Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Sturgeon

The Designer of The 6.8 SPC Rants About The 7mm Caliber

Recommended Posts

This ain't a part of the 10%, folks. Cris Murray, former AMU gunsmith and one of the designers of the 6.8 SPC, rants about the 7mm caliber and his 7x46mm UIAC. 

One of the most amusing sections:
 

 

With their 7mm Mausers, the Spaniards shot the crap out of us in Cuba. If it hadn’t been for a few 5th Army Gatling guns and artillery that just happened to be brought along, things may not have gone as well for the Rough Riders as portrayed in the movies.  The British met the same 7mm Mausers in Africa in the hands of the Boers and were equally shocked by it as we Americans were.      There are those people who love to propose their pet calibers or cartridges they designed for match shooting or hunting: Most of these people have probably never been in a gun fight.  And all those people who suggest one of those accurate Scandinavian calibers apparently hasn’t read Louis LaGarde’s book, Gunshot Injuries (ISBN 0-935856-12-9) and found out why the Japanese quickly dropped the 6.5mm caliber after fighting the Russians in 1905 even though they basically win that war.  Actually any country that had a 6.5mm or smaller caliber service rifle quickly ditched it for something of larger caliber immediately after any fight they got into.        People with their 6 mm and 6.5 mm parlor cartridges don’t want anyone to know that the Russian “Unified Cartridge” program in the 1970s tried these calibers to replace the M43 (7.62x39 mm) and M91 (7.62x54R) with one cartridge, this program produced no useable cartridge.  Knights Armament want us to adopt a 6x35mm and SSK is touting their 6x45UMC;  the 6x45mm wildcat (necked up .223 case) has been around for 50 years, it is a weak pathetic cartridge so how is the 6x35mm (.221 Fireball necked up) any better. 

 

This guy is a demagogue nearly on the level with Sparky. There are almost as many provably false statements as there are sentences.

I've talked before, in other arenas, about how flawed the design of the 6.8 SPC is. I'd wondered for a long time why someone would design a modern rifle round like that. I guess I know, now.

Now I really want to see Cris Murray start a fight with Anthony Williams for favoring the "inferior Scandinavian 6.5mm".



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's funny because if we go by veteran accounts - the guys who were there - they were more worried about the old Rolling-block Remingtons whose slow moving, high caliber rounds caused more grevious injuries. The 7mm Mausers were seen to over penetrate causing small through-and-through wounds.

The thing that impressed the Americans was the use of smokeless powder with all the Spaniard's modern weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I like the bit about how the Rough Riders woulda lost if it weren't for the artillery and Gatlings...

As if all modern battles aren't won by artillery and crew-served weapons.

And - I'm working from memory since my library is a shambles and is in packing boxes spread across three seperate geographic locations - I distinctly recall TR complaining about how outclassed American artillery was in Cuba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" There are those engineers and politicians who say it takes years to develop and field a military cartridge and weapon system. I call, “Bull Shit”, when we were bombing them into dust and the Russians were crushing them under foot, the Germans fielded an entirely new cartridge along with the first assault rifle, and in two years managed to produce nearly half million of these assault rifles.   There are those engineers and politicians who say it takes years to develop and field a military cartridge and weapon system. I call, “Bull Shit”, when we were bombing them into dust and the Russians were crushing them under foot, the Germans fielded an entirely new cartridge along with the first assault rifle, and in two years managed to produce nearly half million of these assault rifles."

 

....How did this glorious little tidbit not get quoted just for the laugh factor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the author advocates going out and shooting something with a brain attached. That rules out using the author as a ballistics test dummy. It also seems he's one of those "I was a soldier/marine therefore my opinion counts more" types.

By that logic, JM Browning, John Pedersen, John Garand and "Carbine" Williams had no business designing firearms since they were nothing more than geeks with slide rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's funny because if we go by veteran accounts - the guys who were there - they were more worried about the old Rolling-block Remingtons whose slow moving, high caliber rounds caused more grevious injuries. The 7mm Mausers were seen to over penetrate causing small through-and-through wounds.

The thing that impressed the Americans was the use of smokeless powder with all the Spaniard's modern weapons.

 

They were actually both using smokeless powder guns (the Krag and the Mauser), but the Spanish were about a generation ahead with their weapons, which could sustain a higher rate of fire, had a flatter trajectory, and were more resistant to the elements.

This led directly to the .30 Government caliber, which eventually became .30-06.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By all, I meant generally the artillery - which the Americans just happened to bring along - although I thought the "smokeless" Krag ammo was "smokier" than the Spanish. Again, working from the Mark 1 Memory Nugget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The American artillery was still using black powder. The US was lucky that they were facing a third-rate colonial power like the Spanish coupled with troopers who were grown children/had high morale.

And again, I can't remember if the smoke complaint was just about the arty or all weaponry. (My apologies) Teddy Roosevelt's rather self-important (but still useful) account of the campaign is particularly damning about most of the US military's equipment and tactics.

Being a "veteran" account there's also the grass is greener aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a small arms range advantage is going to matter, it would matter in defensive engagements.

 

There are a few stories from the Boer War where the Boers knew where the British would attack, and could arrange their defenses accordingly.  They even went so far as to place large, white rocks at 100 yard intervals so range estimation could be done faster and better.

 

Somehow this wasn't a dead giveaway to the British that it was a prepared position they were attacking frontally.  Too many years of fighting people armed with dried grass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is turning out to be a fun game of finding everything wrong with that post.

*Scanning...*

Yeah. I bet Japan "basically" won the Russo-Japanese War...

And the reason why Japan and later Italy switched away from 6.5mm. It wasn't for the reason why he stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be curious to know too if that ever develops. I always just assumed it fell along the lines of the 7.7mm being bigger, more "accurate", has better "stopping power" and allows ammo commonality with their light and medium machine guns. When you have a bolt action rifle you aren't delivering suppressing fire (SMLE mad-minute excepted) and you want your rifleman's shot to count (using military wisdom of the day).

I like the 6.5 Arisaka. Mine is pleasant to shoot and I know that postwar a lot of guys liked to Bubba it up into a deer rifle since it possesses those ballistic qualities which were enough to kill the critter but not ruin the meat. At least this is what I was told from the guy whom we bought ours from in the early 1990s, rescuing it before he had a chance to chop up the barrel and stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll note there's a strong correlation between being a hardcore military reformist (who, unfortunately sometimes design things or have some amount of influence) and being batshit insane and immune to basic facts, logic and reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's right about that, though. I mean, I don't think you necessarily have to have shot a gun to pick up on the blatantly obvious fact that small arms have stagnated terribly and innovation is only attempted by retards who couldn't design a lightweight Platonic solid to save their lives, but yeah, you should probably get some trigger time before you decide to tell everybody what they need to do. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×