Military round comparisons

[stanc]

stanc,

I believe we owe it to ourselves and to the Forum to clear this matter up, and move on.

To clarify: I included the 7.62mm M80 in my Kinetic Energy comparison, simply because it was among the cartridges listed in Tony Williams' Post. When one considers the fact that the 7.62mm M80 cartridge has a case capacity of 56 grains (H2O) vs 35 grains for the 6.5 Grendel, and an overall length of 2.80" vs 2.26", I think it's fair to state that the 6.5 Grendel is the clear underdog, in this comparison --- except for the superior Ballistic Coefficient of its projectiles. Let's not hold that against the 6.5's --- they're "born" with it. It's their Ace in the Hole!

Unfortunately, you're not clearing it up. You're still evading my challenge.

Now, for an "apples vs apples" comparison, from 16" barrels: In the near corner, we have the superb 7.62mm M118LR, with 175-grain SMK (BC - 0.495, O.A.L. - 2.80", case capacity - 56 grains); and in the far corner, we have the .260 Remington, with 140-grain Hornady AMAX (BC - 0.585, O.A.L. - 2.80", case capacity - 53.5 grains).

Cartridge . . . . . . Muzzle (fps/ft.lbs) . .1000 yards . . 1000 yards (Drift, 10mph)

7.62mm M118LR . . . 2475/2380 . . . . . 1156/519 . . . . . . . 104"
.260 Remington . . . .2550/2021 . . . . . 1331/551 . . . . . . . . 80"

Hee hee hee. ROTFLMAO. You actually think AMAX vs SMK is an "apples vs apples" comparison?

Not that it matters. My challenge was to compare M118LR w/175gr SMK to 6.5 Grendel w/123gr SMK. But, yet again you evade the issue by bringing .260 Remington into a discussion about 6.5 Grendel.

Since you continually engage in such evasions, there's no point in continuing this.