved terminal performance over 5.56NATO. In fact, this ammo is necessary for reliable terminal characteristics out to 200m. But, this stuff is by no means cheap.

Around here, I can get Remington 6.8 for about the same as the MK-262. I've seen it even cheaper on the 'net. Within a few months, I'm sure it will be significantly cheaper than the Black Hills stuff.

The ammo availablity and build expense arguments (against the SPC) are no longer valid. Now, if only the main complaint about the Grendel (proprietary licensing) would go away, I'd build one to try out.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:07:54 AM EDT
If the Grendel licensing would go away, I'd build one of those too. It seems like a great cartridge for a variety of uses. As it stands right now though, I can build a very good 6.8mm SPC for the same price as a good 5.56mm upper, the ammo is available at my local gunshop from two different vendors (three when Hornady starts shipping), and it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot. The longest range I have locally is 300 meters so a 1000 yard bullet would be lost on me anyway.

Stephen
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:24:06 AM EDT
Can someone explain to me why? The new "cool factor gear" is to have an AR-15/M-16 than can shoot 800-1000 yrds?



The reason I use these weapons is sooooooooo far from that role it's not even funny.



I don't hang around and lay in wait for that perfect "1000 yrd kill".


I guess it's just me.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:31:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Spooge5150:
Can someone explain to me why? The new "cool factor gear" is to have an AR-15/M-16 than can shoot 800-1000 yrds?
I guess it's just me.



You will notice that the round actually developed by active military personel is a 300m optimized round.

rj
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:36:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rjay:

Originally Posted By Spooge5150:
Can someone explain to me why? The new "cool factor gear" is to have an AR-15/M-16 than can shoot 800-1000 yrds?
I guess it's just me.



You will notice that the round actually developed by active military personel is a 300m optimized round.

rj




No shit sherlock.

But as you can see......


These threads always turn into 6.8 vs 6.5. etc.


BTW what is wrong with a 5.56mm at 300 meters?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:42:24 AM EDT
RJay wrote: "I'm just a 6.8 owner pointing out a group of FACTS. Long, over stabilized, non-expanding bullets are great for punching holes in targets. Short, fat, tumblers make better wound channels."

Sounds like you're referring to the old 6.5mm 160-grain round noses. If so, you're generally correct, and it doesn't matter the caliber. They had the same problem in the Spanish-American War with 7mm 175-grain round noses. Well, it was a problem for the Spanish, not the U.S., because participants said the Mauser bullets drilled right through and almost "self-cauterized." However, we still took plenty of casualties going up San Juan Hill from bullets into vital areas. One witness described Rough Riders being "flipped over like spoons" as they low-crawled up the hill. Anyway, I digress, and furthermore, things have changed.

RJay, do you have gel test results on the 6.5 Grendel to back up your assertions? Of course not. Admittedly, neither do I. Does Doctor Roberts? Nope. He's got gel test results from his experiments with 6.5 (that's six-five) SPC, but, interestingly, he's never released photos of them, as he has with his 6.8 SPC results.

So I guess we will have to use the official U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground results in their experiment with a 125-grain 6.5mm bullet at roughly 2500 fps (sound familiar?). I'm referring to the "Pig Board" tests done in conjunction with the development of the Garand rifle in the 1930s. Here's a quote regarding the results:

"At 300 yards the caliber .256 [6.5mm] 125-grain flat-base bullet gave by far the most severe wounds in all parts of the animal. All calibers caused very severe trauma, but the .256 seemed to be in a class by itself. . . . To flatly state which bullet stands out at 600 yards is most difficult . . . with the caliber .256 slightly the favorite" (The Book of the Garand, p.81).

I'm not saying those results absolutely prove anything about the modern loadings in the 6.5 Grendel, but they do disprove the absolute B.S. nonsense notion that the 6.5 Grendel can't incapacitate in a combat arena. However, yet another 6.8er repeats this line of thinking:

PanzerMK7 wrote: "They still have yet to solve the problems of 6.5 terminal performance, everyone quotes these awesome ballistic coefficients and huge downrange energy. But the bullet that does this also overpenetrates like bitch, and does little more than poke a 6.5 mm hole at any range. . . ."

I'd love to see your gel test documentation backing up your assertions here. Both you and RJay seem pretty sure of yourselves.

PanzerMK7 continues: ". . . so you'd better hit something vital or they aren't going down fast enough."

Are you implying that the 6.8 SPC doesn't have to hit something vital and yet they will go down fast?

PanzerMK7 answers his own question: "Until someone invents a 6.5 mm bullet with both a super BC (like the Lapua Scenar) and decent fragmentaton at short to intermediate ranges, the 6.5 will be a range cartridge as far as I'm concerned."

Actually, I think that's fair enough. You admit that terminal performance is simply a matter of bullet construction (interacting with velocity). Now we're making progress. Used to be that the 6.8 SPC crowd would say there's no way the 6.5 Grendel can ever compete in gel tests with 6.8 SPC. (And that might have been true when the 6.8 SPC gel tests were done with loads giving 2700 fps in a 16" barrel; Doctor Roberts' latest test gave a more realistic 2426 fps in a 16".)

John
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 9:31:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grendelizor:
(And that might have been true when the 6.8 SPC gel tests were done with loads giving 2700 fps in a 16" barrel; Doctor Roberts' latest test gave a more realistic 2426 fps in a 16".)

John



And of course since the 6.8 SPC is "optimized" for 300m combat these highly educated and intelligent 6.8 SPC fans who make that claim have the data to back it up, right?

I'd sure like to see it too, since all I've seen published is fragments of data at muzzle velocity.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 9:50:06 AM EDT
Hey, the 6.5 is a great round. Get it adopted.

rj
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 10:10:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rjay:
Hey, the 6.5 is a great round. Get it adopted.

rj



+1 I'd love to be able to buy Grendel ammo at surplus prices.

Stephen
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 10:25:51 AM EDT
RJay is such a kidder: "Hey, the 6.5 is a great round. Get it adopted."

No problem, RJay, I just made a quick phone call to the Army's head of procurement and he says they'll get right on it. Need anything else?

John
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 11:33:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 11:34:47 AM EDT by PanzerMK7]
Basically, like I said above, if they come up with a high BC bullet that fragments, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. Just curious though, what is it about the Scenar that gives it that insane BC, the inertial mass/shape combination right? So, couldn't a similarly shaped bullet be designed for 6.8 or 7.62 cartridges. If it could, then that would mean the 6.5's advantage goes down the tube right, or no?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 11:47:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
So, couldn't a similarly shaped bullet be designed for 6.8 or 7.62 cartridges. If it could, then that would mean the 6.5's advantage goes down the tube right, or no?



The 6.8 SPC wouldn't be able to use it effectively because the case is too long. If you try to use a long bullet, it has to be seated back into the case, reducing powder capacity.

A similar BC bullet in 7.62 would be so heavy that it would exceed safe pressures to get reasonable performance in a 300 Whisper or 7.62x39.

7.62 NATO won't fit into an AR-15. If you're willing to go to an AR-10 sized platform (with the associated size, weight and recoil), this whole discussion is moot because you have options that will outperform anything that will fit in an AR-15.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 11:54:21 AM EDT
I have loaded and fired the 150 gr Nosler with a BC of .496 out of my 16" Carbine with excellent accuracy results. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a chrono to know how fast it was going nor access to a long range to see how it hit down past 300 meters. Based off the computer modeling, I estimate it was moving at about 2250 fps, but I have no way to be any more scientific about it. Hopefully as the round grows in popularity, so will the selection of bullets and factory loads.



Stephen
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 12:20:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ryno_the_wyno:
+1
I Think you pretty much summed it up. I fall into the "5.56 category". I guess you could call me a 5.56 apologist, I think its an effective round, especially in heavy HP form....So I cant think of one good reason to buy a 6.8 SPC, especially when you could have a 6.5 Grendel or 7.62 NATO. For the military, the SPC makes sense*maybe* For civilians, its inferior compared to other alternatives. The 6.5 Grendel is a ballisticly optimized cartridge as opposed to optimised to fit into a 5.56 lower, like the SPC. Its performance is outstanding, even when compared to 7.62 NATO. The SPC is dead. It was simply an expirement and "knee jerk" reaction to a perceived

need. Besides the few Mk12's that are in service, thats as much use as it will see. The SOCOM units who have Mk12's in service have access to all the ammo the need. What are you going to do for ammo? In a few years, you will be making your own because there won't be any manufactures that are making it for you. Just like people now are saying, " Remember the .41 AE?"....people in a few years will be saying "Remember the 6.8SPC?" Don't waste your time/money....unless you have plenty of both, then be my guest.



WTF are you talking about? There is not one bit of credible information in your post. You need to do some research before you open your mouth. Really do not know where to begin becuause everything you stated is a flat out WRONG!
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 12:32:07 PM EDT
Corbon,Hornady, Remington, & Black Hills are working on the 6.8 as we speak.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:11:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rjay:

Originally Posted By Paradude54:
You forgot the 6.2 and 7.9 lovers!



Whazzat ??

rj



Just a little humor. Since you brought up the 6.5 v. the 6.8 v. the 5.56 v. the 7.62 x 39 I thought that I'd throw something out there just for kicks.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top