Bill Alexander Wrote:Unless orchestrated correctly with well balanced loads the protocol of examining a caliber against another is a fools errand.Your post appears to be aimed at me and what I wrote in not only this thread, but in my 2005 Special Weapons article and on the old forum. I had originally intended to let it pass without comment, but since you seem to echo the posts of a couple other members that my proposed tests are unfair, biased and poorly designed, I feel compelled to respond.
Quote:Randomly picking a loading simply because it is an FMJ without any thought as to load development and bullet construction will at best misrepresent the capability of that caliber. The Wolf 110 will not be optimized for a military type range of targets but rather will be considered in the light of economical development and production. Equally the 120 Norma is in basis a hunting projectile for pelt and bird in Europe not a military construction.The 110gr Wolf and 120gr Norma were not picked at random. They were selected by default, being the only suitable FMJs now (or soon to be) available.
As far as I can tell, the 120gr Norma is contructed like some Swedish military 6.5x55 projectiles; it just weighs less, being a bit shorter.
In the AA gel test photo posted a few years ago, the Norma FMJ produced a wound profile very similar to that of non-fragmenting 7.62 M80 Ball. I see no reason to think it would "misrepresent" the ability of 6.5 to penetrate concrete block, relative to lead-core 7.62 FMJ.
As for the 110gr Wolf, it may or may not do well at punching through cinder block, but something like it would be required for nations like the UK, for compliance with Hague Declaration III. It may have been designed for low-cost plinking, but that does not automatically exclude it from delivering military performance.
Quote:Just as it was not possible to quickly and cheaply rig high capacity magazines with string and gum, it was expounded that the Grendel could never offer such capability...Who said that high-capacity magazines for 6.5 Grendel were impossible? Certainly I never did. What I wrote back in 2005 is that a 17-rd mag was the largest capacity then available.
Quote:...so we have argued that the same gum and gaffer tape approach must preclude its ability to operate from a belt. The case was made that it could not be pounded into an existing link on an existing feed tray. This morphs in the internet from a simple consideration into what looks like and exhaustive engineering study and when cursory reviewed by interested parties such information works heavily against us.Yeah, that was unfortunate, but I can't keep some morons from misusing the information I provide, any more than AA can prevent people from misusing the guns you sell.
Quote:In this same approach what would be the interest in running commercial bullets in handloads against well established military calibers.Because that is the only option currently available to get an apples-to-apples comparison of 6.5 lead-core FMJ vs 7.62 lead-core FMJ. I always prefer to use factory ammo in tests, but the Wolf FMJ load won't be here for some time yet.
The only alternative I can think of is that covered in my reply to noone: factory loads with TSX bullets, which is rather expensive.
Quote:We are at present undertaking to build T3 technology into the Grendel, a 6.5mm M855A1 if you will. Balance this loading into a SAFE cartridge which will offer weapon durability and you now have the basis of a simple study. Our apples to apples of military constructions is met and we have but to throw these from similar barrel lengths to start the examination.That's truly great, but I was seeking information now, and had absolutely no idea when 6.5 T3 ammo might become available.