[Cohibra45]

Gentlemen,

I know I'm going to get hollered at here, so I want to apologize from the start!!!

Over the last couple years, the main complaint I have heard from ammo and rifle manufacturers concerning increasing the 6.8 SPC cartridge's performance are those damn specifications sent to SAAMI by Remington.

It seems that most people are concerned over nothing, but some companies still refuse to bring up the 6.8's potential to what it can be for fear (founded or not) of liability. I have in the past suggested that we change the name of the faster loadings to include the +P name. Tim_W and others here don't want to do that and I see the reasoning behind such a change. Anything other than 6.8 SPC ammo for use in 6.8 SPC rifles makes sense.

However, since the government has dictated the higher pressure 556 Nato over the 223 Rem, perhaps we too can take that route and do the same for our beloved round. This might make it much more palatable for all (AND I MEAN ALL) involved. Just like you can shoot 223 in 556 rifles, but not the other way around, maybe we can persuade companies to start calling the 'faster' loads 704 or 7.04x43. I know we can't use NATO, but you never know. It might even help our military make up its mind (I doubt it, but it wouldn't hurt).

Just like the differences between 223 chambers and 556 chambers, companies can use the newer designation to produce newer rifles in the correct chamber/twist configuration. It really could be a win-win for everyone involved. People with the 6.8 SPC could still shoot those rounds, but people with the 704 could shoot those along with the 6.8. We would know better, but the general public could go on blissfully with what they have. Come to think about it, most all the companies making the correct Spec II chambers and the 1/11 or slower twist would just have to change to the 704 nomenclature.

Art and every other ammo manufacturer could start making the fastest commercial loadings for use in those rifles. Rifle makers would have all the correct information/specs to make a proper barrel. Again, all it would take is a change in nomenclature.

I just wanted to throw it out for everyone to chew on. Like I said, I was just thinking out loud........

Take care and don't take my head off without giving it a night to think it over.

Thanks for at least thinking about it.

Kelly (Cohibra45)

 

[ron169]

What does the 7.04 mean? That confuses me. I think Constructor brought a similar topic up the other day. Although we were thinking something more like 6.8 DMR or 6.8 ARP

 

[marinesg1012]

I didnt know we just randomaly yelled at people here?

 

[MCA]

What does the 7.04 mean? That confuses me. I think Constructor brought a similar topic up the other day. Although we were thinking something more like 6.8 DMR or 6.8 ARP

.277in x 25.4 mm/in = 7.04mm

 

[marinesg1012]

I think a 6.8 SPC plus P is what we need to do....

if H makes ammo for his rifles then that would be good also....

 

[constructor]

Gentlemen,

I know I'm going to get hollered at here, so I want to apologize from the start!!!

Over the last couple years, the main complaint I have heard from ammo and rifle manufacturers concerning increasing the 6.8 SPC cartridge's performance are those damn specifications sent to SAAMI by Remington.

It seems that most people are concerned over nothing, but some companies still refuse to bring up the 6.8's potential to what it can be for fear (founded or not) of liability. I have in the past suggested that we change the name of the faster loadings to include the +P name. Tim_W and others here don't want to do that and I see the reasoning behind such a change. Anything other than 6.8 SPC ammo for use in 6.8 SPC rifles makes sense.

However, since the government has dictated the higher pressure 556 Nato over the 223 Rem, perhaps we too can take that route and do the same for our beloved round. This might make it much more palatable for all (AND I MEAN ALL) involved. Just like you can shoot 223 in 556 rifles, but not the other way around, maybe we can persuade companies to start calling the 'faster' loads 704 or 7.04x43. I know we can't use NATO, but you never know. It might even help our military make up its mind (I doubt it, but it wouldn't hurt).

Just like the differences between 223 chambers and 556 chambers, companies can use the newer designation to produce newer rifles in the correct chamber/twist configuration. It really could be a win-win for everyone involved. People with the 6.8 SPC could still shoot those rounds, but people with the 704 could shoot those along with the 6.8. We would know better, but the general public could go on blissfully with what they have. Come to think about it, most all the companies making the correct Spec II chambers and the 1/11 or slower twist would just have to change to the 704 nomenclature.

Art and every other ammo manufacturer could start making the fastest commercial loadings for use in those rifles. Rifle makers would have all the correct information/specs to make a proper barrel. Again, all it would take is a change in nomenclature.

I just wanted to throw it out for everyone to chew on. Like I said, I was just thinking out loud........

Take care and don't take my head off without giving it a night to think it over.

Thanks for at least thinking about it.

Kelly (Cohibra45)

How's it going Kelly, get lost?
Originally we thought we could get everyone to change the specs and eventually the bad ones would just get worn out enough the pressure issues would disappear LOL
I have had several long conversations with Art lately and he just can't load up due to all of the rifles with bad specs. He is working on something but I believe it is military only at this point.
Several people have said we need to change the name so we can get better performance, maybe you guys are right but I don't know if Art would load for it even if we do.
I can have Art load custom ammo to my specs, the problem there is I take on the liability that Art doesn't want to take on, the only way to handle that is to sell only to people that have purchased uppers from Tim and I. I would need to shoot every barrel that leaves the shop with that load and everyone would need to sign an agreement to only use it in those uppers.
If I do that I need to keep the confusion down, the "DMR" chamber has been used for at least 2 years and that's what I'll need to stick with.

IMO the 7.04 will confuse people into thinking it is a 7mm round and maybe the new murray.

 

[stanc]

I think a 6.8 SPC plus P is what we need to do....

That makes sense to me. I think that staying with "6.8 SPC" and adding the "+P" designation would be the best approach. That's what has been done with a number of handgun cartridges, and seems to have worked well.

Changing the name to 6.8 ARP, 6.8 DMR, 7.04x43, or whatever would probably result in more than a little confusion.

 

[marinesg1012]

IMO the 7.04 will confuse people into thinking it is a 7mm round and maybe the new murray.

this is what I thought at first before I opened the thread....

 

[joshuades]

I didnt know we just randomaly yelled at people here?

it ry to every once and a while. I have to practice in case I really need to.

7.04, if my math isn't cocked, is the millimeter measure of the .277 (where 6.8 is .270).

I think at this point it would be prudent to have a change in nomenclature for the previously mentioned reasons. What about the .270 HSM (Harrison Short Mag). Winchester was successful along those name lines.

 

[stanc]

I think at this point it would be prudent to have a change in nomenclature for the previously mentioned reasons. What about the .270 HSM (Harrison Short Mag).

Besides (erroneously?) implying that there is a .270 Harrison Magnum of longer case length, there is also the matter that .270 is not a metric caliber designation, which the military switched to decades ago for new calibers. Since 6.8 SPC was developed by soldiers for military use, I think that many would view a change to .270 XXX as abandoning that heritage.

 

[constructor]

The problem with any of this is getting someone to load it. As Art said there are just too many people out there that will stick it in the chamber because they can, and sue you because they were stupid enough to dump hot coffee on themselves. The "Combat" load was a +P load but, I think it is gone for good. The guys that made 10 twist SAAMI chambers made them too long and screwed the rest of us out of better performing ammo.

Now if the mil purchased rifles with certain specs then they could control it and use better ammo, that does not mean it would ever be sold to the public.

We thought we had the rifle manufactures on the run but turns out they have more clout than we or the ammo manufactures do, all they have to tell customers is do not use xxxxxx ammo it will void your warrenty and who ever it is ammo sales slow.

 

[stanc]

The problem with any of this is getting someone to load it. As Art said there are just too many people out there that will stick it in the chamber because they can, and sue you because they were stupid enough to dump hot coffee on themselves.

I imagine that wouldn't change just by using a different name for faster loads. If a "6.8 DMR" round looks just like a 6.8 SPC, the stupids would almost certainly try to shoot it in a SAAMI chamber.

 

[Cohibra45]

The problem with any of this is getting someone to load it. As Art said there are just too many people out there that will stick it in the chamber because they can, and sue you because they were stupid enough to dump hot coffee on themselves. The "Combat" load was a +P load but, I think it is gone for good. The guys that made 10 twist SAAMI chambers made them too long and screwed the rest of us out of better performing ammo.

Now if the mil purchased rifles with certain specs then they could control it and use better ammo, that does not mean it would ever be sold to the public.

We thought we had the rifle manufactures on the run but turns out they have more clout than we or the ammo manufactures do, all they have to tell customers is do not use xxxxxx ammo it will void your warrenty and who ever it is ammo sales slow.

My original premise for the designation was to get away from 6.8 anything. It is to make people 'think' before loading it into their rifles. I know that it is a little too much for them, but just like the 223 vs 556.........if people stick a 556 into a 223 chamber, it will fit and fire, but be over pressure. I had in mind that just like the 556 in the 223, the only downside would be blown primers and or swipes, no kabooms!!!

Again, I wanted to get away from 6.8 anything and really didn't want to go with the 270 route, because it (the 270) sounds benign, not powerful. The 7.04x43 sounds a lot like the much bigger brother 7.62x51!!! ;-) And with that, the people would know that they have a very high potent round for their AR. Little would they realize that they are just shooting a hot 6.8 SPC. And of course, with the rifle manufacturers making their 7.04x43 barrels to the proper specs of Spec II chamber and 1/11-12 twists, they could advertise that their rifles are safe with any 704 or 6.8 round!!! People shooting their 6.8 SPC would be limited to shooting 'safe' loads from all the ammo manufacturers. Again, if someone did put a 704 into their 6.8 SPC, the only downside would result in blown primers or swipes. That's the theory.

Just a thought.

 

[Cohibra45]

To add a little caveat, what I said earlier about people with their 6.8 rifles being able to 'only' shoot the 6.8 SPC ammo.......well, we will know the difference and knowledge is king!!! I don't want to exclude anyone, just want to make it easier for the rifle and ammo manufacturers a way out of the original screw up by Remington!!!

Take care,

Kelly

 

[Colohunter]

This might be a good reason for some of you to get into reloading if you don't. Manufacturers will probably always be limited by the majority of rifles that are out there. If you reload for your rifle, you can push the limits of your own rifle to its potential. I know that many people don't have the time or money to get into reloading, but it opens up a lot of doors for load combos, accuracy, speed, etc...

 

[joshuades]

The problem with any of this is getting someone to load it. As Art said there are just too many people out there that will stick it in the chamber because they can, and sue you because they were stupid enough to dump hot coffee on themselves. The "Combat" load was a +P load but, I think it is gone for good. The guys that made 10 twist SAAMI chambers made them too long and screwed the rest of us out of better performing ammo.

Now if the mil purchased rifles with certain specs then they could control it and use better ammo, that does not mean it would ever be sold to the public.

We thought we had the rifle manufactures on the run but turns out they have more clout than we or the ammo manufactures do, all they have to tell customers is do not use xxxxxx ammo it will void your warrenty and who ever it is ammo sales slow.

Wouldn't a disclaimer work on this as it does on other +P ammo? If someone puts a +P in a pistol that isn't rated for that pressure, it'd be their own fault if the get a KB. YOu can have the ammo manufacturers make downloaded ammo for the ones that can't handle the extra pressure and also make the +P for the rifles that can, and mark the rifles that can as +P rated like the pistol barrels are.

 

[joshuades]

I imagine that wouldn't change just by using a different name for faster loads. If a "6.8 DMR" round looks just like a 6.8 SPC, the stupids would almost certainly try to shoot it in a SAAMI chamber.

9mm+P looks like regular 9mm. I've seen stupids mix those up a few times to a bad end. Are there precedents of those people sueing, and what was the outcome?

 

[dark1]

If you want to go down that rout y not call it the .277 kurtz to tie it with its older grandfather 8mm kurtz the grand daddy of the modern AR rnd and i love the sound of it

 

[VLODPG]

Too bad we cant get Colt on board for their MT line,using the correct spec for the barrel & chamber. I think that would pull the rest of the manufactures heads out of their A**!

Just think, hunters running arround the woods with 6.8

 

[stanc]

Again, I wanted to get away from 6.8 anything and really didn't want to go with the 270 route, because it (the 270) sounds benign, not powerful. The 7.04x43 sounds a lot like the much bigger brother 7.62x51!!! ;-) And with that, the people would know that they have a very high potent round for their AR. Little would they realize that they are just shooting a hot 6.8 SPC. And of course, with the rifle manufacturers making their 7.04x43 barrels to the proper specs of Spec II chamber and 1/11-12 twists, they could advertise that their rifles are safe with any 704 or 6.8 round!!! People shooting their 6.8 SPC would be limited to shooting 'safe' loads from all the ammo manufacturers.

Your idea could possibly work. IIRC, that's much like what Remington did in superseding .244 Remington with 6mm Remington.

The question is, can you convince one or more ammo makers to actually do it?