ACE on the 6.8 SPC

RifleShooter field review of the Remington 6.8mm SPC

Airborne Combat Engineer has another extensive post up on this round. Many think that it might be a potential replacement for the current 5.56mm NATO round used by the US military and our NATO allies. Since the early 90s, there has been a fair amount of criticism of the current round, especially when fired from the shorter barrels of M4 carbines.

Now, desk jockeys with spreadsheets on their computers are deciding whether we can afford to go to something better. Meanwhile, Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are being instructed to place two rounds in the torso to insure adversaries are stopped. Two 5.56mm rounds weigh more than one 7.62 round.

The often-repeated “wisdom” that it’s better to wound an adversary than to stop him from further action (because it ties up 2-3 other people helping him and demoralizes his comrades) is a concept developed by think-tank professors (like the guy who ram-rodded the 5.56mm through) who never had to worry about a guy you just shot continuing to fire back at you, or the guy you shot and moved past finding just enough strength to shoot you in the back.

If you’re following this issue, you must go read this post and keep an eye on ACE.

Just ignore the fact that he’s all over my back for suggesting that the Marines might be better suited to the current military situations than the Army is.


  1. Even though I ran spell checker on that post, I still left out the ‘h’ in ‘Afghanistan’ and used ‘adversaries’ when it should have been adversary. Oh well. That’s why I couldn’t work for a newspaper or online news service. You know I’m just ribbing you about your high regard for the Marines, since I’m Airborne. I have a very high regard for the Marines. You *might* be right about the Marines being more flexible. I’ve been out of the loop too long to know for sure. As you know, there’s considerable controversy about Rumsfeld’s ideas re. small, fast-moving, flexible forces vs. Colin Powell’s doctrine of overwhelming force. Time will tell. Thanks for the link, and keep up the good work. BTW, you may have noticed the Mad Ogre mentioned Murdoc and ACE in the same paragraph. Guess he thinks we think alike, for some reason. ;-)

  2. Fixed the spelling. I noticed the ‘h’ but left it as is due to my journalistic integrity. Missed the ‘adversaries’. We all knew what you meant, and I’ll be the last one to criticize typos. And I know you’re ribbing me about the Marines. I’ve never been in the loop, so my opinion is just that of an outsider looking in. A little more detached, which is good, and a lot less informed, which is bad.

  3. The 5.56x45Nato is a proven effective close quarters combat cartridge with 300 meter dead on hold easy hits. Certainly the 7.62x51Nato is a better long range cartridge with enough snot to stop a grizzly if necessary. But why compare Gumby to Indiana Jones. They are both capable of doing that for which they were created. The .223 was born to acquaint City kids who know nothing of firearms to be effective in combat with a minimum of training. This old war horse was handed an M-1 Garand (30-06), given minimum training and sent out into the field. A green city kid with the best battle cartridge ever devised without a clue as to how to effectively use it against an adversary. Sure the 6.8×43 Remington SPC is a better cartridge. BUT, it will take a bit longer to train a green rifleman trainee how to use it because of a bit more recoil than the .223. Its all compromises. If I had six months to D.I. a new kid, I’d teach him how to use a .375 H&H but two months is not enough time to teach the new kid (FNG) how to shoot a BB gun. It’s easier to learn the 5.56 than the 7.62. The 6.8 (.270) is almost as easy as the 5.56 with more effective results. And it only took 41 years to figure it out. I’ve killed more than a few deer with the .223 and find it kills but does not put the deer down. A well aimed through the heart and lungs shot will not stop. It usually requires some tracking to find the quarry. An effective wounder but a poor killer. The 7.62×39 Russian is better at both but the 6.8 should be better at all close and far. The most effective use of the 5.56 is a head shot, if you have time to aim. Instant pudding!