.308 and .223 in the same division?

[Charles Bond]

Charles, while I wouldn't want to get shot with a 6.8, 7.62x39, .223, or .22LR, what is major about these cartridges? I don't even like that USPSA major is so low at 320. HM and major scoring are about POWER, and these cartridges don't have it. (In comparision to 7.62x51) At what point do we abandon the principles our sport was founded on to appease the manufacturers of new products?

What is a major power factor evolves over time. If it were based on the civil war it would be 50 cal. If it were based on the Spanish American War it would be 45/70. Jump to WW2 and it is 30-06.

But I disagree that HM as it exists is about power. You do not define power by bore measurement alone and that is all that HM does anywhere other than in USPSA.

And I am not stuck on a power factor of 320 for major. But that power factor was created based generally accepted standards in place at the time it was created. Were that same assessment be made today, it would likely be lower since modern arms have tended to favor the lighter faster projectiles. But just because we won WW2 with a certain round should not define what is the floor for HM.

[Mike P]

"But that power factor was created based generally accepted standards in place at the time it was created"

I don't think I've ever seen a factory .308 that had a PF as low as 320. Even if it were produced the average for the caliber is much, much higher.

Care to share what those "standards" were?

[Bryan 45]

Remington makes a reduced recoil .308 that may be that light. Funny that the military brought a bunch of M14s out of mothball for our boys in the middle east. And the mag58 is still standard issue in .308.

But I digress, heavy metal is about power. All rule sets that I'm aware of require 7.62x51 as minimum, if some shooters choose to use powderpuff loads, I'll get them on the long range stages.

[Charles Bond]

Given the fact that we see lots of snipers stepping up from hte 308 to the 300WM, 338 or higher, one could argue that the PF for HM is now higher than anything loaded for the 308.

Brian those showing up with 308 light handloads are using them for the close in stuff and using full power at the longer range stuff.

Any way you cut it the power factor floor is a value judgement where there is no right or wrong answer. But the answer is not to make it simply caliber specific without benefit of a chrono to measure compliance. And this is not simply a HM problem. There are 223 shooters loading 45g 223 rounds for the close in stuff and that ammo will not even make minor.

There should be a major power factor and there should be a minor power factor and if we do not like what exists we should change those numbers. Aside from that, all calibers should shoot together.

[Mike P]

For the purposes of ipsc, or uspsa where major and minor are part of the normal scoring program, maybe a low major PF makes sense, so those who want to shoot something different than a .223 can, sort of safely.

On the other hand, HM is a specific division with other criteria for participation so a change to a more realistic PF for the calibers involved should cause no heartburn. I'm pretty sure PF of 370 or better is easily accomplished (safely) with a 16" barreled carbine in .308 using a 150 gr bullet, probably some other calibers too. With 230 ball,190 is easy. So why the lowball PF for HM?

Could it be everyone is afraid that HM would lose some of it's popularity if the PF was upped and enforced?

[Bryan 45]

Brian those showing up with 308 light handloads are using them for the close in stuff and using full power at the longer range stuff.

Any way you cut it the power factor floor is a value judgement where there is no right or wrong answer. But the answer is not to make it simply caliber specific without benefit of a chrono to measure compliance. And this is not simply a HM problem. There are 223 shooters loading 45g 223 rounds for the close in stuff and that ammo will not even make minor.

Yes, I am aware of what they use at long range targets.

I don't think it should be based on bore diameter. I would favor a 360 PF, w/ no minimum bore diameter. That would let anyone w/ a full power 6.5 or better play. (You can't fit a full power anything into an AR15 platform) I don't like the idea of introducing a mandatory chrono at matches- it slows things down and is a waste of ammo. Superstition uses a random chrono I think. That may be a solution to the light load issue. It's pretty easy to tell when the rifle goes off if it's a 147 @ 2600 or a 110 at 2500.

.260 is a proven better performer at distance than the .308, I don't think we should exclude them. I don't think this change would result in a bunch of current HM shooters feeling the need to change barrels and rifles either.

[Charles Bond]

Brian those showing up with 308 light handloads are using them for the close in stuff and using full power at the longer range stuff.

Any way you cut it the power factor floor is a value judgement where there is no right or wrong answer. But the answer is not to make it simply caliber specific without benefit of a chrono to measure compliance. And this is not simply a HM problem. There are 223 shooters loading 45g 223 rounds for the close in stuff and that ammo will not even make minor.

Yes, I am aware of what they use at long range targets.

I don't think it should be based on bore diameter. I would favor a 360 PF, w/ no minimum bore diameter. That would let anyone w/ a full power 6.5 or better play. (You can't fit a full power anything into an AR15 platform) I don't like the idea of introducing a mandatory chrono at matches- it slows things down and is a waste of ammo. Superstition uses a random chrono I think. That may be a solution to the light load issue. It's pretty easy to tell when the rifle goes off if it's a 147 @ 2600 or a 110 at 2500.

.260 is a proven better performer at distance than the .308, I don't think we should exclude them. I don't think this change would result in a bunch of current HM shooters feeling the need to change barrels and rifles either.

What is magic about a 360 pf? That is well above the NATO 308 round based on my memory. Note I am not saying your wrong. I am just interested in why you would draw the line there.

As for a chrono, there are other threads that talk about random and how it is fair only if you chrono everyone. A chrono slows down the match only if there is never a wait on a stage to shoot. Based on the matches I attend, not only is there time for it, there is still time for a nap before many of the stages.

[Bryan 45]

NATO 7.62 is 147g@ about 2700. 360 pf is low enough to make sure 7.62 will get there from a 16" barrel.

[bigbrowndog]

Charles your memory must be wrong, Wiki shows, 7.62x51 NATO 150gr @ 2800 = 420PF Making 360PF below that, there is nothing magical about 360 other than making it nearly impossible for other major PF-ish calibers to make that level so basically it safely eliminates marginal calibers from trying to make major, and I believe it used to be the major PF floor. I do not know what figures you recall but making 360pf is a good floor with me, My slowest load is a 150 at 2650 from an 18" barrel, it makes 380+.

I also would have no issues with allowing other calibers making that PF floor, at least not that I can think of right now.

trapr

Edited January 29, 2011 by bigbrowndog

[Bryan 45]

Trapr, think we would the see .22 sooper dooper come into play? 69g at 5217fps. That should be possible using a necked down .50bmg case, right?

[bigbrowndog]

or possibly the .22 sooper dooper pooper on the 20mm vulcan case.

trapr

[Modoc]

or possibly the .22 sooper dooper pooper on the 20mm vulcan case.

trapr

Bullet Vaporization at it's best.

[Charles Bond]

Trapr and Bryan:

I was wrong on the PF which is what one gets when you look at the dim computer with older eyes late at night.

But the idea of moving it up remains a question of what is magic about that?

As far as safety, we are going to be mightly hard on some steel when those who want to load lighter bullets start to produce faster loads. Of course we are already doing that now even with some 223s.

[HRider]

Trapr and Bryan:

I was wrong on the PF which is what one gets when you look at the dim computer with older eyes late at night.

But the idea of moving it up remains a question of what is magic about that?

As far as safety, we are going to be mightly hard on some steel when those who want to load lighter bullets start to produce faster loads. Of course we are already doing that now even with some 223s.

As far as being hard on steel, did you look at the LaRue targets at Benning that were shot with M855 greentip from the SAW? They didn't even have dimples in them at the end of the match. I have some MGM mini poppers that have been shot with 7.62x54R steel core without damage also.

Hurley

[Charles Bond]

Trapr and Bryan:

I was wrong on the PF which is what one gets when you look at the dim computer with older eyes late at night.

But the idea of moving it up remains a question of what is magic about that?

As far as safety, we are going to be mightly hard on some steel when those who want to load lighter bullets start to produce faster loads. Of course we are already doing that now even with some 223s.

As far as being hard on steel, did you look at the LaRue targets at Benning that were shot with M855 greentip from the SAW? They didn't even have dimples in them at the end of the match. I have some MGM mini poppers that have been shot with 7.62x54R steel core without damage also.

Hurley

I all clubs had LaRue targets and quality steel, it would not be a concern. I still recall very well the difference between a popper shot with 124g 38 super major vs the same load with a 115.

[bigbrowndog]

Charles You can't stop any club that tries to save money by using old steel, too many clubs think steel is a "forever" target it isn't but they insist on trying to get more life out of it than what is safe. You will never stop that. 360PF will stop people from trying to force rounds like 7.62x39 or 6.5 Grendel, or 30 AMU whatever from trying to make "major" PF simply because it puts it way beyond the capabilities of any marginal rounds. Lets face it Major PF should be a lot not something thats marginal. if its steel damage you're concerned about then just outlaw everything over 165pf, and say its in the name of "safety", or simply only allow Rimfire. what is anemically low is the minor PF,.......150????? a 62gr bullet at 3000 is 186pf. make the minor PF more realistic and then put the ratio of difference the same as it is now and you come a lot closer to the realistic pf for major of 360. 150minor and 320major= 170pf points 186minor and 360major=174pf points

Edited January 30, 2011 by bigbrowndog

[Charles Bond]

Lets get back to that which started this thread which is should all of us shoot rifle together rather than in seperate divisions.

The truth be known, I really do not care what the major PF is. What I would like to see is a set of rules that allow for 308 and 223 to shoot heads up. How can we do that?

[Chills1994]

make the .223 guys only use 20 round mags.

[/devil's advocate]

[Bryan 45]

Brad, I don't think magazine restrictions would be of much help. It still is much quicker to put two little bullets on a target than two big bullets at nearly the same velocity.

I shot a local 3 gun yesterday using Benning rules. All of the targets were close. All rifle targets were paper. At this type of match, I think allowing only one hit for heavy calibers would put .223/9mm and .308/.45 pretty close. Benning rules of course say if you only put one on paper and it's not an A then you get a +5 second penalty and I think it would need to change for heavy to score only one hit (1 C is +.5, not +5.5) to make things comparable.

Of course when the majority of targets are steel- I have no friggin' clue..... And I do enjoy the little 5x5 plates for pistol targets.

[Charles Bond]

How about making it as simple as aaying that for major caliber, only one hit is required AND the A zone is the A&C target areas? What I like about doing something like this is it requires no change to the scoring system but rather only a change in how ROs enter the scores on the range.

Steel targets remeain the same.

[Chills1994]

@ Bryan, I was being facetious when I wrote that.

for a minute there I was really going to be a smartey pants by saying let's do it like CAS levels the playing field between the double barrel shotgun shooters and the 1897 pump guns. They make the 1897 guys shuck just one shell at a time into the chamber.

I'm sure nobody in 3 gun wants anything like that..

I like the one hit in the A/C zone for major PF/.308 . and two hits for .223/minor.

the only thing I don't like is bumping the major PF cutoff to 360.

my guess is it would then become a .308 only game.

I would like something lower like the 320 cutoff just to encourage experimentation with platforms and new calibers.

I have PM'ed our European counterparts before and they have told me they can make major with their AK's and AK clones.

[Bryan 45]

The problem with anything lower than 360 is it allows (like Trapr said) marginal cartridges. Experimentation is fine, but it shouldn't be rewarded with major scoring.

360 doesn't make it a 308 only game- it does eliminate trying to stuff something in an AR15. 260 Rem is a very popular cartridge for long range and makes 360 easy. As does 30-06, 7.62x54R and 8mm mauser. (yes, I realize no one uses them in 3 gun.) These are all full power cartridges, which 7.62x39, 6.8, 6.5g, .30AMU are not. And that's what it comes to- full powered vs. intermediate cartridges.

[dcloudy777]

I like the idea of a 360 PF, but chrono can be a pain in the butt. How about also having a 50mm minimum case length for "major" (much quicker to check), with chrono "spot checks" available if someone's kung-fu seems too weak.

DanO

[Charles Bond]

The power factor will not have any meaning without a chrono. We may not "like" a chrono but it is necessary.

I fail to see how anyone can say a 6.8 is not a full power round. And the deer I have killed with 7.62x39 did not see it as anything other than full power. Once upon a time the great powers of the world viewed anything less than 7 mm as unacceptable for the infantry. That thinking has progressed with advancement of technology. If we are making assumptions that we are engaging enemy with body armor, a 7mm is better. If they are not wearing armor a 223 is fine. But this is not combat. It is a game. And any rule we write has a value judgment that will become outdated at some future point.

I can live with one a or c hit for major caliber.

I can live with leaving the scoring area alone and having minor calibers be restricted to 20 rds.

I can likely live with something else.

But it is silly to define divisions by caliber.

[bigbrowndog]

Charles the deer I shot with a .223 or the pig i dropped with a 22lr didn't see it as anything but full power either. I'm sorry buddy but those are ridiculous esoteric comparisons.

saying they are full power doesn't make it so, issuing a good solid benchmark gives everyone a definite line to meet or not. Right now from what i'm reading we seem to feel 360pf is what the line should be, it eliminates the line of marginal cartridges that can sometimes meet the current mark of 320, what was the justification to lower it from 360 anyway???

making the mark 360 does not necessarily mean that experimentation will be abolished, it just means it will have to work with new parameters. wouldn't that be neat to see a lower recoiling, flatter trajectory, more ammo capacity 360pf cartridge!!!!

If that doesn't meet your criteria, how about allowing more points per target for rounds that generate 360pf, instead of 5-4-2 for major how about 7-6-4 if you exceed 360pf?????

that might help with the 308 vs 223 battle.

trapr