Posted: 6/10/2001 8:22:37 PM EDT
| I want to say sorry about the topic earlier today involving the .308 round. I really have no background with it and I just wanted to get a rise out of some people, but I think I almost offended people instead. Sorry. |
|
Dont be sorry. Some people like it. In my oppinion (yes I have one and the other) the .308 is too heavy for the powder load in the cartrige. The reason it was adopted is that is in the .300 class and has a shorter body thus lighter and more ammo to be packed. I like the .270 since it uses the same cartrige as 30.06 but its lighter and flatter. The .223 and .270 have almost the same curve. |
|
Anybody who's been on this board for a while could tell you were just engaging in troll like behavior and trying to "get a rise out of people."[;)] Anybody who couldn't see that, and took offense will learn soon enough. Quite frankly, I have alot of experience with the 7.62/.308 and alot of what you mentioned is accurate. Some of the responses had some misconceptions in them as well. Ross |
| Like I read years ago that a .223 was only good for thin skinned game up to 50 yards, but we use it for war? Or the Mini-14 was the most expensive plinker? Those were in gun magazines in the past, as was bad stuff about the .40 S&W. But that is a good way to good a response. |