[Cohibra45]

Gentlemen,

The last few months there has been a very solid movement for SAAMI to change the specifications for the beloved 6.8 SPC. There have been all kinds of names thrown out, but the majority of them still continue to use 68 in some manner, especially at the start of the name. 6.8x43mm, 6.86x43mm, 6.8 Spec II, etc......

This logic, while very good still leaves our ammo (and to some extent our rifle manufacturers) very leery of making 'full power' loadings. They (the ammo manufacturers) are worried that some moron might try to shoot the new 'full power' ammo in his less than stellar chamber/barrel twist and of course, the law suits that WILL follow. And I think we all know that the law suits will follow.........that is not in question.

I propose that the newer name should be championed by a SAAMI member or at least someone associated with SAAMI. We already have what SAAMI published for the 6.8 SPC. We can all agree that the specs given to them by Remington, probably through no fault of their own......read DocGKR's posts ie:

[ "For a match gun that is only going to be shot for one season, feel free to run your pressure at 55-60k; however, for a durable duty rifle, you want to go less. Regarding 6.8 mm pressures, Cris Murray wrote:

Quote:
"...as I told folks when we were developing the 6.8 and they always wanted more speed, more speed means more pressure, and more pressure means more heat. This is why in my final version of the chamber I used a 0.100 length lead, which is not the same lead that Remington used. Pressures must be kept below 52K or during a fight your rifle will be usless after the second magazine. True, during slow fire you can push the pressures up, the Army's long range 5.56 match load is a 90 gr projectile over 60K, but its slow fire-single loaded for 1000yd matches only. The old 1000yd, 180 gr 7.62 match load would literally melt down a M14 if you could've loaded them in a magazine and shot them for rapid fire. This is the one reason I restarted worked on the 7x46UAC, because it allows excellent ballistics without 52K+ pressures that would render it useless in a real fight."

Note that Remington my have gotten a bad rap on the 6.8 mm SAAMI chamber issue--in recently reviewing some of the old AMU Mike Rock 1/10 5R 6.8 mm barrels from 2002, it turns out the 6.8 mm chamber Remington was given and what they used to develop the SAAMI specs was an earlier AMU experimental "tight" chamber and not Murray's final design. Thus, the Remington engineers designed their SAAMI chamber specs on what they thought AMU wanted based on the earlier experimental barrel they were mistakenly sent--not on the final "Murray"/SPCII design...a seemingly small failure to attend to details that resulted in a lot of long term unanticipated consequences." ]

With that correct history of how SAAMI got the original specifications, no one should really blame or chastise the ammo manufacturers for their reluctance for making ammo to 'our' newer specs. We have been the most vocal in pushing for faster, lower pressure loads made by the ammo manufacturers. This just will not happen, I believe, until they can divest any and all liabilities associated with the '68' name.

Now, if someone associated with SAAMI were to give them 'new' specs for a 'new' cartridge, we could move on much faster and all involved would benefit. I propose those specs revolve around not only a different leade length, but also the maximum oal of the cartridge to just barely fit in the shortest magazine. Of course, the other specs should include rifle twists no faster than 1/11 with no more than 4 lands/grooves (or the equivalent poly/R types).

The 'name' I propose that be submitted to SAAMI is .277.........Not 270 or anything like it. It should be something entirely new and totally different. I know that the original names of the 223 and 270 had Remington and Winchester, but those last names have for the most part been dropped. When anyone asks for 223 or 270 ammo, they don't include the manufacturers name, they just ask 'gimme some 223 or 270'. So then we could go into any store and say, 'gimme some 277'!!! Everyone would know that this is the high octane 6.8 ammo. I know that the military likes to use the metric system, but since there might or might not ever be a chance in them adopting this cartridge, we shouldn't care. I know I would like them to adopt this round, but there is nothing stopping them from using the .277 NATO name is there??? No, not really!!!

This is a reversal of logic using the .223 Rem/556 NATO. It keeps the same logic tree, only reversed. I see the reversed logic as what has actually happened in the short history of the 6.8 SPC. Before anyone had the cartridge and rifles to shoot it, Remington submitted and got approval for it's now flawed SAAMI specs. I call them flawed, but the 6.8 SPC (even in those original SAAMI specs) is a tremendous improvement over other loadings for the AR. With the new completely different 'sounding' name (and specs provided by SAAMI) for the cartridge, ammo manufacturers will be freed to make the faster/lower pressure cartridges.

This has to be done correctly from the start, or we could just kill the cartridge. There is a tremendous amount of confusion by the average Joe out there going to the local gun shop and being told all sorts of things by the 'behind the counter experts'. The average Joe trusts them..........they must know what they are talking about.

Another area where all the correct information has to be brought out is in the media. Someone should take the time to tell the whole story in a positive way. This is extremely important!!!!!!! We will only get one shot at this and it has to be done totally correct from the start!!!

I have posted this here to try to bring all the latest thoughts on how to proceed from here in the future development of this great cartridge. I feel that for the full potential of this cartridge to really be unleashed, it has to be SAAMI approved and divested from the '68' anything. Sorry for stepping on the toes (feet, hands, etc...) of all the great people here associated with full development of this round. All the time, money, sweat, angst, and pulling of hair that has been done in testing and evaluation by all should be and has to be the foundation stone for the evolution of this stellar cartridge and never forgotten. As a matter of fact, it should be collated and put down in writing for the preservation of the history of the cartridge.

I know this is the second thread of proposing a name change and the reasons thereof that I have started. I believe that the name change has gotten the thought and vetting needed to go forward, whatever it turns out to be. I have stated my reasons for the change in this and the other thread ( http://www.68forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6110 ). SAAMI is in the process of reviewing the original specifications and the government is testing any and all rifles, calibers. Time is of the essence. Time to act is now. A decision needs to be made and hopefully by one close to SAAMI.

BTW, if you would like to talk with me about the history of this cartridge, please PM me here. I will be glad to write a short history of this cartridge and present it to everyone concerned for corrections and additions.

Kelly (Cohibra45)

 

[ron169]

I prefer 6.86X43 NATO. I dont really worry about the similarities between that and 6.8SPC because I see 270 win and 270 weatherby. I see 7.62X39 and 7.62X51, oh and 7.62X54. Regardless, If SAAmI decides to review the specification, or if a Member puts forth a new ''cartridge'' it is going to be up to that member to name the new '''Cartridge''. As an example, Hornady could put forth the new long lead chamber and cartridge and name it the 6.86 Hornady, and if voted by SAAMI members, that would be the new name. The problem is, we would need to know which company was going to put forth the new cartridge, and then petition them to change to a certain name. Good luck, because the best I can tell, they keep that s stuff very hush hush.

 

[HTR]

Kelly,

I am going to take just a little different spin on this. Several key factors must e considered when we discuss how to change the name of a given cartridge, especially when SAAMI has already named one similar to that which we ( and most manufacturers) know, is likely to give better performance.

Factor 1) "We" have almost no capability whatsoever, to affect the name of a given cartridge. None of us currently has connections to SAAMI. I believe our time is much better spent doing exactly what we are doing. Putting out good information, so that the manufacturers of guns and ammo have no choice but to see that the market wants something better than the 6.8 Remington SPC. Believe me, they will change to what their purchasers want. It is already happening.

Factor 2) I believe that the farther we get from the 6.8 mm SPC name, the more confusion we would cause. Think of just how many people still don't even know what this caliber is. This thing is in its infancy. I would venture to guess that 90% of all 6.8 shooters readily agree that it should have the same chance at plateaus of performance as does .223 and 5.56mm. That is why my state of the 6.8 article simply ties this analogy to the .223 versus 5.56. ( BTW, If you noticed, I just said "...I like to call it the 6.8 X 43 mm...." I made no case for that being the name, because I plucked it out of thin air, and I did not want the name to be the focus of the article.) It is EXACTLY the same thing, so it should be no great leap to understand it. In that case the .223 was the first cartridge released, so no metric designation was used until military pressure became the desired performance standard.

Factor 3) Remington has almost completely divested itself of the 6.8. They are owned by Cerberus Capital, who also owns Bushmaster. Bushmaster is making the SPC II chambered, 11 twist 4 groove gun. It should be no big deal to get them to support the notion that there can co-exist two cartridges with different pressure levels, when the only thing required to fire them is a leade that is .50" longer and perhaps different twists. Ergo, it would not surprise me to see even Remington, produce 6.8 X 43 mm rounds if that happened to be the "new name."

Factor 4) SAAMI must meet, twice per year, either to review existing submissions, or accept / deny new ones. Only their members can bring forth these submissions. So, unless we can convince someone....a SAAMI member to submit "our" cartridge, then SAAMI will do nothing different. (With all due respect to you, Kelly and your great ideas and enthusiasm) They certainly won't respond to internet forums discussuing what Hornady considers "dangerous" wildcat ammo. HOWEVER, once there are only one or two rifles on the market which will shoot their ammo, and all other manufacturers' rifles will shoot the "Dangerous" ammo, 200 FPS faster, safely , AND EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE PREFENTIALLY BUYING THE DANGEROUS AMMO, what do you think will happen?

I say, we continue doing exactly as we have done all along. Do not rest, do not give up, do not waver, do not piss people off whom can help us, do not presume that that email is not going to be read, and lastly, turn on your friends to the UBER- 6.8.

I rest my case....for now

 

[244]

Wrong place, wrong time. My apologies.

No apologies necessary at all.

Mod

 

[ArtFWTx]

... Nevermind. Explanation taken care of.

 

[Cohibra45]

HTR,

I do agree with most everything you said. You have taken a slightly different tack in pursuing the same end goal. I believe we all want only the best for the cartridge that quite possibly could be best carbine round developed in quite a while. It is extremely efficient and powerful at the same time. The bullets available are continuing to improve and manufacturers are giving the buying public what they are asking for, which is the best chamber/twist combinations for us to take full advantage of this wonderful cartridge.

Maybe I'm a little too anxious about wanting this to be widespread knowledge.

I do believe however, that a name change will be necessary for ammo manufacturers to give the general public the full potential (commercially available) cartridge. This will also only occur when standards for chamber/barrel leades and twists are finalized. I think we are extremely close to that end game with all the testing that you, Tim_W, Constructor, Paulo, Art_K, and all the others are doing. We can do just so much without big name people associated with SAAMI getting involved. This is where the manufacturers of both rifles and ammo are needed to make the final push for new SAAMI specs. Perhaps they are waiting to see where the final barrel twist will be set. Maybe it will be the number of lands and grooves or types like poly or R. I think we can all agree that the 'standard' leade should be 0.100". Also, I think we could all agree that all barrel twists should be slower than 1/10, but faster than 1/13 (probably 1/12 is max). That is why I am thinking that 1/11.5 twist might be the magic number, but Harrison might have hit it on the head with his 1/11.25!!!

Like I said, we all can agree that the faster speeds need to be achieved with lower pressures. This can only be done with changing the specs that SAAMI has given the cartridge so the various manufacturers have guidelines to follow.

As far as my suggestion for the '.277' name is just to make it very much easier for the general public to go to their local gun shop and say gimme some 277's. The 6.8 SPC will still be out there, but owners of the 'high pressure' barrels won't even think of getting those because they don't have '6.8' in the name. That is where I was coming from. Sort of reverse the 223/556 game and go with 6.8/277 where the 6.8 is the lower pressure round and the 277 is the higher pressure only to be used in rifles with the proper SAAMI approved spec barrels...........I never meant to confuse anyone, just make it easier for someone reading this with possible connections to SAAMI another way of looking at a solution to the barrel/twist-pressure problem. You never know who is reading these threads and what information and/or ideas might spring forth.

But I digress; I was smiling and had on my rose colored glasses again. I'll try to keep my enthusiasm toned down a bit!!! !!! I really do wish I would hurry up and win that lottery!!!



BTW, what happened to all the Icons and different color/bold/italics/sizes of fonts I use to have???? Just curious!!

 

[Cold]

HTR said

"2) I believe that the farther we get from the 6.8 mm SPC name, the more confusion we would cause."

He is 100% correct, if you alter the name to much, your opening yourself up to even more needless explination.

Its just a name, if they just call it 6.8 SPC or 6.8 NATO thats fine. To get fancy or detailed is only to confuse people.

We know how 762 NATO and 308 as well as 223 and 5.56 NATO gives people enough issues why fall prey to that problem.

 

[Cohibra45]

HTR said

"2) I believe that the farther we get from the 6.8 mm SPC name, the more confusion we would cause."

He is 100% correct, if you alter the name to much, your opening yourself up to even more needless explination.

Its just a name, if they just call it 6.8 SPC or 6.8 NATO thats fine. To get fancy or detailed is only to confuse people.

We know how 762 NATO and 308 as well as 223 and 5.56 NATO gives people enough issues why fall prey to that problem.

Cold,

Thanks, but the examples you gave are exactly the reason for the name change. Perhaps not to the extent of 6.8/277, but if just one of the numb nuts out there with their old Model 1 rifle gets hold of some hot loads...........well, you get my point.

Another way to look at the argument for my way of thinking is just the reasons you gave with the 308/7.62 and 223/556. They have already paved the way for another combo cartridge. Ammo manufacturers are already making 556 ammo and stating on their boxes 'not for use in 223 firearms'. All you have to do is look at the names and the large difference in number/names is what causes the separation.

I believe some people will still be confused no matter where this goes. I'm just trying to give ammo and SAAMI a simple and easy out...

Again, I didn't mean to leave you out of the list of names that have been championing this great round. Thanks for all your support and this forum.

Kelly

 

[Reno Sepulveda]

I propose the 6.8 Wiglaf

 

[HTR]

HTR,

I do agree with most everything you said. You have taken a slightly different tack in pursuing the same end goal. I believe we all want only the best for the cartridge that quite possibly could be best carbine round developed in quite a while. It is extremely efficient and powerful at the same time. The bullets available are continuing to improve and manufacturers are giving the buying public what they are asking for, which is the best chamber/twist combinations for us to take full advantage of this wonderful cartridge.

Maybe I'm a little too anxious about wanting this to be widespread knowledge.

I do believe however, that a name change will be necessary for ammo manufacturers to give the general public the full potential (commercially available) cartridge. This will also only occur when standards for chamber/barrel leades and twists are finalized. I think we are extremely close to that end game with all the testing that you, Tim_W, Constructor, Paulo, Art_K, and all the others are doing. We can do just so much without big name people associated with SAAMI getting involved. This is where the manufacturers of both rifles and ammo are needed to make the final push for new SAAMI specs. Perhaps they are waiting to see where the final barrel twist will be set. Maybe it will be the number of lands and grooves or types like poly or R. I think we can all agree that the 'standard' leade should be 0.100". Also, I think we could all agree that all barrel twists should be slower than 1/10, but faster than 1/13 (probably 1/12 is max). That is why I am thinking that 1/11.5 twist might be the magic number, but Harrison might have hit it on the head with his 1/11.25!!!

Like I said, we all can agree that the faster speeds need to be achieved with lower pressures. This can only be done with changing the specs that SAAMI has given the cartridge so the various manufacturers have guidelines to follow.

As far as my suggestion for the '.277' name is just to make it very much easier for the general public to go to their local gun shop and say gimme some 277's. The 6.8 SPC will still be out there, but owners of the 'high pressure' barrels won't even think of getting those because they don't have '6.8' in the name. That is where I was coming from. Sort of reverse the 223/556 game and go with 6.8/277 where the 6.8 is the lower pressure round and the 277 is the higher pressure only to be used in rifles with the proper SAAMI approved spec barrels...........I never meant to confuse anyone, just make it easier for someone reading this with possible connections to SAAMI another way of looking at a solution to the barrel/twist-pressure problem. You never know who is reading these threads and what information and/or ideas might spring forth.

But I digress; I was smiling and had on my rose colored glasses again. I'll try to keep my enthusiasm toned down a bit!!! !!! I really do wish I would hurry up and win that lottery!!!

BTW, what happened to all the Icons and different color/bold/italics/sizes of fonts I use to have???? Just curious!!

Kelly,

Stay enthusiastic. You are one of the most educated, and diplomatic voices among this crowd and you do us a lot of good with the letters and emails that you write. Keep that up. I can assure you that it has not gone unnoticed.

We all need to breathe deeply and not get what I call "success-anxiety." Things are moving so fast that we get ahead of ourselves. WE KNOW WE ARE RIGHT. When that is the case, and you propound good information, people (as long as they are not in government bureaucracies) always end up listening.

I just got off the phone with Bushmaster a few days ago. These guys were great. They said that they actually appreciated the fact that someone else did the research for them, and they "...just had absolutely no choice but to come on board". Now, they are "... excited to be here, and looking froward to what the future holds..." for the round and their guns, as a result. Who ever thought this would happen?

So, Focus your energies on talking, in an educated, friendly and civil manner to guys like Cold's friend at Hornady. You just never know what one friendly conversation with the right guy might lead to. You are one of the guys that could easily pull that off.

Consider this:

1) NO ONE is stuck with 5.56mm 1:7 twist barrels, or 1:12 or 1:9 for that matter. SAAMI doesn't dictate that there must be one accepted 5.56 twist, and God knows the 1:7 is a compromise. I NEVER USE IT. I actually only use 1:12. Everyone thinks that is not the "accepted" norm now. If they have a different purpose , they will use a different twist. We don't really NEED to force a single, accepted twist. One could use 1:11 or 1:12 and do fine. If one shoots subsonics, he might actually want a 1:10. SAAMI just needs to define the higher pressure cartridge with a longer accepted COAL, and the .100 leade. Then the buyer can still choose his / her twist based upon the use. When they continue to choose 11 or 12, mfr's will produce them

2) Even if there are still Model 1 guns on the market, if we are lucky enough to get a SAAMI determination on the leade dimensions and the COAL, or pressure levels acceptable in the "new" named 6.8, then we are GOLDEN. All the manufacturers, including Hornady, can simply put the warning on the box that "this ammunition is for use only in SPC II chambered weapons..." and they have absolved themselves of the responsibility, which lies with the shooter, to chamber the rounds in the right weapon. It is the same thing as a guy putting 3 inch mags in a 2 & 3/4 inch chamber. Just because the shorter 12 gauge chambers are out there, it does not stop them from making 3 & 1/2 " magnums.

They just want legal, civil and regulatory backup, and I cannot really blame them.

 

[Z09SS]

.277 SPC would get us there for declaring the chamber dims to the public.

 

[luvmymini14]

just my $.01

Since, as I understand it, the official name of the cartridge is 6.8mm Remington SPC, I would like to see the name be changed for the higher pressure cartridges to 6.8 SPC. Since Remington failed to do due diligence before putting out an inferior chambering, remove them from any credit for a fine round.

 

[Test_User]

6.8x43 It can not get more basic and self explanatory than that although 6.8 NATO sure would be very cool but I am quite sure that is not allowed unless it really was supplied by NATO jsut like someone else using Weatherby

 

[dark1]

I just wounder if the accidental printing of 6.8 NATO on those LWRC barrels a few weeks back may mean sum thing in the future but i do like the nice and simple 6.8x43

 

[Test_User]

"...as I told folks when we were developing the 6.8 and they always wanted more speed, more speed means more pressure, and more pressure means more heat. This is why in my final version of the chamber I used a 0.100 length lead, which is not the same lead that Remington used. Pressures must be kept below 52K or during a fight your rifle will be usless after the second magazine. True, during slow fire you can push the pressures up, the Army's long range 5.56 match load is a 90 gr projectile over 60K, but its slow fire-single loaded for 1000yd matches only. The old 1000yd, 180 gr 7.62 match load would literally melt down a M14 if you could've loaded them in a magazine and shot them for rapid fire. This is the one reason I restarted worked on the 7x46UAC, because it allows excellent ballistics without 52K+ pressures that would render it useless in a real fight."

Note that Remington my have gotten a bad rap on the 6.8 mm SAAMI chamber issue--in recently reviewing some of the old AMU Mike Rock 1/10 5R 6.8 mm barrels from 2002, it turns out the 6.8 mm chamber Remington was given and what they used to develop the SAAMI specs was an earlier AMU experimental "tight" chamber and not Murray's final design. Thus, the Remington engineers designed their SAAMI chamber specs on what they thought AMU wanted based on the earlier experimental barrel they were mistakenly sent--not on the final "Murray"/SPCII design...a seemingly small failure to attend to details that resulted in a lot of long term unanticipated consequences." ]

I am having a very hard time with this part. I have many correspondence from the very beginning of this round. I have read and researched just about everything ever written or done on the 6.8 not to mention having written a number or articles myself including the only barrel performance tests which has some how disappeared with the move to the new software along with the fact H and I have done more configuration testing than any others with the 6.8. Given some developments still to be released this sure seem very convenient timing. Remington now suddenly made no mistakes especially at this juncture. I need to do some checking about this.... I had a lot more written but removed it until I get in contact with some people. But something is not adding up here for sure.