AR-15 Review: Wilson Combat 6.8

The other Wilson 6.8 that arrived had a Trijicon scope on it, to take advantage of the long-range capabilities of the 6.8 cartridge. Too bad my home range is only good out to 100 yards.

The other Wilson 6.8 that arrived had a Trijicon scope on it, to take advantage of the long-range capabilities of the 6.8 cartridge. Too bad my home range is only good out to 100 yards.

The barrel is a stainless medium weight match grade barrel with a 1:11 twist and an SPC II chamber. That means you have the pressure-lowering benefits of the new throat and leade and the accuracy of a match barrel but the relatively slow twist to increase bullet instability on impact. The gas system is mid-length, for a lower port pressure and less abrupt gas flow, while still maintaining a length-enough gas dwell time for reliable function. You have a choice of 16- or 18-inch barrels, and the railed forearm is appropriately proportioned for each. The match barrel is guaranteed to deliver MOA accuracy with match-grade ammo.

The new Wilson Combat Quadrail is interesting. It is fully-railed on top, but on the side the rails are carved off just forward of the midpoint. That gives you a slimmer, more oval shape, and one that doesn’t have rails to gnaw at your hands. But the forward sections of rail provide plenty of space to mount lights, lasers, and other tactical goodies.

The Wilson handguard, with the rear rails shaved off. It proves a less “bite-y” gripping surface and also gives you an oval to index the rifle vertically.

The Wilson handguard, with the rear rails shaved off. It proves a less “bite-y” gripping surface and also gives you an oval to index the rifle vertically.

The trigger is the Wilson single stage TTU for a clean and crisp letoff, but one that feels like any other AR trigger, just a lot nicer. If you opt for a complete rifle, you get Magpul stock and pistol grip. If , however, you already have an AR (let us hope it is a Wilson, so the upper won’t feel lonely) then you can simply acquire a Wilson 6.8 upper to put on your existing lower.

Now, if you want to shave half a pound off your full-up weight, then the Wilson Tactical Hunter Lightweight 6.8 SPC will do that. With a 16-inch barrel of a slightly slimmer profile, the Tactical Hunter becomes a very light, handy, mid-power hunting rifle, and one with guaranteed MOA accuracy.

But wait, we’re not done yet. Options! You get options.

You can replace the single-stage TTU with the two-stage TTU and get a target/competition trigger pull in your rifle. The single stage is 3.5 pounds, the double is 3, but the difference is greater than that. on a single-stage trigger, you press on the trigger, and when you reach the break point, 3.5 pounds, the trigger moves and the hammer falls. On a two-stage trigger, you take up a pound and a half of slack, and then another pound and a half releases the hammer. If you decide not to shoot, letting go of the trigger relaxes that pound and a half of take-up you started.

You can also opt for a Wilson oversized bolt stop, if you’re using it in competition. You have your choice of a fixed or folding front sight, and two different folding rear sights, as well as an A2 detachable carry handle rear.
Scope rings: you get a choice of one-inch or 30mm, and they fit over the folding Wilson rear sights.

Or you can simply build your Wilson 6.8 as an M4 clone.

2 thoughts on “AR-15 Review: Wilson Combat 6.8

  1. Matno

    Wow. I know this comment is old, but seriously? “…one of the most unreliable military rifles of all time.”
    You’re promulgating a myth that has no evidence whatsoever. I have not heard of any mass complaints regarding reliability of the AR-15 since early Vietnam. Please show us some evidence to back up your claim that it is “horribly unreliable.” I heard those groundless stories when I was a kid and believed them for years, until I started talking to people who had actually used them in combat. Still haven’t heard of any major malfunctions during combat.
    Also, you’re right that the .223 has decent lethality, and I used one for deer hunting for years growing up, but I would hardly call a 6.8 a “big bore.” Also, there is no way to argue that the 6.8 doesn’t have more energy than a .223. It also has a greater effective range” It sounds like you’ve made a lot of big claims based on anecdotal evidence (“shooters I have interviewed” – really?) I’ve heard the accuracy is at least as good as the .223, but wouldn’t base my opinion on what a few individuals think they know.
    I’m not going to say that “newer is always better” but for most big game hunters (who usually don’t have carefully placed shots on perfectly still broadside standing game), a larger caliber is a better option as it will somewhat compensate for minor inadequacies in the accuracy department.

  2. bhp0

    Same old advertisement hype: Newer is better, run out and get two right away.

    Competitive shooters I have interviewed tell me that the 6.8 and 6.5 clones are actually less accurate than the standard .223.

    How about lethality? Since the days of the king of charlatans “Elmer Keith”, who beat the big bore drums for years, the public has been brain washed into believing such hog wash. Real hunters have known for the last century that bullet diameter is quite meaningless. Shot placement and penetration are what counts the most.

    Real hunters of yesteryear like Jack O’Connor, Agnes Herbert, W.D.M.Bell and a host of others proved beyond doubt that small bore rifles with long heavy bullets penetrated far better than slower moving less penetrating big bore calibers. Roy Weatherby once stopped a charging African Buffalo with one shot from a .240 Weatherby. W.D.M.Bell who used big bore and small bore guns reported only his 6.5mm was able to consistently shoot right through an Elephants skull. He should now as he shot over 1,000 elephants, far more than Keith’s one or two.

    The .223 when used with the long heavy bullets has plenty of penetration and lethality and it does it with less recoil and the ability to carry more ammo. The only the thing the U.S. military should do is scrap the AR-15 system as it is one of the most unreliable military rifles of all time, it stands shoulder to shoulder with the horribly unreliable WWI French Chauchat. I could also mention the Rashid and others like it that used the same unreliable gas impingment system the AR-15 uses.

COMMENT