Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2706
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2706
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/8/2010 12:33:49 PM EST
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:

Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2005
  • Posts 4332
  • Location USA CO, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2005
  • Posts 4332
  • Location USA CO, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Posted: 1/8/2010 3:37:35 PM EST
I don't think you can make a 80-100gr bullet fit in a magazine.
Basic
  • Joined Jul 2005
  • Posts 1732
  • Location USA NC, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Jul 2005
  • Posts 1732
  • Location USA NC, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/8/2010 5:44:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2010 5:44:45 PM EST by H53EXPERT]
Originally Posted By ANIMUS:
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.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2708
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2708
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/8/2010 9:25:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By H53EXPERT:
Originally Posted By ANIMUS:
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.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2005
  • Posts 4333
  • Location USA CO, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2005
  • Posts 4333
  • Location USA CO, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Posted: 1/8/2010 10:21:48 PM EST
Originally Posted By H53EXPERT:
Originally Posted By ANIMUS:
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?
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Apr 2003
  • Posts 1770
  • Location USA IL, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Apr 2003
  • Posts 1770
  • Location USA IL, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/9/2010 5:15:12 AM EST
Originally Posted By azoutdoorsman:
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
"A man with one AR is like a man with one arm." -me (pun intended)
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2004
  • Posts 2754
  • Location USA KS, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2004
  • Posts 2754
  • Location USA KS, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/9/2010 5:19:02 AM EST
Barnes TSX have excellent barrier penetration, might want to look into those.
Basic
  • Joined Apr 2005
  • Posts 162
  • Location USA FL, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Apr 2005
  • Posts 162
  • Location USA FL, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Posted: 1/9/2010 5:31:48 AM EST
Bullet won't fit a PMAG...
Basic
  • Joined Jul 2005
  • Posts 1733
  • Location USA NC, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Jul 2005
  • Posts 1733
  • Location USA NC, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/9/2010 5:33:31 AM EST
Originally Posted By Jackal23:
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.
Basic
  • Joined Jul 2005
  • Posts 1734
  • Location USA NC, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Jul 2005
  • Posts 1734
  • Location USA NC, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/9/2010 5:34:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By ANIMUS:
Originally Posted By H53EXPERT:
Originally Posted By ANIMUS:
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.
Basic
  • Joined Aug 2009
  • Posts 8
  • Location USA KS, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Aug 2009
  • Posts 8
  • Location USA KS, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Posted: 1/9/2010 7:25:56 AM EST
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.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2711
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2711
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/9/2010 8:58:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By chris65:
Originally Posted By azoutdoorsman:
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.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2712
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2712
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/9/2010 9:02:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By ANIMUS:
Originally Posted By H53EXPERT:
Originally Posted By ANIMUS:
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.
Basic
  • Joined Jul 2005
  • Posts 1735
  • Location USA NC, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Jul 2005
  • Posts 1735
  • Location USA NC, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/9/2010 9:08:42 AM EST
Originally Posted By azoutdoorsman:

Originally Posted By ANIMUS:
Originally Posted By H53EXPERT:
Originally Posted By ANIMUS:
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?
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2713
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2713
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/9/2010 11:29:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By H53EXPERT:
Originally Posted By azoutdoorsman:

Originally Posted By ANIMUS:
Originally Posted By H53EXPERT:
Originally Posted By ANIMUS:
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.
PFC
Basic
  • Joined Nov 2002
  • Posts 126
  • Location USA TX, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Nov 2002
  • Posts 126
  • Location USA TX, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Posted: 1/9/2010 11:36:13 AM EST
Depleted Uranium?
Maybe not.
Someone was experimenting with bullets formed from tungsten powder a while back.
Basic
  • Joined Jan 2002
  • Posts 1382
  • Location USA OR, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Jan 2002
  • Posts 1382
  • Location USA OR, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/9/2010 1:55:57 PM EST
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
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2715
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2715
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/9/2010 3:23:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By SMPrider112:
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.
Basic
  • Joined Jan 2002
  • Posts 1384
  • Location USA OR, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Jan 2002
  • Posts 1384
  • Location USA OR, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/10/2010 2:26:50 PM EST
Originally Posted By azoutdoorsman:

Originally Posted By SMPrider112:
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.
Does not play well with others
Avatar
Moderator
  • Joined Apr 2003
  • Posts 20527
  • Location USA TX, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Moderator
  • Joined Apr 2003
  • Posts 20527
  • Location USA TX, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/10/2010 2:43:41 PM EST
Daddy loves you. Now go away.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2719
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2719
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/10/2010 3:49:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By SMPrider112:
Originally Posted By azoutdoorsman:

Originally Posted By SMPrider112:
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
Basic
  • Joined Jun 2005
  • Posts 467
  • Location USA USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Jun 2005
  • Posts 467
  • Location USA USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/10/2010 4:17:08 PM EST
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.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2732
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2732
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/11/2010 8:21:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By MEatVt:
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.





Basic
  • Joined Nov 2002
  • Posts 416
  • Location USA OK, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Nov 2002
  • Posts 416
  • Location USA OK, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Posted: 1/11/2010 10:12:13 PM EST
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.
Save Cav-Arms!
Avatar
Gold
  • Joined Nov 2000
  • Posts 35051
  • Location USA MD, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Gold
  • Joined Nov 2000
  • Posts 35051
  • Location USA MD, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/12/2010 8:45:40 AM EST
'98 Jeep XJ Owner

6.8 > 6.5
All hail Jeanne Assam!
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Nov 2002
  • Posts 5625
  • Location USA USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Nov 2002
  • Posts 5625
  • Location USA USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/12/2010 9:48:28 AM EST
Originally Posted By Forest:
Originally Posted By ANIMUS:
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.

Member of the General Population
Save Cav-Arms!
Avatar
Gold
  • Joined Nov 2000
  • Posts 35061
  • Location USA MD, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Gold
  • Joined Nov 2000
  • Posts 35061
  • Location USA MD, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/12/2010 10:12:42 AM EST
'98 Jeep XJ Owner

6.8 > 6.5
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2005
  • Posts 4344
  • Location USA CO, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2005
  • Posts 4344
  • Location USA CO, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Posted: 1/12/2010 10:46:08 AM EST
So who makes this 100gr OTM that can be loaded in mags?
Save Cav-Arms!
Avatar
Gold
  • Joined Nov 2000
  • Posts 35067
  • Location USA MD, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Gold
  • Joined Nov 2000
  • Posts 35067
  • Location USA MD, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/12/2010 10:48:13 AM EST
'98 Jeep XJ Owner

6.8 > 6.5
It's not the years, it's the miles...
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Feb 2001
  • Posts 11914
  • Location USA IL, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Feb 2001
  • Posts 11914
  • Location USA IL, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/12/2010 11:40:59 AM EST
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.
"You underestimate my ability to handle the Cock." - BUCC_Guy
"I would rather ask a Roto Rooter scuba diver for advice on cranial micro surgery than ask for female advice here." - Piccolo
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2005
  • Posts 4345
  • Location USA CO, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Jan 2005
  • Posts 4345
  • Location USA CO, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Posted: 1/12/2010 2:01:30 PM EST
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.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2746
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2746
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/12/2010 6:48:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By securitysix:
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.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2747
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Bronze
  • Joined Sep 2005
  • Posts 2747
  • Location USA AZ, USA
Offline Positive Feedback
Posted: 1/12/2010 6:50:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By Forest:
Originally Posted By Molon:
Originally Posted By Forest:
Originally Posted By ANIMUS:
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?
Basic
  • Joined Sep 2001
  • Posts 587
  • Location USA MI, USA
Online Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Sep 2001
  • Posts 587
  • Location USA MI, USA
Online Neutral Feedback
Posted: 1/13/2010 7:59:20 AM EST
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.
Basic
  • Joined Nov 2002
  • Posts 417
  • Location USA OK, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Basic
  • Joined Nov 2002
  • Posts 417
  • Location USA OK, USA
Offline Neutral Feedback
Posted: 1/13/2010 3:13:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By azoutdoorsman:

Originally Posted By securitysix:
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.
Top