Talk:6.8mm Remington SPC

message: "as the 6.8 loses apx 25ft/s/inch. -SSA website" this would mean that it would stop after a bit over 100 inches 
some one can look in to it and find the correct values or tell me i am looking at the data incorrectly
Samuel   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.52.29 (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This must be Wrong 

message: This is the author of New Bullet, well the "kinda author" i guess.... Anyway, thank you for trying to keep my article from merging, but I guess its all for the best.  Judisch 04:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you for trying. 

message: Hi Guys,
Sorry to be late to the party.  I am the author of the 6.8 SPC FAQ (which you already linked to at the bottom of the article) and what was the first public reload data on the cartridge.  I have been working with the cartridge since its public debut 2/2004.  
Recently, I have written an article for SGN which contains a more comprehensive history and current status of 6.8 than anything else I've seen anywhere.  It will be published in Shotgun News in July.
I believe information to be published in that article will be a verifiable source very useful to anyone who wants to expand and correct the current 6.8 entry.  And let's face it, the current entry is pretty sparse.    
I would be happy to either suggest or make edits once the article can be cited.
Comments?
Zak 19:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New content and changes 

message: I was just wondering if a note should be made as to the irony of this similarity, considering the controversy surrounding the decision to reject .280 in favour of the 7.62 x 51 mm all those years ago.  I'd do it myself, but I don't know if I could manage to be NPOV about it!
-- Chris (blather • contribs)  15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar to the British .280

message: Looks like Barrett advertising was added - what about all the other manufacturers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.37.229.206 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising Added?

message: More accurate and better ballistics than 5.56/.223 seems to be a false claim.  5.56/.223 AR rifles are winning most AR15 competitions and are highly accurate at 1/4 MOA at times with handloads.  5.56/.223 loaded with 77gr and other match rounds have excellent ballistics with high BCs.  Special Ops usage claim - can't find any reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.71.219.157 (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Much unsupported claims

message: I just added an external link to the 2006 Shotgun News article, which Dr. Gary Roberts (ballistics SME) has called "the best publically-available history of 6.8 SPC".     This will be useful as a cite for various claims.
--Zak 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New reference added

message: The article is chuck full of unsupported and unreferenced opinion and hype. First, the stats for the 6.8 are from a 24" barrel.  Now, I don't know about you, but there ain't no 24" M4's walking the streets of Bagdad.  Let's get some data from 14.5" or 12.5" barrels, those likely to be fielded.  Second, Who the F&%$ calls the .243 Winchester MARGINAL for deer?  Has this dumbS$%# ever been in the field?--Asams10 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apples and Oranges 

message: Is there a specific reason for comparing the 6.8's long range capabilities and ballistics to the 7.62 round? Isn't it supposed to compete with the 6.5 Grendel and 5.56 rounds?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnieblue (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A table that compared velocity, energy, and drop at 50, 100, 200, 300, 500 for the 6.8, 7.62, 6.5 Grendel and 5.56 would be pretty interesting. Arthur (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We could certainly find verifiable ballistics. There are a couple of questions though... what weight bullet to use in each? What loading to use in each? For load, when making comparisons I try to use reloading manuals max safe loads for all cartridges, this seems to give the most "fair" comparison, since it's all on the same basis. For bullet weight, someone needs to figure out "standard" weight for each cartridge, or even one or two "common" weights and we can go from there. Arthur (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any numbers would have to come from barrels of equal length.  Comparing a 24" Bolt action to a vented 14" barrel, you're obviously going to get quite different numbers.  The 6.8mm SPC has been over-hyped in typical industry standard with hyped up velocity figures and little real data.  I have seen honest test results in gun RAGS.  I believe that American Rifleman and/or Shotgun News did a good workup. --Asams10 (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have the American Rifleman or know which issue that'd be great. Otherwise if we can figure out what we think are useful bullet weights and a reasonable barrel length, I can put the table together. Arthurrh (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll check when I get a chance. --Asams10 (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to 7.62

message: There's a new ruger SR-556 chambered in this round.--184.35.18.221 (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruger SR-556 

message: There should be more information regarding Remington not supplying the correct chamger dimensions to SAAMI, and the two different chambers, much like the .223 vs 5.56. The 6.8 SPCII is expanding, the SAAMI version is contracting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.81.109 (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remington/SAAMI chamber compared to SPCII/Army chamber 

message: The LWRC M6A2 is an authorized personal purchase carbine, not a general issue item.  Agents and TFOs can choose to purchase one on their own dime, but the DEA as a whole is not buying the weapon to replace their 5.56 carbines.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.37.52 (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the DEA issued carbine 

message: I am a bit confused about the accuracy of this article. The reason for my confusion is that the cartridge is named the “6.8 mm Remington Special Purpose Cartridge” which would imply that it uses a 6.8mm bullet. In addition, the article states that both 6.5mm and 7mm bullets were experimented with during the development of the cartridge but, although the 6.5mm bullet had better accuracy, the 7mm bullet had better terminal ballistics. Thus, a compromise was settled upon by using 6.8mm bullets.
     
   However, the article also states that this cartridge uses a 7mm (.277 cal.) bullet equivalent to the bullet used in the .270 Winchester round.
     
   So, which statement is correct?
--Doc Trout (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 6.8 mm is the diameter of the bore between the lands, which is the way calibres are measured and named in Europe, but the bullet diameter is 7 mm, ie .277". Calibres referred to as 7 mm have a bullet diameter of .284" or .285". Thomas.W (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  6.8mm or 7mm; Which one is correct? 

message: An argument in favor of the AR-15 with its .223 rounds is that a soldier can carry more ammo than he could if he were toting 30.06.  If you have a less potent round, but can carry twice as much ammo & shoot it faster onto a target (less re-aim time between shots), you might prefer the less potent round.  Obviously this 6.8 round is a lot heavier than a .223.  Thus at least the weight of a round should be given with an estimate of how much ammo a soldier could carry & compare that to other rounds, like .223 & .308.  (EnochBethany (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight Statement & Comparisons Would Improve the Article

message: 6.8 mm Rem. SPC is also CIP certified.
http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page31.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.156.13.121 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIP 

message: "One of the enigmatic features of this cartridge is it being designed for a short barrel carbine length rifle that the standard rifle length is"
I would edit this sentence, but the intended meaning eludes me. Maybe: "Mysteriously the cartridge was designed for a shorter barrel than standard"? I kind of doubt "enigmatic" was the adjective the author was going for, but regardless the passive voice and erroneous pronouns make the sentence incomprehensible.23.28.40.163 (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enigmatic features 

message: "For hunters, the 6.8 SPC cartridge is a significant improvement over the 5.56 mm (.223) cartridges currently available in the AR-15 platform. The latter cartridges fall below 6 millimetres (0.243 in), which is what many counties and states in the USA have chosen as the smallest caliber legal to humanely take varmint to medium sized game such as (but not limited to)groundhog/marmot/woodchuck, coyotes, wild hogs, deer, black bear, caribou, and small- to medium-size elk. It is gaining popularity among hog/boar hunters. By adopting 6.8 SPC, a hunter also gains the ability to use the AR-15 platform for hunting out to 270–370 metres (300–400 yd) (depending on load and chamber, out of a 410-millimetre (16 in) barrel, further with longer barrel). Although, rifles with 320-millimetre (12.5 in) barrels have been successful at taking deer & wild hogs/boar up to 270 metres (300 yd) (this also depends on load & chamber)."
Reading this, one would think the 6.8 was superior to the .223 for "hunting" small varmints like prairie dogs, AND had a legal advantage over the .223 for use on groundhogs in a significant part of the country, AND was an adequate elk cartridge, AND was humane for use on whitetail deer at 300 yards out of a 12.5 inch barrel.
While I'm sure the 6.8 SPC is a very fine cartridge for small hogs and common whitetail deer out to 150 yards or so, I hardly think it can replace everything from .223 Remington to .35 Whelen in one stroke.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.20.170 (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Commercial" section full of baloney. 

message: Remington had access to all the Small Arms Calibre Panel (Great Britain) .280 British data following a request from the British which lead directly to the 6.8 SPC, surely we need to give credit where due? Twobells (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  .280 British 

message: There seems almost to be an osmosis effect in various ammunition articles, of one or the other named or anonymous editor changing the sizes of the case size from one unreferenced (or referenced from a source other than SAAMI) size to another. So I'm going to post a link to the SAAMI website and let the usual editors duke it out. ;^) http://www.saami.org/pubresources/cc_drawings/Rifle/6_8mm%20Remington%20SPC.pdf  Trilobitealive (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case size osmosis 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 6.8mm Remington SPC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=383
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040623114932/http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=383 to http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=383
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/12/10/more-than-a-rifle-how-a-new-68mm-round-advanced-optics-will-make-soldiers-marines-a-lot-deadlier/ 
FYI for anyone interested to use to update this Wiki article. 
Phantom in ca (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 Dec: Looks like US Mil seriously looking at 6.8 SPC....  

message: https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2008/Intl/Roberts.pdf
In it you will find a lot of data. It requires you to sort through the pdf done by a ballistic researcher. The 6.8 SPC is not the new 6.8mm cartridge. The bigger bullet will be used .277, but not the special purpose cartridge. The SPC was developed specifically for the short barrel M4 and the loss of velocity, rendering the 5.56 less useful at long range in Afghanistan.
"During SPC development different bullet
diameters of 6 mm, 6.5 mm, 6.8mm,
7 mm, and 7.62 mm were tested, using
multiple bullet types, shapes, and
weights from 90 to 140 
gr--the 
6.8 mm
was selected because it offered the
BEST combination of combat accuracy,
reliability, and terminal performance for
0-500 yard engagements in an M4 size
package."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:7E7F:F9E8:15A6:E3B2:647D:228F (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed. Google does not work for you?