Why was 243 Win never considered as a military cartridge?
- Thread starter Lone_Gunman
- Start date
- Status
arizonaguide
Member
You don't have to carry as many, cuz it only takes half as many .308(one shot, instead of 2 or 3) to stop an enemy.
But then, maybe a person needs a lot of "harrassing fire" or "supression fire" rounds, and that would get heavy I guess.
What does the new 6.8mm equate to in caliber measurement, and how does it compare to the .243 ballistics? Is it more like a .270?
R.W.Dale
Member
243 barrel life naysayers
from 6mmBR.com
I believe I'll take their word over someone who'se likely never shot more than 800 rounds through any one rifle.
from 6mmBR.com
I believe I'll take their word over someone who'se likely never shot more than 800 rounds through any one rifle.
Mannlicher
Member
I would say the main reason is that it offers nothing over the .308 cartridge.
R.W.Dale
Member
Finally someone said it.
I never understood why once a man buys a 243 he gets all sappy and googleeyed over that cartridge. I've owned several and thus far I've been immune to these symptoms
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Thinking of anyone in particular?
It does offer *some* advantage over .308: (1) *slightly* less weight to carry, and (2) *slightly* flatter trajectory, but these small advantages are overcome by the disadvantage of barrel burn, a very VERY important concern when adopting a cartridge that will go into a machine or standard service rifle.
As to why is wasn't considered? It quite likely WAS considered, along with many many other options also ultimately rejected. Why it wasn't adopted? Probably barrel burn is the main reason, plus the fact that it won't be controllable in full auto, so it offers no advantage over .308 in that area. The 6.5 grendel and 6.8 spc are catching on for a reason. They are truly the goldilocks calibers that work well for just about everything, including full auto from a service rifle.
That said, I love the .243 winchester round.
It does offer *some* advantage over .308: (1) *slightly* less weight to carry, and (2) *slightly* flatter trajectory, but these small advantages are overcome by the disadvantage of barrel burn, a very VERY important concern when adopting a cartridge that will go into a machine or standard service rifle.
As to why is wasn't considered? It quite likely WAS considered, along with many many other options also ultimately rejected. Why it wasn't adopted? Probably barrel burn is the main reason, plus the fact that it won't be controllable in full auto, so it offers no advantage over .308 in that area. The 6.5 grendel and 6.8 spc are catching on for a reason. They are truly the goldilocks calibers that work well for just about everything, including full auto from a service rifle.
That said, I love the .243 winchester round.
Shawnee
member
"I would say the main reason is that it offers nothing over the .308 cartridge."
The .243 didn't fit the criteria decreed necessary for the purpose of War by that well-known mental debilitation commonly referred to as "military intelligence". But the .308 did find favor in the asylum - and that speaks volumes about it.
The .243 didn't fit the criteria decreed necessary for the purpose of War by that well-known mental debilitation commonly referred to as "military intelligence". But the .308 did find favor in the asylum - and that speaks volumes about it.
arizonaguide
Member
How does the .243 stack up against the 6.8?
newdude
Member
Beats it by quite a big margin. Smaller bullet, around the same weight, but higher velocity.
Redneck with a 40
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,273
.243 would make a dandy sniper round, max effective range is probably 600-700 yards.
gvnwst
Member
It is more around 1k+, with the correct bullets.
Well, it makes for a better hunting round. It's faster, flatter shooting and more powerful. For military purposes however I think it's weaknesses have been pretty well listed here.
The 6.8 fits in an AR15 sized action. It doesn't burn out barrels prematurely and it's lighter and shorter. For military purposes those three things totally nix any hope the .243 might ever have or have had of being adopted.
Thin Black Line
Member
Since the "243 burns barrels" mantra keeps getting repeated here by ppl who've
probably never fired even 100 rds of 243, all I can cite is my personal experience
with a couple different 243 rifles --one of which had over 10K rds in it and
did hole in hole with handloads (must be those so-called slow burning cooler
experimental loads I did in the special TBL bunker lab) in the final summer I
owned it before I sold it to a friend.
BTW, I seem to recall DSA FALs and even a PTR in 243 Win. How are those
doing? Any factory recalls on those?
probably never fired even 100 rds of 243, all I can cite is my personal experience
with a couple different 243 rifles --one of which had over 10K rds in it and
did hole in hole with handloads (must be those so-called slow burning cooler
experimental loads I did in the special TBL bunker lab) in the final summer I
owned it before I sold it to a friend.
BTW, I seem to recall DSA FALs and even a PTR in 243 Win. How are those
doing? Any factory recalls on those?
otomik
Member
well a 6mm military cartridge wouldn't really need all that case capacity. for a while the military couldn't figure out a way to manufacture a .223 remington tracer round so they thought they would have to create a new cartridge for the SAW.
6mm SAW was the experimental cartridge and it would be the perfect all around cartridge if it weren't for the fact adding a new cartridge to the supply chain would be a big hassle. When they figured out a way to manufacture .223 tracers the new cartridge was dropped from the SAW program.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=281881
fact is a 6mm cartridge could be very good for automatic fire, not necessarily a barrel burner. and the US Army is on record favoring a 6mm solution if it were starting from a blank slate.
6mm SAW was the experimental cartridge and it would be the perfect all around cartridge if it weren't for the fact adding a new cartridge to the supply chain would be a big hassle. When they figured out a way to manufacture .223 tracers the new cartridge was dropped from the SAW program.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=281881
fact is a 6mm cartridge could be very good for automatic fire, not necessarily a barrel burner. and the US Army is on record favoring a 6mm solution if it were starting from a blank slate.
Shawnee
member
"Since the "243 burns barrels" mantra keeps getting repeated here by ppl who've probably never fired even 100 rds of 243"
Gotta laugh bigtime at that silliness about the .243 beiing a "barrel burner".
Some of it it comes from target shooters who think a barrel is burned out when its' groups "open up" from 1/4" to 1/2" at 100yds. And that is not a good thing in the limited context of their specific sport. But then they come here and sing the "barrel burner" chorus without mentioning that their parameters are fractions of an inch at 100yds.
Then, as you say, the people who have little or no experience with the .243 read that granola and then spend the rest of their unthinking lives repeating the ".243 is a barrel burner mantra" like so many parrots.
Gotta laugh bigtime at that silliness about the .243 beiing a "barrel burner".
Some of it it comes from target shooters who think a barrel is burned out when its' groups "open up" from 1/4" to 1/2" at 100yds. And that is not a good thing in the limited context of their specific sport. But then they come here and sing the "barrel burner" chorus without mentioning that their parameters are fractions of an inch at 100yds.
Then, as you say, the people who have little or no experience with the .243 read that granola and then spend the rest of their unthinking lives repeating the ".243 is a barrel burner mantra" like so many parrots.
The reason the military got interested in the .223 was that it is shorter, skinnier, and lighter than previous rounds like the .308, not because it was just like the .308 but had a smaller bullet. End of story.
That doesn't mean it's not a good round for anorexic deer or obese prairie dogs.
That doesn't mean it's not a good round for anorexic deer or obese prairie dogs.
Thin Black Line
Member
And the penetration of the 243 w/ an 85 gr SOFT point will still kill those
animals when they hide behind 1/4" mild steel....at 300 yds...oh, and with a
human between them and the steel, too. Ok, just kidding. Remove the
animal since we're talking about military potential.
Thin Black Line
Member
I am not a metallurgist so anything less than my uparmored humvee door, I consider "mild steel".
Redneck with a 40
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,273
You're typical .308 barrel is good for 5000 rounds of standard ammo, it shouldn't be an issue with 243 either. If you want a barrel burner, try 264 winchester magnum, that eats barrels.
jjohnson
Member
Wrong Question
What makes you think it was never considered?
All we really know is that it was never ADOPTED.
We know that .30 caliber works fairly well for tracers and armor piercing ammo, while 224 doesn't do very well. We know that the 5.56 (and Commie equivalent) are handy to carry but poor for long range and harder targets; the reverse is true for .30 cal.
We know that the 6.8 was an attempt to meet both ends halfway.
Like one guy said, 6mm Lee made it once; and for some reason we're still trying to solve the 5.56 was adopted.
Oh, never mind.:banghead:
What makes you think it was never considered?
All we really know is that it was never ADOPTED.
We know that .30 caliber works fairly well for tracers and armor piercing ammo, while 224 doesn't do very well. We know that the 5.56 (and Commie equivalent) are handy to carry but poor for long range and harder targets; the reverse is true for .30 cal.
We know that the 6.8 was an attempt to meet both ends halfway.
Like one guy said, 6mm Lee made it once; and for some reason we're still trying to solve the 5.56 was adopted.
Oh, never mind.:banghead:
R.W.Dale
Member
HorseSoldier
Member
There are different ways to shoot 10,000 rounds. You may have not seen any degradation in performance with a bolt gun that clocked a total of 10,000 rounds over the course of years. This doesn't mean a 243 semi-auto rifle shooting 10,000 rounds in a year, 2500 rounds per training event or class, will hold up.
I don't think there's any information out there on them having problems, but there's also (I think) no one out there putting serious round counts through them. If there's someone out there who's using a 243 semi intensively for Three Gun or something that would be the person to talk to on longevity as a service cartridge, but I've never heard of anyone who does so (guys who are more into action shooting games may know differently).
And how much rapid fire and full auto fire did you do with those rifles? A military round has to be suitable for use in machineguns, not bolt actions whose barrels are allowed to cool in between shots. Yes, .243 barrels hold up just fine in bolt action hunting rifles, but take and cycle 200 rounds of .243 through your rifle as fast as you can. Heat the barrel up until it burns your skin the moment you touch it. Allow it to cool and then do it again a few times. That's the kind of use these rifles would see in combat. Do you honestly think that barrel is going to hold up?
Of course that kind of use can and does burn out just about any barrel eventually, but you still don't want to accelerate the wear by choosing a cartridge which has very few military advantages.
- Status
