Why do not even the reloaders on this board use the 6.8? It seems to close the performance gap between the 5.56 and the .308. I get that ammo availability is an issue for those of us who do not reload, and when available, it usually goes for around $1.00 a pop, but reloading should bring these costs down quite a bit. Why is nobody going for it?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Why no love for the 6.8 SPC?
- Thread starter frenchman
- Start date
If I get the cash to do a second build I will be doing 6.8...I really like what I've read about it.
Fixxah
NES Member
EC does. As do a few others. I plan on building one when I scrape together the cash. I have some brass already.
-Proud to be dad every day, a licensed plumber most days, and wish I was a shoemaker on others.
-Proud to be dad every day, a licensed plumber most days, and wish I was a shoemaker on others.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,632
- Likes
- 2,424
Google 6.8 spc problems and find: accuracy, availability, feeding, perceived need etc. Not that it isn't a fine cartridge but if I were going that route (more grunt from an AR) and I lived in a free state, the 300 blackout would be my choice with a suppressor. Most would opt for the 6.5 Grendel. One major problem is that there is no need for it in a bolt gun. I could ask the same question about the .17HM2. It is a great cartridge that is very accurate but never caught on. People wanted the .17HMR because it was a little faster. They didn't see the accuracy potential of the m2 with Eley ammo. If you like it, and you reload, I am sure that you will have no problems with it in the foreseeable future. It is kind of nice to have an odd ball caliber gun. That is why I like the .41 mag and 28 gauge (and the .17hm2 ![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
).
White Feather
).White Feather
Not sure why no love??, 6.8 uses same lower, magazines readily available. 300blk ammo is more expensive, looses its punch much quicker. From what ive read its a damn good cartridge.
http://demigodllc.com/articles/6.8-...ry-development-hornady-stag-arms-carbine/?p=1
good read!!
http://demigodllc.com/articles/6.8-...ry-development-hornady-stag-arms-carbine/?p=1
good read!!
My next AR-15 build is going to be a 6.8SPC using the Stag BCG and heavy barrel. My buddy just did 6.5 Grendel, and while I admit the 6.5 is probably superior in every way, the way it isn't is ammo availability. You can get 6.8SPC anywhere. 6.5 Grendel we are having to mail order and even then not a lot of options. He reloads so he doesn't care. I don't, so I'm going 6.8.
Hunter235
NES Member
I have a Stag Arms H7 Upper 6.8 SPC II and an Encore 6.8 SPC... Both shoot under 1", And both are terrific deer and coyote guns. Yes people do hunt deer with AR's... Just not in Mass. I reload so I don't have any problems with ammo availability, and it is cheaper. I just traded a 6.5 Grendel upper as it was just a duplication of what I like in the 6.8 SPC, and I don't have anywhere I would need the longer range ballistics... Both calibers are good!
Boris
Son of Kalashnikov
FIFY
it's a lot like money and women, for the same $10 54r will love you long time! (sucky sucky, you give!)
warwickben
bubba Kalashnikov
I agree with Boris with 54r... Cost of 54r why I don't own any 308 or 30-06 yet lol .
I use my AR in practical rifle matches and also practice for same. The cost of the ammo is obviously a major concern and 223 is the cheapest route. Some shooters are using the new "wildcats" with heavier bullets to make the USPSA major power factor to gain an advantage in scoring. The slightly higher value per hit (outside the "A" zone) comes with a price; the heavier bullets don't shoot as flat as the 3000 fps 223s, so elevation becomes a problem.
I find it much easier to stick with 223 because of the cost and ease of reloading. If I was a hunter I might go with the heavier and larger diameter bullet for obvious reasons, but for paper punching the 223 is more than adequate.
Perhaps Uncle Sam will intervene. The M16 in 223 has been in service for 40 years, far longer than any other service rifle and perhaps it is time for a change. The 223 round has been challenged as inadequate almost from its very inception, and these complaints have been answered by the development of the "wildcats" I have mentioned.
The design of the M16 has also been called into question. This design vents gas from the barrel into the bolt carrier group to operate it and then into the receiver. A major departure from the gas system of the M1, M1 carbine, and the M14 in which the gas operated a piston just aft of the muzzle and then exited the rifle. The M 16 gas system dumps hot gas and soot into the receiver which can gum it up and definitely heats up the receiver. The older M1 system vents the gas at the muzzle before it can do any damage.
This problem has also been addressed by gunsmiths working to improve the M16 and a piston system similar to the M1 is now on the market.
Another shortcoming of the M16 is the fact that the operating, or recoil spring is contained in a buffer tube in the stock. The makes it impossible to use a folding stock. A folding stock can reduce the length of the rifle to allow it to be used more easily in vehicles (very common in the "urban warfare" our troops have encountered in recent times) and also in special operations where rappelling, fast roping, and airborne ops require a more compact weapon.
The folding stock problem was addressed by Eugene Stoner (designer of the AR) in his subsequent design, the AR 18. This improved version of the AR 15 had the option of a folding stock because the operating spring was forward under the barrel. Unfortunately, by the time Stoner developed the AR 18, the M 16 had such a lock on the market that he couldn't sell any. The AR 18 is now just a collector's item.
The point of this long winded post is that all the pieces are in place for a "new and improved" battle rifle for our troops, after 40 long years. Most of the long standing complaints have been addressed by private industry, perhaps someone will put all of the parts together in the form of a new rifle in 6.5, 6.8 or ?.
I find it much easier to stick with 223 because of the cost and ease of reloading. If I was a hunter I might go with the heavier and larger diameter bullet for obvious reasons, but for paper punching the 223 is more than adequate.
Perhaps Uncle Sam will intervene. The M16 in 223 has been in service for 40 years, far longer than any other service rifle and perhaps it is time for a change. The 223 round has been challenged as inadequate almost from its very inception, and these complaints have been answered by the development of the "wildcats" I have mentioned.
The design of the M16 has also been called into question. This design vents gas from the barrel into the bolt carrier group to operate it and then into the receiver. A major departure from the gas system of the M1, M1 carbine, and the M14 in which the gas operated a piston just aft of the muzzle and then exited the rifle. The M 16 gas system dumps hot gas and soot into the receiver which can gum it up and definitely heats up the receiver. The older M1 system vents the gas at the muzzle before it can do any damage.
This problem has also been addressed by gunsmiths working to improve the M16 and a piston system similar to the M1 is now on the market.
Another shortcoming of the M16 is the fact that the operating, or recoil spring is contained in a buffer tube in the stock. The makes it impossible to use a folding stock. A folding stock can reduce the length of the rifle to allow it to be used more easily in vehicles (very common in the "urban warfare" our troops have encountered in recent times) and also in special operations where rappelling, fast roping, and airborne ops require a more compact weapon.
The folding stock problem was addressed by Eugene Stoner (designer of the AR) in his subsequent design, the AR 18. This improved version of the AR 15 had the option of a folding stock because the operating spring was forward under the barrel. Unfortunately, by the time Stoner developed the AR 18, the M 16 had such a lock on the market that he couldn't sell any. The AR 18 is now just a collector's item.
The point of this long winded post is that all the pieces are in place for a "new and improved" battle rifle for our troops, after 40 long years. Most of the long standing complaints have been addressed by private industry, perhaps someone will put all of the parts together in the form of a new rifle in 6.5, 6.8 or ?.
warwickben
bubba Kalashnikov
Guess you don't know about the semi autos or belt Feds lol .
Because it's a mall ninja/gun shop commando cartridge- something that was created to address a need that was more imaginary than real. It's not a BAD cartridge, it's just hard to justify. For semiautos, ammo cost is a huge issue, and reloading rifle cartridges in bulk is a pain in the ass unless you're set up for it. Even then due to brass supply and the like it's probably still cheaper to reload .308 than it is 6.8 SPC.
-Mike
Because the US doesn't have that stupid "no military cartridge" restriction for hunting, so 6.8 is just a novelty cartridge here.
I saw some test before in which the 6.8, 5.56 and 7.62 were all tested. I am at work and couldn't find it right away.
The issue they brought up is that the 5.56 doesn't really cause that much damage until the bullet starts to tumble and often times that tumbling doesn't start until the bullet has nearly passed through a body cavity. The wider and heavier rounds deliver more energy sooner and create their largest wound cavity sooner inside the target.
The issue they brought up is that the 5.56 doesn't really cause that much damage until the bullet starts to tumble and often times that tumbling doesn't start until the bullet has nearly passed through a body cavity. The wider and heavier rounds deliver more energy sooner and create their largest wound cavity sooner inside the target.
Depends on the bullet you use. Things like M855 at under 100 yards are terrible in that regard; on the other hand M193 is marginal but still better, and bullets like 69 or 77 gr SMK's (or for that matter, the OTM bullets that Hornady uses in its TAP ammo) are excellent and yaw pretty readily once they enter tissue.
-Mike
It works on pigs too.
If I want to shoot targets with an AR, I'll use a .223.
If I want to kill something with it, I'll take a 6.8 SPC every time over any other AR-15 caliber.
Last edited:
I didn't Google this. Instead I got my information from actually shooting it at stuff. I like ARs. I don't like when knuckleheads say that they're not good for hunting, so to make a point, I hunt with one whenever possible. For medium game, I think the .223 is a bit weak, so I built one in 6.8 SPC. Ammo availability is pretty good. I make my own, but I got most of my supply of brass from factory ammo.
It shoots MOA out to 200 yards, and it's been pretty much 100% reliable. I don't know what you mean by 'perceived need', but I needed one, so I built it.
I also have an AR in .300 BLK but it's a toy. The 6.8 is a serious hunting cartridge.
Mass-diver
NES Member
If ammo was actually affordable, I'm sure I'd own a 6.8 AR
5.56 is plenty for head shots on hogs. I dropped a 175lb sow in feb down in four oaks NC. I'm looking at the LWRC six8 for my new hog gun now.
EC, how's the 6.8 dropping power with a lower shoulder shot on the hog or have you just stuck with head shots?
I shoot behind the ear, but I know other guys that have dropped them quickly with hits behind the shoulder. Use a bullet like the Barnes TSX/TTSX and you'll be all set.
StevieP
NES Member
I assume you're talking about FMJ. Isn't the answer to this why they make hollow-point bullets that mushroom or petal, and dump their energy into the animal, rather than passing through (while tumbling)?
Well, OTM bullets are sort of hollow points, but that isn't what makes them better. In .223 / 5.56 there are JSPs and that kind of thing but by and large most bullets in that caliber cause more damage by becoming destabilized in the target.
Depending on who you talk to the whole "energy dump" thing is a myth. The only things that matter are penetration and permanent wound cavity.
-Mike
