NEW M-16 Cartridge Remington 6.8 SPC

worldskipper · October 08, 2003, 10:24

Ok boys this is now public knowledge...

If you have information about this cartridge, cough it up!

http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000512.html

Hum, 6.8 SPC in a FAL...

Worldskipper

La Longue Carabine · October 08, 2003, 13:56

Quote:

Originally posted by worldskipper
Hum, 6.8 SPC in a FAL...

I just stopped by to look for information on the same question. I guess I'll check back later.

Here's a picture of the ammo and an M16/AR15 upper in 6.8mm by Barrett:

http://www.awrm.org/ubb/ultimatebb.p...;f=10;t=000859

dougjones31 · October 08, 2003, 14:58

All I can say is ....WHY?

Why bother with beefing up an AR-15 when you can just get a real gun to begin with.....and have more gun than the 6.8 SPC is!

It is awful funny that the "Perfect Gun" AR-15 lovers sure are pumped up about these new conversions. What they needed all along was the AR-10...the original Stoner design!

Scott S · October 09, 2003, 10:19

I'll buy one when milsurp 6.8 is available for $125 per K.

Although I applaud Barrett for their effort, like dj31, one has to ask why?

Aifwikir · October 09, 2003, 12:04

I beleive the Germans during WW2 had it right the first time with their original Assault Weapon. Why don't we just go back to the 7mm Kurtz!

Aif

masman · October 09, 2003, 16:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Aifwikir
I beleive the Germans during WW2 had it right the first time with their original Assault Weapon. Why don't we just go back to the 7mm Kurtz!

Aif

i agree also.iirc one of the first fals was chambered in 7.92x33 kurtz

Bubba FAL · October 11, 2003, 00:06

Coulda saved themselves a lot of trouble and brought back the 7x43 or the 7x46 from the rifle trials in the late '40's...

Louis123 · October 11, 2003, 01:09

With the XM29 on the horizon, doesn't the 6.8 SPC M-16 modification seem irrelevant for the military?

Aifwikir · October 11, 2003, 02:26

Quote:

Louis123
With the XM29 on the horizon, doesn't the 6.8 SPC M-16 modification seem irrelevant for the military?

It typically takes 7-10 years to field a new weapon to the military. Look how long it took the M9 pistol to get to all units. 12 yrs(+) !

Aif

shootist87122 · October 11, 2003, 08:20

So is it really a .270 (.277)?

We are back yet again to the FN/Britt 7MM Short design (or close enough).

mross312 · October 11, 2003, 09:35

The 6.8mm is primarily a SOCOM venture. They really started the push for a new cartridge after disappointing results with 5.56 in Afghanistan.

SOCOM had requested manufacturers to submit designs with detachable uppers so they could switch from the 6.8mm SPC to what ever else they need. Essentially the idea is to get away from 5.56. The request went out to manufacturers about 3 months ago.

Worldskipper.....6.8mm SPC in an FAL, it may very well happen.

donker · October 11, 2003, 12:21

Seems like a much more expensive way to come up with a more effective round. Why can't the US military do what the Russians do when they found deficiences in their 5.45 rounds, design a better bullet!

Eclipse · October 24, 2003, 08:50

From a historical standpoint this is great.

Before WW2 the US Army tried to adopt a .276 round in the M1 Garand. We couldn't adopt it then due to large stocks of .30-06 left over from WW I.

Then in the 1950's the British attempted to get the US to adopt an intermediate .270 round based on the 8mm Kurtz used in the STG44. The US Army said they wouldn't adopt a round with less power than the T65 7.62x51mm.

When the M14 didn't work out we adopted the .223 M16. Now we go back and find out the 50 year old British .270 round was a better choice after all?

This story improves with each passing year.

October 08, 2003, 10:24	#1
worldskipper Registered FALaholic #: 4317 Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 796	NEW M-16 Cartridge Remington 6.8 SPC Ok boys this is now public knowledge... If you have information about this cartridge, cough it up! http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000512.html Hum, 6.8 SPC in a FAL... Worldskipper Last edited by worldskipper; October 08, 2003 at 11:11.

October 08, 2003, 14:58	#3
dougjones31 Registered FALaholic #: 6967 Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 4,282	All I can say is ....WHY? Why bother with beefing up an AR-15 when you can just get a real gun to begin with.....and have more gun than the 6.8 SPC is! It is awful funny that the "Perfect Gun" AR-15 lovers sure are pumped up about these new conversions. What they needed all along was the AR-10...the original Stoner design! __________________ "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." --Adolf Hitler, 1935

October 09, 2003, 12:04	#5
Aifwikir Registered FALaholic #: 2187 Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Magazine, Arkansas Posts: 3,061	I beleive the Germans during WW2 had it right the first time with their original Assault Weapon. Why don't we just go back to the 7mm Kurtz! Aif __________________ Cosmo the Lene,,, Smeller of old grease! http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m...ber3575new.jpg

October 11, 2003, 08:20	#10
shootist87122 Registered FALaholic #: 7202 Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: NM Posts: 5,126	So is it really a .270 (.277)? We are back yet again to the FN/Britt 7MM Short design (or close enough). __________________ "So in the Libyan Fable it is told, That once an eagle, stricken with a dart, said, when he saw the fashion of the shaft, it is by our own feathers, not others hands, are we now smitten." -Aeschylus

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

October 09, 2003, 10:19	#4
Scott S Registered FALaholic #: 355 Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 3,416	I'll buy one when milsurp 6.8 is available for $125 per K. Although I applaud Barrett for their effort, like dj31, one has to ask why?

October 11, 2003, 00:06	#7
Bubba FAL Registered FALaholic #: 9851 Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: West TN Posts: 376	Coulda saved themselves a lot of trouble and brought back the 7x43 or the 7x46 from the rifle trials in the late '40's...

October 11, 2003, 01:09	#8
Louis123 Registered FALaholic #: 11404 Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 42	With the XM29 on the horizon, doesn't the 6.8 SPC M-16 modification seem irrelevant for the military?

October 11, 2003, 09:35	#11
mross312 Registered Contributor FALaholic #: 4524 Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: S/W Chicago Burbs Posts: 141	The 6.8mm is primarily a SOCOM venture. They really started the push for a new cartridge after disappointing results with 5.56 in Afghanistan. SOCOM had requested manufacturers to submit designs with detachable uppers so they could switch from the 6.8mm SPC to what ever else they need. Essentially the idea is to get away from 5.56. The request went out to manufacturers about 3 months ago. Worldskipper.....6.8mm SPC in an FAL, it may very well happen.

October 11, 2003, 12:21	#12
donker Registered FALaholic #: 5282 Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Oregon Posts: 1,219	Seems like a much more expensive way to come up with a more effective round. Why can't the US military do what the Russians do when they found deficiences in their 5.45 rounds, design a better bullet!

October 24, 2003, 08:50	#13
Eclipse Registered FALaholic #: 725 Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: South Dakota Posts: 1,549	From a historical standpoint this is great. Before WW2 the US Army tried to adopt a .276 round in the M1 Garand. We couldn't adopt it then due to large stocks of .30-06 left over from WW I. Then in the 1950's the British attempted to get the US to adopt an intermediate .270 round based on the 8mm Kurtz used in the STG44. The US Army said they wouldn't adopt a round with less power than the T65 7.62x51mm. When the M14 didn't work out we adopted the .223 M16. Now we go back and find out the 50 year old British .270 round was a better choice after all? This story improves with each passing year.