View Single Post
Old December 22, 2008, 10:48 AM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 4,811
I took the time to read & re-read the piece you authored.
It is very good. Clear, laid out in a logical order & well-referenced.
Any changes or additions I'm suggesting are really minor.

The statment about "308 winchester and 7.26 NATO were completely interchangable." in para. 7 might want to mention standard loadings. I only mention this for the sake of completeness with reference to the "specialty" loads that are new to the arena. I'm thinking of "managed recoil" & "Light magnum" type loads here. Maybe also de-fuze the usual "220 grain bullets with slow powder in a Garand" argument as well, before someone else brings it up. Maybe mentioning that military loads are not in the 200+ grain weight?

In the pressure section, where you discuss the differences in measurment systems. Maybe it's worth mentioning that the copper crusher method is total maximum force exerted only, but the pizeo-type plots the pressure curve as well. This is possibly another origin of apparent discrepancies.

Where the chamber & case dimension differences are mentioned, and a table presented, maybe a case/chamber spec drawing might be added?

The final thought may be in an area you don't want to go to as it's marginally relevant, reloading.
You do mention that reloaders need to allow for the differing internal case capacties between commdercial & military cases. Perhaps the differences in these as a table, or list might be helpfull. I have a direct comparison from a loading manual that gives both sets of load data if that would help.

All very minor suggestions, all in all it's an excellent piece of factual documentation.
wogpotter is offline  
Page generated in 0.04151 seconds with 7 queries