Remington Introduces new 30 Remington AR Cartridge
Remington Arms just introduced a new cartridge, the 30 Remington AR (aka “30 RAR”), to be used in AR-platform rifles to be built by its DPMS subsidiary. (Remington, DPMS, and Bushmaster are all owned by Cerberus Capital Management, a private holding company.) The cartridge carries the “short, fat” design to the extreme. It is based on a shortened version of the .450 Bushmaster, which itself was a cut-down version of the .284 Winchester. Like the .284 Win, the 30 Remington AR has a rebated rim, so it will fit a .308 Win-sized boltface (0.473″). While it resembles a 30BR, the new case is much fatter, offering an impressive 44 grains of powder capacity. The portly diameter of the 30 RAR case dictates that the magazine will be a single-stack, and will hold only four (4) rounds.
Cram a Big Cartridge in an AR15 Mag and Make Sure It’s a Thirty
What was Remington thinking? Well, the stated project goal was to transform the standard AR15 into a “legitimate big game hunting platform.” Presumably, a 30-caliber cartridge was chosen for marketing purposes as that is the most common deer hunting caliber. The “science” of the design was basically to stuff the biggest cartridge possible in a standard AR15-sized magazine. According to Outdoor Life columnist John Snow: “DPMS President Randy Luth and Remington’s John Fink (brand manager for the rifle division) … both said that the goal was to look at the AR lower and see how much cartridge they could fit in there.”
30 Remington AR (30 RAR) Specifications
| Case Capacity | Rim Diam. |
Parent Cases | Shoulder | Factory Load | Mag Type |
| 44.0gr H20 | 0.473″ .308 bolt face |
.450 Bushmaster .284 Winchester |
25° | 125gr SP or 125 B-Tip 2800 fps 0.267 BC |
4-Round Single Stack |
Factory 30 Remington AR Rifles and Uppers
Initially, the 30 Remington AR round will be chambered in complete, DPMS-built Remington R15 rifles, which start at $1,199.00 MSRP. For production rifles, the expected rate of twist is 1:10″, but that has not been finalized. What about separate uppers? Given the hefty price of the complete rifle, existing AR owners may prefer to purchase a 30-caliber upper by itself. While no release date was given, Remington stated that 30 RAR uppers will definitely be offered for sale in the future.
Impressive Velocities but Much Less Energy than a .308 Win Shooting 160s
With 44 grains of capacity, the 30 RAR can generate some impressive velocities with bullets in the 120-125gr weight range. Remington claims its 125gr factory ammo will deliver 2800 fps muzzle velocities running at about 55,000 psi pressure levels. Three factory loads will be offered: Rem-branded 125gr Core-Lokt PSP and 125gr AccuTip BT, and a UMC-branded 123gr FMJ. At $18.99 per 20-round box, the UMC ammo is intended for inexpensive practice purposes. The $35.99/box AccuTip and $26.49/box Core-Lokt PSP are much costlier. The relatively light-weight bullets used in the Remington ammo have poor Ballistic Coefficients compared to the longer, heavier bullets typically used in a .308 Win or 7mm-08. The 125gr Core-Lokt has a 0.267 BC, while the 125gr AccuTip is somewhat better at 0.335. Nonetheless, Remington’s ballistics tables show that the AccuTip should match the trajectory of a 165gr AccuTip (fired from a .308 Win), fairly well out to 400 yards. However, there is a BIG difference in energy as you can see from the table below. At 300 yards, the 125gr AccuTip delivers 1153 ft/lbs of energy compared to 1661 ft/lbs for a 165gr AccuTip launched at 2700 fps from a .308 Win. (Note: these numbers were calculated with 24″ barrels. Remington’s 30 RAR-chambered R15 rifle has a 22″ barrel, so its performance should be somewhat less impressive.)
COMMENTARY by EDITOR
Our first reaction to the news of Remington’s new cartridge was: “Why?” The obvious (and cynical) answer is that Remington wanted to sell AR-style rifles to deer hunters who need an excuse to purchase a military-style semi-automatic. There may be a market for that… who knows. But there is already a proven, compact 30-caliber cartridge that fits a standard-sized AR15 lower — the 7.62×39. The 7.62×39 won’t push a 125-grainer as fast as the bigger 30 RAR, but the 7.62×39 will still kill a whitetail plenty dead. Perhaps Remington’s engineers should simply have applied themselves to producing a proper (i.e. 100% functional) 7.62×39 magazine. This Editor has tried most of the AR15 7.62×39 magazines on the market (from 3-rd to 30-rd capacity). None of those I tested worked particularly well. Some simple redesign work (call the MagPul folks) would solve that.
Better AR Ballistics with 6.5 and 6mm Cartridges
If the goal was to produce an AR15 with better ballistics and downrange energy than the .223 Rem cartridge delivers, we’re not sure a 30-caliber was the way to go. The 6.5 Grendel performs exceptionally well in AR rifles, delivering great accuracy with 123gr Lapua Scenar or Sierra bullets. Likewise, the AR15 can be a superb High Power and Cross-the-Course platform shooting the 6mmAR cartridge developed by Robert Whitley. The 6mmAR is the 6.5 Grendel necked down to 6mm. Shooting 105 Berger VLDs it comes very, very close to the ballistics of the larger 6mmBR cartridge, and it gives up nothing in accuracy. By contrast, with its low-BC bullets, the 30 Remington AR is not going to be competitive at longer ranges with either the 6.5 Grendel or the 6mmAR. And with factory mags limited to four (4) rounds, you couldn’t use this gun effectively in High Power matches, even if it proves highly accurate on the short course.
Important Innovation or Another Orphan Cartridge?
Only time will tell whether the 30 Remington AR cartridge will catch on with sport shooters and hunters. We’re not sure the round has an important purpose that cannot be filled by existing, proven cartridges. The complete 30 RAR rifles are expensive ($1200+) compared to a typical bolt-action deer rifle, so we wonder how many deer hunters will actually jump on Remington’s bandwagon. Speaking frankly, so long as the cartridge is available only with Remington-made brass, we predict little interest among competitive shooters. Now if Lapua were to produce a 65,000-psi rated version of this cartridge, THAT might interest hunter benchrest shooters and BR for score shooters. A Lapua 30 RAR would be like a 30BR on steroids. But alas, don’t expect Lapua, or Norma, or even Winchester, to produce 30 RAR brass any time soon.
So, does the 30 Remington AR (aka “30 RAR”) have a future? It will certainly stimulate sales of AR-platform rifles to some extent. That’s important because AR sales have been lagging recently. Perhaps that is enough justification for a new round. All things considered however, we think Remington would have been better off building its “AR for big game” around the 6.5 Grendel case, perhaps in a 7mm version. Still, we have to credit Remington’s designers. Using a modern “short, fat” design, with a rebated rim, they’ve achieved impressive velocities in a very compact cartridge. The chopped-down .284 may prove to be a very accurate design.
Similar Posts:
- 17 Fireball Ammo Wins Award
- FREE Remington 2013 Catalogs and Rem 700 Owner’s Manual
- Low-Cost 6.5 Grendel Ammo
- Remington Polls Readers for New Ammo Choices
- SHOT Show Report: Remington 30AR Rifles and Ammo
Share the post "Remington Introduces new 30 Remington AR Cartridge"
With AR platforms in .308, .243, .260, 6.8, etc. I really don’t see the need. However, I’m an old fashion guy. What a .30-30 won’t kill, a .45-70 will. That new fangled .30-06 is supposed to kill might near anything that moves. What more could you need?
I was under the impression that Remington had a 6.8 SPC already. These ones use a 110gr to 115gr bullet, which is practically 123gr to 125gr, in a .277 calibre with the same muzzle energy. I Remington really wanted to impress us they might use a slightly longer action which the .308 uses and use the cartridges which made it famous, the gamemaster 14/141/760 (also the semiauto that used them as well) .35 Remington, and maybe brought back the .32 .30 & .25 at a higher pressure as well. At least the first is still used by the Marlin 336 and beats the heck out of any .30-30 out there (the .30-30 is also better). A nice bolt action with 6 to 8 rds in a box magazine would be just the ticket I think! Also it’s pretty well known that Remington is famous for one other thing – under stabilizing small calibre bullets. They did it twice – once with the 6mm Remington (12:1, 90gr) which is why the .243 beat them a market and then again with the .260 Remington (9:1, 140gr) which is why we now have a 6.5mm Creedmoor. This might not be the case here with a 125gr bullet but they’re stuck with a 125gr bullet (look up Greenhill formula). Well, as for me, I like my good ole 30-06 sporter and 8mm M98 large ring. One shot, get’r done.
Ahhh there muzzel velocity numbers on there web sight are slower than a 7.62×39. is this like the SPC big promises then lower real numbers in the end???
125 grain coreloc listed at 2154 fps right on there own web site
://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/centerfire/30_remington_ar.asp
is this a typo or what. I get around 2300 out of a 7.62 round. this is not better its worse . something is wrong here.
7.62x40mm (300 Apache) does not work as well as you think. We tried it and whilst the 125gr (2400fps) worked OK we just felt that a little more case capacity would be better.
The problem with the 7.62×39 is the massive variation in projectile diameter between the Euro and USA makers. .003″. The 30RAR will for sure be .308″. But it is not meant to duplicate the 7.62×39, loaded to the max the 30RAR will beat the x39 by a little, but it will not be able to beat to x51 due to lower case capacity even if loaded to higher pressures. But it will fit into the std AR platform. The main advantage will be that it will be wildcatted to 7mm, .270, 6.5 and 6mm. I intend to build one of the wildcats or the 30RAR itself in a short action bolt rifle that will take AR mags. Not what Remington intended. I have had this idea for a while and could not figure what was the right way to go. This maybe.
Why is 7mm being ignored when it may be the perfect bore size for these AR 15 platform cartriges?
Why has no one ever noticed that they already have a superb military/hunting rifle cartridge but no one has had sense enough to adopt it,or them,or one of them.What do i mean? The 243 Winchester or 6mm Remington would be ideal.Just carry twenty instead of thirty rounds. Most of the 223/5.56 rounds just get wasted anyway,on cover or by using auto fire.Jim
PS Remington,Ruger,Hornady…all these guys come out with new guns and calibers then the refuse to back them up.Go ahead,gamble,in a few years it’ll be like the 8mm Remington Magnum or the 480 Ruger.Both of the forenamed cartridges are excellent but Remington doesn’t chamber the 8MM Remington Mag anymore and some dealers are trying to get rid of their 480 Super Redhawks.There is the 338 Win Mag,now we have the 338 Federal,338RCM and 338RUM.Only the 338 Win Mag will be backed for years to come.Oh yea,if anyone out there has an 8mm Remington mag,DoubletapAmmo online sells ammo for it at great prices.You’ll be able to afford to shoot it.Buy the time honored calibers because the manufacturers won’t back these products over time.Jim
Remington left the gun business years ago. They are “money builders”now.. And this is all this AR-30 is.Corporations like Remington,GM stopped listing to their customers years ago. Want proof? try to get someone on the phone at either company!
Two Words SIX.EIGHT 6.8 Remington SPC
Its a modified 30 BR which is not bad cartridge. If DPMS have worked out a .308 bolt face bolt that can handle the bolt thrust, this would be an interesting combo when the street price on uppers comes out. Of course, as of this posting,, DPMS is not yet listing this on their website so who knows if or when it will actually arrive.
I have an AR in 6.5 BR that has the rim rebated to use with a 7.62×39 bolt and custom made magazines that handle 7 rounds. I used it heavily with 128 cauteruccio’s and it did well, just very limited in powders that would make use of the case capacity and keeping within the restrictions of the AR platform. I did the 6.5 BR in addition to my 6.5 PPC AR I built back in 1998. The gain of the BR over the PPC was not worth the hassle of custom magazines and the other issues.
I think for many people, one of the most overlooked options for the AR is th 7 TCU… use 5.55 bolts, magazines with the only change being the barrel. Load data, dies and the real world short barrel performance is there thanks to the years of use in handgun silhouette competition. Best of all, just run .223 remington brass through a full length die, load and go. Lighter bullets like the 100 Sierra HP and 110 Speer TNT fit great in a magazine length loading and if you trim the neck, you can load up to a 120 Nosler BT or 130 grain Sierra match king magazine length.
About time somebody stuck a bigger round in the ar 15. We need a round with beter downrange ballistics in Iraq and Afghanistan and it doesn’t appear that the US armed forces will go back to an M1/M14 type weapon as too much money has been spent on the M 16. While I appreciate all the comments about the round as a deer hunting round, I really believe Remington et al is jockeying for a goverment contract and an eventual replacement fo the diminuitive .223. While the 223 is OK it ain’t what we need in open ground combat. It was Ok for close in combat like the jungles of The Nam but it lacks the oomph for long range work like is neede in Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.
Having said that I don’t know if the AR 30 is the answer. I might would have tried something in 6mm with a 105 gr boat tailed bullet for our main infantry weapon and including the SAW. Maybe something in 6.5 or even 7mm might work better in the upgraded m-16 than a 30 caliber as a trade off for long range stopping power and lower recoil and weight saving ammo. I have wonderd for years why the boys at Abrdeen hadn’t blown a .223 case out to 6mm and see what they could come up with. I am amazed that the jump was made to 30 caliber without trying some of the slenderer rounds with better ballistic coeficients first.
Still hope somebody will upgrade the M16 to a larger caliber bullet whether it be a 30 caliber or not.
We probably have enough deer rounds on the market now. I think we need a better anti personel round for the CAR 15 series.
Don’t mean to sound too bellicose, but the .223 varmint round has been soldiering on too long in my humble opinion.
God Bless our troops !
How about something with the ballistics of a .300 Savage-far better than 30AR,and the military needs something like that as well.
sounds like a good round to me the only problem is that the round is going to be really $$ and out of a automatic u will burn them up.
Concept of a hunting rifle in the military platform is very forlward thinking,politically anyway ,but is no ones dream caliber.There has been much wildcatting of the platform with no clear winner. Light 30 caliber bullets are a rehash of unsucessful current cartridges. In Maine no experienced deer hunter likes light 30 cal bullets, ie. 150 to 180 gr are most common and popular. As already stated unpopular cartridges means unavailable, popular means 75 to more than100 years of availability (30 -30 as an example).
The 30 BR is an awesome cartridge and this is just a modified 30 BR… On the sister site to this blog (6mmbr.com), there is an excellent write up on the 30 BR. It has excellent accuracy, modest recoil and with the right bullets can be a very effective hunting round.
I am like some of the other guys here. I thought the 6.8SPC was a great idea. Just wished it had been a 7mm.If they could get the bullet weight up to 125-140 grain range in a coreloc type, or ballistic tip bullet, instead of that little 115gr. 7mm’s always seem to have a great ballistic coefficient. Kind of a 7mm08 light!
The 30 Grendel exists known as the 30 walker. A friend of mine has it with 17 twist barrel shooting 112 bib flat base bullets at 2950 fps. He uses it as benchrest score gun.
The more I kick the tires on the 30AR, the more intrigue I have. I would do my own reamer and tune it to shoot the flat base match bullets from Berger and bib.
Just get a .308
What advantage does this have over a .243?
I would really like to see this in a 7mm (7 AR). It would be like a shorter version of the 7mm-08. Which is an awesome cartridge!
I dunno – I don’t see it doing a lot that can’t be done with something else. Do we need yet another .30 cartridge that doesn’t do anything better? We have all the oldies like the .300 Savage and new ones like the .30 TC. We have big .300 magnums, .30s for medium or long actions, .30s for lever actions, .30s from the Soviet bloc, Britain, Japan, Switzerland, and even (ugh) France.
I just don’t see it doing anything new. I already reload a couple dozen calibers and really don’t see this doing anything for me that something else doesn’t do at least as well.
like they said below make it in 6.8 SPC it will kill a deer and have more rounds in the mag, they havent learmed any thing from 7mm and 300 SAUM cartridges failures, you can ad wsms to that also my opinion,
if anything load the 30 ar with 150gr bullets
at like 2450 fps a 30-30 preformance thats semi auto would sell even beter but I guees 2800 fps poor BC and SD sound beter when some one hits a deer in the shoulder and the light accutip fails to penetrate I guees he has more semi auto shots he needs to fire to kill the deer
Innovation always has detours along with breakthroughs. My Saiga 308 (which cost $350 brand new) works great with either an 8 rd. or 25 rd. magazine. I’ve never understood why people don’t like kalashnikovs. They’re inexpensive and reliable. Of course if money is no object…
You guys already had a winner in the.260. You should develop around the 7mm or 6.5 rounds to get better down range performance! Keep at it you’ll get there.
As some one who has used the AR in combat-yes the AR needs more oomph. We can already have this in the 6.5 Grendel or the 6.8 SPC. For me the 6.5 Grendel would win out because of better ballistics at the longer ranges, however the 6.8 probably should be the main round for the Infantry as 500 meters is where the 6.5 leaves the 6.8 and most Infantry combat won’t go over that. So I doubt that Remington is going to push this as the next Military round. The military has invested heavily in the M16/M4 Series of rifles and the 5.56. The excellent MOD 262 77 grain has extended the effectiveness of the 5.56 the troops just can’t get the military to buy the stuff in sufficient quantities to do any good. This round is perfect for the type of enemy we face in Iraq and Afghanistan and if they ever start using body armor we still have the 62 grain green tip M855.SOCOM has dibs on this cartridge.
The 6.8 SPC started its life with SF trying to get more bang for the buck in combat and the 6.5 Grendel started as ah hunting round when Bill Alexander saw the potential for the round in war. The Military has resisted both.
As some one who posted above the .243 is not an IDEAL cartridge for combat, it is however good for Coyotes and Deer. The 6.5 Grendel if memory serves caries 25 or 28 in the mag and the 6.8 SPC carries 28 or 30.
As discovered long ago the best Assault Rifle Cartridge is somewhere in the 6 mm to 7 mm range. The Military is holding out for something truly revolutionary before buying the next rifle system so don’t look for any thing in this realm soon and with what was elected to the White House we may not see anything in the next 6 to 8 years if then.
The Military has stuck with the 7.62/.308 and 5.56/.223 because they are known qualities and the pencil pushers in the Pentagon are resistant to change fighting the last war.
So it would seem to me that Remington is doing nothing more that trying to grab their share of the AR market with the R15 and R25 built by Bushmaster. How this will go over when other cartridges are out there to include the 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC,.25 WSSM, 300 WSSM,.450 Bushmaster, .458 SOCOM, .50 Beowulf,.308, .243, .204 Ruger and the .300 RSUM (which was just discontinued). So buyer beware unless you plan on handloading.
That new .260 does look promising. Might be one to check out if the Grendel fails.
The 6.5 Grendel actually started its life in the 6.5 PPC for competition use first in 1984 for the US Shooting Team and later in 1998 for the AR15. Hunting was more of a “oh, yea,,it would make a nice deer round” after thought. The 6.5 PPC in the AR15 was created with a simple theory – create a ballistic twin of the 7.62 NATO. When you take a bullet like the 108 Lapua Scenar (478 BC) driven at 2650 fps in a 20 inch barrel, you have that. The branded 6.5 Grendel is nothing more than an improved version of the PPC and that is no recent innovation as improved versions of the PPC have been around for over 20 years.
The 30 AR I dont see Remington thinking about as anything but a hunting round and for Remington that is a large market. Given Remington’s mass as a manufacturer,, a cartridge manufactured by them has more staying power than any cartridge released by any small company. In fact, as an ongoing concern, Remington has far more obligation to continue to support products they have released than a small company that can (and often do) close their doors leaving customers with nothing.
As far as the next military round, the military will eventually move forward with replacement of the M16, but not while US forces are engaged in two major areas of conflict. Until then, the military has enough to do to keep supplying the active forces in the field. When the military does move forward, Remington has been building a very strong position to be a US owned and based player in that competition.
Ok…look…what is with all this so-called ‘New and Improved’ horse pucky? I mean, how long did the 45-70 serve the combat needs before being replaced? Why was it replaced? The 30-40 Krag? They were replaced for a reason. Although effective man-stoppers, firepower issues prevailed. John Moses Browning and John Garand answered everybodies questions and eliminated all the inherent problems associated being able to bring enough lead-chunkers to the fight. The several .30 cal MG’s, the Ma Deuce, the BAR, the M1…moving on to even the M14…sided with the 1911-A1 and the Slam-Fire King, the venerable Winchester Model of 1897 in trench gun costume, are without peer on anybodies battlefield. Hell, think about it. Even the hammer cocked ’97 was so feared by the Germans that they appealed to the powers that be to outlaw the thing from the trenches. The Garand would seriously rock any ones world. Money and investment aside, how about bringing back the Garand, BAR, the 1919, Mod ’97, and the 1911. They would look fine in synthetic ‘Hold’ems’. If capacity was an issue, I believe the Italians answered that one with the BM-59. I think a Garand modified to inhale BAR mags would be the ultimate Hodgie-Popper. But, you scream, they need a short barrel for the CQB problem…Fine, I say…ummmm…what happened to the M1 Garand Tanker version? The thing is, why have a Mattel Popgun that would serve well as a Whiffle Bat, when you can hold a big chunk of American hardwood and iron that will sling a ass-singeing chunk of lead at some disagreeable character with extreme authority…then if it comes to knuckle and skull style, let fly with that butt stroke and watch the teeth and hair fly. Range issues? .223 vs ’06? Hmmm….I wonder.
Short M1 Garand with more capacity? Sounds like the Springfield M1A Squad/Scout Rifle (a.k.a., M14). The .308 isn’t exactly a .30-06, but it’s close enough for me. Better than that prairie dog gun we’re using now.
I was hoping someonme would ‘catch on’ to that. I was using the Garand in metaphorical terms, since it was the forerunner to the 14. IMHO, it would be very hard to beat an M-14/1991-A1 .45acp/Rem. 870 Tactical fitted scattergun, outfitted squad. The ‘Old School’ MGs would stay the same/ M1917 1919. et al, would be reinstated. All this new fangled, modular, popcan synthetic crap out here on the battlefield today looks good in sifi flicks, But in the real world of actually having to defend our liberty, and ones self, against a determined enemy, stopping power is where it’s at. We managed to defeat Japan and Germany with the now outdated weaponry, so…In light of new technology, about the only place it plays a serious role in light of useful tactical advantages, is the the sniper role, explosive ordnance capabilities, etc…
I’m more interested in the Dedicated Technolocy and Olympic 300 OSSM cartridge. From what I have seen of their ballistics testing of that round, has more power than this round or even a full size 30-06. HSM is making the 300 OSSM rounds as I type this.
I HAVE THE DPMS 308 IT WAYS MAYBE 10 POUNDS, IVE HAD THE 6.8 DPMS IT SHOOTS 110 GR WAYS THE SAME AS THE 223 IS FASTER LESS DROP AND IS ABOUT 6 POUNDS WITH THE POWER OF THE 270 I WISH I WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED TO THE 308 WHEN I GET THE MONEY I’M GOING BACK TO THE 6.8 THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 233 IS A DIFFERENT BOLT AND BARREL EVERYTHING ELSE IS 223 EVEN THE CLIP IT HOLDS 18 NOT 20
Being that money is tight in today’s job market and the average shooter is not a huge spender on custom $$$$$ ammo, Remington might better look at the consumer.
How good is a $50,000 SUV if it’s gas mileage is 5 mile per gallon at 20 gallons giving you 100 miles of travel at $3 a gallon x 20 at $60 a tank.
The next competitors $50,000 SUV travels 3 times the distance at less than 2/3 the cost.
Lets do the math here!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is not very cost effective for the average consumer that buys H&R Rifles at Wally World to put food on his table for his family during these hard times in the U.S.
The cartridge has some potential provided that the “big boy’s” are smart enough to put it in the right rifle. I carried a 44 Magnum Ruger Deerstalker carbine for years deer hunting in the Adirondacks. The tubular magazine was a problem and prone to accidental discharges. But it was a great lightweight carbine (5 1/2 lbs loaded)for hunting where you walk more than sit and fast shots are often needed to put meat on the table. The 44 would put a deer down cleanly and not leave the meat bloodshot like a 30-06. The other problem was the added weight of carrying a box of the 44 ammunition. And malfunctions were fairly common especially in freezing weather. Ruger’s redesign of the 44 in the “Ranch Rifle” added 2 pounds and an ugly and ungainly rifle with the covered action on the topside. I don’t think they sold too many. The only good thing was the box magazine. I always thought that if you could put a box magazine on the Deerstalker in a cartridge the size of the Remington 30AR and kept the weight at about 5 pounds and solved the magazine feeding problems of the 7.62X39 cartridge, you would have a great little deer carbine. Another problem with the Deerstalker in 44 was that it was limited to just over 100 yards in effective range and the accuracy of the 44 cartridge for pinpoint placement.
The major rifle manufacturers just have never “gotten it.” In the late 70’s, Remington took their 742 carbine and took a 5 pound sleek hunting rifle and “improved” (cheapened it with inferior steel barrels) it with a bull barrel making it an ungainly 7 1/2 pound club. Is anyone listening out there? In New York State with more counties now allowing the use of rifles, Ruger and Remington or maybe someone a bit smarter now have a chance and incentive to get it right. When shotguns were mandated for deer hunting, Ithaca made a sleek Model 37 with rifled barrel which had the feel and accuracy of a rifle instead of the clunky club feel of most other shotguns used for deer hunting. They “got it right!” Nobody in their right minds want to hunt with an overpriced overweight ungainly assault rifle.
I have considered the responses made here after I posted mine. It appears as if the original intent of the discussion has been lost. I believe we were talking about new military cartridges and the terminal effect both ballistically, as well as the fundamental effects on enemy personnel, of the rounds themselves. Evidently, the 5.56mm NATO round has been found lacking in its inherent ability to stop opposing forces. We have seen the advent of cartridges with larger case capacity coupled with heavier projectile mass and weight factors. While a cartidge designed to kill varmints will in fact kill a man sized subject, the round was not designed to engage human subjects. The obvious intent of shooting an enemy soldier is to cause the soldier to become either an incapacitated casualty at the least end of the spectrum, extending to the most desirable result which ends in the actual death of the subject enemy in question. I prior battlefield situations, the wounding of enemy personnel caused the removal of atleast one other enemy soldier, and usually two, to care for the wounded individual. In contemporary warfare, this has become an outmoded as well as outdated concept. The enemy has displayed the tendency to engage in suicidal warfare. The last time the United States Armed Forces faced such an enemy was during WWII, in the guise of Kamkazi. The only way to stop such a determined enemy is to, well, stop them on the spot. You cannot create a situation by wounding in hopes of taking a determined in dividual out of action. You MUST kill him. Period. A man who will strap on 50 pounds of C4 and run Full Tilt Boogie among you and your crew, then blow you, as well as himself, up, is no time to be piddling around with underpowered, ballistically inferior battle weapons. A .223 compared to a .308, moving along at roughly comparable velocities, is unquestionably easy to infer a given answer. Logic rules the day. The 162 grain boat tail projectile will undoubtedly end the forward movement of enemy personnel. The 55 grain, or even the 67 or 70 plus grain, .223 projectiles, leave alot to be desired in the end equation. The thirty cal will win hands down every time. But, alas, I digress. Nobody wants to lug around a standard issue M-14 any more. Why, I don’t know. But that is the way it is today. So, it seems as if we are forced to deal with platforms on hand. The venerable M16 Modular Weapons System based on the 5.56 cartridge. So, what to do? IMHO, the best idea to come around the block lately is the 6.5 Grendel. The ballistics, the projectile weight, et al, are all inherently superior to the 5.56mm NATO. Same modular platform. Simply a matter of popping in new uppers. The 223 uppers are still available. Or better yet, how about putting all those surplus .223 uppers on the civillian market. This would undoubtedly help defray the cost of supplying the new bolts, barrels and mags for the .26 Grendel. Having built up a 6.5 Grendel on a RRA lower, and running a couple thousand rounds through it to date, I have seen the superior qualities of this round as it compares to my .223 uppers. Now, how about some truly logical arguments? Leave out the traditional hype normally associated with personal animosity toward the 6.5mm. Keep in mind that we are looking for a compatible replacement round that will utilize the universal aspect of the M16 program for roughly the same money. I still would drag out my M14, Mod 870, and 1911 A1, if Uncle Sugar called me into battlefield service today.
Freedom of choice, basically a 7.62×39+P kind of thing. We don’t really need it, but interesting what folks can come up with. Still doesn’t do what the 7.62 Nato does but comes close.
When I first read this I thought cool a .30 caliber for a short action with some punch. I did not realize they were sticking to such light bullets, if they had similar to .308 performance with even 150gr rounds it may be worth considering, otherwise it’s an expensive plinker and short range medium game rifle that will not last long.
I THINK THE 6.8 SPC DOES IT ALL. IT WILL KILL DEER OUT TO 200 YDS AND PEOPLE OUT WAY BEYOND THAT. IT FITS INTO A STANDARD AR PLATFORM BY JUST CHANGING BARREL,BOLT, AND MAGS,AND YOU CAN STILL USE 223 MAGS IF YOU DONT LOAD THEM TO FULL CAPACITY. IF YOU NEED TO KILL DEER AT 300 TO 400 + YARDS,YOU SHOULD USE A DIFFERENT RIFLE,FOR EXAMPLE A BOLT ACTION 7MM 08 – 300 – 338 WIN MAG. WHY TAKE THE CHANCE OF LOOSING THAT ANIMAL BECAUSE THE BULLET DIDNT HAVE ENOUGH ENERGY LEFT IN IT TO KILL CLEANLY ON THE SPOT AT LONG RANGE. LIGHT AUTOLOADERS HAVE THEIR PLACE IN THICK WOODS,CLOSE QUARTERS,AND OUT TO A REASONABLE RANGE OF 200-250 YRDS ON DEER SIZED GAME. THE 6.8 SPC DOES THIS JOB VERY WELL WHEN LOADED WITH ANY GOOD QUALITY MID SIZED GAME HUNTING BULLET IN THE 110 GR – 115 GR WT RANGE. I PARTICULARLY LIKE THE BARNES 110 GR TTSX BULLET LOADED WITH 27.0 GRAINS OF REL 10X,VERY GOOD ACCURACY WITH DEEP PENETRATION AND GOOD EXPANSION. GREAT KILLING POWER FOR THE RANGES I MENTIONED ABOVE USING IT WITH THE AR 15. 6.8 SPC 18″ BARREL. FOR LONG RANGE,USE A LONG RANGE RIFLE, NOT A LIGHT AUTOLOADER.
FOR THE MILITARY, THE GOVT WOULD BE SMART TO CONVERT THE ARSENAL OF M16,M4,ETC TO THE 6.8 SPC BECAUSE IT COULD DO SO VERY CHEAPLY AS COMPARED TO BUYING AN ENTIRELY NEW WEAPON SYSTEM,AND HAVING TO RETRAIN, RETOOL, AND RETHINK ITSELF. THE 6.8 SPC IS PERFECT AS A GENERAL COMBAT ROUND, WEIGHT WISE, CAPACITY WISE, AND PERFORMANCE WISE 0VER THE PRESENTLY USED VARMENT ROUND. IT WOULD DEMONSTRATE MORE THAN ENOUGH EFFECTIVENESS IF USED IN THE TWO WARS WE ARE CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN TODAY, AND IN FUTURE CONFLICTS. THATS MY VOTE.
Neck this baby down to .264 and we have the round that will replace the 6.5 Grendel and 6mm AR Turbo 40 as the dominant long range AR cartridges. I have to agree that the round as it stands is basically a 7.62X39 on roids. I have zero interest in that. But it would be a good startin point, even if we’re not talking about replacing the current standard combat round it would still be a great anti-personnel sniper round that could utilize the existing AR-15/M16 platform. Just upgrade the trigger and stock. Much cheaper than going with the SR-25 or anything similar.
The 30 Remington AR seems to miss the mark for me.
If I want 30/30 Winchester performance out of an AR15, I’ll use the 7.62×44 (also called the 300AR). I have one upper with a 16″ barrel that shoots 150gr round nose Speers just under 2,300 fps at NO LOSS OF MAGAZINE CAPACITY and cheap brass.
If I want real deer / elk hunting horse power out of an AR15, then I’ll use the Olympic Arms 25WSSM upper or their 300 OSSM which pushes out a 150 gr. bullet over 3,000 fps.
What Remington is offering here holds it’s own against the 300AR but at the cost of magazine capacity, and does not get anywhere close to what the WSSM based cartridges can offer.
The 30 Remington AR seems to be an answer in search of a problem…
It is funny to see how in the same post some people are so knowledgeable and some do not know anything about this world. The internet is funny in that sense but I guess you can learn, hopefully from some reputable sources.
Everyone is hoping to come with the next “big thing”. the next big cartridge that is going to be the AR revolution. Nothing out there today will pass the military trials, not even the 6.8 due to the bad bullet BC and selection in 6.8. SPR I would say yes, MBR no. Awesome caliber,I have one but for CBQ and Special purpose. Most things that civilians would need to do with a semiautomatic rifle, that is for sure.
While the .30 RAR didn’t seem attractive at first glance it has some advantages. The case length is 1.530 that will allow for many 150 and 160 high BC bullets. So it will not only outperform most AR calibers in the first 200yds only but beyond and up to 600yrds. Where I think this case will really outperform everything else is if this was necked down to 6.5. The case is very strong and wider than the .308. At least on the table it looks that it would shoot faster/stronger than Grendel, 6mmBRX and all others. Not the WSSM but those cases are all too long for any good low BC bullets (maxed out to at .620″ from the neck to the tip of the bullet to fit in an AR) so what is the point of having the record in speed if no good bullet can be run in the WSSM saga? just like the OLY .30 WSSM. totally impractical and inaccurate due to the limited bullet selection.
I will be looking to neck down one of these as the measures and ballistics math never lie.
Anyhow this was very bad marketing from REmington coming with something that looks out the box like a Russian hunting round on crack. Find a decent mag and some 160gr bullets and then tell me.
Do it and then have an objective opinion.
Remington marketing guys must be kids with big shiny shoes that do not know one thing about what is going on out there.
ARS are fun. AKs too. Shoot a lot.
E.
It is good to see alternatives to the .223 and fit into the lower receiver’s mag well. 1. It is intended to be used with a small receiver feel vs a large AR10 feel. I have both AR Carbines- yote setups and .308 Win platforms. The .308 platforms feel big and are big, even in a carbine model. I would not like to carry it around while in Colorado terrain vs a lower more balanced AR15 type of smaller platform that is more comfortable. So I understand that it is designed to fit through an existing small signature AR15 platform than a large AR10 type. I can understand that.
2. The AR15 already has the 6.5mm Grendel that has great BC’s and variations to it in the 6mm area. I ran the numbers on my Ballistic Software and out past 500 the numbers and BC kicked in, double the windage value adjustments, etc. Most Hunters I know of take over 99% of their shots under 200yds for deer / hogs. The factors shown show an 11lb recoil for the 125gr loads. That is 1/3 less recoil than the .308 win. It is in the Grendel zone minus roughly X2 the windage values. Does it have the BC of the Grendel? No, but it is a Hunters Round for shooting 500yds and under with less recoil and an easier handling AR15 signature than an AR10 larger platform that is just plain bulky ( and I am a large framed guy who spends time in the woods).
3. The experts with the custom long distance rigs and glass usually like 7mm WSM or 300 WSM’s. vs .308 win that just does not compare past 500yds to these other “choices” / BC / Energy / bolt actions / long barrels. It is what you load out for, terrain, what you are hunting / doing.
4. Grendel does it with less windage / elevation and better BC. Can the 30 Rem AR do it under 500? Yes, and at normal shooting ranges of 200yd and under- the basic general hunting range vs specialized flat prairie shooting.
5. It is nice to see cammo AR platforms and Remington’s R15 / R25 line. I was hoping they would include an adjustable carbine stocks to fit clothing and such.
Remington has only done what I have thought about for years. I hated the 5.56 x 45 so much that I opted to carry an M60 for 3 years in the 82nd Airborne. Somehow the receivers stamped with the Mattel Toy company logo unsettled me. I hate the M16A1, but like the sights of the A2 version.The .223 is a ballistic ally near perfect cartridge but it is not even a mediocre substitute for a full battle round.I preferred my old military cartridges. The results of the RAR 30 is a super 7.62 x 39. Which is a very good cartridge for what it was designed for. It actually penetrates better than the 7.62 x 51 but I think the test rounds were steel core against lead core. The East German lod of a 125 grain bullet at 2400 FPS Rocks. I load ed some at 2450 and scared a police officer with the accuracy in a type 56 SKS. They should go with a 130/5 grain bullet at 2750 and that should improve the ballistic coefficient substantially. However comparing a 125 grain bullet to a 165 grain bullet does not hold much weight. The heavier bullet has a higher ballistic coefficient and will hold velocity and UMPF better at longer ranges. A 140 might do the trick but is about as heavy as you could go and still hold the 2600 – 2700 velocity. Just a guess. Powder will determine this. Since these weights are not standard .308 bullet weights they may have opted to avoid their use. Some 7.62 x 51 rounds are loaded now with a 142 grain bullet in an M80 ball configuration ie. 2750 fps. They might try lengthening the case length by 0.050 and increasing the shoulder angle by five degrees to get more powder capacity. Even picking up one grain of capacity would push the envelope. Might have to go to a 35 degree shoulder or a 40 (from the perpendicular plane). The cartridge length is about as long as they can go in the M16 magazine with the longer bullets unless the use a stubbier ogive (nose).Then a 42mm length will be max.The 6.5 calibers actually perform well with the 120 – 140 weight. The bullet would intrude into the powder though so a 130 would be max. The higher capacity magazines are an issue for all concerned except the liberals who want us to have single shots and even so nothing at all.We do not live to please them!! I handled a .223 version last week end was sweet (did not fire it was at a Remington exhibit). Its biggest turn off for me is NO IRON SIGHTS!!! Makers today have become entirely too chensey on standard equipment. If I am paying a premium price for a gun then I fully expect it to be usable out of the box with out any more investment. Otherwise I can just as well hunt with my surplus military rifles as issued very effectively indeed. Known distance ranges create good marksmen.Scopes can get destroyed so a rifle with no sights is a useless piece of metal. The rifle needs both so if our scope gets damaged we can continue on with the irons. I usually use the scope for spotting and the irons for shooting. Strange but it works very well. Some shots iron sights are not fine enough for and the scope allows me to pull it off.We are still drooling over the 6.5 Grendel but this old machinist paratrooper has been unemployed for 2 years and has lost his retirement. So $12.00 guns are out of his reach, let alone the $1200.00 set for retail. The entire investment would run as much as $3500.00 by the time we get accessories ie. scope, iron sight, ammo, reloading equipment for Rockchucker and Dillon 650 and supplies. $27.00 a box ammo is absolutely too expensive. Wish I could play with this for a long while. It does have merit. There is no good engineering only good re engineering. No doubt some improvements will follow. Our venerable 30 06 is the improved version of the 1903 round. The case taper and shoulder angles were changed and that improved the cartridge. The 1906 version proved so good that John Browning simply scaled up the 30 06 for the 50BMG round we still use today. It looks good maybe somebody with a lot more money than me can buy it and prove it out.
If memory serves me correctly it seems that in the past the military has only adopted cartridges that were specifically designed for military use. The civilian application came about only after the military acceptance. Personally I think that a 30 AR necked down to 6.5 makes too much sense for the military to adopt it. I also think that a 7mm / 08 cartridge would have been a better choice than the original 308. For that matter the 260 would have been an even better choice (I know that it did not exist at the time) with a 1 in 8 twist. Whenever we deal with the military it seems that common sense just flies out the window. I for one would gladly buy a pair of 6.5 X 30 AR guns if they had the larger capacity magazines available. This is assuming of course that Remington has solved the problems of putting a 308 size bolt face in an AR 15 platform and have followed up with the correct twist to stabilize the longer bullets. TC Hunter
This round was very disappointing to me. I thought Remington had acknowledged the Wildcater and brought out the 308 by 1.5. The 308 by 1.5 is made from a 308 case and is equivalent if not superior to the 7.62 x 39. The 7.62 x 39 Russian had well proven itself through time. Loaded with the correct bullets, such as a spinster style with a High BC can be considered an extremely affective round in the 308 by 1.5. The 30 REM. is made from a case and has the rim has to be machined so it limits the re-loaders to readily accessible brass. The 308 by 1.5 is merely a 308 WIN. re sized. Ballistics are comparable to the 30 REM. Every Re Loader knows the fuller the case, the more accurate the round. I also think that the 308 by 1.5 would work excellent in the Remington rifle. Both as a military and hunting round according to loads. I think Remington should acknowledge the Wildcater and accept the 308 by 1.5 as their new round. As they did in 1959 with the famous 22-250. Any question or comments, feel free to contact me at musicmancecil1950@yahoo.com. Thank you for your time.
I will buy one.
If you have ever hunted large varmints like hogs,javelina or even coyotes you like I, would leave your 223 at home. Now I can leave my “deer” rifle at home when i tend my lease.
cost issue? my other choice was to buy a 308 like the FNL but it is over three time the cost of the ar15.
The .300 Blackout is on it’s way and in my opinion will outsell the .30 AR. The blackout has basically the same ballistics as the AK round and feeds from a standard magazine. All you need is a .300 blackout barrel. The only mistake I see they’re making with the blackout is they only offer it in a 1-8 twist. That’s too fast for a 125 grain .30 cal bullet. They think everyone is going to shoot 220 grain subsonics and they don’t see the value in it’s deer hunting capabilities. They would do well to offer it in a 1-10 twist also. Possibly 1-12.
anybody here ever hear of the .270/.280 british cartridges developed in england just after wwii.
the brits actually adopted it, and fn made some fal’s on a similar cartridge for venezuela, but all the cartridge projects got squished by the .308 and the fn fal.
look it up at wikipedia.
pretty interesting cartridge. and, it meets most of the point & objections raised here.
john jay