Cartridge comparisons

[Franco2shoot]

I used to have a really great link to a site that provided stats on various cartridges. It included everything from .44 cal round ball, all sorts of .22 variations as well as most modern rifle cartridges. Unfortunately, the site went AWOL. Since I recently added a .308 to my collection, I wanted to see just how it stacked up to my .44 mag Ruger and doing a search from the tool bar brings back more data and threads than I can hope to wade through in a day.

What I would like is a picture, maybe some description of case length, an approximation on effective range ( yea I know this will be somewhat dependant on the firearm ), and whatever other geeky stats the pro's usually cite.

Anyone got a line on such a site?

Thanks in advance
KKKKFL

 

[rcmodel]

Remington, Winchester, Federal and others have on-line catalogs that show everything they make, as well as ballistics, and ways to compare different calibers side by side.

Have you tried that?


rcmodel

 

[CB900F]

Franco;

Spend around $25.00, get either the Speer #14 or Hornady #7 reloading manual. Doesn't matter if you reload or not. Either manual will contain all the information you're presently seeking, cartridge dimensions, energy levels, all of it. You will then have it instantly at hand for these or any other comparisons you'd care to make for the foreseeable future. Even if the lights go out & the computer's shut down.

900F

 

[eliphalet]

Is this whatyour wanting? if not look around the site a bit more.

http://www.reloadbench.com/cartspec.html

 

[Jim Watson]

'The Cartridges of the World' is a great resource for the old and middle aged stuff. You will still need ammunition company catalogs and gunzines to tell you how great "The Bullet of the Month" is.

 

[Franco2shoot]

Thanks guys... good link too. I was curious about the comparison of the NATO 7.62 (I thought) to the Winchester .308 mostly from a effective range question if given similar barrel lengths which drops more over 500 yards for instance.

KKKKFL

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Complete guess. The 7.62x51 will probably underperform quality .308. The .308 is almost identical to the 7.62 except loaded to a higher pressure.

 

[Bobo]

This may be the site you are referring to:
http://ammoguide.com/

 

[Jim Watson]

Sorry, .308 is not loaded to significantly higher pressure than 7.62 NATO. There is a great deal of confusion due to the fact that the Army is not a member of SAAMI and still reports crusher gauge readings in psi instead of CUP.

Commercial practice is to report crusher gauge readings in CUP (Copper Units of Pressure) and electronic piezeoelectric or strain gauge readings in psi. But the Army is not a commercial operation and does not follow that practice. The real difference is slight, less than lot to lot variation in one brand.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

7.62x51mm tests out at 50,000 Psi.
.308 Win tests out at 62,000 Psi.

Both are chamber pressure tests using conformal transducers.

Yes, the army likes to measure things differently. But, that's never stopped the wacky civilians from fiddling around and generating comparable numbers.

 

[MikeHaas]

...Since I recently added a .308 to my collection, I wanted to see just how it stacked up to my .44 mag Ruger...

http://AmmoGuide.com/ is made for comparisons and interactive online cartridge research - has both Visual and Ballistic Comparison Tools that access over 600 vendor-independant rounds (including wildcats - no factory ammo maker site will do that). Here is your custom-ordered AmmoGuide image



For the Ballistic Comparison of these 2:
http://ammoguide.com/?tool=bcompare&it=43|92

One can bounce between the 2 comparison tools with a single click. Every cartridge has a detailed cartridge info page:


The "Cartridge Master List" is a fully illustrated, paged list of all rounds in the database:


There is also a trajectory calculator with a bullet database that knows a lot of BCs. Every load (there are over 13,000) has a "Trajectory" button that enters the trajectory calculator with velocity, caliber, bullet, etc preset for that load.

Plus a search tool that searches case DIMENSIONS - "show me all with case length between so-and-so with a bullet diameter of so-and-so", etc. - this is particularly helpful in identifying "mystery" rounds.

Some tools, like the Ballistic Comparison Tool, are completely free. Others, like the Cartridge Master List, require free registration. Still others, like the Visual Comparison Tool, require an annual subscription. (have to pay the bills)

Personal "Favorites" Load list, a forum, articles, etc. Should satisfy the geek and shooter alike

Mike

 

[iamkris]

Spend $20 and buy a reloading manual..best info about cartridges out there.

 

[cpttango30]

If you need deminsions for just abotu any case out there there is Steves pages. He does have a welth of knowladge on cartridges. It is kind of hard to navigate his site but once you learn how there is a lot there.


http://stevespages.com/page8.htm

 

[MikeHaas]

There are some tried and true paper manuals out there. Indeed, I lived off them for years. Loved Sierra, Speer, Lyman.

But paper manuals are, well, old hat. There are so many advantages to online resources (which is what the poster was asking about) that there really is no "comparison". Being able to do comparisons, for example. Computers and "data" kinda go together, y'know?

The same wonderful interactivity and community that brought you here to thehighroad.org, where you find much valuable info you will never find in a published work, can enhance your reloading experiences even more.

Advantages to websites:

- New information (AmmoGuide gained 352 new loads and 15 rounds last month. I don't know any manual that increased by even one, do you?)

- Corrections/typos (once a mistake is in a book, it's there forever)

- Interactive tools/functionality (let your computer do the work!)

- Community (what manual ever had a forum?)

- Cost (Why pay upwards of $25 for a simple paper SNAPSHOT of data that immediately starts to become outdated?)

I'm reminded when repeating rifles first came on the scene, military "experts" of the period snubbed them, saying they would lead to a huge waste of ammunition. In the long run, I doubt General Custer agreed. Sometimes change is difficult, but the reloading world is moving into the 21st century, as it should and must.

Mike