The Frontier Sixshooter Community Message Board - No doubt!

No doubt! (reply)

Wildcat — Wed, 12 Apr 2017 02:08:04 +0000

I picked up a 6.8 SPC II upper after the swearing in for $299 from Palmetto. Been having a blast with it. My youngest son wants to deer hunt this year and is familiar with ARs so I figured I'd give it a try for him. A few friends have used the round on deer and hogs and one in particular sold off his 6.5 Grendel and went 6.8. I just hope it doesn't become an orphan round.

Instead of selling, now is when... (reply)

mcassill — Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:29:15 +0000

You take advantage of all the great deals so that you're ahead of the game when the next Dim president gets elected.

I see that part of the project turning into a goat rodeo (reply)

mcassill — Sat, 08 Apr 2017 08:30:40 +0000

With years spent on a cartridge study by committee, then a bunch more years studying a rifle to fire it from. Whatever "interim" they end up buying, they might be using for a long time.

Army looking at interim 7.62 battle rifle (reply)

DiamondD — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:05:40 +0000

"It’s important to establish right up front that 7.62mm is not the Army’s end goal. The “Interim” component of this capability’s name relies on a plan to eventually adopt one of the 6.5mm family of intermediate calibers. Currently, elements of the Army are evaluating .260, .264 USA and .277 USA. The .260 is commercially available while .264 USA and .277 USA are developments of the Army Marksmanship Unit. Unfortunately, the US Army doesn’t plan to conduct an intermediate caliber study until the early 2020s. That’s why they want to adopt 7.62mm now."

I selfishly am hoping that they end up going with the .260 just because I think it is a great cartridge and have never understood why it never caught on. Also I would love to see .260 conversions become commonplace for MY Scar 17.

Dean

Maybe they should have Springfield rebuild all those (reply)

Hobie — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 02:31:00 +0000

M1 rifles currently in the ROK and re-issue as 7.62x51mms. #onlykiddingalittlebit

AR market is on life support for sure... (reply)

Slow Hand — Thu, 06 Apr 2017 21:57:08 +0000

Yep, I've got a 7.5" pistol I'm asking $550 for and an 18" rifle I'd like to get $690 pot of. A few nibbles and trade offers for stuff I'm not interested in!

AR market is on life support for sure... (reply)

matt/pa — Thu, 06 Apr 2017 11:40:11 +0000

I set up at a local show about a month ago and sold 7 of them. I set up this past weekend at another local show and didn't sell a single one. Traded 2, but nobody is really interested...and I have some priced in the low $400's!!??

Matt

Awesome! (reply)

Slow Hand — Thu, 06 Apr 2017 09:16:46 +0000

I an only shoot 300m here army normal range. There is a 1000 yd range up north but I haven't been there. It's far enough to require some planning and an all day trip.

I've been wanting to try something similar to the 6.5 or 260. Due to my max of 300 m I have even thought of working up a .308 target load using 155 Palma or even the 135 SMK bullets. .308 is finally deer legal here in IN, but 99.5% of my .308 shooting is at paper and steel, so I figured why not load a lighter recoiling .308 or another caliber to play with.

I'm trying to sell a pair of AR-15's I recently picked up to help fund the project, but theAR market is dead locally, if not nationally!

SOCOM bought those (reply)

mcassill — Thu, 06 Apr 2017 06:39:59 +0000

Which is an entirely separate procurement org from Big Army. And yes, the SCAR-H is a mighty fine rifle; it and the HK417 would be the two best off-the-shelf contenders for what the Army says it wants here.

Did they not just do this with the SCAR heavy? (reply)

Gary G — Thu, 06 Apr 2017 03:16:08 +0000

Every one I talked to (which I admit is Limited) that has access to one loves them.
And I read a year or so ago on one of the former SOF websites that the Army Rangers use them as standard equipment unless a M4 is better suited to a certain mission.

I Know they are pricey (I have been saving for one and just found out they went up about 350 dollars Jan. 1st so that knocks me out of that thought) But by all reports they work and work well.

Shades of the .276 Pederson! (reply)

Otony — Thu, 06 Apr 2017 01:29:27 +0000

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.276_Pedersen

Otony

Love mine (reply)

matt/pa — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:40:31 +0000

Built it on an Aero Precision lower and upper and one of their barrels as well. I then pretty much built the rifle as I liked it, with the features I wanted, including a Magpul ACS fixed stock.

My only suggestion is to make sure you have a range that has distance so that you can stretch its capacities out. My range is 200-yd max and it got boring real quick! LOL

Very accurate round and rifle combo.

I still need to put my scope in some higher rings, as it's a bit too low for my liking, but that's nothing major.

Matt

I built a 6.5 Creedmore last year (reply)

Slow Hand — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:19:54 +0000

I've been thinking of getting another AR-10 and had thoughts of doing a 6.5. How do you like yours? Any details on the build? How well does it shoot?

Thanks,
Doug K

I built a 6.5 Creedmore last year (reply)

matt/pa — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 22:57:04 +0000

so same process, and it was both fun and very educational.

I'm actually leaning towards the Ruger SR762, just because, well, I'm sort of a Ruger guy, and I like the thought of a piston gun in this caliber for some reason, even if it is bit heavier (I'm not planning on humping miles and miles with it so...).

Matt

I built one a couple years ago. (reply)

mcassill — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 20:58:19 +0000

It's a really fun rifle to play with.

Exactly. You can only stuff so much powder and bullet... (reply)

mcassill — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 20:57:27 +0000

Into a given magwell. 7.62 NATO with the right loads is probably "close enough" in terms of capability. It will be interesting to see if the Army can field something without the whole project turning into a drawn-out goat rodeo.

Rural Afghan is exactly that scenario. (reply)

Jared — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 19:15:33 +0000

That is what my DM friend carried primarily on one of his tours over there. [/img]

And I'm still wanting an AR-10 in 308 hehehe (nm) (reply)

matt/pa — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 17:26:56 +0000

Agreed but... (reply)

matt/pa — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 17:26:05 +0000

I guess my poorly expressed thought was:

if you look at the limitations that they are trying to get around, at least as they are stated in the article, with weight, ammo, etc... and if they decide to forego the AR-10 size rifle and stick with the AR-15, could that give the SPC some legs as an intermediate option, that would be better (?) than the 5.56? I don't know enough about the Grendel, admittedly.

Or do we think that the AR-10 size rifle and associated downsides are not material enough to warrant not considering it seriously.

Just hypothetically thinking, of course, while I should be getting back to work instead.

Matt

Army looking at interim 7.62 battle rifle (reply)

Bri A — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 16:56:09 +0000

An interesting read, thanks for posting, seems like they are trying to redefine the laws of physics. It is unlikely you are going to put something in the field with more legs than the 7.62x54R without matching it's capacity for powder and bullet weight. Whatever magic you can apply to a modern whiz-bang cartridge case, with modern propellants and optimized projectiles, you can also apply to the 7.62x54R. As the old saying goes, there is no free lunch. You may be able to make the case shorter and fatter, ala the super short magnums, to fit in a shorter action. You may be able to utilize longer, heavier projectiles, with better profiles, to carry out further and flatter. You will never overcome sheer case capacity though.