308 Winchester: Why So Popular for Long Range?

If high power rifle competitors using M16 and AR15 platforms shooting 22 caliber bullets from 100 through 1000 yards have excellent bullet stabilization in that range band, then what the USMC's using you're referencing is totally wrong for the bullet's muzzle velocity and rifling twist. I doubt that's the case.

To say nothing of the sub 1/3 MOA groups benchresters shoot with 22 caliber bullets from 100 to 300 yards which pretty much means they're very well stabilized with the velocity and twist rate they leave at.

I'd like to see that power point based example of bullet stabilization. That simulated stability on a chart style diagram both side view and head on through the whole 500 yards may show a tiny bit of instability which all bullets have; they're all unbalanced to some microscopic amount when fired. But it cannot be excessive else the competitors would not shoot as good as they do.

How can a bullet at 300 yards that's way off from group center in some direction know that and change its trajectory back towards group center at 500 yards? Think about this.
 
Last edited:
He said that at those two ranges he could not make an accurate comparison because of the difference in position and other factors plus those ranges seem to fall within the normal expectations. He said at 300 it is prone and sitting and 500 is prone. He also stated that for the record a lot of them due to facility factors shot better sitting than prone which is not the case other places in more comfortable conditions we are talking about 29 Palms. He said you are correct about the sizing of the targets. He also said that he is not talking about scoring but actual groups at 300 and 500 in the prone position both places. What they are seeing about 90 % of the time is groups at 500 a 10-12"approx. and the same soldier all over the paper at 300 some as bad as 25". He said he has shot it himself several times comparing prone to prone and prone to sitting which he says is his better position. The results were very similar. He has had a few opinions on why but he and several others at the range don't know why this is happening at such a consistent rate. He had 5 soldiers 2 days ago it happened with everyone of them. One guy obliterated the 500 and barely kept it on the paper at 300. He said in 5 1/2 years it is so consistent that it escapes reasoning. You have a lot of experience what do you think? I have him emailing the ballistics on the round and a pic to see what their using.
Click to expand...

25" at 300 is an 8.3 MOA group. 12" at 500 is a 2.2 MOA group, which if centered on the target is a "clean" set of 10s on a High Power Range. Bullets don't tighten up 6.1 minutes between 300 and 500. The USMC uses different targets for 300 and 500 which could account for aiming differences between shooters. The other major difference is that the 300 is rapid fire and the 500 is slow fire.

The Army doesn't change targets with distance, and our popup qualification is "hit/miss" without grouping so the only Soldiers who work on groups are SDMs, and I've never seen an M16A2 shoot 8.3 minutes at 300 even with M855.

Jimro
 
I know and he knows that a bullet group does not pull back towards center between 300 and 500 and yes the bullet scores between 100 and 200 are according to him though not totally stabilized they are consistent with expected results. When he first bounced the stabilization idea off me he was merely thinking out loud pulling from training to come with a logical explanation for the 300 and 500 results which are not even close to expected results. He did explain the slow and rapid fire rate and methods used and the timing of them for consistent grouping. And after he and I looked at the stabilization on the 5.56 video it is obvious that what your saying is true. I merely posted that later because Brian had posted similar in another post and what Jimro posted was consistent with stabilization training material on the 5.56.



Maybe Jimro is on to something on target size affecting the shooters ability to get an equal sight picture at both ranges i don't know. My son did't feel this was the case because he felt the 3x25 trijicon offered enough picture magnification to make sighting differences a not so huge factor. May be it has to do with the rapid fire but he explained the disciplined succession used in rapid fire and he said he didn't think for himself that it answered for the inconsistencies he was seeing. I personally don't know I haven't seen all the facts and I'm not there but I 'm sure if there is an idea that would solve the mystery he would be appreciative.



I know why he brought it up is because he has been qualifying shooters on the 5.56 in the immediately recent weeks. He is extremely analytic and a perfectionist. He can't stand especially when it comes to firearms to have something that he is using or training that he can't explain and or fix. Jimro I think one or both of your reasons are at least part of the explanation even though he insists that he does think it could cause it to be that far out of reason as what he consistently sees. I am not sure what he is basing his opinion own relating to his on personal experiences.I don't think he regularly runs into things that he can't overcome and this one is puzzling to him because I can tell it isn't adding up to him. I don't personally think there is an anomaly with this round it has been used to long I think for that but I am no expert.



I think usually in life I have found that confusing issues are very often uncomplicated when you sort it all out usually humans are adding their on complications. I agree with what your saying on stabilization Bart but Jimro is right according to the training aid (perfect) stability never happens in the 5.56. Also Jimro you are correct on the bullet they are using the M855 .Also qualifications are scored and they do use different size targets as you say and he is paying attention to groups only because he feels he is seeing something that doesn't add up and since he is overseeing a lot of this he is able to make a lot of mental notes of what he is seeing when scoring. Thanks for the input
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have heard the bullet stabilization argument for years. The only problem with it is that if the bullets were truly unstable from muzzle to 150 then they would have wandered off target prior to their stabilization. At the magic moment of stabilization, they would still be off target. The group can not open up and then close down.
 
The 50 BMG for example which would still be the go to over 1500 yards if the Geneva Convention had not labeled it as inhumane as just a sniper round and it can only be used as a anti material round.
Click to expand...

AFAIK that isn't true. The Barret and the M2 have been and still are used against individuals.

Don't know how that idea got started. Armies have used artillery as direct fire weapons for centuries.
In the first Iraq war there is lots of video of the Western forces using .50bmg and 20mm and bigger ammo against Iraqi troops.
 
I won't disagree with you on the accuracy of the 300 Win mag for the person that can handle the recoil and he said he wouldn't either. He said if the 300 would cover the job as effectively over ranges from 1000 to 2400 as the 338 Lapua it would have been selected because it is well below half the cost. He said the info he has is that the 300 will not cover that range as effectively as the 338. And he again confirmed that the 50 bmg is a job specific round that can only be used now for a anti material round because of the Geneva convention rule against its use as inhumane for personnel only sniper purposes. When he and his team goes out for recon duty he said a 308 sniper rifle is carried for personnel duty up to around 1000 yards and either a 338 or a 50 bmg depending on the expected job at hand.
Click to expand...

The 300 Win Mag is for planning purposes a 1500 meter round using Mk248Mod1 ammunition (a 220gr SMK at 2850 fps). The Mk316Mod0 load is a 1000 meter round (175 MK at 2640fps in a 24" barrel).

The bullets can go further, but this is the planning factor for ballistics based on when the bullets start going subsonic based on standard atmospherics. At altitudes this changes things, one of my snipers had good data out to 1400 meters with M118LR gained at the Yakima Training Center.

The 338 Lapua really maxes out at a mile, 1600 meters, mainly due to internal scope elevation although things like shimming, altitude, and angle have allowed it to make shots significantly longer.

The 50 BMG with a 750 A-Max bullet is no slouch in the long range department. However the US military does not use the 750 A-Max. Standard M33 ball is generally used, and the bullet begins to destabilize due to atmospherics around the 1400 meter mark.

These are simply planning factors, reality will always make the final call.

Jimro
 
Buzzcook I was not referring to the past wars I am referring to recent changes for rules of engagement.


I'm not sure what you mean by AFAIK.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jimro all that your stating seems to fall into alignment with what my son said . He stated the 300 is extremely accurate out to the 1500 area but he said that he was told that while the 338 was very comparable at most jobs it had advantages at others and was the determining factor in selection I suppose there will always be other opinions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great question.

Only one reason: Inertia (which is in turn, due to it being derived from a .mil chambering) - certainly it's not superiority of ballistics (or the best balance of ballistics vs. recoil/cost/bbl life); that much we know!

There's a REASON why the debate amongst hardcare practical shooting guys is ".260 rem vs. 6.5 creedmoor vs. 6.5x47mm", or ".284 win vs. .280 rem", with a smattering of other 6mms, 6.5mms, and 7mms thrown in .... but NOT ".308 win vs. X, Y, or Z" - that latter debate has long since been over.

Oh wait, one other reason: Palma and F/TR comps... but then again, those too are due essentially to inertia as well, depending upon how you look at it.

(Inertia meaning: There are lots of good rifles, ammo, & ammo components in it; because people buy them; People buy them because there are lots of good rifles, ammo, and ammo components available - and so on .... Same reason a junky pistol with a brand name starting with G could still somehow be popular anymore).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top