User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/8/2010 1:33:49 PM EDT
Most of the heavier .224 bullets seem to be boat tail OTM type for long range accuracy and high BC.
Since the smaller caliber is known for lackluster penetration, why not make a heavier bullet without the features of a match bullet, so the length will fit an a magazine? It seems like it would be a great hunting bullet at closer ranges, and if the weight could be in the 80-100gr range it would really increase the usefulness of the AR15. Something like this:  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2010 4:37:35 PM EDT
[#1]
I don't think you can make a 80-100gr bullet fit in a magazine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2010 6:44:12 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
I don't think you can make a 80-100gr bullet fit in a magazine. If you look at the picture he posted, you probably could. All of the weight would be added where the bullet normally ogives into a bullet shape. Since this round would be a blunt round nose, you have that more space to add weight without making the bullet longer. With that being said, I don't think it would work. At least without some serious R&D work for the barrel twists and safe powder levels. And I also don't know how effective a bullet shaped like that would be for hunting. I mean, by the time you designed the weapon to be effective with that type bullet, why not just use some of the other bullets in other calibers that are already available in the first place. Fact of the matter is, the AR round is fairly effective for what it was designed to do already. It is also satisfactory for hunting up to a point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2010 10:25:06 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Quoted: I don't think you can make a 80-100gr bullet fit in a magazine. If you look at the picture he posted, you probably could. All of the weight would be added where the bullet normally ogives into a bullet shape. Since this round would be a blunt round nose, you have that more space to add weight without making the bullet longer. With that being said, I don't think it would work. At least without some serious R&D work for the barrel twists and safe powder levels. And I also don't know how effective a bullet shaped like that would be for hunting. I mean, by the time you designed the weapon to be effective with that type bullet, why not just use some of the other bullets in other calibers that are already available in the first place. Fact of the matter is, the AR round is fairly effective for what it was designed to do already. It is also satisfactory for hunting up to a point. 1/7 Should stabilize a bullet like that, since the twist is related the surface area of the bullet that engages the rifling, not the weight itself. There wouldn't be a need for any type of weapon modifications, that's the whole idea. Barrier penetration is also an area in which a bullet of this design would be beneficial. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2010 11:21:48 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think you can make a 80-100gr bullet fit in a magazine. If you look at the picture he posted, you probably could. All of the weight would be added where the bullet normally ogives into a bullet shape. Since this round would be a blunt round nose, you have that more space to add weight without making the bullet longer. With that being said, I don't think it would work. At least without some serious R&D work for the barrel twists and safe powder levels. And I also don't know how effective a bullet shaped like that would be for hunting. I mean, by the time you designed the weapon to be effective with that type bullet, why not just use some of the other bullets in other calibers that are already available in the first place. Fact of the matter is, the AR round is fairly effective for what it was designed to do already. It is also satisfactory for hunting up to a point. Do you think a bullet shaped like that will feed in an AR with "unmodified" feed ramps? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2010 6:15:12 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Most of the heavier .224 bullets seem to be boat tail OTM type for long range accuracy and high BC. Since the smaller caliber is known for lackluster penetration, why not make a heavier bullet without the features of a match bullet, so the length will fit an a magazine? It seems like it would be a great hunting bullet at closer ranges, and if the weight could be in the 80-100gr range it would really increase the usefulness of the AR15. ...enter the 6.8 SPC: all-copper bullets 85-110gr |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2010 6:19:02 AM EDT
[#6]
Barnes TSX have excellent barrier penetration, might want to look into those.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2010 6:31:48 AM EDT
[#7]
Bullet won't fit a PMAG...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2010 6:33:31 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Bullet won't fit a PMAG... Why not? And who cares. Many, many, many a battle were won with M16 style weapons before the Pmag came along. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2010 6:34:07 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think you can make a 80-100gr bullet fit in a magazine. If you look at the picture he posted, you probably could. All of the weight would be added where the bullet normally ogives into a bullet shape. Since this round would be a blunt round nose, you have that more space to add weight without making the bullet longer. With that being said, I don't think it would work. At least without some serious R&D work for the barrel twists and safe powder levels. And I also don't know how effective a bullet shaped like that would be for hunting. I mean, by the time you designed the weapon to be effective with that type bullet, why not just use some of the other bullets in other calibers that are already available in the first place. Fact of the matter is, the AR round is fairly effective for what it was designed to do already. It is also satisfactory for hunting up to a point. Do you think a bullet shaped like that will feed in an AR with "unmodified" feed ramps? Probably not. But I was addressing the point of it fitting in the mag. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2010 8:25:56 AM EDT
[#10]
AMU played with some 80 and 100 grain match bullets that would fit the mag made by PRL but each individual bullet was machined. These were match bullets and while they worked well the couldn't justify the expense. Derek Zedicker's book on the AR discusses them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2010 9:58:45 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: Most of the heavier .224 bullets seem to be boat tail OTM type for long range accuracy and high BC. Since the smaller caliber is known for lackluster penetration, why not make a heavier bullet without the features of a match bullet, so the length will fit an a magazine? It seems like it would be a great hunting bullet at closer ranges, and if the weight could be in the 80-100gr range it would really increase the usefulness of the AR15. ...enter the 6.8 SPC: all-copper bullets 85-110gr 6.8 requires a different barrel, bolt, and magazine. I would like to accomplish something similar with an unmodified 5.56 AR15. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2010 10:02:54 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't think you can make a 80-100gr bullet fit in a magazine. If you look at the picture he posted, you probably could. All of the weight would be added where the bullet normally ogives into a bullet shape. Since this round would be a blunt round nose, you have that more space to add weight without making the bullet longer. With that being said, I don't think it would work. At least without some serious R&D work for the barrel twists and safe powder levels. And I also don't know how effective a bullet shaped like that would be for hunting. I mean, by the time you designed the weapon to be effective with that type bullet, why not just use some of the other bullets in other calibers that are already available in the first place. Fact of the matter is, the AR round is fairly effective for what it was designed to do already. It is also satisfactory for hunting up to a point. Do you think a bullet shaped like that will feed in an AR with "unmodified" feed ramps? Yup, I sure do. I just hand cycled 10 empty casings through one of my Bravo Company barrels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2010 10:08:42 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think you can make a 80-100gr bullet fit in a magazine. If you look at the picture he posted, you probably could. All of the weight would be added where the bullet normally ogives into a bullet shape. Since this round would be a blunt round nose, you have that more space to add weight without making the bullet longer. With that being said, I don't think it would work. At least without some serious R&D work for the barrel twists and safe powder levels. And I also don't know how effective a bullet shaped like that would be for hunting. I mean, by the time you designed the weapon to be effective with that type bullet, why not just use some of the other bullets in other calibers that are already available in the first place. Fact of the matter is, the AR round is fairly effective for what it was designed to do already. It is also satisfactory for hunting up to a point. Do you think a bullet shaped like that will feed in an AR with "unmodified" feed ramps? Yup, I sure do. I just hand cycled 10 empty casings through one of my Bravo Company barrels. How does empty casing prove that the bullet profile would allow the ammo to feed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2010 12:29:48 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't think you can make a 80-100gr bullet fit in a magazine. If you look at the picture he posted, you probably could. All of the weight would be added where the bullet normally ogives into a bullet shape. Since this round would be a blunt round nose, you have that more space to add weight without making the bullet longer. With that being said, I don't think it would work. At least without some serious R&D work for the barrel twists and safe powder levels. And I also don't know how effective a bullet shaped like that would be for hunting. I mean, by the time you designed the weapon to be effective with that type bullet, why not just use some of the other bullets in other calibers that are already available in the first place. Fact of the matter is, the AR round is fairly effective for what it was designed to do already. It is also satisfactory for hunting up to a point. Do you think a bullet shaped like that will feed in an AR with "unmodified" feed ramps? Yup, I sure do. I just hand cycled 10 empty casings through one of my Bravo Company barrels. How does empty casing prove that the bullet profile would allow the ammo to feed? It doesn't prove anything, other than it will feed empty casings. The question was "do you think...?" and I replied that I did think... It does suggest that the bullet profile is less important than the proper feeding angle. If a short, flat casing can feed, it is likely that a round loaded with a bullet, regardless of shape, as long as it is within OAL specs, should feed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2010 12:36:13 PM EDT
[#15]
Depleted Uranium?
Maybe not. Someone was experimenting with bullets formed from tungsten powder a while back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2010 2:55:57 PM EDT
[#16]
I think too many people are trying to push the 5.56 past what it was designed and/or cabable of doing....it is a high velocity, small caliber.....if you want better performance, you gotta go with a bigger caliber.....The reason it is chosen is for light weight ammo, which equals soldiers being able to carry more, and smaller lighter weight weapons with lighter recoil. You can modify a Honda as much as you want, but it is never gonna be a Porsche
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2010 4:23:01 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: I think too many people are trying to push the 5.56 past what it was designed and/or cabable of doing....it is a high velocity, small caliber.....if you want better performance, you gotta go with a bigger caliber.....The reason it is chosen is for light weight ammo, which equals soldiers being able to carry more, and smaller lighter weight weapons with lighter recoil. You can modify a Honda as much as you want, but it is never gonna be a Porsche I'm not a soldier, and I don't think and extra 13 grains per round when compared to a 77gr. bullet will make that much of a difference in carrying ammo. Pushing ideas is how we got smokeless powder, rifled barrels, etc. Nothing wrong with not being complacent. It's not like changing the bullet shape to fit and extra 13 grains is exactly reinventing the wheel. So far all I have heard is conjecture on why it MIGHT not work, and no real data. I never understand the car analogies when applied to firearms. But, since I worked for Porsche for two years I'll address it. It would not be hard to modify a Honda S2000 to be superior (torque, top end, handling, etc.) to a Boxster for half the money. I have also seen a built up Toyota Supra that was 1/4 the price of a Porsche GT3 absolutely OWN the Porsche on the track and the street. However, the Porsche did have a nicer interior.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2010 3:26:50 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think too many people are trying to push the 5.56 past what it was designed and/or cabable of doing....it is a high velocity, small caliber.....if you want better performance, you gotta go with a bigger caliber.....The reason it is chosen is for light weight ammo, which equals soldiers being able to carry more, and smaller lighter weight weapons with lighter recoil. You can modify a Honda as much as you want, but it is never gonna be a Porsche I'm not a soldier, and I don't think and extra 13 grains per round when compared to a 77gr. bullet will make that much of a difference in carrying ammo. Pushing ideas is how we got smokeless powder, rifled barrels, etc. Nothing wrong with not being complacent. It's not like changing the bullet shape to fit and extra 13 grains is exactly reinventing the wheel. So far all I have heard is conjecture on why it MIGHT not work, and no real data. I never understand the car analogies when applied to firearms. But, since I worked for Porsche for two years I'll address it. It would not be hard to modify a Honda S2000 to be superior (torque, top end, handling, etc.) to a Boxster for half the money. I have also seen a built up Toyota Supra that was 1/4 the price of a Porsche GT3 absolutely OWN the Porsche on the track and the street. However, the Porsche did have a nicer interior. My point is it doesn't matter HOW heavy you make the bullet, it is still a .22, the problem is especially with yer bullet design being basically an FMJ, I dont see fragmentation happening, which is where the 5.56 gets its power from. The heavier you go, the slower the bullets is moving and everyone knows the small calibers get their power from their speed. Do I think it is a novel idea, sure....but the point I am trying to get across ( and thanks for shutting down my car analogy  ) is you can only go so far with this caliber....at some point you have to just realize a bigger caliber is sometimes in order.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2010 3:43:41 PM EDT
[#19]
There's just no point. If you need that kind of penetration, you need to use a caliber bigger than .223, plain and simple. Every caliber has limitations, and there's no point in trying to make it do something it can't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2010 4:49:41 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think too many people are trying to push the 5.56 past what it was designed and/or cabable of doing....it is a high velocity, small caliber.....if you want better performance, you gotta go with a bigger caliber.....The reason it is chosen is for light weight ammo, which equals soldiers being able to carry more, and smaller lighter weight weapons with lighter recoil. You can modify a Honda as much as you want, but it is never gonna be a Porsche I'm not a soldier, and I don't think and extra 13 grains per round when compared to a 77gr. bullet will make that much of a difference in carrying ammo. Pushing ideas is how we got smokeless powder, rifled barrels, etc. Nothing wrong with not being complacent. It's not like changing the bullet shape to fit and extra 13 grains is exactly reinventing the wheel. So far all I have heard is conjecture on why it MIGHT not work, and no real data. I never understand the car analogies when applied to firearms. But, since I worked for Porsche for two years I'll address it. It would not be hard to modify a Honda S2000 to be superior (torque, top end, handling, etc.) to a Boxster for half the money. I have also seen a built up Toyota Supra that was 1/4 the price of a Porsche GT3 absolutely OWN the Porsche on the track and the street. However, the Porsche did have a nicer interior. My point is it doesn't matter HOW heavy you make the bullet, it is still a .22, the problem is especially with yer bullet design being basically an FMJ, I dont see fragmentation happening, which is where the 5.56 gets its power from. The heavier you go, the slower the bullets is moving and everyone knows the small calibers get their power from their speed. Do I think it is a novel idea, sure....but the point I am trying to get across ( and thanks for shutting down my car analogy ) is you can only go so far with this caliber....at some point you have to just realize a bigger caliber is sometimes in order.Damn, guess I will have to buy an AK then. No prob on the car stuff
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2010 5:17:08 PM EDT
[#21]
I'd be interested in seeing a write up if you ever got some made. I think its a cool idea. I don't know what bbl length/mv you foresee for these, but if its low enough you can have custom bullet moulds made up for under 200 bones. You should be able to do 2200fps without too much work and maybe higher with the right alloy/processing. Go over to cast boolits and poke around. There are folks over there shooting supersonic cast lead out of ARs. Keep us posted.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2010 9:21:41 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: I'd be interested in seeing a write up if you ever got some made. I think its a cool idea. I don't know what bbl length/mv you foresee for these, but if its low enough you can have custom bullet moulds made up for under 200 bones. You should be able to do 2200fps without too much work and maybe higher with the right alloy/processing. Go over to cast boolits and poke around. There are folks over there shooting supersonic cast lead out of ARs. Keep us posted. Thanks, I will check that out. I stuck a 77gr Sierra in backwards(non primed or powdered case), and liked the idea. It fed fine from a mag, but alas, it would not chamber because of the shape. If it won't chamber in a standard 5.56 chamber, it's useless and may as well go to another caliber.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2010 11:12:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Last I checked, heavy, round nosed rifle bullets were rejected over 100 years ago in favor of lighter, pointed bullets. So, what you're suggesting is that we go back and try something that was rejected as not being good enough over 100 years ago.
I don't get it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2010 9:45:40 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
I don't think you can make a 80-100gr bullet fit in a magazine. You should have been here 8 years ago when Brouhaha and Tatania were shooting 100gr OTMs and posting their Gel-Block results. At the time (and possibly still to this day) they had the best terminal performance of any 5.56 round. The problem was their trajectory was rainbow like. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2010 10:48:28 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think you can make a 80-100gr bullet fit in a magazine. You should have been here 8 years ago when Brouhaha and Tatania were shooting 100gr OTMs and posting their Gel-Block results. At the time (and possibly still to this day) they had the best terminal performance of any 5.56 round. The problem was their trajectory was rainbow like. Not exactly. The terminal performance was inconsistent. One round would meet the FBI minimum penetration requirement and then another round would fail to meet the requirement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2010 11:12:42 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think you can make a 80-100gr bullet fit in a magazine. You should have been here 8 years ago when Brouhaha and Tatania were shooting 100gr OTMs and posting their Gel-Block results. At the time (and possibly still to this day) they had the best terminal performance of any 5.56 round. The problem was their trajectory was rainbow like. Not exactly. The terminal performance was inconsistent. One round would meet the FBI minimum penetration requirement and then another round would fail to meet the requirement. 10.75" is hardley 'deal breaking' especially given the short neck and terminal performance. http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ballistic_Gel_Experiments/BTAmmoLabsTest4/Test4.htm Dr Roberts also reported favorably on these rounds IIRC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2010 11:46:08 AM EDT
[#27]
So who makes this 100gr OTM that can be loaded in mags?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2010 11:48:13 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
So who makes this 100gr OTM that can be loaded in mags? I don't believe they are made any longer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2010 12:40:59 PM EDT
[#29]
Been a long time since I looked at those pics of the 100gr round. That is just a freakishly long bearing surface on those things.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2010 3:01:30 PM EDT
[#30]
Yeah and the profile isn't much different than the M856 so it could me more feasible to load to mag length unlike a 75-80 AMAX.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2010 7:48:21 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Last I checked, heavy, round nosed rifle bullets were rejected over 100 years ago in favor of lighter, pointed bullets. So, what you're suggesting is that we go back and try something that was rejected as not being good enough over 100 years ago. I don't get it. So why doesn't everyone use a 5.7 pistol? There are different uses for different bullet shapes and weights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2010 7:50:23 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't think you can make a 80-100gr bullet fit in a magazine. You should have been here 8 years ago when Brouhaha and Tatania were shooting 100gr OTMs and posting their Gel-Block results. At the time (and possibly still to this day) they had the best terminal performance of any 5.56 round. The problem was their trajectory was rainbow like. Not exactly. The terminal performance was inconsistent. One round would meet the FBI minimum penetration requirement and then another round would fail to meet the requirement. 10.75" is hardley 'deal breaking' especially given the short neck and terminal performance. http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ballistic_Gel_Experiments/BTAmmoLabsTest4/Test4.htm Dr Roberts also reported favorably on these rounds IIRC. Thanks for the link, that is very cool. I wonder why the bullets were never pursued any further? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2010 8:59:20 AM EDT
[#33]
I used to load the Sierra 160gr .264 Pro Hunter in my 6.5x55 Swede and got good accuracy. Now it's been discontinued. I wonder if it's because people were trying to stuff it into .260 Rem. loads. I mention this because that was a great example of a long, heavy bullet that was designed for terminal performance at modest velocities.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2010 4:13:32 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Last I checked, heavy, round nosed rifle bullets were rejected over 100 years ago in favor of lighter, pointed bullets. So, what you're suggesting is that we go back and try something that was rejected as not being good enough over 100 years ago. I don't get it. So why doesn't everyone use a 5.7 pistol? There are different uses for different bullet shapes and weights. Because nobody can afford to buy both the gun and the ammo? 
Seriously, though, new doesn't always equal better, but when something new IS actually better, it tends to stick around. Yes, there's a use for heavy, round-nosed bullets, such as hunting large, dangerous game where penetration is king (cape buffalo, anyone?). I don't see any wisdom in trying this with a 5.56, though. There's a reason guys who hunt that type of game carry guns lobbing .375 caliber bullets and larger. When you're not getting any expansion, you really need a very large frontal area doing damage, which a .223/5.56 can't give you. Other than the ability to say "I can shoot 100 grain bullets out of my AR without having to single-load them", I don't really see the point to a round nosed 100 grain FMJ in .224 caliber. |
|
|
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.
