Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 6.8 SPC

Mag capacity has no impact on a hunting rifle, since 5 rounds is the maximum allowed just about everywhere. Except for hogs and such in some states. Still, a few rounds less in a magazine can't have much practical influence.

Since you got a 6.8 for fun, is it more fun than a .223? If so, how so?

I get the impression from reading these posts that 6.8 fans have bought a bad mule and want to increase the validity of their mules by influencing others to buy the same mule.

yes interesting, the 85 TSX started at 2950 is 940 Ft/pounds at 200 vs 850 or so from the 77 SMK in .223, but at 300 they are about the same and at 500 the .223 77 SMK actually is better at 442 Ft pounds and 1600 FPS vs 360 and 1382 for the 85TSX.

Just noticed that SSA also sells the 77 grain SMK out of a 16 inch barrel they claim 2750, so maybe 2780 out of an 18 inch I don't know?

Laughing....

I don't get that impression from anyone who has said they have a 6.8spc in this thread.

My first 6.8spc was a Rock River 16" 1/10 twist. I hated the 6.8spc so much, I sold it and paid $250 more for a custom built 18" 6.8spc 1/11 twist.

I'd sell one of my .223 AR uppers before I sold my 6.8spc.

I haven't really read this whole thing so forgive me if I missed this but...

What barrel length does SSA use to get 2920fps cause that's faster than most peoples chronographs say at least for 16-18" barrels.

My 18" 223 barrel will get 2800 fps with the 77gr SMK but it's too much ressure for my 17" Krieger with it's match chamber so I load them at 2700 fps. MK262 ammo does a bit over this.

The only 6.8 I have been around belongs to a buddy of mine and he got bored pretty quick with it while working on loads.

The question was asked "what made the 223 such a killer?" simply put, better bullets.

What killed the 6.8 as a military role? Simply put, better bullets namely MK262 and M955AP.

The 6.8SPC is a great round, when necked down to 6MM...

What velocity, not claims are ya'll getting with the 110's and heavier bullets?

The velocities for the round in questions were shot through a POF 18" and were also duplicated with a Noveski 18" and a Stag 20" barrel.

I can also assure you that all the velocities that SSA has posted were shot through barrels that are withing the 16-20" range, on a AR that is readily available to the public, and are the actual velocities that were observed.

I agree I like the 6.8 in the AR platform for hunting a lot more than I do in 5.56/223. The 6.8 hits with enough more authority as to certainly be quite noticeable

It's alwasy amazing how any question about any cartridge on the Campfire always ends up in: "You're nuts. The XYZ will do everything the ABC will, so there's no reason for the XYZ."

Any new or different cartridge is automatically put down because, well, it's new and different. Generally the attitude is that we should be limited to cartridges introduced before 1980, or 1950, or 1925, or.... Well, I have never been able to figure the cut-off date, though we probably could come up with an approximate answer by finding out the poster's birth year and adding 25-30 years.

The 85gr 6.8spc round is small for caliber though and not the best choice for longer distances IMO, because of the lower BC.

You're also comparing a hunting bullet (TSX) to a match/varmint bullet (OTM). Far better to compare apples to apples. 70gr TSX in .223 versus the 85gr or 110gr TSX in the 6.8spc.

If you want to compare the .223 77gr OTM, then perhaps the 110gr Accubond is a better comparison since both have similar BC's.

As you can see below, the best energy at 400 yards from the two .223 bullets you selected was 594ftlbs.

The 6.8spc 110gr Accubond was 707ftlbs and is a far better hog/deer round than the think skinned hollow point OTM.

Comparing apples to apples, the 6.8spc 110gr TSX beats the .223 70gr TSX 623ftlbs to 461ftlbs @ 400 yards.

100 yard zero, 400 yard target:

.223 77gr OTM @ 400 yards. 1864fps; 594ftlbs; 33.6" drop.

.223 70gr TSX @ 400 yards. 1723fps; 461ftlbs; 36.2" drop.


6.8spc 110gr Accubond @ 400 yards 1702fps; 707ftlbs; 40.5" drop.

6.8spc 100gr Accubond @ 400 yards 1709fps; 649ftlbs; 37.4" drop.

6.8spc 85gr TSX @ 400 yards 1608fps; 488ftlbs; 35.8" drop.

6.8spc 110gr TSX @ 400 yards 1597fps; 623ftlbs; 43.0" drop.

Now lets compare apples to apples at a more conventional hunting distance.

@200 yards:

.223 70gr TSX @ 200 yards. 2202fps; 753ftlbs

6.8spc 110gr TSX @ 200 yards 2029fps; 1016ftlbs

That's a 35% increase in energy in the 6.8spc over the .223 in about as apples to apples a comparison as we can get.

I agree, and just don't understand why all cartridge discussions new or old have to be about what other cartridges do better. If the only criteria for owning a gun is that it MUST do everything better than all other cartridges then we wouldn't own any guns and there sure as hell would never be a new cartridge introduced. That and by the same logic if a new cartridge came out that was better than something else production of the old cartridge would have to stop immediately.

The 2920fps 85gr TSX was achieved with a 16" 1/10 twist bbl. SSA sells a lot of LE ammo and they have spec sheets on most of their ammo right on their site.

If you do some research, you would find these velocities aren't remotely out of the ordinary. Hell, Hodgdon shows 2929fps, 2970fps and 3012fps using larger 90gr bullets and we all know Hodgdon isn't about to publish hot loads. In fact those 3 loads are well below the SAAMI max.

Foxbat is most likely right on the barrel length the testing was done a while back and I may be getting the barrel lengths mixed up and either the POF or the Noveski has a 16" barrel..... regardless they are actual velocities that were observed.

Heavywalker, here is the spec sheet on the 85gr LE load (which is faster than the commercial load I quoted) along with the ballistic gelatin image from the test.

http://www.ssarmory.com/images/SSA6.8SPC_85gr_BarnesTSX.pdf

Like I said that is right, I believe what they did is post all velocities out of 16" barrels even though the rounds were tested in 16, 18, and 20" barrels. When we did the load development the loads were tested in a ton of AR's and we just picked the POF, Noveski and the Stag to do the velocities with. I was just not certain about barrel lengths on the guns. Once we gave the data over to Art and Jeff I did not know what they did with it but it looks like they took the velocities for the 16" guns. I also have data on 18" and 20" for their loads as well but not sure exactly where it is.

Thinking it might have been the POF because the Noveskes are 1/12's and the Stag's have been 1/11's since they came out. If I am not mistaken. Does that make sense?

Yep makes since I will try and dig up the notes tonight when I get home. But that sounds about right I know that the POF velocities were what they were mainly concerned about.....

"Bad mule?" If that's what you've gleaned from this discussion then you either haven't paid close attention to what has been said, or you refuse to consider that your preconceived notions of something you've never tried may, in fact, be incorrect. If you don't like the idea of the 6.8 SPC, then I would strongly advise you not buy one. But, I would also suggest that if you're going to engage in a discussion about something you know nothing about, that you listen to those who do with an open mind. Otherwise, you're not adding anything of value to the discussion and not helping anyone.

I'm not trying to influence anyone to do anything they don't want to do. But, if folks ask questions about something I have first hand experience with, I'm going to try to provide answers as honestly as I can.

You are totally misconstruing my "for fun" comment. All of the guns, and for that matter, all of the gear I buy for my hobbies are "for fun." That's all the justification I need to buy anything I like. Isn't that why we do any of this stuff? If I'm not having fun, I need to find other hobbies. What I meant by that in this context is I bought an AR for fun, not for any real "need" that wasn't already covered by another rifle. I was never into ARs in the past, but when I started shooting some of my friends ARs, I got hooked. I don't need any more guns. I can get by with a .30-06 and a .22LR for all the hunting and shooting I do. But that wouldn't be any fun. I chose 6.8 over .223 in my AR because the 6.8 will do the thing I wanted an AR to do -- hog hunting -- better than .223 will. It provides a very nice compromise between effective terminal performance, recoil level, and mag capacity... absolutely perfect for the hog killin' role I indended it to fill. I explained this in great detail several times.

Your mag capacity assertion is absurd. First, there are no magazine capacity laws for big game hunting in my state, and the same is true for many states. Second, feral hogs aren't considered game animals in most states, so even if there were mag capacity issues, it wouldn't apply to hog hunting. Third, I don't use the AR just for hunting, and I suspect that's true with most AR owners. As with any other new guns I buy, it's something different that I enjoy shooting because I enjoy variety. It's fun to shoot, period. Fourth, although magazine capacity isn't the only reason for selecting one round vs. another, it's one of many considerations. If magazine capacity wasn't a consideration and nobody was allowed to use them, suppliers would only sell 5 or 10 round mags and nothing else. One of the main attractions of an AR in the first place is that it allows high cap magazines.

Amen!!!

Using that logic, there's no purpose for most cartridges under the sun. We could all just own a 12 ga. shotgun, a .22LR, a .30-06, and a .416 Rigby and be done with it, and there'd be no need to buy any more guns.

nope the .416 rigby kills elephants better than the 30-06 therefore there is no reason for the 30-06.

But a .17HMR could do the job on that elephant if you held it up to it's eye and caught the right brain angle. So technically, the .416 Rigby does nothing the .17HMR can't do...

[quote=FoxbatNow lets compare apples to apples at a more conventional hunting distance.

@200 yards:

.223 70gr TSX @ 200 yards. 2202fps; 753ftlbs

6.8spc 110gr TSX @ 200 yards 2029fps; 1016ftlbs

That's a 35% increase in energy in the 6.8spc over the .223 in about as apples to apples a comparison as we can get.

[/quote]

Which is exactly the reason I set up an AR-15 with a 16" barrel in 6.8SPC last year after back surgery for deer hunting at woods ranges. Old school says 2000fps and 1000ft-lbs for deer at impact.

The 6.8 is beginning to look more and more like a modern day .30-30, both because of how well it works and the lack of respect it generates.