Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 6/5/2008 12:14:45 AM EST
Have any of you seen a 6.8upper/barrel in a varminter configuration?
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 5:47:09 AM EST
Well, the 6.8 was designed for close range combat from the short barrels the soldiers were using from helicopters. It was not thought of as a long range tack driver. I'm sure you could have one built however. For a bull barreled gun, I would think the 6.5 Grendel would be better suited. Just my 2 cents.
Good shootin!
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 7:48:54 AM EST
It aggravates me when folks talk about the 6.8 such as here being designed as a short range cartridge. I doubt it. Maybe the rifle for the military was, but the cartridge sure as hell wasn't. I think of short ranges cartridges as pistol rounds or even the 30 carbine. Many make it sound that if you stuff the 6.8 in a longer barrel that the bullet, when fired, is going to come skidding to a stop on the ground in about 150 yards. Does anyone think of the 270 Win as a short range cartridge? No...and don't give me "well it has lots more powder". 270 is a very ballistic efficient caliber for bullets. I don't know how many of you know of the old 276 Pedersen. It was a round developed by Pedersen for the military and they chose to stick with the 30-06. It is based on a case almost the exact size of a 6.5x54 MS and you should see the performance of that little bugger with today's modern powders. It kicks on the 270 Win's heels.

Yes the 6.8 is capable of some long range shooting. Don't let the keyboard shooters prevent you from building or having what you want. It's just like the 30 round magazines and chrome lined bores....everyone has to have them because the military does...even tho many shooters here have absolutely no use for the features. Ditto the muzzle breaks and bayonet lugs. I'm not speaking of the Class III owner....those demand military features especially high magazine capacity.
Top Top