Opinion of the 6.8 SPC

[kombi1976]

After a fairly heated argument on another forum I thought I'd sound this out with you guys.

[Zcarp2]

It is a better solution than the .223.  I think the limit is the platform.  The M-16 and all it's incarnations are the limiting factor.

How about another proven design?  AK-47 or the Galil?

The 6.8 will be better than the 5.56.  Depending on commercialization, it may make it as a sporting round - all the rest have.

[R.W.Dale]

This cartrige is already a complete failure in the civillian market You will likely never see any production rifles chambered for it. Now from a military standpoint the whole project was stillborn It amazes me that people actually think this is gonna be a new service round Especally when we are in the process of replacing our AR series of rifles with the M8.
  What you will see in the next few years is US snipers replace the 7.62x51 with 300 win mag.

[Rummer]

Ballistically speaking I think that the 6.8mm beats the 5.56 as a military cartridge hands-down.  The smaller sized rounds allow individual soldiers to carry a large number of them.

I don't know how it fares compared to M855/sa109 ammo in the armor penetration category, but I don't think that is a critical consideration.

The chances of this round being adopted are slightly higher now that the acquisition of the M8 has been suspended.  I read in the Army times recently that some other manufacturers thought that hq was being favored by the govt and protested, resulting in a halt to picking up a new rifle.

Ultimately I think that the services will stay with 5.56 though.  it is simply too big a logistical pain to switch over to a new rifle round.  Doing so would necessitate buying new SAW's or retrofitting our current ones.  We would also have to continue to stockpile 5.56 anyway as part of our commitment to NATO.

As a sporting cartridge I think it will appeal to guys who see the need to have something different.  It has, IMNSHO, very little practical value.  The reason that the 6.8 is in a small case is so soldiers can carry a high number of rounds of ammo per pound.  This is not a real consideration for any hunting that I can think of.

For most guys the term hunting rifle is synonymous with deer rifle.  There are any number of cartridges out there that will work better on deer sized game than this.  

Couple this with the fact that you have one bullet weight to work with (130's may have to be seated deeply to function thru an action, and even then will be run at lower velocities; 150's may be out of the question entirely) and the 6.8 is a real losing proposition.

This is without mention that the only source of brass will be remington.

If not adopted by the military it is a round without a purpose.

I certainly wouldn't want one.

Rummer

[Slamfire]

Don't hold a candle to the 6.5 Grendel, which could replace both the current NATO cartridges.  :roll:

[kombi1976]

Don't hold a candle to the 6.5 Grendel, which could replace both the current NATO cartridges.  :roll:

But won't.
Ultimately there are still bods in office in the Pentagon, which(lets not kid ourselves) really controls NATO, who believe 30 cal is the best and saw 5.56NATO as a bad move, which of course it has proven to be, but for different reasons.
And do we really believe that the US Govt would let NATO stop them doing something if they made up their mind to change?
It wouldn't be the first time they changed the rules to suit themselves.
NATO, in all honesty, is a way for the largest army in the Western world to impose their will on all the other member nations.
It has it's benefits, in some ways, but there's a huge control issue there.
Check out the fate of the experimental rimless Enfield cartridges some time.
And please, don't see this as an insult against the regular G.I..
Munitions and small arms have always been about policy and the whim of the committee members.
That and which arms company is buddy-buddy with them.

[Slamfire]

So true, the 6.5s best chance came during the trials for a Garand cartridge, but the only one who liked it was the Doctor who disected the hog and goat carcasses. The commission chose a 7mm, much like the earlier Enfield P14 cartridge. Doug MacArthrur, then Chief of Staff, counted the wharehouses full of .30-06 ammo and said, No chance, fellahs.  :-D

[Rummer]

Slamfire,  

Could you please tell me more about the 6.5 grendel, particularly what the parent case is, what the preferred bullet weight is and about how many rounds will fit into a magazine of similar dimensions to a 30 round ar-15 mag?

Kombi,

This is not intended as a flame just a statement of fact.

I am sure that the US exerts considerable control over NATO.  The fact is, due to a myriad of reasons, the US also pays for NATO.  While I am sure that you can point out instances (maybe quite a lot of them) where the Europeans got the short end of the stick (5.56mm cartridge), you would also have to recognize the fact that the Europeans never had any problem letting us provide an amazing amount of logistical capability over the last 50-odd years.

[Greybeard]

I vote none of the above. It's not actually a "military" cartridge in that the "military" officially had no involvement in it. Just a group of military guys working with Remington "on their own", not with government sanction developed it. I've heard nothing about it being adopted by the miltary nor do I think there is even any serious consideration of it at this time.

It's neither fish nor fowl. I see a short life for it.

[kombi1976]

Kombi,

This is not intended as a flame just a statement of fact.

I am sure that the US exerts considerable control over NATO.  The fact is, due to a myriad of reasons, the US also pays for NATO.  While I am sure that you can point out instances (maybe quite a lot of them) where the Europeans got the short end of the stick (5.56mm cartridge), you would also have to recognize the fact that the Europeans never had any problem letting us provide an amazing amount of logistical capability over the last 50-odd years.

No offence taken, Rummer.
NATO is an interesting if ultimately frustrating organisation.
Much like the United Nations.....although I won't be going there, thankyou very much.
And I'm sure the logistical capabilities provided by the US have much to do with the fact that they have bases dotted throughout Europe, and the rest of the world for that matter.
Funny thing is, in imposing their wishes on other member nations they've done themselves a disservice too.
7.62NATO and 5.56NATO are excellent examples.
Hence it hasn't just been a munitions problem for one country; it's been a problem for most of the Western world.
A case of putting all your eggs in one basket.
Slamfire, I'm not sure that all of MacArthur's anti-7mm sentiments were based upon the stockpiles of 30-06 ammo.
To be honest, there's no reason why the 30-06 couldn't have remained a machinegun round and the more suitable 7mm become the infantry round.
But that's just my opinion.
The allies won the war anyway so it's all a bit academic now.

[Ramrod]

Ultimately there are still bods in office in the Pentagon, which(lets not kid ourselves) really controls NATO...

NATO, in all honesty, is a way for the largest army in the Western world to impose their will on all the other member nations.
It has it's benefits, in some ways, but there's a huge control issue there.

kombi1976, I think you are dead wrong here. Why did the U.S. abandon the much more effective .45 ACP handgun round for the anemic (but Nato standard) 9mm, and drop Colt (American) as the supplier in favor of Beretta (Italian) for service sidearms? Sounds more like cooperation than control to me.

[kombi1976]

Why did the U.S. abandon the much more effective .45 ACP handgun round for the anemic (but Nato standard) 9mm, and drop Colt (American) as the supplier in favor of Beretta (Italian) for service sidearms? Sounds more like cooperation than control to me.

I'm unsure about the move away from .45 ACP, but I read in an article expounding the praises of the Colt 1911A(which is the sidearm I presume you mean) that the reason they changed to the Beretta was magazine capacity.
Since then other manufactures using the same platform design have increased the magazine capacity but if I remember rightly at the time the Beretta had a bigger capacity.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, keep in mind, that an issue facing all armies pretty much throughout the 20th Century was lowering the recoil of small arms so a soldier with relatively little training & experience could master the accurate use of it quickly.
Perhaps this is the reason why .45 SCP was ditched?

[Slamfire]

Slamfire,  

Could you please tell me more about the 6.5 grendel, particularly what the parent case is, what the preferred bullet weight is and about how many rounds will fit into a magazine of similar dimensions to a 30 round ar-15 magazine.

Sorry about the slow answer spent too much time trying to buy an economy truck. Here' a link to the makers FAQs:
http://www.65grendel.com/faq.htm

[missouri dave]

I've done some looking at the numbers on this cartridge and it really strikes me that someone was trying to duplicate the ballistics of the 7.62x39. The numbers aren't exactly the same but they do seem to be close. Can't figure why we would do that unless we're just to proud to come out and say the 7.62x39 is a better cartridge than the 5.56, which in my opinion it certainly is. As a former military man myself (10 years United States Army) I don't particularly like the ar or any of it's variants. I much prefer my arsenal arms ak. If only it was available in 6.5x55 swedish it might be the perfect fighting arm. Just my two cents.

[Rummer]

Ramrod wrote:
Why did the U.S. abandon the much more effective .45 ACP handgun round for the anemic (but Nato standard) 9mm, and drop Colt (American) as the supplier in favor of Beretta (Italian) for service sidearms? Sounds more like cooperation than control to me.

I'm unsure about the move away from .45 ACP, but I read in an article expounding the praises of the Colt 1911A(which is the sidearm I presume you mean) that the reason they changed to the Beretta was magazine capacity.
Since then other manufactures using the same platform design have increased the magazine capacity but if I remember rightly at the time the Beretta had a bigger capacity.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, keep in mind, that an issue facing all armies pretty much throughout the 20th Century was lowering the recoil of small arms so a soldier with relatively little training & experience could master the accurate use of it quickly.
Perhaps this is the reason why .45 SCP was ditched?

The 1911's we had in service (at least the ones I saw in 1995 in the Nat'l Guard) were old and worn out.  Those pistols needed to be replaced.

I read an article in the army times earlier this summer that said they are looking at going to a larger caliber sidearm.  They let soldiers at Ft Benning shoot off the shelf pistols in 9mm, .40 and .45 and the soldiers seemed to like the .45.  The article wasn't specific about which pistols were used; but it did point out that .45's weren't any less accurate than any of the other chamberings.

I imagine that in a pistol, where the ammo travels at a relatively low velocity and in the case of military ammo doesn't expand, the bigger chunk of lead is the better chunk of lead.

Rummer