[Equalizer_2]

While perusing one of my favorite non-6.8 sites looking for a photo to answer a question posted in one of the Industry Partner forums I came across this piece of history.

http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/688cartridge.aspx

The writer of the article apparently knew something at the time. I do have to admit that that was one of the first pieces of information I found on the 6.8 and got me interested in getting one.

 

[DocGKR]

Uh....no.

Zak Smith has written the most comprehensive and accurate article on the history, genesis, and development of the 6.8 mm SPC that I have yet publicly encountered: http://demigod.org/~zak/archive/sgn_68spc.pdf.

 

[ArtFWTx]

Thanks for that link DocGKR. I saved that one for reference.

Art

 

[Equalizer_2]

Definitely thanks to Doc for the link. It is a much more complete history and informative article. Unfortunately that article from Zak did show up in my searches, probably from my lack of search technique.

I didn't intend to try and take anything away from that, it was just that it was very interesting and appeared to show that the .mil was definitely interested in the 6.8 and it was a serious contender in the selection of a new rifle with a new better performing cartridge when the testing was going on at that stage of the process.

 

[DocGKR]

The 5th SFG(A)/AMU ARC-SPC effort beginning around 2002 was an outgrowth of the 2000-2001 USASOC SPR-V 7.62x39mm program (in which the Robinson Arms RAV02 was the best performing rifle). The USASOC SPR-V was canceled and morphed in to the USSOC SCAR program.

The abortive HK XM8 was a "Big Army" program to try and salvage something tangible from the millions of dollars that had been sunk into the failed OICW XM29 program--no caliber other than 5.56 mm was ever seriously looked at for XM8. Keep in mind that it was this same "Big Army" that tried to suppress the results of the 2003-2006 $6 million JSWB-IPT testing where 6.8 mm dominated the 8 calibers/53 weapons systems that were analyzed during 10,000 test shots at 3-10m, 100m, and 300m distances... The superiority of the 6.8 mm over other assault rifle calibers was again confirmed by joint FBI/USMC testing in 2006.

Currently, the CTTSO/TSWG MURG program for SOF/OGA/Federal LE is the lead USG proponent for 6.8 mm. In addition, the recent "Big Army" carbine solicitation did mention 6.8mm...

 

[marinesg1012]

Let us hope the feds/SOF/OGA pick up the 6.8 if no one else does.....

 

[paulosantos]

The 5th SFG(A)/AMU ARC-SPC effort beginning around 2002 was an outgrowth of the 2000-2001 USASOC SPR-V 7.62x39mm program (in which the Robinson Arms RAV02 was the best performing rifle). The USASOC SPR-V was canceled and morphed in to the USSOC SCAR program.

The abortive HK XM8 was a "Big Army" program to try and salvage something tangible from the millions of dollars that had been sunk into the failed OICW XM29 program--no caliber other than 5.56 mm was ever seriously looked at for XM8. Keep in mind that it was this same "Big Army" that tried to suppress the results of the 2003-2006 $6 million JSWB-IPT testing where 6.8 mm dominated the 8 calibers/53 weapons systems that were analyzed during 10,000 test shots at 3-10m, 100m, and 300m distances... The superiority of the 6.8 mm over other assault rifle calibers was again confirmed by joint FBI/USMC testing in 2006.

Currently, the CTTSO/TSWG MURG program for SOF/OGA/Federal LE is the lead USG proponent for 6.8 mm. In addition, the recent "Big Army" carbine solicitation did mention 6.8mm...

I keep hearing that the 6.5G is back in the running again. Any truth to this?

 

[constructor]

The 5th SFG(A)/AMU ARC-SPC effort beginning around 2002 was an outgrowth of the 2000-2001 USASOC SPR-V 7.62x39mm program (in which the Robinson Arms RAV02 was the best performing rifle). The USASOC SPR-V was canceled and morphed in to the USSOC SCAR program.

The abortive HK XM8 was a "Big Army" program to try and salvage something tangible from the millions of dollars that had been sunk into the failed OICW XM29 program--no caliber other than 5.56 mm was ever seriously looked at for XM8. Keep in mind that it was this same "Big Army" that tried to suppress the results of the 2003-2006 $6 million JSWB-IPT testing where 6.8 mm dominated the 8 calibers/53 weapons systems that were analyzed during 10,000 test shots at 3-10m, 100m, and 300m distances... The superiority of the 6.8 mm over other assault rifle calibers was again confirmed by joint FBI/USMC testing in 2006.

Currently, the CTTSO/TSWG MURG program for SOF/OGA/Federal LE is the lead USG proponent for 6.8 mm. In addition, the recent "Big Army" carbine solicitation did mention 6.8mm...

I keep hearing that the 6.5G is back in the running again. Any truth to this?

:lol: :lol: let me guess where you heard that :lol:

 

[paulosantos]

The 5th SFG(A)/AMU ARC-SPC effort beginning around 2002 was an outgrowth of the 2000-2001 USASOC SPR-V 7.62x39mm program (in which the Robinson Arms RAV02 was the best performing rifle). The USASOC SPR-V was canceled and morphed in to the USSOC SCAR program.

The abortive HK XM8 was a "Big Army" program to try and salvage something tangible from the millions of dollars that had been sunk into the failed OICW XM29 program--no caliber other than 5.56 mm was ever seriously looked at for XM8. Keep in mind that it was this same "Big Army" that tried to suppress the results of the 2003-2006 $6 million JSWB-IPT testing where 6.8 mm dominated the 8 calibers/53 weapons systems that were analyzed during 10,000 test shots at 3-10m, 100m, and 300m distances... The superiority of the 6.8 mm over other assault rifle calibers was again confirmed by joint FBI/USMC testing in 2006.

Currently, the CTTSO/TSWG MURG program for SOF/OGA/Federal LE is the lead USG proponent for 6.8 mm. In addition, the recent "Big Army" carbine solicitation did mention 6.8mm...

I keep hearing that the 6.5G is back in the running again. Any truth to this?

:lol: :lol: let me guess where you heard that :lol:

Actually gunwritr posted something on BARFCOM. And I read something else about it on the Grendel forum.

 

[constructor]

The 5th SFG(A)/AMU ARC-SPC effort beginning around 2002 was an outgrowth of the 2000-2001 USASOC SPR-V 7.62x39mm program (in which the Robinson Arms RAV02 was the best performing rifle). The USASOC SPR-V was canceled and morphed in to the USSOC SCAR program.

The abortive HK XM8 was a "Big Army" program to try and salvage something tangible from the millions of dollars that had been sunk into the failed OICW XM29 program--no caliber other than 5.56 mm was ever seriously looked at for XM8. Keep in mind that it was this same "Big Army" that tried to suppress the results of the 2003-2006 $6 million JSWB-IPT testing where 6.8 mm dominated the 8 calibers/53 weapons systems that were analyzed during 10,000 test shots at 3-10m, 100m, and 300m distances... The superiority of the 6.8 mm over other assault rifle calibers was again confirmed by joint FBI/USMC testing in 2006.

Currently, the CTTSO/TSWG MURG program for SOF/OGA/Federal LE is the lead USG proponent for 6.8 mm. In addition, the recent "Big Army" carbine solicitation did mention 6.8mm...

I keep hearing that the 6.5G is back in the running again. Any truth to this?

:lol: :lol: let me guess where you heard that :lol:

Actually gunwritr posted something on BARFCOM. And I read something else about it on the Grendel forum.

Well, David has been Bills right hand from day 1 and of course the other goes without saying
:lol: They are desperate because they know the Gs dying and they keep posting those old performance graphs that grendelizer made up in attempt to make everyone think the G is a better cartridge. They know the Gs velocities can't touch the 6.8 but they have to keep singing the same old song in hopes they can fool a few newbies. They should have fixed the mag problem before it started going down hill, No one has been innovative with the 6.5 it's just stagnate.

 

[Equalizer_2]

Doc, thanks for the update on what is going on with the trials. I have been retired now for over 17 years and my plan while I was serving was if the SHTF I would grab the first G-3 that I could get my hands on as I always felt the 5.56 was too light for serious work.

I got to finish out my career with the Pistol Team at the USAMU and the unit still has some of the finest shooters and gunsmiths in the world.

 

[Test_User]

Bolts break, Mags don't feed. Feed ramps have to be perfect. Good luck finding one. You have to be careful what buffer you use or you break a bolt. You have to be careful what load you use of your break a bolt. You can be careful of both and still break a bolt. Best of all once you break it good luck getting another quickly. Sorry but any round that actually has a bolt break club and a sticky warning is not high on my list of what I will stake my or anyone I care abouts life on. Consider also that these 6.5 G bolts are suppose to be made out of the super tough alloy and have design features that make them significantly stronger than a normal bolt. A super Bolt if you will. Yet the Gredel still breaks them out of nowhere. Even the DPMS bolts made out of 8620 don't fail like that in the 6.8. I have yet to see a post about a premature bolt failure in a 6.8 since its public release and some are shooting wicked hot rounds for a long time :wink: .On top of that the 6.8 can shoot flatter out to 600 yards. Simply many do not understand that vel can trump BC until you get to extreme distances. The 6.8 vel is significantly higher than anything the G can do. The only reason the 6.5 got any air time in the mil combat arena was from riding the coat tails of the 6.8. It was always the compared to round. Then all the BS graphs that were sent around that were as lopsided as possible.

 

[marinesg1012]

Now dont hold back Tim, all that pent up frustration is bad for yah 8) 8) :lol: :lol:

 

[Test_User]

Oh you wanted me to give it too ya straight. :lol: :lol:

 

[Equalizer_2]

The more I read on this stuff the more WRONG information I see on the 6.8.

I just bought a new copy of Cartridges of the World and there is a chapter dedicated to the 6.8 and it has a lot of erroneous information in there. The problem with this is that so many people will not look any further and conclude that the 6.8 is a 400 yd CQB cartridge.
Hopefully the gun magazine article that is being worked up from another thread will open some eyes.

With the latest issue of SWAT magazine they again put out that the 6.5 G is capable of 1000 yd shots, GET REAL! the only people making such shots are target competitors and snipers. And snipers are going to use something better for that. Plus all these velocities and bullet drops are computer generated from what I know (which isn't necessarily a lot) outside the target shooters and real world is always different from the computer generated results in some form or another.

As Tim_W states velocity can beat BC to a certain extent but why can't someone design a bullet for the 6.8 with a better BC :?: The advantage the 6.5 G has is there are a lot of bullets out there for it and have been for years, there are very few 6.8 (.277) caliber cartridges ever developed. And with the fantastic BC of the 6.5 G aren't we getting back into the same problem of bullet stability on target impact that exists with the 5.56?

 

[constructor]

The more I read on this stuff the more WRONG information I see on the 6.8.

I just bought a new copy of Cartridges of the World and there is a chapter dedicated to the 6.8 and it has a lot of erroneous information in there. The problem with this is that so many people will not look any further and conclude that the 6.8 is a 400 yd CQB cartridge.
Hopefully the gun magazine article that is being worked up from another thread will open some eyes.

With the latest issue of SWAT magazine they again put out that the 6.5 G is capable of 1000 yd shots, GET REAL! the only people making such shots are target competitors and snipers. And snipers are going to use something better for that. Plus all these velocities and bullet drops are computer generated from what I know (which isn't necessarily a lot) outside the target shooters and real world is always different from the computer generated results in some form or another.

As Tim_W states velocity can beat BC to a certain extent but why can't someone design a bullet for the 6.8 with a better BC :?: The advantage the 6.5 G has is there are a lot of bullets out there for it and have been for years, there are very few 6.8 (.277) caliber cartridges ever developed. And with the fantastic BC of the 6.5 G aren't we getting back into the same problem of bullet stability on target impact that exists with the 5.56?

I have been shooting 105gr GS bullets with a BC of .505 for the past week. Getting a little over 3000fps.
They were holding 1/4MOA for vert. at 464yds but the 15mph gust were kicking my tail.
At 500 yds the grendel with it's best bullet the 123 Lapua out of a 22" barrel drops 36" and drifts 9.5" at 500yds.
the 6.8 with the 105 drops 26.5" and drifts 8.5" at 500.
The Grendel boys always quote the worst 6.8 graphs that John made up and the best graphs using Bills As loading data that he said was maximum loads(as in not too strong to break bolts)in his Grendel. Well lets do some new graphs that are worked up to be maximum loads(that don't break bolts) in the 6.8.
I'll take Bills data right off the Grendel forum then I'll take velocities obtained from the same length barrels and apply those to the Nosler, Vmax and GS match bullet, then compare those to the Grendel bullets including a few hunting and a few match bullets. We need a few graphs and I'll be fair and use the fastest grendel loads published.

 

[rushca01]

The more I read on this stuff the more WRONG information I see on the 6.8.

I just bought a new copy of Cartridges of the World and there is a chapter dedicated to the 6.8 and it has a lot of erroneous information in there. The problem with this is that so many people will not look any further and conclude that the 6.8 is a 400 yd CQB cartridge.
Hopefully the gun magazine article that is being worked up from another thread will open some eyes.

With the latest issue of SWAT magazine they again put out that the 6.5 G is capable of 1000 yd shots, GET REAL! the only people making such shots are target competitors and snipers. And snipers are going to use something better for that. Plus all these velocities and bullet drops are computer generated from what I know (which isn't necessarily a lot) outside the target shooters and real world is always different from the computer generated results in some form or another.

As Tim_W states velocity can beat BC to a certain extent but why can't someone design a bullet for the 6.8 with a better BC :?: The advantage the 6.5 G has is there are a lot of bullets out there for it and have been for years, there are very few 6.8 (.277) caliber cartridges ever developed. And with the fantastic BC of the 6.5 G aren't we getting back into the same problem of bullet stability on target impact that exists with the 5.56?

I have been shooting 105gr GS bullets with a BC of .505 for the past week. Getting a little over 3000fps.
They were holding 1/4MOA for vert. at 464yds but the 15mph gust were kicking my tail.
At 500 yds the grendel with it's best bullet the 123 Lapua out of a 22" barrel drops 36" and drifts 9.5" at 500yds.
the 6.8 with the 105 drops 26.5" and drifts 8.5" at 500.
The Grendel boys always quote the worst 6.8 graphs that John made up and the best graphs using Bills As loading data that he said was maximum loads(as in not too strong to break bolts)in his Grendel. Will lets do some new graphs that are worked up to be maximum loads(that don't break bolts) in the 6.8.
I'll take Bills data right off the Grendel forum then I'll take velocities obtained from the same length barrels and apply those to the Nosler, Vmax and GS match bullet, then compare those to the Grendel bullets including a few hunting and a few match bullets. We need a few graphs and I'll be fair and use the fastest grendel loads published.

I have been waiting for someone to do an updated chart! Thanks C for possibly doing this, to me this should put the nail in the preverable coufin as they say.

 

[Test_User]

There are some new bullets in the works to maximize LR perf in as mag length bullet. The reason this is more difficult in the 6.8 is the length of the case. The grendel is shorter but wider. This is why the Grendel has to keep pressure low as they are stuck to the confines of the AR bolt barrel extension spec. The wider the case head the wider the bolt face the more thrust on the bolt and the thinner the web around the lugs = a weaker bolt. For the 6.8 it is not nearly as wide and thus can handle pressures almost as high as the narrower 5.56 or about 10K higher than the G. Being a larger bore size it is also more effeceint and can use faster powders which again adds more energy. Combined with proper gas system length and proper timing makes this even better. Add to that the work done in finding the best chamber dimensions and rifling specs and twist rate and you add even more to the performance. One thing mentioned about he G is its high BC and heavier weight give it more ability to buck the wind. While true to some extent it does not work out as it looks on paper because of one factor well known to LR BR shooter. Time to target. The longer it is the more time the wind and other environmental factors have to work on the bullet. A super fast lower BC while it would not go as far ultimately before going subsonic over the most practical range 0-600 will need to get to the target quicker. This means less time to be effected. Add in that that extra vel also makes for a flatter flight and you have added even more benefits. If I had to use an AR-15 and I had to use it for targets of 600-800 and it had to be between the 6.8 and 6.5 and reliability didn't matter then the Grendel woudl be better choice for mag loadable rounds. But in the real world shooting at those distances I woudl pick either a bolt gun or setup to a AR-10 in a much more appropriate chambering that had the proper power to do the job well. Actually I could stay with the AR and use a modified extension and BCG and use the .243 WSSM But a .243, 260, 7mm-08 or most of the short mags will do the job to 1K. In a typical AR-15 the wildcat by Constructor the 5.56x42 which is a 6.8 necked down to 5.56 will send bullets screaming down range and stay SS to over 1K. IMO a ultimate P-dog setup for sure. BTW the groups and perf noted in articles on the BR sites about the Grendel were from bolt guns with 28" barrels with loads that have proven without a doubt to be over pressure for the AR Gs. This is straight from there own site.

 

[Strawdawg]

The more I read on this stuff the more WRONG information I see on the 6.8.

I just bought a new copy of Cartridges of the World and there is a chapter dedicated to the 6.8 and it has a lot of erroneous information in there. The problem with this is that so many people will not look any further and conclude that the 6.8 is a 400 yd CQB cartridge.
Hopefully the gun magazine article that is being worked up from another thread will open some eyes.

With the latest issue of SWAT magazine they again put out that the 6.5 G is capable of 1000 yd shots, GET REAL! the only people making such shots are target competitors and snipers. And snipers are going to use something better for that. Plus all these velocities and bullet drops are computer generated from what I know (which isn't necessarily a lot) outside the target shooters and real world is always different from the computer generated results in some form or another.

As Tim_W states velocity can beat BC to a certain extent but why can't someone design a bullet for the 6.8 with a better BC :?: The advantage the 6.5 G has is there are a lot of bullets out there for it and have been for years, there are very few 6.8 (.277) caliber cartridges ever developed. And with the fantastic BC of the 6.5 G aren't we getting back into the same problem of bullet stability on target impact that exists with the 5.56?

I have been shooting 105gr GS bullets with a BC of .505 for the past week. Getting a little over 3000fps.
They were holding 1/4MOA for vert. at 464yds but the 15mph gust were kicking my tail.
At 500 yds the grendel with it's best bullet the 123 Lapua out of a 22" barrel drops 36" and drifts 9.5" at 500yds.
the 6.8 with the 105 drops 26.5" and drifts 8.5" at 500.
The Grendel boys always quote the worst 6.8 graphs that John made up and the best graphs using Bills As loading data that he said was maximum loads(as in not too strong to break bolts)in his Grendel. Well lets do some new graphs that are worked up to be maximum loads(that don't break bolts) in the 6.8.
I'll take Bills data right off the Grendel forum then I'll take velocities obtained from the same length barrels and apply those to the Nosler, Vmax and GS match bullet, then compare those to the Grendel bullets including a few hunting and a few match bullets. We need a few graphs and I'll be fair and use the fastest grendel loads published.

Perhaps, it is time for a challenge. An independently supervised shoot off that compares the best configured 6.5G with one lot of the best ammo to suit it versus a similarly configured 6.8---both in AR-15s. 1000 rounds for each one to be shot in one day at the same time. Measure all the usual and see how they stack up. Have a couple of third parties to measure actual bullet drop, etc. Have the Grendolyzer attest it is his best configuration and likewise.

 

[Bubba FAL]

+1 on the shoot-off with one condition - first one that breaks a bolt loses!