The 6.8 caliber round has recently been brought to my attention by a co-worker of mine. I did a quick search and it appears that it is very similar to the .270. This is very intriguing because I hunt with a .270 and absolutely love the round. Is this 6.8 caliber a slight upgrade, and has anyone shot/own one? Thanks,
6.8 Caliber?
- Thread starter Smit
- Start date
If you have a hunting rifle then you don't really need a 6.8.
The 6.8 was designed to increase lethality in an M4 pattern rifle over M855 from 0 to 500 meters for SOCOM. It makes a decent hunting round for those who like to hunt with an AR. Makes sense for those states that require a 243 caliber or larger cartridge for hunting rifles.
If you just want another rifle, go for it.
Jimro
The 6.8 was designed to increase lethality in an M4 pattern rifle over M855 from 0 to 500 meters for SOCOM. It makes a decent hunting round for those who like to hunt with an AR. Makes sense for those states that require a 243 caliber or larger cartridge for hunting rifles.
If you just want another rifle, go for it.
Jimro
Significant downgrade in performance from your .270 Winchester. The 6.8 SPC throws 110-115gr .277" bullets at about 2600-2700 fps, while the .270 Win will throw 130gr bullets to 3000-3100 fps.
Keep in mind the point of the 6.8 SPC is to improve hitting power within the confines of an AR-15 based rifle. This it does, but I believe it's at best a good match to .30-30 power level with the better downrange ballistics of pointed bullets.
Edited: Dang, need to type faster next time!
Keep in mind the point of the 6.8 SPC is to improve hitting power within the confines of an AR-15 based rifle. This it does, but I believe it's at best a good match to .30-30 power level with the better downrange ballistics of pointed bullets.
Edited: Dang, need to type faster next time!
tahunua001
New member
if that was the case then someone definitely didn't try to think inside the box very well. M193 ball would increase lethality over M855 penetrator rounds quite easily.
to say that it was designed to increase lethality over 5.56x45mm would be a more politically correct statement.
6.8 is a medium weight carbine round designed with semi autos in mind, the 270 can do everything that the 6.8 can and more. the 270 just can't fit inside an AR15 receiver which is what led to the 6.8 development.
globemaster3
New member
I really can't add anything as far as load development beyond what has already been covered. The parent case is .30 Remington.
As for use, yes, your .270 is more versatile out of a long action rifle. But for an AR, I found it plenty useful. My oldest was shooting a Weatherby Vanguard Youth .243, and although she could shoot well with it (took deer and hog), she wasn't comfortable behind it. Enter an AR in 6.8 with a collapsable stock, flat top, railed gas block, free float tube, and a scope, and I found a rifle that fits her small frame that she loves to shoot.
In bolt action rifles, Remington ran a model of the 700 for a while. Although I think they have stopped, you can still find them on Gunbroker in the $800 range. I have also seen Ruger 77 Mk IIs chamber in it as well.
Pushing a .277 caliber, 120 grain bullet at 2450 fps won't inspire most, but for a light recoiling round for deer and hogs within 200 yards, it works great. Hornady, Remington, Silver State Armory, Sellier and Bellot, among others, do some good factory loading for it. My favorite hunting round right now is the Hornady 120 grain SST. My oldest has used that to harvest deer with impressive results.
Another good resource is the 6.8Forums site, completely dedicated to the round, albeit from mostly an AR perspective.
As for use, yes, your .270 is more versatile out of a long action rifle. But for an AR, I found it plenty useful. My oldest was shooting a Weatherby Vanguard Youth .243, and although she could shoot well with it (took deer and hog), she wasn't comfortable behind it. Enter an AR in 6.8 with a collapsable stock, flat top, railed gas block, free float tube, and a scope, and I found a rifle that fits her small frame that she loves to shoot.
In bolt action rifles, Remington ran a model of the 700 for a while. Although I think they have stopped, you can still find them on Gunbroker in the $800 range. I have also seen Ruger 77 Mk IIs chamber in it as well.
Pushing a .277 caliber, 120 grain bullet at 2450 fps won't inspire most, but for a light recoiling round for deer and hogs within 200 yards, it works great. Hornady, Remington, Silver State Armory, Sellier and Bellot, among others, do some good factory loading for it. My favorite hunting round right now is the Hornady 120 grain SST. My oldest has used that to harvest deer with impressive results.
Another good resource is the 6.8Forums site, completely dedicated to the round, albeit from mostly an AR perspective.
Getting to be a lot of match bullets for the .277 (.270-6.8). I haven't gone to the new 6.8s but I've started taking advantage of the better bullets for my .270 Winchester.
Don't have to go to high price bullets to make your 270 a long range round either, Berger, Hornady, and others have reasonably priced highly accurate bullets.
This makes an outstanding round even better. They even have 165-175 super high BC out for the 270 if one adds a faster twist if one wants to go that route.
As for the newer or shorter bullets, I'm not sure they add much advantage to the 264/6.5 rounds.
Don't have to go to high price bullets to make your 270 a long range round either, Berger, Hornady, and others have reasonably priced highly accurate bullets.
This makes an outstanding round even better. They even have 165-175 super high BC out for the 270 if one adds a faster twist if one wants to go that route.
As for the newer or shorter bullets, I'm not sure they add much advantage to the 264/6.5 rounds.
As has already been stated, it's intended use is for rifles that require shorter rounds, like the AR-15. I have a few of them. From a 16" barrel, I load the 90gr TNT is to 2930fps, the 100gr Nosler Accubond to 2800fps, the 110gr Accubond to 2700fps, and the 115gr Nosler CC to 2640fps. You can add approximately 300 fps if they are shot from a 24" barrel. These loads require the use of a SPC2 chamber and 1:11-12 twist barrels, Remington screwed up the chamber print when they submitted it to SAAMI.
The .270 WIN is essentially a .30-06 case necked down to hold .277 bullets...
The 260 Rem is a .308WIN case necked down to hold 6.5mm/.264" bullets ....
The 6.8SPC is a .30 Remington case necked down to hold .277" bullets ..... the .30 Remington was introduced 100+ years ago as a direct competitor to the .30/30 WIN ...... similar size and pressure limit (at the time)....
Carefully loaded (a.k.a. "pushed to the edge of the envelope") in the right gun, it will post similar velocities to what off the shelf .260 Rem will do with somewhat heavier bullets ......though the 6.8 bullets will have lower ballistic coefficients (they are fatter) .... they'll start with less energy, and lose it faster ..... they'll fit in an AR magazine, though.
......
Yes, "similar" if you mean within 3-5 hundred pounds ..... and just poking around the web, I'm not finding available hunting ammo in .260 that has less drop@500 than that of either Hornady's .270WIN 130gr SST load, or my own 150 gr SGK handload .... Remington only claims 2,750 f/sec for their 140gr Corelokt load, and it's not even an efficient bullet.....
There are some very efficient 6.5 bullets out there, but the small case of the .260 limits initial muzzle velocity, especially with the longer bullets. The LR hunting guys tend to favor the .260 AI for it's increased capacity......
Tahuna001
In response to an "improvement over M855 lethality from 0 to 500 meters" you wrote.
M193 ball has better lethality than M855 only when there is enough remaining velocity to cause the "fragmentation" effect during terminal performance. That velocity drops off quite rapidly, and so from an M4 length barrel you are looking at 200 meters or less.
I suggest you spend a little more time actually studying terminal ballistics at ranges before you come back with a flippant and demonstrably wrong answer. If you had said Mk262mod1 ammunition then you would have a much better argument to make.
Jimro
In response to an "improvement over M855 lethality from 0 to 500 meters" you wrote.
M193 ball has better lethality than M855 only when there is enough remaining velocity to cause the "fragmentation" effect during terminal performance. That velocity drops off quite rapidly, and so from an M4 length barrel you are looking at 200 meters or less.
I suggest you spend a little more time actually studying terminal ballistics at ranges before you come back with a flippant and demonstrably wrong answer. If you had said Mk262mod1 ammunition then you would have a much better argument to make.
Jimro
tahunua001
New member
JIMRO, I am sorry I misinterpreted your post, I failed to see the 0-500 meter caveat as most ballistics charts I've seen rarely take either cartridge past 400 yards . however I would like to point out that military training doctrine states that if the target is beyond the maximum accepted range of iron sights(300 meters), generally you turn things over to the guy with a scope and bigger round anyway. there is no reason to look for a round that is more lethal past acceptable firing ranges in the first place but then again I have seen more taxpayer dollars spent in worse ways.
Gosh ..... things sure have changed in the .mil ...... As recently as the mid 90's, I was expected to hit targets at 400 meters with irons.....
.... and I've seen arguments right here on this forum both that the issue caliber is fine for places like A-Stan, where 50+% of engagemts begin past 500 meters, that the issue caliber is not any good past 200 meters, and that irons are useless past 300 ....... sometimes by the same people......
FWIW, I think the 6.8 is a better cartridge than the 5.56 for the kind of things the 5.56 is used for ...... it's still an intermediate cartridge.
tahunua001
New member
I'm just stating Navy and by extension army(as they train all boots on ground sailors going IA) doctrine, maybe Marines and AF have higher standards but what I've stated seems to be a recurring theme among IA returnees. and most of them engage in urban combat distances, rarely over 100 yards.
Gunplummer
New member
Yes, I put one together from parts I had laying around and a barrel blank. I wanted to take it hunting that fall and screwed around until the last minute to pick up ammo. I managed to get some police type ammo that appeared to be simply hollow point bullets. I shot a doe with it and it was quite destructive. Looked as if someone threw a softball through her side. Quite a difference between a 6.8 hollow point and a .223 hollow point. I sold it because of what I thought would be ammo availability problems, but apparently the 6.8 is gaining popularity.
Tahuna001,
The Marine Corps disagrees with your statement about turning things over after 300 meters. The Army agrees with that statement, which is why they instituted the SDM program so that each Squad would have a rifleman to engage targets out to 500 meters or 600 yards (depending on the range they train and qualify on). That gives a 9 man squad 3 individuals who can engage out to 500 meters, the SDM and the two SAW gunners.
SOCOM usually runs in much smaller teams, so individual rifles count a lot more, hence the development of the 6.8 SPC and the 0 to 500 meter lethality envelope.
Jimro
The Marine Corps disagrees with your statement about turning things over after 300 meters. The Army agrees with that statement, which is why they instituted the SDM program so that each Squad would have a rifleman to engage targets out to 500 meters or 600 yards (depending on the range they train and qualify on). That gives a 9 man squad 3 individuals who can engage out to 500 meters, the SDM and the two SAW gunners.
SOCOM usually runs in much smaller teams, so individual rifles count a lot more, hence the development of the 6.8 SPC and the 0 to 500 meter lethality envelope.
Jimro
okiewita40
New member
When I was stationed with the marines. I had to fire the exact same course of fire to qualify as they did. That meant iron sights all the way to include the 500 yard line.
My last deployment in 2010 as a civ. contractor we did the army range. Nothing past 25 meters. Only the target was smaller to simulate shooting to 300 meters.
My last deployment in 2010 as a civ. contractor we did the army range. Nothing past 25 meters. Only the target was smaller to simulate shooting to 300 meters.