The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Cast Bullets Possible New Military RoundGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Possible New Military Round | Login/Join |
| one of us |
Jssss guys... were not gonna have that silly caliber DE-bate seen on the idiot channels are we?? Some newbie is gonna walk away with a headfull of BS.. For the uninformed... the difference in those two calibers isn't enough to offset holding error shooten offhand at game. Both calibers in equal guns are capable of excellent accuracy.. the 08 is short action length... and if the 08 is packaged in a lite wt gun with good handloads recoil is much closer to the 06 than you'd think. Where the 06 just walks away from the little case is with heavy bullets. Having rattled that all off.... set the two calibers up in first rate BR guns sparing no expense. IF the 08 had an edge it'd be less than .1".. one tenth of an inch at 100 yds. | |||
|
| one of us |
Just curious on the .30-06 vs. .308 question: What effect do the different twist rates (usually 1:10" in '06, 1:12" in .308) have on this? Is the 1:10" twist fast enough to cause "overstabilization" in sub-200 grain bullets? This is a consideration for other .30s as well. .300 Weatherbys have been made in both 10" and 12" twist (mine's a 10"), and I've seen .30-06 rifles with 1:12". | |||
|
| One of Us |
aladin, Then how come you don't see 06's out numbering 308's at 1000 yd matches. How come the 222 Rem doesn't dominate the benchrest? Why? Because better rounds and equipment come along. It's that way in any sport from golf, to race cars, to guns. | |||
|
| One of Us |
In comparing accuracy between the .308 and .30-06, folks who used each quickly agreed on one thing: .308s were two to three times more accurate than the .30-06. In the early 1960s, it was also observed that competitors with lower classifications using .308s were getting higher scores than higher classified folks using .30-06s; at all ranges. By the middle to late 1960s, all the top highpower shooters and virtually all the rest had switched to the .308. The Highpower Committee had received so many complaints of ties not being able to be broke between shooters using the .308 and shooting all their shots in the tie-breaking V-ring, something had to be done to resolve this issue. In 1966, the NRA cut in half the target scoring ring dimensions. At the peak of the .30-06's use as a competition cartridge, the most accurate rifles using it would shoot groups at 200 yards of about 2 inches, at 300 of about 3 inches. The 600-yard groups were 6 to 7 inches and at 1000 yards about 16 inches. As the high-scoring ring in targets was 3 inches at 200 and 300 yards, 12 inches at 600 and 20 inches at 1000, the top scores fired would have 90+ percent of the shots inside this V-ring. Along came the 7.62mm NATO and its commercial version; the .308 Winchester. In the best rifles, 200 yard groups were about 3/4ths inch, at 300 about 1-1/2 inch. At 600 yards, groups were about 2-1/2 inch and at 1000 about 7 to 8 inches. It was not very long before the .30-06 round no longer won matches nor set any records; all it's records were broken by the .308 by a considerable margin. Some accuracy tests at 600 yards with the .308 produced test groups in the 1 to 2 inch range. These were 20 to 40 shot groups. No .30-06 has ever come close to shooting that well. At 1000 yards, where both the .30-06 and .308 were allowed in Palma matches, the .308 was the clear-cut most accurate of the two. If top shooters felt the .30-06 was a more accurate round, they would have used it - they didn't. In fact by the early 1970s, the scoring ring dimensions on the 800 - 1000 yard target were also cut in about half due to the accuracy of both the .308 Win. over the .30-06 and the .30-.338 over the .300 H&H when used in long range matches. Most top highpower shooters feel the main reason the .308 is much more accurate than the .30-06 is its shorter, fatter case promotes more uniform and gentle push on the bullet due to a higher loading density (less air space) and a more easily uniformly ignitable powder charge. Military arsenals who produced match and service ammo in both 7.62mm and 30 caliber have fired thousands of test rounds/groups with both. They also found out that with both ammo types, the smallest groups were with the 7.62 by about 50 to 60 percent. M1 rifles in 7.62 shot about twice as small of groups as .30 M1s at all ranges. When the M14 was first used, there were some .30-06 M1 rifles that would shoot more accurately. It took the service teams several years to perfect the methods of making M14s shoot well, but when they did, they shot as good as M1s in 7.62. There will always be folks who claim the .30-06 is a more accurate cartridge. All I have to say to them is to properly test .308 vs. .30-06 and find out. Theory is nice to think about; facts determine the truth. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Note Mr. Bobbitt did not submit this article to Sniper Country, but rather to the rec.guns newsgroup on February 7, 1997. He has authored many postings to rec.guns, and is highly qualified to comment on a variety of shooting-related topics. Among his many distinctions within the shooting community, he once fired a 20-shot, 3.325" group at 800 yards! | |||
|
| one of us |
For some time Colt was selling an AR-15 chambered in 7.62x39. Did those work ok? Anyone know why Colt dropped them? | |||
|
One of Us |
Star metal, I hear what you're saying and I understand. But NR has a valid question. It might be that the rifles and specificly the barrel twists are a better balance with the .308 cartrige. I shot a lot of trap in my day and found that if something was the in thing than the multitude went for it. Could this combined with NR's proposition be part of the .308 popularity? Hell 50 yrs.ago the brotherhood would be sighting all kind of ""EVIDENCE"" why a short necked case such as the .308 would not and could not be accurate. Cases were cheap ,however. A question of definition if you don't mind. When one cartridge is two, three or four times more accurate than an other does that mean the bullet will hit center target four times as often (40 vs 10)or are the groups four times smaller? Think about this. If we used machine rests. Each cartridge started by using 1 in 9 twists barrels.Each shot 10 rounds of 150gr. 165gr. 180gr. 200gr. and 220gr.bullets at 200 yds. 500 yds. and 1000 yds. Than each repeated the shooting with 1 in 10 twists and than 1 in 12 twists. What do you feel the result would be? I'm usually not this windy but this is realy interesting. ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon} ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon} roger | |||
|
| One of Us |
bartcshe I'm sure that as fierce as competition can get in any sport that different rifling twists were tried on all calibers. It may appear that I'm a big fan of the 308, but guess what? I'm not. I'm an 06 man. I do own everything in the 308 family all except for the 358 Win. I just finished building a 260 Remington. I love the 06 and alot of it has to do with it's wonderful history. I think the real story over the 308's edge is that shorter column of powder. Look at the PPC cartridges, not only are they short and stubby the construction of the casings differ some too. A long time ago Elmer Keith, among others, though about running a tube from the primer up through the powder column to light it from the front much like some artillery shells. The though was the powder would burn better and more useful. The short cartridges like the 308 seem to be very efficient. Joe | |||
|
| one of us |
ok.....yep we are off topic so why not. the br ar10 i have is a hart bbl 1/16 twist with a .334 neck. i turn for a total clearance of 1.8thou or .9 per side. basically a case full of n140 with a 24" bbl around 2900 fps with a bib 134gr (benchrest) bullet. i only have about 125 rds thru the gun, as i am still waiting on some equiptment for it. it has a custom jp trigger set at aprox 1 1/2 lbs, a custom "bob sled" single loading device in the mag well and no gas system( br rules say no auto loaders and no magazines). most groups are in the .2xx/.3xx with a couple larger and a small of .116 followed by a .157( three shot groups in load development). i'm not sure the 06 is less accurate, but in mil config it was less effecient. modern powders left lots of air space which does not happen in the equivelent 308. how accurate is/can the 308 winchester be ?? lots of hunter benchrest is shot with a min saammi spec chamber, a tight neck, an appropriate lead for the bullet being used and a twist to match. twists run from 15 to 18 with bullets 118 to 150. ranges are 100,200 and 300 yards. at one hundred these typically are shooting in the 2's(0.2xx). some people are actually shooting shortened 308's( minus 0.100 and minus 0.140 if i remember correctly)....must still make min case volume of a 30-30 case. what you do not find is anyone shooting an '06. you also dont find people shooting them in long range except for nostalgia. on the reverse the only real reason people shoot 308 in long range is because plama is now based on stock 7.62 chamber(sorta) and the sierra palma 155 bullet. these guns are normally 1/13, 1/14 twist, tho people do "play" the game with other configs of 308 win in unoffical matches. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:What 1000 matches?? Neither is used in the serious forms were groups are measured in a few mere inches. Your a victim of not knowing the facts. Understand I mean no smart ass'd flame either. 222R in reality lost out due to brass quality-- which what made the PPC. No one could conclusively prove the PPC was superior for design...it's just easier for anyone to get a PPC to shooten..again due to brass Q. I doubt you've done little more than read some tripe about the 08 vs 06. I've worn a target 06 barreled with a Hart. That barrel BTW was a takeoff with almost a 1000 rds thru it before setting back to 06. In still air it'd run in the .2's and .3's.... IF I could hold it. Understand when calibers are machined with top end barrels/components and tolerances a lotta that 'inherent' bullsh** disappears given a steady hand feed'n it. | |||
|
| One of Us |
"Your a victim of not knowing the facts. Understand I mean no smart ass'd flame either. 222R in reality lost out due to brass quality-- which what made the PPC. No one could conclusively prove the PPC was superior for design...it's just easier for anyone to get a PPC to shooten..again due to brass Q." Aladin If you mean no flame then you don't attack someones, who you don't, credentials. You don't know what I have/can done and what I haven't. With that said lets move on to the quote above. It's ambiguous. You say no one could conclusively prove the PPC was superior for design, but yet you are qualified to say it's due to brass quality. Please can we just stick with topic as the 308/30-06 debate like the 9mm/45acp debate will go on forever with no clear winner. Joe | |||
|
| one of us |
Um, can someone tell me, what IS the topic? <GGG> | |||
|
| One of Us |
grumble It's Know-it-all-ism. Joe | |||
|
| one of us |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by aladin: [ How come the 222 Rem doesn't dominate the benchrest? Why? Because better rounds and equipment come along. Understand I mean no smart ass'd flame either. 222R in reality lost out due to brass quality-- which what made the PPC. No one could conclusively prove the PPC was superior for design...it's just easier for anyone to get a PPC to shooten..again due to brass Q.) actually i'll take you on on this one. your statement is bs. original ppc brass was terible, expensive and hard to get. 222 winchester is an excellent round but ppc in 22 and 6 are better. there is no way the benchrest crowd would shoot ppc if 222 was better. sorry if the best 222 brass is not as good as the best ppc brass then 222 is not as good as ppc. its a real world on the firing line, not a theoretical one. lapua makes 7.62x53r,308 win, 222 win and 220 russian( the parent case for the 22 and 6 ppc case)to name a few. why would they make "inferior" cases for 222 and "superior" cases for 7.62x53r, 308 win and 220 russian ??? for the record 6ppc has dominated 100/200 yr bench rest for years, but in the last couple yrs some 30 cal hunter class shooter(which is score shooting , not group..normally) have been kicking butt enough to try thier guns in group....and guess what ?? a couple have won matches. is it better than 6ppc ?? well sorta and only time will tell. in score shooting, a bigger hole means more 'x's if the gun shoots well , and in group shooting its doing well but just too early to tell. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Those new benchrest breed of cartidges have a more efficient burning chamber then the older longer types. I think a good comparison is Chrysler's hemi engine. Because of it's hemi-spherical combustion chamber, the engine made alot of horsepower...enought to beat my ass cause I liked Chevys. It burned the fuel better and got rid of the exhaust better. A little more on the PPC: Designed in the mid-1970s by Dr Lou Palmisano, a vascular surgeon whose interest in internal ballistics and passion for accuracy gave us the first real proof that there was such a thing as "inherent accuracy" of a cartridge itself. Working with the good doctor was Ferris Pindell, an equally accomplished benchrest shooter and gunsmith, and the other "P" in PPC (Pindell-Palmisano Cartridge). Palmisano believed that a short squat powder column burns more efficiently, more uniformly and produces less muzzle turbulence. The claim of superior accuracy for his .220 Russian based cartridge was proved conclusively when over the course of a few short years, the .22 and 6mm PPC literally rewrote the benchrest record books Mike brought up a good point. Why would they make superior brass in one cartridge and not another? When it comes to winning the players will do anything to win. Looking at the political parties in this country is an excellant example. Mike just read up on Armalite new M16 type carbine. Was interesting that it gave up very little velocity with it's 14.5 barrel. Joe | |||
|
one of us |
Looks to me like that everyone is telling the truth, but so what? We're lead boolit shooters, mostly shooting something other than BR guns and the targets are more commensurate with 4 power scopes, not 36 plus. Besides, I am not too sure that the square type bottle cases are doing justice to the lead loads. If fact, I think and feel, no scientific basis, that a case with more slope is better because a lesser shoulder gives the powder a chance to slow down a little for a given burn class. My bench gun, 222/40, shoots good, but I think that has more to do with the case capacity being in a good area for existing powder selection. All powders burn a notch faster with the 40 degree shoulder. For example, 19.3 grains of 4198 in this gun is equivalent to 20.5 in one with a 20 degree shoulder. ... felix | |||
|
| one of us |
star.... i shot an leo 11" 3 shot burst ar from the bench at 100yds. the big surprise was, holding on the base of a 12 gong put two of the three on the gong and sometimes all 3.....really amazing short range gun. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Mike, This new carbine from Armalite is called SOG for Special Operations Carbine. They tested it with a variety of ammo. The highest velocity was from a 50 gr Win Ballistic tip and the lowest from a Black Hills 69 gr at 2715. A Federal 55 gr went 3023. What I'm getting after are these are out of a 16 inch barrel with flash supressor. It's not losing very much to the full lenght rifle tube. Yet we got the complaints from Afghanistan about poor penetration at distant enemy targets. Well being the carbine isn't much slower then the rifle this leads me to believe that maybe the 5.56 is marginal. The military has been pushing this heavier bullet issue for the 5.56 for quite some time and it's not all in the direction that it was needed for a tracer bullet. They also had that 800 meter Swedish Army helmet penetration test they wanted to pass and the old 55 gr FMJ just didn't cut it. Maybe they should make this new round, which was the original intended topic, the round for all the current M16 platform rifles instead of a special operations one. Felix I hear what you are saying. I felt the same way once and not sure I do now. I use to think how does a bullet in a barrel what the hell cartridge it was fired from, at least something like that. Back to cars again: Racers go to fooling with combustion chambers as most car enthusists know. But look at indexing the electrode of a spark plug so that all the plugs in the engine pointed to the same spot in the combustion chamber. This had to do with igniting the fuel mixture better. In conjunction with messing around with chamber shapes and piston top configurations resulted in an engine that burned it's fuel mixture better. This is what I think with the short stubbier cartridges like the PPC's. Sorry but that's how I feel. You know I believe it's Knight inline BP rifle company that has recently come out with a new 52 caliber inline. One of the things new about this rifle is that it has a tube from the primer nipple going up through the powder charge and lighting it from the front of the column. What some inline shooter may not like about this new rifle is that you can't use the solid pellets in it and the reason is obvious. Knight wanted a new rifle that was more powerful and shot flatter then 50 cal and said that the althought the 54 cal is more powerful it's trajectory is even more rainbow like. Soooo they had their engineers work on it and came up with the 52 being optimum. From shooting tests over the chrono and at the target range it appears it does indeed beat the 50 cal in both power and flatness without large dose of addition powder. Felix there has to be alot to do with how efficient a powder can be not only lit off inside a cartridge but burned also. Joe | |||
|
| one of us |
Joe, I am more interested in uniformity of burn, not necessairly efficient. These two attributes are not related, really. You'd think so, but I can't proove anything anyway, so it's just talk. It's just easier to make a small case perform with optimizing either attribute, but give me a sloping case for a lead boolit until proven otherwise with the powders on the shelves. Besides, who cares about efficiency when we all like to shoot the 860s, 820s, etc. It appears that if one really wanted to maximize efficiency with accuracy, he would have every powder in a specific range for that one case/boolit combo. ... felix | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:"original ppc brass was terible, expensive and hard to get" Yeup your right on one. But the brass that's made the wholesale switch to PPC isn't that brass. It took awhile to get the crowd over, about timed with the arrival of the purchase of the European brass, Laupua was it?? The bigger hole thing I only find humorous, espechially when I read it on the BR forums. Those discussions really painted some of those boys for the pure annals they are. Sit behind a 30 vs a 6 mm enough to wear out a tube and tell me which shooter developes the most shooten flaws... | |||
|
| one of us |
"Aladin If you mean no flame then you don't attack someones, who you don't, credentials. You don't know what I have/can done and what I haven't. With that said lets move on to the quote above. It's ambiguous. You say no one could conclusively prove the PPC was superior for design, but yet you are qualified to say it's due to brass quality. Please can we just stick with topic as the 308/30-06 debate like the 9mm/45acp debate will go on forever with no clear winner. Joe Joe your right in some respects. Go back to what I said about machining a gun to equal specs... get to that level and it's awful trivial for any advantage.. a level of accuracy few people can really exploit given shooten matches under the conditions present. Like Warren Page said many, many yrs ago. "We build a lot of 1/4" rifles but few 1/4" men" | |||
|
| one of us |
quote: | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:[/QB][/QUOTE] sorry sound slike switching line sin the middle of an answer. yep there is always some shooting a 222, but because they have one, but still an aged design against the ppc's. and i see u trying to weasle out of the 30 cal question too........let me tell ya more and more top br guys are getting on the bandwagon. ...... | |||
|
| one of us |
[/QB][/QUOTE] sorry sound slike switching line sin the middle of an answer. yep there is always some shooting a 222, but because they have one, but still an aged design against the ppc's. and i see u trying to weasle out of the 30 cal question too........let me tell ya more and more top br guys are getting on the bandwagon. ......" Tell me Mike, how many of the guys sitting at the benches in a match really have a chance of winning?? Realisticly? Do you have a snowball's chance yourself? I know I wouldn't lacking the experience. What the crowd does in BR is sorta meaningless from that perspective. The nimrod thinks it's the equippment than wins... The consistent winner, the guy who makes the BR Hall of Fame knows it's OUTWORKING THE OTHER GUYS....with a smattering of luck here and there. If said flock of nimrods THINKS that .032" is gonna win them matches they'd better shooten the 30. But please don't 'weasel' otta the recoil question I posed... But most of the nimrods contributing entry fees can't utilize than .032" anyways.. That measurement disappears in the noise of wind, mirage and shooter lapses. Ya got your opinion and I've got mine. Your not gonna chance my mind a drop. Being a cast forum we might as well kiss this off? We'll just declare ya the BR 'expert'.. that'd work... | |||
|
| one of us |
Recoil control is paramount in any BR game. Yes, the gun must be accurate, but emphasis these days is on a caliber that can cut the corners (screamers) without fuss. ... felix | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia