Hornadys new 6mm ARC

Uinseann_16 · 05-06-2020 4:48pm #1

Now usually these types of calibers the .224 valkrie,6.5grendal,22-45 sharps etc.. never really make it across the pond but with how well the 6.5 creedmoor has established itself this might be a great varmint cartridge , Theyre launching 3 ammo types along with dies and brass
Its a 6mm short action cartridge putting a eldx hunter 103gr bullet at 2800fps which is impressive because that means it has 1793 ft/lbs of energy making it deer legal here:D

Whats the thoughts on the cartridge will it catch on or fizzle out?

alanmc · 05-06-2020 7:38pm

These sorts of cartridges seem to be aimed towards the semi-auto platform. Not to say they won't perform in a bolty, but the first requirement from them is to fit in an AR mag.

It'd be interesting to see how it stacks up against the venerable 243.

Uinseann_16 · 05-06-2020 8:01pm

alanmc wrote: »

These sorts of cartridges seem to be aimed towards the semi-auto platform. Not to say they won't perform in a bolty, but the first requirement from them is to fit in an AR mag.

It'd be interesting to see how it stacks up against the venerable 243.

On paper you're not losing a lot with the 6mm arc vs the .243, whether or not that will come true is a different matter
Keep in mind it is a replacement for a 223/556 in a AR-15 but it will still have a varminting niche in bolt guns

The pigeon man · 05-06-2020 8:49pm

Will be interesting to see the price of ammo in Ireland.

That will really dictate if it'll take off.

tudderone · 05-06-2020 8:51pm

Exactly what was said, made to fit the AR platform, like the .300 blackout, .458 socom etc, so the new rounds have to be .223 rem length. But there was a scatter of new rounds back in the 90's/00's with the Winchester super short magnums, which were supposed to make everything else obsolete, but they didn't and as far as i know they are obsolete themselves. If you look at the top tables of hunting rounds in America, i'll bet most have been around since the 60's at least, some like the .30-06 or .270 much older.

cookimonster · 05-06-2020 10:07pm

If the military take this up as a general issue then it will probably follow down the line of its predecessors the '06, 7.62 and 5.56 and become an instant nations sweetheart.....
....otherwise it may fall between the gaps of exsisting 6mm cartridges.
AFAIK the US are looking for something that will have an extended lethal range well beyond the 5.56's 250m range.

tudderone · 05-06-2020 11:15pm

cookimonster wrote: »

If the military take this up as a general issue then it will probably follow down the line of its predecessors the '06, 7.62 and 5.56 and become an instant nations sweetheart.....
....otherwise it may fall between the gaps of exsisting 6mm cartridges.
AFAIK the US are looking for something that will have an extended lethal range well beyond the 5.56's 250m range.

The US army are going with a new 6.8mm spc round, so this probably will wind up as a niche round for sports AR shooters in America. Unless you can get a bolt action rifle chambered for it, and getting ammunition here is likely to be a major headache too. Getting even fairly common rounds here can be a pita, .303, 7.5 swiss etc.

Anyway what can this round do that the .243 win cannot ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8mm_Remington_SPC

alanmc · 06-06-2020 2:18am

In all fairness, this is just business. Hornady need a new product to stay relevant and profitable and the 6mm ARC is it. Now they need to convince people they need it.

If I'm honest, I'm guilty of falling for this stuff myself. I have a .308 ... and love it. But I coveted my neighbours 6.5 Creedmoor ... so I had to have one.

cookimonster · 06-06-2020 8:17am

tudderone wrote: »

The US army are going with a new 6.8mm spc round, so this probably will wind up as a niche round for sports AR shooters in America. Unless you can get a bolt action rifle chambered for it, and getting ammunition here is likely to be a major headache too. Getting even fairly common rounds here can be a pita, .303, 7.5 swiss etc.

Anyway what can this round do that the .243 win cannot ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8mm_Remington_SPC

There is some conjecture saying that the 6.8 SPC is not the round of choice and there is something else coming down the line.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/what-we-know-about-armys-new-bullets-68052

I would agree that this like the 6.8 SPC will most likely end up as another choice for AR style platforms, which have rabidly become the 'Barbie Doll' of the shooting world. The 6.8 SPC seems to have petered out in the bolt action line.

Uinseann_16 · 06-06-2020 3:01pm

So along the lines of the thread there is one round in development which may have a real benefit and isnt just another commercialised wildcat?
This round came about from SIGs entry to the US military 6.8mm trials
The .277 sig , theyre using a stainless steel base and getting up to really high chamber pressures safetly 135 grain @3000 ft/s from a 16 inch barrel:pac:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/01/15/sig-sauer-introduce-277-fury/

tudderone · 06-06-2020 9:30pm

Uinseann_16 wrote: »

So along the lines of the thread there is one round in development which may have a real benefit and isnt just another commercialised wildcat?
This round came about from SIGs entry to the US military 6.8mm trials
The .277 sig , theyre using a stainless steel base and getting up to really high chamber pressures safetly 135 grain @3000 ft/s from a 16 inch barrel:pac:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/01/15/sig-sauer-introduce-277-fury/

Yeah, but whats throat/barrel life going to be on that ? No problem for the army as they can have armourers swapping them out, but for the hunter/target rifle it could get expensive.

The problem i see, is companies are constantly trying to reinvent the wheel and come up with a round that will tale the world by storm. But ask yourself, what can these rounds do that your .308, .243, .223, .270 cannot do in the field ?

Feisar · 15-06-2020 9:22pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tgqxasFjnM

Regards barrel life no amount of voodoo will get around the fact that high pressures equals burned barrels. Warning, yer man in the vid talks slooow!

tudderone · 15-06-2020 9:34pm

Feisar wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tgqxasFjnM

Regards barrel life no amount of voodoo will get around the fact that high pressures equals burned barrels. Warning, yer man in the vid talks slooow!

LOL, i was watching him the other night restocking a rifle, yup he's slow alright.

Uinseann_16 · 15-06-2020 9:37pm

From my experience when a older knowledgeable gentleman like that talks you shut up and listen , you'll learn alot :pac:

tudderone · 15-06-2020 9:42pm

Uinseann_16 wrote: »

From my experience when a older knowledgeable gentleman like that talks you shut up and listen , you'll learn alot :pac:

True, but those sorts are extremely rare, most are blowhards or tin-roofers. But this old boy is good.

Feisar · 15-06-2020 9:50pm

tudderone wrote: »

True, but those sorts are extremely rare, most are blowhards or tin-roofers. But this old boy is good.

He is in fairness, really seems to know his stuff.

Feisar · 15-06-2020 10:02pm

Back to the ARC as you said above, it’s all about trying to promote the next wonder cartridge. I thought the 6.5 Grendal was the big thing for the AR platform but now it’s the ARC.

There’s mileage in dropping bullet size down in a given cartridge range, 22 to 20, 30 to 6/6.5/7mm or even 408 to 338. (I know I was a bit all over the place there with imperial/metric!). So you send a long for calibre bullet out at good velocity with a higher bc. I’d think though that all those slots have been filled at this stage.

It takes x amount of powder to drive a bullet of a given weight and there isn’t much room left for innovation. Having said that Hornady’s Superformance is interesting.

Edit - did they not hear about the 6mmBR?

Grizzly 45 · 18-06-2020 1:02pm

It all boils down to this;
Convince the the US ordinance board that you have developed an utterly wonderous magic bullet and rifle that will do everything they want.Then that it can be stuffed into an AR mag and barrel and survives anything the trials can throw at it,and it costs less than the current AR platform.Or you can change an AR barrel out and put in this new barrel at no big cost.

They will keep usiing the AR as a benchmark for the forseeable future,despite it being a 60 plus year old weapons platform.So you are going to see these kinds of cartridges showing up. As its cheaper to develop a bullet for an existing weapons platform and upgrade it.But until they can do somthing that the 5.56 and now being dug out again and re issued in limited numbers 7.62 can do better. It's all hopful future music.

cookimonster · 18-06-2020 1:38pm

I think they were sold a pup with the 5.56mm. Yes it fulfilled the requirements for more ammo load out per individual and at the time it was suitable for the exsisting 'battlefield' conditions or perceptions of either jungle or urbanized war fare.
But once the warefare changed back to more open ground and therefore longer ranges the 5.56mm began to faulter.
The orginal weapons platform configuration lent itself to better balistics, whether this has been addressed by more modern configurations I don't know. But if the military are looking elsewhere for a new calibre, I think no amount of tweaking the exsisting 5.56 or barrel lengths / twist rate will make them happy.
They want something that combines effevtive battlefield ranges with accuracy and lethality (altough to incapacitate is better than termination) while allowing an individual to carry an efficient load of ammo.
Modern technology has played a big roll in the infantry soldiers personal kit. As the years go by the kit increases but thankfully materials and advancements have made euipment lighter and smaller. Interestingly pound for pound the average infantry man can still only carry approximately the same amount of fighting kit as his ancestors did when chain mail and plate aromour was the norm of the day..

tudderone · 18-06-2020 3:33pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It all boils down to this;
Convince the the US ordinance board that you have developed an utterly wonderous magic bullet and rifle that will do everything they want.Then that it can be stuffed into an AR mag and barrel and survives anything the trials can throw at it,and it costs less than the current AR platform.Or you can change an AR barrel out and put in this new barrel at no big cost.

They will keep usiing the AR as a benchmark for the forseeable future,despite it being a 60 plus year old weapons platform.So you are going to see these kinds of cartridges showing up. As its cheaper to develop a bullet for an existing weapons platform and upgrade it.But until they can do somthing that the 5.56 and now being dug out again and re issued in limited numbers 7.62 can do better. It's all hopful future music.

I thought it was to simplify the supply chain ? You have soldiers carrying the 5.56 and designated marksmen, snipers and machine gunners the 7.62. If the infantry round was a little heavier, and the others a little lighter, an all around compromise, then you only need one cartridge for the lot.

tudderone · 18-06-2020 3:37pm

cookimonster wrote: »

I think they were sold a pup with the 5.56mm. Yes it fulfilled the requirements for more ammo load out per individual and at the time it was suitable for the exsisting 'battlefield' conditions or perceptions of either jungle or urbanized war fare.
But once the warefare changed back to more open ground and therefore longer ranges the 5.56mm began to faulter.
The orginal weapons platform configuration lent itself to better balistics, whether this has been addressed by more modern configurations I don't know. But if the military are looking elsewhere for a new calibre, I think no amount of tweaking the exsisting 5.56 or barrel lengths / twist rate will make them happy.
They want something that combines effevtive battlefield ranges with accuracy and lethality (altough to incapacitate is better than termination) while allowing an individual to carry an efficient load of ammo.
Modern technology has played a big roll in the infantry soldiers personal kit. As the years go by the kit increases but thankfully materials and advancements have made euipment lighter and smaller. Interestingly pound for pound the average infantry man can still only carry approximately the same amount of fighting kit as his ancestors did when chain mail and plate aromour was the norm of the day..

But i doubt infantry alone wins battles anymore. From what i have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq etc, if a group of soldiers meet anything other than light resistance, they call in an A10 warthog and let them obliterate enemys lines.

cookimonster · 18-06-2020 5:46pm

tudderone wrote: »

But i doubt infantry alone wins battles anymore. From what i have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq etc, if a group of soldiers meet anything other than light resistance, they call in an A10 warthog and let them obliterate enemys lines.

But when technology can not reach out to you, you are reliant on the tools in your hands. A10s and even troop support may not be able to reach you or operate safely in your location (Operation Red Wings). In an ideal situation you would be supported or covered by support weapons and even when clearing enemy positions they may be called into use.
A lot of military operations deemed 'Special Ops' may be operating in areas were the use of tradtional support weapons system's would be deemed unsuitable whether it be for political reasons or logistical. The streets of Mogadishu won't have been the ideal for place for mortar or artillery fire , equally so was Abbottabad, Pakistan were it was bad enough that the US made an incursion. Funnily enough each of those environments should have suited the 5.56mm.
Boots on the ground, section by section you may have use of SRAW missiles (Short-Range Assault Weapon ) or something similar but when they run out its down to posting grenades and basic fire power.
If the enemy can stand off and bring effective fire onto you beyound your general weapons effective range then your in trouble. An older example, I belive, was during the American Spanish War with the 7mm Mauser out performing 30-40 Kreg.

Grizzly 45 · 19-06-2020 12:59am

cookimonster wrote: »

I think they were sold a pup with the 5.56mm. Yes it fulfilled the requirements for more ammo load out per individual and at the time it was suitable for the exsisting 'battlefield' conditions or perceptions of either jungle or urbanized war fare.
But once the warefare changed back to more open ground and therefore longer ranges the 5.56mm began to faulter.
The orginal weapons platform configuration lent itself to better balistics, whether this has been addressed by more modern configurations I don't know. But if the military are looking elsewhere for a new calibre, I think no amount of tweaking the exsisting 5.56 or barrel lengths / twist rate will make them happy.
They want something that combines effevtive battlefield ranges with accuracy and lethality (altough to incapacitate is better than termination) while allowing an individual to carry an efficient load of ammo.
Modern technology has played a big roll in the infantry soldiers personal kit. As the years go by the kit increases but thankfully materials and advancements have made euipment lighter and smaller. Interestingly pound for pound the average infantry man can still only carry approximately the same amount of fighting kit as his ancestors did when chain mail and plate aromour was the norm of the day..

Military politics and the US ordnance board.
It's why the US didnt get armed with a superior gun namely the FN FAL and ended up with ,breifly, the select fire Springfield M14.Probably the worst select fire battle rifle ever. Same reason the Brits excellent ,even by todays standards experimental .260was never adapted,and why the M16 was such a problem child in Vietnam. It is indeed strange as to why the US did adapt the .223,because even though it was first used in Vietnam,the big bang was still thought to be going to be Europe .Where distances are still medium to long range on a battlefround,and most of the US allies wee still using 7.62 NATO as the mainstay round.
Until the board decides ,whenever and if there is a desperate demand for a new cartridge.GI's will still be spitting out 5.56 and 7.62.of which there are millions too.
Thing is with every man and his dog making AR platforms in the US now and there being literally tons of spare parts and mags for this platform,which in fairness is pretty much 100% debugged after 60 odd years service.The US isnt going to invest really in a new rifle platform for awhile yet.But what they will do is more than likely boost up and change the cartridge,within the capabilities of the AR platform.IE just replace barrels for the new cartridge.
What that will be is anyones guess and when will it happen as well?

tudderone · 19-06-2020 2:11am

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Military politics and the US ordnance board.
It's why the US didnt get armed with a superior gun namely the FN FAL and ended up with ,breifly, the select fire Springfield M14.Probably the worst select fire battle rifle ever. Same reason the Brits excellent ,even by todays standards experimental .260was never adapted,and why the M16 was such a problem child in Vietnam. It is indeed strange as to why the US did adapt the .223,because even though it was first used in Vietnam,the big bang was still thought to be going to be Europe .Where distances are still medium to long range on a battlefround,and most of the US allies wee still using 7.62 NATO as the mainstay round.
Until the board decides ,whenever and if there is a desperate demand for a new cartridge.GI's will still be spitting out 5.56 and 7.62.of which there are millions too.
Thing is with every man and his dog making AR platforms in the US now and there being literally tons of spare parts and mags for this platform,which in fairness is pretty much 100% debugged after 60 odd years service.The US isnt going to invest really in a new rifle platform for awhile yet.But what they will do is more than likely boost up and change the cartridge,within the capabilities of the AR platform.IE just replace barrels for the new cartridge.
What that will be is anyones guess and when will it happen as well?

The British came up with a lot of excellent rounds over the years, especially heavy game rounds. But the .276 Enfield round they dreamed up to replace the .303 before ww1 for military use :eek:, It was nearly on par with the 7mm rem mag !

Grizzly 45 · 19-06-2020 12:15pm

Seems to be a problem with us Americans.
We can never give the Brits credit,or anyone else for that matter,for an original invention or idea,unless we go and make and develop it in the US and then claim it's ours.:rolleyes:

tudderone · 19-06-2020 12:38pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Seems to be a problem with us Americans.
We can never give the Brits credit,or anyone else for that matter,for an original invention or idea,unless we go and make and develop it in the US and then claim it's ours.:rolleyes:

Well an old guy told me years ago, that America IS the world to the Americans. Everywhere else is forgotten or dismissed.

cookimonster · 19-06-2020 1:10pm

tudderone wrote: »

Well an old guy told me years ago, that America IS the world to the Americans. Everywhere else is forgotten or dismissed.

Having served with them overseas the majority were great people regardless of colour, creed or race.....

But some of them collectively had the IQ of a flip flop!

Feisar · 19-06-2020 3:14pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Military politics and the US ordnance board.
It's why the US didnt get armed with a superior gun namely the FN FAL and ended up with ,breifly, the select fire Springfield M14.Probably the worst select fire battle rifle ever. Same reason the Brits excellent ,even by todays standards experimental .260was never adapted,and why the M16 was such a problem child in Vietnam. It is indeed strange as to why the US did adapt the .223,because even though it was first used in Vietnam,the big bang was still thought to be going to be Europe .Where distances are still medium to long range on a battlefround,and most of the US allies wee still using 7.62 NATO as the mainstay round.
Until the board decides ,whenever and if there is a desperate demand for a new cartridge.GI's will still be spitting out 5.56 and 7.62.of which there are millions too.
Thing is with every man and his dog making AR platforms in the US now and there being literally tons of spare parts and mags for this platform,which in fairness is pretty much 100% debugged after 60 odd years service.The US isnt going to invest really in a new rifle platform for awhile yet.But what they will do is more than likely boost up and change the cartridge,within the capabilities of the AR platform.IE just replace barrels for the new cartridge.
What that will be is anyones guess and when will it happen as well?

Correct me if I'm wrong as my memory is a bit fuzzy on this however at the time the US was going 5.56 wasn't there an FN rifle being developed with an intermediate round? The US and therefore NATO went 5.56 and FN's offering ended up a footnote in firearms history.

Edit - https://sofrep.com/specialoperations/fn-fal-worlds-successful-battle-rifle/

cookimonster · 19-06-2020 4:33pm

Feisar wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong as my memory is a bit fuzzy on this however at the time the US was going 5.56 wasn't there an FN rifle being developed with an intermediate round? The US and therefore NATO went 5.56 and FN's offering ended up a footnote in firearms history.

Edit - https://sofrep.com/specialoperations/fn-fal-worlds-successful-battle-rifle/

From the same article.....

Because of this, the FAL became the primary weapon to defend the banner of freedom throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s

Only in the 90s, as more nations went to the smaller 5.56mm .223 round, did the FN FAL really start to see its use fall, with its finest champion, the once reluctant Great Britain, finally saying goodbye in 1986.

The insistence of the US for their then beloved .30 cal put paid to the intermediate round. But when released in 7.76 Nato the FN spent over 30 years as a main armament to many countries and armies through out the world.

cookimonster · 19-06-2020 4:48pm

Feisar wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong as my memory is a bit fuzzy on this however at the time the US was going 5.56 wasn't there an FN rifle being developed with an intermediate round? The US and therefore NATO went 5.56 and FN's offering ended up a footnote in firearms history.

Edit - https://sofrep.com/specialoperations/fn-fal-worlds-successful-battle-rifle/

From the same article.....

Because of this, the FAL became the primary weapon to defend the banner of freedom throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s

Only in the 90s, as more nations went to the smaller 5.56mm .223 round, did the FN FAL really start to see its use fall, with its finest champion, the once reluctant Great Britain, finally saying goodbye in 1986.

The insistence of the US for their then beloved .30 cal put paid to the intermediate round. The FN history in the then standard 7.62 Nato round goes back as far as 1953, while the US only adopted the 5.56mm in 1963. I believe the 7.62 / 308 cal was one of the USA's shortest lived standard issued infantry calibre.
But when the FN was released in 7.76 Nato it spent well over 40 years as a main armament to many countries and armies through out the world.

Grizzly 45 · 19-06-2020 10:46pm

As Cookie said,and as stated US Army politics in the form of Col Studler and the head of the US ordnance board.:rolleyes:

The US did itself out of a war winner because of that incompetent Col.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Hornadys new 6mm ARC

Comments