» Advanced

Go Back   Shooters Forum > Rifle and Rifle Cartridges > Wildcat Cartridges
Register FAQ Members List Donate Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-22-2010, 11:18 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tx
Posts: 123
6.2mm OCC


Registered Users do not see the above ad.


I have been working on a new cartridge and have gone about as far as I can on my own. Who would be the right people/company to go to for further development and brass.

I have sent a prototype to Superior Shooting Systems Inc. for ballistics and measurements.

I would like some feedback and or replies

Here is a link to a pdf of my 6.2mm OCC

http://www.datafilehost.com/download-4a7c0ddf.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-23-2010, 12:12 AM
Tang's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,262
Your homework there is pehnominal ! I will give you credit for that. With that said, they had something better than the 5.56. It's called the 7.62x51.
__________________
Volatile & Unstable
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-23-2010, 03:20 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Mooresville, IN
Posts: 9,139
Let me first say that I never served in the military, so I have no real-life understanding of what it means to rely upon your weapon, and the rounds you carry for it, to engage an enemy or to defend your life and lives of your comrades. I have tremendous respect for the men and women who have done so, and continue to do so, in the defense of this country and the freedoms we enjoy.

From the standpoint of ballistics and terminal performance, it has become obvious to me, over the years, that a projectile should be of a certain length, for its caliber, to provide good penetration. In direct terms, it should have a high sectional density (SD). A bullet of good construction, with a sectional density of around .220, driven at an adequate velocity, can be expected to penetrate well on thin-skinned, medium game animals. As hunting big game is the only experience I have, and I understand human beings are equally susceptible, this is what I will base my observations upon.

A .308 diameter bullet, weighing 150 grains, has a sectional density of .226, which can be expected to provide good penetration. However, the SD of the 52 grain .224 caliber bullet is only .148, while the .277 diameter 115gr Sierra HPBT has an SD of .214. Of these two, hunters would use the smaller bullet on varmints, with the expected result to be high bullet fragmentation and limited penetration. The heavier, .277 bullet, would be far better, at the correct velocity range, for penetrating larger game animals. This has been evidenced by the use of 6.8SPC rounds for hunting wild hogs, to great effect.

In order to retain the ability to penetrate, assuming an adequate SD, a bullet must have a significant muzzle velocity (MV) and ballistic coefficient (BC), such that the round has sufficient energy upon impact. For many years, in the various game fields of the world, a MV between 2500fps and 3000fps, with a BC of .300, or higher, have been proven to consistently and effectively harvest thin-skinned, medium game animals. There are many examples of cartridge/bullet combinations, in numerous calibers from .243 up to .458, which will provide this kind of performance from a shoulder-fired weapon of light to moderate recoil.

Both anecdotal and in-the-field results support the ability of the 6.8SPC cartridge to perform well on big game animals such as the whitetail deer and wild hog. With the 115 grain load most commonly used in this cartridge, it provides the MV, BC and SD expected of a big game hunting round. As such, I expect that it will be sufficient for the purposes of war, where the target is a human being. It recoils less than the 7.62x51 NATO round, while delivering more energy and penetration than the 5.56, allowing more rifleman to shoot the 6.8SPC accurately, and with good effect, than either.

While very few people can shoot a gun with a complete disregard for recoil, as Tang does, I think even he would agree that the 6.8SPC is a better choice than the .308, for sustained fire, or the 5.56, for effective fire. From what I can see, even though the OP has put together a good dissertation on the merits of the cartridge he proposes, it offers very little over the 6.8 round, if anything. I say this because nowhere in his comments does he acknowledge the importance of bullet WEIGHT, in this equation. A 90 grain bullet going slightly faster than a 115 grain bullet may be equally effective, but certainly not more so, making the proposed 6.2 OCC cartridge a lateral shift in performance, rather than a step up.

Also, I have never considered nomenclature of any significance, where a cartridge is concerned, and found that portion of the OP's paper frivolous, immaterial and frankly, juvenile. I can't see the point in quibbling over the naming of any device intended expressly for the killing of men and it is certainly nothing to be discussed when arguing the relative merits of such.
__________________
Ask me about QDMA.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-23-2010, 06:20 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 261
Deadduck, Like Tang said you have done your homework. But I have questions for you. What length of barrel do you plan on using to achieve your velocity goals ? And the second is a biggie. What does the 6.2 OCC achieve that a 6mm-223(6x45mm) can't do ?? The 6mm-223 can do over 3000fps with less than 50,000cups with 70gr bullets. And over 2800fps with less than 50,000cups with 85gr bullets. Admittedly these velocities are with a 24" barrel, hence the reason for my first question. Myself I've always wondered for a long time why the military just didn't chamber the m-16 in 6mm-223 shooting 85gr bullets for extra power with just barrel swaps, no mag or bolt changes and save lots of money instead of expermenting with new rounds. I must admitt the 6.8spc seems to be a fine round for the designed purpose. So what does the 6.2 OCC offer over the 6mm-223 besides a new case design ?? Dave
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-23-2010, 08:07 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: East Texas
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tang View Post
they had something better than the 5.56. It's called the 7.62x51.
Depends on what you're using it for to determine which is better.
__________________
God Bless,

EW
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-23-2010, 01:42 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tx
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by broom_jm View Post
I say this because nowhere in his comments does he acknowledge the importance of bullet WEIGHT, in this equation. A 90 grain bullet going slightly faster than a 115 grain bullet may be equally effective, but certainly not more so, making the proposed 6.2 OCC cartridge a lateral shift in performance, rather than a step up.
"Nowhere"? 1/3 of my work stress the importance of bullet Weight. I have tried to design the optimum cartridge for the platform. 75gr(CR) was optimal for high velocity, and energy. 85-87-90gr(MR) was optimal for BC,SD, and energy. Giving the CR higher velocity for temporary and permanent wound cavitation. The MR for accuracy with better BC & SD. The 6mm will retain its ballistics far beyond that of the 6.8 giving each muzzle velocity. There are many factors into what the military wants. 6.8 looses 5 rounds per magazine from the 5.56 30 rounds. Ammunition weight is also a factor between the 5.56 and 6.8 . The 6.2mm will have flatter trajectory than the 6.8 . Finally and most importantly, D.O.D. has looked at the 6.8spc and determined it was NOT what the military wanted. This is why I stated that the 6.2mm was not intended compete with the 6.8spc or 6.5Grendel. My figures show the 6.2mm OCC as having 27-28 rounds compared to the 5.56NATO 30 magazine.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-23-2010, 02:14 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tx
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by 243dave View Post
What does the 6.2 OCC achieve that a 6mm-223(6x45mm) can't do ?? I must admitt the 6.8spc seems to be a fine round for the designed purpose. So what does the 6.2 OCC offer over the 6mm-223 besides a new case design ?? Dave
Dave, As of right now I can only go by my figures and as they are mine may be bias, I will wait till I receive the results from the prototype I sent to SSS inc. The 6.2mm and 5.56mm case capacity are close, giving a few grains to the 6.2mm case(I dont have the info with the exact figures with me right now). But anything much heavier than 55-60gr in the 5.56 impedes into powder capacity, while the 75gr 6mm does not impede powder capacity in the 6.2mm case, and with the 87gr Hornady HPBT only 2mm(a little less) of the boattail impedes beyond the neck in the 6.2mm. How much do the 75-85-90gr 6mm bullets impede powder capacity in the 6x45 case ? I dont know, would like to though. I like the 6x45mm, I don't know why the military didnt go with it back in the 70's. May have had to do with velocity. ?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-23-2010, 03:25 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 79
Here is a piece of trivia for all of you: The parent case for the 6.8 SPC is the truly venerable .30 Remington, which is actually a rimless 30/30. Literally. Loading data for the .30 Vs. the 30/30 is identical and the Speer #5 manual tells it plainly that the .30 Rem is in fact a 30/30 that was intended for the Model 8 autoloader and Model 14 pump action rifles.

What the British tried very hard to get adopted -: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British
This was a pretty good round.

5.56 basic comparison info -: http://www.thegunzone.com/556faq-nb.html
This is the top of the top 5.56 load for "best case" comparison. Some caveats do apply.
-- http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.c...7&bullettype=0
Note the BC and SD numbers, they become very interesting later.

6.8 SPC information -: http://demigodllc.com/~zak/firearms/6.8SPC/loads.php
This guy has some good info.
-- http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.c...5&bullettype=0
This is the Sierra 115gr SMK for 6.8 / .277. Note the BC and SD numbers in comparison to the 5.56 listed above.

6.5 Grendel information -: http://www.6mmbr.com/65grendel.html
This site straight up tells it like it is. Some truly great information.
-- http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.c...5&bullettype=0
Take a close look.
-- http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.c...7&bullettype=0
Take another close look, and read the linked article from 6mmbr web page listed above.

Good Shooting,
Gary
P.S. Now do yourselves a favor and *READ* The information is 100% solid and irrefutable! The ballistics do not lie. There are no magic Caliber Numbers in the world. Bullet Construction is Bullet Construction, *PERIOD*!! Things like BC and SD, are things of science that have been field proven over and over for decades. Ask any Professional Hunter in Africa what SD means to him, and of course bullet construction. Ask any top sniper from any big military.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-23-2010, 03:53 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Mooresville, IN
Posts: 9,139
Gary,

Those are some great articles, one of which I read quite some time ago. From where I stand, the 6.5 Grendel is a near-perfect compromise of recoil, weight and performance. There's no arguing with the BC of those long .264" bullets, or their outstanding history of terminal performance on big game. I can't see where the 6mm/.243 bullets are going to compete with a 6.5, except with lighter weight ammo, allowing more to be carried.
__________________
Ask me about QDMA.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-23-2010, 04:41 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 79
broom_jm,

Yes, the numbers are rather self explanatory.

Another interesting bit -: http://www.hornady.com/store/6.5mm-....del-LBC-Lapua/
Note the designations for this bullet. Now if you look at Hornady .277 bullets you do not see any SPC. I wonder why that is?
They make the cases for both
6.8 -: http://www.hornady.com/store/6.8-SPC/
6.5 -: http://www.hornady.com/store/6.5-Grendel-cases/

Now in fairness, the 6.8 SPC i am sure does make a pretty good hunting round for us civilians. I mean, it is basically a 270-30/30 Rimless short With todays powders and bullet tech, I can see it doing pretty well!

Now, take the .30 Rem, neck it down to 6.5 and move the shoulder forward, give it about .284 to .296 neck length, a 28 Degree shoulder or so, and Voila!! You would suddenly have a truly great "Little Hunting Round"!

Heh, another piece of trivia: 7/30 waters. This is the 30/30 literally necked down to 7mm, but with the rim still intact. It would seem Ken Waters had a pretty solid idea eh? Now just Drop the Rim, use .30 Remington as its basis and tinker just slightly and there ya go.

Good shooting,
Gary
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-23-2010, 05:59 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tx
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by diriel View Post
Here is a piece of trivia for all of you: The parent case for the 6.8 SPC is the truly venerable .30 Remington, which is actually a rimless 30/30. Literally. Loading data for the .30 Vs. the 30/30 is identical and the Speer #5 manual tells it plainly that the .30 Rem is in fact a 30/30 that was intended for the Model 8 autoloader and Model 14 pump action rifles.

What the British tried very hard to get adopted -: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British
This was a pretty good round.

5.56 basic comparison info -: http://www.thegunzone.com/556faq-nb.html
This is the top of the top 5.56 load for "best case" comparison. Some caveats do apply.
-- http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.c...7&bullettype=0
Note the BC and SD numbers, they become very interesting later.

6.8 SPC information -: http://demigodllc.com/~zak/firearms/6.8SPC/loads.php
This guy has some good info.
-- http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.c...5&bullettype=0
This is the Sierra 115gr SMK for 6.8 / .277. Note the BC and SD numbers in comparison to the 5.56 listed above.

6.5 Grendel information -: http://www.6mmbr.com/65grendel.html
This site straight up tells it like it is. Some truly great information.
-- http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.c...5&bullettype=0
Take a close look.
-- http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.c...7&bullettype=0
Take another close look, and read the linked article from 6mmbr web page listed above.

Good Shooting,
Gary
P.S. Now do yourselves a favor and *READ* The information is 100% solid and irrefutable! The ballistics do not lie. There are no magic Caliber Numbers in the world. Bullet Construction is Bullet Construction, *PERIOD*!! Things like BC and SD, are things of science that have been field proven over and over for decades. Ask any Professional Hunter in Africa what SD means to him, and of course bullet construction. Ask any top sniper from any big military.
Thanks for all that, but I have known these for years, nothing new here for me. Would like some info on the #1 rated assault round in the world right now - 5.8x42mm, if you could find some info on it I would be gratefull.

Last edited by deadduck357; 01-23-2010 at 06:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-23-2010, 06:14 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tx
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by broom_jm View Post
Gary,

Those are some great articles, one of which I read quite some time ago. From where I stand, the 6.5 Grendel is a near-perfect compromise of recoil, weight and performance. There's no arguing with the BC of those long .264" bullets, or their outstanding history of terminal performance on big game. I can't see where the 6mm/.243 bullets are going to compete with a 6.5, except with lighter weight ammo, allowing more to be carried.

If we had the luxury of a new platform I would like see a newly designed cartridge with a 6.5mm or .257in. With the Grendel they did choose a great projectile, BUT then they had to try to find a case to fit the platform. The Grendel case was designed for bolt actions, it is a modified benchrest case, same is the .264 LBC-AR. The case diameter is even larger than the 6.8spc case. I believe the 6.5mm is most efficient in case lengths such as the 6.5 Creedmoor, 260 Rem and 6.5x47mm. We need to look for what the military wants and capacity and weight per round is a major factor here.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-23-2010, 06:55 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Mooresville, IN
Posts: 9,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by diriel View Post
broom_jm,

Yes, the numbers are rather self explanatory.

Another interesting bit -: http://www.hornady.com/store/6.5mm-....del-LBC-Lapua/
Note the designations for this bullet. Now if you look at Hornady .277 bullets you do not see any SPC. I wonder why that is?
They make the cases for both
6.8 -: http://www.hornady.com/store/6.8-SPC/
6.5 -: http://www.hornady.com/store/6.5-Grendel-cases/

Now in fairness, the 6.8 SPC i am sure does make a pretty good hunting round for us civilians. I mean, it is basically a 270-30/30 Rimless short With todays powders and bullet tech, I can see it doing pretty well!

Now, take the .30 Rem, neck it down to 6.5 and move the shoulder forward, give it about .284 to .296 neck length, a 28 Degree shoulder or so, and Voila!! You would suddenly have a truly great "Little Hunting Round"!

Heh, another piece of trivia: 7/30 waters. This is the 30/30 literally necked down to 7mm, but with the rim still intact. It would seem Ken Waters had a pretty solid idea eh? Now just Drop the Rim, use .30 Remington as its basis and tinker just slightly and there ya go.

Good shooting,
Gary
I shoot the 7-30 Waters out of a Contender and find it to be a great blend of manageable recoil and good velocity, from a 14" barrel. The accuracy is nothing to sneeze at, either. I could see that case with a rimless design serving as a fine military cartridge...sort of a throwback to the 7x57, throttled down a bit.
__________________
Ask me about QDMA.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-23-2010, 07:08 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 79
@dd,

Sure, but you are not going to like the answer very much once you realize what the chinese round really is.

-- http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4335667
fairly decent discussion here,

Good shooting,
Gary
P.S. Pretty similar to the 6.8 SPC actually, though not exact. Case wise that is. The bullet is a very strange little animal.

Here is the link I was originally thinking of. This information is solid, and fairly complete. -: http://www.snipersparadise.com/artic...inacomplex.htm

P.P.S. enjoy
I read this quite a long time ago, it took some fairly serious digging to find this thread. This thread has hashed out just about every single possibility known to mankind, including more info on the chinese round. http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showt...2&page=1&pp=25

P.P.P.S. DD357 I just caught up to and finished off that thread at 65Grendel.com and noticed that a few days ago you posted there. You should read through all 10 pages, a lot of info was hashed out. The short of it is, "there is no free lunch" a bullet of approximately 100gr in 6mm, or 120gr in 7mm is about as close to optimum as you can get more or less off the shelf. Meaning that you have to look at available non match bullets too. The 95gr 6mm SMK is a nice bullet, and the 130gr 7mm SMK is decent over all. All in all, No Free Lunch to be had anyplace. For match bullets in the right range, the 6.5mm 123gr bullets rule the roost for BC and SD.

Last edited by diriel; 01-24-2010 at 03:34 AM. Reason: Additional information
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-24-2010, 08:32 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tx
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by diriel View Post
@dd,

-- http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4335667

Here is the link I was originally thinking of. This information is solid, and fairly complete. -: http://www.snipersparadise.com/artic...inacomplex.htm

P.P.S. enjoy
I read this quite a long time ago, it took some fairly serious digging to find this thread. This thread has hashed out just about every single possibility known to mankind, including more info on the chinese round. http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showt...2&page=1&pp=25

P.P.P.S. DD357 I just caught up to and finished off that thread at 65Grendel.com and noticed that a few days ago you posted there. You should read through all 10 pages, a lot of info was hashed out. The short of it is, "there is no free lunch" a bullet of approximately 100gr in 6mm, or 120gr in 7mm is about as close to optimum as you can get more or less off the shelf. Meaning that you have to look at available non match bullets too. The 95gr 6mm SMK is a nice bullet, and the 130gr 7mm SMK is decent over all. All in all, No Free Lunch to be had anyplace. For match bullets in the right range, the 6.5mm 123gr bullets rule the roost for BC and SD.
diriel, thanks. I read the one from David Fortier awhile ago.

I do agree with you that the 6.5mm bullet is great, just not optimal for the AR15/M16 platform. It requires to large a diameter case just to push at sufficient velocities(6.5Grendel). We all would probably agree that 25 rounds are sufficient for us civies but the military does not see it that way.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-24-2010, 08:35 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tx
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by broom_jm View Post
Gary,

There's no arguing with the BC of those long .264" bullets, or their outstanding history of terminal performance on big game. I can't see where the 6mm/.243 bullets are going to compete with a 6.5, except with lighter weight ammo, allowing more to be carried.
BINGO. This is one major factor.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-25-2010, 02:54 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Mooresville, IN
Posts: 9,139
DD357,

There are at least 3 major factors and the unfortunate thing for any would-be cartridge designer is that no matter how great your idea might be, you WILL be compromising on at least one, if not all, of those three factors. The 308 has great bullet mass but higher recoil, lower mag capacity and higher ammunition weight. The .223 has very good velocity and low weight, but simply doesn't have the mass to retain velocity well or to have good terminal performance. I think you're on the right track by stepping up to the 6mm bullet, but the BC and SD of the 6.5 round is simply better, for any given bullet weight.

Put another way, if you were to take an average of the match ammo available for the 2 existing military rounds that you propose a replacement for, you would come up with (173+77=250/2) a round shooting a 125 grain projectile. If you take an average of the two bore sizes (.308+.224=.532/2) a rifle shooting .268 bullets would result. Something tells me if you were to average the ammunition weight of the 7.62 and 5.56, you'd get something along the lines of a properly designed 6.5mm cartridge.

If we can all agree on the basic "problems" inherent in the 2 cartridges currently being used by our military, then I submit that the 6.5 "something" is the solution. Maybe the Swedes had this all figured out 100 years ago? In fact, if you did nothing more than shorten a 6.5 Swede to around 45mm, you might just have a perfect compromise round for the military...which would make it pretty dang close to the Grendel offering.
__________________
Ask me about QDMA.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-25-2010, 01:52 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 79
DD357,

http://www.lasc.us/RangingShotBullberry6.5TCU.htm
The 6.5 version of 223 necked up and improved

http://www.lasc.us/RangingShotVirginValley6TCU.htm
The 6mm version of the 223 necked up and improved

Read both of these very carefully. There is a ballistic lesson to be learned here that has a direct Field Proven Result ( making a steel ram fall over requires energy delivered on target ).

Believe me when I say that I have considered many many different things that would go into a combat cartridge. It is all about compromises, there are always "here are 3 choices - pick any 2". Which sucks. But here is a thought, Have you asked active duty service men about the weight of their ammo? Most I have met or talked to all said something along the lines of " if it will make **** drop NOW, **** yes I Wiill Hump It!!" And believe me some of those guys have one helluva lot of kit to hump.

I will say this, Look at the 95gr SMK in 6mm. The thing is, you have to look at non match bullets as well. The 95 is a pretty decent compromise, when you start typing in velocity and getting energy at range numbers it looks pretty good. Then when you look at the other non match bullets it suddenly don't look quite as good. I know "New bullets can be made" but man that is a LOT of hassle, it just does not happen over night.

Then to mix it up even more, look at the 7mm bullets that are around and plug in velocity at ranges and scratch your head some more. Suddenly its "****, choices choices".... I.E. ...compromise and more compromise. You can learn a **** of a lot by looking at Silhouette cartridges. For those guys it is about hitting a target and delivering enough energy At Range to make it drop, all in as small and easy to shoot package as can be managed. Is it a perfect analogy? No. But it is pretty **** similar is several ways.

Good Shooting,
Gary
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-25-2010, 03:10 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tx
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by diriel View Post
DD357,

It is all about compromises, there are always "here are 3 choices - pick any 2". Which sucks.

I will say this, Look at the 95gr SMK in 6mm. The thing is, you have to look at non match bullets as well. The 95 is a pretty decent compromise, when you start typing in velocity and getting energy at range numbers it looks pretty good. Then when you look at the other non match bullets it suddenly don't look quite as good. I know "New bullets can be made" but man that is a LOT of hassle, it just does not happen over night.

Then to mix it up even more, look at the 7mm bullets that are around and plug in velocity at ranges and scratch your head some more. Suddenly its "****, choices choices".... I.E. ...compromise and more compromise. You can learn a **** of a lot by looking at Silhouette cartridges. For those guys it is about hitting a target and delivering enough energy At Range to make it drop, all in as small and easy to shoot package as can be managed. Is it a perfect analogy? No. But it is pretty **** similar is several ways.

Good Shooting,
Gary
Its good to get feedback from you, I think were thinking alike.

"compromise" = Bingo

I agree with Broom_jm that a 6.5mm projectile would be the best, BUT not while were restrained within the AR15/m16 dimensions.

Let me try to put this another way:
1) 6.5mm bullet = overall great choice
2) 6.5mm bullet with good BC & SD is a long bullet
3) Because the 6.5mm bullet is so long will require a short case to fit in platform
4) Because its a short case it will require large diameter for sufficient powder
5) Large diameter case = less magazine capacity, + weight per round (6.5 Grendel).

I really dont want to get into debating the 6.5 Grendel, I like the round, I just dont see the military ever going with it. The military is going to see the capacity loss & weight to significant.

OK, so whats has a larger diameter than .224 but is shorter in length than 6.5mm ? (bullet) So we can use a longer case but smaller in diameter for more mag capacity ?

I looked at .257 and really liked it also but still would require a long bullet to get good BC & SD.

He!! even a 6mm with great BC & SD would have to be quite long so thats one of the reasons why going with 75 - 90 gr. *Compromise* Yes 105 - 115 would be great But remember we are not trying to design a Benchrest round its a combat round.

Last edited by deadduck357; 01-25-2010 at 03:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-25-2010, 03:25 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tx
Posts: 123
dirieL,

Do you have some info on CorBon 6x45mm or BlackHills 6x45mm ?

Thanks
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:28 PM.

< Contact Us - Shooters Forum - Archive >

 
 

All Content & Design Copyright © 1999-2002 Beartooth Bullets, All Rights Reserved
View Privacy Policy | Contact Webmaster | Legal Information
Website Design & Development By Exbabylon Internet Solutions
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2