[stanc]

...versus "the other" 6.X caliber.

From the "Wildcatting the 6.8 SPC" thread

Anyway, that might be changed to infamous when my "6.5 Grendel vs 6.8 SPC" article gets printed in an upcoming (June? August?) issue of SPECIAL WEAPONS.

Can you give us a little hint? I'm pretty sure which side it will be favoring.

Paul, the pending article is an update of one that was published in 2005. So as to not go further off-topic in the wildcatting thread, I'm posting the 2005 article here. Please note the conclusion.

==========================================

6.8 SPC VS 6.5 GRENDEL

At the 2004 Shot Show in Las Vegas, two new cartridges - Remington's 6.8mm Special Purpose Cartridge and Alexander Arms' 6.5mm Grendel - were introduced for use in the renowned AR-15 rifle and its many variants. Ever since, individuals have engaged in often heated debate on Internet sites like ar15.com, tacticalforums.com, and 65grendel.com, arguing which would be the better choice to succeed 5.56 NATO as the U.S. armed forces' next small arms caliber.

Both cartridges were initially offered with "open tip" bullets, a type that is of limited usefulness in land warfare. This study will attempt to provide an objective evaluation as to whether the 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel is truly the superior alternative when using full metal jacket (FMJ) projectiles suitable for general military use. To accomplish this task will require not only a comparison of the known characteristics of each round, but also a look at what measures are needed to utilize these cartridges in variants of the M16 rifle, M4 carbine, and M249 light machine gun.

AMMUNITION CHARACTERISTICS

Ballistic Performance

The 6.8mm 115-grain projectile has a listed ballistic coefficient (BC) of 0.325, which can only be honestly described as mediocre, especially in contrast to the unusually high 0.636 BC of the 6.5mm 144-grain bullet. At normal engagement distances (under 300 meters) this disparity may not have a significant effect, but at very long ranges (up to 1000 meters) the more streamlined 6.5mm projectile produces a much flatter trajectory and smaller wind drift.

Advantage: The 6.5 Grendel is clearly superior in this category, due to the ability to use bullets of high ballistic efficiency.

Terminal Performance

The 6.8mm FMJ bullet is nearly identical in configuration to that of the "open tip" combat projectile originally loaded for testing by special operations, so could be expected to also have early onset of yaw (often referred to as "tumbling") after entering soft tissue. Gelatin test of the 6.5mm FMJ appear to show a slightly slower initiation of yaw, but the effect on the gel block was still impressive.

Advantage: The 6.8 SPC may have a slight edge at shorter engagement distances, but since the 6.5 Grendel retains velocity better, the smaller caliber will likely have more stopping power at long range.

Penetration Capability

In urban combat, such as has occurred in Iraq over the last two years, the M249 machine gun will often be used to engage enemy personnel in vehicles and buildings. The intense firefights in Somalia during 1993 first showed all too dramatically that the 5.56 NATO round was deficient at punching through such obstacles. The capability of a bullet to penetrate "hard" targets is determined by several factors, including impact velocity, sectional density, jacket toughness, and core hardness.

Advantage: All other factors being equal, a smaller diameter bullet has greater sectional density and higher retained velocity, which combine to give the 6.5 Grendel superior penetration potential compared to the 6.8 SPC.

Tracer Performance

Tracer ammunition is used primarily in machine guns so that the gunner can observe the bullets' trajectory and adjust his aim. In rifles and carbines, tracers are also employed by small unit leaders to show supporting weapons where to direct their fires. Another use for this type of round is to load a couple of them into the magazine before filling the magazine with ball ammo. Then, when the rifleman has shot so many rounds that a tracer goes downrange, he knows that he has almost run dry and it's time to reload.

Advantage: Tracer projectiles can be manufactured in nearly all calibers, but the greater length/diameter ratio of the bullets loaded in the 6.5 Grendel offer the promise of a longer burn time than may be possible with the 6.8 SPC.

WEAPON MODIFICATIONS

Rifle Magazines

Since neither the 6.8 SPC nor the 6.5 Grendel stack properly in government issue magazines, it has been necessary to develop new, cartridge-specific magazines for each caliber. Precision Reflex markets 15-rd, 20-rd, and 25-rd high-capacity, steel magazines for the 6.8 SPC. At present, Alexander Arms offers steel, 17-rd mags for the 6.5 Grendel, although aluminum, 24-rd magazines are reportedly being developed.

Advantage: For military use, the greater the number of rounds that can be stuffed into a magazine, the better. This makes the 6.8 SPC the obvious leader in this category.

Stripper Clips

Most civilian shooters fill their detachable box magazines with loose rounds taken from a carton of 20 cartridges, which are loaded one round at a time. Military personnel, however, have a faster method. Stripper clips (also known as chargers) enable a soldier to more quickly load ammunition into the magazines. There are currently no stripper clips made specifically for either round, but Remington Arms marketed a stripper in the early 1900s for the Model 8 rifle, which was chambered in .30 Remington, the parent cartridge of the 6.8 SPC. In the 1950s, magazines for the Czech vz52 rifle were loaded via 5-rd strippers that, conveniently, are just the right size to accept 6.5 Grendel rounds.

In order to hold stripper clips in position above magazine feed lips requires the use of clip guides. Military 5.56 mags are made with an impressed reinforcing rib near the rear, into which a stripper clip guide can be locked. Because 6.8 SPC magazines also feature an impressed rib at the same location, a U.S. G.I.-type clip guide could be used. Mags for the 6.5 Grendel, on the other hand, are manufactured without the rear rib in order to provide sufficient internal space for proper cartridge stacking, which makes it necessary to use a bulkier clip guide that clamps over the entire top of the magazine.

Advantage: The 6.8 SPC has a slight advantage, solely because it can use clip guides that are lighter, more compact, and possibly less expensive.

Belt Feed

Ammunition intended for use in rifles and carbines should also be adaptable to firing in belt-fed, squad automatic weapons like the M249 light machine gun (LMG). Achieving this goal with the minimum of alterations to the M249 feed mechanism will require that the cartridges fit into metallic links of the same length as that of the standard M27 links used to feed 5.56 NATO ammo. The M27 link can easily be redesigned so that the loops will be of the appropriate diameter to fit either the 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC. However, for the round to correctly interface with the forward belt feed pawl and the feed tray's cartridge stop, it is also vital that the case shoulder protrude in front of the link loop by roughly a quarter of an inch.

Advantage: The 6.5 Grendel case has insufficient protrusion in front of an M27-type link, but the 6.8 SPC fits perfectly, so the latter seems the better choice for belt feed.

IN CONCLUSION

The heavy, highly-streamlined projectiles fired by the 6.5 Grendel deliver terrific long-range performance, which would make that cartridge a superb choice for standard-length weapons like the Marines' M16A4 rifle. However, the 6.8 SPC has less velocity loss when fired in the short-barreled M4A1 carbine that is used in relatively large numbers by Army units.

The degree of difficulty in converting the current family of 5.56mm military small arms to either 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC is nearly the same for each, with the apparent exception of the M249 light machine gun. Because of the noted complications with belt feed of 6.5 Grendel, and the fact that a high-capacity magazine for that round is not yet available, the unavoidable conclusion is that, at the present time, the 6.8 SPC would be the better alternative to replace the 5.56 NATO cartridge.

 

[constructor]

Stan,
I apologize, after I read the complete article I thought you HAD used the Rem. ammo but this is a quote from the article so it appears you used a load that is usable in all firearms. I do not believe the mil would accept rifles in that configuration with a SAAMI chamber.
"There are two COTS versions of the 6.8mm SPC with a 115-
grain FMJ bullet. The manufacturer calls one a “commercial”
round, and the other a “combat” load. Since the latter is a high pressure
load that may not be safe in some weapons, the commercial
version was selected for inclusion in the tables.
Pre-production 6.5mm Grendel ammunition loaded"

This is a quote of yours from the other forum
"FWIW, here's one that's more or less "fair and balanced" and wasn't aimed at pleasing the 6.5 Grendel crowd."

So can you say the article you were speaking of was not presented in a way to make the Grendel look better or the 6.8 look worse?

There have been many more articles written about the Grendel using the one sided information solely to make the Grendel look better, David has written them also. IMO writers lose creditability when they print half truths but, we all know all articles are one sided and aimed at selling advertisements, products,...or articles. I like the old mountain bike magazines that gave bike reviews, If it was a piece of shit they said it right there in print, funny that a purple haired kid with ear rings and a pierced tongue would be the writer that tells the truth.

Socom was looking for a 0- 300yd weapon for military use, in that range the 6.8 will smoke the Grendel in velocity, terminal performance and reliability. The 6.8 already has mags that work, bullets that frag, AP bullets that penetrate every body armor used in combat and general use OTMs.
Are there any 6.5 projectiles that are fmj or OTM other than "match" type sniper bullets? APs?

For hunting the 6.5 or 6.8 does not have the energy to take big game reliably past 400yds. The 6.8 has many more hunting bullet options in the usable weight range, and the 6.5s high BC match bullets don't have much improvement over the 6.8 bullets from 0-400yds or on game.

IMO the Grendel wins in one category, poking holes in paper at longer ranges but not by much now that we have competition bullets with BCs from .402-
.505 and we can drive them faster than 6.5 bullets of the same BC.

IMO articles that speak half truths and promote a weapon that is less reliable or terminally effective hurt the weapon that is a better choice for the military.
The 6.8 is a better combat weapon, it could help save the lives of American soldiers. The people in the military and government agencies that do count and do make the decisions will soon see the truth.

 

[Awake777]

On the subject of honest reviews and good writing (which are in short supply in the gun world), do any of you consider gun-tests.com to be a reliable and honest source of information? They claim to take no advertising payouts kind of like consumer reports.

 

[owenslee]

Mike,

I have maintained a subscription back to when they first began publishing.

I think the premise of trying to be unswayed by commercial advertising is commendable...but the publication suffers a number of shortcomings that result in questionable reviews.

I have had personal experience with identical weapons that have been 180 deg from those of their reviewers. In other cases my experience parallels their reports.

The issue I have with them is that they OFTEN test weapons against one another that are a mismatch giving one weapon a clear advantage over another. What makes this curious is that other more comparable weapons could have been included...but were not.

There is also a distinct variation in the quality of reviewers. Some will reject or severely penalize a weapon for a small performance infraction while another reviewer will overlook a gross performance shortcoming as being insignificant.

The testing methodology is far too subjective.

Years ago I relied on their testing for factual information. Today I no longer have trust in their reviews to be accurate or unbiased.

In years past I would read a newly delivered edition from cover to cover as soon as it arrived. Today when an edition arrives...I often don't even read it. I check the cover...and it goes into a storage box.

I really should not renew my subscription...but I keep hoping their reporting might improve.

Just my $.02

Kerry

 

[constructor]

Mike, I rarely read articles and depend more on opinions from those who I know are experts in the area concerned.

Today I was in Specialty sports in Colorado Springs where a very authoritative sounding sales person had a crowd gathering as he explained the ins and outs of the AR15. After about 15 seconds I could feel the BS dripping in my boots, after a minute I was reaching for the waders.
He had 4-5 people completely convinced he was the MAN. The 2 soldiers and myself were not impressed at all.
He said "All AR15s are mil spec, so they are all the same" "they all have 1000s of pages of specs that they must be built to so they are all the same"
There was much more to it than that.

 

[Cold]

Mike, I rarely read articles and depend more on opinions from those who I know are experts in the area concerned.

Today I was in Specialty sports in Colorado Springs where a very authoritative sounding sales person had a crowd gathering as he explained the ins and outs of the AR15. After about 15 seconds I could feel the BS dripping in my boots, after a minute I was reaching for the waders.
He had 4-5 people completely convinced he was the MAN. The 2 soldiers and myself were not impressed at all.
He said "All AR15s are mil spec, so they are all the same" "they all have 1000s of pages of specs that they must be built to so they are all the same"
There was much more to it than that.

I cannot go into gun stores any more on the weekends and deal with that stuff.... I try to go during the week when there less busy, I am no HSLD guy but I know more then the usual counter/sales guy so when they start in on why xyz is good, just to make the sale, I tune out or walk out before I say something unkind.

 

[ArtFWTx]

I'm tired of this old "comparison" coming back from the grave. It's clear which cartridge has the advantage, and it's not just an "opinion" either.

It's also sad when you realize that BS rules over actual product knowledge.

 

[Colohunter]

I've not been impressed by a number of the "gun guys" at some of the big box stores in Denver. I listened to one tell a customer that wanted a handgun for defense "you really need to get a revolver because semi autos are not very reliable."

Usually I only ask for their help when I need them to ring up a sale. I work with individuals that are much better resources than a lot of those guys.

 

[stanc]

Stan, I apologize, after I read the complete article I thought you HAD used the Rem. ammo but...it appears you used a [SSA] load that is usable in all firearms. I do not believe the mil would accept rifles in that configuration with a SAAMI chamber.

You're probably right. What you need to know is that at the time I wrote the INFANTRY article I was unaware of the different SPC chamber configurations. Did they exist back then?

This is a quote of yours from the other forum "FWIW, here's one that's more or less "fair and balanced" and wasn't aimed at pleasing the 6.5 Grendel crowd."

So can you say the article you were speaking of was not presented in a way to make the Grendel look better or the 6.8 look worse?

I presented it as objectively as I could, based on the information I had. Where 6.5 Grendel looks better is a result of the data showing it to be better, not because I intentionally distorted anything.

IMO writers lose creditability when they print half truths but, we all know all articles are one sided and aimed at selling advertisements, products,...

It does seem to be true of most articles, and I've even been guilty of it a couple of times. However, I disagree that is the case for all articles. In the majority of my writings I've strived to be fair and objective, noting the "warts" as well as the positives. But, in fairness to writers, sometimes one-sided articles are not their doing, but result from interference by the magazine's editorial staff.

For instance, a few years ago I wrote an article about the XM8 carbine, in which I called "a spade a spade." Even though I was using information provided by HK, both that company and the Army (who were allowed to review the article prior to publishing) were permitted to rewrite major portions (without my knowledge), deleting all negative comments and making the XM8 look fantastic.

Are there any 6.5 projectiles that are fmj or OTM other than "match" type sniper bullets? APs?

The only 6.5 FMJs I know of are the 100gr and 144gr Lapuas, the 120gr Norma, and 139gr Swedish military. There's also a 113gr Swedish military (steel-core) AP, and IIRC, Gary Roberts said there is a slightly heavier, tungsten-core AP. And a circa-120gr tracer was also made for 6.5x55. Are there any 6.8 tracers? <grin>

For hunting the 6.5 or 6.8 does not have the energy to take big game reliably past 400yds. The 6.8 has many more hunting bullet options in the usable weight range, and the 6.5s high BC match bullets don't have much improvement over the 6.8 bullets from 0-400yds or on game.

Since hunting holds no personal interest for me, I've never written about that aspect of any cartridge.

IMO the Grendel wins in one category, poking holes in paper at longer ranges but not by much now that we have competition bullets with BCs from .402-.505 and we can drive them faster than 6.5 bullets of the same BC.

I think I've said it before, those are indeed very intriguing developments, but unless and until such time as factory ammo with .400-.500 BC FMJ bullets (loaded to those velocities) becomes available, it's little more than an interesting academic exercise.

IMO articles that speak half truths and promote a weapon that is less reliable or terminally effective hurt the weapon that is a better choice for the military.

Hmm... Are you still accusing me of half-truths?

The 6.8 is a better combat weapon...

It may well be. If so, it should prove to be superior to 6.5 Grendel in military testing. I doubt that all of the pro-Grendel articles ever written would counteract that.

 

[stanc]

I'm tired of this old "comparison" coming back from the grave. It's clear which cartridge has the advantage, and it's not just an "opinion" either.

Funny, that's just what Grendel fans say.

 

[constructor]

Fair enough Stan

 

[DrHenley]

The heavy, highly-streamlined projectiles fired by the 6.5 Grendel deliver terrific long-range performance, which would make that cartridge a superb choice for standard-length weapons like the Marines' M16A4 rifle. However, the 6.8 SPC has less velocity loss when fired in the short-barreled M4A1 carbine that is used in relatively large numbers by Army units.
[/b]

The 264 RLB with the original throating is essentially the ballistic twin to the 6.5 Grendel.

Even though my only interest in the cartridges is for deer hunting, I basically came to the same conclusions. I have a 15" 6.8 SPC barrel for my Encore Pistol and I think it is the perfect deer cartridge for a short barrel and distances out to 200 yards. The 264 RLB needs a 26" barrel to perform. I consider the 264 RLB to be an exceptionally good long range round for it's size, so by extension, the Grendel should be too. Even with a lead nosed 125 grain Partition, it retains over 1000 ft. lbs. of energy at 450 yards. The 264 RLB has held it's own in 1000 yard competition against much more powerful rounds. I would not expect the 6.8 to be able to compete as favorably at that distance, but that's not what it was designed for.

I have a question, Stan: Given a specific magazine length, shouldn't the 6.8 hold more rounds than the 6.5 Grendel?

 

[Equalizer_2]

For instance, a few years ago I wrote an article about the XM8 carbine, in which I called "a spade a spade." Even though I was using information provided by HK, both that company and the Army (who were allowed to review the article prior to publishing) were permitted to rewrite major portions (without my knowledge), deleting all negative comments and making the XM8 look fantastic.

Having written for a post paper I can attest to the fact that they will rewrite what they want and the only way you know it was your article is they leave your byline and you know what should have been there.

 

[paulosantos]

Stan, what you wrote was very good. Although, I honestly think that if the SPC were to ever get adopted, you'll see a real nice 100 GR BTHP bullet come out.
As far ad magazines, the Barrett Mars are also top notch.

 

[DrHenley]

For hunting the 6.5 or 6.8 does not have the energy to take big game reliably past 400yds. The 6.8 has many more hunting bullet options in the usable weight range, and the 6.5s high BC match bullets don't have much improvement over the 6.8 bullets from 0-400yds or on game.

Take a look at the 6.5 bullets available in the 100-130 grain range at MidwayUSA:

http://www.midwayusa.com/browse/Bro...categoryId=9016&categoryString=652***19785***

 

[stanc]

I have a question, Stan: Given a specific magazine length, shouldn't the 6.8 hold more rounds than the 6.5 Grendel?

I had that thought, too, back in 2004. But, there doesn't seem to be any practical difference. The 0.02" difference in case diameters means that for magazines of the same external dimensions as a 30-rd 5.56 mag, both 6.8 and 6.5 mags will have the same (25-rd) capacity.

If I calculated it correctly -- and I'm not certain I did -- when you get up to 30-rd capacity for 6.8 (like Barrett's 6.8 SPC mag), a mag of the same size might hold 29 rounds of 6.5 Grendel. I imagine that'd be significant to some people, but inconsequential to others.

 

[stanc]

Stan, what you wrote was very good. Although, I honestly think that if the SPC were to ever get adopted, you'll see a real nice 100 GR BTHP bullet come out.

Yeah, I wouldn't be at all surprised if bullets different than what is now available were to be developed and fielded.

 

[constructor]

Take a look at the 6.5 bullets available in the 100-130 grain range at MidwayUSA:

http://www.midwayusa.com/browse/Bro...categoryId=9016&categoryString=652***19785***

Yes, I was talking about hunting bullets. I had 2 Grendels and a 6.5 Banshee(grendel cat), I still have a 6.5 Creedmoor, 260, 6.5ARSM(wssm cat), 6.5-08 AI and 6.5 Reaper(RSAUM cat). have had 8 or 10 other 6.5 cats over the last 25 years too. The .243 and 6.5 are my favorite calibers but not when it comes to the getting the most performance from a AR for combat. The 30BR and 6.8 are in a league of their own when it comes to efficiency. When talking about what fits in AR mags the 6.5 bullets are too long as are the 7mms and 30s. The bore area of the 6mm hurts efficiency.
It's just my opinion the G or 6.8 loaded to mag length does not have enough power for anything over 120gr. For punching paper sure the heavier bullet helps against wind.

The grendel with a 20" barrel will shoot a 120gr TSX about 2500fps, by the time it hits 350 it is down to 1750fps. apx the same range with the 130. I consider 1700fps min for the bullet to expand reliably and prefer higher velocities. I personaly would not shoot anything over a 120 in a Grendel or 6.8 but thats just my choice.
The copper monoliths have changed the way I think about bullet weight needed for penetration. They retain nearly 100% of their weight where a jacketed looses 40% or more most of the time. The 85s I have recovered from expansion test weigh more than the 150gr jacketed bullets, even the bonded do not come close to retaining the same amount of weight.

So for big game bullets commonly found (I do not count solids, vmax or Amax for use on deer) that leaves the
Nosler 100s BT and part.
the win 100 PSP
120 Nosler BT and part.
120 Barnes TSX
120 Rem
120 sierra SP

If you go to 130s then that adds the 130TSX and Nosler to the 6.5
and about 12 to the 6.8 since that is where the old 270 really shines.

 

[ArtFWTx]

The Gap W I D E N S

Funny, that's just what Grendel fans say.

And that's exactly why they have their own forum. I hear they serve their Kool-Aid warm with scones, kind of like British tea.

I've said this many times before, if you like the Grendel, buy one. Who cares? Really, who cares what you buy or shoot?

The 6.8 performance has dramatically increased over a short period of time. A couple of years ago 2500-2700 feet per second was considered good performance. Now the bar has been moved to over 3000 feet per second with "factory" loaded ammunition. SSA's 85 grain Barnes TSX load is an amazing performer. They quote 3030 feet per second out of a 16 inch barrel. I see AA's 90 grain TNT load hits 2880 out of a "24" inch barrel from their website. Wait, 3030 feet per second out of a 16" barrel for the 6.8, and AA's load hits 2880 out of a "24" inch barrel? That's interesting wouldn't you say? So you can have smoking performance out of a 16 inch barrel? Why carry a 24 inch one around? Oh yeah, paper punching.

Smoking fast velocity makes up for ballistic coefficients. In my opinion, you can't discount the new 6.8 SPC dedicated bullets coming to market with higher ballistic coefficients. They are not an academic exercise. These breakthroughs in dedicated 6.8 SPC bullets are the reality of the development of the 6.8. Sounds like the bar is already raised with the outstanding velocities coming from the 6.8. Now add comparable BC's and the bar moves up again. Interesting huh?

I'm sure the Russians don't consider the F35 Lightning II an academic exercise because they are not fielded yet. No actually, they are working towards a defense against them because they are coming. Guess what? Yes, there are improved bullets designed for the 6.8 coming. They should be included in any discussion.

Another interesting 6.8 subject area is the market place and the industry. Almost every AR manufacturer has a 6.8 offering. Other companies like Ruger, Robinson Arms, MSAR, Thompson-Center have 6.8 products. Many are now offering the newer 6.8 specifications to take advantage of the highest performing ammunition out there. Speaking of ammunition, 6.8 ammo sources continue to increase. You have multiple sources of 6.8 magazines as well.

When you look at where the 6.8 has been, where it is today, and take a peek at what's coming down the road, not to mention the industry support of the cartridge, it's clear the advantage the 6.8 holds is much greater.

 

[owenslee]

And that's exactly why they have their own forum. I hear they serve their Kool-Aid warm with scones, kind of like British tea.

I've said this many times before, if you like the Grendel, buy one. Who cares? Really, who cares what you buy or shoot?

The 6.8 performance has dramatically increased over a short period of time. A couple of years ago 2500-2700 feet per second was considered good performance. Now the bar has been moved to over 3000 feet per second with "factory" loaded ammunition. SSA's 85 grain Barnes TSX load is an amazing performer. They quote 3030 feet per second out of a 16 inch barrel. I see AA's 90 grain TNT load hits 2880 out of a "24" inch barrel from their website. Wait, 3030 feet per second out of a 16" barrel for the 6.8, and AA's load hits 2880 out of a "24" inch barrel? That's interesting wouldn't you say? So you can have smoking performance out of a 16 inch barrel? Why carry a 24 inch one around? Oh yeah, paper punching.

Smoking fast velocity makes up for ballistic coefficients. In my opinion, you can't discount the new 6.8 SPC dedicated bullets coming to market with higher ballistic coefficients. They are not an academic exercise. These breakthroughs in dedicated 6.8 SPC bullets are the reality of the development of the 6.8. Sounds like the bar is already raised with the outstanding velocities coming from the 6.8. Now add comparable BC's and the bar moves up again. Interesting huh?

I'm sure the Russians don't consider the F35 Lightning II an academic exercise because they are not fielded yet. No actually, they are working towards a defense against them because they are coming. Guess what? Yes, there are improved bullets designed for the 6.8 coming. They should be included in any discussion.

Another interesting 6.8 subject area is the market place and the industry. Almost every AR manufacturer has a 6.8 offering. Other companies like Ruger, Robinson Arms, MSAR, Thompson-Center have 6.8 products. Many are now offering the newer 6.8 specifications to take advantage of the highest performing ammunition out there. Speaking of ammunition, 6.8 ammo sources continue to increase. You have multiple sources of 6.8 magazines as well.

When you look at where the 6.8 has been, where it is today, and take a peek at what's coming down the road, not to mention the industry support of the cartridge, it's clear the advantage the 6.8 holds is much greater.

VERY well stated Art...

Kerry