Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Videos Of Tech Stuff And Reviews
New cartridge ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BallisticsGuy" data-source="post: 1585794" data-attributes="member: 96226"><p>Don't forget that the .223 case has been one-upped in the form of the .204ruger and it would fit in the existing guns and magazines and feed just fine. It's just enough bigger to give back the room lost to larger than .22cal bullets. In the world of metallic silhouette the 7-204 and 6.5-204 got a good bit of attention for a while. Now if you took the idea of a .25 cal 100-110gr or .26 cal 120gr projectile in that case you'd end up with 2800fps from a 24" tube with ballistics right in there with a .308 running 168's and energies twice that of a .223. Even from a shorter barrel, it'll still stomp all over </p><p></p><p>The larger bullet isn't there just for BC, it's there to defeat the target. Longer heavier bullets have higher sectional density which punches through targets better. Once you get up to 7mm you really lose start out with the bullets you could reasonably fit in the case and have still have feed from a STANAG mag.</p><p></p><p>Were I to be designing a round for a select fire intermediate power battle rifle, I'd be looking at something like a 25x45 running a closed nose .257cal 110gr for the 18" and longer barreled rifles and going to an 80-87gr for the 14-16" barrels. I'd also go to the .204 case from the .223rem case. Set all the barrels up with a 9 twist for compatibility and it should be doable. Keep in mind that such a choice would be predicated on running pressures up around 60k and putting adjustable gas blocks on the rifles so they don't try to rip case heads off when you put the heavy bullets in the short barrel rifle.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BallisticsGuy, post: 1585794, member: 96226"] Don't forget that the .223 case has been one-upped in the form of the .204ruger and it would fit in the existing guns and magazines and feed just fine. It's just enough bigger to give back the room lost to larger than .22cal bullets. In the world of metallic silhouette the 7-204 and 6.5-204 got a good bit of attention for a while. Now if you took the idea of a .25 cal 100-110gr or .26 cal 120gr projectile in that case you'd end up with 2800fps from a 24" tube with ballistics right in there with a .308 running 168's and energies twice that of a .223. Even from a shorter barrel, it'll still stomp all over The larger bullet isn't there just for BC, it's there to defeat the target. Longer heavier bullets have higher sectional density which punches through targets better. Once you get up to 7mm you really lose start out with the bullets you could reasonably fit in the case and have still have feed from a STANAG mag. Were I to be designing a round for a select fire intermediate power battle rifle, I'd be looking at something like a 25x45 running a closed nose .257cal 110gr for the 18" and longer barreled rifles and going to an 80-87gr for the 14-16" barrels. I'd also go to the .204 case from the .223rem case. Set all the barrels up with a 9 twist for compatibility and it should be doable. Keep in mind that such a choice would be predicated on running pressures up around 60k and putting adjustable gas blocks on the rifles so they don't try to rip case heads off when you put the heavy bullets in the short barrel rifle. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Videos Of Tech Stuff And Reviews
New cartridge ?
Top