Chuck Taylor chimes in on 6.8 SPC

[toddackerman]

Just read a clip from one of the "Special Weapons and Tactics" rags (NOT SWAT Magazine) where Chuck Taylor totally trashes the 5.56, and totally supports the 6.8 SPC.

His arguments are mostly around lack of stopping power, that he has experienced...especially in Viet Nam with 1/14 twist barrels. He believes that the Tumbling effect from the 1/14 twist actually produced better wounding capabilities because of "Tumbling" than 1/12, 1/9, and 1/7 twists that he states "Do nothing bu put a .22 caliber hole in someone as most of their energy is lost AFTER it passes through the target". Doesn't mention anything about expansion, etc. on the 5.56...even at less than 150 yds.

We've all seen the data on TOS (Actually some of the best rsearch I've seen) and other places about penetration, fragmentation, etc. from ammo like M193, but Chuck doesn't mention anything about the "Current Data" and chooses to accept that the 5.56mm is unsuitable for battle, and WILL be replaced by something like the 6.8 SPC. I have to admit...he has BEEN THERE.

What do you all think?

Tack

[MH64]

Not specifically about Chuck, however,

Some writers tend to following current testing and actualy data and others seem to pander to certain companies and trash others for what ever reasons.

Makes me wonder if its along the lines of the old 'play-ola' that was going on so many years ago in the record industry.

Then again there are some writers who I think are just not well informed and others who I think do have something to say thats worth listening to.

[Lumpy196]

What do you all think?

Tack



I wouldnt take Chuck Taylors advice on grass seed, let alone anything to do with guns.

[Robb Jensen]

I wouldnt take Chuck Taylors advice on grass seed, let alone anything to do with guns.

I 100% agree. I don't like or agree with the majority of gunwriters. Writing doesn't pay much so you really have to want to do it. The gun industry needs much more credible gunwriters................guys like Pat Rogers (who writes great articles) & Larry Vickers (also great articles). Guys who've been there done that or better yet get some guys who STILL DO.

[Wayne Dobbs]

5.56 rounds don't "tumble", they yaw, and most of them will yaw in tissue no matter what twist rate is used. Always run up the caution flag on anecdotal "evidence" from the gun writers and gun rags. It has the bad tendancy to take on a mantle of truth even when completely false...

[toddackerman]

Guys...

I'm not supporting Chuck Taylor on this, although 20 years ago he was Jeff Coopers #2 man at Gunsite, Ex Vietnam Era Rangers Veteran, did countless trainings of both Military, LEO and civilian personnel, was a World Ranked IPSC Competitor, etc., etc., etc. Back then he was viewed to be the Pat Rogers, and Larry Vickers of his time by guys just like us...but that's not what I'm asking, because these are just his "Opinions".

Do you agree that the 6.8 SPC is superior to the 5.56, and do you think it will be adopted (in our lifetime) as the U.S. Military caliber of choice based on superior stopping power. (If you believe it is superior.) Why or why not?

Thanks!

Tack

[SHIVAN]

Do you agree that the 6.8 SPC is superior to the 5.56...

I believe it is from almost all measurable ballistics data shown by everyone testing it.

[toddackerman]

I believe it is from almost all measurable ballistics data shown by everyone testing it.

Thanks Shihan...do you think the 5.56 will be dropped for the 6.8?

Tack

[DRich]

Considering that gov't support for the 6.8SPC practically vanished overnight and shifted to the heavy 5.56x45 rounds a few years ago, I don't think we'll see a major change in the next couple of decades at least.

[SHIVAN]

Thanks SHIVAN...do you think the 5.56 will be dropped for the 6.8?

That would be WAY outside my lane to offer a crystal ball reading on it.

I think the tea leaves point to "No."....though weirder things have happened though, right?

[markm]

I believe it is from almost all measurable ballistics data shown by everyone testing it.

Sure. No one will argue that the 6.8 underperforms the 5.56.

But the 5.56 is still devistatingly effective.

My father too was in Viet Nam.... that doesn't mean he hasn't started to lose his marbles by now.

Maybe he could write for the gun rags! :D

[Robb Jensen]

I'm not supporting Chuck Taylor on this, although 20 years ago he was Jeff Coopers #2 man at Gunsite, Ex Vietnam Era Rangers Veteran, did countless trainings of both Military, LEO and civilian personnel, was a World Ranked IPSC Competitor, etc., etc., etc. Back then he was viewed to be the Pat Rogers, and Larry Vickers of his time by guys just like us...but that's not what I'm asking, because these are just his "Opinions".


True.........but some gunwriters/trainers are really out there in left field. Some are still teaching Weaver. :eek:

[SHIVAN]

But the 5.56 is still devistatingly effective.

I agree. I don't think most people will like being shot CM with heavy 5.56. I'm sure it really doesn't feel good to take a 62, 75 or 77gr 5.56 to the melon either.

I've only ever killed game animals so I can't be sure how it works on radical Islamic animals.

[Lumpy196]

Guys...

I'm not supporting Chuck Taylor on this, although 20 years ago he was Jeff Coopers #2 man at Gunsite, Ex Vietnam Era Rangers Veteran, did countless trainings of both Military, LEO and civilian personnel, was a World Ranked IPSC Competitor, etc., etc., etc. Back then he was viewed to be the Pat Rogers, and Larry Vickers of his time by guys just like us...but that's not what I'm asking, because these are just his "Opinions".




Which is exactly why his articles should be more factually accurate and draw more logical conclusions.

[Keith E.]

I still enjoy reading Chuck Taylors writings but he kinda lost me when he stated that the .357 Magnum wasn't a reliable stopper.

Keith

[MX5]

In FMJ configuration, the wounds created in the 1960s with an AR15/M16 were vastly different than the wounds created today with the faster twist rate barrels. The original twist rate matched to those cartridges/bullets was very effective for the intended purpose. When the barrel twist rate was changed to solve other problems, the downrange terminal ballistic performance of those lightweight bullets changed dramatically and not for the better. Heavier bullets creates a whole different set of parameters. The 6.8 round is unquestionably superior for the intended purpose, but widespread military acceptance and procurement is a crapshoot. There are far better choices that are proven, readily available and cost effective. However, they too are sitting, waiting and/or long forgotten.

[toddackerman]

In FMJ configuration, the wounds created in the 1960s with an AR15/M16 were vastly different than the wounds created today with the faster twist rate barrels. The original twist rate matched to those cartridges/bullets was very effective for the intended purpose. When the barrel twist rate was changed to solve other problems, the downrange terminal ballistic performance of those lightweight bullets changed dramatically and not for the better. Heavier bullets creates a whole different set of parameters. The 6.8 round is unquestionably superior for the intended purpose, but widespread military acceptance and procurement is a crapshoot. There are far better choices that are proven, readily available and cost effective. However, they too are sitting, waiting and/or long forgotten.

MX5,

I agree that there are better alternatives other than 6.8, but not only would you have to change the Ammo, Tool up, etc....you'd have to change the whole shooting platform away from the M16/AR15 platform...unless we want to adopt the AK Platform and use the 7.62X39.

Imagine what that would cost and how long it would take? Unless there is an American Supplier that could fill the demands If/ When the change was made.

It appears that no one in power is looking at changing the Ammo Spec. anytime soon, but if they did, a 6.8 M16/ AR15 would be a step in the right direction having to only change out the barrels, bolts, and Mags. I base this on the ballistics test that I have seen, which although inconclusive on Humanoids...it's pretty impressive from a "Technical" stand. YMMV

For now, I am planning to stay with 5.56mm and 75 Gn. TAP out of my 16" AR.

Tack

[Pat_Rogers]

Slightly OT, but Jeff told me that Taylor was there for 8 months and it wasn't satsifying for either of them.
If one were to look at Ops Managers who influenced what was happening there, you would have to look at Russ Showers, Bill Jeans (the longest lasting) and of course Bob Young.

On topic. We know much more about gunfighting now then prior to 9/11. A lot of what people took to be sacred is now something else.

[toddackerman]

Slightly OT, but Jeff told me that Taylor was there for 8 months and it wasn't satsifying for either of them.
If one were to look at Ops Managers who influenced what was happening there, you would have to look at Russ Showers, Bill Jeans (the longest lasting) and of course Bob Young.

On topic. We know much more about gunfighting now then prior to 9/11. A lot of what people took to be sacred is now something else.

Pat,

I knew that Chuck wasn't there long and that he and Jeff didn't see eye to eye. I don't take anything as sacred...unless it's from you! :)

Tack

[coffinman]

I believe most gun writers are pretty lame and have an agenda to support the product they are getting hooked up with. I also think the 5.56 is pretty weak. I have heard many stories firsthand of 3-5 shots to drop an insurgent. This coming from Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The only positive I've heard is the 77 grain rounds. Personally I prefer 7.62. My two cents.

[SHIVAN]

...to drop an insurgent...

Is there a magic number to accomplish this? Is it repeatable? How big a bullet, and of what construction, does it need to be to accomplish the magic number?

I'm no expert, but the experts I've trained with all tell me that there is no set number of shots it takes to kill a bad guy. Shoot until the threat is over, regardless of caliber chosen...

[mike240]

Though Taylor has done some pretty impressive things with firearms on a range; credibility issues exist through some of his writings and statements. Like his long term assessment of the Glock 17. When the math was done on his numbers (I do not remember the details-but the article has been reprinted a few times in the "Glock Annuals") I found it hard to believe that he was doing a couple thousand draw presentations a day for over a year with it while running and teaching his school.

[Armati]

Chuck don't know Logistics!

A major ammo shift in the middle of a war?

And we would have to NATO on board with the round as well?

We will have 5.56mm for the foreseeable future. At most we could go to a heavier/longer bullet.