AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 6.8 Dead ??? (Page 1 of 13)
Posted: 8/17/2005 12:44:04 PM EDT
|
Insiders in the SF community are now confirming that the 6.8 program is DEAD ! So my next question would be, are these new novelty items have any value or go up jsut because they will be rare ?? One mans quest ... I think not ! |
| Well, it has, actually since before SHOT 05, there is not an official anouncment. But the program has failed in numerous areas(not in function) but in the way of , and will NOT be carried by SOF, Big Green, or anyone else into Harms way. This has been confirmed by DoD offices and many other sources, most of which control's this type of testing and procurment. |
|
Most of the problem with the 6.8 is the lack of a good supply of ammo. Just because the Military is not pursuing it does not mean it is something we should stay away from. It is a good cartridge for the AR and there still seems to be plenty of interest on this site and others but most people want to be able to get ammo if not locally at least delivered to their home. As the ammo situation gets better more sales of uppers will be made. It is a alternate caliber for the AR just like many others that bring something different to the table. Because of this it would seem it will survive like so many others have, after all it is nice to have options. Joe |
I would love to know where your info is from. I know yours is also, however logisticly, NOT feasible. Mine is direct. Some (or should i say one) in the community (which he is still kinda a outsider) would like to beleive that. HOWEVER, the proram is done and is not going big or small army, hell not any other Service either. Some manufactures are still carrying the 6.8 and they will push it to the end becasue they have vested so much into it that they have no choice. I know you have done testing on it, and I also know the capibiltiy of the round. But compare to otehr you hve tested in the 5.56 is ther really that much diffeence that you need to change the entire Army's fighting tools, just because of a lone ranger ! |
You're challenging Dr. Roberts' sources?!?! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!  You should change your user name to Keyboard_Commando. 
|
Well I have no first hand knowledge of the military status of this cartridge so will have to retract that part of my statement as it is only hearsay. Carry on Joe |
Let's try to not be inflammatory  I only care if it'll ever show up on the shelves at Wally World. I haven't written the check yet... |
|
From: S COL [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 5:09 PM To: D LTC; B CPT; R LTC; H LTC; C; A MAJ; D; T Contractor Cc: M COL; H CSM; L LTC; C LTC; B; I GS-14 Subject: RE: Funding for LUA/F&DR for Advance Rifle Cartridge(ARC) This is not a validated requirement. S COL, U.S. Army PEO Special Programs, USSOCOM (xxx) xxx-xxxx =========== If you tuly believe it's a US military project, file a Freedom of Information Act Request inquiry or write a letter to your US Congressman or Senator. Ask for contract and procurement docs and which Defense Reutilization Management Office to go to buy brass (if it exists the brass is US government property, but you'll need an FFL). |
Sure douchebag that’s a great idea about changing my name, you have now idea who I am and I have no Idea who you are, so leave it at that. I am not challenging anyone. Forensics and testing is one thing. Operators and procurement is another subject. Logistically it is NOT happening. This is coming from the end users. But you would probably know nothing about that. This is not to say it may stick around as an alternative but there is no, NO need for a new round. |
|
I don't have any HSLD contacts, but I don't think there is any reason for it to be dead in the civvy world. It's a good cartridge for the platform, ammo is getting out there slowly but surely. Sportsmans Guide is sending Remington Matchking ammo my way at this time. It's backordered again right now but says to be back in stock in September. Hopefully the Hornady loadings will be on the shelves soon also. As far as being heavily invested in the cartridge I am not, I'm just as happy to build 5.56 and 7.62 weapons as 6.8. It's just a different tool to have in the toolbox. J |
I hope it sticks around in the civvy world at least, since my upper arrives tomorrow (with ammo). If the program is indeed over, that doesn't have to mean it can never come back (but that might be wishful thinking on my part). The dynamic between the civilian and military market is trully interesting. For instance, during the 10 year "crime bill ban", magazines for the M9 began to be sourced to other suppliers (other than Beretta) because Beretta couldn't turn a profit selling only to the military, but made a good profit when civvy folks could buy them. I was told a good Beretta mag could be scarce at times because of it. Maybe if production and other things can reach good capacity, then there would be a reconsideration by the powers that be. Since the ban is done for most of us, we can provide a profitable way for firms to produce for both military and civilian consumption. |
| I don't know if the military is done with it or not. It probably would not have been widespread antway. However, if the military is thru using it we should see a surge in availability real soon. You can be sure that Remington will want to recupe as much as possible from it. |
| I don't care if it's dead or not to the military. It's not dead to me. I plan to use it as my deer/hog round for use out of the AR. I have no problem with handloading for it if need be. And I'm sure that ammo for it will eventually become more available. I don't plan on it taking over everything I use the 5.56 for so I'm not overly worried about ammo being as available as 5.56. But it would be nice if it was a costant flow. |
|
It may be dead with regard to mil use, but I don't think many people ever expected it to be as ubiquitous as 5.56 or even 7.62. I think the name "special purpose cartridge" would disabuse anyone of that notion. I'm building an upper, just waiting on the barrel, and I'm not the least bit worried about my novelty item going up in value because I'm going to shoot the crap out of it. But then again, I'm building a 10.5" 10mm Mag upper to go along with it. |
If you want to be taken more seriously, why don't you provide some credentials/sources yourself. Otherwise your just another "Tactical Operator". If you don't care how people react to your "inside information", "reliable sources", conjecture, and speculation, than carry on. 
|
|
Just about anything that can fit the AR platform has been chambered for it at one time or another. The people on this board buy AR's in a wide assortment of calibers, some of which many claim have been dead for along time. For example just this Spring I built a upper in 6X45mm, one of the stated dead chambering for the AR. I probably will build more 6x45mm and 6.8 SPC uppers even if they are dead. What the Military does or does not do really should not concern us as far as the ability of the 6.8 to fulfill a perceived need by the operator. Shoot the caliber of your choice and enjoy it. Joe |
First off, for me or poeple like do not gice out cred for very smart reasons. I really do not care how people react to post, this s a internet forum. And th people in my circle probally wont not be to happy if I let thier names aout also. Really guy think about it. I am willing to bet over 3/4 of the indivdials in this forum dont have "the Creds" your asking me for. (or even a higher number than that). This is a discussion, take it as you will, I am just expressing the thouhg from my neck ofthe woods. |
I've yet to meet one person on this board with "creds" that wasn't willing to give those "creds" either openly or in private. Most of the folks who speak as"experts" around here have no problems giving "creds" to show why they are considred that, or why they sould be taken seriously. What you wrote, without the "creds" don't mean shit to any of us, all we know you as is another screen name. |
Is it just me, or does it seem like he's relishing the fact the military is walking away from the 6.8? Oh well, its probably just me. It doesn't bother me, I own various firearms that are chambered in cartriges the military doesn't use, so whats another one. |
Creds or no creds, you need to proof-read your text before you hit the "submit" button. While we're on the subject, and since you brought it up, why are you posting here? If you are what you're acting like (in this thread as well as Lutz's SASS thread) why cant you just be happy with what you know about 6.8 or whatever? Why do you need to go looking for some kind of half-assed validation on the internet? I'm betting your grammar looks like it does because you're typing it hiding under your desk. Oh, and before you try that particular cop-out, I DO have the creds to back up what I post here. Take care, Clint |
| Even if the .mil does go for it, I think the civi market is going to drive this one into popularity one way or another. Remington has a history of screwing up great cartridges though, so there is a chance that the 6.5 will gain dominance in the ar-alterna-cartridge field. |
Hey guy, I am just trying to share information, it was others who jumped on my ass about "who do I think I am ". I would never hide under any desk anywhere. General knowledge is always a good things, and even if the information is something you may have heard before then skip it. But there is always new info out there Cop-Outs, don’t need it. I do and will not put my cred's out there, no one in here really needs to know, and it is not public information. I do not need validation from the internet if I was the one giving the information, if I was don't you think the thread would have read a bit different? And Are you referring to the AR.com posters as half-assed validaters? And your right I do need to proof read it, but just in a bit of a rush. |
That's fine TO, just don't expect us to believe much of what you post, and don't get all bent out of shape if people don't gobble up your inside information. It's simple, if you want to be taken seriously, then provide the creds, if want to have the validity of every joe shmo on this board than don't. Are you getting my point. For all we know your a "Gun Show SEAL". |
The fact that you don't know who Dr. Gary K. Roberts is and have no idea of his accomplishments, occupation, expertise, and contacts proves your lack of ballistics knowledge. ETA:
Thank you for proving my point, you're a moron. Have you even read the AAR reports from OEF/OIF? I am done with you. Aimless, Please excuse my temper, but come on.
|
Pleeze lrn ho 2 spel porpperli. ETA: You accosted Dr. Roberts for his credentials yet you are hesitant to post your own.  Have you ever heard of 10-8Forums.com? The members/moderators there are "been there, done that" kind of guys and they have no problem posting their full names; it only adds to their credability. With a name like "Tactical_Operator," it's rather obvious that the only thing you know how to operate is a keyboard. |
Well since you bring up 10-8 there, is a similar discussion going on there on the same topic, which actually validates exactly what I am saying. Take a look here. 10-8 There is, kick that, WAS, a driving force behind this round. If you really know anything about this program, one man's drive to do one last hoooraw. And it failed. BTW you are a great internet tough talker. oh, there has not been one false statement made here. |
You are quickly becoming the biggest parrot on this site. This is where you should stay. ------------------> www.ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=2&f=171 |
|
Sinister has given us a significant bit of information that I'm surpised no one has bothered to discuss. He purports to have an actual email, dated February 2004, from a higher up in SOCOM itself, saying "this is not a validated requirement," whatever that means. If I understand it correctly, it echoes what was announced at the May 2004 SOCOM Show, namely, that the military will not have an official program to procure 6.8 SPC. Is that the way the rest of you read it? John |
I think its on the way out and will never amount to anything. I've always said it was a bad idea that wouldnt work, and my sources have been confirming just that. When I read an after action report, by Pat Rogers that he just finished a class with everyone shooting ARs in 6.8SPC successfully, I'll sing another song and be a believer. |
|
It would be nice to give soldiers a rifle that that would increase their chances of coming home alive. Too bad it gets in the way of logistics. It’s just too hard to supply our troops with something like that. It’s not a “validated requirement.” It all reminds of the M16 and something I first read long ago: “I made a point of being present when Colonel Moore and his battalion held a critique of the action. At the conclusion Moore held up an M-16 rifle, a newly developed, relatively light, fully automatic weapon. "Brave soldiers and the M-16," said Moore, "brought this victory." Moore and many of his soldiers told me that the M-16 was the best individual infantry weapon ever made, clearly the American answer to the enemy's AK-47. Most American units at the time were equipped with the older M-14 rifle, which was semiautomatic and too heavy for the jungle. Convinced that Moore and his men knew what they were talking about, I asked Secretary McNamara as a matter of urgency to equip all American forces with the M-16 and then also to equip the ARVN with it. Officials in the Department of Defense unfortunately disregarded the urgency of my request and failed to gear American industry to meet the need. Not until 1967 were there enough M-16s for all American troops, and only then was I able by degrees to begin equipping the ARVN. The ARVN thus long fought at a serious disadvantage against the enemy's automatic AK-47, armed as they were with World War II's semiautomatic M-1, whose kick when firing appeared to rock the small Vietnamese soldiers back on their heels, Armed with a light carbine, little more than a pea shooter when compared with the AK-47, the South Vietnamese militia were at an even worse disadvantage. Just as the American press and some members of Congress during early stages of World War II criticized the M-1 Garand, which became the workhorse of American infantry during World War II and Korea, so critical attacks developed against the M-16. It was admittedly a weapon that had to be cleaned meticulously, and ordnance experts were able later to make some adjustments that improved performance; but from the first the M-16 in the hands of troops experienced in its use and care was a superb weapon. Yet as late as mid-June 1967 I still had to entertain a congressional committee sent to investigate it. So conditioned were the South Vietnamese by the controversy over the weapon in the American press that when I was able to begin giving the M-16 to the ARVN, some South Vietnamese military men were upset. Until convinced otherwise, they thought I was short-changing them with an inferior weapon. When I was in Washington in May 1968, I found an opportunity to tell President Johnson personally of my concern about the lack of M-16s for the South Vietnamese forces. The President was shocked. He had known nothing of the Defense Department's failure to contract for the weapons in bulk. He promised to knock heads together, Rest assured, he told me, you will get your M-16s.” The slow production of the M-16 was a grave sin of omission. Like the failure to provide in advance for a logistical base, it slowed operations in South Vietnam and may well have added an extra year to the program to upgrade the ARVN to the point where the South Vietnamese alone might be expected to carry the fight." From "A Soldier Reports." |
Anyone have the skinny on the reports of 6.8 being hard on lowers and FCGs? Were these instances of loading to "+P" pressures to recoup some velocity in carbines, with the end of result of battering the guns, or were these loaded to std pressure? He mentions original spec, but what spec was that, the 53,000 psi SAAMI spec or something earlier? Kind of interesting when the author maintains upcoming production ammunition will not function with rifle length gas tubes and that it's going to be downloaded. What's also interesting is the data posted right after the referenced thread -- IMR and Hogdon have data out there for commercial powders, and using 24" barrels they are pretty firmly maxed out in the 2600-2700 fps velocity range for 110-115 grain bullets. By the time real world users use this in carbine barrels, you're going to be not much above AK territory. I know Zak has some data posted using other powders, but if I'm not mistaken his data was based largely on QuickLoad modeling. If it does end up being true that the present spec batters guns, and to avoid the battering you have to download to the point that you lose another 200 fps velocity, then I do question the viability of the round. Just doesn't seem to have the same appeal, especially when you shoot it out of real world carbines as opposed to 24" barrels. |
I dont think it has that much to do with logistics. If the 6.8spc lived up the the original expectations, I'm sure they would see them getting issued. From a logistics standpoint, its brillant! Its was supposed to be a new weapon, which all you needed to upgrade was an upper, bolt, and magazine. No new controls to learn, no new maintenance/take down, same manual, same sights, same ergonomics. It would be just like the A2 upgrade from the A1. An abslolutely brillant idea on paper. Its more of a square peg in a round hole. The M16 magwell, was designed to feed the 5.56 diameter case, not the bigger 6.8 case. Reliability was doomed from day one. Back to what I said, the day a class full of 6.8SPC AR's successfully completes a Pat Rogers class, I'll change my song. Also, when the ammo come out, compare the pressures and velocities to the orginal specs. the ammo that will be available soon will be significantly less powerful. |
|
I am more apt to believe Bigbore, someone who is neutral w/ no bias due to having a hand in its development. Recently went through a course(several of us, Aimless included) taught by a employee(advisor) to Hornady. He didnt have a lot of positive things to say about 6.8, wont go far. Looks good on paper... Powder problem, decreased velocitys than originally intended & not ever going to be a military surplus(& we all like & look for that cheap plentiful & powerful). Even if Tact oper is a nobody, what are the creds of you guys slamming him? He has a legit question/opinion. Not his fault people dropped money on an unproven round & equipment. We were all hoping to pick it up @ $3 bucks a box like xm193, but it just isnt going to work out that way. -Justin(no creds here either) The only time I was able to find the REM 6.8 I paid almost a dollar a round. I just couldn afford to practice w/ those prices. |
You can put a price on the training that may save your life ? Train as you fight, fight as you train. People are buying into the 6.8 because its the ultimate effective man stopper round in an AR! If you are considering one for your defense, you better make sure it works. As you know Mongo - Pat's class will tell you how you and your carbine perform. You comment actually proves my point even more as to why its never going to go anywhere in the civi world either. |
From loading this cartridge for my 6.8 I kind of figured that final velocities would end up being lower for factory rounds, and your statements just adds more confirmation to this. I also agree it was a good initial concept but like anything it needed to be put to the test to see if it was viable for the military. I do see some interest in this for civilian use, and it will probably survive although in smaller numbers than we had all hoped. Do not want to get away from the topic to much but there has been some reports that the 6x45mm cartridge was being looked at by the Marines. My point is that looking at alternate calibers is a good thing, and from this we can learn what might be a better approach even if it is finding out that the 5.56mm is the best choice after all. Joe |
|
A PROPHET I DO NOT PRETEND TO BE. I DO NOT KNOW IF THE 6.8 SPC WILL ACHIEVE COMMERCIAL OR MILITARY ACCLAIM. I, TOO, HEAR BOTH SIDES, FROM WELL PLACED SOURCES. I DO KNOW THAT I MYSELF LIKE IT, ESPECIALLY IN 12" AND 16", THE LENGTH BARREL FOR WHICH THE CARTRIDGE WAS INTENDED. BUT, WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE ABOUT 70% MORE GOING ON THAN WITH THE 5.56MM EVERY TRIGGER PULL ???  THIS IS MY IDEA OF A BEST "ONE GUN". COMPACT ENOUGH FOR MOUNTED OPS AND CQB, YET CAPABLE OF DELIVERING SUB-MOA AND MORE MOMENTUM DOWNRANGE. IF YOU CAN'T GET 'EM WITH THIS, JUST CALL IN A JDAM. IF THE 6.8 SPC HAD ANYWHERE NEAR AS MANY INFLUENTIAL FOLKS WORKING FOR IT AS IT DOES WORKING AGAINST IT, THE RESULTS THUSFAR WOULD BE MUCH DIFFERENT. THE FACT THAT THE FOLKS WORKING AGAINST IT HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO KILL IT COMPLETELY TO ME SPEAKS VOLUMES. BUT WHAT DO I KNOW? WES |
|
So this "one gun" is the gun you train with? You keep the spare parts an ammo strewn about the way most of us do 5.56? Your 6.8 mag pouches are stuffed to the gills with the great equalizer, the 6.8? I'm just trying to get a feel here. If you answered all the above questions "yes", then more power to you. However, if you are trying to market yourself by downplaying the shortcomings of the 6.8, I am a bit disappointed. These people know what we (retailers) sell, and they know we are good at what we do. They make sure there is food on our table. The least we can do is be totally honest when they ask us, with sincerity, for our knowledge, wisdom and understanding. [email protected] |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 6.8 Dead ??? (Page 1 of 13)
AR Sponsor