6.8 SPC Forums banner
1 - 20 of 62 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,209 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
So thru all the events of the last couple days an idea hit me tonight.
I could actually pull this off fairly quickly for a prototype.

What if I have a billet lower made, which I already have someone that will do it.
I have that lower built with a mag well .060 longer, standard upper, no mods to feed ramps.
I have a billet aluminum mag built that will double stack and load to 2.36.
You can already load to 2.36 with just a windowed front mag and many have done it.
I would just lengthen the mag well enough for the mag to not need to be windowed in the front.
You can shoot all the 130's at 2.36 and even many 140's if you want.
If its well received we can then have them made from extruded aluminum and lower the cost.
Shifting to a final steel mag if warranted.

The billet lower would sell for about $180 and the mag for about $70 initially for a total outlay of $250. Less than half the cost of going only .040 more.

As anyone already loading long can attest to the gains from 2.36 to 2.4 are very minimal and the 2.36 would shoot standard 6.8 ammo much more accurately than a weapon set up for 2.4.
I know this because I have already tested it.
At 2.36 you can use any brand barrel you have or want to get.
Any standard upper, forged or billet.

I already have loads worked up, know the projectiles that will work and its much easier and will not take an expensive upper and lower.

I feel no need to add either my name or a company name to it and will simply call it the 6.8 GFC.

This is actually a doable and much more effective alternative figuring cost, performance gain, accuracy, ammo compatibility, mild change to platform etc.
Thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts
So thru all the events of the last couple days an idea hit me tonight.I could actually pull this off fairly quickly for a prototype.What if I have a billet lower made, which I already have someone that will do it.I have that lower built with a mag well .060 longer, standard upper, no mods to feed ramps.I have a billet aluminum mag built that will double stack and load to 2.36.You can already load to 2.36 with just a windowed front mag and many have done it.I would just lengthen the mag well enough for the mag to not need to be windowed in the front.You can shoot all the 130's at 2.36 and even many 140's if you want.If its well received we can then have them made from extruded aluminum and lower the cost.Shifting to a final steel mag if warranted.The billet lower would sell for about $180 and the mag for about $70 initially for a total outlay of $250. Less than half the cost of going only .040 more.As anyone already loading long can attest to the gains from 2.36 to 2.4 are very minimal and the 2.36 would shoot standard 6.8 ammo much more accurately than a weapon set up for 2.4.I know this because I have already tested it.At 2.36 you can use any brand barrel you have or want to get.Any standard upper, forged or billet.I already have loads worked up, know the projectiles that will work and its much easier and will not take an expensive upper and lower.I feel no need to add either my name or a company name to it and will simply call it the 6.8 GFC. Great Family Cartridge or the other more, shall we say risque F ing word for the slang version.This is actually a doable and much more effective alternative figuring cost, performance gain, accuracy, ammo compatibility, mild change to platform etc.Thoughts?
A local gunsmith could shave out 0.060 from a lower someone already has, I'm guessing from inside the rear so strength of front takedown pin area is not touched...? And we'd have the mod ourselves, just need the new mag?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,571 Posts
I think a little decorum goes a long way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,209 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,571 Posts
That was directed at you, not you're reason for creating this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,209 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
A local gunsmith could shave out 0.060 from a lower someone already has, I'm guessing from inside the rear so strength of front takedown pin area is not touched...? And we'd have the mod ourselves, just need the new mag?
We could likely take .010 to .015 out of the rear and the remainder out of the front.
There is a small amount there before we get to far back and the bolt catch becomes an issue.
Oly moved to the rear of the mag well and had to move the bolt catch to the rear.
It would be in the best interest of the platform to not have to do that in this configuration.

An existing lower could certainly have the material removed and just use the new mag.
A billet lower would allow us to slightly beef up the front of the mag well an additional .060 all except for a small area around the pivot.

I woke up this morning thinking I may really pursue this.
It would even benefit the Six5 cartridge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,290 Posts
Naw

I have been reading and following along. What comes back to mind is what H has said.

We already have a helluva cartridge doing exactly what we need, for a non-combat weapon. Sure enough Hogg/Venison taking mosheen. Proven for that.

My accuracy alone, in IWT upper, proves all that has been said. I believe most of us are happy with what we have. I am.

HTR, IWT, ARP have done a good job pushing projectiles with the Company's. We've got some good choices. We could all use more components! Stay diligent.

The Middle Eastern militaries have made this a military cartridge, as has USMGA. I suppose it is still working!

2.29 at 58K is the way. Let's find out how Hornady is doing all this in their 120 SST line; I.e. Powder. Velocities with lower pressure in the current cartridge dimensions. A new powder blend with our longer leaders would sure enough equate to greatness, IMO. Send them a ARP chamber, have them load longer, and test. Maybe they see something. Maybe this has already been attempted/done. I don't know.

I do appreciate all you 'experts' testimonies. I'm not in the same arena, but can identify. Actually, some good info came out of this. At least for me.

.....Testing the waters......Naw! Maybe a Wolverine powder???? Big pop in a small package!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,209 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I have been reading and following along. What comes back to mind is what H has said.

We already have a helluva cartridge doing exactly what we need, for a non-combat weapon. Sure enough Hogg/Venison taking mosheen. Proven for that.

My accuracy alone, in IWT upper, proves all that has been said. I believe most of us are happy with what we have. I am.

HTR, IWT, ARP have done a good job pushing projectiles with the Company's. We've got some good choices. We could all use more components! Stay diligent.

The Middle Eastern militaries have made this a military cartridge, as has USMGA. I suppose it is still working!

2.29 at 58K is the way. Let's find out how Hornady is doing all this in their 120 SST line; I.e. Powder. Velocities with lower pressure in the current cartridge dimensions. A new powder blend with our longer leaders would sure enough equate to greatness, IMO. Send them a ARP chamber, have them load longer, and test. Maybe they see something. Maybe this has already been attempted/done. I don't know.

I do appreciate all you 'experts' testimonies. I'm not in the same arena, but can identify. Actually, some good info came out of this. At least for me.

.....Testing the waters......Naw! Maybe a Wolverine powder???? Big pop in a small package!
Well what if I do it and don't change the name at all?
Just give folks an option for loading longer.
Perhaps bring out loaded ammo at 2.35 or 2.36 COAL.
I have someone that can do that as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,082 Posts
This is why I was so excited when LWRC said they were going to make their Six8 dimensions open source, I've been waiting for someone to make a billet lower to accept a bigger mag. Not only would it benefit the 6.8 but it would benefit allot of other wildcats also. I'm all for yours and Marks ideas and it will benefit us all.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,228 Posts
My thought is that extruded aluminum would be too thick for magazine material to accomplish much of anything.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
22,084 Posts
I was feeling pretty let down when the new CPD mags were released, and they had NOT utilized a butt-joint/weld approach, but the same old lap-joint/weld. PRI rocks with that butt-joint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,732 Posts
I was feeling pretty let down when the new CPD mags were released, and they had NOT utilized a butt-joint/weld approach, but the same old lap-joint/weld. PRI rocks with that butt-joint.
do they hold a patent on it?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,784 Posts
Since I am a business I shouldn't say anything in either one of these threads but, this is America. Anyone can do anything they want to do, just put up the money and bring out the product and see if it sells. I use to think people will gravitate toward the better performing part or better deal but now I think many are very gullible and will believe the hype. Big flashy ads and catchy names will sell anything.
Any product that allows us to load longer will help but there is a limit to what people will spend and change. I may be wrong but I think people choose these higher performance cartridges because they fit and work in lowers they already have. If not they could buy a 308 size rifle and smoke everything.
ETA- EVERYTHING is a gamble. Since you are dropping the cash on it only you can decide if it's a big risk or a little risk.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,753 Posts
Since I am a business I shouldn't say anything in either one of these threads but, this is America. Anyone can do anything they want to do, just put up the money and bring out the product and see if it sells. I use to think people will gravitate toward the better performing part or better deal but now I think many are very gullible and will believe the hype. Big flashy ads and catchy names will sell anything.
Any product that allows us to load longer will help but there is a limit to what people will spend and change. I may be wrong but I think people chose these higher performance cartridges because they fit and work in lowers they already have. If not they could buy a 308 size rifle and smoke everything.
+ plus 10 times. You can blow smoke up everyone's arse and keep the hype going until more and more people take notice. Some don't wanna be left out so they let common sense fly out the window to later realize they spent a bunch of money for minimal or less than appealing results.

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

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,933 Posts
I was feeling pretty let down when the new CPD mags were released, and they had NOT utilized a butt-joint/weld approach, but the same old lap-joint/weld. PRI rocks with that butt-joint.
do they hold a patent on it?
It has been used for an awful long time on pistol mags so not sure how they could but I am not a patent lawyer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,732 Posts
It has been used for an awful long time on pistol mags so not sure how they could but I am not a patent lawyer.
you never know now-a-days-----Kramer got that bolt patent through the patent office and it's been in use for years also---they may have specified that it was for ar-15 mags only, who knows---or maybe it's just more expensive and re-tooling is necessary so it would be cost effective for others? maybe that's why their mags cost so much?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,732 Posts
Pretty sure they stole the idea from me. LOL.
naw--- I thought you were my "co-inventor" on this project?
I guess the key word is highlighted below, you have to sign an oath that you are the actual inventor or co-inventor though-

In the language of the statute, any person who "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent," subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. The word "process" is defined by law as a process, act, or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes. The term "machine" used in the statute needs no explanation. The term "manufacture" refers to articles that are made, and includes all manufactured articles. The term "composition of matter" relates to chemical compositions and may include mixtures of ingredients as well as new chemical compounds. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything that is made by man and the processes for making the products.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,228 Posts
naw--- I thought you were my "co-inventor" on this project?
I guess the key word is highlighted below, you have to sign an oath that you are the actual inventor or co-inventor though-

In the language of the statute, any person who "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent," subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. The word "process" is defined by law as a process, act, or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes. The term "machine" used in the statute needs no explanation. The term "manufacture" refers to articles that are made, and includes all manufactured articles. The term "composition of matter" relates to chemical compositions and may include mixtures of ingredients as well as new chemical compounds. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything that is made by man and the processes for making the products.
Not that I care either way but if someone were to search there is a thread on here from several years ago where I suggested or questioned why someone hadn't done exactly this and even seem to remember some illustrations but, glad to see someone finally figured it out. The lap welds are much quicker and cheaper to do but causes a double layer of metal. which takes up usable space, where the butt weld leaves a single layer.
 
1 - 20 of 62 Posts
Top