This Day in History

Daily Cartoon provided by Bravenet

  #11  
Old 05-16-2006
Armorer's Avatar
Armorer Armorer is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hahira, Ga.
Posts: 360
Send a message via AIM to Armorer
Default

Here's that discussion thread i told you about--
http://www.ar15.com/lite/topic.html?...=228773&page=1
The following comes from page 4:


Quote:
from left to right: Boar Skull (that boar was shot with my 458 SOCOM), empty 50 Beowulf, empty 458 SOCOM case, 300 grain CORBON load, 400 grain Brass round nose CORBON load, 400 grain Barnes X, 405 grain remington softpoint, 66 grain hollowpoint Sabot, 72 grain Sierra Match Game King Sabot, and for compairson 300 grain 45-70 Gov't loaded by Winchester.

I dig those abot rounds-- that 72grain with a carbide base would drill anything!

NOTE: check out the brass shotgun shells behind the bullets-- looks like those CAW shells we discussed a while ago.
__________________

Quote:
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping a human face...forever" ~George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-16-2006
Kthulhu's Avatar
Kthulhu Kthulhu is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 203
Default

CAWS shells aren't standard 12 gauge shells.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-17-2006
B__ B__ is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 26
Send a message via MSN to B__
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kthulhu
CAWS shells aren't standard 12 gauge shells.
CAWS shells have the same dimensions as a standard 3" shell, at least according to HKPRO. 6.5 grendel sounds like a nasty little round. Never heard of it up here though, how do you guys like it compared to 6.8 SPC?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-17-2006
Armorer's Avatar
Armorer Armorer is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hahira, Ga.
Posts: 360
Send a message via AIM to Armorer
Default

There's some notes in here comparing 6.8 to .50beowulf and 6.5--
http://www.defensereview.com/modules...rticle&sid=383
__________________

Quote:
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping a human face...forever" ~George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-17-2006
JCoyote JCoyote is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Choctaw, OK
Posts: 615
Send a message via AIM to JCoyote
Default

6.8 SPC vs 6.5 Grendel pretty much sums up like this:

Recoil: about equal.
Stopping power: 6.8 SPC wins (marginally)
Range: 6.8 SPC = ~600 meters, 6.5 Grendel 1000+ meters
Armor/Material penetration: 6.5 Grendel wins (significantly)

Most of this is because of the superior sectional density of the 6.5 Grendel round. And while the 6.8 has a slightly better stopping power against unarmored targets... and that might be attractive in some of the 3rd world conflicts we've been in lately... the 6.5 doesn't fall behind by much and far outpaces the 5.56mm. Also, as the range increases the 6.5 just gets better; past I believe 300 or 400 yards, the 6.5 actually hits harder than 7.62 NATO.

So really, while 6.8 could be decent as a standard rifle round, the 6.5 would be just as suitable in that role and has serious advantages as a precision round and machinegun round as well. With 6.5 we could replace everything in 5.56mm AND 7.62 NATO with one cartridge system. With skillful design, we could see a carbine/rifle/DMR/SAW/MG all based on one modular rifle system shooting one cartridge from the same magazines. Which would seriously streamline supply.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-18-2006
RustyBayonet's Avatar
RustyBayonet RustyBayonet is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: England
Posts: 81
Default Tungsten

Weren't Tungsten alloy bullets found to cause tumours 100% of the time during tests in non-lethal wounds, and as such would be a device of 'unnecessary suffering'? when used in small arms? - not like I give a shit as long as it isn't me getting shot by one.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-18-2006
JCoyote JCoyote is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Choctaw, OK
Posts: 615
Send a message via AIM to JCoyote
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyBayonet
Weren't Tungsten alloy bullets found to cause tumours 100% of the time during tests in non-lethal wounds, and as such would be a device of 'unnecessary suffering'? when used in small arms? - not like I give a shit as long as it isn't me getting shot by one.

You're right. Damn. Bismuth, anyone? LOL. Actually I am curious if it was the presence of tungsten itself or the particular alloy combination that causes that effect? This one surprised a lot of people, in a lot of ways it doesn't theoretically seem like tungsten should do this. Heavy metals can poison people, certainly, but not in a carcinogenic way. They are different mechanisms.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-18-2006
UZI4U's Avatar
UZI4U UZI4U is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas.
Posts: 890
Default

I haven't heard about this... Anyone have links to it?

You're damn right when you say it doesn't make sense.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-18-2006
JCoyote JCoyote is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Choctaw, OK
Posts: 615
Send a message via AIM to JCoyote
Default

Here's one

Tungsten shrapnel leads to tumors in rats

This is scattered around. It is only one study, but the effects were pretty profound at 100%. Makes me curious because even uranium probably doesn't have a 100% cancer rate THAT fast.

They are going to do another study or 2 before it turns into anything conclusive. Maybe it just hit generations of inbred lab rats in the right biochemical spot.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SecurityArms.com 1995 - 2009