New AR Hunting Cartridge from Remington - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - New AR Hunting Cartridge from Remington (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 10/14/2008 9:15:59 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Any move to further mainstream the AR platform into the hunting world seems beneficial to me.

yep. the more ARs that are out there in people's hands, the more hands that stand to feel empty if those ARs are taken away.

If you meet a fudd who looks down his nose at the AR, try to sell him on a Remington R-15. Also make the point that the AR comes in just about every popular hunting caliber (though not every chambering) now. I've seen ARs in 223 (of course), 243, 6.5G, 6.8SPC, 7.62x39, 308, 30 Rem, 30 Carb, and probably a bunch more that I'm missing. the AR is really becoming the do-everything rifle.

Posted: 10/14/2008 9:28:21 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A solution in search of a problem

Not really it solves the issue of wanting to hunt with an AR15 but not wanting to hunt with .223

6.8 SPC. 6.5, 458 SOCOM, 500 Beowulf, crap ton of wildcats... Que?

Posted: 10/14/2008 9:48:58 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Why? When you can have a .50 Beawulf, .458 SOCOM, or .45 Bushmaster - all of which are more powerful than a .410 slug.

ETA: I mis-read your post. Sorry... I know the pain of living in a shotgun-only state. That is part of why I fled Iowa.

Here in MN .410 slugs are legal (at least in the rifle zone) since they don't have to be a GAUGE, as they do in Iowa for instance. (.410 is a BORE size, not gauge) Most people that I know that have tried them hate them for big game. They are just way too damn wimpy...

Those are all big bores with rainbow trajectories. Here in northern MN for instance, you want a gun that will reach at least 250 yards if possible. We get a lot of longer shots.

Can no one else see the potential of a rifle that nearly duplicates .308 - 165 grain ballistic performance in a cartridge that will fit an AR action?

I'm sorry but a .30 caliber cartridge with 165 grain bullets launching at higher velocities will beat the hell out of a 6.8 in terms of sheer power, and it will shoot flatter due to superior BC.

Posted: 10/14/2008 10:07:40 AM EDT

[#4]

height=8

Quoted:
height=8

Quoted:
Can't blame them for trying..

This kind of stuff is what keeps the industry going.

This just enables the idea of "common usage" and preventing further ideas for the possibility of a new AWB.

Keep the rounds coming wether there are something i like or not. hunter. The more cartridges, the better.

You guys with AK's and SKS's can whack them, too.

Well if I shoot a Deer with my AR and posted Pics the State of Ohio might use that against me in a court of law h

Maybe they'll come out with a slug gun version chambered in .410. A mini-slug gun. hy?

I wasn't being 100 percent serious there. Just thinking about the guys in shotgun-only states who can't use rifles, EBR or otherwise.

Posted: 10/14/2008 10:19:38 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
I'll take a 6.5mm thanks!

+1

Posted: 10/14/2008 10:21:20 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'll take a 6.5mm thanks!

yep. but the 6.5 might possibly be too long on this case.

as long as we're wishing, I'd like a 7mm, please...

www.65grendel.com/

Posted: 10/14/2008 1:18:09 PM EDT

[#7]

Don't these capabilities alreaqdy exist with the 7.62x39 AR's that are out there? I don't understand why this is different enough to warrant buying it?

Posted: 10/14/2008 1:21:18 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Don't these capabilities alreaqdy exist with the 7.62x39 AR's that are out there? I don't understand why this is different enough to warrant buying it?

MUCH HEAVIER BULLETS WITH HIGHER VELOCITY compared to the 7.62 x 39.

This is really huge. They have essentially come very close to solving the problem of shoehorning M14 punch into a M16 sized package.

Posted: 10/14/2008 1:37:32 PM EDT

[#9]

I thought the new cartridge only throws a 125 grainer? The x39 throws a 120 grainer.

Posted: 10/14/2008 1:38:19 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't these capabilities alreaqdy exist with the 7.62x39 AR's that are out there? I don't understand why this is different enough to warrant buying it?

MUCH HEAVIER BULLETS WITH HIGHER VELOCITY compared to the 7.62 x 39.

This is really huge. They have essentially come very close to solving the problem of shoehorning M14 punch into a M16 sized package.

I thought the new cartridge only throws a 125 grainer? The x39 throws a 120 grainer.

Posted: 10/14/2008 1:41:40 PM EDT

[#11]

I killed 5 does with 5 shots with my 6.8 SPC last year, at ranges from 25 to 305 yards.

I'm really struggling to figure out what this new cartridge will do that's better than the 6.8.

Having said that, I'm all for them making more calibers for the AR - sure, it's a bad idea on paper, but whatever keeps them selling guns is good for the 2A.

Posted: 10/14/2008 1:52:48 PM EDT

[#12]

Since when has more choices been a bad thing?

I guess all we should have are AR's in 223/556, 6.5G, 7.62X39, and 458SOCOM. All the other calibers are close enough that we can just use the listed four.

Lighten the fuck up. The more AR's out there the better it is for us, even if is means some nonmilitary deer slaying cartridge. If thats what it takes to get FUDD into EBRs I'm okay with it.

Posted: 10/14/2008 1:54:02 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't these capabilities alreaqdy exist with the 7.62x39 AR's that are out there? I don't understand why this is different enough to warrant buying it?

MUCH HEAVIER BULLETS WITH HIGHER VELOCITY compared to the 7.62 x 39.

This is really huge. They have essentially come very close to solving the problem of shoehorning M14 punch into a M16 sized package.

I thought the new cartridge only throws a 125 grainer? The x39 throws a 120 grainer.

You are right... Damn my speed reading skills, or lack thereof...

This is simply a somewhat hotter 7.62x39. I misread the article as saying it used 165 grain bullets.

Still... wider is better IMHO, so this is still sounds like a great cartridge. Small bullets might be ok down south where your deer are tiny, but up in MN and other northern states it's nice to have a bit more frontal area.

Posted: 10/14/2008 1:58:30 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't these capabilities alreaqdy exist with the 7.62x39 AR's that are out there? I don't understand why this is different enough to warrant buying it?

MUCH HEAVIER BULLETS WITH HIGHER VELOCITY compared to the 7.62 x 39.

This is really huge. They have essentially come very close to solving the problem of shoehorning M14 punch into a M16 sized package.

I thought the new cartridge only throws a 125 grainer? The x39 throws a 120 grainer.

All the hunting loads I've used with x39 were 123-125 grains, as is the "standard" ammo. They are usually listed as between 2500-2600 fps, depending on barrel length. The new cartridge in discussion is a 125 grainer at 2800. Not that much of a difference.

Posted: 10/14/2008 2:13:59 PM EDT

[#15]

Tag

Posted: 10/14/2008 2:14:32 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
This is really huge. They have essentially come very close to solving the problem of shoehorning M14 punch into a M16 sized package.

If you only want or need 5 to 10 rounds in a magazine (such as for hunting), sure

Posted: 10/14/2008 2:19:14 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Can't blame them for trying..

This kind of stuff is what keeps the industry going.

+1

I don't see the down side of this.

Posted: 10/14/2008 4:18:24 PM EDT

[#18]

While I agree that rounds like the 6.8spc look more or less like a fancy new "americanized" 7.62x39 replacement, this new round, if it really adds a good bit of velocity over what the AK rounds have, might be a good thing. That's why I've always liked the 6.5 Grendel. It goes a long way toward putting 308 performance into a .223 magazine.

Oh... and you 6.8 koolaid drinkers can flame away.

Posted: 10/14/2008 4:46:52 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Any move to further mainstream the AR platform into the hunting world seems beneficial to me.

yep. the more ARs that are out there in people's hands, the more hands that stand to feel empty if those ARs are taken away.

If you meet a fudd who looks down his nose at the AR, try to sell him on a Remington R-15. Also make the point that the AR comes in just about every popular hunting caliber (though not every chambering) now. I've seen ARs in 223 (of course), 243, 6.5G, 6.8SPC, 7.62x39, 308, 30 Rem, 30 Carb, and probably a bunch more that I'm missing. the AR is really becoming the do-everything rifle.

Exactly. The more ARs in the hands of average hunters the better. Mainstreaming the AR is one of our best defenses against assault weapons bans. I hope everyone here uses opportunities at gun shops and ranges to educate "fudds" and introduce them to our hobby.

I hope Remington offers an entire line of hunting ARs.

ETA: I hadn't even noticed the R25 available in 243, 7mm-08, and 308. I hope they sell a ton.

Posted: 10/14/2008 4:53:42 PM EDT

[#20]

height=8

Quoted:
height=8

Quoted:
Any move to further mainstream the AR platform into the hunting world seems beneficial to me.

yep. the more ARs that are out there in people's hands, the more hands that stand to feel empty if those ARs are taken away.

If you meet a fudd who looks down his nose at the AR, try to sell him on a Remington R-15. Also make the point that the AR comes in just about every popular hunting caliber (though not every chambering) now. I've seen ARs in 223 (of course), 243, 6.5G, 6.8SPC, 7.62x39, 308, 30 Rem, 30 Carb, and probably a bunch more that I'm missing. the AR is really becoming the do-everything rifle.

Exactly. The more ARs in the hands of average hunters the better. Mainstreaming the AR is one of our best defenses against assault weapons bans. I hope everyone here uses opportunities at gun shops and ranges to educate "fudds" and introduce them to our hobby.

Amen to that.

There are no bad guns.

I hope Remington offers an entire line of hunting ARs.

Posted: 10/14/2008 5:12:43 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A solution in search of a problem

Not really it solves the issue of wanting to hunt with an AR15 but not wanting to hunt with .223

Or in states that require a bullet larger than, say .250 or .300 to hunt with.

Posted: 10/14/2008 5:24:36 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Don't these capabilities alreaqdy exist with the 7.62x39 AR's that are out there? I don't understand why this is different enough to warrant buying it?

MUCH HEAVIER BULLETS WITH HIGHER VELOCITY compared to the 7.62 x 39.

This is really huge. They have essentially come very close to solving the problem of shoehorning M14 punch into a M16 sized package.

I thought the new cartridge only throws a 125 grainer? The x39 throws a 120 grainer.

All the hunting loads I've used with x39 were 123-125 grains, as is the "standard" ammo. They are usually listed as between 2500-2600 fps, depending on barrel length. The new cartridge in discussion is a 125 grainer at 2800. Not that much of a difference.

The velocity data for the new round was determined useing a 24" barrel, (click on the red letter topics on the side bar next to the original article) the author stated that uppers and rifle will only be avalable in a 22'' configuration. He stated that 2,725 is a more accurate velocity.

Thats 75 fps lost for 2'' less of barrel. Now this isn't exactly scientific but lets use that as a reference and cut the barrel down to 16", now you're at 2,500 fps. A 7.62x39 fired from an AK with a 16" barrel gets you about 2,400 fps with a 123 grain bullet, the new round runs a 125 grain at 2,500 or less.

This new round can't do anything that rounds we already have do.

Posted: 10/14/2008 5:50:58 PM EDT

[#23]

Just shoot a 300 whisper with a 125 grain bullet. i used to hunt hogs with a 300 whisper and 150gr bullets. It look like the bullets were tumbling after they hit the hogs. Not much mushroom on the point but the bullet bodies sure were smashed as going side ways. The little energy they had was totally dump into the hogs. Neck/head shots only.

Posted: 10/14/2008 6:04:52 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
.. A 7.62x39 fired from an AK with a 16" barrel gets you about 2,400 fps with a 123 grain bullet, .

I want to know where you guys are getting ammo. The 23gr 7.62x39 I've chronoed in the pasr ran about 2200fps, a good round made 2350fps from a 16" barrel.

Posted: 10/15/2008 2:03:31 PM EDT

[#25]

This has my ears perked.

6.8 may be here already, but more choices is always better.

Posted: 10/15/2008 10:27:25 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
I have an original .30 Remington, sounds like the ballistics aren't far off either...

since I don't have the charts close at hand, how do those compare with the 30-30?

Posted: 10/15/2008 10:55:21 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I have an original .30 Remington, sounds like the ballistics aren't far off either...

since I don't have the charts close at hand, how do those compare with the 30-30?

The standard 150 grain factory 30-30 load has a muzzle velocity of 2,390 fps The 170 grain factory load has a MV of 2,200 fps. Factory loaded 125 grain bullets at 2,570 fps and 160 grain bullets at 2,300 fps are somewhat less popular. The 30-30's bread and butter load is the 170grain roundnose.

Posted: 10/16/2008 4:38:38 AM EDT

[#28]

One good thing about the AR is that barrel swaps are easy.

Someone will come up with a .30 RAR bbl and those who want to will be able to try it fairly inexpensively.

Posted: 10/16/2008 5:00:14 AM EDT

[#29]

I wonder if they've beefed-up the bolt and carrier?

125gr @ 2800 fps is about 60% more energy than a 55gr @ 3300 fps.

Posted: 10/16/2008 5:31:28 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'll take a 6.5mm thanks!

yep. but the 6.5 might possibly be too long on this case.

as long as we're wishing, I'd like a 7mm, please...

www.65grendel.com/

do they use the same case?

Posted: 10/16/2008 5:32:29 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
I wonder if they've beefed-up the bolt and carrier?

125gr @ 2800 fps is about 60% more energy than a 55gr @ 3300 fps.

According to this the answer is yes, the bolt is beefed up.

Posted: 10/16/2008 5:44:13 AM EDT

[#32]

I'd like to see something along the same lines in .257.

Posted: 10/16/2008 5:54:19 AM EDT

[#33]

I am looking at 2176 foot lbs. I will buy as much as I can for tactical use.

If this round ever exists it is what the .mil needs to use instead of 5.56.

Perfect round. My question is why hasn't it already been developed? With all the 6.8 and 6.5 madness, you would think that someone would have already developed an AR round with 2176 foot lbs.

Like I said, I will buy as much as I can if and when it comes around.

Posted: 10/16/2008 7:00:43 AM EDT

[#34]

Outstanding Job Remington!

Once again, they demonstrate their commitment to us, shooters and hunters alike.

Whether through deliberate design or happenstance, Remington has been bringing the Shooters and the Fudds to the same table.

A couple years ago, Tommy Milner joined forces with those of us on this site, and the term "Zumbo'ed" was born. Shortly thereafter, Remington introduced the R-25.

since then, they have continued to support all of us with a slew of AR platform hunting rifles, bridging the divide even further.

One glaring hole in the approach is the hunting crowd that considers anything under 30 cal to be 'small'. I got disapproving looks for my .270 at first, when hunting with my Dad and his friends.

This round, tailored to the AR effectively seals the deal for the ."30 cal or bust" crowd.

it is also easily realoadable, where the 7.62 x 39mm is not. I find that appealing, as I love to tinker with rounds.

All in all, I cannot see any downside to this.

Once again, "Good job, Remington! and thank you!"

Posted: 10/16/2008 7:23:03 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Just shoot a 300 whisper with a 125 grain bullet. i used to hunt hogs with a 300 whisper and 150gr bullets. It look like the bullets were tumbling after they hit the hogs. Not much mushroom on the point but the bullet bodies sure were smashed as going side ways. The little energy they had was totally dump into the hogs. Neck/head shots only.

What are you saying?
J D Jones really does know what he is doing?

Posted: 10/16/2008 7:33:04 AM EDT

[#36]

Educate me - what makes reloading the 7.62x39 difficult - other than most cheep ammo is in steel cases, or boxer primed, or with crimped primer pockets. I would assume for those who cared, normal brass is available.

I thought the problem with 7.62x39 revolved around the ejector and hot loads - a problem that some 6.5's might also share.

Posted: 10/16/2008 7:33:39 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Just shoot a 300 whisper with a 125 grain bullet. i used to hunt hogs with a 300 whisper and 150gr bullets. It look like the bullets were tumbling after they hit the hogs. Not much mushroom on the point but the bullet bodies sure were smashed as going side ways. The little energy they had was totally dump into the hogs. Neck/head shots only.

What are you saying?
J D Jones really does know what he is doing?

His stuff does tend to stick around, doesn't it?

Posted: 10/16/2008 7:34:48 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Educate me - what makes reloading the 7.62x39 difficult - other than most cheep ammo is in steel cases, or boxer primed, or with crimped primer pockets. I would assume for those who cared, normal brass is available.

I thought the problem with 7.62x39 revolved around the ejector and hot loads - a problem that some 6.5's might also share.

Yes, and magazines. Otherwise fine.

Posted: 10/16/2008 7:35:58 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Educate me - what makes reloading the 7.62x39 difficult - other than most cheep ammo is in steel cases, boxer primed with crimped primer pockets. I would assume for those who cared, normal brass is available.

I thought the problem with 7.62x39 revolved around the ejector and hot loads - a problem that some 6.5's might also share.

the difficulty lies in obtaining components. The bullets are .311 caliber, not .308. There is a slew of .308 bullets around, .311, not so much.

Posted: 10/16/2008 7:49:03 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
I am looking at 2176 foot lbs. I will buy as much as I can for tactical use.

If this round ever exists it is what the .mil needs to use instead of 5.56.

I'm sure the .mil will want to go back to the Garand magazine capacity.

Perfect round. My question is why hasn't it already been developed?

Probably because there hasn't been a big market for large game hunting-specific cartridges for ARs in the past?

With all the 6.8 and 6.5 madness, you would think that someone would have already developed an AR round with 2176 foot lbs.

I don't have the figures in front of me but I'm sure the .450 bushmaster parent cartridge, as well as loads like the .499LW and .500 beowulf have some pretty impressive statistics if you accept the downsides of shoehorning a large cartridge into a small action. However most AR alternative cartridge development previously has attempted to maintain a large magazine capacity.

I don't mean to sound negative as it's a cool idea and hopefully will bring ARs even more into the stream of "fudd" hunting and shooting. Just that everyone needs to understand the realities of this cartridge in an AR... it's a large diameter case which fits single stack in an AR magazine. Factory advertised mag capacity for the .450 is 5 rounds in what looks like a 20 round mag body. So you're looking at less than 10 rounds maximum for a practical magazine for this cartridge. There is no free lunch.

6.8 won't be accepted readily into the traditional hunting world because of the metric designation and not seeming "magnum" enough. Commercial success with a new/non traditional cartridge in the big game hunting market almost always requires some big numbers that can make for good advertising and gunshop bragging rights. They might have some success with it if they'd rename it ".270 ProHunter" and had appropriate hunting rifles available.

Posted: 10/16/2008 7:53:57 AM EDT

[#41]

Good points Gamma,

but you have to remember, this round isn't designed to be a 'zombie' round, it is there to appeal to the hunter.

Most states don't allow over 5 rounds in a hunting rifle anyhow, so the idea for hi cap mags is a moot point.

I would guess that 20 rounds would fit in a 30 round mag body.

regardless though, the mags provided will probably be something along the lines of the AK five round mags.

big long eared follower in a 20 round mag body.

Posted: 10/16/2008 4:12:04 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Good points Gamma,

but you have to remember, this round isn't designed to be a 'zombie' round, it is there to appeal to the hunter.

Most states don't allow over 5 rounds in a hunting rifle anyhow, so the idea for hi cap mags is a moot point.

I would guess that 20 rounds would fit in a 30 round mag body.

regardless though, the mags provided will probably be something along the lines of the AK five round mags.

big long eared follower in a 20 round mag body.

Exactly. It is state regs regarding hunting rifles and not a technology issue that is defining the magazine capacity at this point.

Posted: 10/16/2008 5:04:31 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
regardless though, the mags provided will probably be something along the lines of the AK five round mags.
big long eared follower in a 20 round mag body.

Exactly. It is state regs regarding hunting rifles and not a technology issue that is defining the magazine capacity at this point.

Case diameter = .500 (1/2 inch)
Length of the ammo column in a 30 round 5.56 magazine = roughly 5 3/8"
Width of the ammo column = roughly 5/8", so it's effectively a single stack mag

That's a 10 round magazine. A 40 round 5.56 mag sized tube would get you 13 or 14 rounds probably.

I agree that the nominal 5 round mag is due to hunting regulations but there's a real practical limit to the total possible mag capacity.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - New AR Hunting Cartridge from Remington (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us