2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: aaronc5362 on September 20, 2020, 09:12:09 PM
-
Ok, so sitting at home and doing nothing, my mind began to wonder why did it have to be a .223 caliber. Couldnt they have made it a .225 bullet instead or .3? Would it be easier? Couldnt they have made a larger casing if powder was the downfall of having better ballistics back in the day?
Imagine.. if 5.56 didnt exist. And the military standard for an ar15 back in vietnam era was a 6mmx50 cartridge or something else. I kinda understand that the 5.56 was probably invented so the .223 could be used incase of ammo shortage during the war. Like now haha. With all these new calibers in the ar15 platform coming out with better ballistics than the 5.56, wouldnt it have been great to have started out with this from the GET GO.
The other thing that has been plaguing my mind is why dont they make a lpvo that goes from 1-15x25. Ok so the 25 i just made up, i dont really care bout that. Im just curious why couldnt they make a lpvo that goes from 1 (or as close as true 1x) to 5x to 10x to 15x? Skip all those inbetween numbers. Im sure if it was possible someone would have done it by now. But doesnt those 5-25x scopes skip inbetween numbers??? Or can you really stop at 11x or 17x?
Kind of like that elcan 1x-3x-9x. Or whatever magnification range. But in a lpvo outer form.
Anyone else should post questions they have been wondering during the covid shutdown. Itll be interesting to see if anyone else has or had something they have been wondering.
Bored as fuck
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO
“God and Stoner got together and put this son-of-b*tch together” — Clint Smith
Gonna be reading this tonight, thanks for the idea!
-
1-15x24 probably too costly. Likely too heavy.
24 is a bit small for long range shooting. 44-50+ is more typical for longer range scopes
-
Why 223/556 and not 6.5 Grendel - I believe the thought was 300 yds was the typical range of engagement and the amount of ammo that could be carried
If designed for 600yd -800yd engagement, they might have stayed with 308.
6.5x55 was superior to 308 but that’s another story
-
Weight and size is also another major factor. The amount of ammo for the spray and pray style, carry 300 rounds of 556 vs 308. Less powder and bullet weight, also means less cost per round. Like the change from glass liquor miniature bottles to plastic, cheaper, less weigh, and less breakage for airlines.
-
Oh never thought bout typical engagement distances or the "spray and pray" thing. I guess back then that probably wouldve been the type of fighting. Since it was in rice fields and forestry, most of the time.
Yea i kinda remembering the whole "carry more rounds" thing from future weapons.
I wonder if a 6mm/.243 boolit in a .223 parent case be effective? Prob more distance than a 300 blackout.
Or rather why remington never created a 5mmx45. Maybe if those 2 sizes (5mm and 6mm) were thought of, they decided to go 5.56. Shit why not just straight 5.5mm. Why add that .06 lol.
Sorry, im not a reloader, i just trim brass and sometimes clean it. My friend does all the other steps.
Too much free time is making in me kinda crazy🤪
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/43zxZWD9/think.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO
Why 5.56 and not 6.0
When trying to meet a project goal as quickly as possible it was probably easier/faster to tweak something already existing (223) that almost met the requirements rather than start from scratch
If there had been a 6.0 similar to 223 at the time we might be shooting 6.0 Ar’s today. At the time, I think the most popular 6.0 was 243 Winchester which is about as big as a 308
I don’t know if 6.0 in a 223 case would be much of a difference from 5.56. I think it may have a better drag coefficient but the case volume doesn’t allow much powder
If you want range, Valkyrie is basically a longer 223 bullet in a bigger case
300 blackout - I think it was mainly developed for quieter close range use. I wish there was wolf 300bo, cans and sbrs or pistol ars in Hawaii.....I would go bo for home use. Ar pcc’s are nice but too bad we can only use 10 round mags
-
I would have done it in 44magnum. sidearm in 44mag too. bc 'Murica!!! :geekdanc:
-
5.56 is a good general purpose round. A larger case or bullet means lower mag capacity (orig 20 rnds), heavier ammo and rifles, and less control on full auto. Shooting .243 on full auto would not be pleaasant. More recoil also means slower follow-up shots and more difficulty training recruits. Military also relies on suppressive fire which makes you carry a lot of ammo so the lighter the better. Though they were transitioning from 7.62.
Slight changes in caliber happen all the time. Sells more guns and ammo.
-
That’s interesting.
Why didn’t Stoner just re-case the .243 bullet (head in Macsac lingo) in a shorter 45 mm or 40 mm case.
Similar to .308 in a 39mm case.
They’re shooting 77 grains in .223 now. Would 100 grains put it out out the specs they had spec’d?
Would he still have met the velocity, distance and recoil requirements?
-
I wonder if a 6mm/.243 boolit in a .223 parent case be effective? Prob more distance than a 300 blackout.
Or rather why remington never created a 5mmx45. Maybe if those 2 sizes (5mm and 6mm) were thought of, they decided to go 5.56. Shit why not just straight 5.5mm. Why add that .06 lol.
The problem with using a larger diameter bullet in the same case is less range and velocity due to a heavier bullet and lower ballistic coefficient. Lower performance and less capacity.
The extra .06 is probably just the most optimal sized bullet to meet the specified requirements of what the bullet needs to do.
300 blackout is better for suppressed rifles, but performs worse than 5.56 in other uses.
-
Hound - I’m guessing 223 almost fit the bill as is so they just refined it
If they had used a shorter and fatter case, bigger mags or regular size mags with lower capacity like Zippz mentioned
-
Yeah. I think your right but the .243 round is cool and good fun and can also kill a deer.
It would be neat to see it in a short high pressure cartridge.
-
Hound
Not 243 but kind of close....valkyrie?
224 in a fatter case
-
Regarding calibers, yeah, I've thought about that. I mean I haven't put a lot of thought into it, but more notice unusual calibers and be like "how the hell did they come up with that?" or "why couldn't they just round it off". Particularly for many of the "old school" cartridges and calibers. I assume the modern cartridges are a balance of many factors and assisted by CADD and other software. So there are times I wondered ho wor why they came up with some of the calibers over 100 years ago.
Some have actually very explanations, like the 7.92 Mauser, which is probably the world most popular military cartridge. No Inspector, your beloved .22 lr does not count. ;D Anyways, it is my understanding that it started as 8 mm, but then tweaks and bullet size and rifling and barrel profile considerations then "factored" in.
For optics, particularly the reasoning for LPVOs ranges, there are many articles about them online. Look up discussion on the Nightforce NXS and ATACR lines. I think on Sniper Hide or another, there are a few threads where one of the leads from Nightforce in the development of those lines explains the considerations and limitations.
-
Military also relies on suppressive fire which makes you carry a lot of ammo so the lighter the better. Though they were transitioning from 7.62.
Before the deficiencies of the 5.56 and M-16 became well known, we absolutely marveled at the tiny size and weight of a loaded 20 round magazine. Of course, we had been carrying 4 or more loaded 7.62mm 20 round magazines.
A couple guys were so enamored of the little M-16 during a familiarization fire that they stole a few. Shit hit the fan of course and they had to "find" them.
-
“God and Stoner got together and put this son-of-b*tch together” — Clint Smith
Of course, Stoner's first rifle was chambered in the altogether excellent 7.62X51mm
-
Someone is bored at home. Also 4 minute abs exist and no 3 minute abs. 1 cannot do abs in 3 minutes.
-
Regarding calibers, yeah, I've thought about that. I mean I haven't put a lot of thought into it, but more notice unusual calibers and be like "how the hell did they come up with that?" or "why couldn't they just round it off". Particularly for many of the "old school" cartridges and calibers. I assume the modern cartridges are a balance of many factors and assisted by CADD and other software. So there are times I wondered ho wor why they came up with some of the calibers over 100 years ago.
Some have actually very explanations, like the 7.92 Mauser, which is probably the world most popular military cartridge. No Inspector, your beloved .22 lr does not count. ;D Anyways, it is my understanding that it started as 8 mm, but then tweaks and bullet size and rifling and barrel profile considerations then "factored" in.
For optics, particularly the reasoning for LPVOs ranges, there are many articles about them online. Look up discussion on the Nightforce NXS and ATACR lines. I think on Sniper Hide or another, there are a few threads where one of the leads from Nightforce in the development of those lines explains the considerations and limitations.
computer aided design designing?
-
computer aided design designing?
http://www.remingtoncollege.edu/articles/what-is-cadd/ (http://www.remingtoncollege.edu/articles/what-is-cadd/) ::)
CAD, or CADD, is short for computer-aided design or computer-aided design and drafting
-
http://www.remingtoncollege.edu/articles/what-is-cadd/ (http://www.remingtoncollege.edu/articles/what-is-cadd/) ::)
CAD, or CADD, is short for computer-aided design or computer-aided design and drafting
heads
-
computer aided design designing?
Just because you don’t know something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist...
https://www.quora.com/How-does-CAD-and-CADD-differ
-
heads
Fusion360
-
Just because you don’t know something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist...
https://www.quora.com/How-does-CAD-and-CADD-differ
no focus
-
no focus
Guess there is something you didn't know. Wonder of there are other things. . . :P
Haha. Total BS though. I meant CAD, but probably put CADD as a proposal I'm evaluating this week has that position as CADD, as opposed to CAD.
-
Yeah. I think your right but the .243 round is cool and good fun and can also kill a deer.
It would be neat to see it in a short high pressure cartridge.
That's called 6mmBR. VERY accurate and fast round.
-
I heard something about the strategy of incapacitating an enemy vs killing them, forcing enemy soldiers to attend to the wounded. Not sure if true, but if I was given a .22 cal weapon that was designed to injure people who were trying to kill me with .30 I would be pissed, so if that was the case the designers might not want to own up to it.
-
I heard something about the strategy of incapacitating an enemy vs killing them, forcing enemy soldiers to attend to the wounded. Not sure if true, but if I was given a .22 cal weapon that was designed to injure people who were trying to kill me with .30 I would be pissed, so if that was the case the designers might not want to own up to it.
That assumes the enemy is going to stop fighting to help a wounded comrade. Can't count on that.
Also, a wounded soldier can be patched up to go fight again. How many times do we have to wound him before he kills one or more of us? Not a good plan. It would make more sense to shoot low to wound someone if you want to force others to carry them rather than issue less lethal ammo.
I think many of these stories are used to justify the lower lethality of the smaller round compared to the 30 caliber family. If most states won't let us hunt deer with them, obviously the lethality is subpar when targeting humans.
Then again, if you look at the kills and injuries inflicted with AR-15s in mass shootings, it's obvious that the weapon is not anemic regarding lethality. I submit it's all about the operator and the environment (i.e. distance, protective gear being used by the enemy, etc.)
Just thinking out loud. I have no actual combat experience, and hope I never do.
-
Just wondering
What was/is the normal amount carried by typical infantrymen for these calibers:
5.56 - 7 mags of 30rds?
7.62x51 - ?
30-06 - ?
8mm mauser - ?
7.62x39 - ?
5.45x39 - ?
Regarding lethality
I read the 5.45 was called the poison bullet (or something like that)..... because it killed people even though it was small?
In Vietnam, the tactic was for the vc to engage the gi’s in close and than run because the M16 had too much firepower?
In the Middle East, it seemed like the upper level isis liked carrying ars when they took photos. Was it preferred over the ak?
In open areas with little or no cover, I read of engagements of Kurds? (with us advisors ) and isis and the us advisors handily picking off the bad guys
-
That's called 6mmBR. VERY accurate and fast round.
Shit. You might of just sent me down a rabbit hole my wife does Not want me follow.
https://www.6mmbr.com/6mmbr.html
-
That assumes the enemy is going to stop fighting to help a wounded comrade. Can't count on that.
I think many of these stories are used to justify the lower lethality of the smaller round compared to the 30 caliber family. If most states won't let us hunt deer with them, obviously the lethality is subpar when targeting humans.
Military tactics changed to rely on suppressive fires, so that rules out larger and more powerful calibers in battle rifles. 5.56 is very efficient for it's size. You don't have to kill someone with one shot. Usually a shot anywhere on the body will severely degrade a professional soldier's performance.
I don't think the wounding the enemy to occupy other soldiers tactic works out because our enemies don't value the lives of their people. Wounded soldiers don't matter cause you got a lot of people to replace them. Especially in the age of suicide attacks.
-
Military tactics changed to rely on suppressive fires, so that rules out larger and more powerful calibers in battle rifles. 5.56 is very efficient for it's size. You don't have to kill someone with one shot. Usually a shot anywhere on the body will severely degrade a professional soldier's performance.
I don't think the wounding the enemy to occupy other soldiers tactic works out because our enemies don't value the lives of their people. Wounded soldiers don't matter cause you got a lot of people to replace them. Especially in the age of suicide attacks.
There are no suicide attacks in military doctrine
-
Getting back on topic, sometimes I wonder about how much firearms designers in the JMB era and before learned by their mistakes, as opposed to their failures. I assume much of it was trial and error. Try this and see how it works. Not good, try that and see how it works. How many fingers have been lost experimenting, or more? :o
Sort of like how people back in the day figured out something was good to eat, or which was poisonous. Sucks to be the guinea pig tho learned about Fugu. :o ;D Or how the F someone found fermented soy beans, decided to eat it anyways, and found that it tasted good.
Trial and error can be a funny thing. I often find the stories I hear about or come across on painful ways people learned a lesson. One that sticks out in my mind is reading the meter reader's notes when I worked summers at the Board of Water Supply. "Mean dog at the end of the street. Seems nice at first, but will attack once you turn your back." Probably bad, but that made me :rofl:
-
Regarding lethality
I read the 5.45 was called the poison bullet (or something like that)..... because it killed people even though it was small?
In the late 80's while working at Ft Irwin, we had the local Russian weapons experts give us a lecture and hands on shoot for the Ak-74. They claimed the ballistics at the time were classified, but did go into the projectile design. Seemes the early ones had an air space behind the nose of the bullet creating a pseudo-hollowpoint.
In Vietnam, the tactic was for the vc to engage the gi’s in close and than run because the M16 had too much firepower?
Rather to minimize our ability to use artillery and close air support.
-
Rob - thanks I forgot about those added reasons.
For all,
Some sort of interesting reading material
https://mtntactical.com/knowledge/everyone-wants-7-62-carry/
I read that the Arvn, vc and nva liked the m16. Probably because it and the ammo was so light and they were physically smaller
-
The other thing that has been plaguing my mind is why dont they make a lpvo that goes from 1-15x25. Ok so the 25 i just made up, i dont really care bout that. Im just curious why couldnt they make a lpvo that goes from 1 (or as close as true 1x) to 5x to 10x to 15x? Skip all those inbetween numbers. Im sure if it was possible someone would have done it by now. But doesnt those 5-25x scopes skip inbetween numbers??? Or can you really stop at 11x or 17x?
Light gathering ability limits magnification at a set objective size. A 15x magnification would have 1/2.5 the brightness of a 6x. Field of view and exit pupil is tiny making it difficult to use.
. Also distortion, defects, and other issues get bigger the higher up you go. You also have issues with the FFP reticle which will be large at 1x and tiny at 15x.
I'm surprised the Razor 1-10x is as good and as small as it is. Though they had to use top quality expensive components to get there along with a bump in tube size.
Then there is purpose. 1x is useful for close combat, 6x is good overall, but 15x is nice but not really needed for the ranges of 5.56 in military or defensive situations.
Future electronic optics could remove a lot of the issues and make optics cheaper someday.
-
Im just curious why couldnt they make a lpvo that goes from 1 (or as close as true 1x) to 5x to 10x to 15x? Skip all those inbetween numbers. Im sure if it was possible someone would have done it by now. But doesnt those 5-25x scopes skip inbetween numbers??? Or can you really stop at 11x or 17x?
Kind of like that elcan 1x-3x-9x. Or whatever magnification range. But in a lpvo outer form.
Brilliant !
1-6-12 x whatever 40mm?
Audible clicks.
-
In the late 80's while working at Ft Irwin, we had the local Russian weapons experts give us a lecture and hands on shoot for the Ak-74. They claimed the ballistics at the time were classified, but did go into the projectile design. Seemes the early ones had an air space behind the nose of the bullet creating a pseudo-hollowpoint.
Ballistics is not a new science by any means. It is possible that certain rounds were originally designed to do specific jobs, and then were modified as those objectives changed but barrel, case, and magazine sizes did not. At least not without great expense.
-
Ballistics is not a new science by any means.
It was pointed out to the guy lecturing that American Rifelman had already tested the round and published the data. Did not matter, he would not discuss how it compared to our 5.56.
-
One thing we know for sure.
5.56 can take off a bicep at close range.
And a shot to the chest appears pretty lethal.
https://youtu.be/iryQSpxSlrg
Still want a short cased, high pressure, mag compatible with standard lower .243 for an AR though.
-
One thing we know for sure.
5.56 can take off a bicep at close range.
And a shot to the chest appears pretty lethal.
https://youtu.be/iryQSpxSlrg
Still want a short cased, high pressure, mag compatible with standard lower .243 for an AR though.
Ah, some real-world evidence of what some Speer/CCI reps said a while back —>
https://youtu.be/T6kUvi72s0Y
Most of the conversation is about pistols, but it comes down to human elasticity, I.e. the human body can’t cope with the force of a 55gr projectile traveling 2-3x the speed of sound.
-
Hound
Whats the 243 ar for? 6.5 Grendel can do a lot
Like 7.62x39 in close and can shoot far accurately.
And already have cheap wolf too. (Not that I would use wolf in a grendel)
I have ar’s but I’m not a real fan of it for hunting (my wife’s says wandering cluelessly in regards to me) even though grendel is pretty decent. I only think about using one if I may come across poachers
-
Hound
Whats the 243 ar for? 6.5 Grendel can do a lot
Like 7.62x39 in close and can shoot far accurately.
And already have cheap wolf too. (Not that I would use wolf in a grendel)
I have ar’s but I’m not a real fan of it for hunting (my wife’s says wandering cluelessly in regards to me) even though grendel is pretty decent. I only think about using one if I may come across poachers
As mentioned in the Wiki descriptions, the .223 was developed as a varmint hunting round. So, it really depends on what you're hunting as to whether an AR-15 is suitable for "hunting". For bird hunting, a shotgun is preferred, For deer, a larger caliber than .223 is not only better, but required by law in some states. For hunting moose or elk, forget it.
But if you live on a large farm and need to control the fox, wolf, gopher and rabbit populations that can ruin crops and steal chickens, it's absolutely the ideal platform for that application.
-
I read larue or one of his kids took down an elk or something with 6.5 Grendel at like 400yards or something
Ar in the other calibers are workable but I prefer 6.5 creedmoor or bigger. (Even though I’m just wandering around lost and can’t see poop even when Gunguy808 is pointing it out to me)
-
Seems like a .243 at 90 to 100 Grains could be pushed a little faster with less recoil.
Right between 6mm and 6.5.
6.5 Grendel is pretty interesting though.
I thought the ammo would be scarce.
And I love the .243 in my bolt gun. (Totally different case though, I know)
NoScade doesn’t recommend .243 for deer here unless you like to track a little bit.
Haven’t seen any elk or moose yet in Hawaii, but I’ll keep looking.
-
Seems like a .243 at 90 to 100 Grains could be pushed a little faster with less recoil.
Right between 6mm and 6.5.
6.5 Grendel is pretty interesting though.
I thought the ammo would be scarce.
And I love the .243 in my bolt gun. (Totally different case though, I know)
NoScade doesn’t recommend .243 for deer here unless you like to track a little bit.
Haven’t seen any elk or moose yet in Hawaii, but I’ll keep looking.
"Haven’t seen any elk or moose yet in Hawaii"
I'd sure be happy if someone would dump some elk on Mauna Kea.
and some moose in Waikoekoe.
-
"Haven’t seen any elk or moose yet in Hawaii"
I'd sure be happy if someone would dump some elk on Mauna Kea.
and some moose in Waikoekoe.
https://youtu.be/A_-KXsee5vA
-
Hound
Looking for something softer shooting than the 7.62x39 upper?
There is 105 and 110 gr 6.5 Grendel ammo
-
Anyone have input on 450 bushmaster vs 6.5 Grendel? I ended up deciding bushmaster cause it should have more stopping power and take bigger game. And it's not like I need distance.
-
Haven’t seen any elk or moose yet in Hawaii, but I’ll keep looking.
The last one I saw was rusty looking color up on the hill at Koko Head. I was sad when that HK anti-gun nut had that majestic creature removed. :(
-
Oh shit !
Now I do remember seeing one.
Thing must have been shot over a Thousand times and Was still standing.
I guess the anti-gunners, led by Knutsen, killed it.
-
Oh shit !
Now I do remember seeing one.
Thing must have been shot over a Thousand times and Was still standing.
I guess the anti-gunners, led by Knutsen, killed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PNHKMSwqXE
-
Gunguy808 has 50 Beowulf - which is similar to the 450. He likes it for pig hunting. Good for shooting thru brush.
I think that the lone star boars guy likes it too. Your good!!
I’m interested in the 6.5 Grendel after reading this piece
https://www.chuckhawks.com/modern_sporting_rifle.html
6.5 sounds like it is pretty decent round for close to medium range (250-275 yards) and accurate for long range target shooting. That said I have all the parts in hand to build an upper and the ammo for a couple of months but haven’t gotten the urge to build the upper since I think 7.62x39 is similar enough to use for wandering aimlessly in the bushes on Oahu
6.5 cm is what I like for hunting (bolt gun seems lighter than an Ar) and for what I use at the range to shoot sub moa. My tikka with cheap hunting ammo easily shoots 3/4 moa for 3 shot groups and I’m a poop shooter.
I’m hoping the 556 upper I built will do sub moa.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PNHKMSwqXE
Wonder if that cat has covid
-
Gunguy808 has 50 Beowulf - which is similar to the 450. He likes it for pig hunting. Good for shooting thru brush.
I think that the lone star boars guy likes it too. Your good!!
I’m interested in the 6.5 Grendel after reading this piece
https://www.chuckhawks.com/modern_sporting_rifle.html
6.5 sounds like it is pretty decent round for close to medium range (250-275 yards) and accurate for long range target shooting. That said I have all the parts in hand to build an upper and the ammo for a couple of months but haven’t gotten the urge to build the upper since I think 7.62x39 is similar enough to use for wandering aimlessly in the bushes on Oahu
6.5 cm is what I like for hunting (bolt gun seems lighter than an Ar) and for what I use at the range to shoot sub moa. My tikka with cheap hunting ammo easily shoots 3/4 moa for 3 shot groups and I’m a poop shooter.
I’m hoping the 556 upper I built will do sub moa.
I like the grendel, one has to be careful with finding and using a quality bolt. When I build mine everything worked wonderful and pretty dang accurate, however, after about 100 rounds, the extractor broke.
Seems to be one of the issues with this cartridge, reason being the diameter of the case base, and consequently the larger diameter of the bolt face. This really thins out the extractor.
-
Heavies,
Does the make of 6.5 Grendel bolt make a big difference?
(I bought 2 bolts. I think one is a toolcraft and the other is JP)
Using an adjustable gas block? I’m thinking using one will minimize wear/tear
Barrel length and gas system? I’m thinking a longer barrel and longer gas system used with the agb will further minimize wear/tear
I am not a sme and likely talking out of my okole
-
Heavies,
Does the make of 6.5 Grendel bolt make a big difference?
(I bought 2 bolts. I think one is a toolcraft and the other is JP)
Using an adjustable gas block? I’m thinking using one will minimize wear/tear
Barrel length and gas system? I’m thinking a longer barrel and longer gas system used with the agb will further minimize wear/tear
I am not a sme and likely talking out of my okole
It's more that the extractor has to be cut very thin. 5.56 case head is .378, 6.5 Grendel is .445, a difference of .067. This means the extractor metal has to be cut that much thinner. If you compare the two bolts together, you'll see how much meat has been removed to accommodate the larger case diameter. Any flaw in the metal will fail that much easier.
The first bolt that failed was included with the BA arms barrel I purchased. They eventually sent me a new one, which was backordered, so in the meantime I ordered from the original Grendel maker Anderson (pardon error) Alexander Arms.
That bolt seems to be doing fine, but haven't got to shoot it too much since the lockdowns have hampered range use. It has more rounds on it than the first bolt though..
I'm running a 16" and mid gas, with non adj gas block. 3 o'clock ejection pattern looks like bolt is running at normal operating speeds.
-
Ohhh i wanna add my 2 cents. Lol
Idk what a 6.5 grendel bolt looks like but imma assume its like how they make x39 bolts for ar15s. Im only gonna assume that cause the larger diameter bolt face is how you described it.
I bought lmt's x39 bolts, and cason engineering. Lmt are made of aeremt100 steel. Same used on f18 landing gears. Talked to customer service and tech support. Cason engineering used 17-4 or 17-7 steel. I forget but both used nickel boron coating.
The type of metal with the additional coating will nakenit structurally stronger immensely. But you will always pay the price for it. Both never broke on me. Regular gas block, both middy gas system. Both i used rifle buffer tubes with 1 buffer at 6.05 oz. And the other 5.8 oz. Prob shot softer than my old 6.8 and colt 6920. 😁
-
Heavies,
Sounds like your grendel is gassed right.
I’m crossing my fingers on mine.
I picked up a 20 or 22 barrel that I believe is rifle gas - I’m hoping the longer dwell time(?) reduces the chamber pressure enough to help longevity.
Oh well, will see if I over thought or wrongly thought it thru.....and overspent with little or no gains :-)
Aaron,
Good info to know! For my x39, I only used my regular 5.56 lower. I thought I read that for x39 and 6.5, a carbine tube, spring and buffer were ok. I better go back and read more about x39 and Grendel.
I already bought my bolts but I’ll tell my friends to look into the Cason and LMT bolts
-
Heavies,
Sounds like your grendel is gassed right.
I’m crossing my fingers on mine.
I picked up a 20 or 22 barrel that I believe is rifle gas - I’m hoping the longer dwell time(?) reduces the chamber pressure enough to help longevity.
Oh well, will see if I over thought or wrongly thought it thru.....and overspent with little or no gains :-)
Aaron,
Good info to know! For my x39, I only used my regular 5.56 lower. I thought I read that for x39 and 6.5, a carbine tube, spring and buffer were ok. I better go back and read more about x39 and Grendel.
I already bought my bolts but I’ll tell my friends to look into the Cason and LMT bolts
Np bro. Yeah im sure carbine gas will work just fine. As long as the gas port diameter are correctly sized. I think thatll pretty much go for everything. Iirc my gas port diameter on a x39 middy was .099". So if it has carbine gas it just has to be smaller than that. But you are correct, rifle length is the softest shooting due to dwell time. The less time a bullet has to travel in a barrel while redirecting gas rearward equals Less wear and tear on your rifle. For cason engineering, he didnt have a website up, i found him on a forum, m4carbine.net or arf.com. the only problem bout lmt bolts, is their lobster extractors. Where as cason uses regular extractors in terms of design (like any 5.56 from failzero, or wmd.) Yeah im a bcg snob. Sorry lol. Oh now failzero makes x39 bcgs. Im sure their top notch as well. I know their customer service is. No questions asked they sent me a new carrier, even though it was sitting in my room for months. It was my backup bcg. The gas key wasnt torqued down. Nor was staked. Lol. I could move the key. Then i sent mine in after I received a new one cause the shipping label came with the new one.
Edit: totally read your post wrong. Yeah carbine buffers should be fine, but rifle buffers/tube will always be more smooth. God i have to find a vid on it. This guy explained it well and better than i ever can. Kinda why the vltor a5/ bcm a5 was invented. Rifle spring but you can use carbine type stocks. Best of both worlds.
Btw i run tubbs flat wire springs in all my ar15s🤣
-
6 ARC - ar15 platform
308, 6.5cm - ar10 platform
end of story
-
Yea my friend told me bout the arc a couple nights ago. Seems interesting. Also the somewhat failed 25-45 sharps. I forgot that even existed until i was reminiscing my src bcg but thats for my 556. Lol
-
Wow.
6mm ARC.
That’s one to keep an eye on.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/06/03/hornady-announces-6mm-arc/
And in the spirit of thread, it’s at an even number. 6. (Millimeters though. I guess it would be a .236. )
Why not a .25 caliber ?
-
Probably because it is pretty close to 6.5 (Grendel)
And 65 sounds sexier than 25
The real question is why there is no 6.9
:-)
(Maybe there is.....idk)
-
Aaron
I checked on the buffer tube, spring and buffer for x39 and Grendel. it seems like a 223 set up lower will often work for the various calibers but depends on the gas port size.
Apparently, most makers try to design their uppers to “drop in” to a 223 based lower. I assume they design on the most commonly used bullet grains. If outside that band or using a can....will need to tweak with an agb and/or changing the buffer system
My bca x39 upper ran fine on my 223 lower. (Sold it...Hbar barrel and I wanted something lighter and had a better reputation for qc)
I picked up a used psa x39 upper from IrishD and hope it runs ok with my 223 lower