Sign in to follow this  
Admin

Barrett M468

Recommended Posts

Barrett M468 6.8 Remmington SPC

m468_2.jpg

Barrett M468 : Features and Accessories

·Dual Spring Extractor System

·Muzzle Brake

·Folding Front Sight and Gas Block

·5, 10 and 28 Round Magazine Configurations

·Two-Stage Trigger

·Law Enforcement and Military Configurations Available

- Retail Price $2,535

- Upper Conversion Kit Price $1,494

Specifications

- Caliber 6.8 Remington SPC

- Operation Semi-Automatic, Gas Operated

- Barrel Length 16 in. (Chrome Lined)

- Rifle Weight 7.3 lbs.

- Overall Length 35.4 in

Does anyone own one of these and could you gives us some feedback? Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They reviewed it in the July issue of soldier of fortune. said it was really accurate, even with a 16in bbl. sounds like a bitchen gun, except for the price!!! :c)l:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They reviewed it in the July issue of soldier of fortune. said it was really accurate, even with a 16in bbl. sounds like a bitchen gun, except for the price!!! :c)l:

65750[/snapback]

The question;

Why make an M16/AR15 with a heavier round and still have the same basic functional problems of jaming under desert and woodland environments?

The point of the smaller 223 is to carry more rounds and have less recoil. The number of rounds will decrease to 20 or less (correct me if I wrong) with the 6.8mm ammo. It would be better to stick with an M14 which has a great round (308) and wont jam in harsh environments. Or even the FAL would be a better choice.

The problem of the M16 isnt only the round but the rifle itself. The bolt/breach interface is so tight that any dirt or sand that gets into the action causes a jam. This is the reason why AKs are so effective and jam proof because of the lage amount of space around the bolt. However, the AKs are not very accurate due to this.

In conclusion, making the M468 is useless. The round will be more effective, but the ammo is heavier, there is more recoil and less rounds per mag. The only reasonable choice is to change the gun and the ammo. Or just stick with the M14 which comes with 16, 18 and I believe 22 inch barrels. As a result you get the best of both worlds CQB (16 inch bbl with collapsible stock) and the long range effectiveness of the 308 round.

So, thats the question I will repost as a new topic.

Im not a expert but thats just my .02

:c)l:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question;

Why make an M16/AR15 with a heavier round and still have the same basic functional problems of jaming under desert and woodland environments?

The point of the smaller 223 is to carry more rounds and have less recoil. The number of rounds will decrease to 20 or less  (correct me if I wrong) with the 6.8mm ammo. It would be better to stick with an M14 which has a great round (308) and wont jam in harsh environments. Or even the FAL would be a better choice.

The problem of the M16 isnt only the round but the rifle itself. The bolt/breach interface is so tight that any dirt or sand that gets into the action causes a jam. This is the reason why AKs are so effective and jam proof because of the lage amount of space around the bolt. However, the AKs are not very accurate due to this.

In conclusion, making the M468 is useless. The round will be more effective, but the ammo is heavier, there is more recoil and less rounds per mag. The only reasonable choice is to change the gun and the ammo. Or just stick with the M14 which comes with 16, 18 and I believe 22 inch barrels. As a result you get the best of both worlds CQB (16 inch bbl with collapsible stock) and the long range  effectiveness of the 308 round.

So, thats the question I will repost as a new topic.

Im not a expert but thats just my .02

:c)l:

80542[/snapback]

Thats what I thought about the ar-15 chambered in a 50 beowulf...it was just totally unnecessary. The round is much to punishing on the action....I can't see it lasting very long.

I am however very impressed with the ballistics of the 6.8. I'd rather have 20 rounds of something that could reach out and touch someone at 300 yards as opposed to 30 rounds of 22 plinkers. The 6.8 really sits between the 223 and the 308 ballistically. In my opinion it is a wonderful ballance.

In reference to your jamming comment, I would have to disagree. Any higher quality weapon with tighter tolerances such as the m16 needs to be taken care of and cleaned on a somewhat regular basis. The type of lubricants used in a dry desert environment(dry, teflon based would be best)would have a large impact on the probability of jamming. The newer m-16s are not prone to jamming like the old vietnam era models.

It would've been very interesting to see them switch to the xm8 using a different caliber, but alas, it was not to happen.

ok>

The m-14 is a great gun, and I would love to get one of their new SOCOM 16s when my money tree starts to bloom in the backyard.

Edited by warlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my understanding of this round would be more of a special forces SEAL, Rangers, Green berets, use for a long while before it's produced and sent thru the ranks.

besides the civilian market of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest yonderway

Are the parts getting affordable yet for someone to build one of their own for under $1,000 complete? I've got 4 weeks until it is kosher to buy pre-ban style parts again and I'm deliberating what my next project will be. AR-15 or M-4gery in 6.8 SPC would be pretty hot but if it is going to cost me $1,500+ to build one then it's probably not worthwhile yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am however very impressed with the ballistics of the 6.8.  I'd rather have 20 rounds of something that could reach out and touch someone at 300 yards as opposed to 30 rounds of 22 plinkers.

80586[/snapback]

Plinkers? I seriously doubt you want to be 300 yards downrange with me behind my AR-15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In conclusion, making the M468 is useless. The round will be more effective, but the ammo is heavier, there is more recoil and less rounds per mag. The only reasonable choice is to change the gun and the ammo.

XM8, chambered in 6.8 sounds like a winner to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest yonderway
Plinkers? I seriously doubt you want to be 300 yards downrange with me behind my AR-15

90544[/snapback]

Our guys in the field who are using this now in combat say otherwise.

At 300 yds they were usually just wounding NME with the 5.56. With the 6.8 they are dropping 'em dead at 300 yds pretty consistently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THe 6.8 is probably BARELY heavier than 5.56, and has a LOT more stopping power, and probably not that much more recoil. with a m-16 mag, (with a different follower) you can get 28 rounds, and i would rather have 28 rounds of ammo that can actually kill, than 30 varmit rounds.

Also, the m-14 has a 22in. barrel, and you can get a M1A with a 18.5in barrel, and i think i heard about a 16in bbl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya'll misunderstand me...I'm not knocking the 6.8 round; I'm defending the 5.56 round.

I feel not a lot of people give this round enough credit- it has virtually no stopping power at 50 to 100 yards due to the size of the round. But 100-200 rounds, the bullet tumbles and causes more internal damage than almost any assault rifle- and if it hits bone, it explodes.

Now let me back up my statement AND LET ME REITTERATE THAT I'M NOT KNOCKING THE 6.8 ROUND, BUT DEFENDING THE 5.56 ROUND.

* "Not long ago, I had coffee with a law officer who'd 'taken the shot' against a knife-wielding madman who'd seized a hostage. He fired one round of .223 commercial softpoint as a distance of about 100 yards. The bullet 'virtually exploded' when it penetrated the subject's head and struck his spinal column, creating so many bullet splinters that a later X ray 'looked like a picture of the night sky,' he reported. No significant bullet fragments exited from the suspect."

So unlike something like a .308, the .223 wont overpenatrate.

I completely see the use for the 6.8. It fills many gaps with an effective round. What is left to fill the gap between .223 and .308? A .243 is too heavy for the cartrige to be any good after 200 yards.

*Reference: Maj. John L. Plaster, USAR (RET)

The Ultimate Sniper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest yonderway
Are the parts getting affordable yet for someone to build one of their own for under $1,000 complete?  I've got 4 weeks until it is kosher to buy pre-ban style parts again and I'm deliberating what my next project will be.  AR-15 or M-4gery in 6.8 SPC would be pretty hot but if it is going to cost me $1,500+ to build one then it's probably not worthwhile yet.

90534[/snapback]

OK to answer my own question, this sounds like it is going to be a very affordable build.

Stripped lower reciever for $89 + shipping & transfer fee.

6.8 SPC parts kit from Model 1 Sales for about $500.

Figure another $200 for magazines & accessories. $800 one can have a pretty basic 6.8 SPC rifle.

I'm seriously considering building one of these, and foregoing some of the milsurp purchases I had planned for this year to pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive beena big fan of the 6.8 since i first heard of it.

Its a great cartidge, one which i would call truly intermediate.

Last i heard, the 6.8 was still able to use 30 round mags. Its only not THAT much wider than a .223 round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive beena  big fan of the 6.8 since i first heard of it.

Its a great cartidge, one which i would call truly intermediate.

Last i heard, the 6.8 was still able to use 30 round mags.

123687[/snapback]

Yup, 30 round mags. I'm going shooting tomorrow! :c)l:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question;

Why make an M16/AR15 with a heavier round and still have the same basic functional problems of jaming under desert and woodland environments?

The point of the smaller 223 is to carry more rounds and have less recoil. The number of rounds will decrease to 20 or less  (correct me if I wrong) with the 6.8mm ammo. It would be better to stick with an M14 which has a great round (308) and wont jam in harsh environments. Or even the FAL would be a better choice.

The problem of the M16 isnt only the round but the rifle itself. The bolt/breach interface is so tight that any dirt or sand that gets into the action causes a jam. This is the reason why AKs are so effective and jam proof because of the lage amount of space around the bolt. However, the AKs are not very accurate due to this.

In conclusion, making the M468 is useless. The round will be more effective, but the ammo is heavier, there is more recoil and less rounds per mag. The only reasonable choice is to change the gun and the ammo. Or just stick with the M14 which comes with 16, 18 and I believe 22 inch barrels. As a result you get the best of both worlds CQB (16 inch bbl with collapsible stock) and the long range  effectiveness of the 308 round.

So, thats the question I will repost as a new topic.

Im not a expert but thats just my .02

:c)l:

80542[/snapback]

I’m thinking this is going to end up in a lot of squad cars, not APC’s. :3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the .223 wont overpenatrate"

um...the military is ONLY alowed to use FMJ ammo. Not the soft points mentioned in the article you quoted... so, YES, it will over penetrate virtualy eveorything. if its the NATO spec rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anyone have any updates on the military adopting this round/gun???

136989[/snapback]

Round, yes (SF Only)...gun, no...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Round, yes (SF Only)...gun, no...

137839[/snapback]

That’s what I’ve heard too.. ... That makes little sense to me, considering all the positives it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"the .223 wont overpenatrate"

um...the military is ONLY alowed to use FMJ ammo. Not the soft points mentioned in the article you quoted... so, YES, it will over penetrate virtualy eveorything. if its the NATO spec rounds.

127218[/snapback]

The new hornady TAP 223 remington rounds are now being used by some of our SF guys...the standard load being a 75 grain ballistic tip.

It performs quite well...is very accurate...and doesn't overpenetrate.

ok>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That’s what I’ve heard too.. ... That makes little sense to me, considering all the positives it has.

137888[/snapback]

As I constantly say...

"If it made sense, it wouldn't be the Army (or Military in general)."

So when something happens like say...why do we use 5.56 instead of 6.8? We would say "because it makes sense." And we can't have that now can we?...Then everyone would want to join the military!

*Why do we paint and fix up buildings scheduled to be torn down?

*Why must I wear a ballistic helmit to a 9mm range when I don't work the road with a ballistic helmit? And on that note....why don't I wear my road gear?

*Why don't we use match grade or hollow-points?

*Why are we forced to promote people who don't deserve to be promoted?

*Why isn't there a physical fitness test that truely tests our physical readiness? Like, why am I tested on my run time instead of my ruck march capability? And instead of pushups, how about a time limit on carrying a MK19 from one point to another? (I can beat a dead horse with this one)

Shall I go on? Or do you get the idea?

And then I'm asked, "why wont you reenlist?"

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I constantly say...

"If it made sense, it wouldn't be the Army (or Military in general)."

So when something happens like say...why do we use 5.56 instead of 6.8? We would say "because it makes sense." And we can't have that now can we?...Then everyone would want to join the military!

*Why do we paint and fix up buildings scheduled to be torn down?

*Why must I wear a ballistic helmit to a 9mm range when I don't work the road with a ballistic helmit? And on that note....why don't I wear my road gear?

*Why don't we use match grade or hollow-points?

*Why are we forced to promote people who don't deserve to be promoted?

*Why isn't there a physical fitness test that truely tests our physical readiness? Like, why am I tested on my run time instead of my ruck march capability? And instead of pushups, how about a time limit on carrying a MK19 from one point to another? (I can beat a dead horse with this one)

Shall I go on? Or do you get the idea?

And then I'm asked, "why wont you reenlist?"

:rolleyes:

138104[/snapback]

Idealistic answers Vs. reality?

You maintain buildings that are to be torn down because in the mean time you don’t want people thinking that your running some kind of piss-poor establishment ..

-Or-

They want to punish you, and or live up to a budget, because as soon as you can say “I can do this for less” you’ll never see that money again.

Because, who wants to be accidentally shot in the head?

-Or-

Legal spillover from the sue-happy public.

Because, it’s “inhumane” and to by taking tree men of the battle field, you win, faster!

-Or-

Political reasons, other nations (like France?) want to threaten us, but don’t actually want to die.

Habitual brownnosers :3

-Or-

Habitual brownnosers :3

And, I really have no clue, maybe the fitness program is still stuck circa 1950 ?

Of course those are all, almost directly taken from the Civilian-cooperate sector, But yeah I get what your saying .. Too bad the tax payers aren’t more active about it, just like how they’re demanding hot, heavy “body armor” for deployment in the .. desert ..

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this