Lots of industries use AR plate, not just the military. Anywhere abrasive material is conveyed or transported - rock, gravel, sand, coal, etc. A lot of that equipment will be made of super hard steels in order to minimzie wear. Big industrial scoops, shovels, digging equipment. All kinds of construction equipment.
It does exhibit a strong desire to move backwards.Big_E said:
In fact my shooting buddy (witness to my stupidity) says he believes it is more stout than the .375H&H. It feels about the same to me with equal projectile weight, but the .45-70Govt. weighs a couple pounds less. With 405gr.+ the .45-70 definitely has a little more recoil than the heavy (350gr. Woodleigh solids) .375H&H loads.Beautiful example, here is a photo of the one I used for the testing:dubbleA said:
Absolutely, it maximizes the thickness (making it have to penetrate a greater thickness due to the angle) and also helps to deflect the rounds. The one I shot was slightly angled to reduce the chance of ricochet.
All I know is when I inquired about AR-500, the folks at local steel shops didn't know what I was talking about and just looked at me funny...perhaps I am just funny looking.
You should start a group buy. I would be in for one of his triple target (with 12", 10", and 8" targets) or his AR-550 12in. target if you can get it set up. Do you think 3/8in. thick AR-500 is thick enough for the .300WM with match grade bullets (might as well be AP bullets from what I have shot at)?
The black one is my custom Bushmaster M17, which is the .223Rem./5.56NATO; the bolt rifle is the Desert Tactical SRS in .300WM.
Thank you, I don't mind that at all...just don't want folks to try it without a good bit of research and slow progress to the final load...
I think everyone needs at least one .45-70!Plinker77 said:
I fixed it for you.
I have been thinking about that Survivor...wonder if it could take a .454Casull? That isn't too much larger, but the pressure is a good bit higher IIRC, and it would still be a formidable little rifle (not to suggest that a hot .45LC is anemic, just not a .454).That is my goal, to protect and perforate.
Then I need a better camera (or rather better photography skills), straight through, but it didn't have much left afterwards, it lodged itself in the rear of a 4in. thick board supporting the steel. I will update later with the hole sizes, but to say that the .45-70 hole is large is an understatement.
Tell me about it...he lures me in with the Browning, then beats me to a bloody pulp with those Coopers...then beats everyone in the rimfire match with the same beautiful rifle (well one of em' anyway).
Nope I did a good portion of the work myself (he was the inspiration) and had a gunsmith mill the slots in the side, right after he passed away. He did good work and improved upon the design a great deal. Here is a link to my improvements to the M17...you have one too don't-cha'?
The bullpup is a DT-SRS .300WM (26in. Krieger bbl) with a Premier Reticles Heritage 5-25x56mm scope, mounts are DT 40MOA tapered 1-pc. That's about it...oh yeah and it can easily do a 0.5MOA cold bore every single time (if I do my part). I love that little detail.
Yeah, I take mine out at least a couple times a month so I can tell people "yep I own a Browning".
I never really considered a Browning much of a bragger's rifle (shotguns on the other hand are a different story), I thought that was for the folks with Sakos, et al.
I guess I just didn't know how high-falutin' I really was.
Hmm, I had a A-bolt II but ended up trading it (for the 1885)...it great gun, horrible chambering (.270WSM), and I am very pleased with the trade. If I were buying today something similar to the A-bolt today I would choose the Winchester M-70 hands down, IMO it is nicer than the A-Bolt and easily better (and a little cheaper) than the X-Bolt.
You aught to getcha' one...it is chock full of that tasty bullpup goodness.Doc. said:
Speaking of which you already have a M17S don't you (don't know if you missed this before)?
