the need for speed

>>34022375
223 has the perfect velocity

>>34022375
tl;dr

>>34022388
For what bullet weight? The problem with 223 is that it lacks sectional density. It's a mathematical principle that scaling up an object increases sectional density.

>>34022375
Too much is when the round is unable to the do the same job with the same efficiency as one weaker than it.

Also, I have some slight nitpicks.
>practical ranges
Define that. For a carbine, yes that is understandable next to, say, and SBR or DMR at 100-300 meters.

>Excessive speeds come at the price of longer, heavier actions and barrels, increases recoil and noise, and more expensive brass and powder. They also increase the risk of bullet rupture.

If the same round (for example, 5.56x45) is being fired with simply higher powder count, there would be either an equal or even faster impulse thus faster action time. Heavier barrels are only necessary if you are sure that the barrel can't take that velocity. As for brass and powder, powder is relatively cheap and so is brass.

Otherwise, I agree with your statement.

>>34022426
55 grain gets good velocity and fragmentation, but sucks balls out of short barrels.

62 grain is better off against armored opponents given it's nature.

77 grain is great out of most barrel lengths, including carbines. Not sure about the twist rate for it though. It fragments at below the necessary 2800 fps I believe, I'd have to check up on the info though.

>>34022464
Bullet construction plays into those statements, but good luck finding 62 grain 5.56 that doesn't use the ss109 bullet.

>>34022444
>Too much is when the round is unable to the do the same job with the same efficiency as one weaker than it.
Define efficiency.

>>34022444
>Define that. For a carbine, yes that is understandable next to, say, and SBR or DMR at 100-300 meters.
Practical range is a function of the user's ability, not his equipment. Unless you are an Olympic gold medalist, your practical range is probably no greater than 100 meters, 200 at the very most. People very often overestimate their ability to hold steady.

>>34022444
>If the same round (for example, 5.56x45) is being fired with simply higher powder count, there would be either an equal or even faster impulse thus faster action time. Heavier barrels are only necessary if you are sure that the barrel can't take that velocity. As for brass and powder, powder is relatively cheap and so is brass.
Faster rounds require longer cases, which require longer, heavier actions. They also require longer barrels in order to take advantage of the increased powder. That is why 308 rifles have 22 inch barrels while 300 win mag rifles have 26 inch barrels.
>>34022444
>As for brass and powder, powder is relatively cheap and so is brass
Compare prices for magnum and short action cartridges.
>>34022464
>55 grain gets good velocity and fragmentation, but sucks balls out of short barrels.
Fragmentation means breaking apart. What you are thinking of is tumbling

Also, even 77 grain .224 bullets have relatively poor sectional density.

>>34022514
The problem with the ss109 variants is that they suck out of anything that doesn't have a 20 inch barrel. They will fragment and yaw much more heavily than the 55 grained m193, but only in ideal circumstances.

>>34022375
Having 220 swift bullets disintegrate 10 yards from the muzzle shows you pretty damned quickly that speed isn't an end goal.

Velocity beats armor, that's it. Not bullet weight, not bullet diameter, not bullet construction, speed and only speed punches through steel. If poking holes in steel is your goal, speed is king...other than that it's a balance.

For 556, the 55 grain bullets are perfectly good for its intended purpose. If you're looking to shoot long range with a varmint type rifle or something a faster twist barrel and heavier bullets will do better but not so much as changing to a more appropriate cartridge.

>>34022464
Saying a bullet sucks out of short barrels shows you know nothing about how a cartridge functions. A 55g bullet can do just as well in a 10 inch barrel as any other barrel provided it's loaded with the correct gunpowder. Short barrels require a faster burning power to achieve the same velocities. It's also a balance of pressure, faster burning powders are more difficult to tune and much more susceptible to pressure spikes. It's entirely possible to handload 55g bullets that can get velocities much higher than m193 from a 10".

Sort of an irrelevant conversation.

A high energy rifle bullet is just as lethal as a low-velocity shotgun slug or say a musket ball.

You don't get hydrostatic shock with low velocity rounds but honestly has anyone heard of any game animal person surviving a hit to the torso with a 45-70 or shotgun slug?

.223 and 7.62×39 has more issues than those. More likely to penetrate armor and flatter shooting, so better for military purposes. Reason why armies now don't use 45-70 but its not because it isn't a deadly cartridge.

>>34022541
One, cut down on No., save you time replying.

Two,

>efficiency
Ability to effectively terminate target, penetration, weight to round ratio, that sort of crap. A 5.56 will get the same job done as a .50 assuming we're dealing with a raghead.

>Unless you are an Olympic gold medalist, your practical range is probably no greater than 100 meters, 200 at the very most. People very often overestimate their ability to hold steady.

The thing is, Olympic shooting and practical shooting are fairly different. Military shooting tends to be in a league of it's own. Most engagement ranges are effectively at 300 meters, give or take said 300. US Marines at very least are trained to shoot out to at least 500 meters.

This depends on the cool and ability of each individual however.

>Faster rounds require longer cases, which in turn require longer, heavier actions
Which is correct.

>they also require longer barrels in order to take advantage of the increased powder.

This is also correct. However variation in rounds (normal vs hotloaded rounds) themselves can vary on what the best barrel length is ideal for them.

>Compare prices for magnum and short action cartridges.
Which can vary in prices due to supply and demand. 7.62x54r and 7.62x39 are (or were) relatively cheap pre-sanction.

>Fragmentation means breaking apart. What you are thinking of is tumbling

Yes, I was referring the to 55 grain fragging. It had a tendecy to break apart. Though tumbling (official term yawing) isn't unheard of in any 55 grain round.

>>34022594
>Saying a bullet sucks out of short barrels shows you know nothing about how a cartridge functions

I was referring to the usual 55 grained M198s.Of course you can handload them to your specific desire, but how often does the average joe do that?

>>34022594
>>34022640

You know, fuck it. Your statement pissed me off more than it should've, maybe because it's incredibly rude and pompous to say right out off the bat that I don't know diddly.

>Saying a bullet sucks out of short barrels shows you know nothing about how a cartridge functions.

However bullet design also comes into play.

>A 55g bullet can do just as well in a 10 inch barrel as any other barrel provided it's loaded with the correct gunpowder.

Sure.

>Short barrels require a faster burning power to achieve the same velocities.

Or a lighter grained bullet, which in turn will provide that faster velocity, but most people don't want an insanely light bullet for most purposes.

>It's also a balance of pressure, faster burning powders are more difficult to tune and much more susceptible to pressure spikes.

Which can be handled by adjusting the amount of gas coming back in as well as getting a heavier barrel.

>It's entirely possible to handload 55g bullets that can get velocities much higher than m193 from a 10".

I agree.

>>34022640
Ah, you didn't say M193 so just said 55g bullets. There are dozens of commercially available 55g loadings that do not duplicate m193.

>>34022390
>fuckoff, reddit.

there's your tl;dr/

>>34022627
>Most engagement ranges are effectively at 300 meters, give or take said 300. US Marines at very least are trained to shoot out to at least 500 meters.
I highly doubt that the average Marine could hit the broad side of a barn at those ranges. At that distance, it's pretty much spray and pray.
>>34022627
>Yes, I was referring the to 55 grain fragging. It had a tendecy to break apart. Though tumbling (official term yawing) isn't unheard of in any 55 grain round.
Bullet rupture is not a good thing for hunters. It drastically reduces penetration. You might be able to get away with it for shooting humans, which are fairly easy to kill, but in general, it's something to be avoided.

>>34022701
I guess I don't get it, I made >>34022594. Are you talking to me or that other guy you linked?

>>34022701
>However bullet design also comes into play.
You seem to agree with me but not completely. Bullet design as in what? Construction? BC? All 55g bullets are pretty close in BC. Moving from the lowest BC 55g to the highest BC 55g would not net you much of a difference at 300 yards.

>Sure.
You agree with me

>Or a lighter grained bullet, which in turn will provide that faster velocity, but most people don't want an insanely light bullet for most purposes.
But were not talking about lighter bullets, were talking about velocities in the 55g bullet range.

>Which can be handled by adjusting the amount of gas coming back in as well as getting a heavier barrel.
I'm talking about chamber pressure spikes, not fucking gas port pressures. A faster burning powder in a stout load is much more susceptible to asploding the gun in your face. The faster powder you go to, the more precise everything has got to be or you risk dangerous pressures.

>I agree.
You agree with me again.

File: AK-red.jpg (566KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 1500x1125px

>>34022701
If you were upset with me calling you out, I'm sorry. Maybe you should just read and learn more before trying to teach others things. All too often people come onto online forums, 4chan is the worst for this, and want to try to teach everyone about everything when they have only a little knowledge on the subject and no firsthand experience whatsoever. It's frustrating to others, especially if they see something being passed off as fact.

It's easy for people who recognize this lack of knowledge to jump on them and more rudely than eloquently correct them and I'm certain that that's what I did.

In the end, keep shooting and keep learning. I will as well.