« "no war, no peace." ... you can look it up ... | Main | red chevy to red chevy .... an orderly transition .... »

June 09, 2021


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Having his head up his ass is a polite way to describe that article. Yes, I looked it up, for anyone other than John who wonders.



laughing.  the description seems apt to me, even this following morning.

each person has his or her way of approaching truth and logical consistency, and not everyone agrees on every little old issue floating around out there in the world.   so, i tend to be fairly forgiving to people and their little foibles and pet beliefs.    but, in this instance, i could think of no other response to his more or less nonsensical approach to the subject at hand.

no single tool does everything, and even such good firearms platforms as the ar-15 family and the ak-47 family have their flaws, ... , but, in sum, they have achieved their places in the sun based on pretty solid dependable service.   so it is with rifle cartridges, especially military cartridges, which must be evaluated on their utility on the battlefield (and, also in their derivative sporting use).   this analysis doctrine is somewhat shifting, depending on the shifting nature of battlefields in different epochs of conflict.   but, the 7.62x39mm russian, the 5.56x45mm american, and the 6.8mm rem spc have shown their utility against opposing infantry from muzzle to, say, 350 to 450 yards and perhaps farther on someones lucky day and another persons very untimely demise (from his or her perspective.)

none of them, in my estimation, are lethal to the extended ranges of the .308 winchester/7.62x51mm nato, the 7.62x_?_ russian, the .30-06 springfield, or even the .303 brit.   but, even they have fading utility at ranges at greater ranges, say purely arbitrarily, out past 550 to 600 yards, for reasons of fading ballistic oomph, and the limitations of infantry to aim a shoulder weapon at such ranges.   in my own experience with the .308 winchester i know that i could be a worrisome proposition to an infantryman out to 500 yards and a bit beyond, .... , if i knew the distance to the foot, and the wind werent too bad, and were i able to get a very very very solid field rest, and were the target to hold quite still while i set up the shot.   now, if the shot has to be hurried a bit because ones opponent is shooting back, or several opponents have tumbled to my presence, etc., etc., etc., than the probability of placing a shot accurately rapidly diminishes, and the probability of being killed or wounded in an exchange of gunfire goes up markedly as opposed to a shot taken in comfort, and stealth, and by surprise.

which leads me to the subject of the various 6.5mm cartridges (suitable for the ar-15 and ar-10) being touted at 1,000 to 1,200 yard weapons on a contested battlefield.  i dont think so.--   the 6.5mm and smaller cartridges have all been tried, and adopted by various nations considered at the time of their adoption as major military powers, and all have been found wanting as a battle cartridge for not being able to inflict lethal permanently incapacitating wounds.  they were dropped in favor of larger caliber and more powerful cartridges.  and, the modern 6.5mm this and the 6.5mm that have not been tested on any battlefield, or subject to the rigors of combat.  none of the modern 6.5mms suitable for use in the ar-15 platform exceed the power of the japanese, italian, spanish 6.5s, and none even come close to the power and range of the 6.5x55mm swedish mauser or the spanish verguero.    mauser and dmw would, and did, build you a model 98 in any of the above cartridges quite happily  .....  and, they did in limited numbers, but not to the extent as they built th 7x57mms, or the 8x57mms.   and there was a cold hearted reason for this  ....   the smaller 6.5s did not kill and maim as surely as the larger cartridges.    sad fact then, sad fact now.

and, in sum and to wrap this up, none of the 6.5mms suitable for use in the ar-15 really approach the 6.8mm rem spc loaded w/ a 115 to 120 grain .277 caliber bullet.   and, again, i view all of these intermediate rounds as having combat efficacy to somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 to 400 yards, and beyond that is stretching their utility in terms of lethality and accuracy.

you want and/or need anything of greater power and accuracy at extended ranges, you are going to have to go to larger cartridges, and probably to a larger caliber, and the .308 to .311/.312 bullets weighing above 150 grains or so.  this also necessitates a bit more substantial rifle to handle the greater power.

in sum, there aint no such thing as a free lunch.

john jay


To validate your point, although none is required, the mostly worthy rag has a video wherein two men are discussing long range shooting with a .223, over 1,100 yards, as if that will accomplish anything other than wasting good ammo.



as you well know, when it comes to long range shooting, if you do not know exactly (just about to the foot) the distance to the target, and exactly your drops at that distance based on actual shooting with that bullet at its true velocity, then you are not going to hit your target, even if it is the size of a barn door.

given any variance in yardage, or lack of actual knowledge about same, any deviance in bullet velocity from previously measured velocity, and any variance in bullet shape and weight (sectional density and ballistic coefficient) then you are not going to hit the target, e.g., the point of aim.   now, i have shot sierra 160 grain bthp in .308 caliber in various .308s for years, and i have looked at many of those little critters, held in my grubby paws right off the end of my nose.   and, you know what?   you can see physical differences in the bullets in the tips (which makes little difference in anything), and the shape of the curvature of the pointy end of the bullet, or the ogive (and that makes a very large difference in ballistic coefficient.   sometimes they even vary a bit in weight, not much, but measurable w/ an inexpensive balance beam scale.   and these are sierra bullets, the best in the business.

it goes without saying (so i am gonna say it) that error is almost always cumulative, and that error at distance in rifle shooting means a bullet does not hit the point of aim.   period.

now, we are not even mentioning the target moving, or running, or doing his damnedest to get behind a rock.

long distance shooting is interesting, but, it is not a done deal as the typewriter guys would have you believe.   for the most part, hitting anything at great distance, let alone someone who is shooting back at you, is mostly a matter of luck for most people.   it is emotional self indulgence, for the most part.

hits at 5 and 600 yards from a bench, with a padded rest for the rifle, and good technique are very doable.   but, start stretching the yardage, and hits require hard work, and for every increase in range, the difficulty grows exponentially.   i concluded that for myself, shooting by myself from a covered bench off a substantial rest, using my rifles, that this was the limit of my ability to put a shot into an 8 paper plate, and beyond this, it was all a matter of luck.  

and, to do that lying on my belly on uneven terrain, with no rest, and the range being problematic at best, .... , phoooey.

i will just conclude that a typewriter is a way more accurate tool than a rifle.    and, just as deadly.


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)