PS 50.beowulf supersonic: When I wrote that it’s crap for military use, I meant as a general purpose carbine caliber.
[quote]Robert A wrote:
C_C,
Sights:
I am totally for putting a holo or reflex sight on any long gun that will take it. My reason for not making it a must with shotguns is that it blows up the “cost” advantage. Same reason I may never own a Beneli. If I am going to spend that kind of money, the semi auto shotgun is going against semi auto carbines, w/ optics. I like Mossberg 590’s and 870P’s for the $1000 gets you a gun, a light, and some training.
[/quote] True of course… I just figure if you’re going to use it as your primary home defense weapon or personal patrol weapon or something, then eventually it might be a really good idea to put one on it.
Though maybe for you in particular, a bayonet would be more useful ? 
[quote]
Ergos/Funny:
I don’t mean to dismiss ergonomics/feel. I just know that multiple times I have done better with a gun that felt “wrong”/awkward but had good trigger and sights than the reverse. As for HK, they move in mysterious ways. On one hand they will almost jump the shark to Berreta levels with putting controls in bad places, and on the other the P30 with the LEM trigger basically is “ergonomics”. Blast from the past HK, because you suck and they hate you :
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/hk-because-you-suck-and-we-hate-you/
[/quote]
Can’t say I disagree with the guy you linked to…
HK always take on these huge, apparently innovative projects like the OICW, G11, CAWS… And look at the damn things. You can tell they did not think them through very well, nor have any of their people ever actually had to use one outside the stationary range.
Just consider the xm29 oicw… The underslung g36c clone or whatever it was had a barrel length of 9 inches or something. Yeah. 5.56 out of a 9 inch barrel. Phantastic idea.
8+ Kg weight loaded. Extremely unwieldy. Shitty HE ammo for the launcher.
And how did they think was the average soldier going to carry enough ammo for both the sbr part and the launcher part?
Even if weight was not an issue… There’s no way to put enough pouches on one guy.
Let’s not even talk about how unwieldy the thing was, and how completely unsuitable for cqb everything about it is (despite it basically being a weird SBR)… Hell, even the optic module. It’s basically a medium to long range thing without the ability to engage targets at that range with the dinky rifle module and with no way to carry enough (ineffective) 20mm airburst grenades to make up for it.
HK53… Really?
G11… If I want to hold something looking and handling like a brick, I may as well use an actual one. Paint a real brick gray and there you go. Improved G11 with no danger of ammo cooking off. Cheaper too.
G36 original optics module is a prime example I mentioned elsewhere. Good idea, retarded execution.
I do think the 416 is nice. Not really nicer than other similar offerings I guess, but it’s at least pretty good all around. Says a lot that it’s basically an m4upgrade, not a real full HK rifle.
And yeah. Hype is mostly what HK live off. Sad though. If they had a different attitude and a proper testing department working together with their geeks, they might be a truly top-of-the-line company. And I could be proud and patriotic and stuff.
This could be a case of me being out of my lane. I am not a been there done that type for what LE needs. I am Low Speed High Drag with regards to firearms. I AM failing to see the role for the 300 blackout subsonic for LE use.
I am absolutely PRO suppressor use for longarms. Especially LE longarms. Suppressors greatly mitigate muzzle flash and blast. I absolutely want LE officers to still be able to see after they fire a round in low light and as someone not wearing a badge I have a vested interest in them still being able to communicate with each other and anyone else after firing, even indoors. I really want all of Jim’s old buddies to be able to tell the difference between “You’ll never take me alive!” and “Don’t shoot! I give up! Wrong House!”.
Here is why I am not tracking. Suppressors can still be used effectively to do the above in super sonic applications. The sonic boom starts at the target, so much of the “hide where you are” effect at range is still good. If the requirement is to be so silent that people in other rooms do not perceive any loud noises/things that might be a gun than the requirement is also to be so silent that IDing as LE is also out. So any reason to shout “Police, search warrant” has to be abandoned. I see this as well out of “typical” LE and into military/wartime use. Even if we table that, we still cannot cheat physics.
The only way to get quieter than a suppressed 9mm (given equal tech) is to use a less massive bullet and less powder. A 200 grain 7.62 SMK is not doing that. Both FN and H&K market solutions to this perceived problem, and you have voiced skepticism about their utility.
For the record I think a good general use/I wish all cops had it patrol rifle would be a short barreled, suppressed AR-15 with a non-magnified reflex or holographic sight. It should be loaded with an expanding/barrier “blind” load. I think Dr. Roberts is IDing the 50 grain Barnes TSX as ideal for this application.
Regards,
Robert A
[quote]Robert A wrote:
This could be a case of me being out of my lane. I am not a been there done that type for what LE needs. I am Low Speed High Drag with regards to firearms. I AM failing to see the role for the 300 blackout subsonic for LE use.
I am absolutely PRO suppressor use for longarms. Especially LE longarms. Suppressors greatly mitigate muzzle flash and blast. I absolutely want LE officers to still be able to see after they fire a round in low light and as someone not wearing a badge I have a vested interest in them still being able to communicate with each other and anyone else after firing, even indoors. I really want all of Jim’s old buddies to be able to tell the difference between “You’ll never take me alive!” and “Don’t shoot! I give up! Wrong House!”.
Here is why I am not tracking. Suppressors can still be used effectively to do the above in super sonic applications. The sonic boom starts at the target, so much of the “hide where you are” effect at range is still good. If the requirement is to be so silent that people in other rooms do not perceive any loud noises/things that might be a gun than the requirement is also to be so silent that IDing as LE is also out. So any reason to shout “Police, search warrant” has to be abandoned. I see this as well out of “typical” LE and into military/wartime use. Even if we table that, we still cannot cheat physics.
The only way to get quieter than a suppressed 9mm (given equal tech) is to use a less massive bullet and less powder. A 200 grain 7.62 SMK is not doing that. Both FN and H&K market solutions to this perceived problem, and you have voiced skepticism about their utility.
For the record I think a good general use/I wish all cops had it patrol rifle would be a short barreled, suppressed AR-15 with a non-magnified reflex or holographic sight. It should be loaded with an expanding/barrier “blind” load. I think Dr. Roberts is IDing the 50 grain Barnes TSX as ideal for this application.
Regards,
Robert A [/quote]
If suppressed supersonic is what we’re going for, then 6.8 or 5.56 … Barrier blind… Is what I’d pick… Though 300blk supersonic is also a good option (better than 5.56 likely, esp. with really short barrels as mentioned elsewhere).
I did mean as quiet as you can (but more oomph than 9mm if possible). But you bring up a good point. It’s probably a rare requirement in LE that you don’t want people to know you’re there… Apart from perhaps certain hostage rescue situations or some such, I’m not sure. We train LE special tactics teams for that sort of thing (not my area of expertise), but I haven’t heard of it happening much.
Look at the pic I posted again, compare to typical 9mm JHP… No idea if we’ll ever get a factory loaded .300blk subsonic which can do that reliably, but if we do, that beats 9mil… Doesn’t it? While still being fairly quiet as far as gunshots go.
That being said… I don’t think we have any good subsonics for suppressed/maximally quiet LE use available so far, no matter the caliber. They all suck as far as terminal ballistics go… And the larger calibers seem like trouble in terms of mag cap, weight, possibly recoil, reliability (in some cases)…
I agree with your thoughts on patrol long guns…
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Look at the pic I posted again, compare to typical 9mm JHP… No idea if we’ll ever get a factory loaded .300blk subsonic which can do that reliably, but if we do, that beats 9mil… Doesn’t it? While still being fairly quiet as far as gunshots go.
[/quote]
That pic of 300Blackout looks to beat everything available. I don’t know the story on it either, but I can’t help but make the following assumptions:
- The round expands like that, but penetrates poorly. Making a wound that size is easy for rifle calibers. You use varmint/groundhog ammo. The issue is that you get a huge/shallow
wound. I am VERY skeptical that the loading that produced that expansion would meet the 12 inch DOJ minimum or even the 10 inch “minimum standard” that U.S. Border Patrol used to have.
AND/OR
- The round has aweful accuracy. The design that allows that expansion is not conducive to even combat/handgun accuracy standards, let alone rifle standards.
BECAUSE
We would see those bullets around otherwise. Regardless of if the round worked at subsonic, supersonic, or velocities unattainable without a magnum length case. In the U.S. the main markets for the whiz bang ammo are LE for pistols (big .gov contracts and large depts.) and competition(accuracy) and hunting (slightly less accurate, but with terminal performance) for rifle calibers. 300BLK uses the same caliber bullet as 30-30, 7.62NATO, .308Win, 30-06 Springfield, and .300WinMag. Those are incredibly popular hunting rounds. If an ammo company had a bullet that would expand like that, penetrate at least a foot, and was even half assed accurate it would be on the cover of every rifle/hunting magazine.
The secret - squirrel/tip of the spear military ammo in the U.S. uses civilian bullets. The “brown tip” army load is a 70 grain .223 Barnes Triple Shock loaded to 5.56NATO pressure. The MK262 “sniper”/marksman ammo is a 77grain SieraMatchKing loaded by Black Hills. The Marine Corps’ SOST round is in essence a non-bonded 62 grain .223 Federal/ATK Trophy Bonded Bear Claw. The big dollar military small arms ammo was the Army’s 855A1 green/lead free ammo(My understanding is it blows goats, but it is a .mil developed round).
This leads me to wonder if the pic or bullet wasn’t doctored. I could heat up an expanded all copper Barnes triple shock and stretch out its petals with some pliers and make it look damn impressive. The internet is full of “proof” for myths that don’t exist in real life…like the female orgasm.
Regards,
Robert A
[quote]Robert A wrote:
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Look at the pic I posted again, compare to typical 9mm JHP… No idea if we’ll ever get a factory loaded .300blk subsonic which can do that reliably, but if we do, that beats 9mil… Doesn’t it? While still being fairly quiet as far as gunshots go.
[/quote]
That pic of 300Blackout looks to beat everything available. I don’t know the story on it either, but I can’t help but make the following assumptions:
- The round expands like that, but penetrates poorly. [/quote] Either that, or it exited before the bending back could occur or something… [quote] Making a wound that size is easy for rifle calibers. You use varmint/groundhog ammo. The issue is that you get a huge/shallow
wound. I am VERY skeptical that the loading that produced that expansion would meet the 12 inch DOJ minimum or even the 10 inch “minimum standard” that U.S. Border Patrol used to have.
AND/OR
- The round has aweful accuracy. The design that allows that expansion is not conducive to even combat/handgun accuracy standards, let alone rifle standards.
BECAUSE
We would see those bullets around otherwise. Regardless of if the round worked at subsonic, supersonic, or velocities unattainable without a magnum length case. In the U.S. the main markets for the whiz bang ammo are LE for pistols (big .gov contracts and large depts.) and competition(accuracy) and hunting (slightly less accurate, but with terminal performance) for rifle calibers. 300BLK uses the same caliber bullet as 30-30, 7.62NATO, .308Win, 30-06 Springfield, and .300WinMag. Those are incredibly popular hunting rounds. If an ammo company had a bullet that would expand like that, penetrate at least a foot, and was even half assed accurate it would be on the cover of every rifle/hunting magazine.
The secret - squirrel/tip of the spear military ammo in the U.S. uses civilian bullets. The “brown tip” army load is a 70 grain .223 Barnes Triple Shock loaded to 5.56NATO pressure. The MK262 “sniper”/marksman ammo is a 77grain SieraMatchKing loaded by Black Hills. The Marine Corps’ SOST round is in essence a non-bonded 62 grain .223 Federal/ATK Trophy Bonded Bear Claw. The big dollar military small arms ammo was the Army’s 855A1 green/lead free ammo(My understanding is it blows goats, but it is a .mil developed round).
This leads me to wonder if the pic or bullet wasn’t doctored.
[/quote] Possible. Might also just have been a very slow bullet, maybe shot through only a shallow block of gel and then caught on something hard or so. I mostly posted it as a joke. As I said earlier… Subsonic anything is terrible as far as terminal ballistics are concerned. Huge calibers make bigger holes, but ultimately none of them have a serious temporary stretch effect and the bigger you go, the more downsides there are past a certain point. [quote] I could heat up an expanded all copper Barnes triple shock and stretch out its petals with some pliers and make it look damn impressive. The internet is full of “proof” for myths that don’t exist in real life…like the female orgasm.
[/quote] Ha! [quote]
Regards,
Robert A [/quote]
Note to anyone reading along but not posting: If you guys have ANY questions regarding terminal ballistics /wounding or even anything firearm related in general, feel free to post them.
What size buckshot do you folks like for home defense?
I’m about to buy a mold for #4 buck. These loads will be use for shooting coyotes. #4 is 6mm with 21 pellets per ounce. 00 probably the most mass produced, but it only contains 8 pellets per ounce and about 8.4mm.
I think I’m learning toward 2.75" hulls. More rounds and less recoil.
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
What size buckshot do you folks like for home defense?
I’m about to buy a mold for #4 buck. These loads will be use for shooting coyotes. #4 is 6mm with 21 pellets per ounce. 00 probably the most mass produced, but it only contains 8 pellets per ounce and about 8.4mm.
I think I’m learning toward 2.75" hulls. More rounds and less recoil.
[/quote]
I agree with 2.75". The two big issues with shotguns are limited capacity.
00 buck is the most available of the DOJ spec loads. Pretty much any 00 buck will do well from a terminal ballistics point, it is preferable to find one that patterns well in your gun. If you have/are shooting coyotes it means you already understand that you do have to aim with shotguns, some people don’t.
Rough breakdown of shot sizes.
00 Buck: Most popular/available. “Can’t go wrong”. There are only 8 or 9 pellets in a load. In gel testing any decent 00 load will penetrate 12" of calibrated ballistics gel with all pellets. Buffered shot is preferable to non-buffered because it decreases deformation of the pellets while traveling down the bore and results in more even and better patterns. Hardened, or hardened and plated, shot is preferred for the same reason. The “best” 00 loads seem to be the Federal Flite Control loadings, or the Hornandy loading with a similar shot cup/wad. I believe they were made primarily for cylinder bore or improved cylinder barrels, but these loadings seem to pattern very tightly out of nearly every shotgun.
You can purchase Flite Control loadings in both full power (WILL cycle semi-autos) and reduced recoil (great for pump guns, still penetrates.)
Federal sells both LE and commercial packaged ammo with the Flite Control Wadding.
Reduced Recoil/commercial pack
PFC154-00LR: Premium Vital Shok, 2 3/4", plated, 9 pellet, low recoil 1145FPS
Reduced Recoil/Law Enforcement package
LE132-00: Low Recoil, 2 3/4", plated, 9 pellet, 1145 FPS (same as PFC154-00LR)
LE133-00: Low Recoil, 2 3/4", plated, 8 pellet, 1145 FPS
LE133 00PR: “Precision Buckshot”, plated, 2 3/4", 8 pellet, 1050 FPS.
57800: Speer Lawman Buckshot, 2-3/4", plated, 8 pellet, 1145 FPS (same as Federal LE133-00)
Full Power/commercial package
PFC154: Premium Vital Shok, 2-3/4", plated, 9 pellet, 1325 FPS
PFC157: Premium Vital Shok, 3", plated, 12 pellet, 1325 FPS
Full Power/LE pack0
LE127-00:Standard recoil, 2-3/4", plated, 9 pellet, 1325 FPS (same as PFC154)
I think the product numbers and listings are still accurate. These seem to pattern incredibly well in everything and greatly reduce the “what load does MY barrel like” voodoo that is involved normally. They are spendy, but cheaper than a Vang Comp barrel job and will greatly increase the useable range of buckshot.
12 Gauge # 1 Buck:
If we assume that the pellet diameter equals the wound trauma (probably not true in reality but useful for comparison. It is what IWB/Doc. Roberts do as well) than #1 is “better” than 00 for wounding. The idea being that the 16 pellot #1 load offers 30% more potential wounding than a 9 pellet 00 load (assumptions being pellet diameter is used to calculate crush cavity and each pellet creates its own wound channel). In professional testing #1 is smallest shot size that reliably and consistently has EACH pellet reach 12" of depth in calibrated gel. #1 buck also penetrates less in barriers than 00, so if wish to minimize penetrating walls it is a good choice.
The problem is that #1 buck can be hard to find. Plated/hardened would be preferred. Federal/ATK just came out with a 15 pellet, Flite Control Wad, reduced recoil #1 load and it is amazing in testing done by Doctor Roberts. I have not seen any available for purchase.
12 Gauge #4:
Some pictures and testing seems to show that at least some of the pellets from a #4 buck load will penetrate 12 inches. Testing from IWB/Dr. Roberts seems to show it lacking in penetration. I would not load #4 in preference to either of the above if I were concerned about defending against violent assault.
12 Gauge Slugs:
Any slug that will wreck a deer will wreck an non-armored combatant. I am partial to Brenneke and Federal Tru-Ball slugs.
General Notes/Physics Nerd
The links in the OP should explain the rational for 12" minimum penetration.
Shotgun pellets are spheres. Spheres have the poorest “sectional density”(mass behind the point) of any projectile. As such, they lose velocity, hence momentum and energy, when encountering resistance very quickly. The bigger the pellet, the more mass it has and the more resistant it is to change in its motion, Newton’s first law is at play here. In our case the resistance comes in the form of both the tissue of the target and the air on the way to the target. Thus if you are concerned with performance over distances, bigger shot size is also better. This is also the reason for buckshot only hunting zones.
At close range, regardless of how tight the pattern, the pellets do not act like a “solid mass”. Each has to pay its own way when encountering resistance. This means that even at very close range small pellets, such as birdshot, are slowed and stopped. This results in a shallow wound channel that is unlikely to reach anything vital. Birdshot is for birds.
I am hoping this helped and none of it came off as condescending. I don’t know how much of a background you have with science, anatomy, etc.
Regards,
Robert A
Immensely interesting stuff, guys. I’ve learned a lot from this thread in the past two days. Haven’t been active with firearms for a couple of years though.
[quote]Robert A wrote:
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
What size buckshot do you folks like for home defense?
I’m about to buy a mold for #4 buck. These loads will be use for shooting coyotes. #4 is 6mm with 21 pellets per ounce. 00 probably the most mass produced, but it only contains 8 pellets per ounce and about 8.4mm.
I think I’m learning toward 2.75" hulls. More rounds and less recoil.
[/quote]
I agree with 2.75". The two big issues with shotguns are limited capacity.
00 buck is the most available of the DOJ spec loads. Pretty much any 00 buck will do well from a terminal ballistics point, it is preferable to find one that patterns well in your gun. If you have/are shooting coyotes it means you already understand that you do have to aim with shotguns, some people don’t.
Rough breakdown of shot sizes.
00 Buck: Most popular/available. “Can’t go wrong”. There are only 8 or 9 pellets in a load. In gel testing any decent 00 load will penetrate 12" of calibrated ballistics gel with all pellets. Buffered shot is preferable to non-buffered because it decreases deformation of the pellets while traveling down the bore and results in more even and better patterns. Hardened, or hardened and plated, shot is preferred for the same reason. The “best” 00 loads seem to be the Federal Flite Control loadings, or the Hornandy loading with a similar shot cup/wad. I believe they were made primarily for cylinder bore or improved cylinder barrels, but these loadings seem to pattern very tightly out of nearly every shotgun.
You can purchase Flite Control loadings in both full power (WILL cycle semi-autos) and reduced recoil (great for pump guns, still penetrates.)
Federal sells both LE and commercial packaged ammo with the Flite Control Wadding.
Reduced Recoil/commercial pack
PFC154-00LR: Premium Vital Shok, 2 3/4", plated, 9 pellet, low recoil 1145FPS
Reduced Recoil/Law Enforcement package
LE132-00: Low Recoil, 2 3/4", plated, 9 pellet, 1145 FPS (same as PFC154-00LR)
LE133-00: Low Recoil, 2 3/4", plated, 8 pellet, 1145 FPS
LE133 00PR: “Precision Buckshot”, plated, 2 3/4", 8 pellet, 1050 FPS.
57800: Speer Lawman Buckshot, 2-3/4", plated, 8 pellet, 1145 FPS (same as Federal LE133-00)
Full Power/commercial package
PFC154: Premium Vital Shok, 2-3/4", plated, 9 pellet, 1325 FPS
PFC157: Premium Vital Shok, 3", plated, 12 pellet, 1325 FPS
Full Power/LE pack0
LE127-00:Standard recoil, 2-3/4", plated, 9 pellet, 1325 FPS (same as PFC154)
I think the product numbers and listings are still accurate. These seem to pattern incredibly well in everything and greatly reduce the “what load does MY barrel like” voodoo that is involved normally. They are spendy, but cheaper than a Vang Comp barrel job and will greatly increase the useable range of buckshot.
12 Gauge # 1 Buck:
If we assume that the pellet diameter equals the wound trauma (probably not true in reality but useful for comparison. It is what IWB/Doc. Roberts do as well) than #1 is “better” than 00 for wounding. The idea being that the 16 pellot #1 load offers 30% more potential wounding than a 9 pellet 00 load (assumptions being pellet diameter is used to calculate crush cavity and each pellet creates its own wound channel). In professional testing #1 is smallest shot size that reliably and consistently has EACH pellet reach 12" of depth in calibrated gel. #1 buck also penetrates less in barriers than 00, so if wish to minimize penetrating walls it is a good choice.
The problem is that #1 buck can be hard to find. Plated/hardened would be preferred. Federal/ATK just came out with a 15 pellet, Flite Control Wad, reduced recoil #1 load and it is amazing in testing done by Doctor Roberts. I have not seen any available for purchase.
12 Gauge #4:
Some pictures and testing seems to show that at least some of the pellets from a #4 buck load will penetrate 12 inches. Testing from IWB/Dr. Roberts seems to show it lacking in penetration. I would not load #4 in preference to either of the above if I were concerned about defending against violent assault.
12 Gauge Slugs:
Any slug that will wreck a deer will wreck an non-armored combatant. I am partial to Brenneke and Federal Tru-Ball slugs.
General Notes/Physics Nerd
The links in the OP should explain the rational for 12" minimum penetration.
Shotgun pellets are spheres. Spheres have the poorest “sectional density”(mass behind the point) of any projectile. As such, they lose velocity, hence momentum and energy, when encountering resistance very quickly. The bigger the pellet, the more mass it has and the more resistant it is to change in its motion, Newton’s first law is at play here. In our case the resistance comes in the form of both the tissue of the target and the air on the way to the target. Thus if you are concerned with performance over distances, bigger shot size is also better. This is also the reason for buckshot only hunting zones.
At close range, regardless of how tight the pattern, the pellets do not act like a “solid mass”. Each has to pay its own way when encountering resistance. This means that even at very close range small pellets, such as birdshot, are slowed and stopped. This results in a shallow wound channel that is unlikely to reach anything vital. Birdshot is for birds.
I am hoping this helped and none of it came off as condescending. I don’t know how much of a background you have with science, anatomy, etc.
Regards,
Robert A
[/quote]
Definitely not offended. I may load some nickle plated 0 buckshot for home defense and #4 buck for shooting coyotes.
I have no idea how the myth of not needing to aim a shotgun was perpetuated. I’m guessing largely by people who miss a whole lot.
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
Definitely not offended.
[/quote]
Cool.
I do not think I have ever fired a 0 buck load. If you are simply going to load some up for defense you may consider ordering a box of the FliteControl stuff to pattern first. Figure out what the longest shot you “may take” is and be sure to compare it to your 0 buck loads. If the home defense gun gets taken outside than I would spend the coin of the FliteControl stuff. It will greatly extend buckshot range.
Then practice/stockpile whatever.
DISCLOSURE: I have bought from this source before. I am not affiliated with them:
Full Power
http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/product_info.php/cPath/120_259_205/products_id/2988
Reduced Recoil(usually patterns tighter as well)
I don’t think they miss a whole lot. I bet they a huge percentage of the small number of times they shoot. It is one of those “You don’t actually practice, do you?” kind of myths.
Regards,
Robert A
[quote]Robert A wrote:
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
Definitely not offended.
[/quote]
Cool.
I do not think I have ever fired a 0 buck load. If you are simply going to load some up for defense you may consider ordering a box of the FliteControl stuff to pattern first. Figure out what the longest shot you “may take” is and be sure to compare it to your 0 buck loads. If the home defense gun gets taken outside than I would spend the coin of the FliteControl stuff. It will greatly extend buckshot range.
Then practice/stockpile whatever.
DISCLOSURE: I have bought from this source before. I am not affiliated with them:
Full Power
http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/product_info.php/cPath/120_259_205/products_id/2988
Reduced Recoil(usually patterns tighter as well)
I don’t think they miss a whole lot. I bet they a huge percentage of the small number of times they shoot. It is one of those “You don’t actually practice, do you?” kind of myths.
Regards,
Robert A[/quote]
Robert,
I’m not sure how hand loaded buckshot vs factory loads compares, but in general the performance from reloaded ammo is far superior to factory. Especially, with rifle cartridges when putting them through a tack driver.
hahaha that’s true.
Speaking of people that don’t shoot. I know several people that carry brand new weapons that they have never fired. This seems like insanity to me.
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
[quote]Robert A wrote:
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
Definitely not offended.
[/quote]
Cool.
I do not think I have ever fired a 0 buck load. If you are simply going to load some up for defense you may consider ordering a box of the FliteControl stuff to pattern first. Figure out what the longest shot you “may take” is and be sure to compare it to your 0 buck loads. If the home defense gun gets taken outside than I would spend the coin of the FliteControl stuff. It will greatly extend buckshot range.
Then practice/stockpile whatever.
DISCLOSURE: I have bought from this source before. I am not affiliated with them:
Full Power
http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/product_info.php/cPath/120_259_205/products_id/2988
Reduced Recoil(usually patterns tighter as well)
I don’t think they miss a whole lot. I bet they a huge percentage of the small number of times they shoot. It is one of those “You don’t actually practice, do you?” kind of myths.
Regards,
Robert A[/quote]
Robert,
I’m not sure how hand loaded buckshot vs factory loads compares, but in general the performance from reloaded ammo is far superior to factory. Especially, with rifle cartridges when putting them through a tack driver.
hahaha that’s true.
Speaking of people that don’t shoot. I know several people that carry brand new weapons that they have never fired. This seems like insanity to me. [/quote]
The deal with the FliteControl stuff is the shot cup is special. It keeps the pattern much, MUCH tighter. Think one hole at 5 yards tight out of a cylinder bore. In general I would say a tailored hand load is going to be even more precise for a shotgun than a rifle, but I don’t think you can get the FliteControl cups as a reloading component. If you are using a cylinder or improved cylinder shotgun for HD I would be very impressed if you could achieve the same patterns with a handload.
I would absolutely prefer hand loaded buck that is matched to the gun over regular commercial stuff.
Final note, people that like to carry unfired or barely fired weapons are an excellent source of cheap, “used” firearms. So, as long as we aren’t responsible for them, look on the bright side.
Regards,
Robert A
[quote]devildog_jim wrote:
I’m not a fan of bull pup designs for general issue rifles (ie the Steyr AUG), try doing a magazine exchange in the prone position with one and you’ll see why. Hell, try shooting from prone at all. They’re great little guns for house clearing and police carbines though. Not sure how many countries use them, but I think they’re fairly common.
[/quote]
Standard rifle for the Australian Army is the F88 Austeyr, which is just a licensed clone of the Steyr AUG.
My experience with firearms is probably woefully limited compared to you guys, but I did get a chance to put a few rounds through one at a defence public relations day, and it will probably be part and parcel of my job soon. One thing that is immediately noticeable is the trigger is a piece of shit. It’s a heavy two stage trigger, there’s no traditional fire selector on the F88. And the built in optics (the A1 model has built in optics, as I understand our infantry units are mostly issued a different model that has a rail for optics in place of the built in sight) are like a ring sight, I don’t think it would be that great for precision shooting.
A lot of the infantrymen I’ve talked to who have been in Afghanistan have all said ditching the built in optics and getting access to ACOGs and ELCANs (correct spelling??) is a dramatic improvement, but they’d still prefer to get M4A1s if they had the chance, which our commandos do (I guess the CDOs here are probably very similar to US army rangers in their role).
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
What size buckshot do you folks like for home defense?
[/quote]
Federal Black Cloud 12 ga 3 in magnum BB.
Because if someone is breaking into my house, I want him to live long enough to learn what a bad idea that was.
In all seriousness though, the Federal personal defense 2 3/4" 9 pellet 00 buck is a great all-purpose home defense round. Seems to pattern very well out of a Remington 870 with a modified choke. Although different guns like different rounds, this one seems to work in the majority of the guns I’ve seen if fed through.
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
A lot of the infantrymen I’ve talked to who have been in Afghanistan have all said ditching the built in optics and getting access to ACOGs and ELCANs (correct spelling??) is a dramatic improvement, but they’d still prefer to get M4A1s if they had the chance, which our commandos do (I guess the CDOs here are probably very similar to US army rangers in their role).[/quote]
USMC went to the ACOG, it’s a great little scope. I hear good things about the Elcan Specter DR, and they’re owned by Raytheon so the quality is probably there but the price is astronomical. Either one will do the job and be plenty durable.
I learned on iron peep sights, so a red dot seems to lose a little in long range precision to me, but I hear the newer chevron aiming reticles are plenty accurate, and some of the ACOGs have BDC reticles that figure drop and drift for you (assuming you stick with issue ammo). Hell of a lot better than old school Kentucky windage or twisting knobs.
Got to try an sa 58 (fal) OSW yesterday that one of the other guys got a hold of somehow… Looks cool, decent attachments already equipped…
Absolutely horrendous noise and flash. Ugh. SBR 7.62N is just not a good idea… I really hope 7.62N doesn’t become the standard caliber again…
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Got to try an sa 58 (fal) OSW yesterday that one of the other guys got a hold of somehow… Looks cool, decent attachments already equipped…
Absolutely horrendous noise and flash. Ugh. SBR 7.62N is just not a good idea… I really hope 7.62N doesn’t become the standard caliber again…
[/quote]
1.) How short was the SBR? My understanding is that ballistics are ok until at least 16" and there is not a ton of gain out past 20" for a .308/7.62Nato. The issue is the muzzle blast that you mentioned.
2.) What was the muzzle device, flash hider, crowned barrel, or break? I have heard some 5.56 guns with breaks that were tooth rattlers to anyone standing around.
Regards,
Robert A
[quote]Robert A wrote:
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Got to try an sa 58 (fal) OSW yesterday that one of the other guys got a hold of somehow… Looks cool, decent attachments already equipped…
Absolutely horrendous noise and flash. Ugh. SBR 7.62N is just not a good idea… I really hope 7.62N doesn’t become the standard caliber again…
[/quote]
1.) How short was the SBR? My understanding is that ballistics are ok until at least 16" and there is not a ton of gain out past 20" for a .308/7.62Nato. The issue is the muzzle blast that you mentioned.
2.) What was the muzzle device, flash hider, crowned barrel, or break? I have heard some 5.56 guns with breaks that were tooth rattlers to anyone standing around.
Regards,
Robert A
[/quote]
IIRC, for most .308 loadings you’re looking at 25-30 fps per inch from 20 to 25 in, and about 15-20 fps gained per inch between 25 and 32 in. Not bad unless you’re trying to hit something out past 600 yards, then 24 inch and longer barrels start to look appealing (Palma shooters need a 155 gr bullet to stay supersonic to 1000 meters)
My favorite muzzle device has always been the Smith Enterprises Vortex flash eliminator. http://www.smithenterprise.com/products06.03.html For anything small enough to not need a real muzzle break for recoil reduction (I would say anything under .338 Lapua, or at least .300 win mag) these babies are awesome. On an 18 in barrel .308 scout rifle firing Winchester factory loads they reduce muzzle flash to nearly unnoticeable levels.
NOTE: My armory training makes me repeat this. You can shoot 7.62 from a .308, going the other way can lead to problems. If you’re going to fire ammo marked .308 winchester from your firearm marked 7.62mm NATO, make sure that either your weapon can handle up to the 62,000 PSI of the .308, or that your ammo only makes the 50,000 that the 7.62 is rated to. Also, all .308’s will headspace properly with 7.62 ammo, but a 7.62 weapon may not headspace properly with .308. For best results, only shoot 7.62mm NATO ammunition if that is how your weapon is marked.