Magnumst
Ultimate Member
- Mar 26, 2013
- 1,253
I love mine. I built mine for my kids to hunt with, 18" wilson combat barrel is sub moa rifle with 115gr and lethal on deer. It is a dedicated rifle but as others have said it's another option.
Thoughts on 6.8 SPC?
- Thread starter Defense Rifle
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I love mine. I built mine for my kids to hunt with, 18" wilson combat barrel is sub moa rifle with 115gr and lethal on deer. It is a dedicated rifle but as others have said it's another option.
The trial has nothing to do with 6.8SPC. They are trialing a full power 6.8 round. Not an intermediate cartridge.
And odds are excellent the 5.56 still isn’t going anywhere. The 6.8SPC weighs too much and doesn’t add enough. That’s why it had languished for years since it was trialed. 6.5 Grendel at least has a couple countries that have adopted it and has better promise than 6.8SPC. And it won’t get adopted. Military wants something with better armor penetration. 6.8 is worse than 5.56.
6.8SPC isn’t really better than 5.56 77gr SMK or 77gr STMK for maximum range. 6.5 Grendel at least adds that and a 90gr steel core would have better penetration than a 90gr 6.8SPC.
So it makes little sense to adopt that. The 6.8 Fury is more inline with what the US Mil is looking at. 3000fps out of a 14.5” barrel and a 130gr bullet. From a mini action cartridge (at like 78,000psi. So throat and barrel erosion are going to be nasty).
Now there are other good reasons to go 6.8SPC, but king range performance or the military adopting it are not good reasons.
Samlab
Active Member
There all great....6.8 is terrific....but the .224 Valkyrie is in a world of its own......superbly flat shooting at 1k yrds all day long 1 in 7 or 1in 8....swoosh the ten in the ten ring....6.8 is one wicked at impact round...
Ballistics are superb....
Ballistics are superb....
photoracer
Competition Shooter
My 6.8 SPC II started out as a compete A2 upper from PSA, 20" barrel to which I added a Wilson Combat Accu-Tac FH. Very accurate even at long ranges. While I built it for DMR competition I have been too busy to shoot that discipline. Makes a fine LR varmint rifle for groundhogs at the farm. Now I did buy a kit to add an upper in 6.5 Grendel for it but have not finished it for the same reason. Looks like I will have the time to finish it and test in in the next couple of months. I talked a buddy of mine who could never get his 300BO to group well enough for deer into building a 6.8 SPC II upper for it and he can't stop talking about all the one shot kills he has made with it.
HSTD
Member
don't have one and have never fired one. Have thought about getting one, but the cost & availability of ammo concerns me.
Not sure if the military is looking at the 6.8 SPC as a replacement for the 556. I read where Sig has developed the 277 Sig Fury for a light machine gun contract that supposedly has the military's interest. If they buy the MG and round they would likely convert M4s to the same round. Until they let a contract it is all speculation.
I believe the .277 Fury is based on the .308 is it not?
You are correct sir. Sig, General Dynamics, and Textron all entered full house, .308ish sized, 6.8mm cartridges. All three submitted both a machine gun and an "assault rifle" for this round of downselects. Whoever wins the contract is providing a belt fed, an assault rifle (possibly a DMR, Army hasn't decided yet), magazines, ammo, etc. Similar to how they did the M17 competition.
Does this mean that they will get rid of 5.56? No idea, but it is a possibility. My guess is not completely, but the Army is far more serious about awarding a final contract for fielding the NGSW than they were for OICW. I just hope they let the Joes have a say when it comes to humping around extra weight, testing rifles for Joe-proofing, and recoil management.
I can't imagine them swapping the M4 for a AR10 sized platform even in 6.5. I can see a SAW or maybe a SDM though.
At best they might do that. You take a big hit in ammunition capacity and unless they’ve suddenly started making soldiers out of something else, the extra recoil is going to drastically reduce accuracy and rate of fire.
I think it would make a fine DMR and light/GP machine gun. But not a good infantry carbine.
Not sure the advantages of an intermediate rifle caliber have suddenly changed. Full power makes sense when you need to regularly engage at distances of >400yds, defeat light armor regularly or heavier body armor. But you still take hits on rate of fire, accuracy (because of flinching, for most regular infantry in my admittedly limited experience) and capacity.
I’d be mildly interested. But I suspect it’s the kind of round you might get 800-1200 rounds out of. It’s pretty extreme pressure and likely roasts the barrel. Pretty sure it is 3000fps out of a 14.5” barrel.
" Pretty sure it is 3000fps out of a 14.5” barrel" Wow! I see barrel erosion big time.
Boats
Broken Member
I have not shot the round, but didn't the Russians do a slow version of this in 1947? 
From what I have read, it sounds like a barrel burner of a round
From what I have read, it sounds like a barrel burner of a round
For sure. The original specification said it had to be be moving at 3400fps+, but they've since revised that down a bit. .277 Sig fury is running at 80,000 PSI.
Sig is saying that barrel life is better than expected. Maybe all the competitors are using stellite instead of chrome lining haha.
Heck yeah man. Hopefully some interesting metallurgy advances are made as a result of this competition.Back in the day Stellite worked for valves.
- May 5, 2010
- 6,588
Yeah at least 6.5 Grendel is a viable long range cartridge AND works in a AR15 platform. If I didn't already have too many calibers, I would probably switch to 6.5 grendel over 5.56.
Yeah I thought they were only looking at trying a 6.8 for a SAW type weapon?
I posted about it already, but to recap: the Army has been deliberately vague regarding the ultimate purpose of the competition. All competitors were required to submit an assault rifle and a belt fed in a 6.8mm caliber specced at around 3000fps from a 14.5"-16" barrel. Both firearms must be suppressed. The ammo, rifle, and belt fed all have relatively strict weight limits for performance and peripheral requirements. So Sig, General Dynamics, and Textron all built 2 firearms each, all developed a 6.8mm cartridge that is common to both of their entries, all developed suppressors, etc etc etc.
Is the assault rifle a replacement for the 249 SAW and the belt fed a replacement for the 240B? Could be. It could also be an end run around the procurement process like the Marine Corps just did with the M27 becoming the new infantry battle rifle. It could be a replacement for literally every small arms system in the Army's arsenal. Or the Army will change its mind/get cold feet and do nothing, as it often does. There is pretty much always some form of competition like this going on: SALVO, SPIEW, OICW, NGSW, etc etc etc. Been that way since the end of WWII at least. Not many of them result in adoption of new firearms, but they often get the industry moving in a direction that DoD is wanting development effort in.
To understand why this is happening you need to do some reading on OVERMATCH Doctrine.
Alphawaves
Member
I love my 6.8 SPC rifle. It hits hard. The ballistics are great. Its very accurate.
