High Powered Rifle
- Thread starter CarpeDiem
- Start date
Aguila Blanca
Staff
There are too many "definitions" to count. It depends on who you're talking to.
Search the term NRA High Power Rules . This is a match fired in competition with certain rifles . The rules outline which rifles are eligible to compete in the High Power competition . Try www.NRA-High-Power-Rules-2009-2010.pdferiecountycl.orgnra-high-power-rules-2009-2010.pdfThis link may not be correct ... so search the term
Reading the rules will explain it a lot better than I can .
Gary
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's not a legal definition. My understanding is that the NRA, for match purposes, considers all centerfire rifles to be "high powered" simply to distinguish them from rimfire.tangolima said:
If you start looking up weapons such as the .30 caliber carbine, the 5.56x45, and 7.62x39, you'll probably find sources that classify them as "intermediate" power rifle cartridges. 7.62x51 (.308) and .30-06 are considered to be "full-powered" military cartridges. So if 5.56x45 is "intermediate" and 7.62x51 is "full," then what's "high"?
All center fired are eligible to enter the match. .223 is one of them.
-TL
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
It's come to be a very general term. I think about all we can expect is that it is a centerfire rifle not chambered for a pistol caliber.
And what I mean by "expect" is that if the firearm in question doesn't fit that definition it would be reasonable to correct the person using the term. Other than that, it's not worthwhile to try to correct the person. Points involving energy or momentum figures are going to be totally lost on the vast majority of the population.
And what I mean by "expect" is that if the firearm in question doesn't fit that definition it would be reasonable to correct the person using the term. Other than that, it's not worthwhile to try to correct the person. Points involving energy or momentum figures are going to be totally lost on the vast majority of the population.
reynolds357
New member
I have no idea. The 5.56 Nato is called high power and in my book it's a baby.
The term has been used many different ways, and in several variations over the years. Some of them are,
Centerfire vs Rimfire
Rifle rounds larger than pistol rounds.
Smokeless powder rounds vs black powder rounds
NRA service rifle matches, called "high power matches" allowed the .223 when it became the service rifle cartridge.
During the later years of WWII, the concept of an "intermediate" cartridge was developed, the standard at the time was a rifle round, more powerful than the service pistol round and less powerful than the standard infantry rifle round.
Our .30 Carbine round fits in that group, along with the German 7,92x33, the Soviet 7.62x39, and some other cartridges. The 5.56mm (.223) also fit into that group, when it was developed.
The .223 is a "high power" round if you're comparing it to the .22 rimfire, and its more powerful than some small rifle rounds like the .22 Hornet, 25-20 and some others, but its not if you compare it to most other larger calibers, including traditional deer hunting rounds.
It's a "high power" round in the press and to politicians seeking to ban them, because it sounds scary, something "more powerful" than "regular" rifle rounds, when, in reality, its not.
Centerfire vs Rimfire
Rifle rounds larger than pistol rounds.
Smokeless powder rounds vs black powder rounds
NRA service rifle matches, called "high power matches" allowed the .223 when it became the service rifle cartridge.
During the later years of WWII, the concept of an "intermediate" cartridge was developed, the standard at the time was a rifle round, more powerful than the service pistol round and less powerful than the standard infantry rifle round.
Our .30 Carbine round fits in that group, along with the German 7,92x33, the Soviet 7.62x39, and some other cartridges. The 5.56mm (.223) also fit into that group, when it was developed.
The .223 is a "high power" round if you're comparing it to the .22 rimfire, and its more powerful than some small rifle rounds like the .22 Hornet, 25-20 and some others, but its not if you compare it to most other larger calibers, including traditional deer hunting rounds.
It's a "high power" round in the press and to politicians seeking to ban them, because it sounds scary, something "more powerful" than "regular" rifle rounds, when, in reality, its not.
Coincidentally, this morning I asked myself the same question after I saw the term "High-powered rifle" on a news blurb. "What do they mean by "high-powered rifle?"
Maybe velocity? But what velocity? The "desired" number for .270 was always 3000fps, but that can't be it because a TC Contender or Encore are handguns and in .223 and .22-250 a 50 gr bullet can be launched over 3000fps. Even rifles in the .17 Remington, Hornet and Rem Fireball can send a projectile over 3000fps.
How about kinetic energy? Well, how much? It has been said you need a minimum of 1000 ft-lb to kill a deer, so maybe that's what defines a "high-powered rifle." Nope, again, the TC Contender can send a 50gr bullet at 3043 fps which is 1028 ft-lb of KE.
So it must be higher than that, I guess. But how high? The handgun in .460 S&W Mag sends a 300gr bullet at 2268fps which is 2742 ft-lb. If that's the magic number then it leaves out the .223 because even at 4000 fps a 50gr bullet delivers 1777 ft-lb. So I guess the AR-15 is not a "high-power rifle."
If I ever get into this conversation with an anti-gunner, my question is going to be: "name a "low-power rifle."
Maybe velocity? But what velocity? The "desired" number for .270 was always 3000fps, but that can't be it because a TC Contender or Encore are handguns and in .223 and .22-250 a 50 gr bullet can be launched over 3000fps. Even rifles in the .17 Remington, Hornet and Rem Fireball can send a projectile over 3000fps.
How about kinetic energy? Well, how much? It has been said you need a minimum of 1000 ft-lb to kill a deer, so maybe that's what defines a "high-powered rifle." Nope, again, the TC Contender can send a 50gr bullet at 3043 fps which is 1028 ft-lb of KE.
So it must be higher than that, I guess. But how high? The handgun in .460 S&W Mag sends a 300gr bullet at 2268fps which is 2742 ft-lb. If that's the magic number then it leaves out the .223 because even at 4000 fps a 50gr bullet delivers 1777 ft-lb. So I guess the AR-15 is not a "high-power rifle."
If I ever get into this conversation with an anti-gunner, my question is going to be: "name a "low-power rifle."
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I'm working on a book, part of one chapter of which touches on this very question. It's far from complete or final, so the following is very much a work-in-progress but I'll throw it out there for the sake of discussion.
Please note that the following is copyrighted and by posting it here I am NOT granting anyone permission to copy it, reproduce it, or distribute it.
- - - - - - - -
One of the arguments consistently advanced against (in particular) so-called “assault weapons” is that they are “high powered” rifles suitable only for use on military battlefields. The truth is quite the opposite.
The two types of firearms most commonly considered by the media and by anti-gun politicians and activists to be "assault weapons" are the American AR-15 and the Soviet-inspired AK-47. Although there are now AR-15 style firearms chambered for other cartridges, the AR-15 was originally chambered for the .223 Remington cartridge, which for most practical purposes is the same as the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge. The ammunition I carried in my M16 in Vietnam was designated M193; this is still the most commonly available ammunition for AR-15s, although the United States military has mostly shifted to a cartridge designated M855. They are the same size; the primary difference is that the M855 uses a different and slightly heavier bullet. The heavier M855 bullet is actually slower (less muzzle velocity) than the M855 but, because energy is a function of mass and velocity, the resulting muzzle energy is very close.
The original M193 cartridge for the M16 has a muzzle velocity of 3,260 feet-per-second and a muzzle energy of 1,294 foot-pounds. The M855 cartridge has a muzzle velocity of 3,150 feet-per-second and develops muzzle energy of 1,371 foot-pounds.
The AK-47 and its copies shoot a cartridge designated 7.62x39. This means the bullet has a diameter of 7.62mm (about .30 caliber) and a case length of 39mm. With a larger diameter and heavier bullet than the AR-15’s .22 caliber bullet, 7.62x39 generates less muzzle velocity than standard AR-15 ammunition, but (because of the heavier bullet) slightly more energy.
The media and politicians invariably refer to so-called “assault weapons” as “high-powered” weapons, "suitable only for warfare." To put it bluntly, this is a lie. By the standards of most experts in military weaponry, both the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x39 cartridges are classified as “intermediate” cartridges. An intermediate cartridge is considered to be a cartridge that is more powerful than a pistol cartridge, but less powerful than a full-powered (not “high-powered,” merely standard military power) rifle cartridge. To understand the difference, we need only look at a few standard military rifle cartridges. The .30-06 Springfield M2 cartridge used in the U.S. M1 Garand rifle in World War 2 and Korea is a .30 caliber cartridge that generated 2,740 feet-per second muzzle velocity (slower than the M193 or 7.62 x 39 cartridges) but, because of a bullet weighing three to four times as much as the intermediate cartridges, generated 2,465 foot-pounds of muzzle energy.
The M1 Garand rifle and the M2 .30-06 cartridge were replaced by the United States military with the newer M14 rifle and a new 7.62mm x 51mm M80 cartridge in 1957. 7.62mm is still a .30 caliber bullet, the same diameter as the Soviet 7.62x39 intermediate cartridge and the U.S. .30-06 full-powered cartridge. The new M80 cartridge was designed to take advantage of newer developments in smokeless powders and to develop muzzle velocity and muzzle energy similar to the older .30-06 cartridge. The M80 cartridge develops a muzzle velocity of 2,800 feet-per-second and a muzzle energy of 2,559 foot-pounds.
The standard-power rifle cartridge used by Germany in both Word War 1 and World War 2 was the 7.92mm x 57mm (often referred to as “8mm Mauser”). This was a .31 caliber cartridge, very similar is size and appearance to the U.S. M2 .30-06 cartridge. The 7.92x57 cartridge has been adopted as the standard rifle cartridge by dozens of countries, from Europe and Asia to Africa and South America. This full-powered (standard-power) cartridge developed 2,700 feet-per-second of muzzle velocity and 3,000 foot-pounds of muzzle energy—2.3 times the muzzle energy of the M193 5.56x45 cartridge.
To fully comprehend the lie behind calling the AR-15 .223 / 5.56x45 caliber cartridge “high-powered,” we need only look at state hunting regulations. Ten (10) states do not allow hunters of deer (which are not especially large game and certainly are not considered to be dangerous game) to use .223 / 5.56x45 ammunition. One state allows the caliber, but establishes a minimum residual energy at a distance of 100 yards; the common 55-grain M193 version of the cartridge that I carried in Vietnam doesn’t meet these requirements and cannot be used for hunting deer. Another state requires a minimum bullet weight of 60 grains for hunting deer; again, the common M193 AR-15 cartridge doesn’t quality, and cannot be used to hunt deer in Wyoming.
Yet anti-gun activists loudly proclaim that the AR-15 is a “high-powered, military style weapon suitable only for war.” This argument is patently silly.
The 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 intermediate rifle cartridges are far outweighed in power by even standard, full-power military calibers like .308 / 7.62x51 and the venerable .30-06 on which the United States relied through two world wars. And yet, even those cartridges are not “high-powered;” they are “full-powered,” or standard power. To understand what a high-powered cartridge is, we need to look at what hunters of large or dangerous game use. The difference in muzzle energy between genuine high-powered cartridges and the intermediate cartridges is staggering.
50 BMG
Muzzle Velocity 2,800 fps. ME 11,489 ft-lbs. Energy 3,521 ft-lbs. at 1,000 yards.
416 Barrett
Muzzle Velocity 3,005 fps. ME 9,063 ft-lbs. Energy 3,862 ft-lbs. at 1,000 yards.
- - - - - - -
End of manuscript
Please note that the following is copyrighted and by posting it here I am NOT granting anyone permission to copy it, reproduce it, or distribute it.
- - - - - - - -
One of the arguments consistently advanced against (in particular) so-called “assault weapons” is that they are “high powered” rifles suitable only for use on military battlefields. The truth is quite the opposite.
The two types of firearms most commonly considered by the media and by anti-gun politicians and activists to be "assault weapons" are the American AR-15 and the Soviet-inspired AK-47. Although there are now AR-15 style firearms chambered for other cartridges, the AR-15 was originally chambered for the .223 Remington cartridge, which for most practical purposes is the same as the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge. The ammunition I carried in my M16 in Vietnam was designated M193; this is still the most commonly available ammunition for AR-15s, although the United States military has mostly shifted to a cartridge designated M855. They are the same size; the primary difference is that the M855 uses a different and slightly heavier bullet. The heavier M855 bullet is actually slower (less muzzle velocity) than the M855 but, because energy is a function of mass and velocity, the resulting muzzle energy is very close.
The original M193 cartridge for the M16 has a muzzle velocity of 3,260 feet-per-second and a muzzle energy of 1,294 foot-pounds. The M855 cartridge has a muzzle velocity of 3,150 feet-per-second and develops muzzle energy of 1,371 foot-pounds.
The AK-47 and its copies shoot a cartridge designated 7.62x39. This means the bullet has a diameter of 7.62mm (about .30 caliber) and a case length of 39mm. With a larger diameter and heavier bullet than the AR-15’s .22 caliber bullet, 7.62x39 generates less muzzle velocity than standard AR-15 ammunition, but (because of the heavier bullet) slightly more energy.
The media and politicians invariably refer to so-called “assault weapons” as “high-powered” weapons, "suitable only for warfare." To put it bluntly, this is a lie. By the standards of most experts in military weaponry, both the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x39 cartridges are classified as “intermediate” cartridges. An intermediate cartridge is considered to be a cartridge that is more powerful than a pistol cartridge, but less powerful than a full-powered (not “high-powered,” merely standard military power) rifle cartridge. To understand the difference, we need only look at a few standard military rifle cartridges. The .30-06 Springfield M2 cartridge used in the U.S. M1 Garand rifle in World War 2 and Korea is a .30 caliber cartridge that generated 2,740 feet-per second muzzle velocity (slower than the M193 or 7.62 x 39 cartridges) but, because of a bullet weighing three to four times as much as the intermediate cartridges, generated 2,465 foot-pounds of muzzle energy.
The M1 Garand rifle and the M2 .30-06 cartridge were replaced by the United States military with the newer M14 rifle and a new 7.62mm x 51mm M80 cartridge in 1957. 7.62mm is still a .30 caliber bullet, the same diameter as the Soviet 7.62x39 intermediate cartridge and the U.S. .30-06 full-powered cartridge. The new M80 cartridge was designed to take advantage of newer developments in smokeless powders and to develop muzzle velocity and muzzle energy similar to the older .30-06 cartridge. The M80 cartridge develops a muzzle velocity of 2,800 feet-per-second and a muzzle energy of 2,559 foot-pounds.
The standard-power rifle cartridge used by Germany in both Word War 1 and World War 2 was the 7.92mm x 57mm (often referred to as “8mm Mauser”). This was a .31 caliber cartridge, very similar is size and appearance to the U.S. M2 .30-06 cartridge. The 7.92x57 cartridge has been adopted as the standard rifle cartridge by dozens of countries, from Europe and Asia to Africa and South America. This full-powered (standard-power) cartridge developed 2,700 feet-per-second of muzzle velocity and 3,000 foot-pounds of muzzle energy—2.3 times the muzzle energy of the M193 5.56x45 cartridge.
To fully comprehend the lie behind calling the AR-15 .223 / 5.56x45 caliber cartridge “high-powered,” we need only look at state hunting regulations. Ten (10) states do not allow hunters of deer (which are not especially large game and certainly are not considered to be dangerous game) to use .223 / 5.56x45 ammunition. One state allows the caliber, but establishes a minimum residual energy at a distance of 100 yards; the common 55-grain M193 version of the cartridge that I carried in Vietnam doesn’t meet these requirements and cannot be used for hunting deer. Another state requires a minimum bullet weight of 60 grains for hunting deer; again, the common M193 AR-15 cartridge doesn’t quality, and cannot be used to hunt deer in Wyoming.
Yet anti-gun activists loudly proclaim that the AR-15 is a “high-powered, military style weapon suitable only for war.” This argument is patently silly.
The 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 intermediate rifle cartridges are far outweighed in power by even standard, full-power military calibers like .308 / 7.62x51 and the venerable .30-06 on which the United States relied through two world wars. And yet, even those cartridges are not “high-powered;” they are “full-powered,” or standard power. To understand what a high-powered cartridge is, we need to look at what hunters of large or dangerous game use. The difference in muzzle energy between genuine high-powered cartridges and the intermediate cartridges is staggering.
50 BMG
Muzzle Velocity 2,800 fps. ME 11,489 ft-lbs. Energy 3,521 ft-lbs. at 1,000 yards.
416 Barrett
Muzzle Velocity 3,005 fps. ME 9,063 ft-lbs. Energy 3,862 ft-lbs. at 1,000 yards.
- - - - - - -
End of manuscript
So in my original post I said the 50 cal would be considered high powered. My understanding of calibers being very limited except that the 50 is the top of the line. But then what is bottom of the line? Obviously it is a mythical term like “assault rifle”. Starts with the 50 BMG and ends with the 416 Barrett, assuming all the other numbers are correct.
Sadly I know so much more than the average person does about firearms and yet I know so little. Americans are being lead down the garden path of questionable information. The one thing I know for sure is that my 9mm with remove a lung with one shot.
Sadly I know so much more than the average person does about firearms and yet I know so little. Americans are being lead down the garden path of questionable information. The one thing I know for sure is that my 9mm with remove a lung with one shot.
Sound like a great textbook and a ton of work. Thanks
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Bottom of the line for what? For "high-powered," or for rifle cartridges in general?CarpeDiem said:
In absolute terms, the bottom of the line is arguably the .22 Short. Yes, BB caps and CB caps are even wimpier than .22 Short, but may not have enough power to exit a rifle barrel, so for argument's sake, I consider .22 Short to be the lower end. The cartridges generally associated with what the media and the politicians like to call "assault weapons" (which is a made-up term that has no standard definition) are the 5.56x45 (AR-15/M16) and the 7.62x39 (AK-47). As noted in my post above, people who know anything classify both as "intermediate" cartridges -- more powerful than handgun ammunition but less powerful than standard military rifle ammunition.
So then we have the .30-06, .308 / 7.62x59, 8mm Mauser, and 7.62x54R battle rifle rounds to pretty well stake out what "standard" power ammunition is. So I suppose we could say that anything significantly more powerful than those is what should rightfully be classified as "high-powered" rifle. The most powerful standard load among those is the 8mm Mauser, at 3,000 foot-pounds.
So the bottom end for "high-powered" would be somewhere above 3,000 foot-pounds. How much above that? I dunno -- pick a number. Call it 3,500 foot-pounds. That brings us to cartridges such as 7mm STW (3,592), 350 Remington Magnum (3,610), 300 H&H Magnum (3,653), and 300 Winchester Magnum (3,724). Cartridges in that range are what I would view as the bottom of the "high-powered" range.
But someone else might decide that "high-powered" doesn't apply until you're over 4,000 foot-pounds, or 4,500 foot pounds. Let's face it, when the high end is 9,000 foot-pounds, even 4,000 begins to seem pretty wimpy.
As a practical matter, I think a working definition of "high-powered" is what hunters use when going after large, dangerous game. What would you take if you were going on a once-in-a-lifetime African safari? Probably not an AR-15 or a .30-30.
Here's one of my sources, a site called AussieHunter.org. They have a list of the most powerful rifle cartridges. Note that those four "standard-power" military cartridges I mentioned didn't make it into the top 50. The .30-06 is #75 on the list. The .223 Remington (the civilian equivalent to the 5.54x45) is at #145 on the list.
https://aussiehunter.org/shooting/calibres/most-powerful-calibers/
AussieHunter has another page (https://aussiehunter.org/shooting/calibres/) that offers suggested criteria for hunting various types of game. For "large game" they suggest a minimum bullet weight of 150 grains at a minimum muzzle energy of 2,000 foot-pounds.
But then beyond "large game" they list "big game," for which they suggest a minimum bullet weight of 200 grains at a minimum muzzle energy of 3,000 foot-pounds. And for "dangerous game" they suggest a minimum bullet weight of 400 grains and a minimum muzzle energy of 4,000 foot-pounds.
Aguila, fabulous presentation.
I'd love to see what happens to it if one of today's "journalists" got exposed to it.
I just reviewed a "journalist" report on Vitamin D, describing how some guy overdosed by taking an excessive amount of "50,000mg which is over 100 times the suggested dose of 600mg." Recognize Vitamin D doses are in micrograms, not milligrams, and I.U. (International Units). Given this report, he was taking 2 BILLION I.U. a day. The truth is he was taking 3 a day of 50,000 I.U. which is 375 times the recommended dose. The inaccuracy was brought to the attention of the publication and they republished the article with more accurate data, arguing there was an issue in the translation of the data that was reported in the original study.
I can just see how clouded their view of your report would be to those who just publish without investigation or actually understanding the information themselves.
I'd love to see what happens to it if one of today's "journalists" got exposed to it.
I just reviewed a "journalist" report on Vitamin D, describing how some guy overdosed by taking an excessive amount of "50,000mg which is over 100 times the suggested dose of 600mg." Recognize Vitamin D doses are in micrograms, not milligrams, and I.U. (International Units). Given this report, he was taking 2 BILLION I.U. a day. The truth is he was taking 3 a day of 50,000 I.U. which is 375 times the recommended dose. The inaccuracy was brought to the attention of the publication and they republished the article with more accurate data, arguing there was an issue in the translation of the data that was reported in the original study.
I can just see how clouded their view of your report would be to those who just publish without investigation or actually understanding the information themselves.
many years ago, in the hysterial that led up to the 94AWB, one of the major news networks (I forget which one) ran a piece about the "terrible wounds caused by the high power rounds of assault weapons.
I saw it, and they made a couple small mistakes, obvious to anyone who knew anything about guns, but unnoticed by the editors.
They set up a couple watermelons on posts, range was short (to keep them in the camera view) and shot them.
They shot the first one with an AK 47. And it was a 3 rnd full auto burst. NOT semi auto fire. (1st mistake, their demonstrator used a select fire AK, NOT the semi auto version which was included in the proposed gun control bill)
The melon broke into 3 or 4 large pieces.
Then they made their second mistake.
They filmed the second melon being shot...
with a 7mm Remington Magnum
The melon, of course exploded into lots of tiny pieces.
Third mistake, they aired the video intact, showing both melons being shot, graphically demolishing their argument that the AK shot a "high power" round
I think they may have gotten a little better at hiding the truth since then, but not a lot. What would you expect from the folks who got caught rigging pickup trucks to explode and the week after 9/11 showing the world where the best place to put explosives on the Golden Gate bridge was, on the nightly news.....
I saw it, and they made a couple small mistakes, obvious to anyone who knew anything about guns, but unnoticed by the editors.
They set up a couple watermelons on posts, range was short (to keep them in the camera view) and shot them.
They shot the first one with an AK 47. And it was a 3 rnd full auto burst. NOT semi auto fire. (1st mistake, their demonstrator used a select fire AK, NOT the semi auto version which was included in the proposed gun control bill)
The melon broke into 3 or 4 large pieces.
Then they made their second mistake.
They filmed the second melon being shot...
with a 7mm Remington Magnum
The melon, of course exploded into lots of tiny pieces.
Third mistake, they aired the video intact, showing both melons being shot, graphically demolishing their argument that the AK shot a "high power" round
I think they may have gotten a little better at hiding the truth since then, but not a lot. What would you expect from the folks who got caught rigging pickup trucks to explode and the week after 9/11 showing the world where the best place to put explosives on the Golden Gate bridge was, on the nightly news.....