Why did, or will you choose the 6.8?

[C4IGrant]

NATO didn't pick-up the .40 S&W, yet it seems to be doing just fine in the market...

Yes, but they had a Federal agency (FBI) that was pushing for it. To date, I don't know of any large Federal agency pushing for the 6.8 (please correct me if I am wrong).

Civy shooters tend to follow what the groups like the FBI or Military use so that is why the 40 has done so well.



C4

[jmart]

My humble opinion, and worth exactly what you paid for it, assuming we're still going to put crappy triggers, non-free floated barrels and chrome-lined barrels on the bulk of the forces' weapons, 5.56, 6.5, 6.8 is largely irrelevant. You can still get hits with these configs, but you'll never get hits consistently. So why we let the long range scenario drive the debate, I'll never understand.

If I were king for a day I'd pick a system that's optimized for the 0-300 meter envelope, is logistically supportable and provide decent operational reliability and longevity. I'd want something that results in a more immediate effect than what occurs today with 5.56. I'd want something that could go through auto sheetmetal and glass and still inflict desired effects at the receiving end. But whatever performance I'd get outside that envelope, I just accept it. And if that performance wasn't good enough, then I'd come up with dedicated weapons platforms and training programs to handle those situations, but I wouldn't waste my time or resources trying to get the whole force up to that capability level.

To look at it another way, if today's platform and soldier has a 10-20% hit probability out at 600-800, I doubt simply by switching to a flat 6.5 caliber hit percentage is going to go up measurably. What would be gained, maybe another 5%? If you need big performance gains, you need more specialized equipment and training. Again, JMHO.

[C4IGrant]

My humble opinion, and worth exactly what you paid for it, assuming we're still going to put crappy triggers, non-free floated barrels and chrome-lined barrels on the bulk of the forces' weapons, 5.56, 6.5, 6.8 is largely irrelevant. You can still get hits with these configs, but you'll never get hits consistently. So why we let the long range scenario drive the debate, I'll never understand.

If I were king for a day I'd pick a system that's optimized for the 0-300 meter envelope, is logistically supportable and provide decent operational reliability and longevity. I'd want something that results in a more immediate effect than what occurs today with 5.56. I'd want something that could go through auto sheetmetal and glass and still inflict desired effects at the receiving end. But whatever performance I'd get outside that envelope, I just accept it. And if that performance wasn't good enough, then I'd come up with dedicated weapons platforms and training programs to handle those situations, but I wouldn't waste my time or resources trying to get the whole force up to that capability level.

To look at it another way, if today's platform and soldier has a 10-20% hit probability out at 600-800, I doubt simply by switching to a flat 6.5 caliber hit percentage is going to go up measurably. What would be gained, maybe another 5%? If you need big performance gains, you need more specialized equipment and training. Again, JMHO.

I think you are right. The majority of fighting is 300M and in. As we know, one of the reasons why the Military switched to the 5.56 was so the average soldier could carry more rounds. I imagine that if we never switched, soldiers would be complaining about running out of ammo. I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer here.

I personally am in favor of more ammo VS less ammo. Then again, I believe that I can hit what I am aiming at. I have to imagine that when the switch to the 5.56 was made, they knew that SOME of our soldiers couldn't hit a house from 50yds so giving them more chances simply increased their odds.



C4

[MudBug]

Being a dealer, I somewhat have my finger on the pulse of the consumer (is my job to know what is hot). I must talk to a customer about the 6.8 on a weekly basis. The two concerns they have with going to the 6.8 is ammo cost and ammo availability.

Unless NATO picks up the 6.8, which I don't think will happen anytime soon (if at all) the majority of the shooters that will buy 6.8 weapons and ammo are going to be Civilians. So which ever cartridge is cheaper (6.8 or 6.5) and has the most availability, will most likely win the Civy market.



C4

The money thing is very key for those of us paying for both ammo and training out of our own pockets.

I think it would be important to train with what you shoot.

I recently took a 5 day HRCC class from Tactical Response.

Price was $1250

We shot about 4000 rounds, i used Black Hills 55 grn that I managed to get a deal on. (after the first day when Wolf killed my AR, but lets just assume I shot the Black hills for the whole class)

Price was $220/1000 or $880 for 4000 rounds.

Now if I took that same class shooting 6.8 SPC then let's look at the cost of ammo. I'm not an expert on the pricing, so I'll just use the numbers I found at Sportsman's Guide which is $53/100

so we have $53/100 or $2120 for 4000 rounds


That is a real difference, and a real ****ing problem.

I'm choosing the 6.5 for 2 things. Long range shooting competition Ala Zack's PRTC match, and hunting. in both cases while the ammo may still be pricey, we are comparing more to match or hunting grade .308 loadings and the prices are similar. Plus I'll never shoot the volume of the ammo that I do with 5.56.

[TimP]

I agree with you mudbug. That why to shoot much 6.8 or 6.5 you will need to reload it. It only makes sense.

Liek you I will never shoot the amount of 6.8, that I do 556, strictly from a $$$ standpoint. I only have around 750 rds of 6.8 right now, but a few thousand of 556.

I think as more gun makers start making weapons for it, the price of ammo will come down. 6.8 is no more $$ than 308, but MOST people shoot 308 from a bolt gun, where as most peopel shoot a 6.8 through an AR. hence they fire ALOT more ammo. More ammo = More $$$

My local walmart carries Remington 6.8 ammo. Who woulda thunk it. If it was me I would buy 100 rds from SSA, and some brass. Shoot the ammo, then start reloading. The local gun store stocks 6.8 ammo as well. Remington OTM @ $13.xx a box if memory serves. it may even be cheaper cause I can get 3 box's for $40 out the door. So I usually go by and get 3 boxs a week, and just stack it up at the house for a rainy day. I like to shoot the SSA ammo better anyway but the remington ammo shoots fine too. You just have to police the brass and reload it.