|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 26, 2012, 10:24 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: November 19, 2008
Posts: 47
|
The best site for cartridge info I found on net.
www.ballisticstudies.com Go there and go the the knowledge base area. It is a wealth of info on all sorts of cartridges and tests and info. I stumbled across this and it is fantastic. Just wanted to share it with you guys as sort of a way of paying back the great help I have received. It really is great. It goes through different cartridges, history, specs, etc. I have to say it is the best info I have found on the subject. (and I waste a lot of time looking for such info.)
Thanks and check it out. |
November 27, 2012, 12:15 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 261
|
Wow. I immediately looked up my beloved 6.5x55 cartridge. He doesn't have nice things to say about it.
|
November 27, 2012, 12:38 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
|
Good site, I read about the .223, 25-06 and 6.5x55 since robertsig felt 'nice' things weren't said about it. I found the information accurate and in accordance with things I already knew from other sources and my own 30+ years of hunting and hand loading.
What was written about the 6.5x55 robertsig, that you found inaccurate? It looked like he just told the honest truth about the cartridge to me and wasn't disparaging about it at all.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<) |
November 27, 2012, 12:57 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 261
|
I didn't find it inaccurate per se. I'll have to go back and read it again, but some of the other caliber reviews usually have a section where it says "good on this" & "bad on that". I didn't find he liked it for anything.
The history portion is always nice. I just read the .308 between these posts. |
November 27, 2012, 01:14 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
|
He owns a 6.5x55 and uses it for a backup rifle for his clients, he must not hate it too bad. He just acknowledges its limitations and stresses the need for using the proper projectile in it.
Quote:
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<) |
|
November 27, 2012, 04:08 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 8,927
|
It's not any different than other forums IMO. Checked out the .308 Win. In the Knowledge Base then learned it has the same good, bad and erroneous info as so many others. Especially the part on pressure numbers on both it and its military brother. No doubt some folks will like and others won't.
|
November 27, 2012, 06:06 PM | #7 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 39
|
It appears to be a very good site for informed "opinions" about cartridges, and a reasonable site for actual information. There is, however, a difference.
|
November 27, 2012, 06:52 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 663
|
So far, so good. Gonna read more.
|
November 28, 2012, 07:26 AM | #9 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 8,927
|
I just checked out that web site's section on ammunition. Here's their take on powder for reloading:
Quote:
I'm curious as to how they're squelching other myths. But first, I gotta find out what they consider myths. Then I checked out the site's info on epoxy bedding. I fell out of my chair after reading the following: Quote:
What about the stresses on the bottom of our receivers when the barreled action whips vertically changing the force that area puts on the epoxy? Those slightly unbalanced bullets and subtle differences in air density must not be the cause of equal amounts of vertical shot stringing we've believed for decades. Do we have to make clearance all over the receiver bottoms now and free float the whole receiver in the stock to get rid of vertical stringing? How do we affix a totally free floating barreled action to the stock? No, I'm not sorry I pointed this out. Form your own opinions. Last edited by Bart B.; November 28, 2012 at 07:59 AM. |
||
December 1, 2012, 11:30 PM | #10 |
Junior Member
Join Date: December 1, 2012
Location: So Cal
Posts: 3
|
You just have to take it with a grain of salt. ALL posting on that site or any other are OPINIONS. Subject to human frailty. They are NOT Holy writ.
My 2c. YMMV Matt |
December 2, 2012, 12:25 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 6, 1999
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 1,021
|
Yeah I was looking at the 6.5x55 as well. On the subject of american made ammo...
Quote:
__________________
New gun, same ol' shot. |
|
December 2, 2012, 01:31 AM | #12 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
For me it was as if Chuck Hawks moved to New Zealand. Some useful generalized opinion but short on facts. Not too impressed. If I lived in New Zealand it would be more useful.
|
December 2, 2012, 07:30 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 8,927
|
Regarding that site's claim on 6.5x55 American ammo having true velocities from 22 to 24” barrels for Winchester, Federal and PMC 140 grain loads and run between 2400fps and 2450fps. . . . .
Winchester gets 2550 fps from their factory loaded ammo with 140-gr. bullets. Most folks' factory rifles have bigger bore and groove diameters than what Winchester used to clock that load. So, naturally, they'll have lower muzzle velocities. Such is life with all factory ammo in factory sporting rifles. Norma's 156-gr. load leaves at 2559 fps in their test barrel. SAAMI's spec for pressure is 46,000 CUP which converts to about 53,000 PSI. The site states Military 6.5x55 ammunition was loaded to a pressure of 3200 ATM which converts to 47008 psi. Last edited by Bart B.; December 2, 2012 at 07:57 AM. |
December 2, 2012, 09:10 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 7,097
|
I'm with Bart B. this guy sounds like a gun store know it all. Strong opinions. but some wrong conclusions.
As far as lethality goes, it comes from Accuracy (the 6.5x55 general has it), Penetration (the 6.5x55 has a high sectional density for good penetration), and finally disruption (how big of a wound channel can the bullet expand). If you look at a 140gr 6.5mm Sierra Game King launched at a sedate 2600 fps from a 6.5 Swede, compared to a 7.62 150gr Sierra Game King launched at 2800 fps from a 308 Win, the ballistic drops are within 1.3 inches at 300 meters, and energy remaining at 500 is actually higher for the 6.5 Swede. Jimro
__________________
Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one. |
December 2, 2012, 10:39 AM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Location: Maine
Posts: 3,694
|
Quote:
|
|
December 2, 2012, 11:25 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Location: Maine
Posts: 3,694
|
Terminal ballistics is much like drag racing, but in reverse. The more "horsepower" (energy) that can be adequately transferred to the distance within the animal's vitals, the more damage and quicker kills.
Bullet blowup can be compared with excessive wheel spin in drag racing, while inadequate wound channel is caused by too little "horsepower" (velocity & mass) and/or too little bullet expansion. Adequate deceleration within medium game results in the bullet expending nearly all it's energy, while retaining enough to cause an exit wound. Expansion acts like a drag-chute, slowing the bullet more quickly, transferring more of the bullet's energy to tissue instead of anything beyond the animal. Choosing a proper bullet is more critical when using smaller calibers than, say .308-.35 calibers, because they need to expand more than the larger ones and retain a higher percentage of mass to achieve the same killing power. Blowup and shedding of bullet particles are detrimental to deep energy transfer. |
December 2, 2012, 01:29 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 28, 2008
Location: Near Fairbanks Alaska
Posts: 829
|
Thanks for that link, Summerman. If terminal ballistics
is an interest of yours, you need to check out this link. It is in another forum and the ballistics part is moderated by a well known professional. http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91 |
December 2, 2012, 01:48 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 8,927
|
Regarding the 6.5x55 cartridge, how many readers know that was "the" round for the original biathlon shooting stages at 300 metres? It was (and still is) a tack driver. And many European 300 metre free rifles won all the medals in international 3 position competition with that round. It was a favorite in the USA until the .308 Win. replaced it. 'Course the IOC stopped 300 meter centerfire rifle shooting after the 1972 (or 1976; I now forget) Olympics and went to 50 metres with .22 rimfire ammo used in other short range events.
|
December 2, 2012, 06:13 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 7,097
|
Bart B. It is kind of a shame that the old sports with full sized rifles have all gone to rimfires. Watching a Finn unsling a biathlon model Mosin and clean the target is always humbling. A lot of national pride used to hang on who had the best riflemen on the 300 meter free rifle line.
I'm learning the hard way that techniques that work on a full size rifle to deal with recoil do not translate well to airgun shooting. And there is absolutely no way I would want to shoot a center fire rifle like an air rifle. I wonder why the IOC made the change? Maybe to open up the sport to countries that have incredibly horrible firearms laws? Jimro
__________________
Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one. |
December 2, 2012, 09:43 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 8,927
|
Jimro, the IOC stopped using 300 metre centerfire free rifle matches in the 1970 and just used 50 meter smallbore ones. They did that so countries could more easily and cheaply build ranges. A 50 metre rimfire range will fit in a building. But a 300 meter centerfire range needs a few miles of safety zone behind it.
The only time the IOC bowed to pressure from protesters was when they (and the International Shooting Union) changed the "running boar'' match target from a picture of a running wild boar with scoring rings centered on its heart area to a standard round bullseye target. Animal rights protesters didn't like seeing that great looking lithographed picture full of bullet holes well centered on those scoring rings. Scores wentup as the middle of the bullseye was easier to see as that boar was pulled across a 10 meter opening. Half of the runs are slow (target visible for 5 seconds), and half are fast (target visible for 2.5 seconds) |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|