Why was 243 Win never considered as a military cartridge?


PDA






Lone_Gunman
December 26, 2008, 08:55 PM
It seems like a good compromise of weight, power, etc. It could not be chambered in an AR, but it looks like it would be great in a FAL.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why was 243 Win never considered as a military cartridge?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
k9870
December 26, 2008, 08:56 PM
there actually is a 243 ar upper

Coal Dragger
December 26, 2008, 08:57 PM
One reason may be that the .243 Win is pretty well over bore compared to a .308 and that leads to shorter barrel life.

elmerfudd
December 26, 2008, 09:01 PM
I'm guessing that a .243 on full auto would burn barrels out pretty quickly.

Also, one of the main reasons for going to the 5.56 over the 7.62x51 was to save weight. The .243 requires just as big and heavy a receiver and magazine as a 7.62 and the ammo weighs a lot more than 5.56 too.

rangerruck
December 26, 2008, 09:02 PM
at one time, we almost went with the 6mmLee, about 100 yrs ago, that round was ditched because of money/politics, the usual; but that round went on to be the 220 swift.

thebaldguy
December 26, 2008, 09:02 PM
Could it be the diamater of the case? I think the case diameter is the same as a 7.62 Nato/.308 Win. Smaller case diameter (5.56 Nato/.223 Rem.) allows for more cartridges in the same size magazine.

Only the bullet diamater is smaller in a .243 than a .308.

Shawnee
December 26, 2008, 09:03 PM
Because the .243 is a superb cartridge and thus impossible to be selected using Military Intelligence.

:cool:

Javelin
December 26, 2008, 09:07 PM
One reason may be that the .243 Win is pretty well over bore compared to a .308 and that leads to shorter barrel life.

Exactly what I was told.

:)

gvnwst
December 26, 2008, 09:18 PM
there actually is a 243 ar upper

That is AR-10, not AR-15.


Probably because hte military was wedded to the .30 cal cartridges. At that time. And the .243 wasn't much different than the .308.

R.W.Dale
December 26, 2008, 09:24 PM
lets not forget that the 243 win hadn't been invented till 7.62x51 was adopted and refined into 308 win, the cartridge 243 is based on.

Lone_Gunman
December 26, 2008, 09:46 PM
One reason may be that the .243 Win is pretty well over bore compared to a .308 and that leads to shorter barrel life.

What does "over bore" mean???

R.W.Dale
December 26, 2008, 09:49 PM
What does "over bore" mean???

it's an expression of case capacity relative to the bore diameter. Typically the more overbore you go the shorter bbl life becomes.

If not properly cared for a 243 can "burn out" a bbl in less than 2000rds. Even tripling that number for combat accuracy you're talking about a very brief lifespan for FA fire

HorseSoldier
December 26, 2008, 11:47 PM
It seems like a good compromise of weight, power, etc. It could not be chambered in an AR, but it looks like it would be great in a FAL.

DSA makes 243 and 260 calibered versions of the SA58 under their Hunter line.

If I ever, say, won the lottery, I'd probably have them build me one of each in a tactical rifle kind of configuration, order several thousand rounds of each caliber, and go to town seeing how they run compared to their 7.62x51 counterpart and 5.56 carbines and whatever else that came to mind. Barring that, they're an interesting what if as military calibers.

As for why 243 was never considered, I'd think that besides the overbore issue already noted, there's the fact that you don't get any savings on volume a loaded cartridge or magazine takes up and only minimal savings on weight. 243 isn't them most efficient way to sling a 6mm projectile downrange, if we're building a military round from scratch.

Birdhunter1
December 26, 2008, 11:48 PM
Wasn't feeding reliability an issue? I read a report one time (or somebodies opinion) on whyt the .223 was chosen over the .243 and I thought I read that teh shoulder angles on teh case of the .243 vs. the .223 were steeper and there coudl be feeding issues due to teh steeper shoudler angles. I also read (and know from personal use) the .243 can be a barrel burner if fired repeatedly whereas the .223 isn't. In this report/opinion it also looked at the .22-.250 and the .220 swift.

Coal Dragger
December 27, 2008, 12:03 AM
A .243 or 6mm projectile could make a pretty good service rifle round, but designing the cartridge around the projectile would be a better idea. That way the desired velocity, barrel life expectancy, weapon weight, weapon size, and other factors can be considered.

I would think that a .243/6mm projectile in a case with about 79-80% of the powder capacity of the .308/7.62X51 would be great. The resulting rifle would be a little bigger than an AR-15, but would fire a round that hit a lot harder and still had a good flat trajectory. It shouldn't be too hard on barrels either. In fact the 6mm XC is pretty close but I don't know how it would put up with being fed through an auto loading rifle, or a belt fed MG.

Auburn1992
December 27, 2008, 12:12 AM
I always thought a 7mm-08 wouldn't be too bad. It's got a significant lesser amount of recoil than a .308 with basically all the ballistics.

Seafarer12
December 27, 2008, 12:39 AM
I read once that when the FAL was originally designed they had planned on making it a 6mm gun but Nato made the 308 their standard round so thats what they ended up going with. Not a 243 but some kind of 6mm round. I would be happy if they would just make them in 6mm-223. You would still get 30 rounds to a mag but better downrange.

HorseSoldier
December 27, 2008, 12:50 AM
The very earliest FAL prototypes were chambered for the 7.92x33 cartridge the German Sturmgewehrs had used in WW2. They later switched it over to the .280 British/7x43 round, until US insistence on .308 killed that far superior round, and FN had to redesign the FAL for 7.62x51.

Sunray
December 27, 2008, 01:40 AM
"...always thought a 7mm-08 wouldn't be too bad..." No advantage. The .280 British was being developed when the U.S. jammed the 7.62 down NATO's throat. So was the 5.56 in the 60's. "We've adopted it and so will you or we'll take out money and go home." Both times.
The Brits were working on a .276 calibre when W.W. I got in the way too.
"...the .243 can be a barrel burner..." The .243 doesn't burn barrels any more than any other cartridge.
FN would have made an FAL in any cartridge you wanted if you paid for it.
I've always thought the few, original, select fire, AR-10's, made for Finland, in 7.62 x 39 was a good idea.

Coal Dragger
December 27, 2008, 01:54 AM
I think I'll go with David Tubb on .243 WIN burning out barrels faster than some other calibers. Chances are if a guy that shoots as much as he does claims from first hand experience that .243 WIN has a short barrel life then I am inclined to believe him.

Believe whatever you want to though.

Sunray
December 27, 2008, 02:38 AM
"...burning out barrels faster..." Been shooting the same, low end, .243 rifle for about 30 years. Using nothing but handloaded jacketed bullets at around 3,000fps. Ground hogs, mostly. The accuracy is the same now as it was when I bought the rifle. They don't burn barrels any more than any like calibre/velocity rifle.
In any case, it takes many thousand rounds to burn out a barrel. And that only means the rifle doesn't shoot as accurately as it did when it was new. Applies mostly to target rifles anyway.

redneck2
December 27, 2008, 07:04 AM
I bet if you took the .243 and necked it up to .30 cal, it would make a GREAT military round...

;)

anyway, modern military rounds seem to be a balance of powder versus projectile. With a given bullet, increasing the powder volume 10% (by changing case design/capacity) only increases velocity by 2.5%.

As compared to a .308, the .243 weighs the same to carry, burns barrels faster, costs the same to manufacture, and has less power. Other than that, it's probably better.

Thin Black Line
December 27, 2008, 08:28 AM
Get enough people to repeat something over and over and many of them
believe it to be fact.

Nothing about the .243 leads to "shorter barrel life" --no more than any
other cartridge that might be hand-loaded too hot and resulting in a
throated-out bore. Often due to taking taking the weapon-type and steel
beyond what the engineer was told it was originally intended to be used for.

BTW, yes, the FAL was intended for a smaller cal, but was changed due to
American pressure. We, of course, then went completely the other way and
went as small as possible.

Not too long ago, 6mm variants seemed to "come out of the blue" and become
all the rage again in ar15 platforms.

243 always garners interest because it will fit 308 dimensions in magwells,
receivers, bolt faces, etc. It has very low recoil, shoots flatter than the
308, and carries far more than sufficient energy hundreds of yards downrange
to deal with potential problems.

Lloyd Smale
December 27, 2008, 08:59 AM
it has all of the disadvantages of the 762 like more recoil, heavy ammo, heavier gun ect and none of the advantages as it still shoots a bullet closer is diameter to a 223 then a 308, and would be harder on barrels then either. The mid bore ars make great hunting guns and specilty guns but i doubt youll ever see one as a main line battle rifle. I dont see all the hoopla with them. The russians allready have about the altimate compromise in the 762x39. If the US adopted it and used readily available 308 bullets instead of 312s and put it in an accurate, lightweight, reliable gun like an ar they would have probably the best battle rifle of all time.

CZ223
December 27, 2008, 09:02 AM
if memory serves, the M16 was developed as a lighter weight alternative to the the Garand with more stopping power than the M1 carbine. Carrying around a Garand all day was bad enough but to carry any quantity of ammo on your person as well was darn right daunting. While I know that many of you view the 223 as feeble, the size weight and shape of the cartridge allows a man to carry about 3 times as much ammo for the same weight. Also the magazines for the 223 are relatively straight so they take up less room. Again, if memory serves, a full battle pack was 9 30 round magazines, 270 rounds. Try carrying that many rounds of 308.

While I agree that the 243 is a fine round and, personally, I would never want to be shot with one, putting a 6mm bullet in the 308 case, at least from a military standpoint would be counter-intuitive.

John828
December 27, 2008, 09:02 AM
I bet if you took the .243 and necked it up to .30 cal, it would make a GREAT military round...

redneck, I totally agree. :D

arizonaguide
December 27, 2008, 09:19 AM
Again, if memory serves, a full battle pack was 9 30 round magazines, 270 rounds. Try carrying that many rounds of 308.
You don't have to carry as many, cuz it only takes half as many .308(one shot, instead of 2 or 3) to stop an enemy.

But then, maybe a person needs a lot of "harrassing fire" or "supression fire" rounds, and that would get heavy I guess.

What does the new 6.8mm equate to in caliber measurement, and how does it compare to the .243 ballistics? Is it more like a .270?

R.W.Dale
December 27, 2008, 01:30 PM
Barrel life is the downside of both the .243 AI and standard .243. These chamberings pump a lot of powder through a small bore. The result, typically, is rather short barrel life, sometimes less than 1500 rounds. A few folks have been experimenting with the use of very slow, cooler-burning powders. There is some evidence that the use of super-slow powders, combined with modified cleaning regimens, can result in significantly enhanced barrel life.

from 6mmBR.com:rolleyes:


I believe I'll take their word over someone who'se likely never shot more than 800 rounds through any one rifle.

Mannlicher
December 27, 2008, 01:33 PM
I would say the main reason is that it offers nothing over the .308 cartridge.

John828
December 27, 2008, 01:37 PM
I think the LA SWAT used it briefly in their early days.

R.W.Dale
December 27, 2008, 01:40 PM
I would say the main reason is that it offers nothing over the .308 cartridge.

Finally someone said it.

I never understood why once a man buys a 243 he gets all sappy and googleeyed over that cartridge. I've owned several and thus far I've been immune to these symptoms

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
December 27, 2008, 02:52 PM
Thinking of anyone in particular? :)

It does offer *some* advantage over .308: (1) *slightly* less weight to carry, and (2) *slightly* flatter trajectory, but these small advantages are overcome by the disadvantage of barrel burn, a very VERY important concern when adopting a cartridge that will go into a machine or standard service rifle.

As to why is wasn't considered? It quite likely WAS considered, along with many many other options also ultimately rejected. Why it wasn't adopted? Probably barrel burn is the main reason, plus the fact that it won't be controllable in full auto, so it offers no advantage over .308 in that area. The 6.5 grendel and 6.8 spc are catching on for a reason. They are truly the goldilocks calibers that work well for just about everything, including full auto from a service rifle.

That said, I love the .243 winchester round. :D

Shawnee
December 27, 2008, 03:20 PM
"I would say the main reason is that it offers nothing over the .308 cartridge."

The .243 didn't fit the criteria decreed necessary for the purpose of War by that well-known mental debilitation commonly referred to as "military intelligence". But the .308 did find favor in the asylum - and that speaks volumes about it.

;)

arizonaguide
December 27, 2008, 05:11 PM
How does the .243 stack up against the 6.8?

newdude
December 27, 2008, 05:17 PM
Beats it by quite a big margin. Smaller bullet, around the same weight, but higher velocity.

Redneck with a 40
December 27, 2008, 07:03 PM
.243 would make a dandy sniper round, max effective range is probably 600-700 yards.

gvnwst
December 27, 2008, 07:15 PM
max effective range is probably 600-700 yards.

It is more around 1k+, with the correct bullets.

elmerfudd
December 27, 2008, 07:23 PM
How does the .243 stack up against the 6.8?

Well, it makes for a better hunting round. It's faster, flatter shooting and more powerful. For military purposes however I think it's weaknesses have been pretty well listed here.

The 6.8 fits in an AR15 sized action. It doesn't burn out barrels prematurely and it's lighter and shorter. For military purposes those three things totally nix any hope the .243 might ever have or have had of being adopted.

Thin Black Line
December 28, 2008, 07:50 AM
Since the "243 burns barrels" mantra keeps getting repeated here by ppl who've
probably never fired even 100 rds of 243, all I can cite is my personal experience
with a couple different 243 rifles --one of which had over 10K rds in it and
did hole in hole with handloads (must be those so-called slow burning cooler
experimental loads I did in the special TBL bunker lab) in the final summer I
owned it before I sold it to a friend.

BTW, I seem to recall DSA FALs and even a PTR in 243 Win. How are those
doing? Any factory recalls on those?

otomik
December 28, 2008, 08:16 AM
well a 6mm military cartridge wouldn't really need all that case capacity. for a while the military couldn't figure out a way to manufacture a .223 remington tracer round so they thought they would have to create a new cartridge for the SAW.

6mm SAW was the experimental cartridge and it would be the perfect all around cartridge if it weren't for the fact adding a new cartridge to the supply chain would be a big hassle. When they figured out a way to manufacture .223 tracers the new cartridge was dropped from the SAW program.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=281881

fact is a 6mm cartridge could be very good for automatic fire, not necessarily a barrel burner. and the US Army is on record favoring a 6mm solution if it were starting from a blank slate.

Shawnee
December 28, 2008, 09:00 AM
"Since the "243 burns barrels" mantra keeps getting repeated here by ppl who've probably never fired even 100 rds of 243"

Gotta laugh bigtime at that silliness about the .243 beiing a "barrel burner".

Some of it it comes from target shooters who think a barrel is burned out when its' groups "open up" from 1/4" to 1/2" at 100yds. And that is not a good thing in the limited context of their specific sport. But then they come here and sing the "barrel burner" chorus without mentioning that their parameters are fractions of an inch at 100yds.
Then, as you say, the people who have little or no experience with the .243 read that granola and then spend the rest of their unthinking lives repeating the ".243 is a barrel burner mantra" like so many parrots.

:cool:

ArmedBear
December 28, 2008, 09:17 AM
The reason the military got interested in the .223 was that it is shorter, skinnier, and lighter than previous rounds like the .308, not because it was just like the .308 but had a smaller bullet. End of story.

That doesn't mean it's not a good round for anorexic deer or obese prairie dogs.

Thin Black Line
December 28, 2008, 09:25 AM
That doesn't mean it's not a good round for anorexic deer or obese prairie dogs.

And the penetration of the 243 w/ an 85 gr SOFT point will still kill those
animals when they hide behind 1/4" mild steel....at 300 yds...oh, and with a
human between them and the steel, too. Ok, just kidding. Remove the
animal since we're talking about military potential.

ArmedBear
December 28, 2008, 09:42 AM
1/4" of mild steel?

Shot soft lead round balls at black powder velocities through it.

Thin Black Line
December 28, 2008, 09:55 AM
I am not a metallurgist so anything less than my uparmored humvee door, I consider "mild steel". :p

Redneck with a 40
December 28, 2008, 10:38 AM
You're typical .308 barrel is good for 5000 rounds of standard ammo, it shouldn't be an issue with 243 either. If you want a barrel burner, try 264 winchester magnum, that eats barrels.

jjohnson
December 28, 2008, 10:43 AM
What makes you think it was never considered?

All we really know is that it was never ADOPTED.

We know that .30 caliber works fairly well for tracers and armor piercing ammo, while 224 doesn't do very well. We know that the 5.56 (and Commie equivalent) are handy to carry but poor for long range and harder targets; the reverse is true for .30 cal.

We know that the 6.8 was an attempt to meet both ends halfway.

Like one guy said, 6mm Lee made it once; and for some reason we're still trying to solve the 5.56 was adopted.:barf:

Oh, never mind.:banghead:

R.W.Dale
December 28, 2008, 12:46 PM
You're typical .308 barrel is good for 5000 rounds of standard ammo, it shouldn't be an issue with 243 either. If you want a barrel burner, try 264 winchester magnum, that eats barrels.


http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/overborechart4a.png

HorseSoldier
December 28, 2008, 03:06 PM
Since the "243 burns barrels" mantra keeps getting repeated here by ppl who've probably never fired even 100 rds of 243, all I can cite is my personal experience with a couple different 243 rifles --one of which had over 10K rds in it and did hole in hole with handloads (must be those so-called slow burning cooler experimental loads I did in the special TBL bunker lab) in the final summer I owned it before I sold it to a friend.

There are different ways to shoot 10,000 rounds. You may have not seen any degradation in performance with a bolt gun that clocked a total of 10,000 rounds over the course of years. This doesn't mean a 243 semi-auto rifle shooting 10,000 rounds in a year, 2500 rounds per training event or class, will hold up.

BTW, I seem to recall DSA FALs and even a PTR in 243 Win. How are those doing? Any factory recalls on those?

I don't think there's any information out there on them having problems, but there's also (I think) no one out there putting serious round counts through them. If there's someone out there who's using a 243 semi intensively for Three Gun or something that would be the person to talk to on longevity as a service cartridge, but I've never heard of anyone who does so (guys who are more into action shooting games may know differently).

elmerfudd
December 28, 2008, 03:20 PM
Since the "243 burns barrels" mantra keeps getting repeated here by ppl who've
probably never fired even 100 rds of 243, all I can cite is my personal experience
with a couple different 243 rifles --one of which had over 10K rds in it and
did hole in hole with handloads (must be those so-called slow burning cooler
experimental loads I did in the special TBL bunker lab) in the final summer I
owned it before I sold it to a friend.

And how much rapid fire and full auto fire did you do with those rifles? A military round has to be suitable for use in machineguns, not bolt actions whose barrels are allowed to cool in between shots. Yes, .243 barrels hold up just fine in bolt action hunting rifles, but take and cycle 200 rounds of .243 through your rifle as fast as you can. Heat the barrel up until it burns your skin the moment you touch it. Allow it to cool and then do it again a few times. That's the kind of use these rifles would see in combat. Do you honestly think that barrel is going to hold up?

Of course that kind of use can and does burn out just about any barrel eventually, but you still don't want to accelerate the wear by choosing a cartridge which has very few military advantages.

Thin Black Line
December 28, 2008, 04:17 PM
So 50 bmg is the worst of the red-line "overbore" cartridges?

gvnwst
December 28, 2008, 04:26 PM
Well, on that chart, yes.

plinky
December 28, 2008, 04:28 PM
That's why they come with spare barrels. :)

Thin Black Line
December 28, 2008, 04:36 PM
Someone care to mention which weapon systems use the 50 BMG?

gvnwst
December 28, 2008, 04:38 PM
M82 anti material sniper, M2 heavy machine gun, i thing that about covers it.

Lloyd Smale
December 28, 2008, 04:41 PM
well ive owned and shot a few bolt guns in my days and i do realize that shooting slowly out of a bolt is going to produce alot less throat errosion then shooting rapid fire out of a semi auto. I have wore out rifle barrels and dont think ive personaly had any centerfire rifle barrel that shot a high pressure round (by high pressure i meant 48000plus) that lasted 10000 rounds without some deterioration of accuracy. At least none shot even at the pace of a varmit rifle. Im sure it could be done if you shot maybe a round ever 15 minutes to ensure the barrel stayed cool and you stayed away from ball powders which is about impossible unless you handload as just about every manufacture of ammo uses ball powders. If i had to make an educated guess id about bet that used like an ar is used barrel life would be about half what it would be with a 223 and close to half of what youd get shooting 308 military ammo is loaded to lower pressures then comercial ammo.

Thin Black Line
December 28, 2008, 05:08 PM
M82 anti material sniper, M2 heavy machine gun, i thing that about covers it.

Imagine that.

gvnwst
December 28, 2008, 05:13 PM
Imagine that.


Well, those are th only ones the armed forces use. For all of them.....lots.

plinky
December 28, 2008, 06:40 PM
Quote:

M82 anti material sniper, M2 heavy machine gun, i thing that about covers it.


Imagine that.

I'm not getting your point. The sniper systems are not high volume shooters. The M2 has quick change barrels which are either swapped quite often or quickly become smoothbores. Semi/full auto infantry rifles don't have that feature.

I like the .243 a lot as a sporting round but military use would be very limited.

SlamFire1
December 28, 2008, 10:43 PM
Would a .243 in a FMJ configuration be more lethal than any other small bore FMJ?


Know any other 6 mm service cartridges? (I can think of one, and it did not last long)

otomik
December 29, 2008, 01:34 AM
.243Win doesn't work because of the excessive case capacity leading to overbore. but a .243/6mm cartridge with a smaller case would be fantastic.

http://www.municion.org/6Mm/6x45Saw.gif
thats the big difference between .243 Winchester and 6mm SAW.
http://www.municion.org/243win/243win.gif

.243 Winchester is based on .308 and that's why it's easy to put in FN-FAL and AR-10. that's not to say a 6mm cartridge for the military should actually be like .243winchester except in ballistics.

Know any other 6 mm service cartridges? (I can think of one, and it did not last long)6mm Lee Navy, 6mm SAW experimental. then there's some close ones like 5.8mm Chinese.

gunnie
December 29, 2008, 04:25 AM
as mentioned before the 243 FAL is offered by DSA. it was also sold by springfield armory in 243. no doubt bbl life would be better in the later due to chromed bore.

that said, the FAL is WAY heavy for that chambering. i'd rather have in in an AK.

gunnie

Lloyd Smale
December 29, 2008, 09:43 AM
otomic your design would probalby make a great battle round. Problem is that it would have to be excepted by all of nato. I guess i still dont see a need to fill the gap between the 556 and the 762. Both are fine rounds that serve there purpose well.

gvnwst
December 29, 2008, 01:04 PM
@otomic

Do you have velocity figures for that cartridge?

d2wing
December 29, 2008, 06:18 PM
It would make more sense to go back to the 7.62 NATO that the .243 was derived from. Velocity is less important to the .30 cal than the .243. The .223was the answer to that question. Good question though.

otomik
December 29, 2008, 06:20 PM
Do you have velocity figures for that cartridge?
According to Frank Barnes' Cartridges of the World:
6mm SAW is a 105 grain FMJ Boat Tail moving at 2520fps.
http://books.google.com/books?id=UoWa4CeDOccC&pg=PA344&lpg=PA344&dq=6mm+saw&source=web&ots=rw8oymssVK&sig=2dDj4JxkJ3a4Cx5m-DopMl-Xbjg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=12&ct=result#PPA344,M1

otomic your design would probalby make a great battle round.not my design, the US Army at Frankford Arsenal's design from the 1970s

I guess i still dont see a need to fill the gap between the 556 and the 762. Both are fine rounds that serve there purpose well. not really a gap cartridge. It could replace both. we now how well 6mm can reach out from bench rest shooters.

BTW: Frank Barnes Cartridges of the World is a really good book to have.

Rifleman 173
December 29, 2008, 08:33 PM
Actually military firearms are selected, more or less, by politicians in Washington, D.C., who take graft and kickbacks to get contracts for businesses that make guns and ammo in their home districts. Take a look at the M-16 and which politicians pushed it from Stoner and Armalite to Colt and General Dynamics in Taxachusetts. Let' see... Kennedy was the president's named coupled with a guy named Kennedy who was the U.S. Attorney General coupled with a Senator named... Oh... The senator was also named Kennedy. Colt and General Dynamics were located in the state represented by... Oh, a Kennedy.

Also take a look at the crap Senator Ted "Fat Boy" Kennedy pulled when the military wanted the then new M-1 Abrahms tank many years ago. He tied up the appropriations for that tank UNTIL he got the original engine replaced and various parts for it made in his home state of Taxachusetts. The most worthless, corrupt piece of human garbage to ever exist is a corrupt, drunken senator from any state in our country who influences military procurement in a devious way like Ted "The Lifeguard" Kennedy.

3pairs12
December 29, 2008, 08:38 PM
That is AR-10, not AR-15.


Unless you count the Olympic upper that is .243wsm

gvnwst
December 29, 2008, 08:53 PM
Unless you count the Olympic upper that is .243wsm

Well, the WSM is AR-10 too, it is WSSM that is '-15:neener: Sorry, had to do that:D

3pairs12
December 29, 2008, 08:59 PM
lol you got me

If you enjoyed reading about "Why was 243 Win never considered as a military cartridge?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!