6.8 SPC Forums banner
81 - 100 of 102 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
END OF DISCUSSION PLEASE

AGREE TO DISAGREE

YOU HAVE EACH MADE YOUR POINTS, I DON'T THINK ANYONE WHO HAS MADE ANY DECISION ON THE MATTER WILL BE SWAYED BY FURTHER ARGUMENT.

THANK YOU
For now, I'm going to hit "pause" on my keyboard. I'm still attempting to be subtle.
Sometimes when heated stuff goes on, the temptation to Lock/delete the thread is heavy... I know because I have Admined several community sizable forums in the past, HOWEVER, a LOT can be learned thru back and forth discussions, heated or not.
Some past threads about this got 'deleted'?? (that's what I understood to be true?), did not allow the "need to get this off my cheat" to come to a full end.
So for now, Thank You for allowing this, there is great info in here.
This thread could be 'Stickyed" and ironically, there would be less attention to it but a better solution than locking or deleting. IMO only
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,767 Posts
I’ve stayed out of this however, as mods we’ve discussed this in private.

1. I admire the passion and innovation put into the 6.8 by Harrison.

2. I also admire Robert’s passion to develop a projectile that performs beyond others in accuracy and terminal performance on game.

With all that said, I believe the solution is well past the point of being recognized and it’s time to:

STFU and adhere to .277 diameter bullets and move on.

Just my nickels worth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
22,751 Posts
I may "undelete" the whole thing, and let the dust settle where it may.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
2,363 Posts
I’ve stayed out of this however, as mods we’ve discussed this in private.

1. I admire the passion and innovation put into the 6.8 by Harrison.

2. I also admire Robert’s passion to develop a projectile that performs beyond others in accuracy and terminal performance on game.

With all that said, I believe the solution is well past the point of being recognized and it’s time to:

STFU and adhere to .277 diameter bullets and move on.

Just my nickels worth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thank you for letting me know the mods position.
My bullets already are .277
So I will STFU and move on to other projects
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
I may "undelete" the whole thing, and let the dust settle where it may.
That's up to you obviously. I've just found that deleting things to remove different opinions makes people wanna just say FU to the forum itself.
We don't wanna lose anyone here, but the Trolls, like stanc, then YES, by all means ban or delete.
I MOD a big BBQ forum and we have our arguments but we also have our "stanc" trolls and I'm dealing with one now... next word outta him and he will see a blank screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,355 Posts
I think this is a simple case of two companies trying to work on tighter tolerances to get the most accuracy and performance out of the cartridge. Both are pushing the envelope to a degree and the just found limits with each others products.

However, when something is clearly marked and known to not adhere to saami spec, you cant throw out the that's not saami spec argument. A quick google search produced these two links as the first two hits, which seems to spell out the issue of varying freebore diameter.



6
Rectangle Slope Line Font Parallel



Various 6.8SPC Reamer Prints - Official 6.8SPCII Print

Font Parallel Screenshot Electronic device Multimedia





This stuff was out there for at least 6 years according to MDWS post and the DMR chamber drawing page was updated in 2/2009 thus showing the freebore has been tight for years.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,767 Posts
Thank you for letting me know the mods position.
My bullets already are .277
So I will STFU and move on to other projects
Robert I didn’t indicate the mods position on anything other than we’ve discussed it in private. That was my personal opinion to put a stop to the posts, it’s getting nowhere.

Nothing I said was against you or Harrison. I’ve talked to you both via text and on the phone and have always respected you both as stated in my post. We’ve been friends for quite awhile.

Reason for my post is, there comes a time when this must come to a close. Both parties have stated their case and concerns.

To keep jabbing it in the ground, breaking it off only to dig it back up again repeat , repeat, repeat is resolving what?

If holding tight tolerance on the projectiles to .277 .2771 or whatever doesn’t cause issues with pressure then it’s a win. If Harrison’s barrels are the best barrel on the market for the price (which I believe so) then that’s what I want.

I think this hiccup should be resolved, shake hands and move forward for the betterment of the forum and the 6.8.

Just me on the outside looking in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,825 Posts
I agree that everything that needs to be said has been , the bullets going forward will work in all barrels and for me or anyone else to keep it going will only agitate things . I'm thankful for H and Robert and hopefully both continue to champion the 6.8 . I don't think the mods need to lock it I think we should just let it die gracefully . That is all I will say about it anymore .

Sent from my LM-K920 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
552 Posts
When I first saw this thread title I thought it was a new episode of "Yellowstone" and John Dutton was going to be sporting H's barrels as he kicks A$$ in the coming season. Robert, you live right off the Duttion Ranch. And for a fact you all, the train station is real.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
2,363 Posts
When I first saw this thread title I thought it was a new episode of "Yellowstone" and John Dutton was going to be sporting H's barrels as he kicks A$$ in the coming season. Robert, you live right off the Duttion Ranch. And for a fact you all, the train station is real.
That county with no government is real. However they are in the process of splitting it into adjoining counties now that it's gotten so much notoriety.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,568 Posts
Discussion Starter · #91 ·
I think this is a simple case of two companies trying to work on tighter tolerances to get the most accuracy and performance out of the cartridge. Both are pushing the envelope to a degree and the just found limits with each others products.

However, when something is clearly marked and known to not adhere to saami spec, you cant throw out the that's not saami spec argument. A quick google search produced these two links as the first two hits, which seems to spell out the issue of varying freebore diameter.



6
View attachment 76270


Various 6.8SPC Reamer Prints - Official 6.8SPCII Print

View attachment 76268




This stuff was out there for at least 6 years according to MDWS post and the DMR chamber drawing page was updated in 2/2009 thus showing the freebore has been tight for years.
Some of this is correct and some is not or is not clear. None of my barrels have ever had a 50:50 land to groove ratio. The DMR chamber has not been used since the very first batch of production barrels 2008-early 2009 but some of the parts of it have. The whole chamber was enlarged so everyone could use FL dies and enlarged so SSA's ammo with the thick necks would not get stuck in the chamber. The neck and freebore was also changed to a taper to help extraction. The very last change was to enlarge the rear of the chamber so the Hornady 120gr SST would not stick in the chamber.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,568 Posts
Discussion Starter · #93 · (Edited)
H, what does the SAAMI spec of 0.0596 sq-in barrel area work out to in land to groove ratio? (my brain is too foggy at the moment to do the math).
Thanks
It's 4 lands .0473" wide, roughly using a simple calculator 75:25
Some of the first barrels were 6 groove with the lands being as wide as the grooves.
As far as I know the Douglas 4 groove barrels were the only ones that met the spec.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,355 Posts
Some of this is correct and some is not or is not clear. None of my barrels have ever had a 50:50 land to groove ratio. The DMR chamber has not been used since the very first batch of production barrels 2008-early 2009 but some of the parts of it have. The whole chamber was enlarged so everyone could use FL dies and enlarged so SSA's ammo with the thick necks would not get stuck in the chamber. The neck and freebore was also changed to a taper to help extraction. The very last change was to enlarge the rear of the chamber so the Hornady 120gr SST would not stick in the chamber.
I was simply referring to the tightness of freebore and the drawings etc having been out for years. I know you don't release your chamber specs but its safe to assume that its similar to and evolved from these two previous designs. Not saying these were your current chamber specs. As far as the 50/50 ratio I dont see where that claim was made.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
2,363 Posts
I was simply referring to the tightness of freebore and the drawings etc having been out for years. I know you don't release your chamber specs but its safe to assume that its similar to and evolved from these two previous designs. Not saying these were your current chamber specs. As far as the 50/50 ratio I dont see where that claim was made.
Thru all the deflecting it was never about anything but freebore diameter. Problems didn't arise until it went below .2775.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
951 Posts
A few of your recent loaded loads had a problem is what you actually should state. Your rounds fired without problems from the time you introduced them until recently as did all other brands of ammunition.

You jumped the rails when you claimed the chamber had been changed. You did much of your testing with these barrels so just stop! The only deflections have come from you. If there is any problem, it is with your quality control.

I am beginning to wonder if you are fronting for someone else and what you are getting out of all this baloney. It's as if you are trying to kill the 6.8.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
2,363 Posts
A few of your recent loaded loads had a problem is what you actually should state. Your rounds fired without problems from the time you introduced them until recently as did all other brands of ammunition.

You jumped the rails when you claimed the chamber had been changed. You did much of your testing with these barrels so just stop! The only deflections have come from you. If there is any problem, it is with your quality control.

I am beginning to wonder if you are fronting for someone else and what you are getting out of all this baloney. It's as if you are trying to kill the 6.8.
Yea, I'm trying to kill the 6.8. That's why I've went thru all this trying to make SPCII ammo when no one else will. Better bullets, better ammo, mod mags etc.
I have obviously failed to get my technical point across to the community. For that I am sorry.
As well I have the resources to join SAAMI as a supporting member and push to get some type of SPCII or whatever designation. However with all the renditions currently out there I am told its pretty hopeless to try.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
I’ve been shooting arp for over 15 years,
All handloads, haven’t bought a manufactured round in prob 25 years for any cartridge.
I’ve seen over sized bullets quite often as I do measure because I load to max of my own chambers.
Luckily they all run the same loads.
I’ll still shoot arp , I’ll still try cbb eventually .
None of this back and forth changes squat for me ,
But I appreciate the mods on this sight for leavin this up.
Ones thing I garnered from this whole conversation is the “too many renditions” is right,
But still doesn’t effect me, I like this round for the mags that work, h20 capacity, small pocket brass and hood bullets in something heavier than 223 and lighter than 308.
 
81 - 100 of 102 Posts
Top