6.8x43mm SPC dropped?

I read some posts on AR15.com and read that the 6.8mm SPC was dropped by the military, is this true?

Atleast I can say that the 6.5mm Grendal looks more promising even, perhaps they'll considder that instead.

Does anyone think the XM-8 will have new ammo? or will it soldier on with the 5.56mm round?

[edit on 6/2/2005 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]

5.56 unfortunately, but the weapon hopefully will utilize the ammunition better.
www.globalsecurity.org...

750 rounds per minute, and with the shorty model the thing is no bigger than a water pistol.
www.jrbtech.com...

My favorite thing about it though..15,000 rounds between cleanings and when you do decide to clean it, the average time was cut down to 4 minutes! That's just plain sweet.
www.socnetcentral.com...

Thats a shame if the dropped the 6.8mm SPC round. People have been complaining about the 5.56 for years and they had the perfect chance to switch over with the introduction of a new service rifle in the XM-8.

They 6.8 was a amazing round I looked into tests with it and was shocked about just how good it was.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
My favorite thing about it though..15,000 rounds between cleanings and when you do decide to clean it, the average time was cut down to 4 minutes! That's just plain sweet.

Man that would be nice, last time I put 700+ rounds throught my AR it took me an hour to clean it and get all the crap off the bolt.

I think the 5.56 is a decent round for close to medium range engagments, but I have doubts about the SPR and long range stuff. Personally, I find the .308/7.62 much better for long range shooting (actually, I like the .50BMG, but you get the point).

You have to remember that the primary wounding device of the 5.56 is its fragmentation capacity, and if for whatever reason the round doesn't reach velocity it mostly just punches small holes in things. I think this is part of the reason why the new 62gr. rounds have had marginal sucess against soft targets as opposed to the 55gr. rounds. Comapre it to a round like the 7.62x39 that relies on a larger temporary wound cavity (I think, not too versed on the AK stuff) and I think it can be just as effective, if used right.

6.8 looked promising to me as well, only problem being that I would have to build another rifle in 6.8 for the collection. I've heard things both ways on the XM-8, but the last I saw the army was holding off on it for a while. I would bet the if the military makes a major move over to 6.8 that HK will adapt the XM-8 to fit.

Just something I noticed:

Every new US rifle had a new round...

M1 Garand, .30caliber
M14 7.62mm NATO
M16 5.56mm NATO
M8 6.8mm SPC?

That'd be nice but probably wont happen...

Will it still be sold to civilians? I know some people already bought the XCR and that Barrett upper for AR-15.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo


Will it still be sold to civilians? I know some people already bought the XCR and that Barrett upper for AR-15.

You can already buy one from Barrett new model M468 6.8. You can buy the whole gun for $2,700 or just the upper conversion kit for $1,590.

Barrett also makes alot of military guns and has always been behind the 6.8 SPC.

www.barrettrifles.com...

mx8 looks like somin i could pick up down toys 'r' us i can imagine soldiers running around screaming 'n being serious while holding something that looks plastic

Originally posted by green_700
mx8 looks like somin i could pick up down toys 'r' us

i can imagine soldiers running around screaming 'n being serious while holding something that looks plastic

You know I dont ever hear people say the same thing about the Glock. Which just happens to be mostly plastic and one of the best handguns on the planet.

Does your rifle really need a wood or metal stock or front grip? I mean it you want them to rust or warp and weigh alot more they are a great choice.

Originally posted by green_700
mx8 looks like somin i could pick up down toys 'r' us

i can imagine soldiers running around screaming 'n being serious while holding something that looks plastic

You can say the same about the M-16s. Back then, many people thought the M16 looked like a lazer gun stright from a Si-fi movie. It is such a shame to die in battle because you hit your mark, your mark can shoot back before it lays down.

I don’t care what the gun looks like, as long as it is more reliable, durable, and effective, the soldiers could care less.

Further, our soldiers can't be that serious while holding the M16, giving that the M16 is not as reliable and effective as the AKs.

I think the new BDU's are more laughable than the XM-8 is...I actually learned to love the XM-8 design

Personally I really like the FN SCAR, Finally with the XM-8 and the SCAR the US see's that that Kalashnikov system is superior to the Stoker system, albeit in a much modified form

You know what? they should just save the tax-payers some money and buy a bunch of HK G-36s. We all know its the same damn gun! Why do further research when the G-36 is already proven?
Better yet, just accquire licenses from HK to build like 200 million rifles.

But the Republicans are good with spending money. Heh

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by green_700
mx8 looks like somin i could pick up down toys 'r' us

i can imagine soldiers running around screaming 'n being serious while holding something that looks plastic

You know I dont ever hear people say the same thing about the Glock. Which just happens to be mostly plastic and one of the best handguns on the planet.

For the record, I have heard plenty of Glock-bashers comment on the general appearance of Glock (i.e "tupperware"; "does it melt if you leave it in the sun?" etc.), however, they are mostly the type of people who pack their 1911 around exclusivley. Both are fine firearms, but there is a place for progress and a place for nostalgia. I would much rather see soldiers using the most durable and effective firearms that we have to offer regardless of asthetics.

As was already noted, the AR's introduction was met with serious resistance from everyone including the military due to it's futuristic appearance and small caliber. However, it has proven to be a relativley effective firearm for the last 40-50 years.

XM-8 will be lighter and cheaper AFAIK, more accurate too, it's is a changed design.

As for the SCAR, more info: www.defensereview.com...

www.world.guns.ru...

Originally posted by para

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by green_700
mx8 looks like somin i could pick up down toys 'r' us

i can imagine soldiers running around screaming 'n being serious while holding something that looks plastic

You know I dont ever hear people say the same thing about the Glock. Which just happens to be mostly plastic and one of the best handguns on the planet.

For the record, I have heard plenty of Glock-bashers comment on the general appearance of Glock (i.e "tupperware"; "does it melt if you leave it in the sun?" etc.), however, they are mostly the type of people who pack their 1911 around exclusivley. Both are fine firearms, but there is a place for progress and a place for nostalgia. I would much rather see soldiers using the most durable and effective firearms that we have to offer regardless of asthetics.

As was already noted, the AR's introduction was met with serious resistance from everyone including the military due to it's futuristic appearance and small caliber. However, it has proven to be a relativley effective firearm for the last 40-50 years.

I agree with you on the Glock thing even though I don't personally like glocks (hate the glock trigger). Nothing against synthetics.. just as good as metal, lighter and cheaper.
"Relatively effective" is same as "not as effective." Not as effective as the AK.
The Stoner AR was introducted as a defensive weapon for the Air Force.
It was not intended to be a front line assult weapon (the story of guns, The Stoner AR, on The History Channel).
We should never settled for the "relatively effective" weapons.

Ah well, we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I would also consider the AK a "relativley effective" weapon; both have their strong and their weak points. I tell you what: you keep your AKs, I'll keep my ARs and we'll both be happy.

Originally posted by para
Ah well, we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I would also consider the AK a "relativley effective" weapon; both have their strong and their weak points. I tell you what: you keep your AKs, I'll keep my ARs and we'll both be happy.

Nah, I'd rather take the G36, SIG, Steyer, or FN before the AK for AR.

AK is not perfect but certainly a more successful assault rifle than the AR.

Let me ask you this, is the G-36 more of an AK or a AR?

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Let me ask you this, is the G-36 more of an AK or a AR?

Both!

"They borrowed from other tried and proven designs. There is the short gas piston reminiscent of the Kalashnikov and FAL designs. The rotating bolt of the M16 series. The bolt carrier of the AR18. The folding stock of the FAL and SIG 550 series. But in the newest refinement of the gunmaker's art with respect to military rifles, the extensive use of polymer throughout the rifle makes it lighter and more corrosion resistant; two qualities essential to the soldier."
www.hkpro.com...