PDA

View Full Version : State of the 6.8



AR Performance
17 July 2009, 12:58
This was posted by HTR over on another forum, just thought I'd repost it here to see what you guys think. He ask us to spread it around.

"This might be a good time to do a "review of the state of the 6.8." What is my purpose? Well, there have been many changes since the first 6.8 Performance test I helped host at Wild River Ranch. I think it would be wise to help update those who have bought 6.8's and those still trying to sort out all the nuances of the newer specs like chamber, leade, and twist rates. At this point, I cannot state clearly enough that history is repeating itself.

Does everyone remember the .223 Remington, and how it later became the 5.56mm NATO? That is almost exactly what is happening with the 6.8 Remington SPC, which I now consider to be defunct. ( I define this as the market not wanting this any more, since there is a much better alternative available) What do I mean by this? I say "almost" because the 5.56 mm NATO was born out of a desire to increase velocity and the pressures necessary to produce them, when the US military adopted the .223 Remington, and then transformed it for military use. Given the longer leade of the 5.56 NATO chamber, the 5.56 mm cartridge could generate higher pressure and velocity. However, when firing this same cartridge in the slightly more snug .223 Rem chamber, pressure spikes could occur which would lead to parts failure or worse.

This is why it is generally not recommended that you fire 5.56mm NATO cartridges in .223 Remington Chambers.

And now, short of the US military adopting the 6.8 mm Rem SPC, history is repeating itself... Sort of... 2009 is very different from the 1950's and 1960's. The primary difference is that there is a huge and still-growing civilian market for AR-15 rifles, despite the near-50 year old design. Hey, the B-52 is still one of our workhorses isn't it? But, I digress....there is an ever growing demand for the rifle to produce more power, in terms of both combat effectiveness and for killing game, since so many hunters have begun using this rifle, as well. The big problem is that we have a magazine well, and mag that holds 2.30" of cartridge and that's all you get. Remember the Kohler commercial , where the lady asks the architect to "design a house around this..." and she shows him the kitchen faucet? There you have it!

In comes the 6.8 X 43 mm SPC. For now, this is what we will call the "new" cartridge. Its new chambers are currently known as "6.8 SPC II" (analogous to the 5.56 NATO) and the "6.8 DMR." (analogous to the .223 Wylde match chamber). You all know now that the original design (by Murray and Holland) was not what Remington released to the public, and it never met their claims of firing a 115 grain bullet at 2800 FPS from a 24" barrel. In fact, that misrepresentation almost, in itself, killed the whole idea. Shooters were rightly disappointed when what we got was really 110 grain bullets going around 2550 FPS.....YAWN. You should know that rifles chambered with SAAMI chamber and 1 in 10" twist could not consistently produce such a velocity with this bullet. The pressures are too high.

Then an amazing thing happened. Enterprising individuals like the proprietors of Ko-Tonics, Silver State Armory, AR Performance, Titan Armory, and others went "back to the drawing board," to create the genesis of what we have today. I like to call it the 6.8 X 43mm SPC. I hope someday we'll call it the "6.8 X 43 mm SPC NATO," but that is another story for another day. I don't think any of you can dispute that it is a clear evolution of the design, and superior to the Remington effort.

In fact, today's 6.8 X 43 mm SPC is NOT the 6.8 Remington SPC. There, I said it. Dimensionally the case is exactly the same. ONLY the chamber is different, because the first one to shoot the cartridge could not do so safely, when Remington tried to reach its velocity claim. The only "difference" one can argue is present in the "new" 6.8 X43mm SPC, is that the longer leade allows the COAL to be safely extended to 2.30". Remember that number from above?? Now, we can extend the OAL to full mag length, wringing out all the powder capacity this case can offer. The extra leade allows more powder capacity , thus more velocity at less pressure, and if we are lucky and the barrel designers are also smart enough to use thin lands, and 3, 4 or 5R, perhaps poly grooves, the pressure is even further ameliorated, and we now see velocities like the Barnes 85 grain TSX going 3100 FPS from a 16" barrel! Even better yet, the DMR chamber, designed by AR Performance, gives us Match accuracy in the 6.8. Just see my targets below and see what I mean. You can have this, too:








THE FIRST TWO USED A COAL OF 2.30" ( not the SSA factory, which I believe is loaded to 2.26." It must accommodate the SAAMI chamber )

As we have now shown you many times, some pretty astounding velocities are possible, with this cartridge, IF the barrel specs, chamber, rifling dimensions, and twist all come together for the ultimate low-pressure environment. It is very easy for a manufacturer to select 3, 4 or 5r rifling rather than 6 groove, 1 in 10" twist with larger lands:





(Source: 6.8 Performance test and pressure trace test, executed at Wild River Ranch, February, 2008. This was a GS custom 80 grain all-copper, Moly coated, banded bullet, fired from a max test load. Average vel. for this string was lower....3360 FPS)


Now, we can take full advantage of the parent .30 Rem case's exceptionally high efficiency, and with the .277 bullets we now have on the market, we have a completely new level of performance, with higher powder charge safely driving a longer bullet with a better BC. Can there be any argument that this is a major improvement?

So, for all of you that still believe it is a "wildcat," PLEASE do some homework. The following list will now include all the manufacturers that agree with us, that the 6.8 X 43 mm SPC is not only NOT a wildcat, but that a SPC II or DMR chambered rifle is is the SAFER of the two rifles, versus the SAAMI - approved design. If you reference the 6.8 performance test and report we posted in March of 2009, you will see that SAAMI chambers produced anywhere from 2 - 8,000 PSI more pressure for a given cartridge fired in two different barrels, when compared against one that had SPCII or DMR.

The old specs were in error, and it is now clearly established that, just as with .223 and 5.56, the longer leade chamber (and Match DMR ) are the ones appropriate for the "military pressure" 6.8 SPC cartridge. We do not know what to call the SAAMI approved- 6.8 REMINGTON SPC chamber, because it is essentially dead, as it was too short to allow for anything other than the REMINGTON load, which too, for all practical purposes, died a few years ago. We absolutely cannot explain why SAAMI continues to back the chamber which is exactly analogous to firing a 5.56 round in a .223 chamber for the 6.8 SPC. This is not something that ANY of you, as AR shooters, should have any difficulty understanding.

We also believe that SAAMI should recognize the SPC II and DMR chambers, since almost all manufacturers are now making 6.8 rifles with those chambers anyway. We believe that SAAMI should issue a recommendation to manufacturers to recall all SAAMI chambered rifles so that they may very simply be reamed to the .100 freebore dimensions of the SPC II chamber. Owners may opt to personally ream their own chambers or have local 'smiths do it. We believe that getting these barrels out of circulation will allow the final evolution of the cartridge to take place.....once and for all.

These Manufacturers now offer the proper, updated specs for 6.8 SPC. Their leade / chamber can shoot the new 6.8 X 43mm SPC which is analogous to the 5.56 NATO cartridge. Many of them have opted for slower twist rates, like 1 in 11" or 1 in 12" which we endorse, though we still see some 1 in 10" twist rifles that can handle very high velocity 6.8 X 43mm loads. Choose your twist based upon bullet length, density and weight.


AR Performance

Armalite

Barrett

Bison Armory

Bushmaster (Edit June 25, 2009.... I just received word that they have decided to go with 1:11 twist, 4 grooves and SPCII chamber....Bravo! )

Charles Daly Defense ?

CMMG

DPMS (as of 6/30/09, I confirmed that all chambers going forward will be SPC II, bravo DPMS ! )

JTAC Supply (offers Shilen and WOA barrels)

LWRC

LOTHAR WALTHER (Making all three chambers.....However, still providing the SAAMI chamber to some OEM's and I for one, wish they would recommend against it, or stop offering it altogether, as this perpetuates our problem.)

Noveske

MSTN (my understanding is that they use premium Douglas blanks and the SPC II chamber, but I need confirmation from them)

Patriot Ordnance Factory

Robinson Arms

Rock River Arms

Stag

Titan Armory

White Oak Armament


Those companies below, unfortunately, inexplicably, still do not make a 6.8 SPC II or DMR chamber. This makes their rifles potentially unsafe to fire the 6.8 X 43 mm SPC (like the 5.56) since it has something like a .223 chamber. Some even have selected twist rates as fast as 1 in 9.5 " which is suitable for .270 Winchester bullets of weights in the 130-160 grain range, and are generally not loaded in any 6.8 SPC ! We suggest that, given reasons of clarity and general safety, that you buy from the first group. If you reload or buy any factory ammo, you would not have to worry about whether your gun can shoot "military, combat, or tactical" pressure loads. You can buy anything currently loaded without having to think twice about that. If you buy one of these barrels, you will have to constantly work to find downloaded, lower velocity ammo that is on a par with the now-defunct Remington designed 6.8 SPC loads from 2003 - 2006.



Lewis Machine & Tool

Model 1 Sales

Ruger (Mini )

Remington ( only makes a bolt gun)


Note: in no way do I want to imply that the second list of manufacturers produces sub-standard quality guns or barrels. In fact, I own LMT, Ruger, Remington and Bushmaster products and I find them to be high quality. I just don't own anything in 6.8 made by them, and I won't until they make the updated spec barrels. The fact that they are still making SAAMI chambered guns makes it difficult for ammo manufacturers to produce 6.8 X 43 mm SPC ammo which can achieve the cartridge's full potential. That is the reason why we recommend that you buy from those using the updated specs. When all of the guns produced will fire 6.8 X 43 mm SPC, ammo MFR's will be free of the liability that might also come from, say, producing hot 5.56 ammo, in a market full of .223 chambered guns. It is just that simple. "

Army Chief
21 July 2009, 03:50
Harrison,

To begin with, I'm slightly amazed that folks didn't jump on this post sooner, but admittedly is it a lot to digest; what's more, after reading it, I was amazed by just how little I actually new. Like most of us, I have an interest in the 6.8 which is sure to eventually result in at least a partial migration to the new caliber. The lack of affordable (whatever that can be construed to mean, according to the modern definition) practice loadings has tempered my enthusiasm slightly, but I'm beginning to see that the real momentum in the 6.8 world is less about cheap fodder and more about standardizing the SPC II/DMR specs that really unlock the potential of the cartridge.

If we're suddenly looking at some of Remington's broken promises being fulfilled (albeit not by them) by the emergence of the full-on 6.8x43mm, then perhaps it is time to take another look. At the very least, it strikes me as excellent advice for any would-be 6.8 owner to insist on a SPC II/DMR chamber. I can say with some certainty that I will make my own purchase decisions with this at the top of my list.

AC

rob_s
21 July 2009, 05:21
AC, the potential with the correct chamber and Noveske's move to same is what has me getting into 6.8.

We shall see what the future holds. I have an interest in the potential of the new specs, but some of the better manstopping loads per DocGKR will work in the "bad" chamber and twist as well.

One thing that begins to concern me with the 6.8 is that the charge seems to be led by those with more interest in hunting than the LE/mil/defense side, and I wonder if there aren't divergences in those paths.

Army Chief
21 July 2009, 07:52
Rob,

Agree with your logic on the potential divergence. We're already at a point where a compelling case could be made for adopting the 6.8x43mm for professional applications, but neither LE nor the military seems poised to assume the mantle of leadership, leaving the hunting cohort as the most audible voice for what is fast becoming a 10mm Auto-like story.

The ballistics advantage alone should be generating more interest from the LE side, though the training and adoption costs may leave many administrators unwilling to fix something (5.56mm) that isn't altogether broken. Military adoption would alter the entire equation with the stroke of a pen, but that seems unlikely in the near term, given what we know about defense acquisition processes and decisions involving long logistics tails.

Where does that leave us? I'm sure that I don't know. This will be an interesting one to watch.

AC

Stickman
21 July 2009, 09:24
I can't believe I missed this thread..... [BD]

tac40
21 July 2009, 09:41
good read, I've been following this since talking with Doc Roberts back in 2005. I finally made a purchase of a 6.8mm upper.

According to this Remington ad, they are making the ACR in a 6.8mm. So I can only hope they will build it with the established specs.

http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/acr.htm

http://gannett.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/gannett-militarypubs-21772-pub01-live/current/launch.html?maven_playerId=militaryhomepageplayer&maven_referralObject=1136541231

Army Chief
21 July 2009, 10:26
If by chance the Remington ACR 6.8 version does not conform to the new specs, that begs the question: might we eventually see some kind of reamer option (not unlike we've seen for .223 v. 5.56), or does the newer configuration not really lend itself to this?

AC

tac40
21 July 2009, 10:53
another question is, what is it now?

rob_s
21 July 2009, 12:01
There's already a reamer that Ned has made. The 68forum members pass one around, but get in line.

The secondary issue with the specs is twist, about which nothing can be done.

AC you bring up a good point re: LE, and as one respected LEO put it to me they JUST got 5.56 ARs approved in a lot of departments. The chances of now going back to the powers that be and get a new caliber because the old one already "isn't good enough" are pretty slim.

Good analogy on the 10mm thing. Let's hope we never get a 40 S&W version of the 6.8.

AR Performance
21 July 2009, 21:40
Rob,
I started pushing the 6.8 4 years ago to show the mil it is better than the first test results. It did hit 200fps more than the 7.62x39 which was one of the major goals of the team( Holland, Murray Lawton) but a 115 SMK at 2400fps is not that impressive. 2700 fps out of a 16" barrel now that's impressive. The 6.8 as it performs now with AP projectiles can defeat all current armor at apx 100 yds, all from a 16" barrel. We wanted to show the mil and everyone else this round is better than the 5.56 in combat and they need to take another look at it.

The 5.56 M193, M855 and Mk262 ammo runs at 58000 psi, it seems to run just fine in combat so why wouldn't the 6.8?
If the mil does decide it needs to run at 52-54K and they will be the ones that decide, they can use the better specs that lower pressure then increase the powder charge to bring it back up to the max safe operating pressure and get better terminal performance than the bad spec barrels.

Cold
22 July 2009, 12:01
A 6.8 reamer is being passed around thanks to Ned Christensen.

http://68forums.com/forums/index.php

Paulo_Santos
22 July 2009, 16:58
I personally love this round and I think that it has a ton of potential, but it isn't perfect. The lack of affordable ammo is annouing, just as the lack of good BTHP bullets.

The whole chamber issue has really set this caliber back a couple of years. I'm happy that most manufacturers are starting to catch on and it is pretty evident by the amount of manufacturers who have changed their specs.

I have learned a lot in the last year or so about trying to defend the SPC as sometimes emotions do get in the way and sometimes that can do more harm than good. But at the same time I wonder why people who have no clue what they are talking about, yet think they do.
The one thing that I've been reading on a couple of boards lately is the claims that the 68 fans are "wildcatting" or "hotrodding" this round. Now think about it for a second. For the longest time, most weapon, powder, and ammo manufacturers were all using the old 1:10"/6-Groove/SAAMI specs for the ammo and reloading guides. Now the specs have changed on the barrels, but the reloading info hasn't. So now some of the guys are pushing the SPC to the limit to see exactly what it can do, yet they are being criticized for it. Why? Haven't guys been pushing the 556 and 308 to the limit for years? So why is it the the SPC guys are wildcatting or hotrodding when everyone else is and has been doing the same for years? Does it mean that the Mitary also hotrodded the 556 with the M193, M855, and MK262? All that these guys, including myself, are doing is seeing exactly what the max potential is and we share it in an open Forum

And as far as the factory ammo goes, there is no more SSA Combat ammo, mainly because of liability issues with so many different barrels out there. So SSA is basically going a different route to produce fast, quality ammo that is safe in every barrel out there. Hopefully that will help clear up a lot of confusion.

rob_s
23 July 2009, 03:30
"wildcatting" is yet another term that I'm unclear on how it became an insult. Frankly I didn't even know it was a verb. I thought it was an adjective used to describe a caliber or cartridge without widespread acceptance and that required hand-loading to see it's full potential because factory loads were virtually unavailable or considered anemic.

My 6.8 learning experience has been an interesting one. I would have to say that this is the first time that the excitement and response of some of the advocates of a caliber or accessory in the firearms world has actually made me less interested than I was when I started. The more I learn about it the more I pause to wonder what it is that it's going to do for me, and some of the advocates have even been nice enough to point out (often in response to questions I've asked trying to learn more) that it probably ISN'T for me. Interesting way to build a fanbase... At the very least I am starting to wonder if I shouldn't be doing this 6.8 thing on the cheap rather than in premium form.

Army Chief
23 July 2009, 06:22
Let's take the affordability question off of the table for a moment (even though it will remain the elephant in the room): are we saying that there simply are no viable commercial loadings which take advantage of these optimized 6.8x43mm specifications? I've no near-term intent to roll my own, and it is beginning to sound as if the off-the-shelf alternatives are part of the problem, rather than a part of the solution.

I have to agree, Rob -- if this is the best introduction to the caliber that we can seem to muster as a community, then I'm not terribly optimistic about our long term prospects.

AC

Paulo_Santos
23 July 2009, 07:05
Let's take the affordability question off of the table for a moment (even though it will remain the elephant in the room): are we saying that there simply are no viable commercial loadings which take advantage of these optimized 6.8x43mm specifications? I've no near-term intent to roll my own, and it is beginning to sound as if the off-the-shelf alternatives are part of the problem, rather than a part of the solution.

I have to agree, Rob -- if this is the best introduction to the caliber that we can seem to muster as a community, then I'm not terribly optimistic about our long term prospects.

AC

The SSA factory ammo is very, very good. But just like any other factory ammo out there, you will almost always have better results when you reload. Example: I am able to duplicate my own M193 and it shoots nearly 1MOA while the real M193 shoots 2.5 MOA.

CCK
23 July 2009, 07:25
How funny (ironic) is it that apparently Bushmaster and DPMS have their ducks in a row WRT 6.8 x 43 and their stablemate Remington is still pushing Rem SPC?

You would think the "freedom group" would have a little clearer path in mind.

Chris

caporider
23 July 2009, 07:43
SSA's current standard load is what used to be their tactical load. For the 110gr Accubond, for example, this means 2600fps out of a 1:10 twist 16" barrel. This is well within the perfomance envelope originally envisioned by Holland and Murray, and makes the 6.8 very useful for all kinds of folks. Slower barrel twists get you a little extra velocity, but are not required for safe shooting.

That having been said, I think the core of civilian 6.8 shooters right now is hunters because 6.8 solves a problem for them: how to use a lightweight, ergonomic AR pattern rifle to hunt game humanely.

For the rest of us civilian shooting enthusiasts, it does not solve any problems. Who cares about terminal ballistic effects on a sheet of paper? And at home defense ranges, any decent 5.56 load will more than do the job. In other words, most (if not all) of the 6.8's advantages are purely theoretical for most (if not all) civilian shooting enthusiasts.

As a civilian enthusiast myself, shooting the 6.8 is not about problem solving; it is about enjoying the capability to knock down steel targets at 300 yards out of an 8" barrel (6.8 really shines in an SBR). And if I ever do decide to try hunting feral pigs or deer, I can do it with a very handy 12.5" barreled AR.

As for the MIL/LEO communities, I suspect a lot of things are going on behind closed doors. This is fine with me since I don't have a need to know.

I definitely appreciate the efforts of the guys that are testing and pushing the round's capabilities; they are achieving results, most notably with the vast majority of AR manufactureres switching to the "original" spec leade. I suspect the next six months will see a great many of the outstanding issues with the 6.8 resolved, and talking about the round will be greatly simplified.

rob_s
23 July 2009, 08:02
SSA's current standard load is what used to be their tactical load. For the 110gr Accubond, for example, this means 2600fps out of a 1:10 twist 16" barrel. This is well within the perfomance envelope originally envisioned by Holland and Murray, and makes the 6.8 very useful for all kinds of folks. Slower barrel twists get you a little extra velocity, but are not required for safe shooting.


this load (http://www.ssarmory.com/6.8_spc_ammo-2-1.aspx)?

If I understand correctly, this is perfectly safe to shoot in a SAAMI chamber with a 1:10 twist, no?

Paulo_Santos
23 July 2009, 08:31
"wildcatting" is yet another term that I'm unclear on how it became an insult. Frankly I didn't even know it was a verb. I thought it was an adjective used to describe a caliber or cartridge without widespread acceptance and that required hand-loading to see it's full potential because factory loads were virtually unavailable or considered anemic.

My 6.8 learning experience has been an interesting one. I would have to say that this is the first time that the excitement and response of some of the advocates of a caliber or accessory in the firearms world has actually made me less interested than I was when I started. The more I learn about it the more I pause to wonder what it is that it's going to do for me, and some of the advocates have even been nice enough to point out (often in response to questions I've asked trying to learn more) that it probably ISN'T for me. Interesting way to build a fanbase... At the very least I am starting to wonder if I shouldn't be doing this 6.8 thing on the cheap rather than in premium form.

Rob, you are the one that has to decide if the SPC is right for you. Don't let other guys turn you off. From speaking with you, you will love this round for your purposes, which is mainly hunting, especially with the barrel you are getting.
The SSA 85 GR TSX will work great for you.

rob_s
23 July 2009, 08:43
Rob, you are the one that has to decide if the SPC is right for you. Don't let other guys turn you off. From speaking with you, you will love this round for your purposes, which is mainly hunting, especially with the barrel you are getting.
The SSA 85 GR TSX will work great for you.

I reposted my comnmentary here on another forum, and added this


I got interested in 6.8 for three reasons.


I thought it might be more effective on hogs than the 5.56 I have used in the past. I also wanted something I could use on deer because the state of Florida says we can't shoot deer with a .22 (even though our deer are typically the size of a large dog).
I wanted a precision distance-shooting rifle in 5.56, but I discovered that quality 5.56 loads cost the same as apples:apples 6.8 loads. Might as well go with the bigger bullet.
I wanted to finally get myself one of Noveske's stainless barrels with a switchblock. Since they have gone from the 1:10 with SAAMI to the 1:12 with SPCII it seemed like a good time to do so and not be redundant with another upper/rifle that I already have in 5.56.


All of the above still apply, but I'm starting to wonder if I couldn't address all of them in other ways and with other products, or with items I already have in hand, that might be better and less expensive in the long run.

Whether or not I stick it out with 6.8, I am continuing to remind myself of 1-3 so that I don't lose sight of those goals. In architecture school we learned to develop a concept and stick with it, and the basis of the concept would always answer any questions you had about the design. For every design decision you had to make, you decide which solution best fit the concept and the questions answered themselves. I've found the same methodology to work out great with firearms, and assume the same will hold true here. The problem comes when the concept is flawed, which is where that last paragraph of the quote comes in.

Which reminds me, that I'd like to see more "proof of concept" posts from people with 6.8 experience. Posts like "I got it for this purpose, I attempted to use it for that purpose, here are my results" along with an analysis of those results would be great. It's what I *try* to do with all of my articles on my website (sometimes unsuccessfully). What passes for a "picture thread" here in the Explain your AR15 layout... (http://www.weaponevolution.com/forum/showthread.php?t=817) is GREAT because it requires the WHY.

AR Performance
23 July 2009, 17:47
For those that have 1 AR to do it all and want to hunt the 6.8 makes sense. It has better terminal performance, it would make a better combat weapon and might possibly be better for home defense and LE . IMO the 5.56 is better for 3 gun or shooting paper.
It is not likely I will ever have just 1 AR so the saving money thing isn't on my list of why or why not.

Cold
23 July 2009, 18:07
For those that have 1 AR to do it all and want to hunt the 6.8 makes sense. It has better terminal performance, it would make a better combat weapon and might possibly be better for home defense and LE . IMO the 5.56 is better for 3 gun or shooting paper.
It is not likely I will ever have just 1 AR so the saving money thing isn't on my list of why or why not.


I have to agree.

The 6.8 is great for hunting (both ARP and I can attest to this) as well as home defense and LEO capacities due to the properties of the round itself (and the loads from Hornady and SSA).