Federal 6.8 SPC contract for Saudi Arabia


#1

Federal Cartridge recently began production of 6.8 SPC. Attached is a photo of a recent contract done for Saudi Arabia. Has anyone seen any other 6.8 loadings by Federal?

[/b]http://i1323.photobucket.com/albums/u598/dlfred41/Saudi68contractFederal2012_zps16578257.jpg


#2

Docdave your link is somehow not working.

Here what seems to work better:


#3

I assume XM68SAGD has some meaning along the lines of 6.8mm Saudi Arabia GD (meaning unknown). What is the primer marking? Looks like “AR”.


#4

What is SA using these cartridges with and in which service?

Are they the first to adopt this caliber officially?


#5

Jordan adopted the 6.8mm first, I believe. In both countries it is in service with the Royal Guard (or equivalent) rather than regular army units.


#6

Thanks Tony, do they use AR-15 variants?

Is that XM68 a sole SA designation?


#7

I don’t know about the ammo designations, but this is a link concerning Jordan (LWRC PSD):

thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010 … in-jordan/

I’m not certain about Saudia Arabia, but I think they may be using LWRC as well.


#8

I will check with my contact at ATK regarding the AR lrttering that shows on the primer. I also will see if SAGD represents
Saudi Arabia Guard or whether the GD has another meaning.


#9

The last time I was in Saudi Arabia was back in the mid-1980s, and most of the guys I saw with guns at that time had Ruger Mini-14s in some sort of military configuration. I don’t know if they were full auto or not.


#10

Surely it can’t be for regular military use, being ‘bonded soft point’? This type of stuff is permissible for police type operations against non-military targets … at least in any country that adheres to the Hague Convention. Given the increase in civil tumult in many Middle Eastern countries, who knows?

Which provokes the thought; do the strictures of the Hague Convention pass along the supply chain? Would a US ammunition manufacturer who knowingly supplied non-FMJ ammunition to a military user in another country be in any way accountable under international law for its subsequent use against non-permissible targets?

Peter


#11

I suspect that the royal guards are more like paramilitary units - a sort of glorified, heavy-hitting bodyguard.


#12

One of the more understandable condensations of the Hague Convention protocols regarding expanding bullets is here: thegunzone.com/hague.html

There are a lot of holes in the coverage of who can/cannot use expanding bullets. The U.S. was not a signatory but (sort of) honors the principles. I doubt if Saudi Arabia is a signatory. Also, it applies only to a war between nations who are signatories.

I know that U.S. Special Forces have used 6.8mm versions of the M4 in combat on an evaluation basis. What ammunition was used?


#13

Federal primers marked AR are designated “AR Small Rifle Match” and have a harder cup specifically designed for AR type rifles.


#14

Fede, why do AR rifles need harder cups?


#15

That would depend upon the rifle. In the early days of the M16, slam fires were experienced. The primers could not be made “Hard” enough to be both slam fire-proof and reliable, so the firing pin was lightened, along with using a little less sensitive primer. Maybe slam fires might be a problem with whatever weapon the Saudis are using. CCI makes less sensitive primers for reloading in both large rifle and small rifle sizes for use in certain rifles that may be prone to slam fires. I’ve never heard of the “AR” marking. Maybe that is something the Saudis require.

See cci-ammunition.com/products/ … aspx?id=30


#16

Alex, according to Federal these “have harder primer cups than the popular Federal 205M match primers. The harder cup is designed to perform better in semi-automatic actions that use free-floating firing pins”.

Dennis, this primer was listed as a new product in Federal’s 2011 catalog so I think is safe to say it has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia. However, the 6.8 mm SPC seems to be their first factory load using it.


#17

Fede and Dennis, thanks a lot!


#18

“The harder cup is designed to perform better in semi-automatic actions that use free-floating firing pins”

I have to assume that “performs better” means it prevents slam fires. It may be a new commercial product for Federal, but for quite some time, Federal has been loading military ammunition at Anoka for Lake City. I don’t know if they have been manufacturing milspec primers or getting them from Lake City. And of course, CCI is also a part of the Sporting Division of Alliant Techsystems, as is Federal. Federal and CCI work very closely together, so I would guess that Federal’s hard cup primer is essentially identical to those that have been made by CCI for a long time.


#19

[quote=“DennisK”]One of the more understandable condensations of the Hague Convention protocols regarding expanding bullets is here: thegunzone.com/hague.html

There are a lot of holes in the coverage of who can/cannot use expanding bullets. The U.S. was not a signatory but (sort of) honors the principles. I doubt if Saudi Arabia is a signatory. Also, it applies only to a war between nations who are signatories.
[/quote]

The most important bit in that link is the extract from Fackler’s book. Essentially, the Hague provisions have become subsumed within the Geneva Conventions, so expanding bullets are generally considered to be banned in warfare, regardless of who signed what.


#20

However, it depends on the interpretation of the purpose of the bullet. Note that the new SOST Mk 318 Mod 0 (5.56) and Mk 319 Mod 0 (7.62) rounds use what in another context would clearly be an expanding hunting-type bullet. However those are interpreted to not be designed for expansion or calculated to cause unnecessary suffering, so as to not violate the Hague conventions. There’s always a way to avoid classifying a bullet as being designed to inflict unnecessary suffering or whatever. But that’s for the military lawyers to argue about and parse words, not me.