08 December 2011

Ouch...

I'm a fan of the 6.8x43mm round.  Especially for the SPC II chamber and 1:11 twist.

I was an early adopter of that standard and it sucked when every attempt to discuss what was going on in 6.8 development (or just answering some questions) was derailed by a devotee of 6.5 Grendel explaining how their round was so much better.

So better that we were idiots for using 6.8.

Better at long ranges, ballistic coefficients, and sectional density were the core of their argument for their round.  Valid, as far as it went, but most times comparisons were cherry picked to put one round in its best light against the other in its worst.

I had thought the 6.8 crowd was taking and sticking to a higher road.

Until I see how some are reacting to the introduction of .300 AAC Blackout (.300 Blk).  Here we are, longer ranged, better ballistic coefficient, and sectional density...  Exactly the same arguments we refuted with the 6.5 crowd.

SIGH.

At least the tone is polite rather than arrogant from my camp.

Part of what I think is going on is the .300 Blk went from introduction to acceptance with AR makers very quickly.  I think there are almost as many makers offering .300 Blk as 6.8x43.  I recall the long fights and letter campaigns to get manufacturers to offer a 6.8 at all; and then to get them to change from the SAAMI standard to the superior SPC II (not to mention the change from 1:10 to 1:11 rifling).

I think that some 6.8 devotees are tweaked that we had to work so hard to get 6.8 mainstreamed and .300 just greased right in.

I submit that it was we who provided that grease!  We showed that alternate rounds would sell in the AR platform and that we'd sacrifice absolute theoretical performance for practical functionality.  We showed them that there was a market and that there was room for rounds that were more practical for other niches.  We showed them that resisting the demand was a fools errand and the time to say "this won't sell" is after sales tank.  How many of the excellent vendors selling 6.8 barrels and uppers would not be here today if Remington has just LISTENED to a small core of people examining the potential of the 6.8?  How many Ruger Mini-14/6.8's would have sold if they'd been on the vanguard of adopting the new chamber specifications instead of lagging behind?

How many of the makers who now have hindsight about 6.8 are applying this lesson to the new upstart?

Personally, I like variety.

2 comments:

  1. I'm having flashbacks!

    http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2007/02/boomsticks-caliber-warz.html

    ReplyDelete

You are a guest here when you comment. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: Sign your work.

Anonymous comments must pass a higher bar than others. Repeat offenders must pass an even higher bar.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.