09 February 2014

Oooooh Burn

I found this article.

Via The Firearm Blog.

It's very interesting reading.

I've got two rifles in 6.8x43mm SPC II.  My investment is small compared to what an Army would have to plunk down to change over.

It mirrors a debate I'd mentioned before.

Edit:

There are several assumptions in his blog that bear mentioning.  He's looking at military application of these rounds and not social or hunting.  The Hague Convention and Judge Advocate General Corps place limitations on bullet design and construction that don't apply to a civilian or civilian agency; so more effective bullets can be used outside the mil.  This is one area where the "bigger is better" advocates are on firmer ground because the expansion designs work better on the bigger rifle rounds.

On item where I think he's slightly unfair of my pet round is limiting it to commercial ammo that's intentionally loaded to be safe in the legacy SAAMI chamber and rifling.  That's a quibble.  But if 6.8 were adopted by the mil in the SPC II format then ammo would be made specifically to THAT spec and wouldn't be concerned about liability or interchangeability with the older standard.

And that quibble amounts to a whopping 15 fps. in Silver State Armory's 110gr Pro-Hunter line! 2,585 fps. for normal load and 2,600 for the tactical load.

No comments:

Post a Comment

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

Anonymous comments must pass a higher bar than others.

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