Home Main Category General Firearms

Is the 6.8SPC a dying breed? Discuss

knitepoetknitepoet Senior MemberPosts: 20,850 Senior Member
Since the introduction of the 300BO, I haven't seen much said about the 6.8. Just checked a couple of places and they didn't have ANY 6.8 uppers in stock.

Is it on its way out?
Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


«1

Replies

  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    Yep. For some reason, that round has always pissed me off. It was made to try to create a market rather than filling a need or a vacancy. I hated the way it was marketed as it implied a weakness in our current military rifle round.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,756 Senior Member
    Can't say...in spite of Gene's somewhat irrational hate of a cartridge, I just googled "6.8 SPC Upper" and it appears plenty of people offer them for sale...Stag, Wilson, etc etc etc....

    On the other hand, when people found out that 6.8 = .270 a lot of them probably ran away screaming...

    I know a bunch of folks who really like the cartridge and have taken a lot of game with it....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • SpkSpk Senior Member Posts: 3,855 Senior Member
    knitepoet wrote: »
    Since the introduction of the 300BO, I haven't seen much said about the 6.8. Just checked a couple of places and they didn't have ANY 6.8 uppers in stock.

    Is it on its way out?

    What I've noticed is that many of the lower cost 6.8 uppers are 'out of stock' but there's still plenty of higher end uppers available.

    Wilson Combat:
    https://www.wilsoncombat.com/6-8-spc-rifles/

    Daniel Defense:
    https://danieldefense.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?caliber=5&q=6.8+spc+upper

    Rock River Arms (actually affordable)
    https://www.rockriverarms.com/?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=249

    Along with Barrels and upper receivers only:
    http://palmettostatearmory.com/index.php/catalogsearch/result/?q=6.8+complete+upper

    Bison:
    http://bisonarmory.com/68SPC-UpperAssemblies/

    No.... They don't seem to be dying. Maybe, folks are just buying them up?

    :guns:
    Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience -- Mark Twain
    How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again! -- Mark Twain

  • bellcatbellcat Senior Member Posts: 1,780 Senior Member
    I have no facts, but I live in a very friendly gun area, and I've never met anybody who owns one.
    "Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see." Mark Twain
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    My hate is completely rational, as it was marketed in such a way as to criticize the 5.56, which has been the longest service round in the US. Criticism was set to reduce confidence in our services' round. I saw it as a transparent commercial attempt to supplant the 5.56 for the lucrative military contracts.

    As for taking game, what round has NOT taken game? The 5.56 was not designed as a game cartridge, although it does the job very well and serves as a portable round for combat and the best practical solution for a military rifle...even the Russians more or less copied it. High praise.

    The 6.8SPC does nothing that an existing round doesn't do better. And that's why it's yesterday's toast. It's pretty clear nowadays that in order for a new cartridge to succeed commercially, it has to do something extremely well.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,756 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    My hate is completely rational

    Only to you.....I'll bow to Zee's dislike of the cartridge because he's actually used it....a lot so he has an actual basis for his opinion...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • DanChamberlainDanChamberlain Senior Member Posts: 3,395 Senior Member
    I have to agree with Gene here. It was an "invented" controversy.
    It's a source of great pride for me, that when my name is googled, one finds book titles and not mug shots. Daniel C. Chamberlain
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,756 Senior Member
    The 6.8 is never going to be a "mainstream" cartridge...the same can be said of many others and like those there will be those who like it and those that don't have any use for it..For example...I much prefer the .220 Swift over the .22-250....just because
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    Yet it tried to become a mainstream cartridge as a replacement for the 5.56. That's my problem with it. It was a bill of goods sold to the "tactical" community based on false premises that the 5.56 was inadequate. For all I know it may be a fine .270 low-powered rounds, but for what purpose? Is it superior to the .300 Blackout which seems to have caught on? I have no idea.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,756 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Yet it tried to become a mainstream cartridge as a replacement for the 5.56. That's my problem with it. It was a bill of goods sold to the "tactical" community based on false premises that the 5.56 was inadequate.

    Name a cartridge that hasn't been billed as the best thing since sliced bread when it came out.....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Name a cartridge that hasn't been billed as the best thing since sliced bread when it came out.....

    Well, while they all got press, none were pimped like the 6.8.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • Farm Boy DeuceFarm Boy Deuce Senior Member Posts: 6,083 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Well, while they all got press, none were pimped like the 6.8.

    Not true. Case in point, the .40S&W that is the exact same story only 20 years longer.

    The 6.8 was introduced with all the gun writers singing it’s praise. Onliest problem, the 6.8 failed to impress the SPECOPS (or whatever name) crowd it was designed for. No huge contracts, now here we are.

    The .40 was introduced with all the gun writers singing high praise and the FBI adopted. PDs rushed to follow suit. 25(ish) years later the FBI returns to the 9mm and PDs are dropping the .40 like a used condom.

    The main difference is the .40 had time to get a foothold and prove that it does work. Lots of people are going to continue using the .40 to good effect.

    Had some large alphabet agency adopted the 6.8 it would have stayed more mainstream. Now it is mainly going to be gun guys that keep it going. I doubt it will disappear altogether like the .30 Remington AR has.
    I am afraid we forget sometime that the basic and simple things brings us the most pleasure.
    Dad 5-31-13
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,801 Senior Member
    It's irrational because it wasn't created as a marketing gimmick to sell to civilians. It was developed by Remington with an Army unit.
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    It's irrational because it wasn't created as a marketing gimmick to sell to civilians. It was developed by Remington with an Army unit.

    That's what I hear, but without much proof of any Army cooperation or even need for another round, which would create a glich in supply. I suspect the actuality of development as being an Army unit; I think it was a group of former Army members who saw a niche to introduce a new round for the purpose of making money. Since the marketing failed with the military, I suggest it was marketed to the tactical civilians. It was simply a solution for a problem that didn't exist.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    Not true. Case in point, the .40S&W that is the exact same story only 20 years longer.

    The 6.8 was introduced with all the gun writers singing it’s praise. Onliest problem, the 6.8 failed to impress the SPECOPS (or whatever name) crowd it was designed for. No huge contracts, now here we are.

    The .40 was introduced with all the gun writers singing high praise and the FBI adopted. PDs rushed to follow suit. 25(ish) years later the FBI returns to the 9mm and PDs are dropping the .40 like a used condom.

    The main difference is the .40 had time to get a foothold and prove that it does work. Lots of people are going to continue using the .40 to good effect.

    Had some large alphabet agency adopted the 6.8 it would have stayed more mainstream. Now it is mainly going to be gun guys that keep it going. I doubt it will disappear altogether like the .30 Remington AR has.

    The .40 S&W is a good round, but it's not sufficiently better than the 9mm. My former employer switched from the .40 to the 9 because there's not much documentation to prove it's better than the 9, and the 9 is a bit more available. Which I guess is why the military went with the 9 which has decades of documentation. I don't own a .40, but I did and never felt underarmed with it. It shot fine and the recoil wasn't prohibitive. But to tell the truth, I like the 9 better.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,801 Senior Member
    What other technology is the military using that is near 70 years old?
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 20,850 Senior Member
    What other technology is the military using that is near 70 years old?
    Ma Deuce is older than that
    9x19 is over a century (115)
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,146 Senior Member
    Was it ever a living breed to begin with? That rocket pretty much blew up on the pad.

    To be successful, a new cartridge needs to demonstrate an ability to do things the older ones don't.

    The latest rage is the AR-15; somewhat because of the ergonomics, and somewhat because most folks passingly familiar with Tinkertoys can put one together. This has resulted in an obsession to fit the performance of the _______X_______mm into the magazine well of an AR-15.

    You may recall a little science project from a few months back in which I mailed Zee a box of 5.56mm Barnes TSX loads, and he promptly went out an killed a boar of Ice Age proportions with it - very quickly and humanely with a single quartering away shot, IIRC. To me, this largely sank any notion that the 5.56 "can't", and that there is no rational purpose to entertain the logistics complications of farting around with replacements - ESPECIALLY replacements that are proprietary within themselves; for example, a .30-06 uses bullets that can also be used in the .308, .300 Savage, .300 Win Mag, some .30-30's etc, but bullets and weights for the 6.8 SPC are pretty much only for the 6.8 SPC.

    No commercial attraction, no military attraction = fold the flag and bury the box.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,490 Senior Member
    Mk 19 grenade launcher is based in part on the M1917 Browning...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • LerchessLerchess Senior Member Posts: 550 Senior Member
    I don't think the .300 Blackout had anything to do with the 6.8's demise. It was relegated to a niche round before the blackout was introduced.

    Remington killed their own round by not making cheap ball ammo readily available from the start. You can't expect people to buy an AR upper and not want to be able to buy ball ammo for a moderately reasonable price.

    There were a lot of other issues that all contributed to the 6.8 not going anywhere, but if you don't produce ammo that is reasonable don't expect it to be a barnburner sales item. Or in the 6.8's case, not produce ammo at all for lengthy periods of time.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,490 Senior Member
    I think the other reason the .300 BO has more appeal than the 6.8 SPC is its perceived versatility. .300 BO you can run subsonic, supersonic, and suppressed or unsuppressed using factory ammo. 6.8 SPC, your options are more limited.

    OTOH, I'd wager most .300 BO users get one type of ammo and run it that way. Kinda like folks do with the versatile .30-06....
    Overkill is underrated.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,788 Senior Member
    There were plenty of combat veterans around who didn't like the 5.56, due to situations they had seen in the field. Many of them were from the initial groups that got them before they started chroming some critical parts and issuing cleaning kits. But there were also others who weren't impressed with the stopping power.

    Overall, I agree that the 5.56 has proved itself to be a good solution for the majority of modern military situations, but I can also understand why some specific situations might be better served by a 7.62.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,288 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    There were plenty of combat veterans around who didn't like the 5.56, due to situations they had seen in the field. Many of them were from the initial groups that got them before they started chroming some critical parts and issuing cleaning kits. But there were also others who weren't impressed with the stopping power.

    Overall, I agree that the 5.56 has proved itself to be a good solution for the majority of modern military situations, but I can also understand why some specific situations might be better served by a 7.62.

    You're correct on the chrome lining of the chamber and bore being something that was originally cut to cut costs, and then done due to the many failures in the field. And the cleaning kits were added; they should never have been not included. And switching out stick for ball powder that ended up giving more velocity at the cost of excessive fouling of the gas system and the gun from ball powder use.

    5.56x45 with the slow twist barrels worked fine with the original ball ammo. It was barely spin stabilized and tumbled on impact with squishy stuff like flesh, making a nasty wound channel. Then some clowns upped the bullet weight and increased the barrel twist rates to stabilize them, and that unstable bullet wound thing went out the door along with the crazy nasty wound channels.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,288 Senior Member
    What Bigslug said regarding logistics makes a LOT of sense. Having to get multiple chamberings into the pipeline at the right at the right time is a pain. For rifles/MGs right now there's the 5.56, 7.62, and .50 BMG and 9mm for the pistols for the general troops. That covers the light, medium, and heavy that the troops need and doesn't cause a logistics nightmare. Some elite groups carry others, but they are the exception.

    There's plenty of history of having a LOT of chamberings used during wars that caused battles to be lost or troops otherwise available sitting on the sidelines because of the wrong ammo being sent to them. And in the military regarding firearms and their chamberings, the K.I.S.S. principle really applies.

    Then there would be the wholesale change out of upper receivers for the battle rifles, and the huge cost, and reworking the light MGs to handle the different round.

    If it works, don't try to fix it.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • SpkSpk Senior Member Posts: 3,855 Senior Member
    Lerchess wrote: »
    I don't think the .300 Blackout had anything to do with the 6.8's demise. It was relegated to a niche round before the blackout was introduced.

    Remington killed their own round by not making cheap ball ammo readily available from the start. You can't expect people to buy an AR upper and not want to be able to buy ball ammo for a moderately reasonable price.

    There were a lot of other issues that all contributed to the 6.8 not going anywhere, but if you don't produce ammo that is reasonable don't expect it to be a barnburner sales item. Or in the 6.8's case, not produce ammo at all for lengthy periods of time.

    :agree:

    It's all here. It's not a conspiracy by the government.

    http://demigodllc.com/articles/6.8-mm-spc-cartridge-history-development-hornady-stag-arms-carbine/

    The SPC in 6.8 SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) was develop with a Special Purpose in mind. Special Forces troops were asking for a cartridge that was more effective on barriers than the 5.56 ball. They knew from many observations that the 7.62x39 was a better penetrator. They simply requested a cartridge that was better at these tasks than the 5.56. They also wanted it in the same platform they were currently using and roughly the same number of cartridges in the mag and a similar trajectory for close or medium range work.

    Animals in the wild don't take cover behind glass, sheet-metal, sandbags or wear load bearing vests filled with metal ammo components and shoot back, so either you have a clean shot or you hold your fire. If you encounter animals that do.........those are some scary animals.

    Special Purpose means Special Purpose. Outside of this purpose, we civilians can use "whatever" we want.

    Read the history. The good, the bad and the "Really?"

    As with any new cartridge, what's the point of making it if you don't plan to make money off of it. That's on Hornady and Remington. If you wanna be mad at anyone, be mad at the marketers. They're the ones who job it is to get you to buy stuff. Don't hate the cartridge for it.

    :beer:
    Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience -- Mark Twain
    How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again! -- Mark Twain

  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 20,850 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »

    5.56x45 with the slow twist barrels worked fine with the original ball ammo. It was barely spin stabilized and tumbled on impact with squishy stuff like flesh, making a nasty wound channel. Then some clowns upped the bullet weight and increased the barrel twist rates to stabilize them, and that unstable bullet wound thing went out the door along with the crazy nasty wound channels.
    I don't disagree with you often Mike, but I believe you are mistaken on this one.

    Water, which we're roughly 70% is, IIRC 7,000 times denser than air. Any spitzer bullet has the center of mass behind the center of pressure, so ANY spitzer will tumble going from air, to a fluid medium.

    The 62gr bullets are less likely to fracture as they tumble and that's the cause of the decreased wounding potential of the M855/SS109

    Dr. Fackler wrote a rather detailed report on it that is online.
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    The heavier bullets, I believe, are steel-core "penetrators." For piercing hardened targets like ballastic vests. Which precludes breaking, although they may yaw a bit. They're also less accurate, I've heard because of the penetrator contraption.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 20,850 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    The heavier bullets, I believe, are steel-core "penetrators." For piercing hardened targets like ballastic vests. Which precludes breaking, although they may yaw a bit. They're also less accurate, I've heard because of the penetrator contraption.
    It's a 3 piece bullet for the most part. (Some countries use a solid mild steel core) The jacket, a small piece of steel and then lead behind it
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 20,850 Senior Member
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,288 Senior Member
    knitepoet wrote: »
    I don't disagree with you often Mike, but I believe you are mistaken on this one.

    Water, which we're roughly 70% is, IIRC 7,000 times denser than air. Any spitzer bullet has the center of mass behind the center of pressure, so ANY spitzer will tumble going from air, to a fluid medium.

    The 62gr bullets are less likely to fracture as they tumble and that's the cause of the decreased wounding potential of the M855/SS109

    Dr. Fackler wrote a rather detailed report on it that is online.

    The original bullets for which the rifle/cartridge were designed by Eguene Stoner were the plain Jane cup and core FMJ bullet. No steel core, just a full metal jacket open at the rear with a soft lead core pressed into it. AS DESIGNED, the bullet at the velocity for which it was designed, yawed on impact and fragmented. It wasn't until the 'eggheads' started messing with the bullets AND twist rate that the rifle began to perform at a lesser success(quick kill) rate. The book "Misfire" by William H. Hallahan lays out the travesties of the M-16 from acceptance as Stoner designed it to the later shortcomings foisted on the platform by the fools at the Army armories. The steel core bullets used now do have better barrier penetration, but lack the extreme wounding supplied by the old FMJ cup and lead core bullets. That article tends to jump a couple of decades and leaves out that part. And you've shot enough pest animals to know that a hollow point does tremendous damage compared to even a cup and core bullet. The former fragments into pieces and the hydrostatic shock of the impact and the fragmentation makes it look like an explosion; the steel core just tends to punch on through like a drill bit.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement