HighDesertWolf

I was really surprised to see the armed forces considering a new cartridge to replace their beloved 5.56...... LOL I think its about darn time

heres a link if you want to read up on the new cartridge, Im looking forward to seeing it in the civilian market, I think it will make a great low recoil hunting round for the youngins and the ladies.

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammun...emington_0303/

Sniper151

High, To be honest, I find it hard be believe they every adopted the 5.56 over the 7.62. I was in the military when this transition took place and was very fortunate that I could carry the M14 and AK on a few SPECIAL occasions. The 5.56 may be a fine weapon for Iraq, but the jungle was no place for a .22 cal.[>:]

HighDesertWolf

I totally agree,when my father was in Nam he was fortunate to be a marine early enough in the war that his issue rifle was a M-14. A friend of his who was in the army and also was in nam about the same time had the early issued M-16, he has told me endless amounts of stories about the 55 grain round and the 1 in 14" twist back then and how the accuracy was horrible for longer shots due the extremely unstable bullet, and how worthless it was in the jungle also because of its unstability and would have favored a thompson or a M-1 carbine over the m-16 anyday. You would have thought back then they would have figured out that a 1 in 14" twist was too loose to stabalize the round before they issued the rifle, I guess the government was to eager at the time to **** can the M-14. Ive asked why many times, the only reason i can think of is the feds love to waste money on junk. If they would have just shortened the barrel a couple of inches tightened the rifling and slightly shortened the stock of the M-14 it would have been an elite jungle gun.

johnch

HighDesertWolf
If I remember right ,they wanted a unstable bullet . So after impact it would tumble and cause more damage than a bullet going straight thru flesh.

biscuit jake

I am happy to see Uncle Sam considering a heavier round, from the standpoint of the well being of our soldiers. As with many veterans, I started briefly with the M14, and then moved quickly to the M16 (the fastest shooting squirrel rifle ever issued to a standing army) once deployed. The 5.56 nato has dispatched a number of bad guys, but at a distance, or if there is materiel between you & the enemy, it is just another .22. I am naturally curious about cartridge chamber pressure, as this apparently approaches .270 Win velocities, and how this will affect barrel life in combat. But that has yet to be proved out. I understand it is in limited use in Afghanistan on modded M16's but I have not yet talked to a troop that has used it.

HighDesertWolf

To be honest I dont know what they were figuring back then, all i know is alot of soldiers from back then really resented the m-16.

HighDesertWolf

heres a clip I cut and pasted from a web site that shows some load data for the 6.8 SPC
The lighter weight .277" varmint and hunting bullets will presumably be the most popular choices in the 6.8mm SPC, and the latter are not thick on the ground. Suggested examples include the 90 grain Speer HP varmint bullet, 100 grain Barnes X-Bullet, 115 grain Sierra HPBT, 115 grain Remington Core-Lokt Ultra, and 120 grain Barnes X-Bullet.

Fast to medium burning rifle powders such as RL-7, IMR 4198, IMR 3031, IMR 4895, H4198, H322, H335, and Benchmark are indicated in the 6.8mm SPC. The MAP of the 6.8mm SPC appears to be about 55,000 PSI.

Here is some reloading data from the Hodgdon Powder Company:

Starting Load - 90 grain Speer HP bullet, 26.0 grains of H4198 powder, MV 2810 fps, 47,700 PSI.
Maximum Load - 90 grain Speer HP bullet, 28.6 grains of H4198 powder, MV 3012 fps, 54,000 PSI.

Starting Load - 100 grain Barnes X-Bullet, 27.0 grains of H322 powder, MV 2502 fps, 37,700 PSI.
Maximum Load - 100 grain Barnes X-Bullet, 30.0 grains of H322 powder, MV 2803 fps, 52,300 PSI.

Starting Load - 115 grain Sierra HPBT bullet, 26.0 grains of H322 powder, MV 2421 fps, 43,500 PSI.
Maximum Load - 115 grain Sierra HPBT bullet, 28.2 grains of H322 powder, MV 2608 fps, 53,300 PSI.

These loads were chronographed in a 24" test barrel using Remington cases and Remington 9 1/2 primers.

crimedog

The 6.8 was the brain child of a few who realized with the media watching the Iraq conflict something could be done to change the poor CQC effectiveness of the 5.56, something that has become more commonplace than most know. Marine Exp. forces have adopted the Kimber Elite II 1911, Seal Team 6 and 8 have adopted the Sig 226 in 40. Cal altough we have always had the Sig 226 it was in 9MM previous and still is in the fixed silincer. Additionally we have had the M1 Special 7.62 for jungle and M14 for Alpine combat. M16 in 5.56 was and is a great large force round for persons who haven't shot all there life or rarely shoot, light recoil and can send large amount of downrange. Troops can carry large amounts of ammo and it is cheep to manufacture, it was adopted for the Cold War and the phelosphy of bankrupting the USSR. I could go on but I won't.

vangunsmith

Since the civil war the us military establishment have been stupid in adopting other firearms presented to them. Lots of times its policitics. The 6.8SPC will be a GREAT advancement to the military!!!!!!!!! Never liked the 223 for a military cart. Thought it is a great shell,but like all have it own capabilities. The AR that the service decided on waw wrong, The AR 180 which cam out first ,wasn,t taken for it was made of metal!1000 times better gun than the AR 15. First and last after flinder many faults with it and they still carry it ,i woulsn,t when my life is in danger to carry a weapon that has to have a bolt closure attiltude on it. Wow the bolt didn,t close , so well design a thumg button on it to make sure its closed,, What kind of idiot designed this? Someone whom never been shot at!!!!!!!!!!! Vangunsmith

HighDesertWolf

NO JOKE!!!! LOL