Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 6.8 SPC

The MK262 is able to adapt to different calibers from 5.56 NATO, 7.62X39 as well as 6.8 SPC11 depending on the mission requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------


http://militaryvids.wordpress.com/2...forces-combat-assault-rifle-usa-belgium/



The US Special Operations Command (US SOCOM) issued a solicitation for the procurement of SOF Combat Assault Rifles (SCAR) on October 15th, 2003. This solicitation requested a new combat rifle, specially tailored for the current and proposed future needs of the US Special Forces, which are somewhat different from latest generic US Army requirements, which are being fulfilled by the newest Heckler-Koch XM8 assault rifle. The key difference in basic requirements between XM8 and SCAR is that, while XM8 is a single-caliber weapon system, tailored for 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition, the SCAR should be available in various different calibers. Initial SOF requirements included two basic versions of SCAR system � the SCAR Light (SCAR-L), available in 5.56mm NATO, and the SCAR heavy (SCAR-H), which should be initially available in significantly more powerful 7.62�51 NATO chambering, and should be easily adaptable in the field to other chamberings. These other chamberings initially include the well-spread 7.62�39 M43 ammunition of the Soviet / Russian origins, and probably some others (like the proposed 6.8�43 Remington SPC cartridge, especially developed for US Special Forces). The key idea of SCAR rifle system is that it will provide the Special Forces operators with wide variety of options, from short-barreled 5.56mm SCAR-L CQC variation, tailored for urban close combat, and up to long range 7.62�51 SCAR-H Sniper variant, as well as 7.62�39 SCAR-H, which will accept �battlefield pickup� AK-47/AKM magazines with 7.62 M43 ammunition, available during the operations behind the enemy lines.

MK262 is ammo loaded by Black hills with 77gr SMK's.

My cusin uses an M-4, acctualy on his last deployment he was issued 3 weapons the other 2 were a 12 guage and an M-9. He had the options of selecting which weapon to use based on the mission

The Military is using a multitude of different bullets inorder to help the effectiveness of the 5.56 in todays battle fields. The Marines recantly purchased 2 million rounds of Open Tip ammo for thier troops. Even Barnes bullets have been or are being used by some

I'd be interested in a link to back these claims of "multitude of different bullets" up. The open tip ammo is Mk262 and has been cleared with JAG. I know of a report on Trophy Bonded Bear Claw (sort of) bullets being tested but have not seen any info on Barnes being used. Although if they could be cleared by JAG would help them go "green" which is in their plans.

I just purchased and shot some Remington Premier Match 77 grain Matchking BTHP, my 16 inch Noveske really likes them, and it should at $28 a box. SSA has them for $18 a box IIRC.

The author of this thread originally asked about killing game with the 6.8 SPC. Predictably, perhaps helpfully, a discussion of 6.8 versus 5.56 in the tactical role followed.

I found myself thinking that, perhaps, we need to remember is that SPC stands for "Special Purpose Cartridge". The 6.8 seems to perform well in several number of roles, but it was developed for one special purpose. A link to a fine document explaining that purpose can be found at http://www.68forums.com/articles.php, and the document itself at http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf. It is a fascinating piece of writing, well worth your time to peruse in depth. The author seems to have "street cred" when it comes to wound ballistics.

I cannot argue with those who have faced the enemy and found the 5.56 adequate. (Thank you for standing between America and the monsters who would kill us all.) It is pretty clear that enough trigger pullers have had unsatisfactory experiences to justify looking for an alternative.

In the Roberts document is found the following: "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."

And, "6.8 mm offers superior terminal EFFECTIVENESS compared to 5.56 mm in all environments, including CQB & Urban, especially when fired from short barrels. Unlike 5.56 mm, 6.8 mm continues to demonstrate good terminal performance even after defeating common intermediate barriers, such as glass, walls, and automobiles, as well as loaded AK47 magazines, like those frequently worn in chest pouches by terrorists."

The enemy is incapacitated via broken body parts, period. If a .277 bullet of modest weight provides a better broken parts factor in a wider variety of circumstances, by all means give our warfighters that which works. That the 6.8 is a fine low-recoil cartridge for training new shooters, and that it works well on deer, hogs, and coyotes is great, and appreciated. It's special purpose, however, is busting bad guys. It appears to do that more consistently than available 5.56 loads, and (important!) is available at minimal procurement cost. A switch of uppers and magazines on the standard M4 platform will get you rockin' and rollin'.

Again, I suggest you read the well-illustrated document. The author makes a convincing argument.

So, with its superior ability to incapacitate soldiers, do you think that it will have a strong following in the military, or are they avoiding it?

Thanks for the links

One reason that inhibits the acceptance of the 6.8 (if it were ever to be considered) is the fact that the change would not be just for the US, it would be for NATO. That ain't gonna happen given today's economic reality.

Testing conclusively demenstrates that the 6.8 is by far the better performing round as evidenced by this work


http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

A very good link indeed. I've seen this one from "Doc" it's interesting as well.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/5_56mm_military_info.pdf

both of these links are interesting. Me I would shoot the bastards with expanding softpoint ammunition and be done with it. To hell with some stupid convention. The 6.8 is better how can it not be? On the other hand if you have invested in .223 and have multiple platforms that shoot that caliber, should you invest in 6.8 and wind up stuffing a magazine loaded with 6.8 into a .223 gun during while in a tight spot then you are pretty much screwed. KISS Keep it simple stupid, is a good rule to live by. So go shoot those bears with the 6.8, I will shoot the deer with the little underpowered .223 but using softpoint ammunition and buy the 55 grain FMJ surplus to practice with.

Why would one have a magazine stuffed with 223 when carring a 6.8?

why does anything happen in the real world? Mistakes happen. As diligent as we try to be, mistakes happen. Thus KISS.

If i get a 6.8 it will be in a non AR platform, well at least until someone loads the 6.8's in enough quantity that there exists cheap surplus military practice ammunition.

The 6.8SPC is a better cartridge, but right now I will stick with the 5.56 in the AR platform.

Why not have both? It gives you an excuse to buy another rifle -- always a good thing!

It is a truism, you notice everything wrong with what you have, but cling to it because it is what you know.
The 5.56 has proven to have some weakness in urban type combat and the smart enemies that face it know them. So our troops get engaged from settings that the lighter bullet isn't as good at handling. Incentive to go to the higher energy round for the reasons already noted above. But what about what it won't do as well as the 5.56? Don't know all those things yet and some worry about what might go wrong, more then what will go right. Besides, any transistion costs money and the bean counters get all tight-azzed when that comes up.

But the US military has changed before, and if they see the future of warfare as urban based, with firefights in close quarters and the enemy behind barriers that need more punch for rounds to get home, then they will likely push for the change. The bean counters will push back. The innovation crowd will push for it, just because it is change and therefore better. The status quo crowd will fight it because it is change and therefore bad.

Deer don't know these issues, and therefore both rounds are pretty effective, if you can shoot them well enough.

no doubt! that is the plan.

and yet we insist on shooting terrorists with FMJ Geneva Convention, Marcus of Queensbury, Nevil Chamberlan, Sessame Street, Politically correct bullets.

The Marines recently purchased 2 million rounds of open tip ammo for their troops

God Bless the US Marines. I could never figure why we were using warfare techniques designed for human battle against rabid animals that murder infants, children, innocents, anyone and anything that does not bend to the will of their god.

I see Ruger offers their little compact rifle in 6.8SPC.