Ruger SR-556 now in 6.8 SPC

[AKTexas]

http://www.ruger.com/products/sr556/images/5909.jpg

Catalog Number: SR-556/6.8 | Model Number: 5909 | Caliber: 6.8 SPC
Stock:Black Synthetic, Collapsible
Finish:ManganesePhosphate/HardcoatAnodized
Sights:Folding
Height:7.75"
Barrel Length:16.12"
Overall Length:32.75" - 36.00"
Width:2.50"
Weight:7.75 lbs.
Twist:1:10" RH
Grooves:6
Length of Pull:10.25" - 13.50"
Capacity:25
MA Approved & Certified:No
CA Approved:No
Suggested Retail: $1995.00
Copyright © 2010 by Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.

[RJ Shooter]

WOW! Way to go Ruger...

They've certainly changed their wicked ways since Bill has died. I really like the original SR556, and this now makes me want one even more.

[Gunreference1]

My guess is those who are dedicated fans of the 6.8 SPC in an AR platform were probably hoping to see the 'SPCII' chambering along with a 1 in 11" twist. The SPCII chambering probably won't happen with Ruger until it's officially accepted by SAAMI.

Steve

[matshock]

My guess is those who are dedicated fans of the 6.8 SPC in an AR platform were probably hoping to see the 'SPCII' chambering along with a 1 in 11" twist. The SPCII chambering probably won't happen with Ruger until it's officially accepted by SAAMI.

Steve

Why 1 in 11 instead of 1 in 10?

[RCS]

So now it's the SR-6.8? :D

Maybe when the cost of ammo goes down a bit I'll delve into that caliber. I really like how it can keep up accuracy and deadly force with a short barrel.

[abpt1]

No shit now what to sell lol !

[Gunreference1]

Why 1 in 11 instead of 1 in 10?

A lot of testing has been done with the 6.8SPC cartridge. It seems the 1 in 11" twist allows the bullet the best overall performance and reduces chamber pressure. Also, there is at least one ammo manufacturer that recommends the 1 in 11" twist for their combact/tactical loads in the 6.8 SPC cartridge. This is because of the higher pressure experienced with these loads.

Steve

[Sidartha]

A lot of testing has been done with the 6.8SPC cartridge. It seems the 1 in 11" twist allows the bullet the best overall performance and reduces chamber pressure. Also, there is at least one ammo manufacturer that recommends the 1 in 11" twist for their combact/tactical loads in the 6.8 SPC cartridge. This is because of the higher pressure experienced with these loads.

Steve

Which manufacturer?
I looked at Barrett and see a 1/10 in the Rec 7 then I look at Stag and see a 1/11 in the Mod 7.
I would allow that the Mod 7 is newer allowing for more research time but Barrett make precision rifles and aren't likely to mess up something like the twist rate.

Not that I know one way or the other but I want to know.

[Gunreference1]

Which manufacturer?
I looked at Barrett and see a 1/10 in the Rec 7 then I look at Stag and see a 1/11 in the Mod 7.
I would allow that the Mod 7 is newer allowing for more research time but Barrett make precision rifles and aren't likely to mess up something like the twist rate.

Not that I know one way or the other but I want to know.

Try visiting the link below. These people live & breath the 6.8 SPC cartridge. Look at the data & information there. Then you can draw your own conclusions.

http://www.68forums.com/forums/index.php

Steve

[Sidartha]

Awesome! Thanks Steve.

[Schuetzenman]

I guess I'll be the one to say it, .... 6.5 Grendel. That's the one I'm getting if I ever add a new caliber.

[Gunreference1]

I guess I'll be the one to say it, .... 6.5 Grendel. That's the one I'm getting if I ever add a new caliber.

My bet is this will never happen with any Ruger firearm. Remember the title of this thread.

Steve

[RJ Shooter]

My bet is this will never happen with any Ruger firearm. Remember the title of this thread.

SteveIt's a much different company than when Bill was still alive...

[Gunreference1]

It's a much different company than when Bill was still alive...

I agree with that statement. During Bill's time you would have never seen a 20-round magazine offered with any Ruger rifle. I believe Ruger chose the 6.8 SPC chambering due to the lack of propietary issues. Les Baer dealt with this issue by releasing a new cartridge known as the 264 LBC-AR which uses the same cartridge case, but has different chamber dimensions from those using the "6.5 Grendel" brand. I'm guessing the people at Ruger feel they are taking a more cost-effective route.

Steve

[El Jefe]

So, how does the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel compare to one another? What are the reasons to select one over the other? Are either widely distributed ammo wise?

:gruebel:

[AKTexas]

So, how does the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel compare to one another? What are the reasons to select one over the other? Are either widely distributed ammo wise?

:gruebel:


This article may help some.

http://www.65grendel.com/65g_65and68.htm

[El Jefe]

This article may help some.

http://www.65grendel.com/65g_65and68.htm

Thanks AKT, that was helpful. Both sound far superior to 5.56 which isn't a surprise. It sounds as if it might be best to wait and see if the military actually chooses one before buying. I'd imagine the winner would be the route to go due to ammo availability.

[AKTexas]

Thanks AKT, that was helpful. Both sound far superior to 5.56 which isn't a surprise. It sounds as if it might be best to wait and see if the military actually chooses one before buying. I'd imagine the winner would be the route to go due to ammo availability.

I recall reading that the 6.8 can use the same mag body but different followers and the 6.5 Grendel needs a new mag all together.I may be wrong and need to find that mag and see if I can scan the article.

[Dr_Scholl]

Thanks AKT, that was helpful. Both sound far superior to 5.56 which isn't a surprise. It sounds as if it might be best to wait and see if the military actually chooses one before buying. I'd imagine the winner would be the route to go due to ammo availability.

I think the military's sticking with the 5.56 until we get out of Afghanistan. Switching to a new cartridge right now would be a logistical nightmare.

[Schuetzenman]

I recall reading that the 6.8 can use the same mag body but different followers and the 6.5 Grendel needs a new mag all together.I may be wrong and need to find that mag and see if I can scan the article.

That would be partially wrong as the 6.5 Grendel was designed to fit the M16 mag well. It like the 6.8 spc also use a different follower. Both do a bit better, (if my memory is correct) when they use a mag with slightly shallower dimple depth in the construction. Those elongated grooves stamped in the sides. Both have around 27 rounds capacity vs. 30 for 5.56. On the topic of the US Gov adopting either one as a new standard, I doubt they ever will in all seriousness. The 5.56 is to intetrated into the US military as well as our NATO allies. We drug them to the 5.56 almost kicking and screaming to stay with 7.62 NATO. Many countries were not happy with the new (back when we pushed it) 5.56 round to be the small arm rifle standard round of NATO. All those countries with FN FAL type weapons and Germany with hits G3 had to develop and replace with new weapons in 5.56.

Until they actually come out with a Plasma Rifle or man portable Laser Rifle I think 5.56 is here to stay as a Mil standard around the globe. Then the conversation will change from how many rounds can you carry per pound of payload to how many pulses you get per battery pack and what those weigh in at. :tongue:

[AKTexas]

That would be partially wrong as the 6.5 Grendel was designed to fit the M16 mag well. It like the 6.8 spc also use a different follower. Both do a bit better, (if my memory is correct) when they use a mag with slightly shallower dimple depth in the construction. Those elongated grooves stamped in the sides. Both have around 27 rounds capacity vs. 30 for 5.56. On the topic of the US Gov adopting either one as a new standard, I doubt they ever will in all seriousness. The 5.56 is to intetrated into the US military as well as our NATO allies. We drug them to the 5.56 almost kicking and screaming to stay with 7.62 NATO. Many countries were not happy with the new (back when we pushed it) 5.56 round to be the small arm rifle standard round of NATO. All those countries with FN FAL type weapons and Germany with hits G3 had to develop and replace with new weapons in 5.56.

Until they actually come out with a Plasma Rifle or man portable Laser Rifle I think 5.56 is here to stay as a Mil standard around the globe. Then the conversation will change from how many rounds can you carry per pound of payload to how many pulses you get per battery pack and what those weigh in at. :tongue:

I found the article I'll try to scan it.I was wrong about the magazines.The problem is the existing belted links for the SAW and other such weapons.

I'd like to see what these rounds would do in a bolt action.