PDA

View Full Version : Is the the 6.8 better than 7.69x39?


jinggoyd1967
12-18-2008, 10:10 AM
I've noticed the growing popularity of the 6.8 recently. Is it really better than the 7.62x39? It seems to me that we're trying to re-invent the mousetrap. The old 7.62x39 is a mature cartridge that has had a lot of development behind it and it fits in most actions a 5.56 does. Please enlighten me.

technique
12-18-2008, 10:16 AM
at longer distances, for sure. Two very different calibers IMHO.

Full Clip
12-18-2008, 11:15 AM
Certainly a difference in ammo price, but don't let that influence you too much. Determine your application, pick your caliber based on that.

ar15barrels
12-18-2008, 11:50 AM
7.62x39 has never been made to reliably run through the AR action without extensive modifications.
6.8 only needs a different barrel, bolt and magazine.

Capt. Speirs
12-18-2008, 12:18 PM
Go with the 6.8mm, more accurate and almost as powerful. Bonus, as said before, easier to build.

JeffM
12-18-2008, 12:33 PM
Go with the 6.8mm, more accurate and almost as powerful. Bonus, as said before, easier to build.

x39 can be just as accurate as 6.8 - it just depends on the ammo.

But I agree with Randal, the AR wasn't designed for 7.62x39, nor x39 for the AR.

The 6.8 was designed specifically for the platform so it will operate in the AR with less trouble than x39.

DocSkinner
12-18-2008, 12:48 PM
pull up any of the ammo manufacturer's sites and use their ballistic comparison tools to compare the calibers.

If you want to reach out and do some hunting, the 6.8 is a nice round - the ".270 Winchester lite". It has better ballistics, higher initial velocities, better velocity and energy retention down range, and still with a bullet you can use reliably on mid size game (unlike the 5.56 super light bullets). Great mid point between the little varmint bullets, and the big , but SLOW, 7.69 bullets in the same action size.

if you just plan on blasting away at stuff and all under 100 yards, the cheap ammo for the 7.69 makes it "better". It CAN be accurate, but most rifles chambered for it aren't that inherently accurate (even the mini-30, like its mini 14 brother, aren't usually that accurate from the factory). If you have a nice action made for it, and do some nice loading or pay for high quality range/hunting ammo, it does okay out to a reasonable range, but the cartridge and its rifles aren't designed for high power comparable to other 30 caliber cartridges like the 308.

But then teh .223 does that REALLY well as well, and does pretty good out to longer ranges on small and thin skin targets. So in some ways the 6.8 seems to me to update this cartridge size to modern ballistics instead of military 'conveniences and necessity' ballistics.

"better" all depends on what you want to do with the cartridge.

DocSkinner
12-18-2008, 12:57 PM
Certainly a difference in ammo price, but don't let that influence you too much. Determine your application, pick your caliber based on that.

exactly...

Full Clip
12-18-2008, 3:44 PM
Just as a side note, I was at Angeles last weekend with my x39 AR (Stag lower/Colt Sporter upper/C-Prods mags/Aimpoint Micro) testing out some reloads (123grn VMAX/Accurate 2460) and then Wolf HPs.
Here are the targets from 50 yards. The bottom are my reloads and the top is the Wolf with the same POA:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-3/981624/7.62Target.gif

I was very happy with the reloads and then tried the Wolf. Huh? I thought something must be wrong with the Micro until I put one reload right into the bullseye. How the POI with the Wolf could be so off is kinda beyond me. But you get what you pay for.

Army GI
12-18-2008, 4:09 PM
I'll just mirror what everyone else has said here. Both are neat calibers, but if you want an AR, the 6.8 is the way to go.

Axewound
12-18-2008, 6:37 PM
so all i need is a new upper and mag essentially, lower is the same between 5.56 and 6.8

ar15barrels
12-18-2008, 7:00 PM
so all i need is a new upper and mag essentially,
lower is the same between 5.56 and 6.8

Yes
Yes.