Is the 6.8 SPC still a viable option?

[ccoker]

short answer: yes

[JasonM]

I think that the magazine thing has become too much of an issue as to why the 6.8 should never become standardized. It doesn't seem that big a deal. You CAN use 6.8 in your standard 5.56 mags, just with reduced capacity, right? As it becomes more standardized, naturally more 30 round mags would probably become available.

An even bigger issue (from a military/hard use perspective) is the need for a new bolt to accommodate the larger case head and the correspondingly thinner/weaker bolt lug area.

[BoringGuy45]

The problem the 6.8 faces is the same problem that just about every development in military firearms history has faced: Stubborn traditionalism. Just because a round or a rifle works "just fine" doesn't mean that improvements cannot or should not be made. Just about every generation of soldier, police officer, hunter, or sport shooter is convinced that the technology they were (or are) using is the pinnacle of military technology and that any improvements will be completely unnecessary at best, and a disaster at worst. Korean War customers where I work often go on about how the military should still be using a M1 Garand because "it worked for them," and they can't understand why the military is using all this "plastic junk". Nobody wants to give up what they know.

Military brass often cites how most servicemen say they are "content with the present system." Meaning the M4 shooting the 62 grain 5.56 is "just fine" and "just fine" equals "perfect and incapable of being improved upon." I'm not saying that the M4/5.56 combo is bad. There's millions of dead bad guys and tons of military victories that point to its effectiveness. But the 6.8, according to a lot of reliable sources, is a more effective round, doesn't add an enormous amount of weight or recoil, and only requires a change of bolt face and barrels to function in current systems (though obviously, larger mags would be needed to carry 30 rounds) and I just think it's sad that it's falling by the wayside because so many in the shooting/military industry think that ANYTHING new is just a stupid gimmick.

An even bigger issue (from a military/hard use perspective) is the need for a new bolt to accommodate the larger case head and the correspondingly thinner/weaker bolt lug area.

But it still is not undoable or even all that expensive to fix this problem. This is talked about as though it will be a devastating problem for which there is no remedy. That's the mentality that I have an issue with: We can't have anything new because there might be some problems from where things stand right now. I say, find a way to solve problems rather than not do anything and pretending that everything is 100% perfect the way it is.

[Stormrider]

An even bigger issue (from a military/hard use perspective) is the need for a new bolt to accommodate the larger case head and the correspondingly thinner/weaker bolt lug area.

Since the original bolts are made with 1950's technology I think that with all the advances made in the last 60 years that is not a player...

[constructor]

An even bigger issue (from a military/hard use perspective) is the need for a new bolt to accommodate the larger case head and the correspondingly thinner/weaker bolt lug area.

new bolt? yes. as far as breaking no, unless the rembushdpmsington groups bolts are breaking which I wouldn't doubt since I cut through one of their carriers with a $8 hacksaw, didn't seem to be heat treated at all.
We have made apx 290 bolts a month for the past 2 years and not had 1 6.8 bolt break.

[LMTRocks]

One reason I haven't switched to 762x51 in a semi-auto is because it doesn't fit in an AR15 lower....
6.8 does offer increased performance in a AR15 type SBR (mines a 12"), so why spend thousands of dollars on a LMT MWS or LWRC when all I have to get is an upper and mags. Having the tools to do AR15 uppers makes the decision much simpler.

[Nick M]

The original 6.8, which is about what the 6.8 SPC II is, does exactly what it was designed for. Increased performance over the green tip from the M4, especially at longer ranges. It does it very well.

A side benifit is that the round is a hog slayer. And deer.

[DocGKR]

Nick M--You are absolutely correct.

While we've seen a lot of broken 7.62x39 mm AR15 bolts, I have never seen a 6.8 mm bolt break.

[R0N]

The problem the 6.8 faces is the same problem that just about every development in military firearms history has faced: Stubborn traditionalism. Just because a round or a rifle works "just fine" doesn't mean that improvements cannot or should not be made. Just about every generation of soldier, police officer, hunter, or sport shooter is convinced that the technology they were (or are) using is the pinnacle of military technology and that any improvements will be completely unnecessary at best, and a disaster at worst. Korean War customers where I work often go on about how the military should still be using a M1 Garand because "it worked for them," and they can't understand why the military is using all this "plastic junk". Nobody wants to give up what they know.

Military brass often cites how most servicemen say they are "content with the present system." Meaning the M4 shooting the 62 grain 5.56 is "just fine" and "just fine" equals "perfect and incapable of being improved upon." I'm not saying that the M4/5.56 combo is bad. There's millions of dead bad guys and tons of military victories that point to its effectiveness. But the 6.8, according to a lot of reliable sources, is a more effective round, doesn't add an enormous amount of weight or recoil, and only requires a change of bolt face and barrels to function in current systems (though obviously, larger mags would be needed to carry 30 rounds) and I just think it's sad that it's falling by the wayside because so many in the shooting/military industry think that ANYTHING new is just a stupid gimmick.



But it still is not undoable or even all that expensive to fix this problem. This is talked about as though it will be a devastating problem for which there is no remedy. That's the mentality that I have an issue with: We can't have anything new because there might be some problems from where things stand right now. I say, find a way to solve problems rather than not do anything and pretending that everything is 100% perfect the way it is.

It is not so much that improvements cannot be made, normally comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Does the increase in effectiveness outweigh the costs of making the change? Or for that matter are the benefits more theoretical than real world?

Currently we are expending on the order of 20-30 thousand rounds per enemy casualty, will a 6.8 cartridge reduce this number?

[BoringGuy45]

It is not so much that improvements cannot be made, normally comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Does the increase in effectiveness outweigh the costs of making the change? Or for that matter are the benefits more theoretical than real world?

Currently we are expending on the order of 20-30 thousand rounds per enemy casualty, will a 6.8 cartridge reduce this number?

The 6.8, as far as public record is concerned, has never been fielded in large enough numbers to really test against the 5.56. I don't see how the military can say that taking a look at it would not be worth the cost without actually doing it. They did it with the XM8 and the SCAR; why won't they give a different round a try to see if it will indeed be better? All we have are anecdotes about how the 5th SFG was "impressed" with it as well as a gelatin tests. While the 5.56 is a proven cartridge, it's obviously not perfect; no cartridge is. Without widespread field testing, it's impossible to say whether or not the 6.8 will be cost effective.