Unfortunately, I’m not sure my schedule permits attending any of the “events” at Rachels this week while I’m here at SHOT, so sorry DC2.
But I did partially answer the mail on the whole 6.8 question. Though I’m not sure how much more light I can shed on the subject since it just seems to me a technical question of ballistics, range and penetration with a more macro question of where this round fits — or could fit — in the US (or international) arsenal.
I had a long conversation with Jeff Clemmer, a program manager with LWRC International. Reason I talked with Jeff is that his company’s PSD Carbine is chambered for the 6.8mm SPC round and has become increasingly popular with the private security community and some government agencies.
Jeff gave the some gouge on the advantages of the 6.8mm round. He told me that during the congressional test shoot in July, staffers were amazed at the performance of the round at long ranges.
“When we fired the 5.56 to a steel target at 300 yards, rounds were just pinging off,” Clemmer said. “But the 6.8 was knocking them flat.”
I’m no expert, but 300 yards is a pretty good distance for a carbine…and they were shooting the 6.8 during the demo out of the PSD which has an 8-inch barrel.
Ballistic demonstrations with jelly showed better penetration at those ranges than the 5.56 as well, Clemmer said, and published reports confirm his field data.
I asked about the added weight. As you can see from the picture here, the round is only slightly fatter than the 5.56 and significantly smaller than the 7.62. He said a standard 30-round magazine holds 25 rounds and offers a negligible weight penalty.
But given all the positive press on the 6.8, there’s one huge problem. It’s a whole new round.
It’s clear to the folks at LWRC how difficult it would ever be to convince the institutional Army or Marine Corps to make a hard right turn and change the standard-issued carbine to a 6.8mm one. So I asked him why they still make weapons chambered for 6.8 and he said the round was becoming increasingly popular in the private security community and, oddly enough, the hunting crowd which likes to use a military-esque round for plinking varmints and such.
I did ask him about the 6.5 Grendel round as well and he said that there just aren’t that many weapons chambered in 6.5 (I don’t know how accurate that is) and that the manufacturing base is small as well. He didn’t have anything bad to say about the round, though, adding that the ballistics are only slightly different from the 6.8.
– Christian
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }
Take a look at this
http://www.65grendel.com/
http://www.65grendel.com/faq.htm
If the 6.8 round benefits the troops then you can count on Congress axing it. If it doesn’t benefit their pocketbooks in some way they aren’t interested.
J
The 6.8SPC or the 6.5 Gredel is definatley the way to go. But like you said Jack, if it is good, it will be axed by our congress.
“He said a standard 30-round magazine holds 25 rounds.”
Man, this deflation economy is hitting everything!
JH: Not quite true. The 6.8 has better ballistics out of a shorter barrel (it uses a faster, more efficient powder to do so). As far as more accurate, thats bunk. Cartridges aren’t more accurate, rifles are. You can make accurate rifles out of just about any cartridge out there.
And while there may be 2-3 makes of Grendel rifles, testing has shown that the 7.62×39 derived case doesn’t feed reliably in an M16/M4 platform (important to specify here) in full auto.
If you’re curious, I suggest you join the forums at 68forums.com and read some of the stuff people there are doing with the 6.8mm.
JH: I forgot to add that most of the published ballistics data on the 6.8mm is based on loads that work in the outdated SAAMI chamber that remington submitted with some very obvious flaws. The SPC-II chamber drops the pressures considerably, and allows for much hotter loads.
If we could get every one to update to the SPC-II chamber, then ammo manufacturers could upload the loads to take advantage of the reduced chamber pressures.
SSA currently will sell you “combat” loads that are loaded to higher pressures – supposed to be good for about 100fps.
Nice rifle, chamber it in the 6.5G FAR better
ballistics than the 6.8.
I would like to hear wat the Canadians have to say about LWRC’s rifle [6.8] Lets hear it from the horses mouth. I like the short-barreled carbine pictured above. Come in handy in an urban environment. Nice.
Well. No need a whole new round. In 2005 in NDIA (you know, a cluster of defense, US) put on line meetins where we can find a experiment with new propellants what a 50% less room case with the same round outperform a 5.56. That
The whole 6.8 vs. 6.5 thing has been proven over and over again. Here are the facts:
1.) 6.5 mm Grendel has greater performance at longer ranges with nearly the same amount of force at close range.
2.)6.8 mm SPC was designed for closer range engagements. You may get decent ballistics out of whatever rifle you choose, but due to ballistic coefficients you will never get as flat of a trajectory out of 6.8 mm SPC.
3.)Due to a steeper shoulder and the case design, 6.5mm Grendel would require a modification to the standard belt fed links and feed mechanisms of Machine guns. Some weapons have reported feed issues, but that is a mechanical issue, NOT a cartridge issue.
4.)Both rounds (correct me if i’m wrong) require new magazines, and a slightly lowered capacity for the same weight/size.
Now, you can brag up either round as much as you like, it really doesn’t matter. I’d just like to see a short stroke piston action rather than gas impingement, I really DON’T care what caliber it’s in.
6.8 vs. 6.5, the 6.5 is the better round. If it isn’t taken over the 6.8, we’re just going to be back to the drawing board in a few years saying “where did we go wrong?” Lets get more bang for our buck and get the better ammunition.
Sorry to break it you all you 6.5 Grendel fans but the 6.5 Grendel is a MATCH round, the 6.8 SPC is a COMBAT round.
That is not to say that the 6.5 Grendel would not make for a good combat round but NO COMBAT LOADING HAS BEEN TESTED for it. All the fantastic long range ballistics specs you see for the 6.5 Grendel are MATCH LOADS with MATCH BRASS & MATCH BULLETS. Its performance with a true COMBAT LOAD (brass & bullet) would not be quite as good.
I’d still take a 6.5 Grendel over a 5.56 NATO any day but don’t fool yourself that it is a better COMBAT (particularly short-barrel carbines) round.
And of course if you are looking for a new round for a NEW combat rifle/carbine (as opposed to refitting existing weapons), you can do away with the 5.56 NATO overall length restrictions & have some longer, more ballistic bullets for the 6.8 SPC…
5.56, too weak; 7.62, too inaccurate; 6.8, the compromise bullet.
I like the “match round” comment, just because it is a more accurate round. Did you see the charts for the 10.5″ barrel btw? Go back and look, you will see I was a 6.8 zombie/coolaid drinker.
The only reason I used too, and some people still favor the 6.8SPC, is because it has gotten more press(example* this article).
Personally I think the 6.5 Grendel is like that Ultimax SAW. Probably the best choice, but was never really given any consideration.
Just some interesting info in development.
In recent developments (the period 2004-2008) the performance of the 6.8SPC has been increased by approximately 200 fps by the work of one ammo manufacturer and a few custom rifle builders using the correct chamber and barrel specifications. The velocities obtained now from an 8″ barrel are equal to what a 16″ barrel was producing 4 years ago and the 16″ barrel velocities are equal to what a 24″ barrel produced 4 years ago using the data below. By increasing the velocity of the ammo 200 ft/s the range of terminal effectiveness has been increased approximately 100 yards or an 8″ barrel now has the same effective range as a 16″ barrel had in 2004 as the 6.8 looses apx 25fps/inch. -SSA website and 6.8 Performance test verified http://www.68forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3473
Did the LWRC program manager mention whether the 6.8mm has any ‘preference’ one way or another when it comes to direct impingement ‘versus’ an operating rod?
Did the LWRC program manager mention whether the 6.8mm has any ‘preference’ one way or another when it comes to direct impingement ‘versus’ an operating rod?
Did the LWRC program manager mention whether the 6.8mm has any ‘preference’ one way or another when it comes to direct impingement ‘versus’ an operating rod?
JH,
No, “match round” because the 6.5 Grendel was designed for match shooting rather than COMBAT. It uses MATCH BRASS & MATCH BULLETS, which is SUPPOSED to result in greater accuracy.
A 6.8 SPC with MATCH BRASS & MATCH BULLETS would be more accurace & have better ballistics than 6.8 SPC COMBAT LOADS.
The 6.8mm will never be a super accurate cartridge since it has this sharp ogive shape, while the 6.5G is super slender.
I agree the gas impingement system must be dumped, as far as the 5.56 goes, you better hit an enemy in the right spot to put him down. The Soldiers, Marines in Fallujah were fighting a hopped up on drugs enemy [adrenaline, khat etc.] and the 5.56 did not have the stopping power up close. The carbine pictured above probably would have been more effective. This discussion has been going on for a long time-and nothing changes.
The 6.8mm SPC is the way to go for our infantry. Debating between the 6.5mm Grendel and the 6.8mm SPC is beating a dead horse, like the old debate between the 30-30 Win. and the 32 Special. The only truly factual issue with the 6.5mm Grendel is that its 30 degree shoulder is steep enough to cause chambering & feeding issues in magazine-fed weapons. We should go with the 6.8mm SPC, and design full 30-round capacity magazines for the weapons that will chamber it.
@ PJ
The 25 round mags are just fine… Anything longer than that and you’re going to have a real issue when you need to go prone.
The 30-rounders were designed in an era where full-auto (or 3-shot burst) was the order of the day and while 30 rounds is certainly better than 20, you reach a point where it become unmanagable.
Besides, I was running and gunning with 20-round mags in my M-14 and never felt undergunned.
Semper Fi
Wasn’t there another cartridge being developed called the 6.5 MPC? That seemed to be a mix between the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC…
Anyone have info on the 6.5 MPC?
Wasn’t there another cartridge being developed called the 6.5 MPC? That seemed to be a mix between the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC…
Anyone have info on the 6.5 MPC?
6.5 Grendel is a far better cartridge than 6.8, period.
-I remember three 6.5ish cartridges under development long ago: one was a 6.5×47 based on the 5.56mm case; one was a 6.5×39 based on the Soviet case and the third was a 6.5x?? based on the .30 Remington case.
-#1 was an interesting study but had some obvious limitations.
-#2 was even more interesting. I said it used a Soviet case but Dr. Lou Palmisano demonstrated a long time ago that different Soviet cases made for differing ??x39 rounds had different properties.
-I suspect that #3 came from someone looking through one of Barnes’ “Cartridges of the World” books searching for a case size in between the diameters of the 5.56×45 and the 7.62×51 and with a length greater than 39mm.
-I won’t attempt to enter the SPC v. Grendel debate; that won’t even be settled after someone sponsors a LEGITIMATE shootoff between the two with identical weapons. Let’s go with an M-16 & M-4 with impingement and piston uppers; SAW & maybe Ultimax and one or two other systems. Let’s also throw in accurized versions of the rifles as well for match and designated marksman use. No surprises; no sandbagging; just honest testing using 5.56×45 as a baseline.
-Once the results are in it may be time to discuss the cost/benefit ratio of changing calibers and/or weapons.
Future Weapons clip on the 6.5 Grendel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydP3DUIT_EU
I’m a long time casual observer, but couldn’t pass up this opportunity:
(Posted by: Jeffrey at January 17, 2009 09:45 PM)
“3.)Due to a steeper shoulder and the case design, 6.5mm Grendel would require a modification to the standard belt fed links and feed mechanisms of Machine guns. Some weapons have reported feed issues, but that is a mechanical issue, NOT a cartridge issue.”
The whole flaw there is that all these various 5.56 replacement rounds have been developed in mind with the basic dimensions of current 5.56mm ammunition.
Why can’t we develop it out further, like tank gun ammunition?
If the current 6.5G round offers superior balistics, but a rather troublesome brass case, why can’t we fidget with the brass and design a slightly narrower case diameter that isn’t all neck like the 6.5G stands now?
Lengthen the larger-diameter portion of the case, reduce the diameter, so it generally looks like the current AR ammo?
Yes, that means all new links, possibly all new feed mechanisms.
But since we already need new barrels as it is…
Benefit being, slightly skinnier ammo (that feeds reliably in any weapon) might give us an extra couple of rounds in a clip…
We want perfectly-designed bullets with the most ideal characteristics.
Is there a perfect case shape that would be more ideal for all weapons than what we have now.
If feeding, chambering, and extraction is such an issue, maybe the bigger problems lie in the case itself, not the actual bullet.
“Wasn’t there another cartridge being developed called the 6.5 MPC? That seemed to be a mix between the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC…
Anyone have info on the 6.5 MPC?”
At one point, SSK was tinkering with a 6.5mm project, you might try their website.
I would like to have that kind of power [6.8] if I was going through an urban environment. LWRC is not Colt so they got shut out. Didn’t Magpul team up with Bushmaster? Again, its politics and the Soldiers Marines are the ones who get the short end.
Either 6.5 or 6.8, are 2X better than the impotent 5.56. While armchair generals sit around and debate the minutia of how one is a hair better than the other, guys are put at risk everyday, wishing they had either one of these two outstanding rounds. I would hope the military bureaucracy isn’t inspired by the same neurotic nit-picking assessments made by the blogging community. From the perspective of logistics and politics; 6.8 was developed by the military community and already has a wide base of data and backing. Let the silly debate stop so more troops aren’t killed because of the 5.56 mistake that dates back to the Kennedy era. The technical geeks that are arguing about a few extra fps or a few extra ft/lbs neglect the obvious; that either round is better than what is out there right now. Get over it. Be one voice and do what is best for the troops TODAY.
This 6.8 really hits hard. This should be available to Spec. Ops teams, and you can change barrels if you need to. Why Colt has a monopoly on small arms is beyond me. The gas/piston system is way more reliable. Water, sand, mud…it goes bang! when you pull. Damn i like to have one.
What about the 6.5s. This round with a 144gr FMJBT bullet is supperior to the 6.8 and shoots great on full auto. It surpasses the 7.62 at 500yds and works in the AR system.