6.8 mm opinions

Discussion in 'Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion' started by michiana, Aug 11, 2009.

  1. michiana

    michiana New Member

    45
    0
    0
    I have gotten a couple inquiries on 6.8mm and wonder what is the opinion of this group as to me stocking some lowers in 6.8mm? How popular is it with black gun folks? So far all my sales have been in 5.56 or 9mm.
     
  2. JiroZero713

    JiroZero713 Active Member

    1,071
    0
    36
    Good round from what I heard....and from what was explained to me the power of the AK round with the good things for 5.56 all in a smaller package....expensive round that since no one really uses it that much.

    I expect soon though that 6.8 or another round will survive the 5.56 as we need a harder hitting round.
     

  3. mrm14

    mrm14 Active Member

    2,705
    3
    38
    A brother of mine has one of these in 6.8 and we find it to be a considerably superior round than the 5.56 (.223). It has very similar ballistics to the 7.62X51 (.308 Win.) with the recoil similar to the 5.56. The ammunition, however, is quite pricey and difficult at times to get compaired to the 5.56. I've read that White Tail deer hunters find this 6.8 round very good for this game. I beleive that this round is still catching on and eventually will reduce in price as it becomes more popular. You might stock on your shelves the componets required to build one of these, but at first, I would keep the quanities of these componets to a minimum. See how they sell and increase or eliminate inventory as needed.

    I think they would sell.

    Theres a store here in Sacramento, Calif. called River City Guns which among other things sell the componets to build California legal AR's. I believe they sell the componets to build out in 6.8. If you dont feel that you might be in direct competion to them give them a call and see how their sales go for the 6.8 componets. Thats what I'd do. Call your supplier also they should be eager to help with this decision.

    Anyhow, thats my 2 cents worth.
     
  4. stalkingbear

    stalkingbear Active Member

    4,077
    4
    38
    I suspect you meant uppers instead of lowers as you posted. I think the 6.8 is a good round and SHOULD catch on. Dip your toe in the water before plunging in. I wouldn't mind a 6.8 flattop upper myself if the price is right.
     
  5. michiana

    michiana New Member

    45
    0
    0
    They are listed under lowers and uppers

    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
     
  6. canebrake

    canebrake New Member

    21,833
    2
    0
    I've heard little on the 6.8 but all was good.
     
  7. slowryde45

    slowryde45 New Member

    1,198
    0
    0
    from all the tests they've done on it, it will most likely be the round to replace the 5.56. it has almost the knock down of a 7.62 but with less weight to carry around, not much more recoil than the 5.56 and just a little larger than the 5.56 in size.

    all good things, considering carry weight, performance, and the fact that you really don't have to change much on a 5.56 platform other than pulling the pins and popping on a new upper assembly, inserting a 6.8 mag of ammunition, and off you go.

    price wise, you can pick up a complete 6.8 upper, w/ charging handle and bcg for less than $600 right now. the down side is...lack of ammo. most of what is being manufactured is seemingly feeding the 6.8's of the spec. forces in the sandbox right now. ;)

    but if you had done your homework a while back (like early last year maybe) you would have stocked up on some ammo and uppers when they were easily available.:p

    not to fret, they will be back
    slo
     
  8. hunter Joe

    hunter Joe New Member

    2,361
    1
    0
    I was considering building an AR in 6.8 for my granddaughter, although, the new .30 AR round is starting to get my attention. Check the ballistics on this 110 gr. round before committing to the 6.8. The .30 AR can be cycled through an AR lower with the 30 AR upper and magazine.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2009
  9. 753X0

    753X0 New Member

    219
    0
    0
    Are you referring to the 6.8 SPC, or the 6.5 Grendel?
    If your talking about the Grendel then I would suggest stocking them.
    Here's a link that tells you why.

    Comparing 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC
     
  10. AARguy

    AARguy New Member

    38
    0
    0
    6.8 is a military non-starter

    Lots of time and effort was spent evaluating 6.8 in the military. During the SCAR (Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle) competition, 6.8 looked good for awhile. As we know, when the contract award was made, 6.8 was rejected and a reconfigurable system was adopted that could be configured in 5.56 (light) or 7.62 (heavy). Similarly, the 6.8 was considered for the OICW program which started as the XM-29. Slowly, weight and space issues surrounding the grenade launcher broke the program into two parts. Eventually, the bullet launching XM8 died its own slow death and what the "Lethality Module" of the Future Force Warrior Program will be, still remains in doubt. One of the big reasons 6.8 was rejected was the cost of a whole new logistics train. Its one thing to stock up some 6.8 in your garage. Its quite another to develop, test, contract, stock, distribute, track, revise tactical manuals, establish basic loads, alter load bearing equipment, modify training and do all the other things required to adopt 6.8 in a 3.1 million active and reserve person military force. BOTTOM LINE: For now and the foreseeable future, 6.8 is dead in the military.

    And its not just the ammo itself that is at issue. SCAR is being fielded. M14 (and variants) are being issued again for unit level sniper capabilities. Again, buying a rifle chambered in 6.8 for your private collection is one thing. Replacing thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of weapons already in the military inventory is an entirely different thing. In these days of F-22 cuts, missile defense cuts, cuts in programs like Future Combat Systems and such, 6.8 is a dog that just ain't gonna hunt in the military.

    I worry about availability of non-standard (spell that not appearing in unit TO&E) ammunition. 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.
     
  11. slowryde45

    slowryde45 New Member

    1,198
    0
    0
    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
     
  12. canebrake

    canebrake New Member

    21,833
    2
    0
    You sound like an insider, care to expound?
     
  13. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    6.8 Lower?

    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.:rolleyes:
    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.:)
     
  14. AARguy

    AARguy New Member

    38
    0
    0
    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!
     
  15. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    900 Meter Performance

    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!
     
  16. AARguy

    AARguy New Member

    38
    0
    0
    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.
     
  17. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    No Contest

    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.