6.8 SPC Forums banner

Should the SPCII be SAAMI approved

  • NO

    Votes: 2 1.7%
  • Yes at 2.26 OAL

    Votes: 18 15.5%
  • Yes at 2.28 OAL

    Votes: 11 9.5%
  • yes at 2.29 OAL

    Votes: 10 8.6%
  • Yes at 2.29 and 58,000psi max

    Votes: 75 64.7%
1 - 20 of 107 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,784 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
A simple poll with opinions of course. Do you think the SPCII should be SAAMI approved and at what specs to gain what performance?
We all know most mags allow loading to 2.29, maybe a little more but IMO that would be pushing it.
At the moment the spec OAL is 2.26.

ETA- Just to be clear here I am NOT leading the charge I'm just the first to start a poll to see what everyone thinks. You will see later in the thread I point out good and bad things on both sides of the fence.

This is a little info that I believe is close to the performance possible at the pressure shown. Notice the 120 reaches close to 2600 out of a 18" barrel at 55,000psi.
It's not the gospel, just close to what may be obtained.
Is it worth pushing through SAAMI to get these performance gains when most of us are handloading to these levels already?

120SST---------2.3"OAL-- IMO apx 30-31gr is max fill for ball powders and the 120 sst loaded to 2.295
For that reason CFE, Lever, 2520 and 748 are too slow IMO. Not too slow to use just a little slow to get optimum velocity. This test run with an 18" barrel.

33gr Lever-2497fps and 49201psi-compressed max fill
31gr 8208-2558fps and 56923psi-compressed max fill
31gr H335-2542fps and 57091psi
30gr Xterm-2506fps and 57279psi
33gr 2520-2584fps and 54789psi-compressed max fill
28.2gr 2200-2609 and 57312psi---see "testing primers" note below
29gr 2200-2652fps and 59778psi
29gr 1200R-2597fps and 59703psi
27.5gr Norma200-2536 and 58060psi
29.5 N530-2612fps and 57kpsi
28.2gr 10X-2561 and 55900psi

95gr TTSX-Top performing powders, any slower burning powders will produce less velocity
29.5gr 2200-2801fps-54260psi
30.5gr 2200-2889fps-57928psi
30.5gr RE7-2905fps-58100psi
29gr Norma 200-2819fps-55052psi
29.gr Norma 200-2862fps-57954psi
30gr N530-2709fps-50974psi
27.8gr 1680-2854-58163psi
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,540 Posts
Voted yes at 2.26 - probably easiest option to see happen due to varying mag lengths. The way to do longer in my opinion is to get a magazine manufacturer to have skin in the game so that their mag is the SPCII mag that allows the longer OAL. Barrett is out, so maybe ASC, PRI, etc.

If you get one or many of them on board to agree to the longer OAL standard then I change my vote to longer length agreed upon at max pressure agreed upon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
620 Posts
I just wonder if ammo manufacturers would even load to those specs given that there may be original chambers out there from a liability standpoint. It's not a cheap thing to do from what I understand.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,784 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I just wonder if ammo manufacturers would even load to those specs given that there may be original chambers out there from a liability standpoint. It's not a cheap thing to do from what I understand.
That is a possibility. There are a lot of normal 6.8s and a lot of average joes shooting them that only care if it will take down a deer or hog.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,143 Posts
That is a possibility. There are a lot of normal 6.8s and a lot of average joes shooting them that only care if it will take down a deer or hog.
I think the chamber drawing needs to be addressed for sure, and maybe introduce a +P to go along with that which would cover manufacturers? It seems to work for pistol rounds, there are +P and +P+ available in most retail locations now, it clearly has covered whatever liability issues ammo manufacturers may have normally been restricted by. I like the longer loading option, my go-to is the 95-TTSX with AA2200 at 2.95 and I have yet to find a load with better accuracy/velocity or a bullet I'm more confident in for hunting. Having that type of factory ammo available for hunters would help based on the people I've talked to. Once they start looking at the velocity loss from handloads to factory loads since everyone has dropped their velocity most are turned off the idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,933 Posts
I voted 2.29 and max at 58,000. Just because those are the max does not mean you have to reach that. If H can get almost 2600 for a 120 gr at about 55,000 then the manufacturers can reach or exceed that velocity with equal or less pressure due to non canister type powders and blends.

As for the plain 6.8 shooters that just want to drop a deer then this is moot but with the SPC II being a requirement to shoot the ammo in their guns. This would be no different than the requirement from SSA for using the Combat/Tac loadings. Large safety orange stickers saying For SPC II Chambered Firearms Only would avoid problems with purchasing the incorrect ammo and protect the manufacturers along with reducing the number of packaging options they would need to stock.

The only fly in this ointment are the number of idiots that the courts/lawyers protect by suing any and everyone for any and everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,732 Posts
if the increased pressure of 58,000 were to be passed--- would there be issues with bolt strength as most of the bolt designs out there are not ARP superbolts ???=--- the bolt strength/proof load testing must be taken into account for the liability factor of standard 223/5.56 bolts relieved to the 6.8 case head like most manufactures provide.

personally, since I reload, I would only be interested in the spec II 2.29/ 58,000psi cheep plinking loads---- if they aren't cheep, I would just buy the spec I loads if still available cheep---I can hand load more accurately than most factory loads and for only the cost of the components. ..... It is a very rare occasion that I actually buy anything but cheep plinking loads for any of my rifles, just to shoot for good brass for my reloads

sure it would be nice for non-reloaders to be able to buy "full pressure" ammo, but will they buy enough of it to make it worth while for the market to bear it? SAAMI probably wouldn't care 1 way from the other, as they still get their cash no matter what
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,753 Posts
Taking the Spec II to SAAMI just to correct and do away with the original would be a plus.

I voted 2.29 it would allow choices and ammo manufacturers don't have to load to max, but that option would be there. I think that would open the door for TAC load factory ammo if SPC II correct prints become SAAMI.


Sent from a final firing position, the crosshairs are on you!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,432 Posts
Max it out.

Name it whatever you want, I'm in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,042 Posts
I think if the goal is to lead to the proliferation of the 6.8 round by more individuals, introducing higher pressure and longer length at the same time is going to induce further confusion. I'm not a wildcatter, so when looking at rounds I wanted something simple, effective, and readily available without issue. The 6.8 is already plagued by SPC I, SPC II, DMR, and whatever other chambers are out there, making it confusing as-is. If hunters (who don't fire thousands of rounds a year and don't reload) have to look at each box to see if it will fit their mag length (some of mine feel tight at 2.28), then have to reference their barrel to see chamber spec, then have to think of their bolt manufacturer to see if it is rated, they will pass on such a caliber. I'll be honest I was pretty close to turning away from 6.8 because of all the confusion. 300 Blackout goes into a 300 Blackout chamber, and uses all the same mags. Simplicity makes the marketing so easy for those wanting to push it. I stayed away from Grendel since I didn't want to mess with the chambers of LBC I, LBCII or 6.5 Grendel or whatever they all have. I think the other consideration, as odd as it sounds - I don't think people on this board will be the biggest SPCII ammo buyers. If we are here, we probably reload ourselves, tailor loads to our own guns, and only buy boxed ammo if ridiculously cheap or needed for a hunt when we are out of reloads. That's just my assumption, but I feel it probably applies to many of us. So we are thinking of the proliferation of the round, we should focus on the new buyers and future hunters/self defense purchases.

- Not raise chamber pressure. 6.8s aren't known to be "Kaboom" rounds. All it takes is a few publicized cases for the 6.8 to be blow-up-prone, and then the average hunter will run for the hills. This also gives us leeway in case someone accidentally throws a SPCII ammo loading into a SPCI chamber. I don't think a 58K load will blow a Stag bolt or anything else, but we shouldn't assume all have Superbolts. Assume everyone has the weakest 6.8 bolts possible (I don't know what that is). Lawyers will appreciate you not "hot rodding" it, and I think it has a lot better possibility of getting loaded better by the powers that be.

-Keep length at 2.26. At most, go 2.28. Those that want to load it long and reload will always do so, but I think having 100% fit into magazines is key. If we start having rounds that don't fit, people will shy away because they have to get specific brands. 6.8 is already hamstringed by media and the plethora of chambers, let's not give them any more fuel for the fire to stay away from 6.8. I think most mags will fit 2.28, but I would hate to push it and lose buyers because of that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
I'm personally not going to vote as to not skew the numbers. I've been keeping up with the post on the different chambers but don't really know enough about them to really get involved. All this being said when I built my 6.8 a few months ago I did it with the intentions of having something with more power and better performance that a 223 and could care less about 300. I researched it and stumbled across this forum and thought hey this is a pretty neat round. Did some more research and decided to go with it. I bought one of Harrisons SPCII barrels because of the high pressure chamber for reloading. (Sorry I know guys call you H on here but I don't know you personally)

Now with all this other talk the water is muddy and I guess from a lack of knowledge or understanding I'm getting lost in it. It seems that maybe getting the 223 would've been a better decision. I understand things change and folks try to improve things but dang at what point do you go with the one you came with? Don't get me wrong improving things is a plus BUT if it ain't broke why fix it?

Like I said I'll leave the decisions to the guru's and those on here that know what's going on. From what I have read and from Harrison's reputation I would consider him the head guru and will fall in line with what is agreed upon. There are other people on here that know a lot about this stuff to and no offence but that's how I see it.

As long as the chamber I have will handle the ammo being produced or what I hand load then I'm good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,732 Posts
here is more info on chamber designs:
Current chamberings[edit]

There are several different chambers for the 6.8 SPC which yield different results. They are:

  1. Original Murray 6.8×43 ERC developed in 2002.
  2. Murray DMR chamber, which was meant to address improved accuracy expectations for the ERC Special Purpose Rifle program in SOCOM.
  3. The Remington SAAMI submitted specifications. It was supposed to have a 1.3 mm (0.050 in) freebore, 45° cone angle, 7.1 mm (0.278 in) ⌀ freebore. The reamers and PTG prints had an 80° neck to freebore cone angle, which was a result of a mistake in the reamer drawing submitted, and was never corrected by the reamer maker or Remington during the process of tooling up for the testing protocols that eventually drove the SAAMI submission.
  4. SPC II is current standard chamber used by most barrel manufactures. It has been said to be very close to the original Enhanced Rifle Cartridge Program chamber. It has a 2.9 mm (0.114 in) freebore, 45° cone angle, 7.1 mm (0.278 in) ⌀ freebore, 7.84 mm (0.3085 in)neck.
  5. 6.8 ARP(6.8×43mm renamed )(DMR has been replaced by 6.8×43/6.8 ARP, both are/were created by AR Performance). It has a 2.4 mm (0.095 in) ⌀ freebore, 45° cone angle, 7.05 mm (0.2775 in) dia, and a 7.84 to 7.85 mm (0.3085 to 0.309 in) neck.[Proprietary chamber]
  6. Noveske Mod 1 designed by Noveske Rifleworks LLC. It has been said to have a 2.5 mm (0.100 in) Freebore.[Proprietary chamber]
Only the rifles chambered with the newer specified chamber (6.8mm Spec II, Noveske Mod 1 and 6.8 ARP chambers) can safely use the higher pressure military/tactical and near max-maximum handloaded ammunition. Those rifles using the Original SAAMI specs should only be used with the standard commercial cartridge pressure (Specified by SAAMI).

what is very interesting to me is that from what I had heard, almost all barrel manufactures have stopped using the 6.8 Remington spc (with the .050 freebore)....BUT I just looked at McGowen's website and they still list the 6.8 Rem spc (.050 FB) as an option for chamber--- they also list the 6.8spcII as an option to but do not designate it's specifics.

Mark--- what chamber does LWRC use for their six8? is it one of the ones listed above in Wikipedia?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,540 Posts
here is more info on chamber designs:
Current chamberings[edit]

There are several different chambers for the 6.8 SPC which yield different results. They are:

  1. Original Murray 6.8×43 ERC developed in 2002.
  2. Murray DMR chamber, which was meant to address improved accuracy expectations for the ERC Special Purpose Rifle program in SOCOM.
  3. The Remington SAAMI submitted specifications. It was supposed to have a 1.3 mm (0.050 in) freebore, 45° cone angle, 7.1 mm (0.278 in) ⌀ freebore. The reamers and PTG prints had an 80° neck to freebore cone angle, which was a result of a mistake in the reamer drawing submitted, and was never corrected by the reamer maker or Remington during the process of tooling up for the testing protocols that eventually drove the SAAMI submission.
  4. SPC II is current standard chamber used by most barrel manufactures. It has been said to be very close to the original Enhanced Rifle Cartridge Program chamber. It has a 2.9 mm (0.114 in) freebore, 45° cone angle, 7.1 mm (0.278 in) ⌀ freebore, 7.84 mm (0.3085 in)neck.
  5. 6.8 ARP(6.8×43mm renamed )(DMR has been replaced by 6.8×43/6.8 ARP, both are/were created by AR Performance). It has a 2.4 mm (0.095 in) ⌀ freebore, 45° cone angle, 7.05 mm (0.2775 in) dia, and a 7.84 to 7.85 mm (0.3085 to 0.309 in) neck.[Proprietary chamber]
  6. Noveske Mod 1 designed by Noveske Rifleworks LLC. It has been said to have a 2.5 mm (0.100 in) Freebore.[Proprietary chamber]
Only the rifles chambered with the newer specified chamber (6.8mm Spec II, Noveske Mod 1 and 6.8 ARP chambers) can safely use the higher pressure military/tactical and near max-maximum handloaded ammunition. Those rifles using the Original SAAMI specs should only be used with the standard commercial cartridge pressure (Specified by SAAMI).

what is very interesting to me is that from what I had head, almost al barrel manufactures have stopped using the 6.8 Remington spc (with the .050 freebore)....BUT I just looked at McGowen's website and they still list the 6.8 Rem spc (.050 FB) as an option for chamber--- they also list the 6.8spcII as an option to but do not designate its specifics.

Mark--- what chamber does LWRC use for their six8? is it one of the ones listed above in Wikipedia?
I don't know what LWRC's chambers look like or are spec'd to, sorry. I'm surprised McGowen still lists the original spec. Maybe they will until they wear out the reamer(s) they have already purchased and then check them, who knows. Only someone that hasn't done their research would order an original though, so It confuses me as well. All parties that still have an original spec chamber should just destroy them so that we can check that box.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,732 Posts
I don't know what LWRC's chambers look like or are spec'd to, sorry. I'm surprised McGowen still lists the original spec. Maybe they will until they wear out the reamer(s) they have already purchased and then check them, who knows. Only someone that hasn't done their research would order an original though, so It confuses me as well. All parties that still have an original spec chamber should just destroy them so that we can check that box.
thought you might know what chamber lwrc uses since you are working with them on a new chamber design---seemed logical
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,228 Posts
I voted yes at 2.280 because even though I load to 2.290 I have seen mags that will not handle the length. Honestly, I would defer to your judgement Harrison. I trust you and would appreciatte your opinion. I would like to see what ever it takes to get barrel makers and ammo manufacturers on the same page. Unless I am mistaken, SAAMI does not lock in a specific leade and that could be up to the manufacturer so long as it meets the minimum or am I way out in left field on that. I assumed it was the cartridge that is SAAMI spec'd and not the chamber.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,540 Posts
thought you might know what chamber lwrc uses since you are working with them on a new chamber design---seemed logical
Yes sorry for any confusion - not working with them on the chamber design, working with them on getting it to run in a Six8 and a mag to go in it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,209 Posts
Yes sorry for any confusion - not working with them on the chamber design, working with them on getting it to run in a Six8 and a mag to go in it.
Really? Your working with LWRC to get the "GPC" to run in the Six8, and working with LWRC to get the metal mags working in the Six8?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,540 Posts
Really? Your working with LWRC to get the "GPC" to run in the Six8, and working with LWRC to get the metal mags working in the Six8?
Yes, that's correct. I have authorization to say that much about our discussions with them, nothing more.

If you want to continue to come after me, do it on the other thread in my section. I can take it over there, but this thread is not the right place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,149 Posts
My 2 cents for what it's worth. i agree with 2.29 and 58,000 psi. The chamber can easily handle that. Most of these guns are rated to 55 with the ability to handle 60.

What im more concerned with is correcting all the odd chamber dimensions out there so they meet the standard. If SAAMI says 2.29 then if magazine companies want to compete they will be forced to make their magazines to fit the standard. We know it's doable since a few are easily doing it.

The other thing it will do is standardize Ammo size to fit the properly spec'd chamber. You will always have improved chambers and lighter loaded Ammo from source A or B. That's how this industry works but having a standard to improve from sure does help. There is no way anyone here can say the SPC is the standard anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,209 Posts
If you want to continue to come after me, do it on the other thread in my section. I can take it over there, but this thread is not the right place.
I was just asked a question, nothing more.
 
1 - 20 of 107 Posts
Top