Site Notices
10/30/2014 3:55:04 PM
ARCHIVED ARCHIVED
  Previous Page
Page:  / 2
Author
Message
azoutdoorsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 2706
Feedback: 100% (231)
Posted: 1/8/2010 5:33:49 PM
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:

ANIMUS
Member
Offline
Posts: 4332
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/8/2010 8:37:35 PM
I don't think you can make a 80-100gr bullet fit in a magazine.
H53EXPERT
Online
Posts: 1732
Feedback: 100% (14)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/8/2010 10:44:12 PM
[Last Edit: 1/8/2010 10:44:45 PM 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.
azoutdoorsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 2708
Feedback: 100% (231)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/9/2010 2:25:06 AM

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.
ANIMUS
Member
Offline
Posts: 4333
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/9/2010 3:21:48 AM
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?
chris65
Member
Offline
Posts: 1770
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/9/2010 10:15:12 AM
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)
Scorch05
Member
Offline
Posts: 2754
Feedback: 100% (13)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/9/2010 10:19:02 AM
Barnes TSX have excellent barrier penetration, might want to look into those.
Jackal23
Offline
Posts: 162
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/9/2010 10:31:48 AM
Bullet won't fit a PMAG...
H53EXPERT
Online
Posts: 1733
Feedback: 100% (14)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/9/2010 10:33:31 AM
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.
H53EXPERT
Online
Posts: 1734
Feedback: 100% (14)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/9/2010 10:34:07 AM
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.
jaholder1971
Offline
Posts: 8
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/9/2010 12:25:56 PM
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.
azoutdoorsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 2711
Feedback: 100% (231)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/9/2010 1:58:45 PM

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.
azoutdoorsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 2712
Feedback: 100% (231)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/9/2010 2:02:54 PM

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.
H53EXPERT
Online
Posts: 1735
Feedback: 100% (14)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/9/2010 2:08:42 PM
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?
azoutdoorsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 2713
Feedback: 100% (231)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/9/2010 4:29:48 PM

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
Offline
Posts: 126
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/9/2010 4:36:13 PM
Depleted Uranium?
Maybe not.
Someone was experimenting with bullets formed from tungsten powder a while back.
SMPrider112
Offline
Posts: 1382
Feedback: 100% (10)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/9/2010 6:55:57 PM
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
azoutdoorsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 2715
Feedback: 100% (231)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/9/2010 8:23:01 PM

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.
SMPrider112
Offline
Posts: 1384
Feedback: 100% (10)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/10/2010 7:26:50 PM
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.
Zhukov
Does not play well with others
Offline
Posts: 20527
Feedback: 100% (46)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/10/2010 7:43:41 PM
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.
Daddy loves you. Now go away.
azoutdoorsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 2719
Feedback: 100% (231)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/10/2010 8:49:41 PM

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
MEatVt
Offline
Posts: 467
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/10/2010 9:17:08 PM
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.
azoutdoorsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 2732
Feedback: 100% (231)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/11/2010 1:21:41 PM

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.





securitysix
Offline
Posts: 416
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/12/2010 3:12:13 AM
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.
Forest
Save Cav-Arms!
Offline
Posts: 35051
Feedback: 100% (29)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/12/2010 1:45:40 PM
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.
'98 Jeep XJ Owner

6.8 > 6.5
Molon
All hail Jeanne Assam!
Offline
Posts: 5625
Feedback: 100% (288)
Link To This Post
Posted: 1/12/2010 2:48:28 PM
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
  Previous Page
Page:  / 2
ARCHIVED ARCHIVED