[mephisto]

How about a .243 as a military round? I love this round. It’s not that big (.308) and not that small (.223). I wonder what it would be like in full-auto. Just a thought.


mephisto:evil:

[Black Dragon]

Way back on the good old TFL, someone posted a study done on the difference between 223 and 243. IIRC the reason not to go with the 243 is that it burned out the barrels of the rifles much faster then the 223. I bet if you went to TFL and did a search in the rifle section you could find it.
:)

[treeprof]

As a caliber, it has good potential. As a cartridge, it has some problems w/respect to a military role.

Here's the thread:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=70695&highlight=.243+military

[cratz2]

Several experts feel that we should move to a heavier, larger caliber small arms cartridge. Chuck Hawk's website has a couple articles on the subject. One of the problems with the current 243 is that it is very similar to the 7.62. This would probably wreak havoc on the 243 loaded weapons when 7.62 ammo was chambered.

6x45 and 6x47 (based on 223 and 222 Mag brass respectively) is a bit underpowered but still probably be superior to 5.56 ammo. Just not enough so that we should spend as much replacing all the guns and all the ammo and all the equipment etc...

There are a couple other options, one of which is in the testing stages. Or so I hear. ;)

[sasnofear]

the main reason .223 is chosen is because you can carry more rds. all 243 does in decreases rds carried and is less effective than .308, as its the same size case. so really its between .308 and .223. as the average solder really isnt all that good a shot then the extra range of .308 is wasted thus .223 is chosen.