AR Sponsor
Posted: 3/28/2006 5:09:52 PM EDT
|
The new 6.8 seems to be all the rage with its increased capability over .223 But why develop a new cartridge when we have the .308 and 7.62x39 (AK)? The big advantage the 7.62 has is that it is readily available and lots of cheap plinking abounds. Wouldnt it make more sense to develop and 7.62 AR rather than a 6.8? I'm certainly not an expert on this and I'm not trying to pick a fight just looking for some knowledge. |
| for me, i think the best round is the 6.5 Grendel. The .308 is good for long range, but for short distances, like CQB, the .223/5.56 is better because it is more controllable. The .308 is also heavier and bigger, which means less ammo you can carry. The military should just switch from using the 62 grain to either the MK262 Mod 1 or the 5.56 75 Grain TAP as the primary ammunition. Just my 2 cents though. |
|
7.62x39mm and 7.62 NATO are both outdated and relatively inefficient compared to what can be designed now. Even in the Armalite design, the AR-10 came first in 7.62 NATO. But, the AR-10 is bigger and heavier than the AR-15 and fires bigger, heavier and harder-recoiling cartridge, and nothing is going to change that. These are the reasons why we moved away from the M14, so I don't see any point in going back there again. The idea behind 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel was to design the largest and most powerful cartridge that could fit into the existing AR-15 platform. 6.8 SPC is a rather old-fashioned looking cartridge: to me it looks like a 7.62 scaled down. Grendel goes for a longer, more slender bullet, which seems more in line with modern thoughts on cartridge design. I would like to see the 6.5 Grendel become a success. . . Unless somebody finally makes caseless ammo work. |
| Tony, while it is true that more efficient cartridges can be made than 7.62 NATO and 6.8 SPC, those cartridges are more suited to a competition environment than to war. The tapered case of the military cartridges aids extraction, and the dimensions are compatible with belt feed systems, whereas 6.5mm Grendel will probably not work well in belt fed weapons. |
-z |
|
"The big advantage the 7.62 has is that it is readily available and lots of cheap plinking abounds. Wouldnt it make more sense to develop and 7.62 AR rather than a 6.8?" Can you say, "AR10"? As stated above, the 7.62 NATO cartridge, is too long to fit in an AR15. |
AR Sponsor