243Win. vs 6mm Rem.

[rizbunk77]

everyone always repeats that the 6mm was not enough better to matter. I knew a very well regarded coyote hunter to whom it did matter. And everyone else's .243 weren't helping them out in comparison.

 

[Dr T]

My 6 mm Rem and both of my 243's are tack drivers. I am not sure that I can shoot well enough to determine which of the 3 is most accurate. I think it may be down to how much Diet Coke that I have had to drink on my way to the range and how much sleep I had the night before going.

 

[MachIVshooter]

There was a guy here who thought how much powder the case would hold was what was important. He liked to fill them up. He blew up a gun every now and then.

That guy's user name was "Clark".

Clark is still active on the board, and he's hardly a reckless overloader. He knows what he is doing, and much of his experimentation is done in reinforced barrel assemblies that he builds himself.

While other members certainly shouldn't use his heavy load data in a conventional firearm, Clark is hardly a novice and shouldn't be mocked for his work.

 

[Craigman]

+1 MachIVshooter^^^^

also, FWIW I also have both and my 6mm (1:9) shoots the heavies much better, faster and accurately. Both are Rugers +200fps on average with the 100gn

the 6mm also has the cool factor....if you're into that....

 

[d2wing]

I agree with Hoofan. Confusing mass and volume is extremely dangerous. As others have said, not following the reloading manual for the exact brand and rate powder is very dangerous. That is why they make powder measures. Compressing loads can change burn rate so be careful.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Confusing mass and volume is extremely dangerous

So is confusing mass and weight. Grains are a weight unit, being a division of the pound. The slug is the imperial system mass unit.

Why all those silly people using SI don't understand this concept is beyond me, though. The gram is not a weight unit......that'd be the Newton.

 

[HOOfan_1]

So is confusing mass and weight. Grains are a weight unit, being a division of the pound.

grains are also a measure of MASS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_(unit)

A grain is a unit of measurement of mass

http://www.unitconversion.org/weight/grain-conversion.html

A grain (symbol: gr) is a unit of mass now equal to exactly 64.79891 milligrams

http://www.aqua-calc.com/what-is/weight/grain

The grain (gr) is a non-metric unit of mass, and defined as exactly 64.79891 milligrams (mg) within the International System of Units.

http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/imperial-measurements.shtml

Grain - A grain is a unit of measurement of mass that is based upon the mass of a single seed of a typical cereal. Since 1958, the grain or troy grain measure has been internationally defined with the metric system equation: 1.0gr = 64.79891mg - i.e. 1 grain is exactly 64.79891 milligrams. The grain is the only unit of mass measure common to the traditional three English mass and weight systems (avoirdupois, Apothecaries', troy). Moreover, the measure for pearls and diamonds, the pearl grain and the metric grain, are equal to quarter of a (metric) carat, i.e. 50mg (0.77gr).

 

[303tom]

Weights & Measures.............

 

[MachIVshooter]

grains are also a measure of MASS

You're sources also list pounds and ounces as mass. They are not. They are a unit of weight/force.

As long as you're on earth, it's OK to translate mass into weight and vice-versa (although there are tiny variations depending on exact location)

The American standard system uses the Slug and Slugette (or slinch).

One slug is 32.174 pounds (225,218 grains) on earth.

One slug is 5.34 pounds (37,380 grains) on the moon.

One slug is 0.000 pounds (0.000 grains) floating in the vacuum of space.

Weight changes with gravity. Mass does not.

 

[Art Eatman]

This is weighing too heavily on me.