Barrett’s Piston-Driven REC7 in 6.8 SPC

Barrett has nailed it with their new piston-operated 6.8 SPC…

Barrett has nailed it with their new piston-operated 6.8 SPC REC7 (which stands for Reliably Enhanced Carbine, engineered in ‘07). The REC7 uses a forged 7075 aluminum upper and lower receiver. It has an ultra-reliable single-stage combat trigger. The upper supports a free-floated, chrome-lined 16-inch barrel with an M4-style feed ramp machined into the receiver and the barrel extension.

barrettmil.jpgTo accommodate SOCOM gear including optics, lasers, lights and bipods, the REC7 is equipped with the A.R.M.S. SIR (Selective Integrated Rail) accessory mounting system. A fully adjustable #40 L backup rear sight is standard on each model. This new REC7 also has Barrett’s gas block that is threaded for a Barrett suppressor and also provides a solid base for the folding front sight.

For more on this and other Barrett articles, check out Barrett Firearms 2008 on sale February 12!

Load Comments
  • Dan

    I think the existing inventory could be re barreled and the bolt changed for minimal expense and with Sure Fire’s new 60 and 100 round mags could easily adapt to the 6.8 cartridge. I think the Barrett and LWRC gas systems are the real improvements with the edge apparently to the Barrett.
    I like the 7-08 and the 7.62X51 but we are talking a new larger system and cartridge with the weight gain. I was not in a line unit, but weight becomes a big problem the tougher the terrain and temperatures get.
    I think the military should adopt them now, while we are in battle, and heck with other countries for the time being.

  • Dan

    I was going to get one of the LWRCI 6.8 Carbines until I read about the Barrett REC7. Simple seems better in the bolt and the gas system is only 3 parts, w/o disturbing the rail. Also comes threaded for a silencer which is a plus. My SIG 556 is like the AK system but I have had some failures with the rifle. I love the Rock River but it’s still the old platform in .556.
    I think the European countries opted for the 7MM on the ’08/’06 cases. We stayed with nothing under .30 cal regardless of ballistic tests by the Brits. They have done well.
    I read an article praising the new .556 round. They claimed it hit harder than a 7.62!!! Maybe with 72 grains & tungsten core. Hard to believe. Barnes may have the military contract. Civilian product dropped.

  • Samuel Dighan

    The 5.56 is to rifles and carbines what the 9mm is to handguns. Most LE have concluded 40 S&W to be superior to 9mm. The 7.62×51 (.308) or x39 obviously beats 5.56 (.223). The 6.68 Remington SPC is a great compromise like 40 S&W.

  • CavScout62

    This cartridge/rifle was developed by the 5th Special Forces Group and Ronnie Barret at the request of the Comand of S.F. As usual, as soon as it was developed, tested and proved superior in every way to the AR platform and .556 round currently in use, it was summarily rejected out of hand by the Brass. Military Weapons Procurement needs to be forced into accepting this system just like McNamara did with the AR/M-16 back in the ’60’s. The SecDef Says to the Joint Cheifs: YOU WILL FIELD THIS WEAPON AND AMMO AND YOU WILL DO IT NOW! That is how we got the current weapon system forced on us and thats what needs to happen now.

  • Alex

    Just don’t cheat on her, Randy. I don’t think that would be a good idea.

  • matt

    the 5.56 round is fine… the problem is when the u.s. moved to the A2 they changes the bore of the barrel to 1 in 7 instead of 1 in 12 losing much velocity. M16 A1 has the perfect barrel.

  • Randy

    I’d marry this carbine over a woman any day of the week.

  • R.Williams

    How does the REC7 stack up against the Ruger
    SR-556? While the REC7 munitions change is
    acknowledged, the cost differential is
    considerable. For personal use, is there
    that great a difference?

  • MG.

    Interrestingly enough, this was the same small arms cartridge arguement that we had with the newly formed NATO alliance after WWII! The Brits maintained that we should go to a smaller more compact round like the .264 Pederson and the USA and Germany pushed for a more traditional full power battle cartridge, namely the 7.62x51mm. As it turns out the Brits were right all along, because the .264 Pederson is strikingly similar to the 6.8spc. It is controlable like the 5.56x45mm and has more power closer to the 7.62x51mm. The Chinese are already ahead of us with their 5.7 cartridge! It is the same WWII bucket head mentallity that is preventing the up-grade……

  • Travis

    While I’m a fan of the M16/M4 platform and 5.56, I do understand both have their limitations and I whole-heartedly support the move to 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel. In addition to increased lethality, another advantage of systems like the Barrett REC7 and LWRC SBR is that existing lower receivers and magazines can be used with them, cutting down the costs when compared to adopting a completely new rifle.

    Reply to Nelson Cook and Michael:
    Personally, I say who gives a s**t what NATO is using. It’s not like we live in the United States of NATO, right? Our no. 1 priority should be to give our guys the weapons and ammunition they need, not to appease a relic from the Cold War.

    Same goes for all these so-called rules of war. We’re fighting enemies that don’t give a crap about rules or humanity, so why should we worry about being humane to them? I say do like we did when they tried to ban mines and cluster munitions, say ‘f**k it;, and start handing out hollow points to our guys. But that’s just my opinion.

  • danny ray

    i think this rifle is the best one out. i watched a show recently on the history channel about this gun and a few others.

  • Pingback: Barrett REC7 - Anybody had one? - INGunOwners()

  • Scott Mitchell

    I have read an article not to long ago about this rifle and I believe it should be integrated into the armed forces. It wont be that cheap but even a few at a time is better than coming up with excuses as to why it wont work.

  • mike moreland

    a change of cal.(6.68)has been long overdue, about 45 years overdue.the time i spent around the marines and the army everyone talks about a change. maybe the political power will listen.

  • Alex

    I agree, not only does the 6.68 have more stopping power but it is just as accurate, if not more than, the 5.56 round. Another thing is it will be easy to train our troops on the field to use this weapon because it has the familiar layout of a M4/M16 type weapon

  • Nelson Cook

    I have supported the idea of the 6.8mm or 6.5mm Grendel, since I heard of this new ammo. And when people argue that the NATO armies cannot afford to get new rifles for all of their soldiers, they forget that a 5.56mm barrel can (usually), be rebored to shoot 6.8mm!!!

  • Michael

    I agree, it’s time to move away from the 5.56 and the M16/M4 operating system. Unfortunately, with the extensive use of these systems in the U.S. and allied countries it would be a big change and one hard to accomplish.

  • Steve Brown

    This is exactly what are military needs to adopt. This weapon could be integrated flawlessly into the every service, plus it has the features that everybody wants. A gas piston operating system and a bigger round with knock down power and accuracy. This weapon is far superior to the varmint .223