• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Wild World Search For New Case Design

relictrader said:
.....Quote....... the details of the cartridge.


It is a 30 Rem case,shortened and reduced to 6mm.It was to be used to win Camp Perry,Palma type matches.

relictrader,

I'm not trying to be a wiseguy here, but are you joking with me or are you really trying to reinvent the wheel?

A short history .....

Over a decade ago a gunsmith,IIRC, his name was Bykowski but I could be mistaken) decided to see if he could develop a cartridge for Highpower shooters that would be able to send a heavier bullet downrange out of their spaceguns and still function from the 2.25" magazine for the rapid fire events. He came up with a modified .30 Remington case. He shortened the case to allow the seating of longer high BC bullets to magazine length and opened up the bolt face slightly to fit the case rim diameter. I believe that he first used a 6.5mm bore, then tried it at 6mm. It worked, but there were better combinations out there, so it was pretty much forgotten.

Along comes the Afganistan/Iraq era. The US Army 5th SFG with Steve Holland in charge of the program began to look for a new cartridge that would fit the M16/M4 platform, but increase the performance over that of the Soviet 5.45x39 and 7.62x39 cartridges, the Chinese 5.8x39, and the 5.56x45 NATO cartridges. The initial result of this was the develpoment of the Mk262 77gr. 5.56 NATO cartridge which was put into service. The team then went to the USAMTU ammunition development section which was headed by Troy Lawton. They pulled the old modified .30 Remington case idea out of mothballs and enlisted help from Remington. 6mm, 6.5mm, 6.8mm,.277) and 7mm bullet sizes were tested, with the results in favor of the 6.8mm bore size. This resulted in the 6.8x43,aka 6.8SPC) cartridge. I could go on for several pages, but this is the gist of the development process.

Remington was commissioned to make the ammo, but there were problems from the start. It was discovered that they couldn't keep the chamber pressure down to an acceptable level while the ammo was employed in a high ambient temperature environment, especially in a hot chamber during F/A firing when the ammo was loaded to expected velocity levels. This delayed deployment of this ammunition. During this time, it was discovered,through after-action reports from both combat theaters) that this new cartridge,using both Sierra and Hornady bullets) was no more effective at stopping insurgents at close range than the 5.56 NATO Mk262 77 gr. ammo that had been developed previously. Add the fact that the Mk262 ammo functions through unmodified standard issue weapons and meets STANAG standards, while the .30 Remington-based 6.8 cartridge requires a modified bolt and different magazines so you might see where I'm going with this.

The 6.8 has been moribund for some time now. I'm not attempting to discourage you, but I believe that experimenting with a .30 Remington based cartridge for this purpose would be beating a dead horse.
 
JUST A FIRST STEP or effort to acheve a goal?
Will it fly.....?
Who knows for sure without trying!
We know it has the horse-power to carry 90 gr's down range!
We don't know if 90+gr bullet has stoping power at 3000 FPS?
We know it's accurate by winning Camp Perry in 2007 over bolt-actions in 308,223,5.45x39,7.62x39,TUBBS XC and all the other Hi-Power rounds.
 
DO NOT LOOSE SIGHT of the fact that Mk262 77gr will
never be at effective 600+ yds.in unskilled hands.

Add the fact that this 6mm ammo functions through modified standard issue weapons with 6mm barrels and chambers at
all-day-low-recoil levels.
 
It seems there is not a realistic case design to be used in the AR platform that will be effective in unskilled hands out to 600m, with low recoil, reliable, fast handling, and consistently drops large-bodied enemy targets with a single shot. If there were such a round, I am guessing it would already be in use. To be honest, I do not see any hand-held fully automatic rifle can be effective in unskilled hands. Submachine guns have their place as well, and it sounds like this post is headed down a never ending road in an attempt to find a weapon to serve as a submachine, an assault rifle, and a battle rifle in unskilled hands.
 
relictrader,

I think that winning Camp Perry has more to do with the skill of the shooter than the cartridge he's using when you consider how little really separates the cartridges involved.

You speak of effectivness at 600+ yards. While your statement might be arguable, you should not lose sight of the fact that Designated Marksmen or Snipers are normally used for Infantry work even approaching that range. Regular Infantry units will normally call in arty or airstrikes when engaged at those distances. Most Infantrymen have never even fired a rifle at 600 yards. Even though the Gov't calls for 600 yd. performance in its cartridge testing that's really not what they're looking for as a primary consideration in relation to a new main Infantry rifle cartridge, although it's obvious that the 77 gr. 5.56 and the 115 gr. 6.8 cartridges have already met the Govt's requirements.

You mentioned "stopping power". That's a subject that is mostly misunderstood. Actually, there's really no such thing. But that belongs an entirely different thread. See Dr. Martin Fackler's Wound Ballistic Laboratory reports for details.

You also mentioned a figure of 3000fps with a 90 grain bullet with the .30 Remington case. The experiments that I'm familiar with have shown those figures to be impractical if not impossible out of a military length barrel,14.5" - 20") at military chamber pressures.

But no matter. I wish you luck in your endeavor. You never know, perhaps you'll discover something that the 5th SFG, the USAMTU, and the Remington Arms Co. have failed to find while working with that case. It will certainly be interesting if you do. Stranger things have happened. :)
 
olympian said:
It seems there is not a realistic case design to be used in the AR platform that will be effective in unskilled hands out to 600m, with low recoil, reliable, fast handling, and consistently drops large-bodied enemy targets with a single shot. If there were such a round, I am guessing it would already be in use. To be honest, I do not see any hand-held fully automatic rifle can be effective in unskilled hands. Submachine guns have their place as well, and it sounds like this post is headed down a never ending road in an attempt to find a weapon to serve as a submachine, an assault rifle, and a battle rifle in unskilled hands.

olympian,
You've said it in a nutshell :)
 
One other thing to bear in mind is that the squad designated riflemans, rifle should not appear different from the rest of the squad. Any difference could set an individual as a snipers target. The 30 Rem case mod is basically a very good target concept. Not sure if it would be realistic in a combat environment.
 
I enjoy coming to this site to learn. I have always been pleased with the discussions and information flow. Please, let's keep the discussions to the technical side and leave the personal out of it. Adults can agree to disagree without the name calling.
 
A similar question was asked on another site and I came up with this concept for the semi DMR/Sniper type rig. Doesn't answer the orig question but is a solution to a short range/long range problem.

Use a second upper with a different cartridge that would still fit in a AR mag.

A DMR or sniper would 'work' into an area with a conventional M4 maybe loaded with some 77gr goodies. Set up, swap uppers, have an effective range out to 1200yds with a semi.

The cartridge would be 6.5 SOCOM,doesn't exist but a simple wildcat based on necking down the 458 SOCOM). Would single stack and center feed from any AR mag. You could stuff 7 into a 20rd/ 10 to 12 in a 30rd AR mag so would have higher mag capacity then the average bolt rifle.

Case size is similar to the 6.5 X47L so performance with 123/130/139 bullets is well documented. The upper would be regulated to work at elevated chamber pressures. Not going to do much in AUTO fire as the capacity is way too small. However, it would be a much faster LR set up compared to your 308 bolt rifle.

When the work day was done, back to the M4 and home you go.

The AR mag is simply too small and too short to really get any additional ballistic advantage based on powder tech we have today. If the 6.8SPC/ 6.5Grendel will not work, then we just need to either go 6mm-223 or come up with 'better' bullets for the 223.

Can the 75gr AMax be used?

Jerry
 
It would be extremely nice if we could put a 75gr AMAX in our military ammo but unfortuatly during the Geniva Convention all bullets designed to cause excessive damage where outlawed in short meaning we can only use FMJ bullets. although SF got around this with there use of the 77gr.Mk because the design of the hollow point was not to create expansion but was there for accruacy so they where able to use that round.
 
Same argument. The AMax is sold as a match bullet and the poly tip is there to aid in accuracy and ballistic performance NOT for expansion.

if the MK can pass, the Amax should be perceieved as a 'friendlier'/safer bullet.

Could make the tips a copper colour or maybe a baby blue or light pink :-)

considering that EVERY FMJ bullet ever designed in small cal high velocity applications is made to tumble/yaw, break apart and send shrapnel through the target, worrying about an expanding bullet seems kind of silly.

How come the FN 5.7X28 can use a poly tipped bullet? or is it not NATO certified? I bet this cartridge is designed to use bullet weight and diameter for knock down power.

But then there is a lawyer in there somewhere...
Jerry
 
If you look through the FN catalog it states on page 96 that the blue polytip round is there "Sporting Round" "Incorporates a conventional jacketed lead core projectile with polymer tip to
ensure rapid expansion and minimum risk of ricochet. Intended for general target, competition and hunting use" and if you scroll down to the next page you will find what they call there "Duty Round" FMJ design "Incorporates a steel penetrator and aluminum core projectile to defeat soft body armor with limited risk of over-penetration"
If you would like to look for yourself heres the link to there 2008 catalog http://fnhusa1.com/PDF/FNHCatalog_08ssm.pdf
 
So if you were a US soldier in body armour, which bullet would you prefer to face?

We need safe bullets but we can drop a 1000lb on your head no problem or lob 40mm HE fragmenting grenades at you.

Wonder how the Hague would rule on IED's filled with metal bolts and shrapnel?

I bet they would say these are safe to combatants cause no item is designed to expand during use.

We live in a pretty perverse world.

Jerry
 
hey im not trying to say that it isnt messed up but the little terrorist dont give a da** about the geniva convention or the so called "Rules of War" they just want to kill as many of us as they can. i totally agree that we should be able to use those bullets that can actually kill people instead of shooting somone 3 times and having them stand there and still shoot at you. i am one of those american soldiers you speak of i havnt been there yet but you can bet im on the waiting list so i definatly know what your talking about.
Nathan
 
mysticplayer said:
Same argument. The AMax is sold as a match bullet and the poly tip is there to aid in accuracy and ballistic performance NOT for expansion.

if the MK can pass, the Amax should be perceieved as a 'friendlier'/safer bullet.

Could make the tips a copper colour or maybe a baby blue or light pink :-)

considering that EVERY FMJ bullet ever designed in small cal high velocity applications is made to tumble/yaw, break apart and send shrapnel through the target, worrying about an expanding bullet seems kind of silly.

How come the FN 5.7X28 can use a poly tipped bullet? or is it not NATO certified? I bet this cartridge is designed to use bullet weight and diameter for knock down power.

But then there is a lawyer in there somewhere...
Jerry

Never happen do the research and all will become clear. You will also Never see the SMK advertised as anything but a match round. Would not make any difference if it was the best hunting bullet on the planet. Do your research and all will become crystal as they say..
 
For those who are uninformed read and all will become clear. Ask any questions after you read.



Sniper Use of Open-Tip Ammunition

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, UNITED STATES ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

SUBJECT: Sniper Use of Open-Tip Ammunition

DATE: 23 September 1985

Summary.

This memorandum considers whether United States Army Snipers may employ match-grade, "open-tip" ammunition in combat or other special missions. It concludes that such ammunition does not violate the law of war obligations of the United States, and may be employed in peacetime or wartime missions of the Army.
Background.

Sierra MatchKing 168-grain match grade boat tail For more than a decade two bullets have been available for use by the United States Army Marksmanship Unit in match competition in its 7.62mm rifles. The M118 is a 173-grain match grade full metal jacket boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet, while the M852 is the Sierra MatchKing 168-grain match grade boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet with an open tip. Although the accuracy of the M118 has been reasonably good, though at times erratic, independent bullet comparisons by the Army, Marine Corps, and National Guard marksmanship training units have established unequivocally the superior accuracy of the M852. Army tests noted a 36% improvement in accuracy with the M852 at 300 meters, and a 32% improvement at 600 yds; Marine Corps figures were twenty-eight percent accuracy improvement at 300 m, and 20% at 600yds. The National Guard determined that the M852 provided better bullet groups at 200 and 600 yards under all conditions than did the M118. [FNa1]

The 168-grain MatchKing was designed in the late 1950's for 300 m. shooting in international rifle matches. In its competitive debut, it was used by the 1st place winner at the 1959 Pan American Games. In the same caliber but in its various bullet lengths, the MatchKing has set a number of international records. To a range of 600 m., the superiority of the accuracy of the M852 cannot be matched, and led to the decision by U.S. military marksmanship training units to use the M852 in competition.

A 1980 opinion of this office concluded that use of the M852 in match competition would not violate law of war obligations of the United States.,citation omitted) Further tests and actual competition over the past decade have confirmed the superiority of the M852 over the M118 and other match grade bullets. For example, at the national matches held at Camp Perry, OH in 1983, a new Wimbledon record of 2--015 X's was set using the 168-gr. MatchKing. This level of performance lead to the question of whether the M852 could be used by military snipers in peacetime or wartime missions of the Army.

During the period in which this review was conducted, the 180-gr. MatchKing,for which there is no military designation) also was tested with a view to increased accuracy over the M852 at very long ranges. Because two bullet weights were under consideration, the term "MatchKing" will be used hereinafter to refer to the generic design rather than to a bullet of a particular weight. The fundamental question to be addressed by this review is whether an open-tip bullet of MatchKing design may be used in combat.
Legal Factors.

The principal provision relating to the legality of weapons is contained in Art. 23e of the Annex to Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907, which prohibits the employment of "arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury." In some law of war treatises, the term "unnecessary suffering" is used rather than "superfluous injury." The terms are regarded as synonymous. To emphasize this, Art. 35, para. 2 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, states in part that "It is prohibited to employ weapons [and] projectiles . . . of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." Although the U.S. has made the formal decision that for military, political, and humanitarian reasons it will not become a party to Protocol I, U.S. officials have taken the position that the language of Art. 35,2) of Protocol I as quoted is a codification of customary international law, and therefore binding upon all nations. The terms "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" have not been formally defined within international law. In determining whether a weapon or projectile causes unnecessary suffering, a balancing test is applied between the force dictated by military necessity to achieve a legitimate objective vis-à-vis suffering that may be considered superfluous to achievement of that intended objective. The test is not easily applied. For this reason, the degree of "superfluous" injury must be clearly disproportionate to the intended objectives for development and employment of the weapon, that is, it must outweigh substantially the military necessity for the weapon system or projectile. The fact that a weapon causes suffering does not lead to the conclusion that the weapon causes unnecessary suffering, or is illegal per se. Military necessity dictates that weapons of war lead to death, injury, and destruction; the act of combatants killing or wounding enemy combatants in combat is a legitimate act under the law of war. In this regard, there is an incongruity in the law of war in that while it is legally permissible to kill an enemy combatant, incapacitation must not result inevitably in unnecessary suffering. What is prohibited is the design,or modification) and employment of a weapon for the purpose of increasing or causing suffering beyond that required by military necessity. In conducting the balancing test necessary to determine a weapon's legality, the effects of a weapon cannot be viewed in isolation. They must be examined against comparable weapons in use on the modern battlefield, and the military necessity for the weapon or projectile under consideration. In addition to the basic prohibition on unnecessary suffering contained in Art. 23e of the 1907 Hague IV, one other treaty is germane to this review. The Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets of 29 July 1899 prohibits the use in international armed conflict:

". . . of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions."
The U.S. is not a party to this treaty, but U.S. officials over the years have taken the position that the armed forces of the U.S. will adhere to its terms to the extent that its application is consistent with the object and purpose of Art. 23e of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, quoted above.

It is within the context of these two treaties that questions regarding the legality of the employment of the MatchKing "open tip" bullet must be considered.
Bullet Description.

As previously described, the MatchKing is a boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet with open tip. The "open tip" is a shallow aperture,approximately the diameter of the wire in a standard size straight pin or paper clip) in the nose of the bullet. While sometimes described as a "hollow point," this is a mischaracterization in law of war terms. Generally a "hollow point" bullet is thought of in terms of its ability to expand on impact with soft tissue. Physical examination of the MatchKing "open tip" bullet reveals that its opening is extremely small in comparison to the aperture in comparable hollow point hunting bullets; for example, the 165-grain GameKing is a true hollow point boat tail bullet with an aperture substantially greater than the MatchKing, and skiving,serrations cut into the jacket) to insure expansion. In the MatchKing, the open tip is closed as much as possible to provide better aerodynamics, and contains no skiving. The lead core of the MatchKing bullet is entirely covered by the bullet jacket. While the GameKing bullet is designed to bring the ballistic advantages of a match bullet to long range hunting, the manufacturer expressly recommends against the use of the MatchKing for hunting game of any size because it does not have the expansion characteristics of a hunting bullet.

The purpose of the small, shallow aperture in the MatchKing is to provide a bullet design offering maximum accuracy at very long ranges, rolling the jacket of the bullet around its core from base to tip; standard military bullets and other match bullets roll the jacket around its core from tip to base, leaving an exposed lead core at its base. Design purpose of the MatchKing was not to produce a bullet that would expand or flatten easily on impact with the human body, or otherwise cause wounds greater than those caused by standard military small arms ammunition.

MatchKing performance.

Other than its superior long range marksmanship capabilities, the MatchKing was examined with regard to its performance on impact with the human body or in artificial material that approximates human soft tissue. It was determined that the bullet will break up or fragment in some cases at some point following entry into soft tissue. Whether fragmentation occurs will depend upon a myriad of variables, to include range to the target, velocity at the time of impact, degree of yaw of the bullet at the point of impact, or the distance traveled point-first within the body before yaw is induced. The MatchKing has not been designed to yaw intentionally or to break up on impact. These characteristics are common to all military rifle bullets. There was little discernible difference in bullet fragmentation between the MatchKing and other military small arms bullets, with some military ball ammunition of foreign manufacture tending to fragment sooner in human tissue or to a greater degree, resulting in wounds that would be more severe than those caused by the MatchKing. [FNaaa1]

Because of concern over the potential mischaracterization of the M852 as a "hollow point" bullet that might violate the purpose and intent of the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets, some M852 MatchKing bullets were modified to close the aperture. The "closed tip" MatchKing did not measure up to the accuracy of the "open tip" MatchKing.

Other match grade bullets were tested. While some could approach the accuracy standards of the MatchKing in some lots, quality control was uneven, leading to erratic results. No other match grade bullet consistently could meet the accuracy of the open-tip bullet.
Law of War Application.

From both a legal and medical standpoint, the lethality or incapacitation effects of a particular small-caliber projectile must be measured against comparable projectiles in service. In the military small arms field, "small caliber" generally includes all rifle projectiles up to and including .60 caliber,15mm). For the purposes of this review, however, comparison will be limited to small-caliber ammunition in the range of 5.45mm to 7.62mm, that is, that currently in use in assault or sniper rifles by the military services of most nations.

Wound ballistic research over the past fifteen years has determined that the prohibition contained in the 1899 Hague Declaration is of minimal to no value, inasmuch as virtually all jacketed military bullets employed since 1899 with pointed ogival spitzer tip shape have a tendency to fragment on impact with soft tissue, harder organs, bone or the clothing and/or equipment worn by the individual soldier.

The pointed ogival spitzer tip, shared by all modern military bullets, reflects the balancing by nations of the criteria of military necessity and unnecessary suffering: its streamlined shape decreases air drag, allowing the bullet to retain velocity better for improved long-range performance; a modern military 7.62mm bullet will lose only about one-third of its muzzle velocity over 500 yards, while the same weight bullet with a round-nose shape will lose more than one-half of its velocity over the same distance. Yet the pointed ogival spitzer tip shape also leads to greater bullet breakup, and potentially greater injury to the soldier by such a bullet vis-à-vis a round-nose full-metal jacketed bullet.,See Dr. M. L. Fackler, "Wounding Patterns for Military Rifle Bullets," International Defense Review, January 1989, pp. 56-64, at 63.)

Weighing the increased performance of the pointed ogival spitzer tip bullet against the increased injury its breakup may bring, the nations of the world-- through almost a century of practice--have concluded that the need for the former outweighs concern for the latter, and does not result in unnecessary suffering as prohibited by the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets or article 23e of the 1907 Hague Convention IV. The 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets remains valid for expression of the principle that a nation may not employ a bullet that expands easily on impact for the purpose of unnecessarily aggravating the wound inflicted upon an enemy soldier. Such a bullet also would be prohibited by article 23e of the 1907 Hague IV, however. Another concept fundamental to the law of war is the principle of discrimination, that is, utilization of means or methods that distinguish to the extent possible legitimate targets, such as enemy soldiers, from noncombatants, whether enemy wounded and sick, medical personnel, or innocent civilians. The highly trained military sniper with his special rifle and match grade ammunition epitomizes the principle of discrimination. In combat, most targets are covered or obscured, move unpredictably, and as a consequence are exposed to hostile fire for limited periods of time. When coupled with the level of marksmanship training provided the average soldier and the stress of combat, a soldier's aiming errors are large and hit probability is correspondingly low. While the M16A2 rifle currently used by the United States Army and Marine Corps is capable of acceptable accuracy out to six hundred meters, the probability of an average soldier hitting an enemy soldier at three hundred meters is ten percent.

Statistics from past wars suggest that this probability figure may be optimistic. In Would War II, the United States and its allies expended 25,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single enemy soldier. In the Korean War, the ammunition expenditure had increased four-fold to 100,000 rounds per soldier; in the Vietnam War, that figure had doubled to 200,000 rounds of ammunition for the death of a single enemy soldier. The risk to noncombatants is apparent.

In contrast, United States Army and Marine Corps snipers in the Vietnam War expended 1.3 rounds of ammunition for each claimed and verified kill, at an average range of six hundred yards, or almost twice the three hundred meters cited above for combat engagements by the average soldier. Some verified kills were at ranges in excess of 1000 yards. This represents discrimination and military efficiency of the highest order, as well as minimization of risk to noncombatants. Utilization of a bullet that increases accuracy, such as the MatchKing, would further diminish the risk to noncombatants.
Conclusion.

The purpose of the 7.62mm "open-tip" MatchKing bullet is to provide maximum accuracy at very long range. Like most 5.56mm and 7.62mm military ball bullets, it may fragment upon striking its target, although the probability of its fragmentation is not as great as some military ball bullets currently in use by some nations. Bullet fragmentation is not a design characteristic, however, nor a purpose for use of the MatchKing by United State Army snipers. Wounds caused by MatchKing ammunition are similar to those caused by a fully jacketed military ball bullet, which is legal under the law of war, when compared at the same ranges and under the same conditions. The military necessity for its use-- its ability to offer maximum accuracy at very long ranges--is complemented by the high degree of discriminate fire it offers in the hands of a trained sniper. It not only meets, but exceeds, the law of war obligations of the United States for use in combat.
This opinion has been coordinated with the Department of State, Army General Counsel, and the Offices of the Judge Advocates General of the Navy and Air Force, who concur with its contents and conclusions.

An opinion that reaches the same conclusion has been issued simultaneously for the Navy and Marine Corps by The Judge Advocate General of the Navy.


Authored by W. Hays Parks, Colonel, USMC,
Chief of the JAG's International Law Branch
FNa1. The M118 bullet is loaded into a 7.62mm,caliber .308) cartridge. In its original loading in the earlier .30-06 cartridge, it was the M72.

FNaa1. While this review is written in the context of the M852 Sierra MatchKing 168-grain "open-tip" bullet and a 180-grain version, the MatchKing bullet,and similar bullets of other manufacturers) is also produced in other bullet weights of 7.62mm rifles,.308, .30-06, or .300 Winchester Magnum).

FNaaa1. For example, 7.62mm bullets manufactured to NATO military specifications and used by the Federal Republic of Germany have a substantially greater tendency to fragment in soft tissue than do the U.S. M80 7.62mm ammunition made to the same specifications, the M118, or the M852 MatchKing. None fragment as quickly or easily upon entry into soft tissue as the 5.56mm ammunition manufactured to NATO standards and issued to its forces by the Government of Sweden. Its early fragmentation leads to far more severe wounds than any bullet manufactured to military specifications and utilized by the U.S. military during the past quarter century,whether the M80 7.62mm, the M16A1, M193 or M16A2 5.56mm) or the opentip MatchKing bullet under consideration.
 
After reading the above, I still say that if a MK can be allowed, an Amax should as it is engineered in the same manner with the same application. The tip ensures better aerodynamics and not expansion. The jacket is not skived to promote expansion.

It is not sold as a hunting bullet.

Same stuff...

Jerry
 
mysticplayer said:
After reading the above, I still say that if a MK can be allowed, an Amax should as it is engineered in the same manner with the same application. The tip ensures better aerodynamics and not expansion. The jacket is not skived to promote expansion.

It is not sold as a hunting bullet.

Same stuff...

Jerry

No not really do some more research and you will find out more..
 
Interestng artical but, I have no interest in throwing lead,and
more interest in a caliber that is accurate enough to set RECORDS @ 600 yds+ and still function in the AR as it is.
Would also like to see the Military make the AR Piston Driven,
for that would keep them running longer in dust and mud.
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,901
Messages
2,206,074
Members
79,207
Latest member
bbkersch
Back
Top