6.8 mm opinions - Page 2
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion > 6.8 mm opinions

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-18-2009, 12:43 AM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,198
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

That may very well be the case, as far as a long term replacement. But currently, 6.8 spc is seeing quite a bit of use by spec ops in the sand box with some very good results. enough to keep Barrett busy for a while, trying to keep up with demand for not only their 6.8 AR's, but also replacement uppers, mags, and ammo.

So yes, the military may get nixed on trying to find funds to do a global replacement, but the 6.8 is still very much alive and well.

Comparing the two rounds listed above, they both have their place and function. I jumped on the bandwagon when they both came out, more so to see which one appealed to my one preference. The 6.5 Grendel (as well as the 6.5 Creedmore) show exceptional performance in long range shooting. The 6.8 SPC is more of a CQB round, with vastly improved terminal performance over a .223/5.56, whether for two-legged or 4-legged targets. The 6.8 is also a little easier on barrel life and ammo costs, which for most of us, lessens the dent on the pocket book.

But it all comes down to what your mission/requirements/personal tastes dictate.

Slo
slowryde45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 01:36 AM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
canebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 150 miles NE of Sloppy Joe's Bar
Posts: 21,941
Liked 1434 Times on 811 Posts
Likes Given: 1290

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AARguy View Post
Lots of time and effort was spent evaluating 6.8 in the military. During the SCAR .... I'll stock 5.56, 7.62 and 9mm. Oh, and since cops use a lot of 40 S&W, I'll include that too.
You sound like an insider, care to expound?
__________________
http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/v...brake02jpg.jpg

http://i1060.photobucket.com/albums/...ps18cfbeae.jpg

Get her dirty, then clean her so she starts to respect you. When her trust is complete, she will serve you well for a lifetime!

"...if doves shot back, there wouldn't be a need for a bag limit."
- orangello
canebrake is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2010, 09:00 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,165
Liked 5011 Times on 2430 Posts
Likes Given: 1601

Default 6.8 Lower?

Quote:
Originally Posted by michiana View Post
I have been considering trying some Stag Arms guns; up to now all I have bought were Rock River Arms. I was looking at their stripped and complete lower receivers and they list them in standard and 6.8 so they must just lable them for that round.

Dick
I don't think I'd bother stocking lowers becasue there marked as 6.8 SPC. Anyone buying a lower must know how to build an AR and if they can do that, I'm sure they know that the 6.8 was designed specifically to fit within the military's current M4 lower recievers by fitting into the same 5.56 mm magazine.
The round was developed in conjunction with Special Forces working in Afghanistan because the felt they needed more knock down power at greater ranges than they could get out of the 5.56. I carried an M16A2 as Army Infantry for 6 years and shot them accurately out to 900 meters at Ft. Bennings KD range but the newer m4's took 3.5 inches off the barrel length which you pay for in reduced muzzle velocity, hence, the heavier 6.8 mm round.
The performance reviews I've read on the 6.8 are encouraging and I think there's a strong possiblity of seeing US and NATO forces convert to it. Especially when you consider that it does not require replacing current platforms. The only thing you need to do is swap your barrel and bolt to 6.8 and your ready to go.
I'll be picking up a second complete upper for my Bushy M4 as soon as 6.8 availability goes up and cost comes down.
Tackleberry1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2010, 07:54 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 38
Default 6.8 et al

I agree that 6.8 is a better round than 5.56. It has better knock-down, better range, doesn't have a tumble problem and more. I'm still not into 6.8 at all. The military has evaluated it and the logisticians have won. It's not so much the actual acquisition costs that are bad, but the whole deal of setting up an entirely new logistics train just isn't worth it. Small armies often get better stuff for this reason. Look at how the Army spent decades settling for MILES while the Brits got a PRECISION system. Or look at the Dutch Apache support systems which are often so much better than our own. That's all easy to do in the Netherlands with their 69 Apaches. With our 750+ birds? Not so easy. The same principles apply with small arms. We often exacerbate this problem with things like the SAIC contract to track ammunition "from factory to foxhole". Amending this contract to accommodate 6.8 is just ANOTHER multi-million dollar expense. For now, the loggies have kept 6.8 out of the game.

SCAR is in LRIP now and, reconfigurable for either NATO 5.56 or NATO 7.62, so it answers both the "heavy" and "light" mail. If civilian things get as dicey as I think they will, 6.8 will be hard to find. 7.62x51 should remain as available as Soldiers and Marines. 6.8 is a no-go except for some SOCOM exceptions but, as we all know, if a few select Operators want candy striped frag grenades made out of paper mache and titanium, they'll get them. That doesn't mean that they will ever get into production in such volume that they will be commercially available everywhere at a reasonable price. The same goes for 6.8. (I'm also interested in that 900 meter M4 performance. The official "max effective range", defined as having a 50% chance of creating a casualty, is 660 meters for an M4 chambered in 5.56. The writer really needs to contact the guys in the building behind the "Follow Me" statue if he has found some magic to reliably improve this.)

SCAR is a done deal and, at 50,000 copies, should dominate the SOCOM pipeline for some time, Barrett, Knight and other active players notwithstanding. I'm not in uniform anymore and have only two customers to deal with now. The first is DoD and they seem to know what they want, although they are still analyzing "lessons learned" from the M29/M25/M8 fiasco and the ongoing animosity with H&K. They seem to have learned a lot already, though, based on their management of the new M4 contract (my money is on the new Remington Division in the competitiion... new design with the best of the old and serious innovation for the new requirements of hydraulic buffer, shot counter, etc.). The military also seems to have learned GOOD things from the XM104/XM116 sighting system experience, resulting in their own "smart sight" design. Kudos to Rock Island and their Armaments ARDEC at Picatinny Arsenal!

My other customer is... ME. Weight doesn't mean anything anymore... my LRRP days are long gone, so 7.62 is fine, although I keep a lighter/smaller Saiga 308 16" around just in case. I just want to be able to sit on the porch having fun shooting targets and protecting the homestead if, God forbid, that is ever required. That means a rifle that can drive nails at 1,000 meters and has great RAM (Reliability - works good, Availability - low down time, Maintainability - easy to fix)... spell that M1A, has readily available ammo (NATO standard 7.62x51), and is fun to shoot. When I compete its for fun, not money, so really close is good enough. Close is even better in defense since, as I remember, a "mobility kill" is good enough to cause the bad guy to "mission abort" as two of his buddies stop firing to drag him away.

Keep the dialog alive! This is fun!
AARguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2010, 02:49 AM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,165
Liked 5011 Times on 2430 Posts
Likes Given: 1601

Default 900 Meter Performance

Quote:
Originally Posted by AARguy View Post
I agree that 6.8 is a better round than 5.56. It has better knock-down, better range, doesn't have a tumble problem and more. I'm still not into 6.8 at all. The military has evaluated it and the logisticians have won. It's not so much the actual acquisition costs that are bad, but the whole deal of setting up an entirely new logistics train just isn't worth it. Small armies often get better stuff for this reason. Look at how the Army spent decades settling for MILES while the Brits got a PRECISION system. Or look at the Dutch Apache support systems which are often so much better than our own. That's all easy to do in the Netherlands with their 69 Apaches. With our 750+ birds? Not so easy. The same principles apply with small arms. We often exacerbate this problem with things like the SAIC contract to track ammunition "from factory to foxhole". Amending this contract to accommodate 6.8 is just ANOTHER multi-million dollar expense. For now, the loggies have kept 6.8 out of the game.

SCAR is in LRIP now and, reconfigurable for either NATO 5.56 or NATO 7.62, so it answers both the "heavy" and "light" mail. If civilian things get as dicey as I think they will, 6.8 will be hard to find. 7.62x51 should remain as available as Soldiers and Marines. 6.8 is a no-go except for some SOCOM exceptions but, as we all know, if a few select Operators want candy striped frag grenades made out of paper mache and titanium, they'll get them. That doesn't mean that they will ever get into production in such volume that they will be commercially available everywhere at a reasonable price. The same goes for 6.8. (I'm also interested in that 900 meter M4 performance. The official "max effective range", defined as having a 50% chance of creating a casualty, is 660 meters for an M4 chambered in 5.56. The writer really needs to contact the guys in the building behind the "Follow Me" statue if he has found some magic to reliably improve this.)

SCAR is a done deal and, at 50,000 copies, should dominate the SOCOM pipeline for some time, Barrett, Knight and other active players notwithstanding. I'm not in uniform anymore and have only two customers to deal with now. The first is DoD and they seem to know what they want, although they are still analyzing "lessons learned" from the M29/M25/M8 fiasco and the ongoing animosity with H&K. They seem to have learned a lot already, though, based on their management of the new M4 contract (my money is on the new Remington Division in the competitiion... new design with the best of the old and serious innovation for the new requirements of hydraulic buffer, shot counter, etc.). The military also seems to have learned GOOD things from the XM104/XM116 sighting system experience, resulting in their own "smart sight" design. Kudos to Rock Island and their Armaments ARDEC at Picatinny Arsenal!

My other customer is... ME. Weight doesn't mean anything anymore... my LRRP days are long gone, so 7.62 is fine, although I keep a lighter/smaller Saiga 308 16" around just in case. I just want to be able to sit on the porch having fun shooting targets and protecting the homestead if, God forbid, that is ever required. That means a rifle that can drive nails at 1,000 meters and has great RAM (Reliability - works good, Availability - low down time, Maintainability - easy to fix)... spell that M1A, has readily available ammo (NATO standard 7.62x51), and is fun to shoot. When I compete its for fun, not money, so really close is good enough. Close is even better in defense since, as I remember, a "mobility kill" is good enough to cause the bad guy to "mission abort" as two of his buddies stop firing to drag him away.

Keep the dialog alive! This is fun!
The 900 meeter KD range at Benning was shot by me and my entire trianing company, D/254 INF, in October of 1992 using, "as I stated" the M16A2, not the M4. We fired 10 rounds each at 700, 800, and 900 meeters at those big black circle targets, I believe they were 10" diameter. The training gave me a great deal more confidence in the elevation knob on the A2's rear sight as I was able to put 10/10 at 700, 10/10 at 800, and 9/10 at 900, in the black. I wen't on to serve 6 years, before being medically seperated due to fractured spine suffered while serving with A/1-506th PIR, Korea and susequent surgery performed at Ft. Lewis WA so do me a favor. Read more carefully before you imply that I've not stood before the "Follow Me" statue at Benning.
Oh...and good info on the SCAR!
Tackleberry1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2010, 03:56 AM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 38
Default Rifle Range

Hey... I'm not trying to win or even compete in any contest. It's just that my experience conflicts with your reports. The official Max Effective Range (50% probability of producing a casualty) for an M16 is 440 meters. For an M4, using the same 5.56 cartridge, the Max Effective Range is 660 meters (I've always wondered about that discrepancy myself). I went through Basic Training at Ft Knox in 1970 and never experienced any of the range performance you have. I Commanded a Basic Training Company (E Co, 2d Bn, 2d Tng Bde) at Ft Leonard Wood in the late 70's and never saw anything like it. I taught Marksmanship to the NEW Iraqi Army at KMTB (Kir Kush Military Training Base - Camp Caldwell, Iraq) in 2003-4 and never saw any such performance. I have worked on the Army Future Force Warrior program for many years and have never seen any data to even suggest such long range performance. MERS (the Marine Corps "Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad" equivalent of FFW) has never found anything like it either after years of experimentation, research, and investment..

As I said, if you can generate any hard data, I will be privileged to get it to the right places.

We're all on the same side, after all.
AARguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2010, 12:00 AM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,165
Liked 5011 Times on 2430 Posts
Likes Given: 1601

Default No Contest

Quote:
Originally Posted by AARguy View Post
Hey... I'm not trying to win or even compete in any contest. It's just that my experience conflicts with your reports. The official Max Effective Range (50% probability of producing a casualty) for an M16 is 440 meters. For an M4, using the same 5.56 cartridge, the Max Effective Range is 660 meters (I've always wondered about that discrepancy myself). I went through Basic Training at Ft Knox in 1970 and never experienced any of the range performance you have. I Commanded a Basic Training Company (E Co, 2d Bn, 2d Tng Bde) at Ft Leonard Wood in the late 70's and never saw anything like it. I taught Marksmanship to the NEW Iraqi Army at KMTB (Kir Kush Military Training Base - Camp Caldwell, Iraq) in 2003-4 and never saw any such performance. I have worked on the Army Future Force Warrior program for many years and have never seen any data to even suggest such long range performance. MERS (the Marine Corps "Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad" equivalent of FFW) has never found anything like it either after years of experimentation, research, and investment..

As I said, if you can generate any hard data, I will be privileged to get it to the right places.

We're all on the same side, after all.
Max Effective Range on the A2 is listed at 550 meters. I don't claim to be an expert in balistics and really don't know what kind of damage the M855 round will do beyond that range. Personally, I don't THINK it would do much damage beyond 400. With that said, I can tell you that a trained rifleman, firing prone supported can engage and hit targets at the ranges I've listed above using the 5.56 mm M855 ball round in the M16A2 system. Granted, there is a big difference between retaining enough energy to put holes in paper v/s dumping bad guys and I doubt either the A2 or M4 are suitable for these ranges which is why we're heaing so much about M14's being re-issued. Benning did not issue any documentation that I'm aware of way but may have records as Brass was presents and scores were being recorded. Again, it was Aug-Nov 92/D-2/54 training rotation, Ft. Benning GA.
Tackleberry1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Opinions Vandetta General Handgun Discussion 22 05-11-2012 02:46 AM
Opinions cactusjack Other Weapons 4 02-14-2011 01:06 AM
Need your opinions DonnyKC The Club House 16 06-23-2009 01:02 PM
Looking for a CCW .40 Opinions? Dbl-Tap Semi-Auto Handguns 31 02-26-2009 07:44 PM
Opinions about Rem. 700 SPS? Curt33 General Rifle Discussion 14 01-20-2009 12:34 AM