Talk:6.8 mm Remington SPC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 6.8 mm Remington SPC article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Contents 1 Wrong 2 no way 3 No Merge 4 Thank you for trying. 5 I resent that. 6 New Bullet is a better article, but not a good title. 7 Who cares? 8 New content and changes 9 Similar to the British .280 10 Advertising Added? 11 Much unsupported claims 12 New reference added 13 Magazines 14 Apples and Oranges 15 Comparison to 7.62

[edit] Wrong

I think this guy is wrong and I base that on absolutly nothing

add to someone else's comment: yes, you are partially correct. Remington has changed it's originally published velocity figures. Now down more than 100fps less than the original claim of 2800fps.

[edit] no way

I agree with the guy above, though not on the basis of absolutely nothing. Obviously the guy who did New Bullet put way more time into his article than the guy who did 6.8 mm Remington SPC, and merging them implies that they were done by the same author. The author of this page does not deserve the credit of the one who did New Bullet, and to merge them together is an insult to the authors of both.

The new bullet article is a better article than this one. It is more accurate and it is more pleasing to the eye if anything the 6.8mm Remington SPC section should be destroyed and the New Bullet article should be put in its proper title.

No Wikipedia article is done by one author. We collaborate our efforts here. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. See also the welcome page to learn how Wikipedia works. Thank you. --Perfecto 04:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, destroying articles is treated as vandalism, banana notwithstanding.

I think that we should just leave it how it is

[edit] No Merge

I think this article contains almost no information that is not already found in the other article, and feel that merging the two would add nothing.

[edit] Thank you for trying.

This is the author of New Bullet, well the "kinda author" i guess.... Anyway, thank you for trying to keep my article from merging, but I guess its all for the best. Judisch 04:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I resent that.

Hey, mister "I don't like bananas", that tasty fruit is an integral part of the New Bullet article, and without it, the entire article would be meaningless and void. I consider the destruction of any part of my article vandalism, even if done by god himself. Good day, sir.

[edit] New Bullet is a better article, but not a good title.

The new bullet article as we all known had much more time and effort into it, but the title "new bullet" is a poor choice. The problem with the title of New Bullet is that it'll get out dated. If the article could be posted as a sub article with the "first" 6.8 mm being an introduction.

The "first" article is a great outline and the new bullet article could talk about NATO's consideration about it. Perhaps even made "leaner" to avoid repeating the same details.

[edit] Who cares?

Who the hell cares? Just frickin do it already! I've been following the developments on this page for several days now, and I think you should just do and stop whining.

[edit] New content and changes

Hi Guys,

Sorry to be late to the party. I am the author of the 6.8 SPC FAQ (which you already linked to at the bottom of the article) and what was the first public reload data on the cartridge. I have been working with the cartridge since its public debut 2/2004.

Recently, I have written an article for SGN which contains a more comprehensive history and current status of 6.8 than anything else I've seen anywhere. It will be published in Shotgun News in July.

I believe information to be published in that article will be a verifiable source very useful to anyone who wants to expand and correct the current 6.8 entry. And let's face it, the current entry is pretty sparse.

I would be happy to either suggest or make edits once the article can be cited.

Comments?

Zak 19:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similar to the British .280

I was just wondering if a note should be made as to the irony of this similarity, considering the controversy surrounding the decision to reject .280 in favour of the 7.62 x 51 mm all those years ago. I'd do it myself, but I don't know if I could manage to be NPOV about it!

-- Chris (blather • contribs) 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising Added?

Looks like Barrett advertising was added - what about all the other manufacturers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.37.229.206 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Much unsupported claims

More accurate and better ballistics than 5.56/.223 seems to be a false claim. 5.56/.223 AR rifles are winning most AR15 competitions and are highly accurate at 1/4 MOA at times with handloads. 5.56/.223 loaded with 77gr and other match rounds have excellent ballistics with high BCs. Special Ops usage claim - can't find any reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.71.219.157 (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] New reference added

I just added an external link to the 2006 Shotgun News article, which Dr. Gary Roberts (ballistics SME) has called "the best publically-available history of 6.8 SPC". This will be useful as a cite for various claims.

--Zak 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magazines

Do these rounds work with existing 5.56 magazines (since overall dimensions seems to be quite similar), or are new mags needed? If it's the former, that would be a significant advantage over 6.5 Grendel, since they require new mags that have somewhat lower capacity than 5.56 mags of the same size. And a Grendel round might be ballistically superior to an 6.8 SPC round, but it's not superior to two 6.8 SPC rounds. 71.203.209.0 00:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apples and Oranges

The article is chuck full of unsupported and unreferenced opinion and hype. First, the stats for the 6.8 are from a 24" barrel. Now, I don't know about you, but there ain't no 24" M4's walking the streets of Bagdad. Let's get some data from 14.5" or 12.5" barrels, those likely to be fielded. Second, Who the F&%$ calls the .243 Winchester MARGINAL for deer? Has this dumbS$%# ever been in the field?--Asams10 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison to 7.62

Is there a specific reason for comparing the 6.8's long range capabilities and ballistics to the 7.62 round? Isn't it supposed to compete with the 6.5 Grendel and 5.56 rounds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnieblue (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A table that compared velocity, energy, and drop at 50, 100, 200, 300, 500 for the 6.8, 7.62, 6.5 Grendel and 5.56 would be pretty interesting. Arthur (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be good. Are there verifiable ballistics for each of those rounds on Wikipedia? Johnnieblue (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We could certainly find verifiable ballistics. There are a couple of questions though... what weight bullet to use in each? What loading to use in each? For load, when making comparisons I try to use reloading manuals max safe loads for all cartridges, this seems to give the most "fair" comparison, since it's all on the same basis. For bullet weight, someone needs to figure out "standard" weight for each cartridge, or even one or two "common" weights and we can go from there. Arthur (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Any numbers would have to come from barrels of equal length. Comparing a 24" Bolt action to a vented 14" barrel, you're obviously going to get quite different numbers. The 6.8mm SPC has been over-hyped in typical industry standard with hyped up velocity figures and little real data. I have seen honest test results in gun RAGS. I believe that American Rifleman and/or Shotgun News did a good workup. --Asams10 (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have the American Rifleman or know which issue that'd be great. Otherwise if we can figure out what we think are useful bullet weights and a reasonable barrel length, I can put the table together. Arthurrh (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll check when I get a chance. --Asams10 (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)