Ruger Mini-14 in 6.8 Rem SPC
- Thread starter SKScanuck
- Start date
New M14
I have a new Ruger Mini 14 223 S/S and with a 3x9 scope .Great little gun for Varmits and general plinking.
At one hundred yds 2 1/2 inch groups. using surplus ammo. better groups with hunting Ammo .And lots of 223 ammo to be bought.
Light dependable, light recoil and good for a follow up shot. and handy on a ATV or truck.or just as a general carry gun.
Sure its not a target rifle,but was never ment to be.
Another point. Can carry this rifle year round in 223 cal in NB.If I could would carry a AR 15 or bigger cal
But can not in NB.
The only thing that I met that did not like it was the coyotes.
Ruger gets ten points from me.They have improved them a lot.
IMATT
I have a new Ruger Mini 14 223 S/S and with a 3x9 scope .Great little gun for Varmits and general plinking.
At one hundred yds 2 1/2 inch groups. using surplus ammo. better groups with hunting Ammo .And lots of 223 ammo to be bought.
Light dependable, light recoil and good for a follow up shot. and handy on a ATV or truck.or just as a general carry gun.
Sure its not a target rifle,but was never ment to be.
Another point. Can carry this rifle year round in 223 cal in NB.If I could would carry a AR 15 or bigger cal
But can not in NB.The only thing that I met that did not like it was the coyotes.
Ruger gets ten points from me.They have improved them a lot.
IMATT
Turkeyslayer 1300
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Russell, Ontario
This gun I think better fills the "Ranch Rifle" role than the .223 0r 7.62 as it is more effective over longer ranges and is more effective for deer.On the down side I think it will fade into the sunset pretty soon.
). 
manbearpig
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Somewhere in the Third World
a mini-14 in 6.8 Rem SPC is absolutely #$@%ing retarded. the whole concept of the mini-14/mini-30 (and the SKS as well) carbines is a handy, reliable, durable and cheap-to-shoot truck gun/ranch rifle/beater/plinker. hence the cheap and widely available .223 and 7.62x39mm.
why the hell would someone buy them in a caliber thats going to cost 5-6x as much to shoot (if you can even manage to buy ammo for it in Canada) as the original .223 and 7.62x39 and only offer advantages at ranges that the mini-14 is not suited for anyway?
the 6.8 Rem SPC is just a massively overpriced 7.62x39mm with marginally better ballistics. why reinvent the wheel?
the main downside to the 7.62x39mm is poor accuracy at long ranges - but who on earth buys a mini-14 or SKS to shoot at targets over 300 yards? and who would pick the new 6.8 Rem SPC for that anyway when most of us have .30 cal bolt guns that are a hell of a lot more accurate than the mini-14 ever will be (in any caliber) in our gun cabinets?
the only thing thats going to sell the 6.8 Rem SPC mini-14s is the 'zomg new military AR round contender' rumors surrounding it, same as the 6.5 Grendel. if it wasnt for that people wouldnt give a #$@% about the cartridge. but people need to realise that these cartridges are being designed to close the gap between the 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO in ARs but one of the main criteria in the design is to be more controllable in automatic fire. this is a completely moot point for Canadians -- so if you want an indisputably superior round in semi-auto just go buy an M14S for half the price of a mini-14.
why the hell would someone buy them in a caliber thats going to cost 5-6x as much to shoot (if you can even manage to buy ammo for it in Canada) as the original .223 and 7.62x39 and only offer advantages at ranges that the mini-14 is not suited for anyway?
the 6.8 Rem SPC is just a massively overpriced 7.62x39mm with marginally better ballistics. why reinvent the wheel?
the main downside to the 7.62x39mm is poor accuracy at long ranges - but who on earth buys a mini-14 or SKS to shoot at targets over 300 yards? and who would pick the new 6.8 Rem SPC for that anyway when most of us have .30 cal bolt guns that are a hell of a lot more accurate than the mini-14 ever will be (in any caliber) in our gun cabinets?
the only thing thats going to sell the 6.8 Rem SPC mini-14s is the 'zomg new military AR round contender' rumors surrounding it, same as the 6.5 Grendel. if it wasnt for that people wouldnt give a #$@% about the cartridge. but people need to realise that these cartridges are being designed to close the gap between the 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO in ARs but one of the main criteria in the design is to be more controllable in automatic fire. this is a completely moot point for Canadians -- so if you want an indisputably superior round in semi-auto just go buy an M14S for half the price of a mini-14.
So I guess I can assume you don't like the 6.8 or the Ruger
Where do I get on of these M14-Ss with a clip??
manbearpig
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Somewhere in the Third World
so marginally better performance than the .223 in terms of TEMPORARY CAVITY.
look at the .223 fragmentation. much of the terminal performance of the .223 is based on its massive fragmentation, and you must take that into account as well. you cant just look at both rounds and say 'this one has a 5.7" TC and the other has a 4.3" TC, so this one is better'. im not suprised the military has abandoned the round.
then take a look at the 7.62 NATO. if you want indisputably better ballistics go to the 7.62/.308 - you are not constrained by the need to keep it controllable under automatic fire, so pick up an M14S. there is no need for an 'intermediate' round, regardless of its success (or lack thereof).
manbearpig
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Somewhere in the Third World
So I guess I can assume you don't like the 6.8 or the Ruger
Where do I get on of these M14-Ss with a clip??
wrong, i like the Mini-14s for what they are - i owned an early '80s pre-'ranch rifle' mini, long before they made any accuracy improvements, and i was very happy with it... perhaps because i never tried to turn it into a benchrest rifle and enjoyed it for what it was - a handy, reliable little carbine or truck gun.
i dont like 'flavor of the month' rounds however. there is a small portion of gun enthusiasts that are avid reloaders and like to experiment with new calibers because its a 'new toy'. nothing wrong with that, and the 6.8 would make a great new project for them. these same enthusiasts think nothing of simply rechanbering a weapon, however, so i dont see why the 6.8 needs to be pushed on the general public with such marketing force.
i cant abide the whole 'best thing since sliced bread' marketing bull#### about every single new caliber. other than a way for ammunition manufacturers to make a killing i see nothing about the 6.8 that justifies choosing it over an established caliber.
Last edited:
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
If the 6.8 round becomes a Nato standard round you will see plenty of cheap ammo, just like the military rounds before it.
6.8 by the way equates to .277, and the designers were looking at a 115 gr bullet with a MV that will likely measure 2550 from a typical AR length barrel. If Barnes brought out a 115 gr TSX it would be a good performer, but some might find 130's a little slow. I think a 130 Nosler Ballistic Tip @ 2450 would work just fine as a low recoil deer rifle, and the moderate velocity would ensure good bullet performance.
While the cost of ammo is not irrelevant, it must be put into context. For a handloader 6.8 brass should be similar in cost to cartridges of similar capacity. Primers cost what primers cost, and the powder charges for stubby cartridges are less than for full sized cartridges. A jacketed .270 bullets can be as cheap as Winchester or Remington bulk bullets, or as expensive as bullets from GS Custom or Rhino.
If you are looking for a semi-auto carbine, by definition you are looking at a 2 MOA rifle. I wonder how many of us who bemoan this level of accuracy can achieve it under field conditions? The cheapest way to improve accuracy is to chamber the round in a bolt gun. The 6.8 might prove interesting, in a M-7 Remington or a reduced size Ruger 77, as a duel purpose varmint to deer round. I think it would be slightly better on close to medium range deer than a .243 loaded with similar bullets, while the .243 would be the better varmint round.
6.8 by the way equates to .277, and the designers were looking at a 115 gr bullet with a MV that will likely measure 2550 from a typical AR length barrel. If Barnes brought out a 115 gr TSX it would be a good performer, but some might find 130's a little slow. I think a 130 Nosler Ballistic Tip @ 2450 would work just fine as a low recoil deer rifle, and the moderate velocity would ensure good bullet performance.
While the cost of ammo is not irrelevant, it must be put into context. For a handloader 6.8 brass should be similar in cost to cartridges of similar capacity. Primers cost what primers cost, and the powder charges for stubby cartridges are less than for full sized cartridges. A jacketed .270 bullets can be as cheap as Winchester or Remington bulk bullets, or as expensive as bullets from GS Custom or Rhino.
If you are looking for a semi-auto carbine, by definition you are looking at a 2 MOA rifle. I wonder how many of us who bemoan this level of accuracy can achieve it under field conditions? The cheapest way to improve accuracy is to chamber the round in a bolt gun. The 6.8 might prove interesting, in a M-7 Remington or a reduced size Ruger 77, as a duel purpose varmint to deer round. I think it would be slightly better on close to medium range deer than a .243 loaded with similar bullets, while the .243 would be the better varmint round.
