|
The theory behind the 6.8mm Remington SPC
I hear this cartridge mentioned on occasion. I was looking at the Hornady loads for this cartridge and I don't understand what it's for. It doesn't have great or even good numbers. It's not fast, it doesn't have much in the way of energy and it doesn't shoot flat.
I guess I'm just wondering why they made such a big deal out of developing it. It seems pretty useless to me. Anyone know anything about it? |
RE: The theory behind the 6.8mm Remington SPC
This cartridge was designed by the military and it's purpose was to give the M16 platform more stopping power than the 5.56 Nato. From what I gather, it's a simple conversion into a M16 and it's variants, has comparable ballistics and lethalityto the 308 Win/7.62 Nato with good accuracy. Only time will tell if it will be accepted by the US armed forces, I am sure it has alot of red tape to get through.
When you look at the 308 Win and the 45ACP they dont offer stellar performance but are accepted by most. |
RE: The theory behind the 6.8mm Remington SPC
ORIGINAL: doubleA This cartridge was designed by the military and it's purpose was to give the M16 platform more stopping power than the 5.56 Nato. From what I gather, it's a simple conversion into a M16 and it's variants, has comparable ballistics and lethalityto the 308 Win/7.62 Nato with good accuracy. Only time will tell if it will be accepted by the US armed forces, I am sure it has alot of red tape to get through. When you look at the 308 Win and the 45ACP they dont offer stellar performance but are accepted by most. |
RE: The theory behind the 6.8mm Remington SPC
ORIGINAL: doubleA This cartridge was designed by the military and it's purpose was to give the M16 platform more stopping power than the 5.56 Nato. From what I gather, it's a simple conversion into a M16 and it's variants, has comparable ballistics and lethalityto the 308 Win/7.62 Nato with good accuracy. When you look at the 308 Win and the 45ACP they dont offer stellar performance but are accepted by most. Also, the .308 is one of the absolute best rifle cartridges ever made. It's a fantastic performer. Wow. |
RE: The theory behind the 6.8mm Remington SPC
It was designed to add more stopping power to the M16. The guidelines where for it to be a simple conversion in the M16, Ie barrel swap. That being said it had to use the same bolt. the 5.56 Nato has a .378" case head, so the new round must as well. So what you have is a 223 necked up to accept a 270 cal bullet. I think that a 6.5 (.264) would have been better suited. It may be an inferior round in you eyes, and if we're talking hunting I would pick a lot of cartridges ahead of it as well. In a firefight if I had to choose between the 5.56 nato and the 6.8 SPC I would take the 6.8 hands down. But, I would probably be searching for a M14 shooting 7.62 Nato, also known as the 308, which is a far better round.
|
[Deleted]
[Deleted by Admins]
|
RE: The theory behind the 6.8mm Remington SPC
The 6.8 SPC has a .423 bolt face - or about 1/2 way between a .223 and a .308. So the AR-15/M-16 swap entails a new bolt as well as a new barrel. I have built four of these so far - three were AR-15's and one involved reworking a Ruger 77 in .223.
The whole issue, as I understand it, is that our military is currently using the 62 gr. NATO round in battle; and this round is not a very good stopper. Great tactical penetrator, though. If our troops were using Hornady TAP ammo (loaded with Hornady V-Max bullets), which is a very common round in civilianlaw enforcement these days, we wouldn't even be considering the 6.8 SPC. Even the cheap Federal American Eagle 55 gr. FMJ .223 is a pretty good fight stopper - and would, as I understand it, be Geneva Convention legal to use in warfare. The rounds we carried when I was in the military 35 years ago were 55 gr. FMJ's coming out of a 1:14 twist barrel. Marginally stable, these bullets would start tumbling upon impact and create an impressive wound channel. If the first M-16's used in the Vietnam conflict utilized the current 62 gr. NATO round, I would expect our troops would have almost immediatley rejected it and gone back to the M-14. |
RE: The theory behind the 6.8mm Remington SPC
Geneva Convention states we cannot use an expandable bullet. So what makes the 6.8 better/more deadly?
It certainly doesn't have much in teh way of power/energy. |
RE: The theory behind the 6.8mm Remington SPC
ORIGINAL: BrutalAttack Geneva Convention states we cannot use an expandable bullet. So what makes the 6.8 better/more deadly? It certainly doesn't have much in teh way of power/energy. from the muzzle to 1000 yards the 6.8 spc has roughly twice the kinetic energy of the 5.56mm. Power and energy wise the 6.8 spc is very comparable to a 250 savage which is known as a really good deer cartridge. the 6.8 spc would be a heck of step up going from a varmint caliber to something that would easily be a good deer caliber. |
RE: The theory behind the 6.8mm Remington SPC
Energy is a great number for the side of ammo boxes and it allows me to compare how a cartridge relative to others will whack ya on both ends, but it's not really the whole story. I think the 6.8 SPC came from someone getting real about combat. First, solders need something for 0 - 300 yards. With most shots being 0 - 50 yards. Now compare the balistics in these ranges. Not so bad, eh? Now why the 6.8. . . .because killing is related to energy expended. 223 tends to explode when it hits bone or just put little holes in you. The 6.5mm bullets and larger, especially when driven slower will expand and not blow up. This makes for a bigger hole in and out. Now with FMJ, not sure how well they can make that work, but it still makes a bigger hole than a 223.
A 30-223Rem might also be great, but then, what do I know![:@] Dang it, the Russians already made the 7.62 x 39. Can't copy that. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:00 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.