AR-15 .223REM vs 6.8SPC vs 300AAC Blackout vs 6x45 vs 6.5Grendel vs 7.62x39...

[1stmarine]

There is only one definition for wildcats so nobody can have two. MAny serious enthusiasts do all the research in advance and sometimes they get little or no credit for it, but occasionally they do.
I do agree the any comparatives should be approached with the most caution and I make that clear in my post but I do not agree they should be approached with extreme prejudice give proper information about build, barrel length, pressure, speed, ballistics, etc...
And regarding the .270winchester huge volumes of surplus 30.06 brass made the foundation for dozens of commercial and wildcat cartridges. That has been the case with many military rounds.
I can make as many "Grendel" cases as I want out of a simple Russian case, but I don't. I am looking for extreme accuracy and Lapua quality is very hard to beat.

 

[benzy2]

There is also the 6mmAR, 6mmTurbo, .224AR, .20 practical, etc. There are a lot of wildcats that have been tossed into the AR platform.

 

[1stmarine]

Links on the Grendel ballistics and reloading info...
http://alexanderarms.com/grendel_ballistics.pdf
http://alexanderarms.com/grendel_reloading.pdf
Interesting the "FACTORY" and some advertised spreads folks with a lot of experience reloading have been having serious trouble duplicating. But it is not so bad so the round still is an awesome round no matter what.

 

[1stmarine]

benzy2
I know that there are great choices and should be analyzed but I don't have more choices that I tested (for now). I put in my chart before the 6mm AR turbo from Robert Withley's website.

I wish I could have them all!!!!

 

[rsilvers]

There is only one definition for wildcats so nobody can have two.

And what is that definition?

I do not agree they should be approached with extreme prejudice give proper information about build, barrel length, pressure, speed, ballistics, etc...

You cannot determine chamber pressure without proper equipment, so there is no sense in comparing velocity from an individual to data properly measured in a pressure test barrel.

 

[1stmarine]

This is a collaboration post but if you want lets Quote & Roll then...

Originally Posted by 1stmarine
There is only one definition for wildcats so nobody can have two.

And what is that definition?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_cartridge

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stmarine
I do not agree they should be approached with extreme prejudice give proper information about build, barrel length, pressure, speed, ballistics, etc...

You cannot determine chamber pressure without proper equipment, so there is no sense in comparing velocity from an individual to data properly measured in a pressure test barrel.

You have no idea about my background, my resources or what I can determine or not. For all we know, You could be Captain Hook and I could be Peter Pan.

You wrote:

I generated those numbers. I did not lower any of them. The 6.8 data was right off Hornady's website.

Great 6.8 round but didn't even look into the SSA website. Also in the russian round why you didn't give hornady's or lapua information for the comparative and instead a rather conservative 7.62x39 russian load? How convenient right? and then you question my work and assessments.
http://www.lapua.com/en/products/sport-shooting/centerfire-rifle/19#tables

Tell me if any information I posted about the 300AAC is not accurate and then I will correct the spreads or the ballistic charts. It better be as I took the info from the published data and I have been honest about this all along from the beginning. I don't have a barrel yet. And don't give me the lab or manufacturing data but field proven data, even with wind temperature, speed and direction I can use that too as it is in real life.
Energy at the muzzle says very little about a round performance.

Collaborate and teach something or learn something like all the others, it is easy to do with the right attitude.

Cheers.
E.

 

[dnthmn]

Wildcat cartridge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A wildcat cartridge, or wildcat, is a custom cartridge for which ammunition and firearms are not mass produced. These cartridges are often created in order to optimize a certain performance characteristic (such as the power, size or efficiency) of an existing commercial cartridge.

Wildcat cases and cartridges can be found for sale, but only from small makers. Larger manufacturers usually don't produce wildcats because there is such a limited market for them and because there are no established CIP (Commission Internationale Permanente Pour L'Epreuve Des Armes A Feu Portatives - Permanent International Commission) or SAAMI standards, which causes liability concerns.

So based on this, it appears that you agree with rsilver's definition of a wildcat.

Also wiki is not authoritative. Anyone can post anything on wiki and only other users that care enough to do something about it are the policing force for accuracy/correctness. In addition, that doesn't mean that "corrections" are correct.

 

[rsilvers]

You have no idea about my background, my resources or what I can determine or not. For all we know, You could be Captain Hook and I could be Peter Pan.

The difference is that I am quoting actual pressure barrel data, and you are not.

Great 6.8 round but didn't even look into the SSA website

I did, but SSA does not provide reason for me to believe they test and load to the same pressure standards. I can load 300 AAC BLACKOUT hot also. I had it up to 2600 fps, but I don't quote that, because it is not SAAMI pressure barrel data. SSA does not seem to load to SAAMI standards but seems to "+P" their ammo.

Also in the russian round why you didn't give hornady's or lapua information for the comparative and instead a rather conservative 7.62x39 russian load?

For 7.62x39, most of the advertised data seems to be over-rated so I averaged the velocity of four actual loads to minimize error. The only data I had that I knew could be trusted was Remington or Hornady pressure barrel data, but I knew if I used those by themselves, people would complain.

And don't give me the lab or manufacturing data but field proven data

Well, if you want field-proven data, the 2315 fps I reported would raise to 2340 fps as tested by K of Noveske, and 2360 fps as tested by the federal govt.The official data is lower than the data from the field. Still, I go by the official data.

Why is the official data conservative? One reason is because we test in 16 inch barrels rather than the 24 inch barrels nearly all other rifle cartridges are tested in.

 

[1stmarine]

I am going to reply once again and stop the quoting game here.

Saying that SSA is over rated and Lapua is over-rated is not fair.
Their loads are safely used everywhere including Military and LEO customers (for many years in case of lapua) with zero case failures and trying to disregard them is not fair.
In their loads as many others there is no one single evidence of build up pressure. Also, I have tested hundreds of other Russian rounds on my AK's many steel case that are used by the millions and I get speeds from a 16" barrel higher than your advertised spread.

We know we agree in the wildcat cartridge definition of the word but to put things in context and if we are going to quote the encyclopedia we also have to post this:

Commercially accepted wildcats

Some cartridges started out as custom-made (non-commercially developed) wildcats, and gained wide enough acceptance or popularity to become commercial cartridges. Generally, cartridges become popular commercially after a commercial firearms maker begins offering a weapon chambered in the cartridge. Once popular enough, funding is generated for SAAMI standards development. After SAAMI standards are in place, any firearms or ammunition maker can be sure that any products manufactured to the SAAMI standards can be safely used.

There are many methods to measure pressure. Senior wildcatters many times do all the research in advance and get little or no credit for the hard work. This is the ballistics "open source" concept to benefit anyone and enjoy the public's intellectual property.

As I said the 300 AAC blackout seems to be a great round and I cannot wait to receive my new barrel when the backorder is fulfilled but I like to put a comparative with all my data so others can read it with performance at different ranges. The speed and energy at the muzzle says very little about the performance of any round.

I also understand the hard work on your developments and I can see how you are trying to defend your work. I can appreciate that and I have no right or intention to 'attack' anyone but I also have all the right to post my test results in my thread.
So correct any of my ballistic charts that I have with proven field data you have and I will be happy to add it to the list. (See the chart above).

I am trying to be positive here as I don't think long arguments yield any fruits for anyone like those we see all the time.

I hope you understand.
Cheers,
E.

 

[rsilvers]

I am cool with quoting Lapua. They are 2345 fps from a 16.5 inch barrel. I am not sure what the extra 1/2 inch barrel does.

For 6.8 I still prefer to quote a more standards oriented company like Hornady or Remington. I picked Hornady for my chart because it was the faster of the two.

 

[Coal Dragger]

1stMarine,

Of the calibers you have listed I would say the best bets for proper function would be those most closely related or based off of the .223/5.56mm. As you know they will all work better from more readily available magazines, and use more readily available bolts. Furthermore, from a durability standpoint I am not really sure that I would want to use an AR with a heavily rebated bolt face to accommodate a larger round; let's face it that there is not a lot of excess steel there for a .223 case much less a larger case head.

The .204 is a great varmint round, the .223 is versatile enough to have earned its keep for a long time now, and the other two are intriguing enough to give consideration to as well. The 6X45mm should as you noted be a good compromise, providing a heavier bullet and wider bullet selection for hunting purposes than a .223, while still providing high enough velocities to be useful. The .300AAC looks like fun, but I personally would have only very limited use for such a caliber, at least it will likely function quite well given that it appears to be based on the .223 case.

All the others listed are quite frankly noble attempts to improve the performance of the AR15 platform rifle that are all hamstrung by the need to fit into the small AR15 magazines and magazine well. Maybe it is time some company or someone designed an AR platform rifle that was in between an AR15 and an AR10 size wise, then we could actually see some cartridges that were really significant improvements that didn't demand so much compromise.

 

[Semyon Vasilii]

uh dude... just because some professional trigger pullers use LAPUA stuff doesnt mean that their numbers are generated in the same test rig that is used to get the numbers hornady does.

and since youre so <don't make me get my soap out - Owen> for wikipedia, why dont you read the page on the 300 BLK. if you had, you would know that this dude here on the internet, rsilvers, is the R&D director for advanced armament corp. i'd reckon that he knows a little more about how to properly test a round to get the numbers in the same manner that is accepted by saami and other major manufacturers.

and why would you ask for "field proven data" vs manufacturer data? the point of manufacturer data is that it is generated in a lab under certain repeatable conditions. this is done so that the conditions are the same for other rounds tested. field numbers will vary greatly day to day (temp, humidity, wind, probly even altitude), they will vary by rifle length, rifling twist rate, probably even which rifle was used. so to standardize the testing is not a bad thing. they are not trying to cheat you out of the real numbers and hide them from you.

dude youre making me glad im in the army lol

 

[Rokman]

I have several 5.56/.223 and I like them for what they are. They are fun and cheaper and a good varmint and a light to medium game caliber with the right bullets.

I have a couple of 6.8 carbines and they are very good if you do your research and buy the barrel with the newer specs. I handload all my ammo for this caliber and have had great results. A good deer round at the proper distance.

I have zero experience with the other, but I think that if I wanted to step out there farther, the 6x45 or 6.5 with proper barrel length would be the way to go. I think the .204 would make an excellent varmint rig.

 

[Boanerges57]

If I were to test how fast my car could stop from 80mph I would hope you wouldnt argue with my findings.
1stmarine simply posted his findings.
why dont you post your findings and perhaps then you can discuss the differences in your testing methodologies to find where the discrepancy might lie.

Very slight differences can result in a different round (ie. .38 super and .45 super).
I higly doubt that .300 whisper was simply taken and renamed. There were changes in the specification. There are differences in the specification for 7.62 NATO and .308 winchester as there are also differences between 5.56 nato and .223. There are differences between 6.8 SPC and 6.8 SPC II (and there are two other chamber specs that are designed to fire spc II ammunition).

If you disagree with 1st marine please dont just say his findings are wrong, just post your own findings and compare testing methodology.
Be constructive.
I mistyped in my earlier post and meant to say 18-24" barrels for the grendels.
I believe they are a very flat shooting round. I am building one right now. I want that 1000 meter range without going to the ar10 platform.
6.8 performs quite well but drops off at range. That fine as it was designed for increased penetration of intermediate barriers while retaining lethal terminal balistics when fired from a short barrel. It does a terrific job at what it was designed for.
Im also considering putting together an upper for wilson combats new .30 round. I would love to see what this round can do.
I have a 1000m range about an hour away, so maybe I will share my data with you guys soon.

 

[1stmarine]

rsilvers,
Many thanks for understanding. As I said I can't wait to get the barrel so I can test it in the field. I can see the wonderful information and hard work in your website so but I just wanted to to point out a few things. I would do it with any round. Any round has its pros and cons, no doubt so purpose is key.
Everything starts and ends with a bullet, hopefully a good one. Everything else, the case, the system/barrel is like FEDEX, a simple delivery method.
Cheers,
E.

 

[1stmarine]

SEmyon,
The reason I like field data is so we can relate easier to that cause-effect in real life situations like we experience (summer vs. winter, windy vs. calm) so we can use also the barometer as a reference.
When I shoot in a windy day I hear people complaining about the weather or if is too windy, cold or warm. I tell everyone... That is the way it is going to be when you go for the hunt or you need to know what to do and how the round behaves.
If I could have all the barrel lengths and test them I would. In fact I would have all the calibers of the world but then I would need to be Bill Gates. LOL

Cheers.
E.

 

[1stmarine]

So this is the scoop,
I went to the range this afternoon and tested a couple of uppers and a few rounds.
In order to clear any doubts from yesterday I also tested the AK47 out of the AK. I couldn't find any brass Fiocci or Priv so I headed for the range with just some FMJs from Wolf from the Tula plant and some loads from the Ulyanovsk plant. Both conform with SAAMI specifications.

Wind 5mph. direction 12 o'clock. Temp. 65F. altitude 600ft.

From the wolf I was getting spreads of 2,360 fps on average.
From the Ulyanovsk I was getting spreads of 2,330 fps on average.
I am going to update the chart with other tests and post them.

Cheers,
E.

 

[rsilvers]

Taking Lapua data and converting it to a 16 inch barrel should give 2330 fps. I suggest that for your chart.

 

[1stmarine]

here we go....
I added a couple of other calibers from not tested manufacturer data like the 6mmAR turbo and the published data from Alexander Arms on the 123gr scenar that could not be seen or duplicated in the chrono in real life. Same story with my friends. We are not too far behind but still we are not there yet.

 

[1stmarine]

From today....

 

[rsilvers]

Is that one shot, or a 10 or more shot average?

 

[Tirod]

Simple ballistic facts :small long bullets fly flatter than big fat bullets. Small long bullets need more barrel length to reach the same speed for the same powder charge than big fat bullets. It's a simple matter of the exposed cross sectional area.

Match the power level of the bullet and its effective point blank range to the intended target. Small long bullets have a longer effective point blank range, but have less power. Big fat bullets have more power but less effective range.

Shooters come to their basic caliber choices completely bass ackward, attracted to the hype, not the actual performance. They choose on what they think is more respected, and gets them some. The Win 94 is no longer respected, and went out of business, even though the .30-30 ranks as the #1 deer cartridge since it's introduction. This too will pass.

In AR's, 5.56 is not well respected, but others are, and that fuels their popularity. Which people respect it adds credibility, and that multiplies it's marketing impact. In forums, if there seems to be misinformation, or even deliberate disinformation, fanatics of the caliber will dissent. Most often they portray their cartridge as capable of defying physics, and attempt to produce data based on mathematical interpretation, rarely physical measurement of actual bullets flying.

Any time I see the number generated by a computer program, or interpolated to a different untested specification, I understand the conversation has gone from actual data points to virtual - a result based on potentially unreliable formulas with mathematical constants and assumed best guess modeling.

Ballistic coefficient uses nine - 9 - different models of flight resistance alone. It is NOT an unchanging figure as velocity changes, regardless that some ignorantly insist on it. Therefore, virtual figures are not reliable or trustworthy unless verified by actual measurement in real life.

Regardless of the honesty of the attempt, presenting different barrel lengths, bullet weights, and interpolated results just fuels the fanboys into insisting they are misrepresented, and claiming the test procedure is flawed has some merit they can turn to their advantage.

IBTL.

 

[1stmarine]

rsilvers,
That was one shot in 2 strings. I realized I mixed some of the spreads from the two boxes by not pushing the next string button. I have another 3 strings loaded in the machine. I was getting some in the 230's and some in the 290s so I picked one in the middle.
I wasn't going to get all the spreads out but if you want I will calculate the precise average for you. 4 strings of 10 were fired. total 2 boxes one of each ammo.

The Ulyanovsk manufacturer lists them at 2396 out of the 16" barrel but I think it is a little overrated like most do. I got a couple over 400 but that is not normal. As you know russian metal case military rounds are not the most reliable spreads but they do get the job done for the purpose. Again these are brand new standard rounds, nothing special. I buy them in 2K rounds deals. Lots of folks use these Tula and other factory loads all over the world.

Let me know if you want me to calculate the actual average. It should be around that
number.

Cheers.
E.

 

[rsilvers]

It makes more sense to use the Lapua nominal data. 2345 fps from a 16.5 inch barrel. That is about 2330 from a 16 inch.

 

[1stmarine]

This is what I know:
- Math is an exact science.
- Ballistics is based on Math (that's how we can hit targets one mile away and artillery can shell enemy positions 15-20 miles away).
- My math has not changed in the last 30 years. I do the same I used to do by hand back in the service and put in my shooting cards the difference now I have excel and a dell axim! What a wonderful world, isn't it? maybe a few tune ups here and there but with variations so insignificant that they are not relevant in most scenarios.
- The ones that I have tested I have mapped into the scope at various ranges and that is how I know the Ballistic coefficients are right as advertised, including actual retardation variable and adjusted retardation.
-Some bullet manufactures do a better job than others with their data but overall is pretty good. Sierra for example gives the various ballistic coefficients at several speed ranges.
- The ones that I have not tested I have indicated so and provided only for reference as I mentioned before.
- I have tested not once, but many times some of them at all ranges. Only the Grendel I have tested at 1000 yards but so far have not been able to replicate the AA advertised loads. My break speed is at 1300fps and at that point I discard the remaining math as I consider it not useful to me.

-The most important fact is that so far this thread is going well with some nice folks showing interest and I am pretty sure we can learn from each other. The way threads should be all the time and sadly not always happens.

Cheers,
E.