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
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Lest we forget, the "Short-Fat" technical idea.
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="epoletna" data-source="post: 1571719" data-attributes="member: 87371"><p>Speaking of cartridge/case design, here's an interesting comparison:</p><p></p><p>Lay three cartridges on a table in front or you -- a .223, a .30-'06, and a .50 BMG.</p><p></p><p>Notice anything interesting? They're remarkably similar in terms of case proportions. They're not too far from being scaled-up versions of each other. In fact the .50 BMG (developed in 1911) is defined in Wikipedia as a "scaled-up version of the .30-'06," and the .223 is similarly proportioned.</p><p></p><p>IOW, the case design for those three cartridges does not appear to have been re-thought even though they were designed 60 years apart. The .308 was the first large-production military cartridge to fundamentally re-think cartridge proportions.</p><p></p><p>That sounds to me like Greyfox has hit the nail on the head. Nothing new in the world of cartridge design.</p><p></p><p>Imagine for just a moment if instead of scaling the .30-'06 cartridge design down for development of the AR-15, Eugene Stoner had instead asked Palmisano and Pindell to design a cartridge for his new military rifle. They would likely have come up with something like the 6 PPC (which they later did for bench rest shooting) -- in other words, a short, stubby case, somewhat similar to the short magnums that featured in the beginning of this discussion. Perhaps that would not have made the shoulder angle so steep, so it would feed more reliably in a military rifle and machine gun. But they would most likely not have kept the .30-'06 proportions.</p><p></p><p>Perhaps they would have gone a little larger -- say, the 6.5 PPC, or a little smaller -- say the .22 PPC. Of course the .22 PPC is not much different from the .220 Russian, Palmisano and Pindell's parent cartridge for the 6 PPC.</p><p></p><p>In any case, by sticking with the basic proportions of the .30-'06 for the past 115 years, we have the general proportions that have steered American cartridge design, with occasional detours for sharper shoulders (Ackley Improved) or belted magnums. Otherwise, we had to await the arrival of the short magnums to see radically different case proportions.</p><p></p><p>Sounds to me like an interesting subject for a longer discussion!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="epoletna, post: 1571719, member: 87371"] Speaking of cartridge/case design, here's an interesting comparison: Lay three cartridges on a table in front or you -- a .223, a .30-'06, and a .50 BMG. Notice anything interesting? They're remarkably similar in terms of case proportions. They're not too far from being scaled-up versions of each other. In fact the .50 BMG (developed in 1911) is defined in Wikipedia as a "scaled-up version of the .30-'06," and the .223 is similarly proportioned. IOW, the case design for those three cartridges does not appear to have been re-thought even though they were designed 60 years apart. The .308 was the first large-production military cartridge to fundamentally re-think cartridge proportions. That sounds to me like Greyfox has hit the nail on the head. Nothing new in the world of cartridge design. Imagine for just a moment if instead of scaling the .30-'06 cartridge design down for development of the AR-15, Eugene Stoner had instead asked Palmisano and Pindell to design a cartridge for his new military rifle. They would likely have come up with something like the 6 PPC (which they later did for bench rest shooting) -- in other words, a short, stubby case, somewhat similar to the short magnums that featured in the beginning of this discussion. Perhaps that would not have made the shoulder angle so steep, so it would feed more reliably in a military rifle and machine gun. But they would most likely not have kept the .30-'06 proportions. Perhaps they would have gone a little larger -- say, the 6.5 PPC, or a little smaller -- say the .22 PPC. Of course the .22 PPC is not much different from the .220 Russian, Palmisano and Pindell's parent cartridge for the 6 PPC. In any case, by sticking with the basic proportions of the .30-'06 for the past 115 years, we have the general proportions that have steered American cartridge design, with occasional detours for sharper shoulders (Ackley Improved) or belted magnums. Otherwise, we had to await the arrival of the short magnums to see radically different case proportions. Sounds to me like an interesting subject for a longer discussion! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Lest we forget, the "Short-Fat" technical idea.
Top