|
|
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 227
Campfire Member
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 227 |
I think some of you guys went way off in left field. We are talking about ballistics and hitting power at various yardages. If you can't read a simple ballistic chart your in the wrong thread. You don't need any of these calibers or really need to have shot any of them to discuss a ballistic chart. If you think you do your in the wrong thread. Introducing a new cartridge and showing how it compares to other extant cartridges is one thing, allowing people to draw their own conclusions. I've designed and had built a wildcat, and know for a fact that it didn't do anything existing cartridges already had well covered. I didn't go around harping on worthless ballistic charts (which mean diddly schit in the real world), claiming how much better my round was, especially before I had shot it. Cartridges sometimes have issues, whether in feeding (as often happens with the minimum taper, sharp shouldered rounds) or with pressure spikes (such as with the 25 WSM). Until it's actually tested in the real world, it's just a theory. People's problem with you is in part because you come on and say how much better your round is, without any real proof. Guys that have shot and killed a bit know how little difference there truly is between cartridges. They know how useless comparisons of Foot Pounds of Energy or whatever kind of made up rating system you can come up with matters in the real world. If your proof of how much better a round is than another comes from a chart, I suggest you need to do a lot more shooting and killing. You need to test both in the field, not simply on paper. Otherwise, your proof is meaningless. Your really confused. I'm not designing nor affiliated with the designer or this round at all. I'm asking him questions on a couple different forum and relaying the information here. He's posting up the velocities with the exact powder loads as he's testing so you see his load development. I just took the numbers and did the math. Read my original post i think that was pretty clear. I link to the original thread in first post.
Last edited by SanCalPigHunter; 07/16/13.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,494
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,494 |
And so how does maybe a 100-200 fps just flat kill way better than anything else?
Once again, you have to have your foot in the reality world to come to conclusions.
I"ve done the math on some match stuff, and yet in the real world of competition, sometimes what the computer tells you with actual data, just doesn't jive. Some things work better than others.
Just exactly why short fat PPC type cases are more inherently accurate than many others boggles my mind, but its certainly proven...
The road goes on forever....
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 227
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 227 |
And so how does maybe a 100-200 fps just flat kill way better than anything else?
Once again, you have to have your foot in the reality world to come to conclusions.
I"ve done the math on some match stuff, and yet in the real world of competition, sometimes what the computer tells you with actual data, just doesn't jive. Some things work better than others.
Just exactly why short fat PPC type cases are more inherently accurate than many others boggles my mind, but its certainly proven...
The road goes on forever....
I'm not real sure what your talking about or how to respond to you. You seem to be arguing against a statement from someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,910 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,910 Likes: 1 |
I'm not the confused one here.
You are trying to quantify killing power with numbers and charts. Numbers and charts mean dick in the real world when it comes to killing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,766
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,766 |
I'm not real sure what your talking about or how to respond to you. You seem to be arguing against a statement from someone else. He's saying(like everyone else has) that data charts do not equal real world results or experience. You have no real world experience or results, and are only going by what the manufacturer has said so far.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,605
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,605 |
And so how does maybe a 100-200 fps just flat kill way better than anything else?
Once again, you have to have your foot in the reality world to come to conclusions.
I"ve done the math on some match stuff, and yet in the real world of competition, sometimes what the computer tells you with actual data, just doesn't jive. Some things work better than others.
Just exactly why short fat PPC type cases are more inherently accurate than many others boggles my mind, but its certainly proven...
The road goes on forever....
I'm not real sure what your talking about or how to respond to you. You seem to be arguing against a statement from someone else. if you cant keep up with this its prolly best you leave to ballistic postulating to someone else......
A serious student of the "Armchair Safari" always looking for Africa/Asia hunting books
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,652 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,652 Likes: 3 |
I think some of you guys went way off in left field. We are talking about ballistics and hitting power at various yardages. If you can't read a simple ballistic chart your in the wrong thread. You don't need any of these calibers or really need to have shot any of them to discuss a ballistic chart. If you think you do your in the wrong thread. Okay... You have produced a little chart that we are supposed to discuss with you. So let's discuss. You don't have a rifle chambered for this cartridge yet do you? So there is no way of knowing what the speeds will actually be then other than what your programs are spitting out. Have you been paying attention to the speculated velocities that have been spewed out the past decade and taken notes on which ones actually meet their advertised velocities? It's very few... If you are proclaiming the ballistic superiority of this cartridge by referencing us to your little chart that you just again modified, why would you pick a .277" caliber for this cartridge when a .264" or .284" will be ballistically superior for the bullet weights you want to shoot and the cartridge's powder capacity? Any interest in addressing these questions?
- Greg
Success is found at the intersection of planning, hard work, and stubbornness.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,494
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,494 |
And so how does maybe a 100-200 fps just flat kill way better than anything else?
Once again, you have to have your foot in the reality world to come to conclusions.
I"ve done the math on some match stuff, and yet in the real world of competition, sometimes what the computer tells you with actual data, just doesn't jive. Some things work better than others.
Just exactly why short fat PPC type cases are more inherently accurate than many others boggles my mind, but its certainly proven...
The road goes on forever....
I'm not real sure what your talking about or how to respond to you. You seem to be arguing against a statement from someone else. Pretty simple, until you use the cartridge later this fall or winter( your own statement says its this fall and not sooner) on targets and game and get some under your belt and then compare to the next slower cartridge, how game reacts, how quicker it dies etc...... you have NO clue how this thing will work. Guess how they figured out rockets worked? Design, draw, build and launch. YOu can bet the first one that crumpled on launch the designers didnt' say, hey, this one will go up a few feet and then come apart and explode..... Some folks still fall for the ocean front property thing too. And as another noted, if you think there is huge difference between the 06 and 308 in killing power on deer, you have not shot both very much. Same thing here, but the horse has been beat to death long ago.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 46,274 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 46,274 Likes: 2 |
I'm saving my pennies for a stretched AR10 in .338 Lapua.
And a Sharps .45-90 Let me set ya up with a nice Barrett in 20-50 Anzio.  Gunner
Trump Won!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,330 Likes: 15
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,330 Likes: 15 |
The same protocol is used in the marketing of compound bows. I have never come close to advertised FPS using the minimum required real world arrow weight, hunting broad head , draw length when using a chronograph .
Simple way to solve this debacle is to load up the new round with standard barrel length , reasonable pressures, chrono and post results and accuracy of this new round. Be even better if it was windy or really hot or cold at the test range.
The guys on here that know their stuff do this and post results.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 227
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 227 |
I think some of you guys went way off in left field. We are talking about ballistics and hitting power at various yardages. If you can't read a simple ballistic chart your in the wrong thread. You don't need any of these calibers or really need to have shot any of them to discuss a ballistic chart. If you think you do your in the wrong thread. Okay... You have produced a little chart that we are supposed to discuss with you. So let's discuss. You don't have a rifle chambered for this cartridge yet do you? So there is no way of knowing what the speeds will actually be then other than what your programs are spitting out. Have you been paying attention to the speculated velocities that have been spewed out the past decade and taken notes on which ones actually meet their advertised velocities? It's very few... If you are proclaiming the ballistic superiority of this cartridge by referencing us to your little chart that you just again modified, why would you pick a .277" caliber for this cartridge when a .264" or .284" will be ballistically superior for the bullet weights you want to shoot and the cartridge's powder capacity? Any interest in addressing these questions? Once again i didn't pick the bullet i'm not the designer if you want to discuss why he picked what ask him the original thread is linked in my first post. I'm using his measurements hes posting up his measurements as hes doing load development so its pretty legit. When your using 10gr's more powder a 200fps jump over the 6.8spc is a conservative estimate. He has created a 6.5mm wildcat called the 6.5mm brx that had some pretty good numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 227
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 227 |
I'm not real sure what your talking about or how to respond to you. You seem to be arguing against a statement from someone else. He's saying(like everyone else has) that data charts do not equal real world results or experience. You have no real world experience or results, and are only going by what the manufacturer has said so far. Ballistics are controlled by physics and are pretty predictable as long as you know the barrel velocity, grain size and BC of the bullet you know its flight path in perfect conditions of course. The rules of the universe are fairly consistent  .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,860
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,860 |
I'm not real sure what your talking about or how to respond to you. You seem to be arguing against a statement from someone else. He's saying(like everyone else has) that data charts do not equal real world results or experience. You have no real world experience or results, and are only going by what the manufacturer has said so far. Okay jackazz, I guess you choose to ignore bullet manufacturer's reccomendations regarding a minimum speed for a bullet to open and perform as designed. 200+fps is potentially huge, in a cartridge format with the restrictions that the AR mag has. Anyone not smart enough to understand that should STFU and go [bleep] on another thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,860
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,860 |
The rules of the universe are fairly consistent . Not among many "intellectuals" here at the fire. The universe bends to their will.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,494
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,494 |
Pretty easy to state a case though, I could shoot 10 deer in the guts with the SLOW 6.8 and then head or shoulder shoot 10 with the new wiz bang round that MIGHT make it to market and proclaim it to be a winner....
RE 200 fps being potentially huge is true. But its something that rarely is the case in the real world.
And if you think that some little things dont' make a difference, talk to some of the other grunts out there that were dealing with 5.56 in 62 grain and then got swapped to 77SMKs..... same gun, same round, even slower bullet, but performance turned WAY around.....
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,605
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,605 |
I'm not real sure what your talking about or how to respond to you. You seem to be arguing against a statement from someone else. He's saying(like everyone else has) that data charts do not equal real world results or experience. You have no real world experience or results, and are only going by what the manufacturer has said so far. Ballistics are controlled by physics and are pretty predictable as long as you know the barrel velocity, grain size and BC of the bullet you know its flight path in perfect conditions of course. The rules of the universe are fairly consistent . you really havent done much shooting over a chrony.....what you say is true when everything is perfect.....real world aint perfect and rounds often dont do what the computer program predicts.....especially when your talking not a huge difference between two rounds....
A serious student of the "Armchair Safari" always looking for Africa/Asia hunting books
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,766
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,766 |
I'll address both of you dick [bleep] with this one post. Two stupid birds with one succinct stone as it were.
You are basing you're entire load of schit(charts and all) on numbers being put out by the originator of the cartridge. A person who has a vested interest in this cartridge for personal and financial reasons. It is not unheard or nor uncommon for those numbers to rather different than the real world results obtained by others with no vested interest in its success or failure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,494
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,494 |
And I'd bet if its actually "as advertised" it would very possibly be well accepted.
Of course its funny too how I shot deer for years with the 243 Win, and then had a 6.8 spc necked down to 6mm, IE a slow 243 if you will and have killed a LOT of stuff with it since. Cant' really tell the difference over the years. And its gotta be probably 300 plus FPS slower than 243 Win.
I'd surmise if someone looked at the numbers they'd scream the new round could NEVER do anything good.
Of course at 325 yards so far, a doe took one in the chest, a large mature one, and it exited the hindquarter and kept going. So even though the charts should say it sucks vs 243, its been a right handy little round.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,910 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,910 Likes: 1 |
That's the crux of this argument. I'm sure this new round will be effective and just fine. But when someone comes on and touts its vast superiority, especially without having tested it, that grinds my gears.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,274
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,274 |
Sounds like it might be a little better than a 6.8 - if it feeds okay. I looked at AR15performance.com; barrels are not available until the fall of this year. So it may be an interesting project at some point in the future.
"...the designer of the .270 Ingwe cartridge!..."
|
|
|
|
|
578 members (1234, 1badf350, 12344mag, 01Foreman400, 1minute, 007FJ, 57 invisible),
2,534
guests, and
1,221
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,711
Posts18,514,006
Members74,010
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
