User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/11/2002 8:26:02 PM EDT
[#1]
Sweet
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 1:12:10 PM EDT
[#2]
Once again, thanks for all the hard work and excellent documentation! I feel compelled to buy the both of you a beer (I will have a non-alcohol one thanks!). Can't wait to see all your future tests.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2002 6:37:31 PM EDT
[#3]
Given the fact that some custom gunsmiths are making AR-15 uppers with longer throats for the 80 gr. round (wylde chamber), this might make a good competition bullet. A longer throat would give more room for power and thus increased long range velocity. What are the chamber pressures like with the big bullet? This could be a service rifle shooters wet dream!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2002 2:39:16 AM EDT
[#4]
Hey tat, thanks for that test. First these rounds, were they made by you guys, or you had the bullets so you loaded them or were they manufactured be another company. Also alittle off the subject you guys talked about other bullets, 69 and 72 dont remember the exactly grain SMK bullets, What does SMK mean?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2002 6:16:40 AM EDT
[#5]
Sierra Match King
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2002 6:26:05 PM EDT
[#6]
I would take a 80 or 90 grain JLK* VLD* over this non-boat tailed brick any day. Remember, these are mag length bullets so a lengthened throat is not needed. The lengthened throat is only needed for single loaded rounds loaded to a length greater than the magazine OAL, to increase powder capacity. * Jim L. Knox *Very Low Drag bullet- secant ogive. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2002 8:56:17 PM EDT
[#7]
It is not a match round. Period It is designed to give short barrel operators a very terminally effective round. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2002 10:37:18 PM EDT
[#8]
Woah!!1!
They've managed to replicate the 7.62x39. Seriously, if there is enough interest (about 250m worth), I can duplicate this projectile. It's a 5.3 ogive, J4 jacket, dead soft core with a spun cannelure.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2002 11:48:52 AM EDT
[#9]
7.62x39 doesn't fragment well. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2002 12:49:31 PM EDT
[#10]
Most military ball 7.62x39 wont fragment at all. - I wasn't talking about ball - and of course it has a higher BC than any previous .223 round. It kinda reminds me of early Japanese ammo - or the wildcat work done by Stan Easling back in the late 40s. Look up a cartridge called the .22/06 Easling. It used a 95 gr. .224 out of a 1/8 barrel @ about 3000 fps... These types of rounds typically exhibit pretty rapid throat erosion |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2002 12:57:17 PM EDT
[#11]
*Yawn* I'm not aware of any 7.62x39 round which preforms in this manner, ball or not. Feel free to point me to any sources which contradict my view. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2002 1:18:59 PM EDT
[#12]
*yawn* I like that  I can see why you're a much admired person on this board.The 110 gr. ballistic tip - ran through a .001 draw die - The lower initial velocity gives it about an extra inch of neck and two or three of total depth. See here for something similar I'm serious about being able to replicate the projectile. I already have dies with the correct ogive, just need to purchase the jackets from j4. Should cost somewhere around $65 per 1000 <edit add link> |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2002 1:37:50 PM EDT
[#13]
Cause I don't put up with BS?
Sorry. This has what exactly to do with 7.62x39? |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2002 2:31:50 PM EDT
[#14]
If you were to take a .308 BT type projectile @ 110 gr. Loaded to about 2400 fps you would wind up with a wound profile somewhat similar in depth and cavity to what you have demonstrated. (minus the tumbling) So, from the standpoint of this being an up close operator round (discarding BC), this round replicated the 7.62x39 in some loadings. -clear enough? And as some have already mentioned, you run into all the problems competition shooters have been having with the .22 VLD bullets for over a decade. - 2400 fps is awful hot for a 100 gr. out of a .223, especially set back that far into the case. Just an observation, (along with the thought "why bother") |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2002 3:27:50 PM EDT
[#15]
BOFH,
The entire reasoning of this is so the ARMY sticks with 5.56mm (for the present) Hell I could get better with a .260 16" SR-25 usign 140gr AMAX - but that requires a different platform. Tat and Derek went out of their way to attempt to replicate some of the Mil only loads from BH's - and now people want to criticism them? The offered all their data etc. for free and for what???????????????????????????????????? I can't figure some of you clowns out -Kevin |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2002 3:48:02 PM EDT
[#16]
CT The whole point of the .223 was the ability to carry massive amounts of ammo. But now, because of the admittedly deficient ballistics of the .223, we are right back reaching for 30 cal bullet weights. I respectfully suggest that I have in no way criticized Tat or Brou's work. It has been factually correct in every manner worth mentioning. I am simply expressing frustration at the ass backwards way our military procurement works. - and also suggesting that there may be better platforms available if you want this type of performance (some people are unaware of that little fact and this is an ar-15 site after all) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2002 9:06:50 PM EDT
[#17]
BOFH,
There is nothing wrong with the 5.56mm. For certain applications it is not ideal true. The M4 w/ M855 has gotten kills out to and past 500m, the SPR w/ 77gr out past 700m. What 7.62mm battle rifles are going to do that out of the box (well okay the SPR aint exactly out of the box but hey). FN FAL/L1A1/C1A1 - not with those sights sorry. HK G3 - bwaa hahahaha M14 - maybe - but just keep the armorer on call. Is 5.56mm perfect, hell no - but I dont see 7.62 as the answer either. -Kevin |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2002 1:05:00 AM EDT
[#18]
Simple process man. 1) Don’t waste 250 million trying to make a mutant 5.56 cartridge. -- It's very likely that it was tried before and discarded for a reason. (like premature throat erosion) 2) Build on a well-known platform like the ar-10 with a well-known cartridge like the 7mm-08 remington or the .243. Then do a shitpot of reliability testing (a better job than they did with the M9 please) <edit> Did I mention the 6mm PPC? - no I did not. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2002 11:34:37 AM EDT
[#19]
No way BOFH
its still a longer, heavier cartridge from a longer, heavier reciever regardless of what barrel length you attach. Still could only carry a 20round mag, still would have recoil problems on full auto. Increasing the bullet weight is not going to increase the whole cartridge weight significantly. Nor does it make any of the demesions of the cartridge different, so you can still carry the same number of rounds in a given size magazine. 110gr .30 bullets are almost round-you looked at a .30 Carbine bullet lately. Unless you use JHP/JSP-which is illegal in the military-you are not going to get good terminal wounding from a SLOW .30cal. I wonder though how the 80gr VLDs are going to do? This seems a little too slow for more than short range work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2002 12:56:17 PM EDT
[#20]
Lbrl,
Quick couple of questions for you, what percentage of the weight of an ar-15 round is the bullet? Next question is, what's the difference in weight between a brass 7.62x39 cartridge and a brass .223 case? How much longer would the ar-15 action have to be to use a 6mm PPC(or 7.62x39) like round? What is the ogive on the V-MAX 110? At what point downrange is an 80gr. VLD moving faster than a 68gr. SMK? <edit> Given an MV 0f 3000 FPS of for the Sierra and 2600 for the Berger </edit> Inquiring minds want to know?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2002 2:47:23 PM EDT
[#21]
BOFH,
From my limited understanding KAC developed the SR47 in 7.62x39 with this idea in mind. We will not get in to that here, but they had to extend the receiver in order to accomadate the AK mags. We have seen x39 AR uppers come and go. I suggest if you really want to come up with a solution hop on over to tactical forums and talk to GKR on the terminal effects forum. -Kevin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2002 3:34:21 PM EDT
[#22]
CT,
I think the reason they had to change the magwell on the SR47 is because they wanted to use the crummy AK mags. (sheesh! talk about shooting yourself in the foot) There are plenty of civilian 6PPC mods that work with the stock mag. You just have to blow the case wall out to match the angle on the .223 (you are right though, wrong place for this discussion) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2002 3:51:20 PM EDT
[#23]
Loading a .308 caliber 110 grain Hornady Vmax into a 7.62X39 and getting 2500 FPS is easily obtainable.
A Ruger Mini 30 would be the ideal test firearm because it has a .308 bore diameter. The AK/SKS family has a .310+/- bore given Commie manufacturing tolerances. Downloading a .308 Win. to 2500 FPS is another option. I just happen to be a .223 snob like other people around here. [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 9:08:46 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Lbrl, How much longer would the ar-15 action have to be to use a 6mm PPC(or 7.62x39) like round? The 6mm round can be loaded OAL to fit the M-16 magazine. In order to retain the same number of rounds in the high cap mags they would have to be longer than the current ones because the 6mm is a fatter case. The upper reciever would remain the same size it is now. 6mm is an interesting target round, it would be interesting to see what it does in the jello. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 3:09:08 PM EDT
[#25]
So where can I get a 1x7 16"-20" barrel ?? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 5:02:57 PM EDT
[#26]
www.mstn.biz Wes can get you Colt, Krieger etc. and builld you somethign to drool over - or to use and abuse :) Or Ken at SAW has Colt www.sawlesales.com |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2002 6:58:25 PM EDT
[#27]
 Lew Tippie could make you anything from mild to wild. Pacnor or Krieger 1 in 6.5" twist if you want, to ensure stabilization and err conservative with short barrels. There are a lot of good gunsmiths. IMO Support the ones that support the site. Lew has taken some of his time to post in here to help us out. Look in the Industry Forum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 5:47:03 AM EDT
[#28]
Would the 1x8 barrel in a Bushmaster DCM stabilize this round ...or do you [i]need[/i] a 1x7 twist?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 2:58:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Uh, no you wouldn't. You'd get explosive fragmentation and less than 7" of penetration, like all other 110 balistic tip. Look at the figures.
If it were not wrong, it would be very clear, yes.
You mean 2450 fps? And- actually- we have another 100fps to add to the round quite easily. Maybe 150 depending how some things turn out.
Work on your observing skills. :) |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 3:19:20 PM EDT
[#30]
Well let me approach this from another angle.
Does this bullet have numbers close to, say, the Sierra Match King 240gr .308? www.sierrabullets.com/bullets/bc.cfm?Stock_Num=9245
Or is it closer to the 220gr?
Those kind of high numbers gives .300 Whisper/Fireball subsonic loads their freakish long range performance. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 3:31:54 PM EDT
[#31]
Now how far in reality does this round purtrude into the case? Looking at the picture of the pulled bullets again:  the 100gr is MAYBE .04 of a inch longer than the M856. It looks like this maybe wasn't so much of a streatch. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 8:34:35 PM EDT
[#32]
You've demonstrated this in gel? Could I get you to post those shots? The documentation I've seen from Nosler, Hornady and Combined Technology all show at least 9 inches of total penetration with the 110, 125 / low end of .30 cal weights. With the penetration getting deeper as velocity goes down. Note: penetration in gelatin for ballistic tip type rounds is a function of jacket thickness, velocity and tip base diameter. (think very large hollow point) The "110 grain ballistic tip" is a hypothetical example being that they don't exist. Kind of difficult to test a nonexistent projectile. Huh? You can however purchase a kit to make the nonexistent, existent. I would suggest this. With a jacket draw die, a core extrusion die and several different ogive swage dies. Then I would suggest one of these. (especially if you think you can safely get an AR in .223 to fire a 100 gr. projectile @ 2600 fps.) But hey, what do I know about this shit? |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 9:08:03 PM EDT
[#33]
What do you think the 110gr Hornady V-MAX is? It may not be a "ballistic tip", as that is a copyrighted name that Nosler owns. However, it does have a polymer tip. Same difference. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2002 9:44:37 PM EDT
[#34]
Nomenclature aside, the jackets on the Nosler rounds are much different than the jackets on the Hornady rounds.
But I did post a link to TAP data… Again if you guys have your own TAP data on hand (and not under NDA) I would be very happy to see those shots. I have seen several anecdotal posts on this site and others that suggest the lighter weight TAP rounds are inadequate in the penetration department but I've never actually seen the gelatin post-shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2002 11:43:22 AM EDT
[#35]
[whisper]Hey Brou...You are going to do some gel tests of the 458, right? hint hint[/whisper]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2002 3:34:15 AM EDT
[#36]
I don't need to. Hornady has. This is one of the reasons 7.62x39 is boring to test. Look at the very post you yourself cited as evidence to support that the 100 grain .223 was the same as 7.62x39. There are in fact BT and "BT Type" rounds(whatever that means- it's your quote, not mine) floating around. They aren't particularly impressive.
You've not looked carefully. 9" is very much at the extreme edge- and is, of course, still insufficient.
Repeating well known factors isn't going to help your case that .223 100 grain is in any way similar to the performance of 7.62x39. The reality is that you misspoke. The perfomances just aren't close. Sorry. This all started when you made that claim. To cover it you then proceeded to claim that the .223 100 grain really just looked like a 110 BT round (since real vanilla 7.62x39 FMJ or HP doesn't look anything like what we've seen with the 100 grain as anyone who bothers to look can see). To support this you then went on to point us to an AR15.com post which gave data for the Hornady 110 grain TAP round (which isn't 7.62x39 anyhow- as I pointed out at the time) Now, once we point out that even your understanding of more exotic 7.62 rounds is flawed you start with:
Looking at this we see that you REALLY better do your homework. The rest is left as an exercise for the student.
Been there, done that (2589 fps). One of "those" was not required.
I think you've demonstrated that quite clearly now. As for the rest, let me know when you have something more on point to say with respect to 100 grain performance and I'll be happy to start paying attention again. |
|||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2002 5:40:46 AM EDT
[#37]
Again in engrish and I'll try to type ssssllloooowwwwwllllllyyyyy
The 100 gr. round tested - Has an avg. penetration of about 11 inches - Exhibited something you termed "Violent tissue damage" at about six inches and again at eight To whit I stated
I guess I should have been more verbose at the time and simply stated, "Woah, they've managed to push a 100 gr. projectile to 2400 fps" but I wanted to point out that this level of performance particularly new or dramatic. - I could have just as easily used the .300 whisper or the .458 socom but then we would have missed out on several possible interesting side convos (You see, at this point I'd realized how much you enjoy being "the" expert. )You fired back …
Well shit, you want a fragmenting 7.62x39… it aint gonna be norinco. Off to the races How about a hypothetical fragmenting 7.63x39 round with roughly the same weight projectile pushed at roughly the same velocity? - slightly lower cross section but what the heck . . . . three intelligence insults a general snotty attitude later . . . You are still denying that a round with a larger bore diameter and a larger case capacity is capable of causing the same or greater damage to a block of jello. A general I don't particularly admire once said "I shall return" - I prefer "I'll be back."(you see, you've given me an excuse to buy toys I haven't had since "pre ban") Thx and have a nice day |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2002 6:17:43 AM EDT
[#38]
How did you come up with that? The high was 14.5", the low was 10.75", out of multiple shots. I don't have the numbers handy, but the average ends up being more than 12".
Sure, there are rounds out there that are capable, but none that I know of in the same weight, or even reasonably the same weight. The 155gr TAP is utterly devastating, but then again it has 50% more mass as well. The point is, and I'm sure Tatja will agree...in the same projectile weight (or very close), there simply isn't anything out there that has the fragmenting/penetrating qualities that the 100gr 5.56 does. 110gr 7.52x39 may be able to penetrate, but it does not fragment. 110gr TAP may fragment, but it doesn't penetrate much. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2002 6:29:12 AM EDT
[#39]
BOFH et. al.
Tat and Derek brought the 100gr testing to public eye. BH has been working of this round for the army. Given the resultof the shiny kit syndrome (gee Delta etc. uses it I must have one too) increased public interest brought them to test this round and bring the results to you. If you feel that the 100gr round has no use I sugest you contact NSWC Crane, and other US SOCOM assests and inform them on what really does. It has been explained over and over again, the who what why's of this round and you still refuse to see. -Kevin OUT |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2002 6:34:50 AM EDT
[#40]
BOFH, Obviously you know more than a fair bit about this subject, far more than me.
But you also seem to be working from the .30 cal. is better theory. 7.62X39 isn't any better, intrinstically then .223/5.56. If we accept the .30 is better than .223, then I will point out that .338 is better than .30, .50 BMG is better than .338. Of course then you are carrying around 30 lbs weapons and 40 rounds. .225/5.56 has some advantages, certainly works better than 7.62X36 in magazines, low recoil, high velocity, easy to carry large number of rounds, etc, etc. Ever heard "don't try and re-invent the wheel"? The 100 gr. round is just an advance that can happen with newer poweders, bullet construction etc. The 100 gr is just an improvement on a basic .223/5.56, that maintains all the other advantages of the caliber, and the M16 family of weapons. To switch weapons cost big dough. To use more effective ammo...........that's relatively cheap. They ain't re-inventing the wheel, they are just looking for a better tread pattern. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2002 7:10:37 AM EDT
[#41]
Let me see if I've been paying attention. BOFH is claiming that since the 100gr 5.56 is similar to the 7.62 x 39 in velocity and weight, it is going to perform the same way in real life. While Tatjana and Brouhaha ae stating that while it may look like the commie round, it really acts like the 5.56 x 45 round it is. Good penetration followed by good fragmentation at ranges out to 200 meters. Since the profile and construction of the 100 gr 5.56 and the com block 7.62 x 39 projectile are quite different am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2002 7:54:57 AM EDT
[#42]
CT,
I go to school with people from crane (they support 10th group here in the springs)... BTDT everyone is sold on MWS.  The argument that stoner did all of this in the 60s aint gonna fly. (Despite it being true) It will require something better than history and opinion… I'll need to finish school and move to a place where I can "bust-a-cap" to prove that point. *shrug* At least it's better than what they have now Brou, Do you agree that 5.56 is pretty much maxed out with a 100 grain projectile? Do you think that first tumble at 8 inches would happen within a human torso (full front c.o.m. shot)? With the obvious penetration and BC advantages to be had from a long/high sectional density round, why have previous projects of this nature been dumped? (concept goes back to the 30-06 I think) <edit it's finals week and I can't spell Penetration. sheesh> |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2002 9:19:10 AM EDT
[#43]
Who knows? I thought it was maxed out with a 90gr projo.
The bullet actually began to tumble within the first inch. Ballistic gel is made to mimic body density, so I would assume that what we see in gelatin would be pretty close. But, who's to know without shooting somebody with one? Know of a place we could find a cadaver to experiment on?
Cost? Lack of technology? Lack of data? Who knows. When was the last project dumped? Back in the 30's with the .276 Pederson? This project could be dumped as well, especially with other items in the works at the moment. This project definitely has potential, but you have to realize that it will most likely be a specialty round, and will not replace the standard 55/62gr bullets. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2002 9:39:38 AM EDT
[#44]
BOFH - You are speaking to a huge believer in the MWS. :)
Like I said before I think a .260 SR25 Carbine using the 140gr AMAX is a near ideal platform. But... GKR has stated several times if we had adopted NATO wide the FN in its original rendition - 7mm (.280) - I believe - that we would liekly still be with it today. -Kevin PS you never knwo maybe we will end up with GPMG's in .338 too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2002 4:20:53 PM EDT
[#45]
That's interesting because lately I've been kind of obsessed with the idea of finding the ideal cartridge for a 140gr SMK in 6.5mm/.264 cal I've thought about a 260Rem for a FAL or AR10 I'm hoping one of the new short magnums gets chambered in it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2002 12:14:35 AM EDT
[#46]
Go for the Knights SR-25 Carbine! Nice little 16" good for CQB --> out to 600m or so. trust me they rock, and the .260 is a pretty flat shooter. Also I goofed on the AMAX - It is a 142gr I'm told. -Kevin |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2003 8:29:36 AM EDT
[#47]
As I understand it, sectional density is a big factor in penetration. The 100 grain 223 round has a sectional density of 0.29, while the hypothtical 100 grain 308 round has almost half that at 0.15. Assuming similar momentum and jacket construction, the 223 round will penetrate better.
The 308 round needs 190 grains to get a sectional density of 0.29. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2003 9:56:26 PM EDT
[#48]
Cnatra,
I thought I saw in one of the gunrags that DSA was coming out with their FAL in one of the short magnums (.300 something) but their webstite doesn't say anything about it yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2003 2:31:08 PM EDT
[#49]
The 100 gr .223 seems like 10# of **** in a 5# bag. I know there's serious logistics involved (for the military) but wouldn't the 6mm/223 wildcat do it better with heavy bullets? Just a simple barrel change would be required, everything else could remain the same (even our preban mags).
Won't 100 grain velocity be an even more serious issue in the M4? It seems like we need to reissue M193 to correct the terminal effectiveness problems accociated with M855, not go heavier. IMHO, the 14.5" barrel was a mistake as well. Geez, a 20" rifle isn't a boat oar or anything. Thanks for the test work done with the new ammo. It's very interesting reading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2003 4:56:17 PM EDT
[#50]
ispchoser1,
Both M193 and M855 require a relatively high impact velocity for their terminal effects to be, well, effective. If I remember correctly, violent fragmentation only occurs when they hit at over about 2600-2700fps. Hence their range is limited in M4 and shorter barrel lengths. The data presented here shows that the 100gr bullet remains terminally effective to a much lower impact velocity.. sound like even as slow as 2000-2200fps, it's still good - maybe lower is okay. Doing the numbers, and taking some on faith from those who have posted or hinted at the "military-spec" loadings here, the 100gr load should be effective a ways further than M193 or M855. However, it has been said that this round is intended for CQB primarily. -z |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
