.243 as a Military round.

If I'm not mistaken, there is a wildcat cartridge based on necking up a 5.56X45mm round up to a 6X45.

That would give you .243 bullets, without requiring major modifications or re-arming of existing military weapons.

Most modern service rifles would only need a re-barreling to convert them to this new round.

Just a thought.

LawDog
 
40grns? Maybe 35!

40grns for 5.56mm? I like the idea. I like velocity and fragmentation. I am primarily concerned with closer-range engagements any way. Giving the 5.56mm round a heavier slug in an effort to turn it into something that behaves like a classical rifle round was a silly idea. This brings us again to the question: Do you want a Rifle, or an Assault Rifle?

I'll take the assault rifle. I would want a sharp-shooter or 3 in the squad armed with a FAL clone, but I believe the value of the intermediate cartridge-select fire combination has been proven already.
 
Whats a small, light and fast fragmenting round going to do against body armor 10-20yrs from now? I think you have to look into the future with what soldiers are going to be wearing. Flak Jackets and better Helmets 10-20yrs from now are probable going to due in the 5.56mm round. I think my previous posts about penetration are going to become more and more important. If 40gr bullets are going to be hauling ass at Mach 5 there going to be blowing apart as soon as they hit "Anything".
 
So why did we ever give up the .45-70?

Well no, a 40grn jacketed lead slug isn't going to be a good armor piercing projectile. It does bad things to flesh.

And of course the 5.56mm cartridge will eventualy fade away.

However, if you want the 5.56mm ASSAULT RIFLE cartridge to take on future personal armor, you must give up the lead and give up the rifling; 1) Give your weapon a smooth bore. 2) create for the 5.56, a jacketed solid steel slug, fin stabilized.
I picture this load doing 4,000fps out of an 18in smoothbore barrel. A G36 with this set up would be great.
No, it isn't for long-range riflery. You want something completely different for that.

Again, are you folks talking about battle rifles or assault rifles?
 
Well, you know me - I like short barreled rifles of all types. I also like chubby bullets. I also like being able to reach out if I have to.
I like heavier bullets. I don't see why you can't have a fast moving heavier and fatter bullet.
 
Thing is, it's the speed that does it, not the weight. Besides, a soldier won't be able to function if he's wearing enough body armor to stop a 4,000 fps 35 grainer... FWIW, if he can wear enough body armor to stop that round, a 165 grainer moving at 2,700 ain't gonna do much better...
 
So you then design wearable reactive armor. Performs two functions: Stops hot pills from getting into your infantryman, and keeps your squads from bunching up too close.

"I'm hit! Whew! Looks like my body armor stopped it, guys. Guys? Guys?"

:)

L.P.
 
i think .243 as a military round is a great idea. although i dont think the .308 should be given up. just as mcshot did...i think i will at some point and time get an AR-10 in .243. i think it's a great gun. I also think the .243 is far superior for MOST combat scenarios than the .223/5.56.
 
Again, you guys are comparing full-size(battle rifle) rounds to intermediate(assault rifle) rounds.

That AR-10 of yours is bigger than an M16 because it is using full size rifle cartridges. An assault rifle isn't designed to that.:rolleyes:
 
It has to do with the technical definition of "assault rifle". An assault rifle has to use an intermediate cartridge such as 8mm Kurz, 7.62x39mm, or 5.56mm. An assault Rifle must also be select fire.

If an automatic rifle is using a full power rifle cartridge, it is a battle rifle, weather it is select-fire or not.
 
.243 is well known for causing short barrel life, it is one of a few rounds(non wildcat) that can attain 4000fps. If it were to be used in a battle rifle they would all have to carry spare barrels hehe.
 
7.62x39 vs .223 decision

I don't know if I have all of the info on this thread quite right, but I've been struggling w/ the SAR1 vs. the SAR3 decision.

I just decided to go w/ the SAR1 since I have have finally paid the property taxes:)

I understand that this is an "Assualt Rifle" and I still want a quality "Battle Rifle" in .308 with quality optics.

I agree that we have gone from "riflemen" to "spray and pray" soldiers for the most part. My soninlaw is 82nd airborne and he "winces" everytime he shoots any of my long action rifles. Even my shot acion 7mmx08!!:(

IMO we need to train more of our soldiers to be "MARKSMEN" w/ true "Battle Rifles" to augment the regular troops.

The GMGC on my ship had no sympathy for anyone who winced at firing the M14 or the M60. He would work w/ them until they were comfortable to shoot them. "Anticicpation" is your worst enemy!!

Now the 50cals. on the Signal Bridge was another story. HOOT TO SHOOT!!! :)
 
for 3000fps im guessing around 7000-10000 rounds if not less. .243 is known to convert your rifle to a smoothbore over time:) ive seen estimates as low as 3000 rounds for shooting fast varmint loads 3300-3900fps.
 
Few rifles which have muzzle velocities above 3,000 ft/sec will have great longevity. Just like race-car motors, right? Hot-rods wear out quicker.

For your regular big-game rifle, it doesn't matter. Once a guy is sighted in the first time, he fires very few rounds the next year to verify, and then a few rounds on deer, elk, whatever.

Near as I can tell, prairie dog towns and paper targets lead to the greatest wear on barrels, this side of real war.

:), Art
 
What about the 22-250?

This little beastie can send out 75gr bullets in excess of 3000f/s, it would have the same flat tragectory as the .223, and the heavier bullets would give it increased flight stabilization. The added length would create more damage when tumbleing and allow for fragmentation even at lower velicities, and better sectional density would also improve it's penetration capabilities.

I would love to see a G36 chambered for this round (or a slightly smaller one with comprable ballistics), anyone think this would work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top