So I bought that Wilson 6.8 SPC upper. I zeroed it and loved the performance. Then I took it on a harvest/hunt and it didn’t perform, but I think THAT was due to something else (e.g. the scope got knocked out of whack).
Since then, I haven’t shot it. Mostly because I haven’t had time.
But I also haven’t shot it because, since that harvest, I’ve wondered if it was really a worthwhile purchase for me.
Yes, I love what 6.8 SPC brings to the table. There’s a lot of awesome stuff about it, it’s a purpose-designed caliber, and it’s a caliber I’d love to see succeed. I mean, if the military went 6.8 SPC whole-hog over 5.56×45, that’d be HUGE! But what can 6.8 SPC do that .308 Win can’t do, apart from weight/capacity of the round? In all areas of ballistics, the .308 Win beats the 6.8 SPC. The big thing with 6.8 is it has almost .308 ballistics and performance (note: almost) but the round is lighter and smaller thus can fit into 5.56/.223 AR-15/M-4/M-16 form rifles and you can carry more “rounds per ounce” than .308/7.62×51. Plus of course you can use AR-15 “stuff” (lowers, grips, stocks, rails, triggers, etc.). That’s a great selling point, don’t get me wrong… but for my needs and purposes, do I really need it?
Maybe I was just too enamored with the round and had an itch to scratch — blinded by lust, you could say. I know what the pivotal moment was for me that got me rethinking *my* use of 6.8: hitting that water buffalo clean with 168 grains of .30 caliber Barnes Triple Shock at 2500 fps… DRT. I can still see the whole bullet impact on that buffalo plain as day in my head — it’s quite a testimonial. Could the 6.8 have done that? I don’t know. Probably, but it says to me that the .308 certainly does the job on bigger critters (duh!); I know my guide that day was skeptical if the light (tho admittedly fast) .277″ bullet would work. And what with .308/7.62×51 being so standard and so popular, and with 6.8 still being a (growing) niche… with my desire to not have massive caliber-spread… well… it makes me wonder if I should keep the 6.8 upper or not. I always wanted to standardize my library on well-founded calibers, and 6.8 deviated from that standard. But I also admit, while 6.8 SPC is nowhere near the standardized caliber as 9mm, 5.56×45, or 7.62×51, it’s certainly growing in popularity and is far from totally obscure.
The reason I got the 6.8 was for the kids, for hunting. 6.8 is certainly sufficient for anything here in Texas. But you know what I did? I didn’t let the kids try the .308 rifle first. I know they cannot handle my .308 bolt action, it’s just too long and thus “front-heavy” for them (we’ve tried it, dry at home). But if we’re sitting in a blind, is that going to matter that much? I should see how well they can handle the .308 on a bench… I betcha they can, especially given how awesome the recoil pad is on that rifle. Or of course, I could get a compact rifle in .308 for a lot less than the 6.8 upper cost me… and then I wouldn’t have to have 2 sets of ammo. Of course, the same argument could be made the other way: we both carry 6.8’s into the field and thus share ammo.
So, I’m doing some serious reconsideration and thinking about selling my 6.8 upper. Not decided on it yet, but thinking about it. Feel free to convince me to keep it, or to sell it. 🙂 I guess the questions are: what purpose does it serve (for me)? is it a unique purpose, or does it provide redundancy? What event would make it the rifle I’d grab over all other choices?
Stuff From Hsoi 
I have to admit that I am biased. I’ve never understood the role of 5.56×45/.223 or the AR platform in general. Use the platform is lightweight and portable, but it suffers from bad fouling and is definitely lubricant finicky. I don’t see what a good FAL or M1A can’t do better.
Be lighter more modular? I think the VLTOR stocks and bajillion rails for the FAL and M1A show that’s not true anymore. I also think the continued desire by the military to use a .308 rifle for its power, range, and accuracy, shows what it’s capable of.
Your first question has to define the role of your rifle. There really are no “do all” rifles out there. Once you define a role, you really need to optimize for that role and not try and compromise for others.
Is your 6.8 optimizing or compromising?
-Rob
Well, look back at when the M-16 came along with Vietnam. That’ll give perspective. From that point well… my understanding is inertia plays a big part (I could be wrong). Sure, there’s been evolution (e.g. M-4), but another big shift would be difficult. But then, who could have predicted we’d be fighting a war where 600-800 yards would be more the norm? Yeah, there’s a lot you can do with the M1A/M-14 platform, but that’s today… was all that stuff around back in the 60’s and 70’s?
But you’re right.. .it’s the role issue. Like I said at the end, “What event would make it the rifle I’d grab over all other choices?” What role would it serve? The interesting thing is in a lot of ways it’d be a lot more general purpose than a lot of other choices. But, in serving a lot of purposes, that often leads to doing a lot of things “OK” instead of doing a few things really really well. It’s always a trade-off.
So I don’t know. I’m just doing a lot of thinking about it. Heck, after talking with someone tonight about it, it got me leaning more towards wanting to keep it.
*sigh* If only all decisions in life could be so painfully difficult. 😉
There were definitely pistol grip stocks for the M1A/M14 back in the ’60s. I think if the M14 had continued to be the rifle of choice, it would’ve enjoyed a boon of slimming down and lighting up and it would be an even more interesting weapon that it is now.
The history of U.S. Military rifles in general is fascinatingly boring in its political twists and turns. All of the guns adopted and built by the U.S. since its inception have been based on political, not logical needs and decisions.
I don’t think we need to rehash all of this here, but I still am biased against the platform. I just think its benefits (lightweight and modularity), don’t outweigh its cons (fouling, finicky, sometimes ammunition sensitive, magazine sensitive). In some ways, I think the modularity hurts the gun, because no one can really follow what is “optimizing” a gun for its intended purpose versus “optionizing” a gun for its intended purpose.
Again, I have to wonder, personally, what an AR does that a good metric FAL doesn’t do better, but that’s really a different subject.
I’m really sort of in the camp that your focus should be on having multiple guns to fill multiple roles. AR lowers are cheap and plentiful, when you think of doing the next gun thing, perhaps a dedicated lower for your 6.8 and build the gun that you envision. That way your compromise is minimized.
-Rob
Another way to look at the modularity of the platform is it allows YOU to optimize the gun for YOUR particular purpose. The platform being so modular, you can have a huge aftermarket for it that makes it feasible to manufacture and create lots of things that allow lots of niches to be filled, lots of needs to be addressed. So now you can build exactly the gun that serves the needs you have…. and that could include alternative calibers too (not just 5.56×45). But it also then allows some fair level of compatibility with others, because in some circumstances that may be desirable (e.g. building your SHTF rifle to maximize sharing ammo with others).