7mm08 ammo: factory load diversity?

[rbernie]

Long live detailed analysis and discussion of minor differences in ballistics, without which human knowledge of ballistics would not be where it is.

I suggest that you download PointBlank. It contains all of the canned formulae needed to further your analysis of external ballistics. That, coupled with the information gleaned from the manufacturers of the projectiles in question, should supply all of the data you seek.

 

[BCHunter]

attention to detail

"But to assert that paying attention to ballistic details is not JUST as important is - IMO - incorrect to the point of being absurd. The differences between .308 & 7mm08 DO matter, IMO, or else the "new" chambering (7mm08) would never have been developed from the former (.308). If it didn't really matter, we'd still have only .308.

And if it didn't matter, we'd not even have .308, but would still be using .30-06." Nematocyst-870



Well actually if you were really paying attention to detail you would never have made this statement.

The 30-06 replaced the 30-03 ( as in 1903 Springfield) because of the German development of the spitzer bullet in their 8x57 Mauser (they also had to alter their round because of the spitzer bullet, which replaced the round nose bullet). The 30-03 replaced the 30-40 Krag adopted by the US Army after a disastrous encounter with the 7X57 Mauser in Cuba.

The 30-06, which is truly a US military cartridge although it had been adopted by a few other countries mainly in North and South America, was adopted by the sport hunters in the US but was largely unknown in other parts of the world where European cartridge development rules, even today. “Wildcats” and factory cartridges were developed in the US based on the 30-06, such as the 270 Win, 25-06, 280 Rem (7mm Rem Express) and 35 Wellan to name a few, all excellent cartridges.

After the WWII the western nations formed NATO and sought a common cartridge thus the 7.62 NATO was developed. It was named the 308 Winchester commercially and is simply a shortened 30-06 case. Many cartridges were developed out of the 308, similar to the 30-06 like the 243 Win, 338 Federal, 260 Rem, 7mm-08 Rem (which I particularly like and have since long before it was a commercial cartridge) and many others.

In short, the 30-06 Springfield, and the 7.62 NATO (308 Winchester) are cartridges developed for or adopted by the US Military. The 30-06 and the 308 Winchester are excellent cartridges as are their spawn. We as sportsmen adopted them, we did not develop them.

Please get your facts straight when over analysing a subject such as you are doing.

I could , as everyone else, get by with a 30-06 only, with ease. I enjoy choice and so apparently does many others. That is why wildcats exist, many to become commercial cartridges.

 

[AStone]

I think where I went wrong was to agree with & embellish upon an assertion made by Overguy Overby in post #8:

7mm-08 may be the "sweet spot" in .308 class cartridges. If not, it's close.

If I'd just left that one alone, sitting where it was written, there would have been no expansion of this thread into a "7mm08 v. .308" (ALA 9mm v .45) debate, and then there would have been no accusations of me rehashing tired old stuff.

So, Otherguy Overby, as we can now all clearly see, this is all your fault. This thread is clearly causing THR to crumble into a steaming mess of dog poopy, and it's all your fault. If you'd never have written those words stimulating me to agree with you, then THR would still be a stellar forum where no one ever over-analyzes a situation - be it caliber, shooting error, political strategy for supporting 2nd amendment rights...nothing. We'd all just analyze details to an appropriate level and leave it at that.

<OO, I hope you're picking up on my sarcasm here, and it ain't in your direction ... >

I mean, before that statement was made, the thread was about a topic that I didn't find even with a SEARCH on THR Rifle Country: diversity of commercial/factory loads in 7mm08.

But after that statement, well, the thread just went south and became filled with all kinds of over-analysis.

So, I've said it before, I'm saying it again now, and I'm quite sure I'll say it again and again and again in the future: "over analysis" is a relative term. I'm happy with my level of analysis. If you don't like it, then just ignore my posts & my threads. It's so easy. It's a no brainer.

Nem

PS: if you "anti-over-analysis" folks want to experience over analysis, try reading some science papers like this one that I read recently to help a woman friend solve an issue with vaginal infections. It's representative of the kinds of analysis published in peer reviewed journals of science and medicine. You who complain about over analysis of 7mm08 do not understand the term "over analysis". It's that kind of analysis that I - as a science-oriented person, who studies it and teaches it - am used to reading with reckless abandon. We eat those like candy. This discussion about ballistics is relatively speaking what I'd call "mambi pambi" and is not even in the same league.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Nematocyst-870:

So, Otherguy Overby, as we can now all clearly see, this is all your fault. This thread is clearly causing THR to crumble into a steaming mess of dog poopy, and it's all your fault. If you'd never have written those words stimulating me to agree with you, then THR would still be a stellar forum where no one ever over-analyzes a situation - be it caliber, shooting error, political strategy for supporting 2nd amendment rights...nothing. We'd all just analyze details to an appropriate level and leave it at that.

Twasn't me, mon, twas the Otherguy who done it!

hahahahaha!

 

[rockstar.esq]

Nem870 after reading your last post I'm reminded of a quote whose author I've forgotten. "Sarcasm is the criticism of the weak" I seriously tried to help defuse a situation and shed some light on why your thread ended up getting replies that were offending you. I also offered another way in which to handle the situation so that you'd enjoy yourself as much as anyone else. Too bad you've got to see things as an attack. Really perception is the consistent theme here, the deal is that you don't like hearing about how you come off. Well the research is in and when you're often offending people for reasons I've already addressed. Maybe you could APPLY something you've heard to make yourself and others happy.

P.S. "Anti Over- Analysis Guys" by definition don't want to experience "Over Analysis" this is an example of where you aren't concerned with the culture around you, you're more interested in self validation (which isn't flattering for anyone).

 

[AStone]

{Continuing the long demise of this thread towards closure because it has become so off topic - the mods are watching - all due to over analysis of the appropriate level of analysis. Now that's not sarcasm; it's irony. If/when this one dies, we should start another one in General Gun Forum about this very topic...}

I suspect this is the quote you are referring to, RockStar.Esq.

Sarcasm is the protest of people who are weak.

-- Gene Forrester in A Separate Peace by John Knowles

Gene Forrester is a character in John Knowles' novel. <sarcasm> Of course, as we all know, what one character says in a novel is the definitive treatment on any given topic with which everyone will (or at least should) agree. </sarcasm>

Sarcasm has a long and distinguished history among writers. I count myself in good company with the likes of Mark Twain, who used it prolifically. There is no clear consensus, as far as I can tell, about it's ethical status. It is used regularly & effectly used by columnists, politicians, those criticizing politicians, comedians, etc. I personally find it a great literary convention. I see it often on THR, and usually value it.

My favorite uses of sarcasm lately have been the blistering sarcasm that late night talk show comedians like Letterman are leveling at my <sarcasm> beloved </sarcasm> president.

the deal is that you don't like hearing about how you come off...this is an example of where you aren't concerned with the culture around you, you're more interested in self validation

That is incorrect, and could be reasonably construed as an (over)analysis of someone by an armchair psychologist with insufficient knowledge of the person being criticized.

No, instead, what I'm interested in here is precisely the following: that we all - you, me & Bobby Lee Jones over there - stop analyzing (and criticizing) each other's intentions and methods of researching information on this forum (or any other) and just let everybody do their own thing.

If Joe Smoe is satisfied with a one line answer to help in his analysis of .30-30, that's great. I'm happy for Joe.

If Elber Ginizenswab wants to analyze the suitability of Hornady .257 75 gr hollow points by asking for data on the difference in penetration potential of said bullet in rabbit, deer & gelatin blocks, with and without solid pieces, at a range of temperatures from 0*C to 97*C, at distances ranging from 2 m to 200 m in a variety for rifles with multiple shooters, then do the same thing with a 100 gr and compare the two, including reference to the effects of wind drift in a variety of weather conditions, then I'm fine with that.

The point that you - and a few others - still haven't accepted, and me thinks even grasped - is that the phrase "over analysis" is a relative term. What's over-analysis for you is under analysis for others and just right for still others.

The point that you haven't grasped is that it's not OK with me that others criticize me and others for ANY level of analysis. It's not up to them to tell others how deep they should analyze something. As far as I can tell, there are NO rules on THR that specify "thou shalt only analyze to level X". If there are, please point them out and I'll dutifully obey.

If there are not, then I'll once again suggest that when you are not comfortable with the level of analysis being conducted within a thread, that you should simply exit stage left and find another thread where the level of analysis meets your needs, and leave the one in question for others to play.

That's ALL I'm asserting. My sarcasm was specifically intended to emphasize that analysis is relative. There are no absolutes when it comes to analysis.

Now, it would be very cool if we could just let this argument about analysis and "over analysis" end. That is a request by the founder of the thread - me.

I admitted - even if sarcastically - that I didn't intend to carry this thread into the realm of analysis of 7mm08 v {name your caliber}. My goal was to learn if there were factory loads other than 120 & 140. I've learned some good things relevant to that question. As I stated above, I'm happy with what I've learned.

Perhaps you should be happy, too.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Nem, I'm telling you it was the otherguy who started all this...

 

[rockstar.esq]

Nem870 I get that you want to argue the relativity of analysis to the same extents that you want to argue the relativity of the 7mm08. I get (as do many others) that we all have our tolerences. When I attempted to shed some light on why you are so annoying to many members, your reply is to continue to belabor your right to do so while whining that your thread has been lead astray by people who are tired of your conduct. Theres no rule against farting in church, it's just regarded as inconsiderate. Frankly I'm sorry I tried to help you. My guess is a few other members feel the same way.

 

[AStone]

And I'm saying if they are tired of "my conduct" that they can just ignore it. I regularly ignore posts by those that I don't resonate with.

I'm not whining, just stating my position. If you wish to call it "whining", that's your issue, not mine.

I think we've made our points now. It's all good. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree and moving on.

Perhaps you can do the same. (?)