Y'all may recall this post at WRSA the other day on the "Guerrilla Sniper Rifle" in .308.Now Pete has given us this discussion of the same sort of rifle in .243. I like this proposed platform a lot, especially for those of smaller stature who might find the larger caliber rifle's recoil onerous.
The .243 has much to recommend it as a cartridge and the Savage/Stevens action is an excellent platform.
11 comments:
I like .308, walls don't slow it down.
I like .338. Walls slow it down even less...
.243 ? You're kidding right ? Without going into the gory ballistics data, let's just say if you're concerned about 7.62mm "kick" then just grab a 5.56mm AR !
Let's see .243....
1. Not readily available when, not if, SHTF
2. Not many weapons, if any, mag fed for .243.
3. The 5.56mm is the common US mil round. Like 9mm, 45 ACP, 7.62mm, it is COMMON, not uncommon unlike .243.
4. Lastly....the 7.62 is not only common but truly, it is not a wild round. The kick is nearly insignificant with weapons like the DPMS Panther AP4.
On most things you post I agree. On this .243 issue, I believe you're WAY off base !
.243 ? Better left for sniping woodchucks. If you're trying to prep for a SHTF....get a 5.56mm or a 7.62.
DAN
III
The problem I see is that a long length to diameter ratio results in fantastic penetration but reduces the transmission of hydrostatic shock to the target. Case in point, the 6.5x52mm Carcano round had a muzzle velocity of only 2,300 fps but was loaded with a long .268 caliber bullet weighing 162 gr., giving it a high sectional density. This resulted in fantastic penetration of the target, but a very narrow wound channel reminiscent of that made by an icepick or screwdriver. The higher velocity could give an increase in transmitted shock, but you would still have the issue of over-stability of the projectile, which will waste most of the k.e of the bullet.
I like the idea of the .260 Remington(6.5/308). Fits any .308 action, easy to manufacture brass from .308 cases and flatter then the .308 with a much better SD.
I REALLY want to have one of the FNFALS rebarreled for this.
emdfl
As the son of a Military and Civilian pathologist, I would like to say...
SHOOTING HOLES IN WOUNDING THEORIES
Somebody Might Need To Read It.
Energy dump theories are not entirely useful theories.
Short take for those not bothering to click:
There is a myth to the effect that a bullet which remains inside a target is more effective (in terms of stopping or killing power) than one which completely penetrates...It is interesting that the 19th century model of "energy dump" required the bullet to completely pass through the body, but stop under the skin on the off-side; combining the features of an "energy dump" with lethal penetration and cavitation...
Not exactly. A bullet of a given construction and impact velocity will create a cavity of predictable dimensions over its path, whether it stops or penetrates completely. Therefore, if the hole created can penetrate all the way through, it causes more damage than if it stops at some point. The critical issue here is what sort of hole are we making, not whether it goes all the way through. "Overpenetration" is a misnomer. The ineffective stopping attributed to overpenetration is actually caused by "undercavitation"...
If there were an ideal case from the standpoint of efficiency, I suppose it would be for a bullet which completely, but just barely, penetrated and fell to the ground. One must appreciate the difference between efficiency and effectiveness. (The engine tunings of dragsters are not efficient!)
In this case the bullet has done all the damage that it can do to that particular target at that particular angle of entry. The problem here, of course, is that one cannot predict the exact size and toughness of the game encountered, or the exact range, which would have to be known in order to achieve the precise impact velocity required for ideal efficiency. All of these uncertainties drive bullet loads to exceed the minimum performance, and this is accomplished by designing a bullet that will create an adequate cavity while deeply penetrating over a wide range of impact velocities. Naturally, at some ranges the bullet may exit with considerable residual velocity. This wasted energy is irrelevant if the wound is adequate...
I OWN a 6.5 Carcano, among MANY 6mm range rifles, and if you'd like to stand on a hill at 350 or 400 after you've signed a waiver...There's a lot more to it than calling a particular CALIBER a loser or not based on ballistic gelatin and internet banter, there's also the area of "how much does a projectile need to penetrate against THIS TARGET THIS TIME AT WHAT RANGE?", BEFORE you even get to the differences VELOCITY AND BULLET CONSTRUCTION CAN MAKE.
Making Complex Things Simple Is Something Marketers Do, Not Scientific People.
My English Long Bow has pretty much no energy or wounding abilities according to the math of people that over-compartmentalize their figuring, But there's this graveyard at Agincourt...
243 at 1000???
It is to laugh. As for long-for-caliber bullets and high BC, the 6.5 mms have it all over the 6 mms.
Between the 6.5s and the 7s,the debate goes both ways with no real clear winner. Ballistics variables are many and subtle in their combination and effects, leading to various conclusions. Most of which have been resolved by real world building and shooting experience.
Go to sniperhide.com where there is a wealth of such wisdom and, guess what...?
Controversy.
Got an idea? A little research will soon suggest that you not try to reinvent the wheel. One of the brightest ballistics minds I know has discovered, twice in a row, that his highly evolved plans for a "new" cartridge
had, for all intents and purposes, already been done.
Jon
Gunsmith III
On the energy-dumping point, consider the comments here
aughtsix:
Friend I worked with in gunsmithing and I were having a couple tumblers of Bell's (all they had at the hunt camp other than Black Label) and we were talking about ideal calibers and he spurted out "Nothing really important, as to chamberings, has much been invented since WW II as it's just variants."
We were both hunting Impala earlier in the day. He got his with a .223 and I got mine with a .375 at about the same range, bordering on 300. They BOTH died and we had impala liver and onions for supper.
Lots of gunsmiths re-invent the wheel when people already know what works for task.
I'm still going to stick with what I said at WRSA, though. If you can't afford to practice and/or you do not practice, then this is all just guys at the bar talking about the bird they all want but none of them will ever have.
They were arguing on the internet instead of doing time on targets?
If you do practice, at both long and guerrilla sniper ranges, there are a LOT of options. .284 Winchester anyone? It drives tacks too. And is antique and almost dead.
Its an Arms Tech TTR 700. A reworked Remington 700. Usually in .308. The main prohibitive of the rifle is the cost. ~$4400.00. It folds/breaks down to a 16" briefcase carrier. Looks very much in place in urban environs and suppressor ready.
http://www.armstechltd.com/products.php?id=ttr-700_rifle
Tom,
Test have shown that the iron bodkin points used by the English archers at Agincourt would not penetrate the French mild steel armour. It is now thought that the armoured French Cavalry was stopped because of the effects of arrows on their horses, but that the muddy field played more a part in the French disaster as the armoured infantry was crowded together on a narrow front with no room to maneuver, the English archers did kill most of the French, but with knives and spears, some after they had surrendered.
Post a Comment