Did anyone else notice?
The 6.8 SPC from Remington has been gaining popularity because it was claimed to have short range ballistics similar to the 308 and was claimed to be competitive to the 6.5 Grendel. Even the military tested the round and its been adopted by deer hunters in some states.
But now Remington dropped its velocity and energy figures.
The differences don't seem huge, until you start to compare them to other cartridges, and especially compared to the 5.56 Nato round. The whole purpose of this round was to replace the 5.56 and it was claimed that the 6.8 SPC would ballistically thrash the little 5.56. And to be honest, at 2800 fps it did a respectable job of whipping the 5.56.
But look at some velocity comparisons with new load data:
Then look at ENERGY with the new Remington published data:
For energy at 200 yards, the 6.8 clearly more than the 5.56 but the advantage is under 18% and any claim that it compares to the 6.5 Grendel (almost 30% less) or the 7.62 NATO (42% less) are clearly silly.
So what is to like about the 6.8 SPC? Its expensive to shoot and doesn't live up to the hype. Add to that there is now a new 6.8 SPC II load that is unsafe to shoot in the original 6.8 SPC chambers/barrels and requires a special "SPC II" chamber and slow barrel twist but most 6.8 SPC guns don't have that and I have to really question what Remington is doing with this round (by the way, Remington doesn't even load bullets in the 6.8 SPC II configuration).
The 6.8 SPC from Remington has been gaining popularity because it was claimed to have short range ballistics similar to the 308 and was claimed to be competitive to the 6.5 Grendel. Even the military tested the round and its been adopted by deer hunters in some states.
But now Remington dropped its velocity and energy figures.
- Velocity was dropped from a claimed 2800fps by nearly 200 fps to 2625.
- Energy was dropped from a claimed 2002 fp lb/muzzle to 2759 ft lb/muzzle.
The differences don't seem huge, until you start to compare them to other cartridges, and especially compared to the 5.56 Nato round. The whole purpose of this round was to replace the 5.56 and it was claimed that the 6.8 SPC would ballistically thrash the little 5.56. And to be honest, at 2800 fps it did a respectable job of whipping the 5.56.
But look at some velocity comparisons with new load data:
5.56/77gr OTM has a velocity of 2368 @ 200 yards
6.8/115gr OTM has a velocity of 2135 @ 200 yards
6.5 Grendel/123gr OTM has a velocity of 2432 @ 200 yards
and for comparison the much larger:
7.62 Nato/175gr OTM has a velocity of 2263 @ 200 yards
So the 6.8 clearly has lowest velocity of the bunch.6.8/115gr OTM has a velocity of 2135 @ 200 yards
6.5 Grendel/123gr OTM has a velocity of 2432 @ 200 yards
and for comparison the much larger:
7.62 Nato/175gr OTM has a velocity of 2263 @ 200 yards
Then look at ENERGY with the new Remington published data:
5.56/77gr OTM has 958 ft lbs of energy @ 200 yards
6.8/115gr OTM has 1163 ft lbs of energy @ 200 yards
6.5 Grendel/123gr OTM has 1615 ft lbs of energy @ 200 yards
and for comparison the much larger:
7.62 Nato/175gr OTM has 1987 ft lbs of energy @ 200 yards
6.8/115gr OTM has 1163 ft lbs of energy @ 200 yards
6.5 Grendel/123gr OTM has 1615 ft lbs of energy @ 200 yards
and for comparison the much larger:
7.62 Nato/175gr OTM has 1987 ft lbs of energy @ 200 yards
For energy at 200 yards, the 6.8 clearly more than the 5.56 but the advantage is under 18% and any claim that it compares to the 6.5 Grendel (almost 30% less) or the 7.62 NATO (42% less) are clearly silly.
So what is to like about the 6.8 SPC? Its expensive to shoot and doesn't live up to the hype. Add to that there is now a new 6.8 SPC II load that is unsafe to shoot in the original 6.8 SPC chambers/barrels and requires a special "SPC II" chamber and slow barrel twist but most 6.8 SPC guns don't have that and I have to really question what Remington is doing with this round (by the way, Remington doesn't even load bullets in the 6.8 SPC II configuration).