Talk:6.8mm Remington SPC

This must be Wrong

"as the 6.8 loses apx 25ft/s/inch. -SSA website" this would mean that it would stop after a bit over 100 inches some one can look in to it and find the correct values or tell me i am looking at the data incorrectly Samuel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.52.29 (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is in reference to barrel length...138.32.32.166 (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong

I think this guy is wrong and I base that on absolutly nothing

add to someone else's comment: yes, you are partially correct. Remington has changed it's originally published velocity figures. Now down more than 100fps less than the original claim of 2800fps.

no way

I agree with the guy above, though not on the basis of absolutely nothing. Obviously the guy who did New Bullet put way more time into his article than the guy who did 6.8 mm Remington SPC, and merging them implies that they were done by the same author. The author of this page does not deserve the credit of the one who did New Bullet, and to merge them together is an insult to the authors of both.

The new bullet article is a better article than this one. It is more accurate and it is more pleasing to the eye if anything the 6.8mm Remington SPC section should be destroyed and the New Bullet article should be put in its proper title.

No Wikipedia article is done by one author. We collaborate our efforts here. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. See also the welcome page to learn how Wikipedia works. Thank you. --Perfecto 04:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, destroying articles is treated as vandalism, banana notwithstanding.

I think that we should just leave it how it is

No Merge

I think this article contains almost no information that is not already found in the other article, and feel that merging the two would add nothing.

Thank you for trying.

This is the author of New Bullet, well the "kinda author" i guess.... Anyway, thank you for trying to keep my article from merging, but I guess its all for the best. Judisch 04:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I resent that.

Hey, mister "I don't like bananas", that tasty fruit is an integral part of the New Bullet article, and without it, the entire article would be meaningless and void. I consider the destruction of any part of my article vandalism, even if done by god himself. Good day, sir.

New Bullet is a better article, but not a good title.

The new bullet article as we all known had much more time and effort into it, but the title "new bullet" is a poor choice. The problem with the title of New Bullet is that it'll get out dated. If the article could be posted as a sub article with the "first" 6.8 mm being an introduction.

The "first" article is a great outline and the new bullet article could talk about NATO's consideration about it. Perhaps even made "leaner" to avoid repeating the same details.

Who cares?

Who the hell cares? Just frickin do it already! I've been following the developments on this page for several days now, and I think you should just do and stop whining.

New content and changes

Hi Guys,

Sorry to be late to the party. I am the author of the 6.8 SPC FAQ (which you already linked to at the bottom of the article) and what was the first public reload data on the cartridge. I have been working with the cartridge since its public debut 2/2004.

Recently, I have written an article for SGN which contains a more comprehensive history and current status of 6.8 than anything else I've seen anywhere. It will be published in Shotgun News in July.

I believe information to be published in that article will be a verifiable source very useful to anyone who wants to expand and correct the current 6.8 entry. And let's face it, the current entry is pretty sparse.

I would be happy to either suggest or make edits once the article can be cited.

Comments?

Zak 19:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Similar to the British .280

I was just wondering if a note should be made as to the irony of this similarity, considering the controversy surrounding the decision to reject .280 in favour of the 7.62 x 51 mm all those years ago. I'd do it myself, but I don't know if I could manage to be NPOV about it!

-- Chris (blather • contribs) 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Advertising Added?

Looks like Barrett advertising was added - what about all the other manufacturers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.37.229.206 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Much unsupported claims

More accurate and better ballistics than 5.56/.223 seems to be a false claim. 5.56/.223 AR rifles are winning most AR15 competitions and are highly accurate at 1/4 MOA at times with handloads. 5.56/.223 loaded with 77gr and other match rounds have excellent ballistics with high BCs. Special Ops usage claim - can't find any reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.71.219.157 (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Exactly no references on your part, just opinions it seems you DID make a false claim. What AR competitions? Name one repeatable experience where a 5.56 had better accuracy than a 6.8 at any range? They don't have excellent ballistics when compared to 6.8 rounds, Spec ops might claim they like the 5.56 more but oh yeah thats because every one uses it because we have billions of rounds left NOT because its less accurate and has worse ballistics. You made a wild and outrageous claim and YOU are wrong.

New reference added

I just added an external link to the 2006 Shotgun News article, which Dr. Gary Roberts (ballistics SME) has called "the best publically-available history of 6.8 SPC". This will be useful as a cite for various claims.

--Zak 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Magazines

Do these rounds work with existing 5.56 magazines (since overall dimensions seems to be quite similar), or are new mags needed? If it's the former, that would be a significant advantage over 6.5 Grendel, since they require new mags that have somewhat lower capacity than 5.56 mags of the same size. And a Grendel round might be ballistically superior to an 6.8 SPC round, but it's not superior to two 6.8 SPC rounds. 71.203.209.0 00:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not even close. For starters, 6.5 and 6.8 both can't use composite mag's -- steel allows the cartridge OAL to fit the long, higher-BC-than-5.56's projectiles. 2nd: 6.8's bolt-face & rim/base diameter are closer to 6.5G's than it is to 5.56's, and both 6.5 + 6.8 can take only 25 to 26 rounds in the same length of a 5.56 magazine (think of how long your bipod's legs need to be for a bench-rested rifle's magazine not to hit the tabletop: that's what I meant by length of the 5.56's std USGI/mil-spec 30rd magazine).

The weight per cartridge is also similar tween 6.5 + 6.8 (>15grams, compared to 12.5 gram (approx) for 5.56 70-grain). 6.8 has a hair more powder (~5% more M.E.), Grendel fits MUCH higher-BC (longer & slightly thinner) rounds within the AR15/M4 magazine-length constraints, so its drop/drift is within 50yds of .308 NATO AR10's "arc". 6.8's drop/drift is actually worse than a >73gr 5.56's (but at least outperforms 7.62x39 Russian's).

Sorry for the LATE reply, hahaha. WikiP is really over a DECADE old, wow, time flies; I hadn't even noticed.

97.98.86.66 (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges

The article is chuck full of unsupported and unreferenced opinion and hype. First, the stats for the 6.8 are from a 24" barrel. Now, I don't know about you, but there ain't no 24" M4's walking the streets of Bagdad. Let's get some data from 14.5" or 12.5" barrels, those likely to be fielded. Second, Who the F&%$ calls the .243 Winchester MARGINAL for deer? Has this dumbS$%# ever been in the field?--Asams10 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Listed references are definitely unsupported and unreferenced, your opinions definitely not a .223 lovers hype. Um yes "no 24" m4s" because the ballistics suck monkey ball sack, he was comparing a .223 sniper length barrel to a 6.8 sniper barrel. Which yes are and likely will further be fielded. Have you ever been in a field, and shot a deer with a .243?? Yes marginal, have you ever been on a battle field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanatronic (talk • contribs) 06:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Personal attack removed and user Seanatronic (talk) warned for making such an attack. Thomas.W (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Comparison to 7.62

Is there a specific reason for comparing the 6.8's long range capabilities and ballistics to the 7.62 round? Isn't it supposed to compete with the 6.5 Grendel and 5.56 rounds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnieblue (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A table that compared velocity, energy, and drop at 50, 100, 200, 300, 500 for the 6.8, 7.62, 6.5 Grendel and 5.56 would be pretty interesting. Arthur (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be good. Are there verifiable ballistics for each of those rounds on Wikipedia? Johnnieblue (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We could certainly find verifiable ballistics. There are a couple of questions though... what weight bullet to use in each? What loading to use in each? For load, when making comparisons I try to use reloading manuals max safe loads for all cartridges, this seems to give the most "fair" comparison, since it's all on the same basis. For bullet weight, someone needs to figure out "standard" weight for each cartridge, or even one or two "common" weights and we can go from there. Arthur (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Any numbers would have to come from barrels of equal length. Comparing a 24" Bolt action to a vented 14" barrel, you're obviously going to get quite different numbers. The 6.8mm SPC has been over-hyped in typical industry standard with hyped up velocity figures and little real data. I have seen honest test results in gun RAGS. I believe that American Rifleman and/or Shotgun News did a good workup. --Asams10 (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have the American Rifleman or know which issue that'd be great. Otherwise if we can figure out what we think are useful bullet weights and a reasonable barrel length, I can put the table together. Arthurrh (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll check when I get a chance. --Asams10 (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Obsolescent

According to local gun dealers I've spoken to, the future of the 6.8mm SPC is bleak. They typically voiced the concern that most 6.8mm ammo is twice as expensive as 5.56mm ammo and harder to obtain. One dealer believed that Remington was dropping the 6.8mm chambered rifles from its product line because it cannibalized sales from more profitable calibers like the .308. The AR15.com discussion board suggests that the military has not enthusiastically embraced the 6.8mm cartridge and prefers to stick with the 5.56 x 45 mm due to logistical and cost issues. These issues raise the question: is the 6.8mm doomed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Many a cartridge survives without military weapons to support it. The problem here is that the round is so closely associated with military black guns and it is very very hard to get the military's of the world to abandon an existing round for another. I've often wondered if we just shouldn't re-issue the M1 Garand to shut up the idiots that want to rant and rave about the 5.56/M4 since any innovation seems to cause them so much agony. The bottom line is that for the US Army to change rounds they are going to have to have a great reason to do so. For all the carping when the MK16 was put in the field the evaluation was there wasn't enough of a difference to make a change. Perhaps the next carbine they are talking about will bring a change in calibers but I am not holding my breath.

So if the adoption of the 6.8 spc round isn't likely by the US Army what next? Well what does the round offer that you can't get anywhere else? Does it have vastly superior ballistics to make it a great hunting/target tack driving gun? The round was designed to give more punch out of M4 platforms in about the same package as a 5.56 in CQB out to about 400 meters. If you want superior down range support I'd tend to start looking at the 6.5 mm or if a hunting rifle any of the PPC types would be nice choices, then again the .270 .280 and 7mm all give nice choices and most of them are better choices than the 6.8 mm. If a lot of manufacturers start producing black guns in the caliber I might give it a chance but I don't see that happening all that much yet.Tirronan (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Your dealer is wrong. The 6.8 is the second most popular round in the AR platform. It's gaining popularity as a deer & hog AR Rifle out to around 350 yards +/-. It's ammo isn't as cheap or plentiful as the 5.56. But, you can get them mostly online, Cabela's sells them. Price; SSA has 250 training rounds for $199. Remington can be found for $17 or less for box of 20.You can plink with 5.56, change out the barrel, bolt & mag. Then hunt with the 6.8.

6.8 bullet is .277 diameter (AKA=.270Win). So, it's a shorter version of the .270 Win with less recoil & does excellent with a 16" barrel. As I said above it is limited to around 350 yards for deer & hogs. So, it's not the greatest round for long range. As for Available rifles :https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tOtyqlb35yLitvWlWWajZyg&output=html

As for the military; They are looking to spend millions looking for a 'Hyper-Burst' rifle. So, the troops can use them against 40 year old AK-47s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21oPlato (talk • contribs) 01:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny I heard a 4 star general lobby for it for "superior stopping power and ballistics" so that probably doesn't mean anything... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanatronic (talk • contribs) 06:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ruger SR-556

There's a new ruger SR-556 chambered in this round.--184.35.18.221 (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Remington/SAAMI chamber compared to SPCII/Army chamber

There should be more information regarding Remington not supplying the correct chamger dimensions to SAAMI, and the two different chambers, much like the .223 vs 5.56. The 6.8 SPCII is expanding, the SAAMI version is contracting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.81.109 (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Not the DEA issued carbine

The LWRC M6A2 is an authorized personal purchase carbine, not a general issue item. Agents and TFOs can choose to purchase one on their own dime, but the DEA as a whole is not buying the weapon to replace their 5.56 carbines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.37.52 (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

6.8mm or 7mm; Which one is correct?

  I am a bit confused about the accuracy of this article. The reason for my confusion is that the cartridge is named the “6.8 mm Remington Special Purpose Cartridge” which would imply that it uses a 6.8mm bullet. In addition, the article states that both 6.5mm and 7mm bullets were experimented with during the development of the cartridge but, although the 6.5mm bullet had better accuracy, the 7mm bullet had better terminal ballistics. Thus, a compromise was settled upon by using 6.8mm bullets.
    
  However, the article also states that this cartridge uses a 7mm (.277 cal.) bullet equivalent to the bullet used in the .270 Winchester round.
    
  So, which statement is correct?

--Doc Trout (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Bill

6.8 mm is the diameter of the bore between the lands, which is the way calibres are measured and named in Europe, but the bullet diameter is 7 mm, ie .277". Calibres referred to as 7 mm have a bullet diameter of .284" or .285". Thomas.W (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Weight Statement & Comparisons Would Improve the Article

An argument in favor of the AR-15 with its .223 rounds is that a soldier can carry more ammo than he could if he were toting 30.06. If you have a less potent round, but can carry twice as much ammo & shoot it faster onto a target (less re-aim time between shots), you might prefer the less potent round. Obviously this 6.8 round is a lot heavier than a .223. Thus at least the weight of a round should be given with an estimate of how much ammo a soldier could carry & compare that to other rounds, like .223 & .308. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC))

CIP

6.8 mm Rem. SPC is also CIP certified. http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page31.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.156.13.121 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Enigmatic features

"One of the enigmatic features of this cartridge is it being designed for a short barrel carbine length rifle that the standard rifle length is"

I would edit this sentence, but the intended meaning eludes me. Maybe: "Mysteriously the cartridge was designed for a shorter barrel than standard"? I kind of doubt "enigmatic" was the adjective the author was going for, but regardless the passive voice and erroneous pronouns make the sentence incomprehensible.23.28.40.163 (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"Commercial" section full of baloney.

"For hunters, the 6.8 SPC cartridge is a significant improvement over the 5.56 mm (.223) cartridges currently available in the AR-15 platform. The latter cartridges fall below 6 millimetres (0.243 in), which is what many counties and states in the USA have chosen as the smallest caliber legal to humanely take varmint to medium sized game such as (but not limited to)groundhog/marmot/woodchuck, coyotes, wild hogs, deer, black bear, caribou, and small- to medium-size elk. It is gaining popularity among hog/boar hunters. By adopting 6.8 SPC, a hunter also gains the ability to use the AR-15 platform for hunting out to 270–370 metres (300–400 yd) (depending on load and chamber, out of a 410-millimetre (16 in) barrel, further with longer barrel). Although, rifles with 320-millimetre (12.5 in) barrels have been successful at taking deer & wild hogs/boar up to 270 metres (300 yd) (this also depends on load & chamber)."

Reading this, one would think the 6.8 was superior to the .223 for "hunting" small varmints like prairie dogs, AND had a legal advantage over the .223 for use on groundhogs in a significant part of the country, AND was an adequate elk cartridge, AND was humane for use on whitetail deer at 300 yards out of a 12.5 inch barrel.

While I'm sure the 6.8 SPC is a very fine cartridge for small hogs and common whitetail deer out to 150 yards or so, I hardly think it can replace everything from .223 Remington to .35 Whelen in one stroke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.20.170 (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

.280 British

Remington had access to all the Small Arms Calibre Panel (Great Britain) .280 British data following a request from the British which lead directly to the 6.8 SPC, surely we need to give credit where due? Twobells (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Case size osmosis

There seems almost to be an osmosis effect in various ammunition articles, of one or the other named or anonymous editor changing the sizes of the case size from one unreferenced (or referenced from a source other than SAAMI) size to another. So I'm going to post a link to the SAAMI website and let the usual editors duke it out. ;^) http://www.saami.org/pubresources/cc_drawings/Rifle/6_8mm%20Remington%20SPC.pdf Trilobitealive (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 6.8mm Remington SPC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=383
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040623114932/http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=383 to http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=383

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

2018 Dec: Looks like US Mil seriously looking at 6.8 SPC....

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/12/10/more-than-a-rifle-how-a-new-68mm-round-advanced-optics-will-make-soldiers-marines-a-lot-deadlier/

FYI for anyone interested to use to update this Wiki article. Phantom in ca (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Citations needed. Google does not work for you?

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2008/Intl/Roberts.pdf

In it you will find a lot of data. It requires you to sort through the pdf done by a ballistic researcher. The 6.8 SPC is not the new 6.8mm cartridge. The bigger bullet will be used .277, but not the special purpose cartridge. The SPC was developed specifically for the short barrel M4 and the loss of velocity, rendering the 5.56 less useful at long range in Afghanistan.

"During SPC development different bullet diameters of 6 mm, 6.5 mm, 6.8mm, 7 mm, and 7.62 mm were tested, using multiple bullet types, shapes, and weights from 90 to 140 gr--the 6.8 mm was selected because it offered the BEST combination of combat accuracy, reliability, and terminal performance for 0-500 yard engagements in an M4 size package." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:7E7F:F9E8:15A6:E3B2:647D:228F (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)