Grump
Member
Had one of those dangerous brain flashes.
Much of the talk on both of these rounds is how they can "out-perform" even the mighty 7.62 NATO beyond 500 meters, usually in wind drift and about equalling trajectory...at least when using the heavier bullets.
But I have a couple of concerns here:
1. The price to get that is usually a pretty low velocity around 2550 or so, which really doesn't give us the really nice and flat trajectory of the 5.56 M193 from 0-300 meters, where a difference of 1 MOA on those half-exposed helmets can really make a difference.
2. The load being "beaten" is the lowly M80 ball round, which is a little light for downrange barrier penetration anyway.
So, won't we get some better balance of the military benefits if we stick with lighter, slicker bullets of about 95-105 grains, keep the speed up, and worry about BOTH wind drift and trajectory?
Barrier penetration may be better addressed with the AP rounds anyway. My sources indicate that the .30-06 AP round was issued like candy in WWII, maybe even in greater numbers than M2 Ball. It was also accurate enough that many military target teams my pappy met in the '50s and '60s liked it more for practice than anything other than Match ammo.
I'm also uncomfortable with proposing an infantry ammo "solution" that uses bullets almost as heavy as M2 Ball or M80 Ball, as our consumption of strategic metals in wartime is a factor that *can* win or lose the whole war. Using a 123-gr bullet just seems to be a step too far in the other direction.
Much of the talk on both of these rounds is how they can "out-perform" even the mighty 7.62 NATO beyond 500 meters, usually in wind drift and about equalling trajectory...at least when using the heavier bullets.
But I have a couple of concerns here:
1. The price to get that is usually a pretty low velocity around 2550 or so, which really doesn't give us the really nice and flat trajectory of the 5.56 M193 from 0-300 meters, where a difference of 1 MOA on those half-exposed helmets can really make a difference.
2. The load being "beaten" is the lowly M80 ball round, which is a little light for downrange barrier penetration anyway.
So, won't we get some better balance of the military benefits if we stick with lighter, slicker bullets of about 95-105 grains, keep the speed up, and worry about BOTH wind drift and trajectory?
Barrier penetration may be better addressed with the AP rounds anyway. My sources indicate that the .30-06 AP round was issued like candy in WWII, maybe even in greater numbers than M2 Ball. It was also accurate enough that many military target teams my pappy met in the '50s and '60s liked it more for practice than anything other than Match ammo.
I'm also uncomfortable with proposing an infantry ammo "solution" that uses bullets almost as heavy as M2 Ball or M80 Ball, as our consumption of strategic metals in wartime is a factor that *can* win or lose the whole war. Using a 123-gr bullet just seems to be a step too far in the other direction.