Finally, a 6.8 Remington Rifle?

[Big Paulie]

I don't know about you guys, but I am facinated with the concept of the new 6.8 mm Remington SPC, basically because it has the potential of solving all of my personal criticisms of the .243 Winchester for use on deer.  It will have the same energy, but with a 115 grain bullet and a much better balistic coefficient.

    At any rate, I was very interested to see that E. Arthur Brown Company is advertising on the internet that as part of their Re-Barrelling and accurizing services for the Ruger No. 1 Rifle, they are now offering new barrels in 6.8 Remington.  (Total price for installation of new blue barrel, and entire accuraizing package, is $399.)   I'll bet that the Ruger No. 1 in 6.8 would be a sweet shooting rifle.

   Now, if only Remington would make and distribute some ammunition?

Big Paulie

[PA-Joe]

What's wrong with the 260 or 7mm08?

[John Traveler]

That's just it, PA-Joe!

There's nothing at all wrong with the .260 or 7mm-08.

Some people simply have to have the what-is-newest-and-latest.

The Gunmaking companies marketing departments now dictate to the engineering departments what will and will not sell.  New calibers, new cases, new rifles, etc.

The only claim to fame that the 6.8 has is that it is proposed as the new Special Operations caliber conversion for the M16A2/M4 series weapons to get improved short range stopping power.  Whether it actually does this or not is in question.  The maker claims all sorts of magic metal alloys, etc.

I guess the real question becomes:  what can a .223-length cartridge based on the .30 Remington case necked down to .270 really do that existing cartridges can't?

We will have to wait and see!!

[Leftoverdj]

I guess the real question becomes:  what can a .223-length cartridge based on the .30 Remington case necked down to .270 really do that existing cartridges can't?

What it can do is to fit into baby Mausers and CZ 527s and still give .250 Savage level game killing ability. Most of the new cartridges of the last 20 years have been sheer silliness. This one ain't.

[ms]

I'll keep my money. :wink:

[Robert]

Call E.R. Shaw and ask them if they are doing it yet.  Great people and a lot less money.  Excellent workmanship too.

[Big Paulie]

Dear Guys,

    Nothing wrong in theory with the .260 Remington or the 7mm-08, but here are the real world reasons that they don't work for me.

      I do not hand load.  (A travesty, I know.  But I just hate it.)  The .260 Remington would be fine, and was my first choice based on beginning research for a light rifle, but as you will note from several other board topics, the .260 Remington appears to be heading downhill fast as a commercial failure, and most people predict that in 5 years, there will be little or no factory ammo made for it.  Again, I don't hand load.

        The 7mm-08 is a fantastic cartridge, but I already use and love my .308 Winchester as my do all rifle, and their isn't more than 5% difference in the performance or utility of these two cartridges.

        I predict that most of the new cartridges introduced in the past 4 years will be long gone in 5 to 10 years, expecially all of the SAUMS, RUMS, and the likes of the .243 WSSM.   However, I don't think this will be the case with the 6.8 mm Remington.  It was designed at the specific  request of the Special Forces of the U.S. Military.  It is already being used by the Special Forces in Iraq with rave reviews.  Even if it doesn't totally replace the 5.56mm, it will find a big place in future military and police rifles.  Given its presence and need as a military round, I simply do not believe that it "disappear" like the other fad cartridges.

        Another reason that I don't believe that it will disappear is that it actually makes sense.

  Just my thoughts.

Big Paulie

[John Traveler]

Dear Big Paulie,

As I understand it, the "need" for the 6.8 was proposed by the company that developed and tried to sell it to the military procurement people.  It's been used in combat in Iraq, but not by our Special Operations people.
.
It makes no sense to loose the logistic simplicity of small arms ammunition standardization to gain theoretical stopping power in the service rifle.

A couple of months ago, Army Times had an article on the proposed 6.8mm round testing in combat.  It was complete with several "I-wuz-there" combat anectdotes about failure to stop incidents of the M16A2/M4 5.56x45 NATO round.  It also the documented failure to stop of an Iraqi combatent that was struck in the hip with a 40mm HE grenade that blew his body in half and he STILL continued to return fire with his RPG.  Does this mean that the 40mm HE round has a lack of stopping power?

I've maintained before, and will state so again:  Knowing how the military weapons procurement system works, it is extremely unlikely that the proposed 6.8mm round and M16A2/M4 conversions will become even limited standard with Special Operations Forces.  The logistics nightmare of using non-interchangeable weapons and ammunition supply in combat makes this unlikely.

However, I will agree with you that most if not all of the new commercial cartridge developments in the last 4 years is going to quietly fade away when the newness and novelty of a cartridge settles down.  The big gun manufacturers constantly juggle manufacturing expenditures against profit and sales.  When the sales trickle to a stop, they stop making the guns and brass, period!  There already has been some question about the volume of sales needed to sustain production of the WSM, RUM, etc newbies.   A lot more shooters DON'T than DO reload their ammunition.  When the sales of factory guns and ammo falls off enough, the makers have little choice but to discontinue them.

[Big Paulie]

Well, time will tell about the fate of the 5.56mm as a combat round.  But, with all of the World War II type, long distance and building to building fire fights going on in Iraq, I think that the complaints and screaming from the guys on the ground that the 5.56mm is an inadequate and inferior round will eventually hold sway.  How long can Congress and the U.S.Army sit back and do nothing when current combat soldiers are telling them and the Press that the current round is a dismal performer and that they have no confidence in their rifles?  The round has been around for 40 years, and it has been a failure for 40 years, and it can't last much longer.

    I wouldn't worry too much about the costs. Scrapping all of the current ammo, and refitting every M-16 style rifle in service to accept the 6.8mm, would probably cost a lot less than a single long-range ICBM missile.  A single expenditure of  50 to 100 million dollars is small potatos to the military these days.    What was the price for a single stealth Bomber five years ago?  Wasn't it a half a billion dollars?   (I.e.  $500 million)

Best Regards,

Big Paulie

[dwl]

Hope this conversation isn't completely dead yet.  Read the postings with my Marine buddy sitting here and he started laughing.  He says he has plenty of tales of failure to stop but that wasn't the biggest bitch.  He says that the M16/M4 jammed with any amount of sand!

Standard practice was for Marines to grab available AKs for short range work and no problem with jamming.  M16s were reserved for longer 100+ yards ranges where their accuracy prevailed over the AKs.  

His personal preference, a 30-06.  "Kills deer", he says, but he doubts there will be any change.  It's not the cost of the contract, it's the confusion a change will cause...in the upper ranks.  

It's no problem changing the standard weapon.  Just tell the Marines to line up to turn in their old gun and ammunition and give them new guns and ammunition.   But he figures that the contract will get screwed up, the order won't be filled in time and it will be put on the wrong ship and sent to the wrong place.  So changing will be a cluster even if it's to a better cartridge/gun and fear of that will stop everything.

DWL and XM

[Big Paulie]

Hey,  thanks for the input from someone who knows.

   The conversion procedure to convert the current M-16 variant to fire the 6.8mm requires replacement of substantial parts of the upper receiver, barrel and handguards.  Maybe, just maybe, the  unit will be a little more reliable in the sand?  (But compared to the AK-47, nothing is reliable).

   I believe that the 6.8mm will take off with military and police because there is a true, honest to god need for a rifle round that is more powerful than the 5.56mm and less powerful than the 7.62 mm.  People can talk all day about how great the M-14 is, but the undisputed fact is that they are uncontrollable and overheat in full auto fire, they weigh too much, the ammo weighs too much, and the magazines are too bulky.   They are 50 year old technology.  True, they are reliable and hard hitting, but everything else goes against them.

     We had the same type of "gap" in police pistol rounds 15 years ago. The 9mm was a little too light and always suspect (with high-profile documented failures), and the .357s and .45s were just too much power and weight.  The .40 Smith and Wesson was invented to fill the gap, and after being adopted by the FBI  (who are not that great in number) it caught on like wild fire.  It is here to stay.

Just my thoughts.

Big Paulie

[PA-Joe]

If you want to change the basis firearm the cheapest and fastest thing to do is just issue everyone AK47s. You can't beat the price and they work in every condition from sand to snow. It will most likely become the NATO round in a few years while the 5.56 stays with the UN.

[lgm270]

The 6.8 Remington seems like another mis-begotten creation arising from the need to get the tired old 5.56 mm up off its knees and to provide US forces with a measure of the power and security that  existed 100 years ago when the 30-06 was adopted and which was lost when the 5.56 mm was adopted because it's lighter and easier to shoot than a real rifle.

It may have some value from a military and tactical law enforcement position, but as far as a sporting cartridge I can't see the point...unless you just have enough time on your hands that you can play with a new toy.

[Big Paulie]

Good points, but from my perspective, the new 6.8mm fills a real gap in dual-p8urpose hunting cartridges as well.  (Just my opinions)

     On varmints, the .243 is great.  On deer, the .243 is adequate, but unforgiving for small errors.  Its performance on deer, particularly larger deer, has often been described by gunwriters as erratic.  That 100 grain bullet just doesnt have what it takes to reliably break a shoulder bone or other large bone areas and keep going through to the vitals.  I know that you should always try for a lung shot with the .243, but most people are going to make a mistake and hit large bone at least 1 out of 5 times.  I have seen it done at least this often by regular users, and I did it once myself.  (I used a .243 as my primary deer rifle for 5 years.)  Also, that small hole does not leave much of a blood trail.

      So for those of us who like light, fast, hard hitting rounds, with minimum recoil and muzzle blast, there is a true need for something with just a bit more oomph than the .243, particularly if you do not hand load.  And, as I have said before, the large majority of hunters do not hand load and do not want to hand load.

  Right now, the only thing available in this area seems to be the .257 Roberts, or the .260 Reminton or the 25-06.

     I have shot two rifles in .257 Roberts and could never get decent accuracy out of them using factory ammo.   (Two to two and a half inch groups were the best they would do.)  The majority of gun articles I have studied on this topic, and board postings, plainly state that in factory ammo, accuracy is a big problem with the .257 Roberts.

    The .260 Remington seemed to have been a good solution to the issue, but then for some reason it started to fail as commercially viable cartridge.  Browning droppped it from the A-Bolt line this year, and Remington (who invented it) only offers it in its BDL rifle.  (Not even in ADL!)  Best I can tell, almost nowone else is still making rifles for it.  Most people responding to my posts on this subject agree that it is destined for oblivion, and there may not be factory ammo being made for it five years from now.  So if you don't hand load, why buy one?

   Of course, there is the good old 25-06, but this is a real big leap above the .243 in size, noise level, recoil, muzzle blast and power.  It doesnt fit that nitch of being just enough but not too much, particularly in the varmint department.  (Same for the .257 Weatherby.)

    The .250 Savage is still around, in some towns, but it is basically dead.  I may be wrong, but I don't think it has the power of the .243, and I don't think it comes in factory ammo in any heavier weight than a 100 grain bullet.

    So,  no we come to the new 6.8 mm Remington.  It has the same foot pounds of power as the .243, but delivers it with a 115 grain bullet, that has a much better ballistic coefficient than the .243, and all in a factory load.  So, you get a bullet that weighs 15% more, and has a greater frontal density, and a better bullet coefficient, than the .243.  I believe that this will fill the nitch nicely, and can still be used on relatively small varmints.   In short, it will be a better dual-purpose round than the .243 Winchester.

      So, I believe that there is not only a "gap" in the current military/police cartridges, but also a "gap" in the current dual purpose rifle cartridges.  The 6.8 Remington should fill them both very well.

    Just my opinions.  And I know, not everybody cares about recoil and rifle weight like I do.  But, if the 6.8 takes off as a military/police round, I think it will become a big success with hunters as well.

Best Regards,

Big Paulie