Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Hawkeye Compact and new chamberings

I noticed that Ruger is going to chamber the Hawkeye Compact in 7.62x39mm and 6.8 spc.

I would have shot the barrel out of one when AK ammo was 85.00 per thousand in the one chambering.

It is the 6.8 SPC that I am intrigued with though. It seems that it would make an interesting jeep gun.

I don't know what the effective range is, I know that it is no long range cartridge.

I remember that when it first came out, some companies where using brass with large primers and others were using small.

If I remember correctly, the cartridge was set up to run in carbine length barrels and out of the AR platform.

Am thinking it would be a neat shooter out of the little Ruger.

And yes, you can kill a jeep with the 6.8 SPC. (just re-read my own post and the smart aleck came out of me immediately.)

Its really a shame that each chambering takes some resources from the manufactuer because I would think that there are a couple of cool chamberings. I would think that 35 rem would be sort of cool. of course if ruger was adventerous they would try a run with 18" barrels. I suspect that there are a bunch of us that think 18 is ok but 16.5 is a tad short.

I always lusted after one of the the Remington 600/660's in .35 remington.

Kinda thought that a body could get one of the compacts in .358 and load it to .35 remington. Brass would be cheaper, as .308 brass is everywhere.

I agree with you on the barrel length. I would be more apt to spend the money if they were set up with an 18" tube.

On ruger's home page they have a link to make suggestions. I expect they are tired of hearing from me but another vote for 18" barrels and a easier to use safety can't hurt.

Yea, I'm all for the 18" barrel as well. I would also like to see a shortened synthetic stock on the stainless models. The laminated stocks are too heavy and screw up the balance of the gun.

We have one in 243, I personally like the 16' barrel, it is a "compact" with a OAL under 3 feet. Loud at the range but after several shots fired at critters in the field the decibel level was ok without hearing protection, which was my only concern.
IMHO leave then at 16 inches.

I nearly brought one home a couple of months ago that was chambered for 7mm/08. The ONLY reason that I didn't was because of the .260 I just recently put in the safe. I am a little concerned about the possibility of loading the wrong cartridge in the wrong rifle.

I would love to run up on a used .260 compact. It would live at my house forthwith.

I perfer 20" barrels on my carbines. Also, I have never understood why Ruger didn't have the 308 Win, 7mm-08 Rem, and 260 Rem. as standard offerings in their ultra-lights.

I'm sure the 308 and 7mm-08 carbines would have sold better than the 270 and 30-06, especially in the ultra-lights!

if 16 why not get a pistol? the 18 inch 308 is no slouch in the noise department either. For you guys that find the 16 inch 300WSM, no problemo "in the field" get back to me in 20 years when you are saying "huh" everytime someone speaks at you. Even 18 is too loud for me.

Ruger along with Remington does alot of stuff I can't figure out. Maybe Ruger just wanted something different in the compacts. They have 20" barrels in the Ultralights and 18.5" barrels in the Internationals so I guess 16.5 was different. But I theink there are lots of folks who would have gone for a 18 or 20 etc that just can't take the leap.

One thing I can say is that my smith can make a 20" into a 18" for $50 and it won't take long. But it takes $600 and 4 months to make the 16.5 into anything longer.

700LH, have you run any of your ammo over a chrony. Wondering what sort of a loss in velocity you have with the 16.5" barrel. I could be interested in a 308. If performance loss is too great, would be better off getting a rifle with a longer barrel and lopping it to 18 or 20", as mentioned above.

Also, can't understand why they would build long action rifles in the ultralight. Surely the velocity gain over the 308 based rounds would be negligible with the short barrel. The muzzle blast of the long actions must also be significantly greater.

Whacking off the barrel is the cheapest and least creative way to save weight. After that it's all ad hype and you're off to the races.

Grunter,

We picked up the compact at a pawn shop in Nov. Our range is outdoors and it's been cold. All I have done is to roll a few progressively hotter rounds to look for pressure signs then ran back up and sighted her in. She shot almost MOA and has rode in the pickup on numerous occasions since. I am using some IMR3031 as I have several 15 yr old pounds I'd like to use up, so another powder might be a better choice.

So no, I have not chronoed yet but should soon as I need to get back to the range right away.
I suspect the FPS loss will be close to this experiment with done with a .223.

http://www.accuratereloading.com/223sb.html

Mmmm, from that link, perhaps 10% velocity. Not as bad as I had thought.

I had thoughts of a 308 and doing some lightening up of the laminated stock to make a similar weight, more compact version of a Montana while saving a few dollars.

Of course if you managed to make a mess of the work, or damage it in the field, the saving would have been better spent on a Montana in the first place, and paying to have a bit lopped off the barrel.

I loaded for a friend who had one in .308. His intention was for his kids to use it to hunt deer. We loaded out of the Hornady Youth Load section and used 130 grain Hornady spire points. Also worked up a load with the 150 RN bullets designed for the .30 WCF.

Both loads were very manageable, and muzzleblast wasn't severe at all. I don't think that he or they ended up hunting with it, but I wouldn't have minded hunting with it at all.

I've got Ruger LSS compacts in .223 and 7mm-08, and I LOVE 'em! Greatest walking bolt guns I own! Also have a Ruger ultra-light .204 in a lam. compact stock. The 20" barrel goes great with this stock, and to me is ideal for this little gun. Still have a "hankerin" for another in .358 Winchester...(grin!)
Virgil B.

Well!!!....I`ve read everyone`s comments on this thread regarding the Ruger compacts. I will try and address some of your comments. But here`s my story.

More than two years ago, after nearly 34 years of hunting with full sized and heavier rifles (the majority with a 300 Win Mag), on easier hunts and on much more physically demanding hunts the majority of the time, I decided to check into the compacts for an easier way.

During that process, I came across an article more than two years ago, which is still online now at "shootingtimes.com" under the "rifle or "long gun" section; pg 5 or 6; entitled "Short Answer About Scout Styled Rifles" by Dick Metcalf. His test rifle in that article, is the Ruger Frontier compact chambered in the 7mm/08. That very article lead me to buy my 300 WSM Ruger Frontier compact.

If any of you haven`t read it, it is a very good read and it may change some negative thinking about the more compact rifles, especially with the 16.5" barrels. Of the compacts, Metcalf as he writes in that article, prefers the Frontier`s shorter 16.5" barrel as opposed to the 18" and longer.

GRUNTER.......In that article, check out the sub-heading beginning with "Short Barrel-Long Reach" and read what Metcalf`s chronographed velocity losses were with his test 16.5" Frontier when compared with a 24" barreled 7/mm 08 when using the same factory loads. Not as much of an overall percentage loss as you and most may think. In fact, my own chrony results verify his findings almost to a tee when compared to the two 24" 300 WSM`s I tested using identical re-loads. For Metcalf`s 7/08, only a 4.5% overall loss in velocity with his 16.5" barrel, where mine averaged about 4.2% to a 4.5% loss depending on the load. Not too bad for a barrel that is 31% shorter than a 24" er. Using his velocity figures, I calculated only a 16.4 fps loss for every inch of shorter barrel length.

NO KNEES,,,NHOGHYN,,,DIXIE REBEL.......In my past conversations with Ruger, in comparison to other compacts such as the Remy M7`s and others, Ruger`s goal in their compact line, was to shorten the overall length to 35.5 inches, a few inches shorter than the 20" Remy 7`s and others, shorten the LOP to 12.5" and make the barrel a little shorter in the process. By doing so, the Ruger compacts are simply imo,the best handling bolt rifles on the planet. I have handled them all. Even for its more youth sized compact dimensions, I even at 6'3" 240 lbs, find my Frontier a joy in the field to handle, to carry and it is not too small. In the bolt action category, there is no better a truck rifle either.

That is what seperates the Ruger compacts from the rest. And if or when you read Metcalf`s article, you`ll see why.

JIMMY P.............I still have very fine hearing. Yes, my 300 WSM compact is noisy. But regardless of what I`m shooting, I wear the best hearing protection I can at the range and in the field. I find that the noise level is really not that much different than my former 24" tubed 300 Win that I had for many years. So, I`m not worried about saying "huh" 20 years down the road.

VS my old 300 Win, including the scopes, I have cut 2 lbs 6 oz off the total rifle weight, reduced the rifle OAL by 9" and in that process, I can still exceed 26" barreled 30-06 velocities. In lieu of much better handling, manuverability, carry-ability, speed in shouldering and speed in pointing, I will gladly give up 4.5% in overall velocity vs a full sized 24" 300 WSM, especially when no game hunted will ever know the difference.

It is my go to big hog, deer and elk gun that regardless of its size, has a very long reach.

Since Ruger discontinued the 300 WSM in their compact Frontier over two years ago for patent (legal) reasons, I am happy that they now for `09, offer their new 300 RCM in the short compact.

Yep! As much if not more power than a full sized `06, but from handy `lil boomin compact!!

Regardless of the cartridge,,,,they are a helluva lot of fun!!!

Just for the what-it's-worth department - If you intend to take a rifle into Canada, it needs to have a barrel 18.25" long, not 18. I have never had mine checked but I have double checked the regs, and if they bring out a tape measure, I want to be sure I am not going to lose the rifle.

Thanks BigSqueeze. Will check out that article.