I almost...don't agree. 6.8 SPC had a big market problem with having the SPC and the SPC II situation happen. I think releasing a 6ARC-But-We-Fixed-It set of ammo would have the same impact.
LWRC's Six-8 platform fixes the mag problems (which are less overblown now than they were). I think fixing the bolt head diameter issues would be a real second push in this space. If you are rocking a whole factory gun, and changing stuff dramatically, a better bolt geometry paired with the higher end metallurgy wouldn't suck.
6ARC and blasted bolt heads is a really common encounter.
(I'm here in this thread because I shoot 6arc a lot. Up to like 10 of em now in my shooting circle.).
The whole thing with 6.8 SPC II was interesting to watch, because you had all these companies who have engineers, technicians, ballisticians, and powder formulations doing their normal business producing safe and reliable ammunition and firearms for the most part.
How much of the limited bad reamer run was the fault of Remington vs the reamer-maker? Any good reamer-maker would contact the customer and say, “Hey man, I just wanted to check your dims because there’s a really steep transition angle from the neck to the freebore.” It makes no sense that any such reamer was ever allowed to be made.
The issue with Kotonics learning about chrome-lining was limited to one company nobody had ever heard of before.
Then the craziness with SSA making 3 different pressure loads collided with all of that, resulting in some of the most impressive kabooms we have ever seen in the industry. At the time, SSA made 3 different tiers of pressure for ammo:
Standard
Tactical
Combat
There were photos of a guy who was shooting SSA higher pressure loads in an under-sized bore Kotonics barrel. Part of the bolt carrier was freaking embedded in his Eotech, and the bottom of the bolt carrier cut through the petrified wood bench like a glowing hot knife through butter.
So undersized bore due to excessive chrome-lining or failure to account for chrome thickness after boring and rifling, combined with over-pressured ammo = massive kaboom. They scrubbed the photos too, which is sad because they served as a great example of what happens when all these tolerances stacked against the customer.
It really had nothing to do with the firearms and ammo made by the big companies in the industry.
The guys on 6.8 Forums formed a chorus condemning big Remington for their failures, while small shops and PTG went forward with the magic 6.8 SPC II chamber and rifling specs. This worked out for the small shops in the short term, and badly for the major industry players in the long run who were left with millions in sunk costs and the perception of inferior designs.
Any major company who didn’t follow these new non-SAAMI specs was trashed openly by the small chorus with a loud voice.
ArmaLite, Bushmaster, Remington, DPMS, Rock River Arms, and a bunch of AR-15 companies had already invested untold fortunes in tooling up for 6.8 SPC with SAAMI specs, then were repeatedly ridiculed by the small online army about what retards they were for doing so.
The companies checked all their notes, reached out to ballistics labs, and saw no real difference from those tests. Many still agreed to change to the SPC II reamer to placate the customer base. A common claim at the time was that the SPC II chamber and rifling gave you 200-400fps faster velocities than SAAMI spec.
Even when
Western Powders Ballistics Lab responded to requests about testing 6.8 SPC SAAMI vs 6.8 SPC II, they responded that they had already done such tests and saw 20-30fps / 1000-1500psi difference.
It was an interesting chapter in the gun industry to witness, especially hearing many things from behind the scenes from people involved with it. Definitely a lesson in lack of total design ownership, the risks associated with small shops trying to weasel market share based on information campaigns, bad vendor behavior for critical tooling on supply side, charlatans with prior agendas in cartridge design, “experts” looking to make a name for themselves, conflicting customer requests, departures from industry standard practices, insane performance claims stepping into 270 Winchester territory for velocity, tolerance stacking resulting in catastrophic failures, and an unusual commitment to scrubbing of evidence.
Anyone who questioned the claims was met with personal attacks on a regular basis. One of the biggest proponents of 6.8 even had to call BS on it, as you can read in that thread.
