No one here is maligning the 6.8. We thought it worthwhile enough to develop a new magazine. The issue is purely based on the round stack, and although there are plenty of rifles that run very, very well with standard geometry, it was statistical parity with our 5.56 mags that we were after, which puts mean rounds between mag/feeding related failure WAY into the thousands. This was the best way we know how to do it. It’s a tiny difference, but while we were at it, we made sure there was enough room for a little extra material thickness.
It’s tempting to buy 3 or 4 of these to build rifles for future kids and grandkids.
We have developed a SIX5 since the Pmag allows loading to 2.32" A 6.5mm based on a slightly shortened 6.8 case as possible. Same performance as the Grendel but stronger bolts and better mags.
More info, please! Heaviest bullet possible at mag length COAL…? And running at 6.8 pressures (62k)?
Not surprising coming from H, constructor. He is the mad scientist of wildcats.
When LWRC said they would sell the receivers a few weeks ago I checked some notes I had made in 2007. Back then there was no 123 Amax and the Lapua was too long so I dropped the idea. Now I designed it to work with the 123 Amax and SST to keep the ogive out of the case. The SST can be set with the cannelure in the correct location not stuffed back into the case like some versions. The full diameter part of the ogive at the cannelure should be outside the case mouth to align the bullet in the bore. I shortened my 5.56x42 and 6x41 6.8 based cats for the same reason. The Amax or SST will work with PRI mags but they will work better with the Pmags that allow 2.32". The shoulder of the 6.8 case is in the same spot I just shortened the neck. You’ve shot the 6.8 enough to know how the 6.8 case can be pushed but, at 55k it should hit the same velocity that the Grendel can. There is more info in my area on 68forums, I don’t want to start too much here.
I wonder if Magpul will mfg. 10 round 6.8 PMAGS since several states now have these restrictions.
Back to the OP. I currently use Barrett and PRI mags for my 6.8 and while they work just fine and have had absolutely zero problems with them, they do cost twice what Pmags do. It would be nice to get some of these Pmags at a good price but I can’t as they “only” work in an LWRC lowers and not my Mil-Spec lower. Big bummer.
ETA: I can have larger capacity mags then CO as I moved to WI (a free state) and no longer reside in CO.
MadDog :mad:
Constructor,
Is it possible to use any of the 129/130 gr 6.5 bullets in the SIX5 you are proposing? I am specifically thinking about 129gr SSTs and 130gr AccuBond? I ask because I was planning a Grendel build but the idea of the SIX5 intrigues me. I am, however, really fond of the 129/130 gr bullets in 6.5s.
Sweet!! I’ve been waiting on this since they announced the Six8!!!
I’m sorry I don’t know yet. The problem with the 6.5 bullets in a 6.8 case has always been the length and why I didn’t wildcat a 6.5/6.8 in 2007.
If you have those bullets you could compare the length from the cannelure to the tip, any bullet the length of a 123sst or shorter will work. I’ll check what I have but I know I do not have 129 SSTs or a 130 Accubond at the shop.
Nice idea - but not at $699 for what amounts to a receiver missing the critical components. If it included a quality BCG, BCM charging handle, and Timney trigger at that price, I’d think about it.
Then there’s the small issue of living here in the People’s Republik of Kolorado where I can’t buy the mags for this combination…
I wonder what would happen if someone developed a heavy duty 5.56 magazine based on the bigger mag well. Would there be a market for something like that?
I don’t think there would. The G36 magazine has thicker dimensions than the M16 magazine but from what I heard there were requests from end users for an AR-15 mag well and as a result, HK made a AR-15 magwell for the G36. Even the civilian G36 has the AR-15 mag well.https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?143157-Hk-293-(Civilian-G36)
I assume that NATO interoperability and the M16 FOW being a common platform is a major reason proprietary mags in 5.56mm won’t be popular since many NATO weapons use the M16 mag and STANAG 4179 proposed to standardize the M16 magazine. http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Arvidsson.pdf.
IIRC, not every NATO member ratified STANAG 4179 (Please correct me if I’m wrong).
Does anyone actually have a LWRC Six8 on this board? Any issues? My impression as to why the larger magwell was created was to allow for a polymer magazine body from Magpul to be used, as the wall thickness has to be greater than a 5.56 STANAG polymer magazine body to ensure durability. Any other improvements in terms of the follower or spring type are only logical. The bigger issue in my mind is LWRC’s erratic reputation for quality control of these $2k rifles. If Daniel Defense or Bravo Company built a receiver set based on the new LWRC dimensions, I’d buy one in a heart beat.
Tokarev: I don’t think increasing the wall thickness of the AR-15/STANAG compatible magazine body would improve it’s reliability, although durability against crush injury to the body could be improved from such a design change. I think a change in the feeding angle of the rounds and how the magazine secures into the mag well itself would make a bigger difference in improving the reliability of STANAG compatible rifles. However, such changes would necessitate a complete redesign of the entire rifle to one which does not use STANAG magazines. The HK XM8 used a similar magazine design to the G36, and proved quite reliable from what published tests we’ve seen on the web (mind you, the SCAR-L and HK 416 performed quite well, and all three of these newcomers beat the M4 ). However, as M995 points out, many people on this board who work in Europe on military and police teams that have trigger time behind the G36 do not like G36 magazine bodies. I’m guessing this is one of the reasons why HK makes a STANAG compatible G36 adaptor: [=778&cHash=10f98b727d36487d0eaf335a4c2c67c6"]http://www.heckler-koch.com/en/military/products/assault-rifles/g36/g36c/accessories.html?tx_z7attachmentshk_pi3[article]=778&cHash=10f98b727d36487d0eaf335a4c2c67c6](http://www.heckler-koch.com/en/military/products/assault-rifles/g36/g36c/accessories.html?tx_z7attachmentshk_pi3[article)
Improved springs and self-leveling followers from Magpul and other companies are improvements over the old green followers in USGI aluminum magazines, but I’m yet to see a randomized control trial between all different magazine types (Magpul vs. USGI mags vs. Lancer AWM vs. HK, etc.) that proves the new designs really are better than the older USGI mags (or even the newer USGI mags that have the govt’s own self-leveing followers) in the field. Most of it comes from reports in the field and people’s personal experience. While valuable, I’d like to see a test taking 20 of each brand’s magazine through rack of the mill M4 carbines, to see if there is a statistically significant benefit by using the newer designs.
Edited to add: As a byline for such a test, I would include a Russian or Bulgarian made AK-74M variant using Circle 10 magazines. The control would be current USGI M4s with USGI aluminum magazines with and without the new followers/springs that are issued.
I certainly don’t think we’d ever see a global change away from the legacy M16 magazine platform based on one receiver design created by LWRC and Magpul at the request of the Saudis.
I should have been more specific in my speculation and wondered how many US competition shooters, hobbyists, etc would be curious to see a dedicated 5.56 magazine that’s been beefed up in critical spots to enhance drop and crush resistance. Anyway, I’m sure these new receiver sets will do well with many in the 6.8 community as well as those looking for a platform for their 6mm Hagar, .240 Tomahawk and similar wildcats.
I would appreciate any additional info you can provide. I don’t have either bullet currently as I am currently sans a 6.5. I just sent an email into Hornady about the 129SST length versus the 123SST. I will let you know what they tell me.
Constructor,
I just heard back from Hornady. There response was that “on the 123 Gr SST the length of the Cannelure to tip is .710 and for the 129 Gr it is .750.” Hopes this is useful information.
I received 2 of the mags yesterday. They only allow loading to 2.3 like the PRI 6.8 mags so I doubt the 129s will work.
Well that sort of kills that idea. Thanks for your help.