A new "state of 6.8" opinion

[crenca]

As many of you know, I have been critical of 68forums and ar15.com as forums to get the truth on 6.8 out.  I believe 68forums to be little more than a late night infomercial for 6.8.  Arfcom is better but I have had to battle "Cold" (the owner of 68forums who is also a moderator on ar15.com) and Harrison (owner of arperformance) and Tim several times to get the "cons" (as in "pro's and cons") side of the ledger a fair hearing.  Cold got so nasty at one point he had to "moderate" his own posts and recuse himself from a thread at the request of another moderator.

Paulo Santos who has done extensive equipment and reloading summeries for 6.8 and is now one of the "trolls".  Here is his latest opinion on the "state of 6.8":

http://paulosantos0922.wordpress.com/

As of today second post down.  I don't agree with every detail but he at least it's balanced with both the good and the bad, unlike Tim's "state of" over at ar15.com...

[MrSmitty]

Thanks for providing that link Crenca.  I enjoyed reading it.

[Jbpark55]

Thanks for providing that link Crenca.  I enjoyed reading it.

+1 from me. I too just wish the price in components would come down more then I would get into 6.8. But as is both loaded ammo and the components are just too expensive. 

[bolster]

The only "truth" about 6.8 is there's a lot of drama and everyone has his own opinion about what's good and bad about the round.  Throw in manufacturers that have a vested interest in the round, and you get more drama.

[aziator]

I think that if the round had just been developed for hunting there wouldn't be nearly as much arguing about it.  The fact that the military was behind the conception makes everyone want to take a side...

I think that it is a great round when you think about what it was designed for and try to stay within those limits.

[Jbpark55]

Crenca, Do you have a link to, or know where I can find Tim's "state of" over at ar15.com. Just curious and to read both sides of the story.

[Cid1911]

I think that if the round had just been developed for hunting there wouldn't be nearly as much arguing about it.  The fact that the military was behind the conception makes everyone want to take a side...

I think that it is a great round when you think about what it was designed for and try to stay within those limits.

+1 Some people like to tout it as being the ultimate assault rifle round even though it clearly isn't, which also adds to the naysayers. Like you said, it does offer a significant improvment over 5.56 within the ranges it was designed for but it isn't the be-all, end-all round that everyone hoped for. Until the ultimate assault rifle round is invented, it's just another good choice and another good tool to have in the toolbox.

[MickeyC]

I think that if the round had just been developed for hunting there wouldn't be nearly as much arguing about it.  The fact that the military was behind the conception makes everyone want to take a side...

I think that it is a great round when you think about what it was designed for and try to stay within those limits.

+1 Some people like to tout it as being the ultimate assault rifle round even though it clearly isn't, which also adds to the naysayers. Like you said, it does offer a significant improvment over 5.56 within the ranges it was designed for but it isn't the be-all, end-all round that everyone hoped for. Until the ultimate assault rifle round is invented, it's just another good choice and another good tool to have in the toolbox.

I agree completely, within it's envelope it is a good solution. As a be all end all it fails somewhat.

[stanc]

I think that if the round had just been developed for hunting there wouldn't be nearly as much arguing about it.  The fact that the military was behind the conception makes everyone want to take a side...

I think that it is a great round when you think about what it was designed for and try to stay within those limits.

+1 Some people like to tout it as being the ultimate assault rifle round even though it clearly isn't, which also adds to the naysayers. Like you said, it does offer a significant improvment over 5.56 within the ranges it was designed for but it isn't the be-all, end-all round that everyone hoped for.

I don't know why anyone would tout that idea. Its design intent was clearly limited. As the name denotes, 6.8 SPC is a special purpose cartridge.

Until the ultimate assault rifle round is invented...

Is that possible?

[Cid1911]

I think that if the round had just been developed for hunting there wouldn't be nearly as much arguing about it.  The fact that the military was behind the conception makes everyone want to take a side...

I think that it is a great round when you think about what it was designed for and try to stay within those limits.

+1 Some people like to tout it as being the ultimate assault rifle round even though it clearly isn't, which also adds to the naysayers. Like you said, it does offer a significant improvment over 5.56 within the ranges it was designed for but it isn't the be-all, end-all round that everyone hoped for.

I don't know why anyone would tout that idea. Its design intent was clearly limited. As the name denotes, 6.8 SPC is a special purpose cartridge.

Until the ultimate assault rifle round is invented...

Is that possible?

Probably isn't, but it won't stop people from trying. 

As to the why, you'll have to ask them. "Them" are the people that think that the 6.8 is the answer to all their general purpose cartridge prayers. They are out there 

[crenca]

Crenca, Do you have a link to, or know where I can find Tim's "state of" over at ar15.com. Just curious and to read both sides of the story.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=449200

[Jbpark55]

Thanks Crenca.

[68inSS]

I suppose I just see no reason to get caught up on debunking the merits or demerits of any cartridge.
It honestly seems like peoples feelings have been hurt and need to get over it - that is on BOTH sides of the fence.
There's plenty of cartridges that have come and gone - who cares. If you like it and it works for you (that is ANY cartridge) then purchase it.
Does it prove something to declare a cartridge dead? or alive?
I agree that information is important and it is good to have both sides of a story (so thank you, Crenca) but really they ARE opinions and facts are few.
The fact is - if you want a militarized (hence, safe to buy) rifle cartridge then go to 223/5.56 or 308/7.56 or 30-06.
After that, ALL cartridges are subject to market whims.
Having said that, I own all the above listed (and a 6.8.)
Thanks for listening - this was typed with no ill will or malice. Just, eh hem, my opinion..... 

[MickeyC]

I don't know why anyone would tout that idea. Its design intent was clearly limited. As the name denotes, 6.8 SPC is a special purpose cartridge.

Quote
Until the ultimate assault rifle round is invented...

Is that possible? 

No idea, but if you can create a round that is light, penetrates barriers, has good terminal ballistics and can engage to 1000 yards on a compact package, you have the perfect round. Imaging a prefragmented, penetrator equiped bullet in a STANAG capable cartridge, cased or caseless.

[johnny mac]

     Very good reading.  I got all hot on the 6.8, up to the point of buying mags for it, and putting an order in for a Micro pistol in 6.8.  Maybe it was fate, but my order feel through the cracks, then I was in the process of moving and then at the SAR show in Phoenix I was talking to one of the manufacturers making some real sweet short uppers.  They had 5.56 (of course) and 7.62x39. I asked why they didn't have a 6.8, and he said "because the 7.62x39 IS a 6.8."  I gave it some thought and it kind of threw a bucket of cold water on my desire for the 6.8. 
      Obviously they aren't that close if you compare cheap steel-cased fodder with cheap components to premium buck-a-piece factory loads, and that is pretty much what's available (or at least common) in each.  I started wondering-and opinions are welcome-what the performance level of 6.8 might drop to with cheap components and a lower level of quality control.
      More importantly, what is the 7.62 REALLY capable of? CZ makes a really nice little bolt gun in it.  I would think you wouldn't want a .308 bore, because then you couldn't use .311 cheap ammo-or could you?  I don't know enough to know if .003 is enough difference to cause problems-is all ammo from different manufacturers even within .003 tolerances?  Anyway, if you spent a little more on components-quality brass cases, similar powders, but most importantly comparable bullets, what would happen to the performance gap?  I'm thinkin mostly of Hornady's 110gr .308, and if Barnes made the TTSX in a .308-.311 90-130gr, could a 7.62 do everything a 6.8 could, while still being able to plink and practice with the cheap stuff?  It seems too obvious, so I imagine there's a good reason why not, but if anyone knows it I'd like to hear it...

[aziator]

Well, you pretty much summed it up, cheap ammo vs. quality ammo.  I have yet to start reloading for either but I am sure if you tried to reload for x39 you would see some decent results (at least out of the XCR, can't comment on the barrel quality from AKs and such). 

I can say that there is a noticeable recoil difference shooting the 2 different calibers.  If the weather will clear up here I will be shooting both side by side (or back to back) for accuracy and velocity numbers on Monday.  I purchased quite a bit of the Winchester ammo for the x39, hopefully it will be more accurate than the cheaper stuff. 

I sat down to try some of the SSA 85gr Barnes TSX out of my 11" barrel just to see how big of a POI shift there was from the 115gr I was hunting with.  I shot a quick 3 shot group with a 4x ACOG at 100yards.  All three rounds were touching.  I doubt I will see that kind of accuracy out of any factory ammo in x39.

[MickeyC]

They are not the same. At 500 yards the 7.62x39 has almost 30” more drop than a 6.8. At 300 the 7.62x39 has 300ftlbs less energy.
As for accuracy, the first key  is consistency. Consistent ammunition so the pressure behind the bullet is the same each time. Consistent trigger and a consistent mechanical reaction (Bolt movement, barrel harmonics etc.)

The second key is sighting. Consistent cheekweld and a good optic or long sight radius. Note that it's hard to shoot 1" groups with a 4" red dot.

This allows you to put rounds in as tight a group as possible and thus means accuracy.

Well made 7.62x39 rounds in a good rifle/platform can easily achieve 1/2"-3/4" groups. Can you do this with an AK, probably not, at least without spending large sums of money. Could you do it with an XCR, possibly though with a chrome barrel I'd assume 3/4"-1" to be more likely. To get this accuracy you will probably have to load yourself as no-one makes 7.62x39 match ammo.

I've always found that my own ammo is more consistent than factory with the exception perhaps of Federal Gold Medal Match where we are about equal.

Once you know how accurate your rifle is, you can then use cheaper ammo for training and drills. For example, if you know that your rifle can shoot 1" groups with match ammo, but 2"-3” with wolf. When training with the lower spec ammo, you know that 2”-3” groups are the max performance of that rifle/ammo combination.

[crenca]

They are not the same. At 500 yards the 7.62x39 has almost 30” more drop than a 6.8. At 300 the 7.62x39 has 300ftlbs less energy.

When people say "they are the same" I think it comes from the misperception that 6.8 is a short range round like the 7.62x39.  While it is not as good as a 6.5G it is still an improvement over 5.56 let alone 7.62x39.

The guy that said this is simply putting his product in the best light...

[RobertSlaughter]

They are not the same. At 500 yards the 7.62x39 has almost 30” more drop than a 6.8. At 300 the 7.62x39 has 300ftlbs less energy.

When people say "they are the same" I think it comes from the misperception that 6.8 is a short range round like the 7.62x39.  While it is not as good as a 6.5G it is still an improvement over 5.56 let alone 7.62x39.

The guy that said this is simply putting his product in the best light...

I think if someone could do a comparison of the three trajectories in a graphical form, that would help the conversation immensely. I've seen numbers, but those are hard to follow or even grasp sometimes.

[johnny mac]

     Another BIG factor is bullets.  I'm not pushing any agenda here, just trying really hard to figure out if the 6.8 offers enough extra to justify the investment.  I don't even know if the components are available, let alone if anyone is motivated to put them together.  I have no doubt that the drop and retained energy are significant for the cheap 7.62.  What I'm curios is an apples to apples comparison.  6.8 seems to be about a buck a round for standard, up to $1.50 or more for stuff like Barnes TTSX.  I'd be really curious to see what a premium bullet with really good BC could do-would it close the gap on the 6.8, or is that just outside it's capability?
      If I could get 7.62 ammo that performed as well as the 6.8, even for $1.50 a round, and even if I had to load it myself, I think I would stay away from 6.8, which will cost another $600-$700 with mags, and restricts me to ONLY expensive ammo...

[aziator]

I just did a side by side, should have the results posted late tonight or tomorrow.  I tried to keep all the factors the same and used all the different ammo that I could find around here.  My shoulder is sore from being at the range for 6 hours yesterday.

[crenca]

     Another BIG factor is bullets.  I'm not pushing any agenda here, just trying really hard to figure out if the 6.8 offers enough extra to justify the investment.  I don't even know if the components are available, let alone if anyone is motivated to put them together.  I have no doubt that the drop and retained energy are significant for the cheap 7.62.  What I'm curios is an apples to apples comparison.  6.8 seems to be about a buck a round for standard, up to $1.50 or more for stuff like Barnes TTSX.  I'd be really curious to see what a premium bullet with really good BC could do-would it close the gap on the 6.8, or is that just outside it's capability?
      If I could get 7.62 ammo that performed as well as the 6.8, even for $1.50 a round, and even if I had to load it myself, I think I would stay away from 6.8, which will cost another $600-$700 with mags, and restricts me to ONLY expensive ammo...

You might want to ask this question at one of the big forums like arfcom.  I recall seeing some tables that showed that 7.62 simply could not hang with 6.8 external ballistics past 200 or so even with premium components but that is only a memory...